Proving the Teabaggers are full of crap in a single graph


By iwog   Follow   Tue, 1 Mar 2011, 7:55am   14,040 views   239 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

Total US Tax Revenue as a Percentage of GDP

Graph source: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/blog/2010/08/tax-revenue-as-a-fraction-of-gdp/
Data source: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/past_years.html

graph

« First     « Previous     Viewing Comments 200-239 of 239     Last »     See most liked comments

  1. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    200   8:35pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  
  2. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,468 comments

    201   8:39pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    It is true that huge numbers of baby boomers and women entered the work force.

    Carter was a downer, with his malaise speech. He basically said we were spoiled. He was a true conservative

    http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/apr/06/00014/

    I have a conspiracy theory that his anti consumerism message got him in trouble with the corporatocracy.

    Hence, "DAY 332 OF THE HOSTAGE CRISIS" is what we heard every night for how many months on the news ? I guess that was before we learned not to play into the hands of terrorists.

  3. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,468 comments

    202   9:06pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    duxbury001 says

    It starts to make sense about why the holocaust happend or Joe Stalin… Mao. It all makes sense now. People really can be that stupid.

    I sometimes lose faith in humanity too, but it's not because of people like Troy. What, you would have us believe that between you and Troy, he is the one who believes what his emotions tell him to believe, and you are the truly intelligent wise seer of the truth.

    When I fear for humanity's future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

    I know, I know, he's a troll and I shouldn't respond. I'm not the only one. And we all know it's Ray, or someone very much like Ray.

  4. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,468 comments

    203   9:10pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Carter from his "Malaise" speech:

    "We are at a turning point of our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I’ve warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. … All the traditions of our past, all the lessons of our heritage, all the promises of our future point to another path, the path of common purpose and the restoration of American values. That path leads to the true freedom for our nation and ourselves."

  5. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    204   9:24pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    duxbury001 says

    This is among the dumbest statements… bar none… I have ever heard. Its not something you argue against…

    Of course you can't argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

    Reagan then took over and juiced the national debt to 40% of GDP by 1990, doubling it in real terms.

    The 1970s saw the creation of TWENTY MILLION JOBS.

    Then I posted W's great economic performance -- just 8 million piddly jobs created, all of which vanished once the recession hit since they were bubble jobs on a bubble economy.

    I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980, but other than that life was super-fine since wages had also doubled to keep up with that inflation.

  6. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    205   9:33pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    marcus says

    When I fear for humanity’s future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

    Actually what I am arguing against is pure and unadulterated criminality. Unions who have destroyed our country through their extortion, their kickbacks to the democrats. They have bankrupted not only the US, but many western states as well like Greece and Spain, where air traffic controllers make 450k and brought the nation to its knees. Today Hawaii is in darkness from thugocracy of absurdly overpaid electrical union workers.

    You have to bear in mind the FDR did not allow public sector unions. He thought them wrong. My objection to them is not radical. After seeing the damages they have done I would argue that any remotely sane person would oppose.

  7. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    206   9:38pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Troy says

    Of course you can’t argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

    http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

    the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70's second to the 30's in terms of overall economic misery. No sane person thinks the 70's were a booming time of prosperity. I don't know where they teach that... but it is an utterly dumbfounding statement.

    Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire (where we were losing to the soviets in vietnam and afghanistan in the 70's). He succeeded. The deficit was then brought down as the peace dividend in the 90's when Newt took over. It was a staggering success.

  8. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    207   9:57pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    duxbury001 says

    the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels,

    Do I gotta pull another chart here to educate you out of your foolery again? Here's unemployment:

    The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn't get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975 wasn't that much different in price in 1980. Unemployment was elevated, but both the baby boom and women were just flooding into the workforce.

    The front half of the baby boom was aged 15 to 24 in 1970. The economy expanded by 20 million jobs for them. Not too shabby.

    And the big mid-70s recession was a combination of the oil shock and interest rates doubling from 5% to 10%+.

    Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire

    LOL such right-wing fantasyland tripe. Soviet "Empire" defeated itself through its shitty command economy and inability to get reform going under Gorbie before things apart thanks to oil prices falling under $20/bbl 1986-1989 (when Alaska and the North Sea peaked).

    Conservatives always assert Soviet-style centralized economies can never work, but when they finally blew up in the late 80s, oh, Ronnie Raygun did it.

    Pick a f---ing story already.

