patrick.net

Peter P says

The mass is always wrong. Thus any conscious effort by and for the mass to overcome the "elite" will inevitably backfire.

This may be the case, but what if the redistribution is small and not a conscious goal, but rather a side benefit ?

We are in a system now that is the opposite of wealth redistribution, and the gullible right wing sheep are crying NO NO ANYTHING BUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION !

Raising taxes to a level where our economy works bettor, and to where we are actually living within our means is not first and foremost about wealth redistribution.

The benefits of doing this are obvious. It's called fiscal responsibility, or at least it used to be considered fiscal responsibility. Taxes need to be at or close to a level where we cover our spending.

If paying our bills were the highest goal, then those powerful and rich people who pay a lot would be motivated to see less govt waste in spending in all areas, rather than only focusing on entitlements. And it would naturally take a lot of waste and corruption out of govt spending.

Bottom line, government works better when you actually pay for it.

thomaswong.1986 says

rooemoore says

It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.

where did you say your other home was ?

New York.. maybe! City Slickers !

it really is amazing how arrogant the east coast people can be.

I'm a sixth generation Californian. My ancestors came here in 1840. Yes, I do own an apartment in NYC.

You claim to be an educated businessman. Your communication skills in this forum betray that claim.

In other words: wake up, stealing from others and giving to the "poor" will not create jobs.

bob2356 says

Here's the faq page from trade association of venture capitalists that says the most of vc money is from "pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, foundations, family offices, and high net worth individuals.". I'm pretty sure they would know what they are talking about.

Facebook IPO.. someone is pissed !

tatupu70 says

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.

And Earth is flat.

marcus says

The benefits of doing this are obvious. It's called fiscal responsibility, or at least it used to be considered fiscal responsibility. Taxes need to be at or close to a level where we cover our spending.

It is like telling workers that their incomes need to be at or close to a level where they cover their spending.

rooemoore says

You claim to be an educated businessman. Your communication skills in this forum betray that claim.

Im sure even a doctor has great penmanship when it comes to writing prescriptions...

Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking the $431.5 billion we are spending in FY12 on welfare programs (including the EIC where it exceeds taxes paid, housing, unemployment, and family and children support) is the biggest problem the federal budget has.

But if we bring up the $85B those making over $1MM per year get in tax reductions based upon the 15% capital gains rate, then we are socialist and waging class warfare. We are talking the .1% here....the richest of the rich. $85B in special tax handouts.

I mean, why shouldn't someone who makes more than $1MM per year NOT get a special tax rate that happens to be about 43% of the tax rate for ordinary income at that level? They clearly deserve it.

Billionaries paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Until you agree to fix that, anything you say about fiscal responsibility or "fair taxes" is bullshit.

Republicans actually believe that those people receiving this welfare would rather do nothing and live in poverty than work a $100k+ a year job and live well.

Wealth inequality is THE problem. It is so large that it makes all other problems that you republicans like to bitch about trivial. Some of you guys understand that but you think government caused the inequality.

I am still waiting for a Republican to show me a better way of freeing up the capital the wealthy have than taxing them.

I'd be all for it if it was based in real math. I'm waiting...

Retards sorting out the crazies, gotta love the D'eux oughts.

Peter P says

tatupu70 says

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.

And Earth is flat.

OK--why don't you give me your definition of socialism then? Because it clearly differs from most textbooks ones.

tatupu70 says

OK--why don't you give me your definition of socialism then? Because it clearly differs from most textbooks ones.

If I recall correctly a heavily progressive income tax was what Karl Marx recommended as the first step in his communist manifesto. Progressive income taxation is anti free market and discourages productivity. It is therefore wealth destroying. A free market economy is the most efficient. Anything else is using the "political means" rather than the productive means to get wealth and is less efficient and decreases general wealth available... So while Progressive taxation is not Socialism in its entirety it is socialist in nature.

The premise that free market is a cure to all ills is false. It has never functioned well for society. Human history is full of struggles and poverty.

People struggled to survive and often died in those "free markets" that chest pounding conservatives for some reason are so in love with lately.

I understand our system today isn't perfect, but going back to survival of the fittest isn't my idea of a "conservative" lifestyle.

tatupu70 says

Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem

expropriated surplus value IS the problem.

czb9 says

Progressive income taxation is anti free market and discourages productivity

Really--please explain the mechanism for that. How does a progressive income tax discourage productivity?

czb9 says

A free market economy is the most efficient.

