patrick.net

indigenous says

I explain why your's is tautology

I'm waiting for the explanation.

indigenous says

Why because you say so? once again tautology

Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since.

indigenous says

It is not nitpicking to say that 85 people have 1.3 trillion dollars in personal assets. Bill Gates does not have 1/20 of that, give me a break.

Yeah, it really is a nitpicky thing to have an extended argument about, because the top 1% DOES have $110 trillion, and that's too much money for only the top 1% to have. So what's your point here? You think it's reasonable for the top 1% to have $110 trillion?

indigenous says

#1 disparity does not matter i.e. the poor in the US are way better off than the middle class in most of the world.

The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.

indigenous says

the disparity increases from government intervention. This has happened the most right now and in the early 30's both times was because of the FED intervention.

No shit, Sherlock. Why would you assume I "don't realize" that?

indigenous says

#3 In the profound words of Jody Chudder, paraphrasing, the scum that keep point out the straw man, keep you monkeys flinging your feces at each other over this stuff, Rs vs Ds 1% vs the rest of us, so you don't take the time to actually look.

Sorry, what are you trying to say? Sounds like gibberish.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

I explain why your's is tautology

I'm waiting for the explanation.

Should read:
I explain why, your's is tautology

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Why because you say so? once again tautology

Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since.

I'm waiting for an explanation

indigenous says

I'm waiting for an explanation

I've explained it a million times. What question exactly do you have? So I make sure I give you the correct explanation.

Homeboy says

The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.

Lets see the numbers

Homeboy says

indigenous says

#3 In the profound words of Jody Chudder, paraphrasing, the scum that keep point out the straw man, keep you monkeys flinging your feces at each other over this stuff, Rs vs Ds 1% vs the rest of us, so you don't take the time to actually look.

Sorry, what are you trying to say? Sounds like gibberish.

It means that there is so much noise that it distracts people from what is important

Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since.

tatupu70 says

I've explained it a million times. What question exactly do you have? So I make sure I give you the correct explanation.

splain that

John Bailo says

Do this as a mental experiment.

(1) Take everything the rich own -- however you define it -- and subtract it from the Earth.

(2) Now subtract the rich themselves as defined above.

(3) Now divide what's left equally among the remaining people. Call this World#1.

(4) Now put back everything that you subtracted, except for the rich people. Now take everything and again divide it equally and call this World#2.

How different would the life a person in World#1 be from World#2?

The way you worded that seems needlessly confusing, but let's see if we can figure this out: World population is 7 billion. Total worldwide wealth is about $220 trillion. So that would be $31,000 for each man, woman, and child on the planet , if divided equally. The top 10% own 86% of the wealth, which is $189 trillion. So 700 million people control $189 trillion, which would average $270,000 each. Therefore, the bottom 90% owns 14% of the wealth, which is $30.8 trillion. This averages to $49 each.

If all the wealth in the world were divided equally, the bottom 90% would go from an average of $49 to an average of $31,000. That would be PROFOUNDLY life changing.

Sources: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-02/its-1-world-who-owns-what-223-trillion-global-wealth

http://links.org.au/node/3569

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

indigenous says

Homeboy says

The question should be whether the poor in the US are better off than other DEVELOPED countries, and they are not.

Lets see the numbers

Sure:

Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/

Looks like we're actually dead last.

http://depts.washington.edu/wcpc/povertyintheus

Homeboy says

Sure:

Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s

A couple of things leap out at me one is that the statistics are based on household income which is known for misleading numbers. This is because as the divorce rate skyrocketed a couple of decades ago which distorts household income. My theory is that foreign countries were not hit as hard by the Gloria Steinem meme as the US

The second trick that these guys use is that government transfers are not counted as income in the lowest quin tile this includes things like section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, healthcare etc. This skews the numbers. I think this gives Mexican immigrants a big advantage in the work place as they are subsidized by the government.

A third thing is that categories are not real flesh and blood people so changes in a category do not reflect real people. This is because people move out of categories very quickly they are Absolutely not static.

Graphs have many inputting factors which do not isolate the things they are purported to show. This is the reason that Austrians don't use them as much as Keynesian who want to solve everything with math. While ignoring logic.

indigenous says

A couple of things leap out at me one is that the statistics are based on household income which is known for misleading numbers. This is because as the divorce rate skyrocketed a couple of decades ago which distorts household income. My theory is that foreign countries were not hit as hard by the Gloria Steinem meme as the US

The second trick that these guys use is that government transfers are not counted as income in the lowest quin tile this includes things like section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, healthcare etc. This skews the numbers. I think this gives Mexican immigrants a big advantage in the work place as they are subsidized by the government.

