patrick.net

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

jazz music says

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?

indigenous says

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?

Homeboy says

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.

Homeboy says

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.

indigenous says

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?

indigenous says

Homeboy says

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.

Homeboy says

The poor get MORE money from the government in the other countries.

Now it is your turn to show the data

indigenous says

Homeboy says

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.

Homeboy says

Um, I already posted it, right here:

http://patrick.net/?p=1237143&c=1046016#comment-1046016

It makes no mention of that let alone the actual data

indigenous says

Homeboy says

Um, I already posted it, right here:

http://patrick.net/?p=1237143&c=1046016#comment-1046016

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.

So sorry - you lose.

Homeboy says

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.

indigenous says

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.

tatupu70 says

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.

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?

tatupu70 says

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?"

tatupu70 says

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.

tatupu70 says

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.

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?

indigenous says

Homeboy says

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.

indigenous says

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.

indigenous says

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.

indigenous says

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.

Homeboy says

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.

jazz music says

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.

sbh says

Don't supply evidence of your position

Like that is not obvious

sbh says

if it is number based or used such representation, those are kryptonite to Austrians.

Yea just like logic is Kryptonite to the progressives

sbh says

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?

indigenous says

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.

Homeboy says

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

sbh says

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.

sbh says

You've used this one before

Yea I like that one.

indigenous says

Here is another

That's a second-hand chart, where The Economist "crunched" some numbers from the Better Life Index, but they don't explain exactly what they did. Frankly, it doesn't make any sense. If I go directly to the Better Life Index and cut out the middleman, I find statistics that show other countries kicking our ass in terms of how much wealth the bottom of the population has:

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/

Out of the following developed countries I picked, despite having the highest wealth for the top 20%, the U.S. has the lowest wealth for the bottom 20%:

U.S. - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 82 666 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 10 434 USD a year .

Switzerland - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 57 485 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 12 593 USD a year.

Sweden - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 46 688 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 11 528 USD a year.

Norway - average net adjusted disposable the income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 53 912 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 14 621 USD a year.

Germany - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 53 978 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 12 544 USD a year.

France - the average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 55 477 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 12 216 USD a year.

Finland - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 44992 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 12 236 USD a year.

Denmark - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 42 795 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 11 946 USD a year.

Belgium - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 47 038 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 12 075 USD a year.

Austria - average net adjusted disposable income of the top 20% of the population is an estimated 52 387 USD a year, whereas the bottom 20% live on an estimated 13 515 USD a year.

So out of these countries, despite being the wealthiest, the bottom 20% in the United States have the LEAST wealth. And that's from your OWN source.

Homeboy says

That's a second-hand chart, where The Economist "crunched" some numbers from the Better Life Index

I would have to think freedom comes into the metric?

Homeboy says

I find statistics that show other countries kicking our ass in terms of how much wealth the bottom of the population has

That is not what the 1st graph shows

Which is located here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/06/01/astonishing-numbers-americas-poor-still-live-better-than-most-of-the-rest-of-humanity/

I see a difference between the graph that is based off of median household income and the graph that is based off of median income.

I think the people who do these studies start out with an agenda, not that they intentionally lie (like gore), but their preconceived notions colors their thinking.

indigenous says

Homeboy says

That's a second-hand chart, where The Economist "crunched" some numbers from the Better Life Index

I would have to think freedom comes into the metric?

Huh?

indigenous says

Homeboy says

I find statistics that show other countries kicking our ass in terms of how much wealth the bottom of the population has

That is not what the 1st graph shows

I don't think you're following. That's just a reprint of your "first graph", which, as I said, is based on The Economist "crunching" some numbers from The Better Life Index. O.K., two problems there:

1) The Economist never explains which numbers they actually used and how they made their calculations. In fact, what they DO say is contradictory. At one point they say the chart is based on "10 indicators", but at another point, they say it is based on "income and education". It's been awhile since I took a math class, but I believe "income and education" would add up to TWO indicators, not 10. So basically they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

2) As I already showed you, if you look at the PRIMARY source, i.e. the OECD Better Life Index, you see that the bottom 20% in the U.S. aren't anywhere EVEN CLOSE to being the best off in the world financially.

Now I guess you're trying to claim that you're counting other factors, yet you have no idea what these factors are, and it isn't explained in The Economist article at all, and you never brought up any "other factors" before. So I call bullshit on your "other factors".

And now you post a Forbes article which is a THIRD HAND source. It is merely a reprint of the chart in The Economist which in turn is a reprint of the data from OECD, except it doesn't explain how the data was used, and contradicts other data that can be found on the OECD website.

indigenous says

I see a difference between the graph that is based off of median household income and the graph that is based off of median income.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Now, your other chart, which is shown in the Forbes article, is admittedly out of date, and the author says, he "seems to recall" that it's from 2004, but apparently can't even remember. So I really hope you're not planning to hang your hat on THAT chart.

indigenous says

I think the people who do these studies start out with an agenda, not that they intentionally lie (like gore), but their preconceived notions colors their thinking.

So then when YOU post numbers from OECD, it supposedly proves something, but when I show you numbers from the SAME source, then they're inaccurate because they have "an agenda"? Um, sure....whatever you say.

Homeboy says

So basically they don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

So you are more of an authority than they are? I don't think so...

You did not link the economist article so I don't know what you are talking about.

The main point I'm making is the difference between median income and median household income.

As far as it being out of date doesn't matter as this is supposedly a trend that has been occurring for decades.

As far as your coming up with actual numbers, not that is necessarily accurate, but the deviation from the US income is around 15% (except Norway) Not exactly kicking our ass?

As far as freedom goes, yes if I have to explain that to you then I'm wasting my time.

indigenous says

So you are more of an authority than they are? I don't think so...

Wow, what a hypocrite you are. You did the same thing, and you did it FIRST. You dismissed all the data I posted as being "false reporting", "specious", and "fallacious".

So do YOU think you're more of an authority than they are? I don't think so.

indigenous says

You did not link the economist article so I don't know what you are talking about.

Um, the chart YOU posted says "economist.com" at the bottom. So you're saying that when I refer to the source of YOUR chart, you don't know what I'm talking about? You're not exactly making yourself look good here.

indigenous says

The main point I'm making is the difference between median income and median household income.

Not shown in your charts. For that to be a valid argument, you have to show exactly how the type of income measurement makes the U.S. look worse than it actually is in relation to other countries. You haven't done that.

indigenous says

As far as it being out of date doesn't matter as this is supposedly a trend that has been occurring for decades.

Nope. Wealth disparity is on the rise in the U.S.; it has changed dramatically in the last few decades. The date most certainly DOES matter.

indigenous says

As far as your coming up with actual numbers, not that is necessarily accurate, but the deviation from the US income is around 15% (except Norway) Not exactly kicking our ass?

Not interested in semantics games. The point is, you claimed that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries, and I showed that is not true. Also, the bottom 20% in Germany make 20% more than the bottom 20% in the U.S. So no, not 15%.

indigenous says

As far as freedom goes, yes if I have to explain that to you then I'm wasting my time.

No, you don't need to explain what freedom is, you just need to explain what the rest of that cryptic sentence was supposed to mean.

But yes, pretty much everything you write is a waste of time. I'll agree with that.