patrick.net

indigenous says

You and Jazz have me pegged as a Republican.

I don't care what party you claim to follow. I just wish you listened when people show you facts and data. Instead you continue with your head in the sand and hands over your ears.

tatupu70 says

And I'm saying in both time periods we had relatively low levels of
regulation and high disparity. It's hard to quantify "amount of regulation". It
also depends on enforcement, etc. But IMO, the last 30 years has seen a steady
stream of deregulation...

Are you truly arguing that on the whole, there is less regulation today than there was 30 years ago?

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

said back int he 1920 there was less regulation today but yet we still had high
wealth disparity

And I'm saying in both time periods we had relatively low levels of regulation and high disparity. It's hard to quantify "amount of regulation". It also depends on enforcement, etc. But IMO, the last 30 years has seen a steady stream of deregulation...

There's not much that was repealed I just showed you a link. the only major thing that was repealed was glass stegall act an dlike waht indigenous said that doesn't stop derivatives it only separated investment banks from commercial banks which really doesn't even matter considering you have the FDIC and FED to bail out the banks anyway. But it doesn't stop thins like derivatives or naked short selling or CDOs or whatever all this still would of occurred.

Had we had glass Steagall or not we still would of had the 2008 crash.

Lawrence White and Jerry Markham rejected these claims and argued that products linked to the financial crisis were not regulated by Glass–Steagall or were available from commercial banks or their affiliates before the GLBA repealed Glass–Steagall sections 20 and 32.[52]Alan Blinder wrote in 2009 that he had “yet to hear a good answer” to the question “what bad practices would have been prevented if Glass–Steagall was still on the books?” Blinder argued that “disgraceful” mortgage underwriting standards “did not rely on any new GLB powers,” that “free-standing investment banks” not the “banking-securities conglomerates” permitted by the GLBA were the major producers of “dodgy MBS,” and that he could not “see how this crisis would have been any milder if GLB had never passed.”[53] Similarly, Melanie Fein has written that the financial crisis “was not a result of the GLBA” and that the “GLBA did not authorize any securities activities that were the cause of the financial crisis.”[54] Fein noted “[s]ecuritization was not an activity authorized by the GLBA but instead had been held by the courts in 1990 to be part of the business of banking rather than an activity proscribed by the Glass–Steagall Act.”[55] As described above, in 1978 the OCC approved a national bank securitizing residential mortgages.

Thus to say we have more regulations today than in the 1920 a hellavh a lot more and most of these regulations prevents new or smaller businesses to rise and challenge big businesses.

spydah_hh says

Thus to say we have more regulations today than in the 1920 a hellavh a lot
more and most of these regulations prevents new or smaller businesses to rise
and challenge big businesses.

It's also important to remember that legislation is not equivalent to regulation. Legislation is the enabler of executive branch agencies to then continuously create cascades of regulations based on the original legislation.

And to your point... Many large corporations often fully support the same legislation and regulation that supposedly well-meaning "liberals" do. The reason: They can absorb the compliance costs, but smaller companies, especially startups cannot, therefore creating a nice barrier from competition. Yep, the same left that hates big business is the big enabler of big business rent seeking behavior.

Claiming that there is less regulation today than 30 years ago is quite silly.

indigenous says

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

Dude, you made that correlation, not me. You said, "If things are so bad here why do we keep getting immigrants?"

I just pointed out that other places get immigrants too.

Paralithodes says

Are you truly arguing that on the whole, there is less regulation today than
there was 30 years ago?

Regulations are a form of taxation on business. Businesses exist to maximize after tax profits. Net regulations and taxes are lower today than 35 years ago, yes.

control point says

Paralithodes says

Are you truly arguing that on the whole, there is less regulation today than
there was 30 years ago?

Regulations are a form of taxation on business. Businesses exist to maximize after tax profits. Net regulations and taxes are lower today than 35 years ago, yes.

So even though generally speaking businesses must spend more time and cost on compliance with more regulation now than 30/35 years ago, because in general business after tax profits are allegedly higher now, they actually have fewer real, actual regulations to comply with now?

Paralithodes says

And to your point... Many large corporations often fully support the same
legislation and regulation that supposedly well-meaning "liberals" do. The
reason: They can absorb the compliance costs, but smaller companies, especially
startups cannot, therefore creating a nice barrier from competition. Yep, the
same left that hates big business is the big enabler of big business rent
seeking behavior.

That's a nice story, but small businesses are usually exempt from the type of regulation to which you are refering.

Paralithodes says

Claiming that there is less regulation today than 30 years ago is quite
silly.

