Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter


  • ***


« Dear Democrats: Flip the script, re-endorse the surge | Main | News I bet you didn't know, straight from the MSM »

September 15, 2007


Hah. But you never saw such an anti-intellectual crowd for touting meaningless symbols of prowess: "How can you look at the medals on his chest and say . . . why, the man's a SCHOLAR, he has three degrees, he's brilliant, surrounded by Rhodes scholars . . . "

I suggest that anyone who reads this commentary should also read Bob Woodward's column in today's on Greenspan's new book. Very interesting.

"After it was too late"? Jesus, no kidding.

"After it was too late"? Jesus, no kidding.

The operative word in this article, in my opinion, is "simple". Brilliant minds are known for being able to synthesize complex concepts into easily-to-be-understood ideas but, before they do so, they must have a clear understanding of what it is they're trying to explain. The point: don't confuse brilliant minds with that of a simpleton, if you do, you get George Bush for president.

Just one criticism of this piece: They are not economic extremists or ideological zealots; they are indeed merely greedy. The extremism and zealotry is merely a deceptive "cover philosophy" to enable the greed.

Watch Thompson. He is a walking talking sandwich board for neocon lies. He wrote a piece months back saying that trickle-down had improved the economy. Yet early on an impressive number of Nobel prize-winning economists sent bush a letter opposing his economic plans. In the 80s, industry hired two economic researchers to find evidence of trickledown (a/k/a Mellanomics), the idea that light taxing of the rich would benefit all by increased investment. Their names were Lipsy & Kravis (Greider wrote about their work), and they ended up going back to their corporate sponsors rather red-faced, telling them they could find NO EVIDENCE of the claim. In fact, it was the other way around. The only reliable indicator for expansion of jobs and economic growth was Keynsian (Ickes, Roosevelt). So, the question arises: Are there any investigations of this calibre that DID find evidence that trickledown economics IS a bonafide, proveable theory? Here's the virtual proof that there isn't.

If there were such a study, don't you think its name would be a household name? Don't you think the Neocons would be shouting it from the rooftops? They haven't. It doesn't exist. They haven't even bothered throwing together a bogus, non-qualified study.

They are liars, pure and simple.

Bevin Gilmore
J.M. Keynes' letter to President Roosevelt, 1933

Basically Keynes says this: The volume of economic growth (output) depends on the amt of purchasing power expected to enter the market. This increase cannot occur except by 1 of 3 factors:
-- people must be urged to spend more of their current incomes;
-- the business world must be urged, by increased confidence or a lower interest rate, to INCREASE CURRENT INCOMES OF THEIR EMPLOYEES (which normally occurs when the fixed or working capital is growing); or
-- public authority increases incomes through more spending (borrowed or printed).

"In bad times the first factor cannot be expected to work on a sufficient scale. The 2nd factor will come in as the 2nd wave of attack on the slump after the tide has been turned by the expenditures of public authority. Therefore, it is ONLY from the 3rd factor that we can expect the INITIAL MAJOR IMPULSE.

The comments to this entry are closed.