Who is arguing against a free market economy?? How is that relevant?

coriacci1 says

expropriated surplus value IS the problem.

I think you misquoted me there. I strongly believe that wealth disparity IS the problem.

david1 says

Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking the $431.5 billion we are spending in FY12 on welfare programs (including the EIC where it exceeds taxes paid, housing, unemployment, and family and children support) is the biggest problem the federal budget has.

Not to mention that all that assistance money goes directly or indirectly toward buying basic consumption that equals profits to the top end. The bottom 80% own roughly 7% of all financial assets. So, where does the money go when the bottom 80% buy toilet paper?

FortWayne says

The premise that free market is a cure to all ills is false.

I hardly think anyone holds this premise but -agreed
FortWayne says

It has never functioned well for society.

Like communism a "free market economy" is probably a Utopia which never can exist, however if you think about it like a continuum with free market (liberty) on one end and communism (authoritarian) on the other then history is pretty clear that tending toward free markets has indeed "functioned well for society". I believe our current system is about 70% toward authoritarian and best described as a "Kleptocracy" or "Crony capitalism".
Confusing free market with survival of the fittest is not helpful the first and most legitimate purpose of government is protection (a monopoly on the use of force) and a "free" market implies mutual accord or the lack of force.
People have and will continue to struggle, suffer poverty, and yes die regardless of the political system invented. The first two are relative terms and the later inevitable.
As for conservative and liberal they are useless terms in modern usage with infinite vague definitions which change with each use.

Some people think that it's a free market, but those that prosper the most know that it isn't. Using the tax code and various laws to give unfair unvantages proves that. And that's what the very top buys with their political "donations".

Yes, some advantages are available to all, but the actual likely possibility that but just a very small percentage of the overall will be able to utilize them, is by design, it's intent. The mortage interest deduction is just one example,, with many falsely believing that it works for them, as opposed to the very top incomes and the houses that those incomes buy, or borrow for.

Socialism is a great idea! The placing of restraints on naked capitalism keeps the power balanced between the people and the wealthy. If this skews towards the rich you get robber barons and pinkertons firing on labor demonstrations. If it skews too far the other way, you have employees with no motivation to work and produce, who suck the life out of a company until it folds. The middle ground is what we need to shoot for, where life is in balance. Asian cultures seem more aware of the essential need for balance in life than we do in the West.
The middle class is the most valuable and commodity a nation can possess. This special, hard-to-sustain socioeconomic group is the source of every truly thriving economy. A thriving economy enables better social programs to be enacted to raise the lower bar for a society. It also allows for great civic projects like space exploration and transportation and technology revolutions. All this is made possible by a balance of power maintained by an intricate lattice of laws that discourage theft and encourage productivity.
In short: America works best when Americans work.
That's right off a support sticker for my union: the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

czb9 says

Like communism a "free market economy" is probably a Utopia which never can exist, however if you think about it like a continuum with free market (liberty) on one end and communism (authoritarian) on the other then history is pretty clear that tending toward free markets has indeed "functioned well for society". I believe our current system is about 70% toward authoritarian and best described as a "Kleptocracy" or "Crony capitalism".
Confusing free market with survival of the fittest is not helpful the first and most legitimate purpose of government is protection (a monopoly on the use of force) and a "free" market implies mutual accord or the lack of force.
People have and will continue to struggle, suffer poverty, and yes die regardless of the political system invented. The first two are relative terms and the later inevitable.
As for conservative and liberal they are useless terms in modern usage with infinite vague definitions which change with each use.

It wasn't the free market utopia that made America a paradise for the world. It was our system that allowed free enterprise to exist, grow, and compete, while having safety nets for the poor which allowed all members in our society to take risks and be productive knowing full well that socially they are protected. Other nations didn't have that, they either had communism with no free enterprise, or free enterprise but no safety nets. We got the combination right, and we have it right.

But what I hear from Republicans lately is that they want to tear this system down, they want to gut social security and medicare, they want to get rid of safety nets. And I don't agree with them. Because I want a system that works for everyone in the society, and doesn't foolishly rely on good graces from the top 1%.

Quigley says

The middle class is the most valuable and commodity a nation can possess. This special, hard-to-sustain socioeconomic group is the source of every truly thriving economy.

