Limited Republican Leadership Economic IQ

[rockyracoon]

It seems to me that the Republicans Party in the US has choosen several leaders in a row whose intellectual qualifications are somewhat limited; especially with regard to economic issues. It started with Ronald Regan whose whole economic philosophy, such as it was, became known as "trickle-down" economics. Summed up, it bascially stated that as long as the rich were getting richer the less well of could rely on enough scraps falling off the wealthy's table to survive. Some economic indicators show that the beginning of a new sub-class, the working poor, began during is tenure in office. I remember Ed Meese also famously saying that tomato sauce (catsup, Ketchup) was one of the major fruit/vegitable groups as he cut money for subsided school lunches.

As for Bush. Well, Mensa isn't sending him an application anytime soon. He came in with big tax cuts for the wealthy and is leaving behind a fiscal disaster. Even without the Iraq debacle, the US budget deficit would be disastorous. Of course, he's presided over the biggest single economic dislocation in modern US economic history - the sub-prime fiasco. I just don't see how the $1000 per person giveway is going to help anyone other than retailers. It amounts to a tax payer transfer of funds to the retail sector. It's certainly no help to the millions who are spiralling down into the proverty trap.

So we come to McCain who seems a wee bit more intelligent than his predecessors but whose main achilles heel seems to be - you got it - economics. Do any of the more clued-up members of P.ie know if he's up to the job if elected? Or is he another stooge willing to follow the dictates of the Investments Banks and their ilk?

[drbob1972]

and i thought that it was only in ireland that republicans (specifically their leadership) had no clue on economics

[Kevin Doyle]

Or is he another stooge willing to follow the dictates of the Investments Banks and their ilk?

They are practically all the same, Republicans and Democrats in terms of being stooges. They are steered by the advice of the corporate sector. Its the corporate sector who know how far they can go within the broad economic ethos of either party. When the doo doo hits the fan in terms of over-heated economies and the resultant recession, the big boys (Big Banks) need the democrats to allow for their fiscal policies to provide them with a bail out. Its all rather cyclic. During the booms, generally triggered by the Dems but exacerbated by the republicans when they get into office, the economy is fueled by run away consumerisms, feel good factors, idiotic lending practices, bubbles of all descriptions, privatisation of state monopolies etc etc) the big boys cream unimaginable profits, plunder the wealth accumulated by the state under the last Dem administration, but ratchet up bad debt all over the place, then inevitably the tide turns, bubbles burst, confidence goes through the floor, recession hits. Now the big boys have to be bailed out as they are carrying colossal bad dept and scream poverty (when in fact they are still posting profits- just not enough to cover all the bad dept in the system) and that the entire economic system will collapse if they go under. The Republicans (under whom the big boys have been allowed and encouraged to over stimulate the economy) with their, one market fits all approach, are limited in what they can do, they give generous tax cuts but its not enough. The big boys need their debt underwritten (or guaranteed by the state) Only the Dems can do that effectively. The cards are stacked always are, always will be.

With the US in economic meltdown, we'll see a Dem elected.

[rockyracoon]

Interesting point about the Dems. I've read where several big industrialists have starting making favourable noises about Obama. Clinton, as far as I can see, came the closest to bringing the Federal budget into some sort of shape. Bush and his clientele just raped the US fiscal base and economy imo.

(Sorry drbob, but I don't see anyone in any Irish party who inspires any type of great economic understanding. The leader's debate during the last election was devoid of any substantial economic content. The most telling point during the lead up to the election had to do with the co-location fiasco a day or two before the election. When questioned the impact of "lost" tax revenue, the relevant ministers were lost at sea. If a high level consultant hadn't been there to bale them out, they would have sunk under one simple question. It would've have been funny if the subject wasn't so serious. To be fair, the PD's laissez-faire philiosophy is probably the most coherent and widely practiced form of economics within government but, of course, has many constraints to due partnership.)