patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,647 comments by 13,871 users - AmericanKulak, askmeaboutthesaltporkcure, GreaterNYCDude, Tenpoundbass online now
Housing should be priced at 1968 or earlier?
invite response
2013 Mar 1, 4:45pm 31,656 views 95 comments
Comments 1 - 40 of 95 Next » Last » Search these comments
Bigsby
2013 Mar 1, 7:46pm
Did you read the article? And the actual article's headline is utterly ridiculous given what the person wrote.
Thank God for consumer credit and government bailouts to help make up for the gap.
This article is preposterous. Americans were buying plenty imports from cheap labor in post-WWII Europe and Japan even before 1968. The big change in the late 60's and early 70's was LBJ's massive money printing to fund both Vietnam War and War on Poverty at the same time, and consequent suspension of international dollar convertibility to Gold by Nixon. That made the US Dollar into a pure fiat currency, free from any external accountability.
Contrary to the typical Keynesian brainwashing, inflation in a fiat money system does not take place concurrently across board. Instead, some people (the elite insiders plugged into the tax and inflate machine) get the new money first, able to spend that money before prices go up, at the expense of those who get the money later and have to spend against prices already gone up. That's why concentration of wealth and power has become worse and worse in the fiat money system.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Mar 2, 12:18am
BULLSHIT!
1 percenters, 40% making less than min wage in 1968, where do people come up with this crap?
We've got some serious problems, and they aren't as convoluted as propaganda like this makes it seem. In fact articles like this just distract from the truth. 1 percenters are a red herring this administration created, to keep their constituents Snipe hunting, while Congress robed us blind by meddling with the economy by picking the winners and losers, in closed door meetings, then investing accordingly the next day.
These people have names, the "1%" boogie man, is the political equivalent of Bigfoot. Where as if you were to put Congress in a line up, I can identify the perps.
Captain,
Agree! The defamation against "1%" is utter nonsense. It's like accusing the left-handed people of screwing the rest of the society because top politicians are over-represented by left-handed people. Many high income people make their money by offering other people valuable services at good prices. If not for the political cronies, those high productivity people would be able to deliver even more services for the rest of the society and the rest of the society would vote to let these high productivity people in charge of more productive resources available in the society, so the overall standards of living would be higher for everyone.
The defamation against "1%" is utter nonsense.
I think the ire should be directed at the top 1/10th of the 1 %ers.
These are the FIRE scammers and skimmers and Hedge Fund flimflammers.
Far from "offering other people valuable services at good prices" their relationship to the economy is parasitical.
Hedge funds that are responsible for their own winnings and losses are not the problem. They are part of the normal price discovery process, just like mutual funds. The hedge funds run by big banks that are direct or indirect recipients of government bailouts however are indeed the problem.
In terms of the size of the class of real beneficiaries, it's likely an order of magnitude even smaller than what you proposed. 0.01% or about 30,000 people to 0.001% or 3000 people really plugged into the tax-regulation and fiat money machine.
The big change in the late 60's and early 70's was LBJ's massive money printing
No, the big change in the 60s and 70s starts with a "C" and ends with "hina".
Bigsby
2013 Mar 2, 11:09pm
The big change in the late 60's and early 70's was LBJ's massive money printing
No, the big change in the 60s and 70s starts with a "C" and ends with "hina".
Yeah, China was massively influential on US real estate during the 60s and 70s.
it's likely an order of magnitude even smaller than what you proposed. 0.01% or about 30,000 people to 0.001% or 3000 people really plugged into the tax-regulation and fiat money machine.
You might be right that there are less people in this corrupt cohort. The % of skim remains the same.
The carried interest tax dodge is one of the most blatant of the financial elites tax freebees.
The very idea of the soulless Hedgie's entering the SFH real estate market makes my blood boil.
What is certain in this degraded version of crony capitalism, one man's accounting scam, and tax theft is another man's fat payday.
The rule of law is dead.
Where are you Jon Corzine?