  9. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,334 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    208   10:22pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    Actually what I am arguing against is pure and unadulterated criminality. Unions who have destroyed our country through their extortion, their kickbacks to the democrats. They have bankrupted not only the US, but many western states as well like Greece and Spain, where air traffic controllers make 450k and brought the nation to its knees. Today Hawaii is in darkness from thugocracy of absurdly overpaid electrical union workers.

    You have to bear in mind the FDR did not allow public sector unions. He thought them wrong. My objection to them is not radical. After seeing the damages they have done I would argue that any remotely sane person would oppose.

    Translation: (this isn't a joke, this is what he actually believes)

    Unions did the least damage when they were the strongest and had the most members.
    Unions did the most damage when they were the weakest and had the fewest members.

    Makes sense to me! (not really)

    Funny how everything went to hell when Reagan dropped our trade barriers and made union busting a sport. I guess it was just sheer coincidence. No rational person would link international trade imbalances with radical and historic changes to international trade rules. That's just silly!

  10. MarkInSF


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    1,118 comments

    209   10:48pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    duxbury001 says

    the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70’s second to the 30’s in terms of overall economic misery

    1% if inflation doesn't cause the same misery as 1% unemployment. Not even close. That's just some arbitrary "index" somebody came up with.

  11. MarkInSF


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    1,118 comments

    210   11:00pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (2)  

    iwog says

    Unions did the least damage when they were the strongest and had the most members.
    Unions did the most damage when they were the weakest and had the fewest members.

    Makes sense to me! (not really)

    I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50's and 60's.

  12. MarkInSF


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    1,118 comments

    211   11:08pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    MarkInSF says

    Please explain how low taxes and a few hundred dollars per person per year of EU aid money caused the financial industry to make over $100 billion of bad loans, and then completely collapse. There is an enormous gap in your logic here.

    ummm.. you know if you want me to teach you basic economics you really need to pay me $100/hour (like public school teachers). Google Irish tiger… THEN SHUT THE F-UP.

    Ok, thanks. Yeah that completely explains how government policy caused the financial collapse in Ireland.

  13. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,334 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    212   11:17pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    MarkInSF says

    I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

    That might be true, but he was talking about how unions destroyed our heavy industry, not ruined our schools and fire departments.

    That's a different rant.

  14. marcus


    Follow
    Befriend (5)
    202 threads
    7,468 comments

    213   11:28pm Sun 6 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (2)  

    MarkInSF says

    I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s

    You're right, Iwog is focusing on manufacturing with his point.

    But I would argue that blaming government unions for states financial problems doesn't make sense. Of course there is pressure since our economy is doing so much worse than expected, but that's the real reason for state shortfalls. I would argue that the decent benefits paid to teachers, police etc have helped attract decent people to those professions.

    Why is it that police in Mexico are known for being so corrupt ? Some might think it says something about the moral fiber or ethics in Mexico. I think it says more about how they compensate their police. Let's face it, people might like the idea of being in public service, but when choosing a career, they are going to take expected pay and benefits in to account also.

    You get what you pay for.

    If you looked at the average pay of union teachers in this country, it is under 50k. Closer to 65K in places like NY, LA, SF, and other major cities where the cost of living is higher. Add another 20K- 30K for the value of their benefits, yes this includes an anual amount for the value of local and state contribution to pension which exceeds what it would be if they had social security. Sure there are exceptions like Milwaukee.

    IF you think that this reflects compensation that is ripping off the taxpayer, then I can't help you. But FYI, not long before the crash of '08 there was a shortage of teachers in many places.

    How do you explain that ? Was what unions got for their teachers some sort of secret from the job market ?

    Remember markets ?

  15. MarkInSF


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    1,118 comments

    214   12:04am Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    marcus says

    But I would argue that blaming government unions for states financial problems doesn’t make sense.

    Yeah, I agree to an extent. Public unions get a lot of scrutiny these days because state revenues plummeted and deficits are huge and cuts have to be made somewhere. The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the "the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy", but it's a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we're still dealing with today.

    Teachers are the least of my worries as far as pay is concerned. For example, here in San Francisco a typical firefigher makes $140K including benefits and overtime, with base pay of $100K. No I'm not cherry picking, go look at the numbers at http://www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries-results

    And they get to retire after 30 years with 90% of that base salary, 100% guaranteed, which they will be drawing for another 20 years. Not even including medical coverage. I mean seriously, you don't think that's overcompensated?

  16. MarkInSF


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    1,118 comments

    215   12:59am Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    MarkInSF says

    I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

    That might be true, but he was talking about how unions destroyed our heavy industry, not ruined our schools and fire departments.