Yes, to the tune of a roughly $16 trillion economy, not debt. But, as this whole forum might suggest, chasing an elusive and imaginary pipedream of prosperity by buying a house creates servitude, just as a car loan, etc. People falsely believe that they must have the above things and if they do, somehow they're better off or in some distirted way of thinking, rich. Does the house, car, loan for a new lawnmower work for you, or do you work for those things?

FortWayne says

or free enterprise but no safety nets.

Please give me an example of a country that provided for free enterprise with no safety nets and failed. Not challenging, moreso curious...

CBOEtrader says

I suggest that expanding government power and specifically increasing deficits, create inflation, which in turn creates wealth disparity as well as asset bubbles.

This idea is presented in Greenspan's biography. Greenspan was close personal friend and follower of Ayn Rand. In short, this is not an original idea.

Short of "Government inflation numbers are lies" how do you explain record deficit spending in the last four years correlated with low inflation?

How about budget surplus in 1999-2000 with higher inflation than today?

How about much higher deficit spending in the 1980s than the 1970s with much lower inflation?

How about deficit spending in the 1930s and 1940s at the highest levels (relative to GDP) in history with falling prices in the 1930s and generally low inflation in the 1940s until the war ended (and spending fell, and we had a surplus)?

http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

I know, correlation is not causation, but what makes you think that deficits cause inflation??? Certainly not the historical record...

If deficits do not create inflation, then they cannot create wealth disparity (BTW we have had generally low inflation since 1982 and generally rising wealth inequality over the same period) nor asset bubbles.

tatupu70 says

I guess I just don't accept that if idiots call Obama a socialist enough then the meaning of the word changes to reflect that Obama's policies are now Socialism.

Sure. The talking head should at least point out that the republicans are as or even greater socialists than Obama under the current use of the term. From what I can tell, the best current definition of the term is total government spending as a % of GDP-- but we should absolutely call it something else and agree.

david1 says

I know, correlation is not causation, but what makes you think that deficits cause inflation??? Certainly not the historical record...

I haven't researched this enough to speak as authoritatively as I'd like. However, I'd first use the classic definition of the word inflation as an expansion of the money supply, rather than increasing and decreasing prices.

Then I'd attempt to identify deficits and government spending as a % of GDP rates compared to M1 patterns, then M1 to M2, M2 to M3, M3 to eventual rising prices (probably defined as a basket of historical commodity prices), then all of the above to wealth disparity, minimum wage rates, etc...

My goal would be to analyze moreso like a scientific experiment, while fully acknoweldging my own expectations of what the data would show. Then compare my findings to my expectations. Pretty simple, just a lot of data to look at.

CBOEtrader says

I'd first use the classic definition of the word inflation as an expansion of the money supply

Increasing the money supply not create inflation either...there is some evidence that long term inflation correlates to increases in the money supply, however, there is equal evidence linking inflation to economic or population growth as well. That is, correlation is not causation here either.

Inflation is a measure of price changes.

I thought the topic here is whether giving money to the rich as a form of tax break does not create jobs. I understand your point, though. When 1% has this much power, 1% can easily manipulate the system and fool many brain dead folks. Quite frankly I don't see the big difference between socialism and free market. They are both controlled by the 1%.

1. There will be wealth disparity in socialist or free market country. It is probably worse in socialist country like China.
2. The 1% will always have more power and control.
3. There will be so many middle class people who buys into bs of 1%.
4. The majority of politicians are the 1%. And they would like to give more money to themselves. That's just a human nature to want more.
5. It takes more than a few years to cure the economic collapse of this magnitude. It just doesn't happen over night.
6. Most importantly, giving money to the rich would create jobs is a fallacy.
7. The investment can create jobs, but it can not sustain. Only the profit from the demands for goods and services can.

As for my personal preference, I prefer Romney. Cause I know he will make sure that the return from my investment will not be taxed.

I am more curious, if Republicans have their way, we will hit the massive austerity measure or budget cuts in 2013. Our economy will stand still. Yet, Romney thinks he can increase the budget for the military. I wonder where he is going to get the money. Romney's number just does not add up.

david1 says

Increasing the money supply not create inflation either...there is some evidence that long term inflation correlates to increases in the money supply, however, there is equal evidence linking inflation to economic or population growth as well.

Actually, if we print so much money, the money becomes worthless. Guess why the gasoline price is so high. Can you honestly say that your cost of living is staying the same in the last few year during the QE?