I obviously disagree.

Paralithodes says

Claiming that there is less regulation today than 30 years ago is quite silly.

I agree with this point and also what you said in your first two paragraphs. But try explain this to Tatu

tatupu70 says

That's a nice story, but small businesses are usually exempt from the type of regulation to which you are refering.

No they're not...

tatupu70 says

That's a nice story, but small businesses are usually exempt from the type of
regulation to which you are refering.

What type of regulation am I referring to?

Small business is sometimes exempt from some regulation, but to make such a blanket claim as you regarding regulation in general shows you know nothing about small business, or regulation.

tatupu70 says

I obviously disagree.

Yes, obviously you do. Therefore, obviously you believe there is less actual regulation today than 30 years ago, despite the significant growth in actual regulation. It's an odd belief but you've got your narrative to stick to.

Do you have any source at all that there is actually less regulation today than 30 years ago?

Do small 1-5 person medical device manufacturers have any additional regulation, regulatory fees, device registration fees, compliance programs and reports, etc., that did not exist 5, 10, or 30 years ago? There are only two honest answers you can give to this question.

spydah_hh says

But try explain this to Tatu

As he accuses of others, Tat's got his own narrative that he needs to stick to, no matter what. That's the only way anyone could actually believe that there are literally fewer regulations on business today than 30 years ago, or that big business rent seeking behavior via regulation really doesn't impact small business.

Paralithodes says

So even though generally speaking businesses must spend more time and cost on
compliance with more regulation now than 30/35 years ago, because in general
business after tax profits are allegedly higher now, they actually have fewer
real, actual regulations to comply with now?

What you are looking for are after tax profit margins. Regulations are a cost of doing business. Taxes on profits are a cost of doing business. Fixed and Varibales costs are a cost of doing business.

When a new law is passed causing a company to expend resources to come into compliance - that is a reduction of profit margins. When a law is passed removing a requirement, that is an increase in profit margins.

When regulations are discussed, the point of contention is over how "free" or "unfree" a partcular market is. That is - how much government intervention is there in the market?

We can all agree that profit margins are higher in completely "free" markets vs. "unfree" markets.

So I direct you here - showing, effectively, total profit margins for the US, Profits after tax / revenues.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=riM

indigenous says

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 good news is that the divorce rate is way down. That was a Babyboomer thing. With the Later generations, people get married later and less often but more likely to stay married.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18600304/#.UuKSaaHNhkU

Somebody told me, but I don't have any information, that the divorce rate is largely powered by "Serial Divorcers", we all know those people who marry and divorce at the drop of a hat with anybody they go out with for more than a few dates.

control point says

I just pointed out that other places get immigrants too.

Oh that is nice so other places are more desirable than poor countries as well.

But the idea that the US poor are worse off than all other other developed countries is bullshit

tatupu70 says

That's a nice story, but small businesses are usually exempt from the type of regulation to which you are refering.

Bullshit, you just pull this shit out of your ass

thunderlips11 says

The good news is that the divorce rate is way down. That was a Babyboomer thing. With the Later generations, people get married later and less often but more likely to stay married.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18600304/#.UuKSaaHNhkU

Somebody told me, but I don't have any information, that the divorce rate is largely powered by "Serial Divorcers", we all know those people who marry and divorce at the drop of a hat with anybody they go out with for more than a few dates.

So then the marriage level is down either way household income will go down not that is the only reason Saez is full of shit.

Paralithodes says

Small business is sometimes exempt from some regulation, but to make such a
blanket claim as you regarding regulation in general shows you know nothing
about small business, or regulation.

I'm refering to the type of regulation which you implied in your last post.

Paralithodes says

So even though generally speaking businesses must spend more time and cost on
compliance with more regulation now than 30/35 years ago

If you think I'm incorrect-please detail the regulations that small companies spend much more time complying with now than 30-35 years ago.

Paralithodes says

Do small 1-5 person medical device manufacturers have any additional
regulation, regulatory fees, device registration fees, compliance programs and
reports, etc., that did not exist 5, 10, or 30 years ago? There are only two
honest answers you can give to this question.

I'm sorry--are we talking about the 1-5 person medical device manufacturing market? I thought we were talking about the US in general

Back to the wealth and income disparity, and to draw up a story to illustrate:

Let's say instead of money we used diamonds, all of an equal size and quality. There are 100 Million diamonds for 1 million residents of this fictitious planet or country.

Each resident gets 100 diamonds to start. Over time, the distribution of the diamonds gets concentrated into the hands of 100 individuals. At what point would the populace stop producing?

At what point would commerce stop?