    That’s a different rant.

    True. Duxbury also ignores the unionization of workers in Germany and Japan. Somehow, even though unions in those industries were on the rise there, and on the wane here, they became more competitive.

  17. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    23 threads
    8,202 comments

    216   4:27am Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    OK, I realize your IQ is about half mine, but I am going to try to explain this in small words so that you might understand. Let’s give a try? C’mon.. try to listen this time.
    If the US is doing really, really swell.. and has super, duper money!!! really happy! Daddy and Mommy might buy a German car like a Porsche (zoom, zoom!!). So because Daddy and Mommy have SOOOOOOOOOOO much money they buy lots of stuff overseas.
    But those Germans aren’t doing so well.. they can’t get as many credit cards and other things. They don’t make as much money. So those germans don’t buy that many IBM computers from the US.
    And to add to our problems… THOSE MEAN GERMANS AND JAPANESE put up trade barriers and super sneaky ones like the VAT which may our products super duper expensive over there.
    So it ends up that we buy stuff from Germany than they buy from us… even though our economy is doing well at the time.

    OK--how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

    Your problem is that the data tells a different story than your narrative.. It helps when your mind isn't already made up before you see the data...

  18. APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch


    Follow
    Befriend (27)
    408 threads
    11,597 comments

    217   6:57am Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    It is clear to anyone that the financial collapse in the west was caused by social security and unions and taxes. Eliminate all of that and housing values will double in an hour.

  19. P N Dr Lo R


    Follow
    Befriend
    56 threads
    418 comments

    218   9:57am Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Troy says

    I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980

    That’s fine so long as your purchases are limited to candy bars, but that’s more than a 100% increase in a decade and I can promise you the same candy bar was smaller. The same principle was present in the prices of everything in those years, which is what made it so painful. For whatever reason, when inflation is raging, you’re not only penalized by an increase in price, you’re penalized by a decrease in content at the same time. Here’s a representative example in the realm of automobiles, which is the next highest expenditure besides housing. In 1960, the least expensive Oldsmobile 98 could be bought for $3,900, and that was a large, powerful highway cruiser that could pass anything on the road. Ten years later, in 1970, that 98 could be replaced for $4,400, barely a 15% increase in price. And that increase in the golden age of GM engineering bought the best engines, air-conditioners and transmissions, the Turbo-Hydramatic 400, in GM history, with a 5 year/50K mile warranty since 1965. By 1974, warranties had been slashed to 1 year/12K miles and prices were increased five times during the year. By 1980, the thing that was called an Olds 98 had increased 115% to $9,400, while at the same time having extracted every component by the bean-counters that made it such an attractive vehicle in 1970. It was fitted with the weakest transmission and poorest quality air-conditioners in GM history and was driven by a weak-sister small V-8 with 150 HP. Prices doubled again to $20,000 by 1989. If the quality and content had remained constant, the increases would have been bad enough, but it was a double insult to be receiving so much less year after year while paying more and more. I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

  20. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,334 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    219   10:13am Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    They had no choice. Free trade and globalism required a huge reduction in quality just to stay competitive. You think the sewage they sell in Home Depot today would be so awful if Chinese who make 25 cents an hour weren't producing them? Consumers are generally pretty lazy. If they see Car A selling for $10,000 and Car B selling for $20,000 and they LOOK similar, most people will buy car A.

    Tariffs are as old as the United States and they DO work. What Reagan and other free market nuts who followed him did to this country is an atrocity. As long as China retains favored nation status, as long as the tax code gives advantages to moving production offshore, we will continue our slide into the pit.

  21. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    220   12:10pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    Troy says

    The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn’t get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975

    http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

    here's just economics 101... because it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself in public. When inflation and unemployment are both high it is the most hellacious economic scenario because there are no solutions. You are doomed. Reagan (with volker) heroically raised rates induced the '82 recession and purged inflation. You would never see a modern politician do that. They'll spit out "stimulus" ad infinitum as long as the presses can print currency.

  22. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    221   12:13pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    tatupu70 says

    OK–how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

    Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can't fire me and if you bitch I'll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

  23. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    222   12:17pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    MarkInSF says

    True. Duxbury also ignores the unionization of workers in Germany and Japan. Somehow, even though unions in those industries were on the rise there, and on

    Thanks for defending me, but I really can't take away the "jackass" label yet because Japan wasn't so stupid as to keep unions. They dumped them after we tried to foist them on them. They abolished them and whattahyaknow happened?? their economy went on a ferocious tear for 30 years until the out of control growth made a bubble. Germany has unions... but for whatever reason they aren't as psycho as US unions... they aren't making idiotic work rules that hamper production and welding beer cans in chryslers for fun.

