Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    alt.politics.communism    |    Whats yours is mine...    |    8,857 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 8,511 of 8,857    |
|    Dale to All    |
|    economic evolution    |
|    18 Mar 14 02:04:56    |
      XPost: alt.society.labor-unions, alt.religion.hindu, alt.politics.economics       XPost: soc.women       From: dale20111942yllek@hushmail.com              I lean toward to the progressive side              the establishment has to evolve              I recognize there is an investment in the status quo and the status quo       has gotten us everywhere we are at, but they must glean and garnish the       future              I remember Reagan promoted "trickle down" economics, a trickle is a       start if it is all that you can afford, but you really need a "flow"              you do have to credit that establishment recovery out of terrible       inflation in the late 70's              Reagan would have had a 15% return on a DOW Index Fund throughout his years              I won't preach about the 1987 market market sell off, it led to a       progressive candidate being elected, Clinton              Clinton followed up with a 33% market              the only way economics is going to work is to accept supply and demand       in all aspects, that is capitalism and strife and it fulfils individualism              Marx said the value of money is the labor that produced it, you need to       apply supply and demand to labor              if you paid the jobs that people want less (less demand) more money              and paid the jobs people want more (high demand) less money              the establishment supply side model would work and the establishment       could evolve progressively because the work would be valued as much as       the money and Mark's theory would be fulfilled              a better supply and demand model would mean more prosperity, and peace       for desperate people because there would be more wealth to share with       the desperate              skill would follow because the low skilled employees would not want       something they could not do (lower demand)              responsibility would follow because the content would not want it (low       demand)              I think this means that the demand side and capitalism and true economic       libertarianism would be fulfilled too              I never had enough money to be in the stock market, but there seems to       be a pattern of sell-offs when establishment candidates get in, working       people with pensions in the market can trade out of the sell-off as fast       and lose hard earned money, I think there needs to be more respect for       hard work (coal miners, etc.)              --       Dale              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca