Is there a Single Eternally Valid Absolutely true Economic Theory -- Cookie Cutter -- Always Good?

Is the Austrian School (Friedman, Von Hayek, Heinlein) Really Right for USA in 2011? Ayn Rand or Janice Schakowsy Who Is Smarter for USA in 2011? Ayn was the great simplifier, and it did work, in the areas of Ontology and Epistemology. She cut through Descartes, Kant, Hume, Berkeley like a hot knife through soft... show more Is the Austrian School (Friedman, Von Hayek, Heinlein) Really Right for USA in 2011?
Ayn Rand or Janice Schakowsy Who Is Smarter for USA in 2011?
Ayn was the great simplifier, and it did work, in the areas of Ontology and Epistemology. She cut through Descartes, Kant, Hume, Berkeley like a hot knife through soft butter.

We humans think that anybody that knows anything about anything must of course know everything about everything.

So now suddenly Ayn Rand being listened to on the matter of politics and economics (which are quite different areas than epistemology and ontology).

The great simplifier just adopted the Austrian School (Von Hayek) lock stock and barrel. You want to make it simple just make it Laissez Faire Capitalism all the way -- like in the Hong Hong Luna as described by Robert Anson Heinlein.

Yes, Ayn, that is simple. But is it workable, does it make sense? Can it help America in 2011?

Janice says, no not so much. Janice feels that the function of government is to take from the very rich and give to the very poor. The pyramid see is a little out of shape. It has a huge base. and then a very very small step up from the base, and then it swoooches way up into the stratosphere in a very thin and extremely tall spike, like a Hershey's Kisses, except the spike is much thinner and taller.

The Pyramids at Giza had about a 45 degree angle all the way up. They have been there for a long time. Very stable. The early step pyramids were even flatter, and they went up in 3 or 4 steps.

Anyhow Janice, no Marxist, although she is from Chicago, feels that take it off the top pump it back in at the bottom makes the most sense.

That way capitalism is workable. The richie richie richies keep pumping the money back up into their own hands, and the government, by progressive taxation, keeps skimming some of it off and pumping it back in to the poor, and the desparately poor, and the poorest of the poor.

It's like a cycle.

Is Janice the first person who ever saw this idea.

Henry Ford saw it.

He knew that if his workers weren't paid well ($5.00/day) they could not buy his cars. If all capitalists paid just the going wage per the Iron Law of Wages, capitalism would eventually grind to a halt, because subsistence wages do not create consumers, and capitalists need consumers to have somebody to sell to. Henry paid about three times the going rate for labor so that he could sell his cars to somebody.

Somebay handy and near by -- his employees.

That was the first last and only time that anybody thought carefully about Economics. The rest has been blather -- the Iron Law of Wages blather, the Comparative Value Theory Blather, all leading to Globalism in which countries where the workers eat fish heads and rice need to worry about losing jobs to countries where the workers will eat fish tails and sawdust.

The Laissez Faire Capitalists have now created a world of total global Recession where no worker dares to spend a penny and no capitalist dares to take a step (for fear of crossing a picket line).

Nice job -- *ssholes!

I'm with Janice Schakowsky on this one, and with Learned Hand who said that taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society. Eisenhower was no marxist, but in his time the top marginal tax rate was well over 90%. Some people feel the economy did quite well in the 1950's.

Take off at the top pump it back in at the bottom. The top sucks it back up, it's like a fountain but in reverse.

Yes, government does have an economic function.

Yes that function does relate to distribution of money.

Bernanke has been operating it in reverse, grabbing ahold of taxpayer money, and sending it all to Goldman Sachs, first a Trillion, then Two, then Four and now another $600 Billion.

This is the lunacy of reverse economic policy.

If you lose your house and have to eat at the food kitchen, you could blame the lunacy of reverse policy.

Janice has it right -- what's missing is demand -- and you can only create demand by pumping money in at the bottom not at the top.

I say that Janice Shakowsky is the Albert Einstein of economics in USA in 2011. People would be smart to follow her lead.

What do you think [Keep in mind that the slightest sign of disrespect toward me will get you barred. You will never see another one of my questions or answers, so play nice, with me].
Update: Thanks Bear -- great info, now how about my question -- Does Janice have a point in your opinion, or are taxes always bad, and a drag on the economy? I write long, but it's not ranting. I have asked a good question. I want an answer, and a good one. Bear's thoughtful and informed comments are highly... show more Thanks Bear -- great info, now how about my question -- Does Janice have a point in your opinion, or are taxes always bad, and a drag on the economy?

I write long, but it's not ranting. I have asked a good question. I want an answer, and a good one.

Bear's thoughtful and informed comments are highly welcome and respected, now I want my answer!
4 answers 4