  24. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    23 threads
    8,202 comments

    223   12:20pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can’t fire me and if you bitch I’ll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

    Typical trollish response. You won't do it because you can't. There is no data to suppport your position.

  25. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    224   12:25pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    MarkInSF says

    The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the “the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy”, but it’s a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we’re still dealing with today.

    It really isn't very hard since labor costs are a huge part of the budgets and funny whereever unions are strong you see budgets careening to oblivion.... but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are... 450k air traffic controllers in spain, 100k teachers in madison, 200k train conductors on amtrak and in france. like the rampant corruption in greece, portugal going bankrupt, cali going bankrupt, deficits in NJ, etc... basically if every public sector employee gets a million dollar pension your budget is screwed.

    In my mind it is 10 times worse than that because unions fight for the most psychotic economic policies.. like encouraging unskilled illegals (who they view as social service clients). Paying welfare to encourage poor mothers to be brood mares with giant welfare payments for large families. Fighting accounting and efficiency methods. encouraging muslim immigraton with no intention of assimilation to create a giant underclass in france (dependent on unionized social services).

    But the surest was is to contrast union vs. non union states.. financial chaos in maryland vs. financial stability in virginia a few miles away. It ultimately becomes a psychological issue, not a policy issue, if you can't see the problems with public sector unionization.

  26. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    225   12:31pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    MarkInSF says

    I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

    unions were wimps in the 50's and 60's because they were private sector unions... which means all they can do is shoot themselves in the foot with their extortion. They blew up the US industrial base because companies were run into bankruptcy or moved to the south... so private sector unionization is finished because it is so self-destructive. How many factories left in pittsburg? detroit? unions crushed the old factory towns. New factories are in Alabama or China away from thugocracy.

    Public sector unionization is infinitely more powerful because you can extort all you want until the government goes bankrupt.. with no consideration of the naive taxpayer. Unions contributed hundreds of millions to the last election cycle + time. Andy Stern practically pushed obama care (Andy was the most frequent guest of obama). So Public sector unions (along with the trial lawyers) are a defacto labor party of the democrats.

    I like communists and liberals, I find them naive and idealistic (but ignorant). Democrats are not liberals, they are thugocrats serving millionaire trial lawyers, public sector employees and a few favored companies.

  27. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    226   12:34pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    tatupu70 says

    Typical trollish response. You won’t do it because you can’t. There is no data to suppport your position.

    READ AN ECONOMICS BOOK... PLEASE.

  28. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    227   12:41pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike (1)  

    N Dr Lo R says

    I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

    Detroit also found itself having to compete with a Japan that had its yen pegged at an insanely low 300-360 to the dollar.

    Used Japanese cars actually went UP in value after 1978 when the yen went from ~260 to ~180.

    As for 1970s inflation, here's 3 washers from Sears catalogs:



    $200 -> $220 -> $288.

    (that last one was pretty well-built, it's still going at my Mom's, after 30 years).

    Prices went up, but so did wages. That was the wage-price spiral. The main people who got screwed were people on fixed incomes who didn't own their own houses, but the 1972 Congress added automatic COLAs and SSI in 1972 to help address that.

  29. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    23 threads
    8,202 comments

    228   12:46pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    READ AN ECONOMICS BOOK… PLEASE

    LOOK AT THE GRAPHS IWOG POSTED....PLEASE

  30. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    23 threads
    8,202 comments

    229   12:47pm Mon 7 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are

    Kind of like CEOs making $25M/year?

  31. duxbury001


    Follow
    Befriend
    44 comments

    230   12:42pm Tue 8 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Troy says

    Prices went up, but so did wages. That was the wage-price spiral. The main people who got screwed were people on fixed incomes who didn’t own their own houses, but the 1972 Congress added automatic COLAs and SSI in 1972 to help address that.

    You are all ignorant of economics. Instead of wasting your time on message boards, you need to read some basic economics textbooks, wikipedia.. this is why you sound so stupid.

