by Nullset ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 145 - 184 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
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.
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.
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...
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?
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..........
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..
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...
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.
Your post is essentially a random collection of words, completely non-responsive and devoid of facts.
Says the blind man
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."
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.
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:
Government is only too big when it entertains thoughts of doing something to help money distribute downward: then it's not only too big, it's called communism, socialism, or any other hysterical BS word you can think of which we have all been raised to fear.
Can you elaborate on this statement?
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:
This is complete bullshit. The amount that transfers reduce the poverty rate in the U.S. is again DEAD LAST among the developed countries in this chart:
So your argument actually hurts your position even MORE, because including transfers in the equation would make the U.S. look even worse. By the way, it took me very little time to find this chart that you couldn't be bothered to "hunt down". You seem to have an aversion to facts.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
So your argument actually hurts your position even MORE, because including transfers in the equation would make the U.S. look even worse.
No it does not include public transfers so the poor ger money from the government that is not counted as income. They also work for cash which also does not show up in statistics.
By the way, it took me very little time to find this chart that you couldn't be bothered to "hunt down".
Exactly and look how fallacious it is.
No it does not include public transfers so the poor ger money from the government that is not counted as income. They also work for cash which also does not show up in statistics.
Either you are not bothering to read, or you are slooooow. Allow me to explain this to you a second time: The poor get MORE money from the government in the other countries. Therefore, if we were to include that money in the statistics, the U.S. would fare WORSE in comparison to the other countries, not better.
What part of that are you failing to understand?
By the way, it took me very little time to find this chart that you couldn't be bothered to "hunt down".
Exactly and look how fallacious it is.
It is not "fallacious". You are full of shit, and you're acting like a troll.
The poor get MORE money from the government in the other countries.
Now it is your turn to show the data
The poor get MORE money from the government in the other countries.
Now it is your turn to show the data
Um, I already posted it, right here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1237143&c=1046016#comment-1046016
The chart shows the amount that poverty is reduced by government transfers. As you can see, (if you know how to read a chart) poverty is reduced the LEAST in the U.S., because we provide the least assistance to the poor. You seem to have trouble with reading comprehension.
Honestly, dude - I can forgive stupidity, but stupidity coupled with arrogance is unforgivable.
Um, I already posted it, right here:
It makes no mention of that let alone the actual data
Um, I already posted it, right here:
It makes no mention of that let alone the actual data
I think you need to read the report. This is obviously going over your head. It couldn't be more obvious.
http://www.epi.org/publication/ib339-us-poverty-higher-safety-net-weaker/
Figure F plots the differences between pre and post tax and transfer poverty rates in the United States and peer countries. (As with Figure C, the measure used here is the relative poverty rate, the share of the population below half of median household income.) For example, the pretax and transfer poverty rate in the United States in the late 2000s was 27.0 percent, while the post-tax and transfer rate was 17.3 percent. The difference, 9.7 percentage points, is how much the U.S. tax and transfer system reduced the poverty rate. Among the peer countries in Figure F, the United States’ tax and transfer system does the least to reduce the poverty rate. In contrast, tax and transfer programs reduced the poverty rate in France by 25.4 percentage points (from 32.6 percent to 7.2 percent post tax and transfer). France’s redistributive programs lowered poverty by about 2.5 times as much as those of the United States. The (unweighted) average effect of peer countries’ tax and transfer programs is a poverty-rate reduction of 17.4 percentage points—an effect nearly two times greater than that produced by such programs in the United States.
population below half of median household income
This is number is subject to false reporting because household income changes a lot.
This is talking about categories not real people. Real people move in and out of categories.
This is number is subject to false reporting because household income changes a lot.
This is talking about categories not real people. Real people move in and out of categories.
Blah, blah, what?
Sorry, you lose.
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.
What type of regulation did I imply in my post? It was you, not me, who claimed that there is literally less regulation now than 30 years ago. I was responding to you. So to address this honestly, you would need to say that you were referring to the type of regulation which YOU implied in your post. What type of regulation was that?
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.
If you think you are correct, please post some sources showing that despite some specific examples of deregulation, regulation as a whole is less now than 30 years ago.
It is you who repeatedly made the claim about regulation. So as you so often ask of others: "Source?"
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
I thought that we were talking about the US in general as well. But didn't you claim that my general response to you was implying some particular type of regulation (when it wasn't)? Even more importantly, didn't YOU claim that small businesses were typically exempt from regulation?
The only honest answers to my question are (a) Yes and (b) 'I don't know.' Both answers would of course force you to admit that your blanket claim that small businesses are generally exempt from regulation was false. It is too bad that you are now so firmly, emotionally entrenched in the forum culture here that you're unable to carry on an honest debate.
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.
You mean you didn't claim that there is literally less regulation today than 30 years ago, and you didn't claim that small businesses are generally exempt from regulation?
population below half of median household income
This is number is subject to false reporting because household income changes a lot.
This is talking about categories not real people. Real people move in and out of categories.
It is quite possible that the European countries are less broken up because they do not have the Gloria Steinem effect. Additionally they may have more than 2 incomes per household.