LOL - you are so full of shit. Sure, any data that proves you wrong is a "trick". Riiight... You lobbed a ball at me and I smashed it right back down your throat. Now you're hemming and hawing like a fiend. Just admit you lost the argument - everyone knows it.

tatupu70 says

Again--completely wrong. You are a poor student of history. Government inaction leads to disparity. Laissez Faire leads to inequality. Unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to inequality.

Hmm, I am pretty sure we have more government intervention today than we did 30, 40 or even 100 years ago. Yet today is the largest wealth disparity this country has ever seen, even larger than the 1920s.

indigenous says

Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since

There are a lot of reasons why wages were high from 45-80s. One reason from the 40-70's, U.S. companies didn't have a lot of competition for U.S. consumers (most of that being thanks to the war). For example, The Japanese cars didn't come until the 70s or late 60s to compete, global workers were not competing with U.S. workers, until somewhere around the mid 70s and became worst during the 90s and turn of the century.

Plus I am not even getting into the U.S. dollar and our monetary policy that's a page of their own.

spydah_hh says

indigenous says

Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since

That is a Tat quote somehow that got jacked up

spydah_hh says

Hmm, I am pretty sure we have more government intervention today than we did
30, 40 or even 100 years ago. Yet today is the largest wealth disparity this
country has ever seen, even larger than the 1920s.

I'm pretty sure we don't. Reagan started the era of deregulation and it has continued for 30+ years.

tatupu70 says

I'm pretty sure we don't. Reagan started the era of deregulation and it has continued for 30+ years.

That is a fallacy.

http://mises.org/daily/1544

indigenous says

That is a fallacy.

No it's not. I didn't say Reagan was the only President responsible--only that the deregulation started under his watch. The last 30+ years has seen significant easing of regulation. Do you disagree?

tatupu70 says

No it's not. I didn't say Reagan was the only President responsible--only that the deregulation started under his watch. The last 30+ years has seen significant easing of regulation. Do you disagree?

If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.

indigenous says

If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start
any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.

I did read it and it says some deregulation started in the late 70s under Carter. So it did not start under Reagan. True. Also says Reagan did not deregulate everything he promised and highlighted some regulations that increased.

Must have been an except from an old opinion piece, so was hard to follow. The bottom line is if you do not think deregulation happened under Reagan, I kindly guide you to, as an example:

1982 - Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
1982 - Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
1989 - Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60

Reagan didn't start deregulation, true. But he wasn't some great bureaucrat either. And his message paved the way for the Republican party platform even today, which has been all over:

1992 - National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
1996 - Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
1999 - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102
2000 - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act
2006 - Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006

indigenous says

If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start
any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.

I read it as well. Like the previous poster said--some deregulation activity started with Carter. It was implemented by Reagan. Some further activity started and was implemented by Reagan. What's your point?

Nitpicking aside--do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?

tatupu70 says

do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?

No quite the opposite.

indigenous says

No quite the opposite.

examples?

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

No quite the opposite.

examples?

Locally look to California and the growth of public sector salaries and benefits, legislators who pass 900 new laws a year.

Federally the government spends 1/3 of the budget with borrowed money.

The average federal worker makes twice what a private sector counterpart makes.

You are now going to say that is not regulation. But these mutts have justify their paycheck somehow. So we end up with seat belt laws that cost $200 or other traffic violations that cost absurd amounts of money. Business is leaving the state in droves.

At the FED level we have Frank Dodd that will be a bigger impediment to commerce than Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare that will enslave the economy forever. Bush's TARP was the beginning of the end based on pure propaganda. The CRA planted the seed for Greenspan to impale the future of the US.

indigenous says

Locally look to California and the growth of public sector salaries and benefits, legislators who pass 900 new laws a year.

That's not a regulation.

indigenous says

Federally the government spends 1/3 of the budget with borrowed money.

That's not a regulation

indigenous says

The average federal worker makes twice what a private sector counterpart makes.

Not only is that not a regulation, it's a purposely misleading statement.

indigenous says

You are now going to say that is not regulation

You're right. I already did.

indigenous says

At the FED level we have Frank Dodd that will be a bigger impediment to commerce than Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare that will enslave the economy forever. Bush's TARP was the beginning of the end based on pure propaganda. The CRA planted the seed for Greenspan to impale the future of the US demise.

So, Frank Dodd and Sarbanes Oxley are all you've got? The whole CRA narrative is bullshit and has been disproven many times on here. The fact that you still cite it is proof that you don't care to learn anything, but rather continue to spout your nonsense ad nauseum.

Among the true causes of the housing bubble was Deregulation--namely the Gramm/Leach/Biley Act of 1999. The repeal of Glass Steagall...

tatupu70 says

Among the true causes of the housing bubble was Deregulation--namely the Gramm/Leach/Biley Act of 1999. The repeal of Glass Steagall...

