Another example of the hypocrisy from the Left . . . . . . of such proportions that it threatens to utterly destroy this nation's foundation . . . . . . . which is a stated goal of the Left, btw

<<<<   Point of this post:  To make the obvious point that ours is a capitalist economic system.  Capitalism built our home (picture),  and gave us the ability and income to buy and upgrade this home.  And,  this is true for every home built in these United States of America.  230 years of prosperity,  making us the most successful nation of free people in the history of the World,  is all due to capitalism.  Our poor are the richest poor on earth, again,  because of a high grade capitalist compliment that funds our social programs and continues to lead the world  . . . . . . .   in spite of Obama's efforts to bring us down while making the case for "needed change."  In the end,  as Obama pushes his capitalist alternative, the poor are poorer than before this know-nothing came onto the scene;  our work week is shorter;  welfare rolls have grown off the charts and the workforce is the smallest in 40 stinking years.  That is what "socialism" has given us.  Time for a change.  Update:  In other words,  "Capitalism" is a part of the American fabric.  It is written "in stone,"  and cannot be replaced without tearing the fabric of American success into pieces. 

This nation became the greatest nation on Earth using the principles of Capitalism to the exclusion of all other economic theories   . . . . . . . . . .   Ca-pit-al-ism.  True right up until the September, 2008 and the Wall Street Collapse  . . . . . .    right up to that very moment.

The socialists among us want you to forget 230 years of Capitalist driven prosperity,  and focus on four months of Wall Street panic in 2008/2009.  Good grief.  How narrow and politically biased must a person be to focus on a very temporary disaster and pretend it to be an indictment of centuries of positive growth in this country? 

And,  about that recovery   . . . . . . .  Obama and his socialist buds have done nothing in terms of in-place work theory that has generated any sort of recovery.  While a "recovery" is a debatable reality,  clearly the only existing economic system in 2015 is the one we [still] call "Capitalism."  

Let's not forget that the 2008 collapse was caused by a Progressive Idiot's Policy called "Affordable Housing,"  a policy that came directly  from the pit of hell we call Progressive Utopian Strategy.   Lending institutions were ordered by congressional Progressives to dole out more and more mortgage funding to those who could neither afford to save for a downpayment or make the payments on a fixed, 30 year note.  

Beginning in the later years of the Clinton Administration,  the demise of Glass/Steagall (1998) marked the beginning of a 10 year push to get as many of the poor into their own homes as possible.  Banks were encouraged by our politicians to ignore rules for minimum income.  Loans were often handed out to those who had no ability and/or no long term intentions of keeping up with their financial obligations.  By 2005.  enough of these high-risk and unqualified home owners,  had stopped making their payments,  that most "in the know" financiers  were aware that a disaster was in the making.  So much so,  that President Bush, a defender of "Affordable Housing,"   tried to increase lending requirements and was excoriated by the Socialist/Progressive Dems.    

Click on image to enlarge.  Its a beautiful home. 

In short,  what failed,   in 2008,  was (a) the socialist policy of sub-prime,  high risk lending practices.  On a personal note,  in 2006,  in the middle of the housing bubble,  our $145,000 home (a beautiful 1600 s.f. house with a pool and a good sized lot) was revalued at $365,000.  We had a lending come to us offering a no-money down loan on 125% of our evaluation  . . . . . .   a total number north of $420,000.  One of our next door neighbors sold her home (without a pool) for $335,000.  That home,  today,  eight years later,  is worth $150,000.   

And (b) the greed of a lending market supported by Fanny and Freddie mortgage relief policies and world free of the much needed financial restrictions of Glass-Steagall.  

Socialist policy and Capitalist driven greed were the chief culprits in the 2008 collapse.  

Today,  a lending market that has learned its lesson,  a [capitalist driven] market that knows it will be blamed when things go badly,  has revamped its lending practices even without the silliness of Dodd/Frank,  and refuses to carry the water for Progressive do-gooder lending reform.  What you have left,  is a humiliated capitalist system that has regulated itself.  Sadly,  the socialist Progressive component remains, is still running wild,  pretending that it has solutions when it does not. 

Implicit in this brief history lesson is the fact that capitalism is the only remedy to current financial/economic issues in this country and that is the greater lesson.  

Pope working for a new world order. Is he pro-communitst? Well, he is certainly walking and talking like a duck.

<<<< Understand there are only two,  broadly defined economic theories:  Capitalism and related individual based practices versus socialist/communist and state run institutions.  Clearly,  Francis is not a capitalist.  What's left   . . . . . . .    and I do mean Left?  

