patrick.net

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As far as it being out of date doesn't matter as this is supposedly a trend that has been occurring for decades.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

Homeboy says

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".

Typically they are

Not more of an authority just not lying.

Homeboy says

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.

The first graph is labeled at the bottom Median Income

Homeboy says

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.

The graph is about a decade out of date

Admittedly it has been on the rise more sharply since 2008 because of the bailout when Jeff Immelt, Buffet, Dimon, et al. should have have had their wealth hammered.

Homeboy says

Also, the bottom 20% in Germany make 20% more than the bottom 20% in the U.S. So no, not 15%

Even 20% is not shockingly terrible. But the median income graph does not show that?

Homeboy says

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.

A big factor in motivation is freedom.

Another factor is that the Socialist states are borrowing to keep their standard of living higher than it should be. Sweden is usually used as an example of how successful socialism can be. The problem is that they were very much a capitalist country before they became socialistic which is the real reason for their success.

A big part of the reason for Germany's success is their monetary policy which keeps them as a surplus producer country and the other European countries as deficit countries. Which is why the PIGS are in trouble. This is the same thing China does.

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. In the European socialist states, Homeboy's feel-good meds wouldn't be covered. Those highly expensive covered meds fo the poor in this country are not factored into "net adjusted disposable income," even though in reality it is a very hefty chunk of the poor's net income tapping from other people's wallet, just as money spent on fancy food and fashionable clothing is.

2. Norway with its 5mil people is the equivalent of a city; France at 50mil is the equivalent of a state. Germany is the equivalent of 2-3 states. In order to find Europe's equivalent to something like the bottom 20% concentrated in places like West Virginia, you need to look into European places like Albania, Romania, Slovakia, etc.

indigenous says

The first graph is labeled at the bottom Median Income

Percent of US Median Income by:
Low Income (10 percentile) Households

So you think they are comparing Low Income households to the US median individual income, and not household income?

Ha.

And you think the bottom 10% household income in the US is (it looks like) 39% of the median individual income in the US? Just do a sniff test - Using the Household data from each, 10% is about $17.5k annual, median is about $50k - 17/50 is 37% in 2011, from here:

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

Pretty close. Now compare that to the median household income for the 10%, again $17.5k, and the median individual wage, from ssa.gov below - $26,965 in 2011. That is ~65%.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/central.html

Sorry, I don't care what year that graph is from - it is NOT comparing 10% and 90% household income to US median individual income.

Reality says

2. Norway with its 5mil people is the equivalent of a city; France at 50mil
is the equivalent of a state. Germany is the equivalent of 2-3 states. In order
to find Europe's equivalent to something like the bottom 20% concentrated in
places like West Virginia, you need to look into European places like Albania,
Romania, Slovakia, etc.

The population of the 5 poorest states by GDP per capita is 15 million. The population of the 10 poorest state by GDP per capita is 28 million. About 9% of US population.

You can exclude all of those places if you prefer and I bet you won't find much difference in the overall data.

Reality says

1. In the European socialist states, Homeboy's feel-good meds wouldn't be covered. Those highly expensive covered meds fo the poor in this country are not factored into "net adjusted disposable income," even though in reality it is a very hefty chunk of the poor's net income tapping from other people's wallet, just as money spent on fancy food and fashionable clothing is.

That is a meaningless babble worthy of Captain Shuddup. What in the hell are you trying to say? Which countries in europe don't cover which meds. Care to post any actual facts for once? Nah, never happened.

Reality says

Norway with its 5mil people is the equivalent of a city; France at 50mil is the equivalent of a state. Germany is the equivalent of 2-3 states. In order to find Europe's equivalent to something like the bottom 20% concentrated in places like West Virginia, you need to look into European places like Albania, Romania, Slovakia, etc.

How many years did you live in Europe? Where I lived in France there was plenty of west virginia level poverty. I've seen pretty poor area's in Italy and Spain also. Never went to Germany.

control point says

Pretty close. Now compare that to the median household income for the 10%, again $17.5k, and the median individual wage, from ssa.gov below - $26,965 in 2011. That is ~65%.

Ok they mislabeled the graph

Either way the graph is showing the US poor are very comparable to European countries poor.

But don't discount the household income fallacy as Elizabeth Warren et al. abuse this until it bleeds.

control point says

The population of the 5 poorest states by GDP per capita is 15 million. The population of the 10 poorest state by GDP per capita is 28 million. About 9% of US population.

