[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

. Its funny people like you rail on about Reagan this and Thatcher that and the greedy 80s, but you always leave out the stagnant 70s, the reason they got elected in the first place. Quite the cherry picking you are doing here.

Well, I checked my post very carefully and I don’t think I mentioned Reagan nor Thatcher!
Jeroen

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Well, I checked my post very carefully and I don’t think I mentioned Reagan nor Thatcher!
Jeroen

It is called a dog whistle. You say one word about trickle-down economics, you will remind the proponents about every spectacular failure of it, and the patron saints (Regan, Thatcher, etc) of it, way back to the founding saint Milton Friedman, who destroyed Coporate ethics forever.

Forbes was more vicious about Milton Friedman than me:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevede...h=3650d1e1870e

[dragonfire]

It's left to a few people to do all the hard work, and it takes a few more to distribute the fruits to the rest. The rest are not lazy, just incompetent. Somebody called this socio-economics - as absurd a term as "democratic" socialism.

PS: Am glad that this thread is now a tad better than blatant AOC glorification.

[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Here is my take on the situation in the UK.......
So essentially, nothing new under the sun

A delightful satire and piece of writing.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Well, I checked my post very carefully and I don’t think I mentioned Reagan nor Thatcher!

I still am searching for those words with a magnifying glass that triggered fellow @Nakul0888 so vigorously.

Originally Posted by nakul0888

You talk of trickle down this and trickle down that, but not a single word on the out of control government spending and money printing which is one of the predominant cause of inflation, which of course was done in the name of protecting and huddling the middle class and the poor, the salt of the earth, the real people. Its funny people like you rail on about Reagan this and Thatcher that and the greedy 80s, but you always leave out the stagnant 70s, the reason they got elected in the first place. Quite the cherry picking you are doing here.

��I'm as confused as this frog. Member Jeroen wrote a humorous satire on the state of the UK today where he happens to have mentioned trickle down economics for the nonsense it was and is. Why are you taking umbrage to that? What has his satire got to do with the economic woes of the UK that preceded Thatcher four and a half decades ago before most BHPians were born. If you wish to pen a thoughtful and informative article on the policies that preceded Thatcher please do so. But how can any of us question {rather crudely if you ask me} why another member has not written X or Y or Z in his post. I am truly foxed. Its like me getting after your post and criticizing you for not writing about the oil crises of 1973 or the failures of the Mahalanobis policies or failure to eliminate world hunger. Chillax mate. It is not for us to tell another member what to write or not write. We can criticize what is written or state our own opinion but I am truly flummoxed about you almost stating "Jeroen, how dare you did not write about XYZ". That is a new one. <emoji scratching his head>

PS: Dear Moderators, if my post does not meet team BHP rules please feel free to delete or edit. I chose to pen this post after some deliberation as I believe it addresses a fundamental point of writing posts or responding to an earlier post

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

A delightful satire and piece of writing.
I still am searching for those words with a magnifying glass that triggered fellow @Nakul8888 so vigorously.

��I'm as confused as this frog. Member Jeroen wrote a humorous satire on the state of the UK today where he happens to have mentioned trickle down economics for the nonsense it was and is. Why are you taking umbrage to that? What has his satire got to do with the economic woes of the UK that preceded Thatcher four and a half decades ago before most BHPians were born. If you wish to pen a thoughtful and informative article on the policies that preceded Thatcher please do so. But how can any of us question {rather crudely if you ask me} why another member has not written X or Y or Z in his post. I am truly foxed. Its like me getting after your post and criticizing you for not writing about the oil crises of 1973 or the failures of the Mahalanobis policies or failure to eliminate world hunger. Chillax mate. It is not for us to tell another member what to write or not write. We can criticize what is written or state our own opinion but I am truly flummoxed about you almost stating "Jeroen, how dare you did not write about XYZ". That is a new one. <emoji scratching his head>

PS: Dear Moderators, if my post does not meet team BHP rules please feel free to delete or edit. I chose to pen this post after some deliberation as I believe it addresses a fundamental point of writing posts or responding to an earlier post

Yawn. It is painfully obvious from Jeroen s snark whose policies he is mocking and why he thinks the reasons are why the economy is doing bad. If you two want to play dumb and dumber about it, that's fine by me. I pointed out an actual cause for inflation and why the economy is bad and so far no one has anything to say on it. So I guess that's that.

By the way, I don't even like Reagan, the guy was weak sauce at best. Couldn't control govt spending enough, courted the yucky religious right, dabbled in protectionism, and half of the good deregulation done attributed to him was actually done by Jimmy carter.