The big change in the late 60's and early 70's was LBJ's massive money printing
No, the big change in the 60s and 70s starts with a "C" and ends with "hina".
Yeah, China was massively influential on US real estate during the 60s and 70s.
Read original post please.
You know, growing up, I always pegged 1968 as the year my family went from an automatic upward ascent, to falling down and having to work like dogs to keep up.
Be careful mentioning dates,you could give your age away.LOL
Would you know what your parents house was worth in 1968 & what the same house would be worth today. Wonder if your families income would have kept up with any house inflation? THX.
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 9:54am
The big change in the late 60's and early 70's was LBJ's massive money printing
No, the big change in the 60s and 70s starts with a "C" and ends with "hina".
Yeah, China was massively influential on US real estate during the 60s and 70s.
Read original post please.
I did. I still don't get your point. How was China the big change in the 60s or 70s? Its impact is much more recent.
to falling down and having to work like dogs to keep up.
Maybe this explains it:
Year Weekly Earnings (1982-84 dollars)
1972 $341.83 (peak)
1975 $314.75
1980 $290.86
1985 $285.34
1990 $271.12
1992 $266.46 (lowest point; 22% below peak)
1995 $267.07
2000 $284.79
2005 $284.99
2010 $297.67
2011 $294.78 (still 14% below peak)
All the income gains have gone to the top 1%.
The defamation against "1%" is utter nonsense. It's like accusing the left-handed people of screwing the rest of the society because top politicians are over-represented by left-handed people.
"1%" boogie man has been commonly heard for a long long time in parts of Berkeley, SF prime and lefty Oakland. while in the southbay, they are called economic heroes. We certainly need more heroes these days..
Housing should be priced at 1968 or earlier?
This title statement has nothing to do with the article, because minimum wage people don't buy houses. Click on the link and read it sometime. The article is about inflation reducing the real value of minimum wages since 1968.
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 11:51am
The defamation against "1%" is utter nonsense. It's like accusing the left-handed people of screwing the rest of the society because top politicians are over-represented by left-handed people.
"1%" boogie man has been commonly heard for a long long time in parts of Berkeley, SF prime and lefty Oakland. while in the southbay, they are called economic heroes. We certainly need more heroes these days..
Yeah, it's utterly outrageous to think that they could and should be contributing a bit more of their income towards supporting a better functioning society. Oh, the hardship! Oh, the inhumanity!
utterly outrageous to think that they could and should be contributing a bit more of their income towards supporting a better functioning society. Oh, the hardship! Oh, the inhumanity!
that is why Oakland, SF and Berkeley.. failed ! and from the cheap farmlands of Santa Clara comes Silicon Valley.. which made California a powerhouse economy on its own...
The local southbay cities and counties were very smart keeping out of the way as growth fueled higher incomes and thus higher taxes on their own. Growth.. what a freaking concept!
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 12:53pm
utterly outrageous to think that they could and should be contributing a bit more of their income towards supporting a better functioning society. Oh, the hardship! Oh, the inhumanity!
that is why Oakland, SF and Berkeley.. failed ! and from the cheap farmlands of Santa Clara comes Silicon Valley.. which made California a powerhouse economy on its own...
The local southbay cities and counties were very smart keeping out of the way as growth fueled higher incomes and thus higher taxes on their own. Growth.. what a freaking concept!
Which has what exactly to do with taxing the wealthiest a little bit more when the country is running a massive deficit? The richest in society have had substantial tax breaks for quite some time now. That hasn't exactly translated into the most dynamic growth period in the history of the US. It has however greatly enriched them whilst everyone else...
Which has what exactly to do with taxing the wealthiest a little bit more when the country is running a massive deficit? The richest in society have had substantial tax breaks for quite some time now. That hasn't exactly translated into the most dynamic growth period in the history of the US. It has however greatly enriched them whilst everyone else...
your overlooking and frankly unwilling to allow growth to take hold in an economy. that is why the liberal bastions failed.. too preoccupied with taxing the rich.. incapable of creating growth. Growth what a concept !
simply compare all the BS from the East Bay Liberal Socialist and their Taxes done little to better the common person compared to lower tax jurisdictions like Santa Clara County.