Doesn't matter they are funding their economy with borrowing. France and the PIGS e.g. are going to either have to tolerate very high unemployment (which they won't) or leave the Euro. When they leave the Euro (they will) they will then be able to inflate their currency in order to deal with debt.

This is because they are borrowing to raise their standard of living.

This is because of German monetary policy.

So when you consider Europe you have to include all of the countries as their income is very much controlled by the German monetary policy.

Reality says

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. In the European socialist states, Homeboy's feel-good meds wouldn't be covered. Those highly expensive covered meds fo the poor in this country are not factored into "net adjusted disposable income," even though in reality it is a very hefty chunk of the poor's net income tapping from other people's wallet, just as money spent on fancy food and fashionable clothing is.

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. Reality is an asshole.

2. Reality is full of shit.

Reality says

2. Norway with its 5mil people is the equivalent of a city; France at 50mil is the equivalent of a state. Germany is the equivalent of 2-3 states. In order to find Europe's equivalent to something like the bottom 20% concentrated in places like West Virginia, you need to look into European places like Albania, Romania, Slovakia, etc.

So we should discount Norway as a country because it only has 5 million people, but we should count Albania, which has 3 million people.

God you're an idiot.

indigenous says

But don't discount the household income fallacy as Elizabeth Warren et al.
abuse this until it bleeds.

Dude, I just showed you a link where the MEDIAN income for individuals is ~$27k per year. Half above that and half of wage earners below that.

With 7.65% ss/medicare tax, $600 per mo. in rent, 300 p/m insurance, and another 5-7% in federal and state income taxes - that leaves about $12000 per year, or $1000 per month for everything else...

The answer to our economic woes - at least half of all wage earners have less than $1000 per month to pay utilities, a car payment, eat, transportation, clothing, etc.. All things that are large components of GDP.

Think about that - 60 million people, $12000 per year in qualified demand. That is $720 billion, maximum GDP. Our GDP is 15.7 Trillion. Consumers in the bottom HALF only contribute at most 1/15th (including health care) to GDP.

Half of our our potential customers don't have enough money to become qualified market participants.

indigenous says

Ok they mislabeled the graph

Wait - the crux of your entire argument was that your graph was measuring median income and the others weren't. Now you just flippantly abandon that premise as though it were insignificant? Hilarious.

indigenous says

A big part of the reason for Germany's success is their monetary policy which keeps them as a surplus producer country and the other European countries as deficit countries.

I don't think you really looked at the data I posted. The median income of the top 20% in Germany is only $53,978. In the U.S., it is $82,666. Yet the bottom 20% in German have considerably more than they do in the U.S. It is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth that is the problem. The U.S. has plenty of wealth; it's just hoarded by the investor class.

control point says

Dude, I just showed you a link where the MEDIAN income for individuals is ~$27k per year. Half above that and half of wage earners below that.

Dude I have talked about public transfers that do not show up as income. O has seen to it that healthcare at this income level will be zero, as if it were not that before. I don't know the numbers on this stuff but WIC, section 8 housing, food stamps, welfare, 99 week unemployment, cash income under the table, millions more on permanent disability. It is not as harsh as you think.

The thing that creates the increased inequality has been welfare at the top of the market. The taxpayers have paid their tab, Buffet, Immelt, and others should have taken a SEVERE hit in 2008 instead of being punished by the market as the assholes should have they instead are rewarded for risky trades that Paulson and Bernanke sodomized the taxpayers.

This has created inflation which further rewards these assholes and further punishes those at the bottom of the scale.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

Ok they mislabeled the graph

Wait - the crux of your entire argument was that your graph was measuring median income and the others weren't. Now you just flippantly abandon that premise as though it were insignificant? Hilarious.

Yup CP showed me that is was not median income.

But this comes up all the time and usually is as I say, based on household income.

Homeboy says

Reality says

2. Norway with its 5mil people is the equivalent of a city; France at 50mil is the equivalent of a state. Germany is the equivalent of 2-3 states. In order to find Europe's equivalent to something like the bottom 20% concentrated in places like West Virginia, you need to look into European places like Albania, Romania, Slovakia, etc.

So we should discount Norway as a country because it only has 5 million people, but we should count Albania, which has 3 million people.

God you're an idiot.

No. Both Norway and Albania are equivalent to our cities and small states. Some cities and states have higher concentration of poverty than others.