[Chetan_Rao]

Note from Support:

Folks, a reminder to keep it civil. Take your best swing at ideas in debate, not who you're debating.

Don't 'trick or treat' your way into an infraction.

Thanks!

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by dragonfire

It's left to a few people to do all the hard work, and it takes a few more to distribute the fruits to the rest. The rest are not lazy, just incompetent. Somebody called this socio-economics - as absurd a term as "democratic" socialism.

PS: Am glad that this thread is now a tad better than blatant AOC glorification.

Wow, this is a dog whistle for me... I sure heard it brother.

Now, if you don't appreciate social-economics or democratic socialism, that is fine. You sound like a libertarian, and that is a perfectly fine position to have. I have no plans to change your mind, or the minds of other Milton Friedman fans.

Actually, I do admire Milton Friedman for one thing he did. Before he died, he agreed he was wrong. That takes some amount of integrity.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...economicpolicy

However, I don't forgive him for confusing millions of future minds into buying flawed ideas, especially if they don't have business experience. His videos from 70s/80s are still floating around the Internet causing grave harm.

Anyway, for the benefit of others who have an open mind towards economics, I have to post a video explaining democratic socialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37WPYpmEGlc

[digitalnirvana]

There is a certain football fan forum I used to be a member of for more than a decade.

As one can imagine, things get ugly sometimes especially between rival club fans. The atmosphere got toxic and I eventually left.

Why do I say all this?

Well the modmins had introduced a common sense rule that simply said - Attack the post, not the poster.

Something like this is needed here methinks.

[inwester]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

You talk of trickle down this and trickle down that,

Adding a bit of fuel to the fire.

See, this trickle down economics is akin to a rich person going to a bar and getting drunk and saying I'm going to pee in my pants and the less fortunate can get drunk on that.

[gupta_chd]

So news is that Boris Johnson has cut short his Carribbean holiday amid political slugfest at home and come back to bid for second term.

What a parody it is. Silver lining is that this buffoonery has become interesting news fodder for lesser mortals like us
https://www.hindustantimes.com/work-...432770533.html

[apachelongbow]

Originally Posted by inwester

Adding a bit of fuel to the fire.

See, this trickle down economics is akin to a rich person going to a bar and getting drunk and saying I'm going to pee in my pants and the less fortunate can get drunk on that.

Trickle down economics works when a nation has a robust manufacturing and consumption based economy. The UK is at best an old woman well past her prime so to speak. They have no large scale manufacturing left. Likewise the US of A has outsourced everything meaningful to either China, India or elsewhere, leaving out only the defense related industry.
With a nation manufacturing goods and a market big enough to consume, making the rich, richer will involve the rich spending more within the country directly and indirectly increasing the local manufacturing base
In the UK and the US, the extra money gets invested abroad and foreign made goods get consumed, leading to increased inequality domestically.

[subramak]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Here is my take on the situation in the UK.

They had a bunch of mostly old folks whom hunkered for the old British empire feeling. They were also closet racist. They voted a total ninny comb in power and he held a Brexit forum. He never thought it was going to be a problem. But all the oldies broke out their Zimmer frames and hobbled to the voting office and thus Brexit was a fact.

The ninny comb was replaced by a lady, can’t remember her name but she was even more incompetent that her predecessor. So a little Tory mutiny later they put a total idiot in charge with a bad hair cut. He got Brexit done, sort of, but was caught out breaking all sorts of rules. So another Tory mutiny and the Tories appointed person with even less talent and competence. She believed in the trickle down society. Which basically means the well
Off get huge tax breaks and the idea being they spend more and that will be good for everybody else’s. Everybody else being about 99% of the country. And of course, the trickle down economy has never ever worked. It is only promoted by idiots with huge bank accounts.

So this last lady PM set a new record for being the PM with the shortest reign, ever. Only 6 weeks. Personally I think she reigned for only four weeks, because the UK was shut down for two weeks due to the passing of the late queen.

So basically it is all down to the Tories being complete idiots and total ignorant of what is happening in their country.

So essentially, nothing new under the sun

Jeroen
A former UK resident and currently still and always married to a UK national.

It is a pretty good summary from a political perspective. From an economic perspective, what happened in the recent few weeks is that a bunch of people thought tax cuts will boost economic growth and increase governments revenue. Market did not buy this aspect and as these tax cuts were released without an economic assessment, market was even more sceptical. Since markets operate on information, they assumed UK government will have to borrow, which will lead to increased inflation. So interest rates shot up and as compared to $, GBP would lose value, value of GBP tanked. Everything Risk Saunak had warned but was not considered by these fools ( Truss and Kwarteng). So they got roasted.