That hasn't exactly translated into the most dynamic growth period in the history of the US. It has however greatly enriched them whilst everyone else...
Frankly, lowering taxes has shown to spur capital equipment purchases.. greater hiring and growth... see the 80s and 90s.
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 3:14pm
That hasn't exactly translated into the most dynamic growth period in the history of the US. It has however greatly enriched them whilst everyone else...
Frankly, lowering taxes has shown to spur capital equipment purchases.. greater hiring and growth... see the 80s and 90s.
So what were past tax rates on individuals compared to those during the Bush era?
Yeah, it's utterly outrageous to think that they could and should be contributing a bit more of their income towards supporting a better functioning society. Oh, the hardship! Oh, the inhumanity!
What makes for a better functioning society? Everyone exercising his/her own wishes without violating someone else, or everyone being told what to do under the barrel of the gun?
In the market place, even the richest have to compete against others for the patronage of consumers; when it comes to government "service," the consumer has no real choice. Government is a monopoly by definition.
Taxing anyone to fund a government is the exact opposite of "supporting a better functioning society" in the domestic context: every single alternative service provider that does not wield the power of initiating violence is better than government the legalized initiator of violence. The only legit function of a government to preventing take-over by an even worse version of itself.
The richest in society have had substantial tax breaks for quite some time now. That hasn't exactly translated into the most dynamic growth period in the history of the US. It has however greatly enriched them whilst everyone else...
The richest have collected the most taxes (both through taxation and inflation) as well as have wielded the most regulatory power in recent decades. Who do you think owns and runs the government? Some of the richest of course.
The people have been deprived of the power to pick and choose which rich people to do business with, thanks to taxation and regulations.
So what were past tax rates on individuals compared to those during the Bush era?
The Bush Jr era was a horrendous period of taxation and inflation. Taxation has to be measured in both explicit taxation and inflation: because both have the exact same effect of directing natural and human resources away from the productive market economy where individual human beings make choices to the government sector where bureaucrats run monopolies.
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 3:43pm
So what were past tax rates on individuals compared to those during the Bush era?
The Bush Jr era was a horrendous period of taxation and inflation. Taxation has to be measured in both explicit taxation and inflation: because both have the exact same effect of directing natural and human resources away from the productive market economy where individual human beings make choices to the government sector where bureaucrats run monopolies.
A horrendous period of inflation? Hardly. And what was so horrendous about taxation during this period? Yes, horrendously stupid giving tax breaks whilst running up a massive deficit, but that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 3:45pm
Taxing anyone to fund a government is the exact opposite of "supporting a better functioning society" in the domestic context: every single alternative service provider that does not wield the power of initiating violence is better than government the legalized initiator of violence. The only legit function of a government to preventing take-over by an even worse version of itself.
What a load of bullshit. Unfettered capitalism is a far greater danger to the general population than any government you have or are likely to live under in the USA.
ELC
2013 Mar 3, 8:49pm
It's like accusing the left-handed people of screwing the rest of the society because top politicians are over-represented by left-handed people.
It's not at all like that.
American in Japan
2013 Mar 3, 9:13pm
Why are you hating on the rich again? They create everything for Americans (I am being sarcastic, but unfortunately many believe this).
What a load of bullshit. Unfettered capitalism is a far greater danger to the general population than any government you have or are likely to live under in the USA.
What the heck is "unfettered capitalism"? Do you mean each person having unfettered right to his/her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What exactly is wrong with that?
Or do you mean big business having unfettered access to use the government laws, regulations and licensed monopoly to screw people? That's exactly what we have thanks to you big government types.
As for any government we have or likely to live under in the USA, how about:
1. The genocide against native Americans by the US Army in the 19th century? The US Army doesn't sound like a product of free market, does it?
2. The rounding up of Japanese Americans into concentration camps by the Californian government. The Californian government doesn't sound like a free market institution, does it?