At what point would growth be impacted? Or be negative?

Clearly, if the 100 individuals had all 100 Million diamonds, nearly all activity would stop.

The solution, of course, would be to generate growth so there are more diamonds for everyone..."make the pie higher". D'oh!

Supply-side, rightwing sycophants would say the solution is to give the top 100 another heaping mound of diamonds. But that largess only REINFORCES their lack of motivation to innovate, create businesses, or supply goods or services to the great unwashed. And does not solve the demand problem.

The rich NEED motivation to help the economy. They are the lazy overclass who have grown soft and coddled by so many, and who surround themselves with politicians and Randian nonsense that they've come to believe that we cannot exist with out them, the "makers."

They need to innovate, build business, hire or have their wealth confiscated and given BACK to the underclass, not in some redistributive act or out of anger or resentment, but because we are being kind to them.

They'll thank us later due to the character building they will have been forced to experience.

Paralithodes says

As he accuses of others, Tat's got his own narrative that he needs to stick
to, no matter what. That's the only way anyone could actually believe that there
are literally fewer regulations on business today than 30 years ago, or that big
business rent seeking behavior via regulation really doesn't impact small
business.

I don't recall ever giving an opinion on large businesses rent seeking behavior, but thanks for providing it for me. I'll remember so next time I need someone to speak for me.

jazz music says

Trickle Down ...(?) ... Cheeses Kay-ryst how humiliating (!) to be of the working class and hoping for some trickle down... Do you realize how that sounds????

Yep, how it works is pathetic and humiliating. You jockey and elbow for position under the dribble.

indigenous says

That is bullshit, they immigrate to improve their standard of living.

But people migrate to OTHER countries as well, not just to the U.S., so your argument makes no sense.

indigenous says

Again for the 3rd time your charts have many inputs that do not measure what you are purporting that they do.

Bullshit. You have provided absolutely NO evidence to support what you're claiming. You do realize that simply SAYING something doesn't make it true, don't you? You're just flailing because you lost the argument. For the FOURTH time, where is your data?

CL says

Back to the wealth and income disparity, and to draw up a story to illustrate:

There is no story necessary this is the story of the market. The only thing that fucks it up is your idea of we know best as you certainly do not.

Homeboy says

But people migrate to OTHER countries as well, not just to the U.S., so your argument makes no sense

Yea you wont find any cute graphs that reveal all. But that does not negate anything i'm saying.
The data is in the immigration, it is tantamount to people voting with their comparative advantage. Which is why the standard of living is a smidge better than 100 years ago. If you get this concept no explanation is necessary.

indigenous says

CL says

Back to the wealth and income disparity, and to draw up a story to illustrate:

There is no story necessary this is the story of the market. The only thing that fucks it up is your idea of we know best as you certainly do not.

I have an idea. Use thought to illustrate your points, or use it to dissect mine. Otherwise, drop the act and admit you're a troll.

CL says

have an idea. Use thought to illustrate your points, or use it to dissect mine. Otherwise, drop the act and admit you're a troll.

Alteady did you just don't realize it. Not a troll just pointing out the illogic

Dodd-Frank is as useless as Sarbanes-Oxley. If the rules only count for some people then there aren't any rules.

It's just junk in, junk out, but don't fear, it'll all be over in the next 10 years or less anyway. Hopefully, when it occurs, the citizens of our nation will be wiser and less ignorant...

mfs.admin says

It's just junk in, junk out, but don't fear, it'll all be over in the next 10 years or less anyway. Hopefully, when it occurs, the citizens of our nation will be wiser and less ignorant

Can you elaborate?

indigenous says

Can you elaborate?

In a nutshell, the current system is unsustainable and can't continue to operate this way indefinitely. The longer this bogus system continues, the harder the landing will be. Sadly, I believe most of us need a hard landing with long lasting effects for this lesson to be learned and it's my belief that this lesson will occur in the next decade or so. As for the lesson, the lesson is extreme financial hardship and ruin..........

bgamall4 says

True, but it has slowed things down a little bit in housing. However, exempting liar loans from the law is just, well, pro bankster and anti main street.

I see your point, but offering poisonous loans to people under the guise of being fair is also not the solution. if it were you, would you rather have a home with a loan that you can't afford to pay or never have a home at all. If these unsustainable loans truly went away forever. the chances of the inflated prices in the market correcting themselves would be greater..

indigenous says

CL says

have an idea. Use thought to illustrate your points, or use it to dissect mine. Otherwise, drop the act and admit you're a troll.