    Housing mortgage /interest costs shot through the roof in the late 70's because of inflation. Limited wage flexibility during recessions makes matters worse.. so the economy can't restart because uions refuse to drop wages. Same deal in 2010 when unions refuse to cut inflated public sector salaries. If you thing wages going up is great, go to zimbabwe and see how there inflationary economy works.

    tatupu70 says

    LOOK AT THE GRAPHS IWOG POSTED….PLEASE

    wikipedia "balance of trade".... ignorance is usually something people like to cure. You are the exception.tatupu70 says

    Kind of like CEOs making $25M/year?

    You are the genius economics professor. If a company has a market cap of 100 billion then 25M joke salary. Tom Cruise salary? Derek Jeter? The market chooses the rates.. this is unlike where spainish air traffic controllers get 450k... that is not because of market forces, but thugocracy from union extortionism. One is legal, one is not. I don't expect you to understand this due to limited IQ, poor education, demented psychology. I really am not your econ professor.. read before you shoot your mouth off.

  32. tatupu70


    Follow
    Befriend (3)
    23 threads
    8,202 comments

    231   1:59pm Tue 8 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    duxbury001 says

    The market chooses the rates

    Wrong. The market doesn't get to choose the CEO rates... It's actaully no different than the teachers' union or firefighters' union. They get their buddies on the board to go along with whatever pay and benefits that they want.

    Do you honestlly think that if a CEO job were made available that you'd need to offer a $25M salary to attract worthy candidates?

    duxbury001 says

    really am not your econ professor

    Thank goodness. I don't think you are nearly qualified to be anyone's Econ professor.

  33. ¥


    Follow
    Befriend
    35 threads
    5,700 comments
    Bellingham, WA

    232   2:39pm Tue 8 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    duxbury001 says

    Housing mortgage /interest costs shot through the roof in the late 70’s because of inflation.

    Yes, it was the inflation that was causing lenders to insist on higher rates.

    And speaking of economics degrees, if I were pursuing one now I'd love to write my thesis on the 1960s-1980s inflation event. I think I've got a pretty good handle on it -- the baby boom entering adulthood -- that I haven't seen much other analyses go into.

    The front rank of the baby boom turned 20 in 1966. At the same time we were drafting and sending 400,000+ men to SE Asia every year. Inflation started heating up in the late 1960s:

    YOY Inflation

    and I think Vietnam pulling a LOT of people out of the workforce -- there were only 1.8 million men turning 18 in 1968, so a draft of 500,000 from that is just an immense drawdown of the labor pool -- had a lot to do with it.

    The late 1960s inflation was only killed by both the end of the US commitment to the war (which came mid-1970) and the general draw-down from our military and space spending in general in the 1970s (I was in the Bay Area as a kid in 1974 and while I don't remember anything I do think Silicon Valley aerospace and military contracts got slaughtered that year) were deflationary.

    All the while 4 million baby boomers were turning 18 every year. The boomer bumrush peaked ca. 1975 when 4.3M people turned 18.

    This demographic rush put immense pressure on housing stocks. Rents went up in response. Wages went up in response to rents going up. People getting credit for the first time as adults spurred consumption, which pulled in jobs, which grew the economy.

    Apparently the US had the economic potential to absorb the baby boom, like I said we saw 20 million jobs being created that decade . . . comparing that to the two million jobs the economy LOST 2000-2010 should be instructive.

    As graphed above, real wages kept up with inflation, which shouldn't be surprising since real GDP was growing at 5% for much of the decade. The 1970s recessions were clearly caused by credit contractions:

    this chart

    shows that remarkably clearly -- credit tightening (red line) prompted each ensuing recession (shaded area).

    Limited wage flexibility during recessions makes matters worse..

    The recessions of the 1970s were very short and sharp. This is because they were CREATED by the PTB to slow down inflation, to keep the system from inflating out of control.

    The 1969 and 1974 recessions were piddly things compared to now:

    three years into the current recession, things are still TWICE as bad as the worst of the 1974 recession.

    And things are going to get a lot worse here, since everything is MUCH more out of control now than in the 1970s.

    I'd take living in the 1970s to the 2010s anyday. Vida Blue, Kenny Stabler, Bubble Yum costing 25c a pack, the baby boom turning 20 and not 60 -- great times.

  34. Clarence 13X


    Follow
    Befriend
    23 threads
    456 comments

    233   10:20pm Thu 10 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    SF ace says


    “It is equally ridiculous that a significant number of people pay zero income taxes.”
    0 taxes are not the problem, but negative tax (refundable credit for earned income credit, etc.) is simply unacceptable.