Homeboy says

Reality says

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. In the European socialist states, Homeboy's feel-good meds wouldn't be covered. Those highly expensive covered meds fo the poor in this country are not factored into "net adjusted disposable income," even though in reality it is a very hefty chunk of the poor's net income tapping from other people's wallet, just as money spent on fancy food and fashionable clothing is.

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. Reality is an asshole.

2. Reality is full of shit.

In other words, you are admitting that you don't have a counter-argument.

Homeboy says

indigenous says

A big part of the reason for Germany's success is their monetary policy which keeps them as a surplus producer country and the other European countries as deficit countries.

I don't think you really looked at the data I posted. The median income of the top 20% in Germany is only $53,978. In the U.S., it is $82,666. Yet the bottom 20% in German have considerably more than they do in the U.S. It is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth that is the problem. The U.S. has plenty of wealth; it's just hoarded by the investor class.

The thing is that Germany runs a trade surplus they do this by keeping interest rates low. China does the same thing by keeping interest rates low and by devaluing the Yuan. This means that Germany does to Europe what China does to the world.

When a country runs a surplus another country has to run a deficit there is no other way this can be.

Germany then can either increase household income or national investment. China keeps the investment high as they have a lower household income, as a percentage of GDP, than any other country. The investment then goes into dams, cities, railways etc.

Germany can then invest in public programs.

Since Germany's surplus is at the expense of other European countries like Spain for instance. It forces them into spending, just like the US is forced into spending because of the trade surplus with China. (the US cannot do anything about this because of the reserve currency status) So the PIGS have to be considered when looking at the lower income people in Europe. This is because they are tied together by the Euro and cannot inflate their way out debt.

This is from a book called the "Great Rebalancing" by Michael Pettis
recommended by Mish. Not that you care but others may.

control point says

Dude, I just showed you a link where the MEDIAN income for individuals is ~$27k per year. Half above that and half of wage earners below that.

Not counting payments under the table, not counting substantial portions of transfer payments.

control point says

With 7.65% ss/medicare tax, $600 per mo. in rent, 300 p/m insurance, and another 5-7% in federal and state income taxes - that leaves about $12000 per year, or $1000 per month for everything else...

Not every individual has to rent. Most people rent as families; i.e. multiple people sharing one rent payment. Many even own their homes. In fact, a substantial percentage of low income people are retired home owners. Retired people over 65 don't have large medical insurance payment requirement either as Medicare kicks in. Even at $1000/mo not including housing expense is quite a healthy chunk of change. I have spent less than $600 this month on all personal expenses, and it is already the 27th. For a larger family with more head counts, there is additional economy of scale to be realized.

control point says

The answer to our economic woes - at least half of all wage earners have less than $1000 per month to pay utilities, a car payment, eat, transportation, clothing, etc.. All things that are large components of GDP.

If they spend less than $1000/mo on average consistently (like I have been doing for over 20 years of managing my own finances), they'd have a rainy day fund instead of living paycheck to paycheck. Yes, I do drive 10+yr old cars, bought new over 10 years ago with cash, no interest payment no finance charge. If I really want to pinch pennies, I could buy a used car and spend even less.

control point says

Think about that - 60 million people, $12000 per year in qualified demand. That is $720 billion, maximum GDP. Our GDP is 15.7 Trillion. Consumers in the bottom HALF only contribute at most 1/15th (including health care) to GDP.

Do you think set the entire US on fire, and destroy and everything would be a boost to the economy? Economic growth can not be dependent on consumption, but has to be dependent on re-investment for future growth. For that to happen, much of the GDP has to be various forms of reinvestment . . . Should such reinvestment be controlled by those can not even manage their own finances?

control point says

Half of our our potential customers don't have enough money to become qualified market participants.

Of course they do. You said yourself, each has $1000/mo as median. That's a healthy chunk of change. Let's see how each one of them does with the $1000/mo, reward those who can grow that amount, instead of ripping off the frugal to reward the grasshoppers.

sbh says

Reality says

In other words, you are admitting that you don't have a counter-argument.

Hey everybody, look who's back from the Sandpoint, Idaho annual Hitler youth rally. Did you win a free brown tee shirt?

Brown shirts were socialists. Sturmabteilung of the National Socialist Worker's Party. Doesn't that sound like something that you are advancing?

sbh says

Reality says

Doesn't that sound like something that you are advancing?