Alteady did you just don't realize it. Not a troll just pointing out the illogic

Your point, if you had one, is not discernible. I am illustrating what is wrong with inequality.

Your response says, "That doesn't matter. This is the market!.".

Of course, and we are saying that the market is manipulated, as is the entire system and the tax code, to favor the wealthy. This results in inequality, which results in lower growth and a worse standard of living for the huge majority of everyone in the world, except for a tiny group. In the aggregate, we are all certainly poorer because these people are so obscenely wealthy.

We are further saying that growth is fostered best in an environment where work is rewarded. My story illustrates these points.

just to be clear, I don't wish financial hardship on others but it's my belief that human beings learn their greatest lessons from pain and failure, rather than from happiness and success...

indigenous says

Homeboy says

But people migrate to OTHER countries as well, not just to the U.S., so your argument makes no sense

Yea you wont find any cute graphs that reveal all. But that does not negate anything i'm saying.

The data is in the immigration, it is tantamount to people voting with their comparative advantage. Which is why the standard of living is a smidge better than 100 years ago. If you get this concept no explanation is necessary.

Your post is essentially a random collection of words, completely non-responsive and devoid of facts.

For the fifth time, show us your data.

Homeboy says

Your post is essentially a random collection of words, completely non-responsive and devoid of facts.

Says the blind man

indigenous says

Homeboy says

Your post is essentially a random collection of words, completely non-responsive and devoid of facts.

Says the blind man

Sixth time - your data? Ad hominem is not data.

"I'm not the only one who understands that Trickle-down doesn't work"

Only people arguing this are Socialist... frankly not even the Democrats
are willing to take a anti Trickle down stance...

case in point.... go ask Gov Cuomo...

http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/05222013-tax-free-ny-initiative

Governor Cuomo Unveils Major Economic Development Initiative to Transform University Communities into Magnets for New Businesses and Investment

Under Tax-Free NY, Any New Business Will Be Able to Operate Tax Free on a SUNY Campus for Ten Years

Albany, NY (May 22, 2013)

Governor Andrew M. Cuomo today unveiled "Tax-Free NY," a game-changing initiative that will transform SUNY campuses and university communities across the state into tax-free communities that attract start-ups, venture capital, new business, and investments from across the world.

Tax-Free NY will entice companies to bring their ventures to Upstate New York by offering new businesses the opportunity to operate completely tax-free – including no income tax for employees, no sales, property or business tax – while also partnering with the world-class higher education institutions in the SUNY system.

"Over the past two years we have cut middle class tax rates to their lowest rates in sixty years, cut taxes for small businesses, while at the same time investing like never before in our institutions of higher education," Governor Cuomo said. "With unemployment at its lowest in years and more private sector jobs in New York than ever before, we are beginning to see the results of our efforts. Tax-Free NY will supercharge our efforts to grow our economy by transforming localities in Upstate New York into virtual tax-free communities for new businesses and new jobs. Under Tax-Free NY, communities across Upstate will become a magnet for new businesses, new startups, new venture capital, and new jobs, taking our economic development and job creating efforts to a level never seen before."

http://www.youtube.com/embed/maIix9DiSb8

PCGyver says

At the same time, there is far too much loose cash sloshing around at the top, leading to unwise risks and toxic investments. Wealth inequality in the US was at its highest levels, historically, in 1928 and 2007, one year before its two biggest financial crises, notes Reich.

Like I keep saying.. will there be a day when Reich drives 40 miles south from UCB to Santa Clara and ponder on how the area went from Farm Lands to creating mega industries and companies.. lifting all boats. He certainly needs a lesson on how the wealthy bankrolled tech industry boom with their investments.

Homeboy says

Sixth time - your data? Ad hominem is not data.

You are going to say that this does not show why the US is at the bottom of your little graph. As I explained it is because the US does not show public transfers as income to the poor nor income of the rich after taxes. I'm not going to spend hours trying to hunt down a graph that allows you to "comprehend" this subject in sound bytes. This article is apt whether you think so or not:

Socialists commonly cite the existence of the poor as a reason for socialism, and they claim that their concern for the poor shows compassion and morality. Since the topic of poverty is a key battleground in the war of socialism versus capitalism, it is relevant to examine what poverty is, how much of it exists in the United States, and how we can truly eliminate it.

Who Are The Poor?

When we hear of the poor, we envision a massive group of people without food and shelter. In reality, most of the poor in capitalistic countries such as the United States are not in such a state. Data from a recent census reveals that of the official "poor":[1]

76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths, that has a carport and porch or patio, and the average value of which is 70 percent of the median American home.

From this:

http://mises.org/daily/4652