3. The waging of war on "these states" by an ex-corporate lawyer for the big corporate crony railroads in order to enforce government tariff, a prima facie act of high treason that resulted in over 600,000 dead Americans. Government subsidized railroad, government tariff, and war and draft, none of them sound like free market institutions.
It's like accusing the left-handed people of screwing the rest of the society because top politicians are over-represented by left-handed people.
It's not at all like that.
It's worse. While left-handed and right-handed people are about equally productive. The high taxation on the more productive people and forcible transfer of resources to the less productive people makes fraud and deception against the latter all the more profitable.
Why are you hating on the rich again? They create everything for Americans (I am being sarcastic, but unfortunately many believe this).
While the rich is not responsible for creating everything, three facts of life are unavoidable:
1. There is always a small class of "rich and powerful" in any society. The only difference is whether such a class rise by individual consumer choice or by the political process.
2. In a relatively free market place those who have the creativity to come up with new products and services that drastically improve people's living standards usually do become part of the rich.
3. When the market individual consumer choice process is blocked, the path to rich and power detours through the political process. Then it's the real jungle rules of mutual slaughter, and war of each against all!
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 9:58pm
What the heck is "unfettered capitalism"? Do you mean each person have unfettered right to his/her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What exactly is wrong with that?
In your la-la imagination, but back in reality...
Or do you mean big business has unfettered access to use the government to screw the people? That's exactly what we have thanks to you big government types.
If big business was not regulated in any way by government, what exactly do you think they'd get up to? They almost fucked up the entire economy when government oversight lost its way. What if there wasn't any in the first place?
1. The genocide against native Americans by the US Army in the 19th century? The US Army doesn't sound like a product of free market, does it?
2. The rounding of Japanese Americans into concentration camps by the Californian government. The Californian government doesn't sound like a free market institution, does it?
3. The waging of war on "these states" by an ex-corporate lawyer for the big corporate crony railroads in order to enforce government tariff? A prima facie act of high treason that resulted in over 600,000 dead Americans. Government subsidized railroad, government tariff, and war and draft, none of them sound like free market institutions.
So what? Were you alive then? Didn't think so. And your point is irrelevant to what I was saying. I didn't say governments didn't do shocking things. I said that you are far better off under a government with a role in society similar to the one you've lived under your entire life than one with a minimal role at best and where big business is utterly free to do as it pleases. Half the things you moan about are down to the encroachment of big business on government and yet you want the government completely out of the way. How about government grows a pair and reins in the excesses of big business more effectively?
What the heck is "unfettered capitalism"? Do you mean each person have unfettered right to his/her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What exactly is wrong with that?
In your la-la imagination, but back in reality...
I suppose you never heard of the Declaration of Independence.
Or do you mean big business has unfettered access to use the government to screw the people? That's exactly what we have thanks to you big government types.
If big business was not regulated in any way by government, what exactly do you think they'd get up to. They almost fucked up the entire economy when government oversight lost its way. What if there wasn't any in the first place?
"Government oversight" is just a fancy word for big business wielding the guns of government to screw smaller competitors and consumers. Who do you think wrote Obamacare? People who worked for the big insurance companies and would be back working for the big insurance companies again after writing the law. Who do you think Rubin, Paulson and Geithner really work for? The exact big businesses that "almost f*cked up the entire economy" What do you mean "lost its way"? That's exact it's designed to do: stripping away consumer choice among the smaller competitors so the big businesses would be "too big to fail."
So what? Were you alive then? Didn't think so. And your point is irrelevant to what I was saying. I didn't say governments didn't do shocking things.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The three examples I gave utterly dashes any illusions about "American exceptionalism."
I said that you are far better off under a government with a role in society similar to the one you've lived under your entire life than one with a minimal role at best and where big business is utterly free to do as it pleases.
Big businesses are utterly free to do as they please. Where have you been? Has any big business executive been arrested for the massive systematic mortgage frauds? None. The SEC has been running out the clock on statue of limitation for them! In fact, the government bailout that you will still have to pay for in raised taxes wouldn't even be there without the government.