It was brutal but right. UK's strength was an english speaking country with tariff and non tariff free access to largest market in the world (EU). With Brexit, they shot themselves in the private parts of anatomy by losing their main strength. And frankly no reason for London to be a big economic center ( which in turn drove UK's economy to its current size). There is a long story there but for WW1 and WWII, Germany would have became a much bigger economy than it is today and UK should have been rightly consigned to footnotes of History as an erstwhile colonial power like Ottoman empire. Pre world war 1, German economy was bigger than UKs with population to boot.

UK has lot of institutional strengths but its strong weaknesses have been masked by London's pre-eminence due to it being a global financial center. UK has to rejuvenate but with no colonies to loot from and no EU to provide trade access to a large market, it needs to spend a decade or so beefing up. No short cuts there.


Best, Subramanian

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by nakul0888

You talk of trickle down this and trickle down that, but not a single word on the out of control government spending and money printing which is one of the predominant cause of inflation, which of course was done in the name of protecting and huddling the middle class and the poor, the salt of the earth, the real people. Its funny people like you rail on about Reagan this and Thatcher that and the greedy 80s, but you always leave out the stagnant 70s, the reason they got elected in the first place. Quite the cherry picking you are doing here.

Originally Posted by inwester

Adding a bit of fuel to the fire.

See, this trickle down economics is akin to a rich person going to a bar and getting drunk and saying I'm going to pee in my pants and the less fortunate can get drunk on that.

I can sort of understand how coddled idealistic yuppies growing up in already rich and industrialized countries would think maybe if just ignore all economic history and just vote with vibes for a feel good Bernie bro and give him an all powerful government on their behalf, we can all stick it to the billionaires a d gazillionaires and solve all our problems. But I will never understand how people from India can think this way. For the life of me, I really don't.
75 years have passed since independence and still one the poorest least developed countries right at the bottom of the barrel. What economic policies do these Bernie bros think we had in India in the past? Milton Friedman's? Ludwig Von Mises's? And are we to ignore the growth that happened in the 90s when government did cut taxes, deregulated, disinvested? Something that happened right infront of everyone's eyes? But hey, why look at all the facts, all the slums, the poverty, the lack of jobs, when we can all just get ourselves high on self righteous snark instead? Way too easier to blame some rich guys in suits than one's own poor choice of politicians.

Also, still waiting for someone to tell me how the 70s were so bad in US and UK. Please don't say its because of a pitiful oil embargo. That's just lazy.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by inwester

.....
See, this trickle down economics is akin to a rich person going to a bar and getting drunk and saying I'm going to pee in my pants....

Colorful example, but wrong.

Trickle down economics is the rich person supporting employees of the beer company, the bar, the pants company, the driver who took him/her to the bar, his/her domestic help etc.

Trickle down economics works well initially. The problem is if you continue to give tax breaks to the rich expecting him/her to drink more, that's not going to happen .

[nakul0888]

Originally Posted by DigitalOne

Colorful example, but wrong.

Trickle down economics is the rich person supporting employees of the beer company, the bar, the pants company, the driver who took him/her to the bar, his/her domestic help etc.

Trickle down economics works well initially. The problem is if you continue to give tax breaks to the rich expecting him/her to drink more, that's not going to happen .

This trickle down economics that everyone here is piling on is nothing but a pathetic strawman where you deliberately misinterpret the theory to attack it for rich worshipping.

It is actually called supply side economics, where the rich or lets say anybody else for that matter, maybe a large group of middle class uncles and aunties, when they are not spending money at the bar drinking or doing shopping, they would invest their savings (which they wont have if you tax the crap out of them) with banks and financial institutions who then loans it out/invests that money with other entrepreneurs, startups (who by the way doesn't have to be rich, a good chunk of tech billionaires now weren't), which results in more useful services for the economy, more people getting hired, more demand for other goods and services and more growth. Its about efficient allocation of savings and resources to produce more growth, not throwing money at the already rich people.

No one serious about supply side is saying its only the existing status quo rich that can make growth in an economy. In fact we actually had free markets we would have a lot of the existing corrupt rich tycoons going broke or getting brought out by competition. They are still the status quo because of lower investments, government intervention and corruption.

Please make an effort to critique the actual ideas, not the saturday night comedy show material about it. I am out. Peace.