You will want to read this article, a review of the Pope's economic position,   as you consider the following editorial:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/07/08/pope-wraps-ecuador-leg-south-america-trip-after-calling-for-new-ecological/

Editor's notes:  The world must avoid capitalist  thirst for profits  . . . .   so goes his message as he tours South and Central America.  But what is his view as to economic alternatives?   How do we get goods and services of an emerging world into the hands of the common man living in those countries  . . . .   a question Pope Francis does not ask or answer.   A very intelligent man,  or so they say,  who is lost in his own socialist theories. 

Capitalism's biggest problem is greed of the emerging upper middle and rich class.  Socialism's biggest problem is its inability to create wealth coupled with the greed of the ruling class.  You decide which problem you prefer because your choice does not include "nirvana." 

Just cut spending. Taxes have nothing to do with the function of our economy. Here is proof.

Talking point #337:  Our economy is more the function of a profitable business community than any other single factor,  or the sum of all other factors combined. 

Click on image to expand

This chart,  taken from Felix Salmon's blog (but not his chart) gives evidence to this point:  

recession is not a function of tax revenues.  Now,  keep in mind that I am a retired carpenter, a layman,  but,  after 5 years of reading everything available from reputable sources on the net (and a few hard copy books),  the above  is my observation  --  and this chart is evidence of my point.

Again,  taxation plays little role in the function of the national economy

  

The grey lines on the chart mark recessionary periods.  There have been ten such periods,  as contrary to Obama's childish observation,  there will be more  --  they are cyclical in nature, period.  

You have my point,  stated three times to this point in the post.  Take a look at the chart to see what I am saying:  

In the 1950's, corporate taxes were at historic highs, yet, three recessionary periods are recorded before Kennedy came along (in '60-'63) and lowered tax rates,  across the board.  Note: lower taxes  -  no economic slowdown for a decade.  

Note the increase in corporate revenues in the late '60's followed by tougher times in the '70 to '80 decade.  

Note reduced tax revenues '75 to '80, yet,  the very difficult recessionary period in and around the Carter years. 

Note the spike in corporate revenues, yet, recession was just 5 years away.

The '90's saw a very consistent tax base,  but,  just before the recession of 2000,  there was an increase in corporate taxes collected  (Clinton reduced the corporate tax and revenues increased);  a mild recession followed. 

Under Bush,  again,  we see a very stable revenue period followed by the recession we are experiencing. 

And what is the patter activity observed?  There is none;  whether "up"  "down," or "level,"  recessionary periods happen as a function of the economy,  not as a function of some "tax fantasy,"  whether conservative or liberal minded.  

Point of post: to validate my opinion that corporate tax structure does not play a significant role in function of the economy.  Democrats claim higher taxes bring better times.  Republicans argue that lower corporate taxes do the very same thing.  A careful look at the chart in this post proves that corporate taxes do not effect the function of the economy,  itself,  for more than 5 years at a time.  Both parties,  as it turns out,  over-play their claims.  

Conclusion:  there is no reason to believe that government intervention from the Left or the Right plays a long term role in health of the economy.  "Profit" is the key to upward mobility and the long-term healthy function of our economy.  Higher/lower taxes do not seem to effect this capitalist fact of life to any serious decree.  

Our economy is more the function of a profitable business community than any other single factor,  or the sum of all other factors combined.  

Please note that I know "proof" as in "here is proof"  is almost always a misstatement of scope.  "Here is the evidence" is the preferred wording,  except when writing a headline  --  blog editor.  

The world gives capitalism the bony finger but what is the alternative? Castronomics? Chavezonomics? Commonomics?

This piece of "art" is on display in a plaza in Milan, Italy.

We posted it as an opening volley from this blog as concerns those who oppose "capitalism," dare we say, "hates" capitalism.

Much of the world and all of the Democrat leadership despises this thing we call "capitalism," yet, most use capitalistic principles to gain wealth. As time permits, we intend to develop a theme that discusses the reasons for the displeasure with the only free avenue available for giving the common man the opportunity to "get ahead" in a world of financial regulations and stiff competition.

Virtually all of our Congressional Marxist, anti-capitalist, leadership are millionaires, themselves. Obama, who is openingly opposed to the profit incentive that creates jobs, raked in 5.5 million dollars just last year, alone.

Our questions include these: if not capitalism, what? Have alternative systems proven viable as economic processes in other political environments? They say that "top down" does not work; how is it that "bottom up" solves the problems caused by "trickle down" economics? Outside of greed, what are the problematic issues related to capitalism? As capitalism's evil twin, in what society has Keynesian economics worked and why ?