Half the things you moan about are down to the encroachment of big business on government and yet you want the government completely out of the way. How about about government grows a pair and reins in the excesses of big business more effectively?
What do you think "government" is? A god with its own balls or brains or hands or feet? "Government" is nothing more than a collection of individuals endowed with special privileges to interfere in other people's lives. They are prime targets to be bought off by big businesses. Without them, how would the big businesses get "government bailout"? i.e. looting of you and me to feed the big businesses.
Bigsby
2013 Mar 3, 10:51pm
I suppose you never heard of the Declaration of Independence.
Yes, but they are just words. What kind of society do you actually think you'd live in if everyone had, for example, an 'unfettered right to his/her own life'? What does that even mean? You can't just do what the fuck you like without consideration of the well being of your fellow man. Not if you actually want to live in a functioning society. And in what way has modern US society so restricted your ability to live the life you want? Is it a life free from taxes and responsibility for others that you are looking for?
"Government oversight" is just a fancy word for big business wielding the guns of government to screw smaller competitors and consumers. Who do you think wrote Obamacare? People who worked for the big insurance companies and would be back working for the big insurance companies again after writing the law. Who do you think Rubin, Paulson and Geithner really work for? The exact big businesses that "almost f*cked up the entire economy" What do you mean "lost its way"? That's exact it's designed to do: stripping away consumer choice among the smaller competitors so the big businesses would be "too big to fail."
Err, and that's big business meddling in government, is it not? You want big business to be free to do as it pleases full-stop.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The three examples I gave utterly dashes any illusions about "American exceptionalism."
It isn't an illusion. The US is in many ways a pretty exceptional country, especially for US citizens and I'm not even a US citizen. It doesn't mean it isn't free from doing terrible things, does it? And that is particularly true when a country is the most powerful in the world.
Big businesses are utterly free to do as they please. Where have you been? Has any big business executive been arrested for the massive systematic mortgage frauds? None. The SEC has been running out the clock on statue of limitation for them! In fact, the government bailout that you will still have to pay for in raised taxes wouldn't even be there without the government.
So what? That's merely one example where government failed to step up. There are a million examples where they have. You don't want to give them the bloody opportunity in the first place, so what is your point? You're moaning about them not doing something that you don't want them to be able to do.
What do you think "government" is? A god with its own balls or brains or hands or feet? "Government" is nothing more than a collection of individuals endowed with special privileges to interfere in other people's lives. They are prime targets to be bought off by big businesses. Without them, how would the big businesses get "government bailout"? i.e. looting of you and me to feed the big businesses.
And yet you'd rather place all the power in the hands of big business. A well functioning government is a powerful bulwark against the encroachment of those businesses and can and should have the interests of the population as a whole at the forefront rather than those with the deepest pockets. Everything you say is an argument in favour of stronger government, free from the influence of lobbyists and election campaigns funded by vested interests. It really wouldn't be that difficult to curb the excesses of said lobbyists and fund all campaigns with fixed and vastly reduced funds courtesy of tax payers. And yet you argue... Actually, what exactly are you arguing for?
Yes, but they are just words. What kind of society do you actually think you'd live in if everyone had, for example, an 'unfettered right to his/her own life'? What does that even mean?
"Life" in the context of Declaration of Independence means being alive, not arbitrarily being cut short by government officials. Quality of life comes in "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness." I'm not surprised the tax funded public school system has failed to teach you what the word "life" means in the Declaration of Independence.
You can't just do what the fuck you like without consideration of the well being of your fellow man. Not if you actually want to live in a functioning society. And in what way has modern US society so restricted your ability to live the life you want? Is it a life free from taxes and responsibility for others that you are looking for?
Did you forget that the American Revolution was triggered by a 3% Stamp Tax and tariff on tea? Most responsibility for others comes from voluntary contracts. Being forced to serve others at gun point is called slavery . . . more importantly, you are kidding yourself if you think the real purpose of taxation is to serve other needy individuals instead of fattening the bureaucrats and cronies.