    I agree with the elimination of the earned income credit, but I also think that citizens under a certain wage should simply be exempt from income taxes.
    $30,000 a year sounds about right.
    It’s an outrage that someone like Dan Duncan is allowed to leave his heirs $9 billion (much of which was untaxed capital gains) while someone struggling to make ends meet earning $30,000 a year must file federal income taxes and send a check.

    But why should Dan Duncan's family be punished for his good business decisions? Hell, I am troubled with having to pay an additional 2K to the IRS after claiming zero exemptions this year how do you think they would feel having to pay 5% every generational shift change or death. Lets assume he has 3 kids, and without doing actual math....I would assume the 9B would be dwindled to about $42.50 by time the 3rd generation post death came around.

    I personally would like to hand my kids my home and banks accounts at death...it is a goal that I am working toward.

  35. iwog


    Follow
    Befriend (46)
    386 threads
    20,334 comments
    47 male
    Lafayette, CA
    Premium

    234   10:32pm Thu 10 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Clarence 13X says

    But why should Dan Duncan’s family be punished for his good business decisions?

    No one is punished for their good business decisions. People are always rewarded for their good business decisions, that's why they are good.

    Isn't $10 million dollars over a lifetime reward enough? How about $50 million? Why does the system have to reward good decisions with enough money to destroy entire nations?

    Howard Hughes amassed a billion dollars during a time when the top tax rate was 60-90% and corporations paid a lot more taxes than they do today. The economy is a zero sum game, it's not just some cliche you've heard in the movie "Wall Street". When Paris Hilton inherits a billion dollars, she really will be taking it out of the pockets of people who work for a living.

    If allowed to continue, there WILL be a socialist revolution. There always is. An entrenched aristocracy is not a stable system, but that's exactly where we're headed.

  36. Clarence 13X


    Follow
    Befriend
    23 threads
    456 comments

    235   1:00am Fri 18 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike  

    iwog says

    13X

    No, 50 million is not enough....I want my great-great-great-great grandchildren to be able to live off my accomplishments where possible. Why should I be required to give back to a system so that your children can have better infrastructure or government social systems sooner than later?

  37. Clarence 13X


    Follow
    Befriend
    23 threads
    456 comments

    236   1:01am Fri 18 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike  

    iwog says

    Howard Hughes amassed a billion dollars during a time when the top tax rate was 60-90% and corporations paid a lot more taxes than they do today. The economy is a zero sum game, it’s not just some cliche you’ve heard in the movie “Wall Street”. When Paris Hilton inherits a billion dollars, she really will be taking it out of the pockets of people who work for a living.

    ok, i agree that the tax rates should be increased to a more favorable rate on earned income, however, I shouldnt have to pay a tax to die. My kids and the future generations to come should benefit from my accomplishments.

  38. Clarence 13X


    Follow
    Befriend
    23 threads
    456 comments

    237   1:07am Fri 18 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    iwog says

    If allowed to continue, there WILL be a socialist revolution. There always is. An entrenched aristocracy is not a stable system, but that’s exactly where we’re headed.

    I do not feel as if I am entitled to social welfare programs, these are here to help us in times of need. Your statement sounds as if we should be arrogant enough to believe that we are entitled to retire at 55, then live a cush life while multi-millionaires are taxed during life and at death. Which, BTW, means that my house would be taxed at death leaving my kids to figure out how to transfer the remaining cash assets.

    As it is now 50% of our salary is already taxed if you look at state, federal taxes combined with the 8% is taken at the register and the revenues generated from state fees (parking, driving violations, etc.).

    Your thoughts?

  39. MarkInSF


    Follow
    Befriend
    14 threads
    1,118 comments

    238   1:17am Fri 18 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    Clarence 13X says

    Why should I be required to give back

    Yeah, giving back is for chumps. Real men take and give back nothing.

  40. Clarence 13X


    Follow
    Befriend
    23 threads
    456 comments

    239   1:21am Fri 18 Mar 2011   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike (1)  

    MarkInSF says

    Clarence 13X says


    Why should I be required to give back

    Yeah, giving back is for chumps. Real men take and give back nothing.

    I am working hard to be polite on this one, but I have 5 fingers and one of them is reserved for you sheeple and the Feds. You say that as if my having given 28% of my salary over a 30 year period is not enough. Not only 28% but an additional 8% at the register plus parking and driving violation fees that fund the state.

    So, now, after I have paid all that you want to take an additional 28% of what I have left over from my death too?

« First     « Previous comments    

Premium member iwog is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email
Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 269 milliseconds to create.