The earnings from my investment is going up to offset the increase in the cost of living for me. But I feel the cost of living going up definitely. I don't buy into the propaganda created by the 1%. I trust the logic and what makes sense. If you have too much supply, the price tends to come down. Why should it not be the same for cash?

I agree with another factor for inflation is the population growth which creates the demands which will also increase the cost of goods and services. But I don't think the population growth was the cause of current inflation.

Nobody says

Can you honestly say that your cost of living is staying the same in the last few year during the QE?

My totally unscientific analysis.

Yes, we have seen a 40% increase in M2 and a 75% increase in M1 since Jan 08, meanwhile....

Housing - down since Jan 08
Cars - flat to down since Jan 08
Energy - down (oil flat to down, natural gas down)
meats - up, though not close to 40% or 75%
grains - up, though not 40% or 75%
electronics - down

The only things that have come even close to keeping up with the growth in the money supply are education and health care.

Further, the US dollars has gained strength vs. most world currencies in the same time frame as these QE's...

What I am saying is: Where's the beef?

david1 says

The only things that have come even close to keeping up with the growth in the money supply are education and health care.

So you do agree with the fact that there are more money. Then without any data, you can see how more supply can decrease the value. OK, now to your data. If you don't actually show the graph, it is hard to see whether you are taking the data at the lowest point or highest point.

OK, now onto the practical view, how do you feel? I have kids. The cost seems to be going higher and higher. The gasoline price seems to have been going up in the last few years, not down. The food price is going up steadily as well. I am spending more on their education, because our pubic school sucks. The school doesn't have any art program or music program. I don't believe 1%'s propaganda that easily without the hard data.

US dollars has not gained strength vs. the currencies which we should care. Sure, if US$ gained strength against Cuban Peso, does that have any impact? You need to care about the currencies that can impact us. The US$ has lost its value against Chinese Yuan and Japanese Yen, despite their effort to devalue their own currency. Manipulating the data to make 1% look better is how 1% controls the rest of us. You are a prime example of how 1% can fool and manipulate. That's why I said "Wake up."

Well, the beef in this case is the imagination and illusions created by 1%.

Nobody says

If you don't actually show the graph, it is hard to see whether you are taking the data at the lowest point or highest point.

That is actually what Republicans do when talking about how gas prices have "doubled" under Obama.

If you want to have a serious conversation, then we will. Ok here goes:

QE1 started November 2008, so lets go 6 months prior to that.

Case Shiller 20 city Housing Index, May 2008: 168.6
Case Shiller 20 city housing index, Current: 145.9
Down 15.5%

Oil, May 1, 2008: 127.35
Oil, Current: 86.23
Down 47.7%

Natural Gas(wellhead), May 2008: 9.96
Natural Gas, Current: 2.86
Down 73%

Live Cattle, May 2008: 92.12
Live Cattle, Current 125.5
Up 36%

Lean Hogs, May 2008: 73.4
Lean Hogs, Current: 78.9
Up 7.5%

Corn, May 2008: 602
Corn, Current: 737
Up 22%

Wheat, May 2008: 796
Wheat, Current: 863
Up 8.4%

British Pound, May 2008: 1.97
British Pound, current: 1.61
Down 18.3%

Japanese Yen, May 2008: 9523
Japanese Yen, current: 12558
up 32%

Euro, May 2008: 1.54
Euro, Current: 1.29
Down 19%

Honda Accord base ex 2008 price 20,532
Honda Accord base ex 2013 price 20,650
up .5%

http://wikiposit.org/w
http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----

Finally, m1 & m2 growth:

Picture didn't show up but go to the st. louis fed site to see it, it will show up 40% and 75% as I said above...

Giving money to the poor does not create jobs, but it does create dependency. Thats a great feature for democrats who what to solidify their base of indentured voters.

david1 says

Japanese Yen, May 2008: 9523
Japanese Yen, current: 12558
up 32%

What? The number is wrong. How can Japanese yen per dollar is 9523? Stop screwing the number. Currently, it hovering around 80 yen per dollar or 1.24 cents per yen. Chinese Yuan is also increasing its value. You need to care about the currency where we import the most from.

Like I said, without the picture, it can not be determined. And your data is incorrect. You can't manipulate the overall expression this way. This is how people are fooled into thinking one way.