Err, and that's big business meddling in government, is it not? You want big business to be free to do as it pleases full-stop.
No on both. Big businesses don't meddle in government, they OWN the government and they ARE the government, since time immemorial. "Government" is the biggest business and most monopolistic business there ever is. Who do you think are the type of people running governments? The same group of people that run big businesses.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. The three examples I gave utterly dashes any illusions about "American exceptionalism."
It isn't an illusion. The US is in many ways a pretty exceptional country, especially for US citizens and I'm not even a US citizen. It doesn't mean it isn't free from doing terrible things, does it? And that is particularly true when a country is the most powerful in the world.
Romans once believed in "Roman exceptionalism." Guess where that got them? Being the most powerful in the world is part of the problem. Power breeds corruption.
So what? That's merely one example where government failed to step up. There are a million examples where they have. You don't want to give them the bloody opportunity in the first place, so what is your point? You're moaning about them not doing something that you don't want them to be able to do.
That's a preposterous claim. Nobody suggests SEC staffers should watch porn on their jobs and prosecute the little guys while letting the big fraudsters go free (like they already do), so they can get high paying jobs at the Wall Street firms later.
And yet you'd rather place all the power in the hands of big business.
How? The big business would not have any power over you when you the consumer choose to do business with the smaller competitors . . . until the government regulates the smaller competitors out of business. That's exactly what government regulations and taxes do: the smaller competitors feel more of the regulatory and tax burdens because they can not afford to buy the government.
A well functioning government is a powerful bulwark against the encroachment of those businesses and can and should have the interests of the population as a whole at the forefront rather than those with the deepest pockets.
Your theory is very much against 300 years of western enlightenment intellectual thought, and falls right into the trap of the Divine Power of the Sovereign.
Everything you say is an argument in favour of stronger government,
Every stronger government has produced even worse result.
free from the influence of lobbyists and election campaigns funded by vested interests. It really wouldn't be that difficult to curb the excesses of said lobbyists and fund all campaigns with fixed and vastly reduced funds courtesy of tax payers. And yet you argue... Actually, what exactly are you arguing for?
Can't find your strawman, can you? Lobbyists are evil, unless they advocate for your cause. Political campaigns involve so much money because the government is becoming too powerful: making buying it worth the money! duh! Guess what, you and I and small to medium businesses can't afford to pay the price of entry. The stronger you make the government, the higher the price of entry, and the more exclusive the club of buyers become, and the worse you and I and every small to medium businesses are squeezed, so the big buyers of the government can get their money's worth!
they are called economic heroes
Here is some graphic information, in a 6 minute video, that will challenge your lapdog hero worship of the predatory class. Polls show that wealth inequality in America is vastly worse that people think it is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
The chart shows productivity gains since the late seventies did not go to the workers' wages. Not only did these gains go to corporate "profits" but they've also taken more for themselves by constantly whittling away or eliminating worker health and retirement benefits. The corporate elite-sters in their greed induced frenzy, won't be satisfied until they can sell a $1 junk gadget for $1000, by paying everyone minimum wage with no benefits (except their butt-kissing extraordinare golf buddy VPs). I think they are getting close to that goal.
What the heck is "unfettered capitalism"? Do you mean each person having unfettered right to his/her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What exactly is wrong with that?
People commonly confuse "unfettered capitalism" with the current system of crony, Cartel Capitalizm. Which, through it's partner the government, uses "regulation" to strengthen it's effective monopolies.
The corporate elite-sters in their greed induced frenzy, won't be satisfied until they can sell a $1 junk gadget for $1000, by paying everyone minimum wage with no benefits
Driving the price of a $1 junk gadget to $1000 takes regulations that ban all smaller competitors that are willing to sell the gadget for $2, $3, $4, . . . $998, $999. That's what the medical industry has become.
Benefits of a job is the wage. Union style "benefits" are just a scam on the workers so that part of the alleged pay can be stolen later.
Comments 1 - 40 of 95 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://thecontributor.com/40-americans-now-make-less-1968-minimum-wage
#housing