Doesn't matter had Greenspan not made the money available it would not have happened.

As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.

The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.

indigenous says

Doesn't matter had Greenspan not made the money available it would not have happened.

Of course it would have--you don't need low interest rates to abandon underwriting practices.

indigenous says

As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.

Glass Steagall separated commercial from investment banking.

indigenous says

The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.

You're right--it wouldn't have been a problem. It would have been an effing disaster.

tatupu70 says

Of course it would have--you don't need low interest rates to abandon underwriting practices.

What? If you cannot get the loans it is moot.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.

Glass Steagall separated commercial from investment banking.

It still did not cover derivatives.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.

You're right--it wouldn't have been a problem. It would have been an effing disaster.

Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book

indigenous says

What? If you cannot get the loans it is moot.

But with no underwriting standards, you can!

indigenous says

It still did not cover derivatives.

It also didn't cover gambling on the Super Bowl. Who cares?

indigenous says

Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book

Sorry--David Stockman's opinion is just that. His opinion. There are LOTS of folks that disagree with him.

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book

Sorry--David Stockman's opinion is just that. His opinion. There are LOTS of folks that disagree with him.

Reagans budget director is just an opinion? Wow so your opinion is equal in value?

indigenous says

If things are so bad here why do we keep getting immigrants?

LOL. Immigrants as a % of the population, the US ranks just behind Belize and slightly above Djibouti.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population

control point says

LOL. Immigrants as a % of the population, the US ranks just behind Belize and slightly above Djibouti

There you go with the graphs again. How do you figure this is a correlation to the standard of living of the poor?

indigenous says

Reagans budget director is just an opinion? Wow so your opinion is equal in value?

Nope--not mine. Try these:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/19/president-bush-and-warren-buffett-on-the-financial.aspx

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/02/14/warren-buffett-speaks-out-about-the-financial-cris.asp

anonymous says

The new study, based on tens of millions of anonymous tax records, finds that the mobility rate has held largely steady in recent decades, although it remains lower than in Canada and in much of Western Europe, where the odds of escaping poverty are higher."

In our latest episode of lies, damn lies, and statistics

We see where the "venerable" Mr Saez rears his head again, he is venerable because he went to Berkeley, the same school as our own venerable economist Roberto.

In his latest rendition of the poor are getting sodomized by the rich he again misses the fact that his trope does not include public transfers to the poor or after tax income of the sodomizers. In the words of genuinely accurate economist:

"Even aside from the fact that the U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the OECD,
the pretax, pretransfer “facts about growing inequality” from Piketty and Saez, are entirely
irrelevant to the topic of tax progressivity − for the obvious reason that they ignore taxes,
transfers and refundable tax credits. The highest tax rates could be doubled and/or means-tested
transfers to the poor tripled with no direct effect at all on income as Piketty and Saez define it,"

Located here:

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WorkingPaper-9.pdf

Pages 16-18

tatupu70 says

indigenous says

If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start

any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.

I read it as well. Like the previous poster said--some deregulation activity started with Carter. It was implemented by Reagan. Some further activity started and was implemented by Reagan. What's your point?

Nitpicking aside--do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?

But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.

tatupu70 says

Nope--not mine. Try these:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/11/19/president-bush-and-warren-buffett-on-the-financial.aspx

Well the oracle was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout so or course he praises it.

A Sacramento Bee examination of regulatory records has found that his extensive holdings in financial firms have made Buffett, the world's second-wealthiest person behind Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, one of the top beneficiaries of the banking bailout.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/05/65496/buffett-champion-of-bailout-is.html#storylink=cpy

Obama's utilizing trickle up economics. How does that work?

Entitlemented says

Obama's utilizing trickle up economics. How does that work?

Similar to pissing up a rope.

Homeboy says

That's not data, that's ad hominem.

No there is a difference, I'm pointing out a non sequitar an assumption.

My data is simply that if the US was that bad off people would not immigrate here, but they do.

spydah_hh says

But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.

Yes--probably. That's hardly meaningful though. The 1920s led to the Great Depression.

We have much less regulation than in the 1945-1975 time period.

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.

Yes--probably. That's hardly meaningful though. The 1920s led to the Great Depression.

We have much less regulation than in the 1945-1975 time period.

How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629

I am not going to go through all the acts and regulations but there's no way we have less regulation today than in 1945-1975. We have more because we have accounted for all the technological and social changes that have occurred.

Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1789-1901
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1901-2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_2001-present

Now here's a list of those that were repealed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_repealed_legislation

The list of those that were repealed is very very small while yet each year we're making up new legislation that provides more government intervention and regulations.

Also this is just federal legislation this does not include state or even local legislation either.