It is true in some instance that price in some area went down, but we also had a recession and economic crisis in Europe. So you can't blindly say that QE has no bearing on the impact on the price of goods. Without QE and the government's effort, we could have had severe deflation.

Honest Abe says

Giving money to the poor does not create jobs, but it does create dependency. Thats a great feature for democrats who what to solidify their base of indentured voters.

OK, giving money to the rich only creates hoarding. So what is your point?

Cutting budget for our school and education creates more idiots who will depend on government handouts.

Look, to create jobs, we need to make goods and services that are in high demand. The investment's primary purpose is to increase the output of goods, so the profit can be maximized. Without the profits, any business can not be sustained. Do you think the investment is going to keep coming without profits to go with? Tell me who or what creates goods and services that are in high demand? Investment? Give me a break.

Nobody says

What? The number is wrong. How can Japanese yen per dollar is 9523? Stop screwing the number.

Not screwing the number. This is front month Japanese Yen, quoted from wikiposit.

No idea why it doesn't correlate to the JPY currently. Perhaps their data is bad on that one....

Not intentional.

david1 says

Nobody says

What? The number is wrong. How can Japanese yen per dollar is 9523? Stop screwing the number.

Not screwing the number. This is front month Japanese Yen, quoted from wikiposit.

No idea why it doesn't correlate to the JPY currently. Perhaps their data is bad on that one....

Not intentional.

Just divide by 100 to get the Yen/Dollar figure, I guess.

(why does quoting a quote not work properly? Browser=chrome OS=linux)

ah, found it.

Thanks justme. This is JPY/USD, with the decimal messed up. Either way, the fact that the YEN has gained 32% vs. the USD is the same.

JPY/USD is .01255, so 1/.01255 is 79.68.

So the data aisn't bad, just the decimal.

Dollar used to get ~105 yen in 2008, now worth ~80 yen.

david1 says

CBOEtrader says

I'd first use the classic definition of the word inflation as an expansion of the money supply

Increasing the money supply not create inflation either...there is some evidence that long term inflation correlates to increases in the money supply, however, there is equal evidence linking inflation to economic or population growth as well. That is, correlation is not causation here either.

Inflation is a measure of price changes.

OK, since you wont accept my definition of inflation let me try to restate my idea. I would like to evaluate the relationship between m1 and government deficits, then use m1 as an indicator for future m3 growth. The m3 growth i believe most directly benefits the 1%, increasing the wealth disparity. I am almost certain I will find m3 growth directly equates to bubbles, but not sure what part will most directly equate to wealth disparity.

Until I've gone through and looked at everything, I can't say exactly what I'm going to find.

FYI: I am doing this for my own understanding rather than for an academic purpose.

I appreciate your researched opinion, and enjoy the links. Keep posting

david1 says

ah, found it.
Thanks justme. This is JPY/USD, with the decimal messed up. Either way, the fact that the YEN has gained 32% vs. the USD is the same.

Yeah, looks like they quoted the JPY in a futures tick method vs a standard currency pair quote. It is the same underlying risk, but futures are a different contract than the currency pair.

david1 says

Nobody says

What? The number is wrong. How can Japanese yen per dollar is 9523? Stop screwing the number.

Not screwing the number. This is front month Japanese Yen, quoted from wikiposit.

No idea why it doesn't correlate to the JPY currently. Perhaps their data is bad on that one....

Not intentional.

David1,

One more thing. Here is the link for the gasoline price. Depending on when in 2008, you take the price increase, the outcome is different.

http://gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx

If you take the lowest of 2008 to lowest of 2012, then there will be more than 100% increase from 2008 to 2012.

The point is simple. Don't be tricked into believing the single number can tell the whole story. There seems to be a mixed trend. I see the price increase in some area and price decrease in some area. Also, we had a recession, so there was a pressure for deflation, perhaps more severe in Europe. So the cause for the price increase or decrease is a little more convoluted and can't be used for the evidence to conclude that too much cash has no impact on pricing.

But generally, if there is too much supply, its value has tendency to fall. And we need to look at the currency that has more impact on our daily lives like Chinese Yuan. Not Euro. When is the last time you bought a stuff from Euro zone? Sure, I got a car from Italy, but that probably happens only once in a great while. Mostly, I stick to Japanese cars, cause they take me wherever I want to go reliably.

OK, with the actual cost of living going high or staying at where it was at 2008, and the average income going down, can I say that relative cost of living has increased?