The mean income could also be lower because of more equality in the European countries.
So in North Korea there might be no poverty because the deviation from the mean is very small.
Or it may mean that the US is not as socialistic as the European countries. Which probably is the case and that is good thing. As we are seeing in the US the better the benefits for unemployment the more unemployment there is.
It is quite possible that the European countries are less broken up because they do not have the Gloria Steinem effect. Additionally they may have more than 2 incomes per household.
The mean income could also be lower because of more equality in the European countries.
So in North Korea there might be no poverty because the deviation from the mean is very small.
All of that guessing does not change the fact that you were wrong.
Or it may mean that the US is not as socialistic as the European countries.
The U.S. government gives less money to the poor. That is all the explanation needed. Not sure why you feel it necessary to pin a label on it; it's already self-explanatory.
Which probably is the case and that is good thing.
Whether it's good or bad is a matter of opinion and not relevant to what we were talking about. If I could nudge you back on track here, you claimed that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries. I showed that they are, in fact, NOT better off, and actually WORSE off. Then you claimed that the data was skewed because of government transfers to the poor. But I then showed that the government transfers would skew the data in the OPPOSITE direction from that which you believed.
So you're still wrong.
So you're still wrong.
Could be and I hope the graph is correct because the less nanny state there is the better
Couple points
You confuse big business with cronyism. Big business is not problem. Cronyism is. Especially when it is practiced from a Federal level.
Nazism = Communism there is no difference this is a meme
Real Value is only created with market clearing.
The economy we have now is not real so does not create real value and real jobs.
You see the economy always grows in new ways it never comes back like it was. When computers were created the new skills required were programmers and tech guys manual skills became obsolete. If the government keeps the old company s propped up with bailouts and QEs the new remains starved.
Your point is more conjecture than facts.
No matter what your leanings the problem is spending which is facilitated by the Central Bank, the way the rich make more money is through inflation. That has been the MO for about 40 years since we dropped the gold standard. It has been the MO for 100 years but it has really manifested in the last 40.
Everything else you talk about is just noise and of no consequence.
I don't know why you would be wary of the gold monger?
Nazism is purported to be the extreme conservative end of forms of government. This is just not true it is just another flavor of communism.
The markets are set to clear alright: The real economy was effectively lost around the year 1999, so a series of fakes were created to buy working class silence, approval and cooperation with program conservatism (nuvo-liberalism) so the agenda could be imprinted more irrefutably into society, and more irreversibly.
No the real economy was lost about a hundred years ago. At the start of the 1910s and got worst after the 1970s. There's very little difference in terms of real economy between 1999 and today.
Graphs represent number, not people, but rather numbers of people, so you struggle to thwart that measurement.
As I have stated many times graphs represent many inputs and rarely what is asserted. As your ilk would have us believe.
You are referring to Homeboys graph. Typically these type studies are specious as with the Piketty Saez study. Which use fallacious household income numbers that Elizabeth Warren blathers about, or the idea that categories do not represent real people, or that idea that public transfers are usually not counted as income for the poor although Homeboys' graph appears not to do that, or the idea that the graph is based off of mean income which most likely means that the US mean income is higher than European countries mean income.
I was surprised that the US poor have a lower income than the other developed countries, although I'm still not convinced because these studies are notorious for being fallacious. Most' likely skewed by the household income category. But on the off chance that it is accurate that is a good thing.
Your inability to follow what I'm saying does not automatically mean I'm using a shell game.
When it comes to economics YOU BET that natural law is rare. This is because the subject is rife with bogus information. If you can recite the axioms how much longer before you understand them?
You are referring to Homeboys graph. Typically these type studies are specious as with the Piketty Saez study. Which use fallacious household income numbers that Elizabeth Warren blathers about, or the idea that categories do not represent real people, or that idea that public transfers are usually not counted as income for the poor although Homeboys' graph appears not to do that, or the idea that the graph is based off of mean income which most likely means that the US mean income is higher than European countries mean income.
This is not an argument; it is just cheap gamesmanship. You provide no facts or data, only blithe banalities, baseless conjecture, cliches, and irrelevancies. You demand that others provide the facts, then merely sit back and attack them with hypotheticals. "Typically these studies are specious"? What the fuck? That means absolutely nothing. If you wish to impugn my data, tell us how THAT data is specious, SPECIFICALLY, and I mean with concrete examples, not just vague aspersions. Otherwise you're just flapping your pie hole.
Then you repeat the same argument about transfers that I already decimated, completely ignoring and failing to respond to the facts that I provided. This is straight out of the troll playbook. Very weak. I can only assume you are a troll and your only objective here is to piss everyone off. Well, you are doing an excellent job of that. I guess you get some kind of boner from that, so knock yourself out.
This is not an argument; it is just cheap gamesmanship.
You flatter yourself. Notice this graph showing the median income instead of household income.
Here is another
The Austrians make into a high art the phrase: "The key to success is knowing whom to blame for your failures."
It is hard to sound the depths of your obtuseness.
« First « Previous Comments 145 - 184 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,209,978 comments by 14,377 users - Kepi online now