No. It is the bugaboo you see everywhere. For you there is either anarchy or fascism: America's freedom is an illusion, and all the icons of its cultural identity is Nazism. All non-anarchic patriotism is shit to you: our veterans, our schools, our constitution, our history, our courts make you vomit. When we hear the national anthem you hear Wagner.

You were the idiot who brought up brown shirts. You are just projecting your own demons while acting like a scoundrel hiding behind the flag.

Reality says

If they spend less than $1000/mo on average consistently (like I have been doing
for over 20 years of managing my own finances),

You spend less than $1000 per month in todays dollars for the last 20 years? No you dont.

Even if you get 10 years out of a car you bought new for $20k, and you paid cash for it, that monthly cost is $167. And that is if your 10+ year old car never needs any maintenance, repairs - or even an oil change. Even if you have the most basic car insurance - that monthly cost is at least $50. Do you have a cellphone? That is at least another $50. Cable TV? $100. Electricity, water, heating? At least $200. Gas for that car? Lets say it gets 25 mpg combined, and you drive 1000 miles per month. At $3 per gallon, that is $120.

Do you eat? Lets say you are very frugal, pack your lunch, eat hot dogs and ramen, and you eat on $7 per day. Thats $210 per month. $897 total. I guess you never go to the doctor, go out on a date, take a vacation, gym membership, or buy clothes. If you took one vacation per year and it cost $1200 - that puts you at $1000 without dating, doctors, dentists, clothes, etc.

And that is if your rent payment is $600 or less. That is low - heck even insurance and property taxes (if you owned outright) are higher than that in many areas.

control point says

You spend less than $1000 per month in todays dollars for the last 20 years? No you dont.

Yes, I have. My personal expenses, not including housing or medical insurance, have been substantially less than $1000/mo on average.

Even if you get 10 years out of a car you bought new for $20k, and you paid cash for it, that monthly cost is $167.

It is currently on year 14, and running strong. I could have spent even less if I bought it at 5yr old instead of brand new.

Even if you have the most basic car insurance - that monthly cost is at least $50.

Try $20. $230 a year. That is $370 a year less than what you are budgeting.

Do you have a cellphone? That is at least another $50.
Cable TV? $100.

No cable TV. That's what I have noticed: the poor tenants are the ones paying $100+ on cable TV. You wonder why they are poor: paying money to waste time!

Electricity, water, heating? At least $200.

More like $100 on average.

Gas for that car? Lets say it gets 25 mpg combined, and you drive 1000 miles per month. At $3 per gallon, that is $120.

I drive much less than 1000 miles per month for personal use or commute. For business use, using mileage method actually gives me negative driving cost after tax as the tax savings is more than driving expense.

control point says

Do you eat? Lets say you are very frugal, pack your lunch, eat hot dogs and ramen, and you eat on $7 per day.

I spend about $150/mo on food each month. No I do not eat hot dogs or ramen, both are horrendously expensive for the processed crap that go into them. No wonder you can only think of a poor and mal-nourished living. $150 a month can buy 4 giant rotissery chickens at $5each, one whole salmons at about $25 each, 25lbs of decent quality pasta or rice at $0.80/lb, $30 of fruits and veggies (about 20-30lbs); 4 gallons of milk at $2.50 each; $20 on about 10lbs of other kinds of meats. We are now looking at a diet of about 1lb of fresh meats and fish every day, nearly a pound fresh veggie and fruits, half a quart of milk, and nearly a pound of starch. If I liked eggs, the budget could be even lower; eggs are about 1/4 the price of salmon per pound. Still have $25/mo left over for occasional treats like shrimp, lobster ($6/lb this past year), lamb and gourmet cheese.

Thats $210 per month. $897 total. I guess you never go to the doctor, go out on a date, take a vacation, gym membership, or buy clothes. If you took one vacation per year and it cost $1200 - that puts you at $1000 without dating, doctors, dentists, clothes, etc.

$60/mo difference in the food budget alone adds up to $720/yr. Add the $470+ earlier, now you are looking at the possibility of over $1000 in savings each year from a $1000/mo budget. Dating is not a necessary personal expense per se beyond what's already in the food budget; home cooked meal can be a very sweet date if neither partner can afford going out. If one is paying for the date, the other is not, so the very definition of "median" should mean those making less than the median don't need to be the ones who are paying. LOL. Since when is a $1200/yr per person vacation budget a "necessity"?

We are not even talking about savings from economy of scale yet . . . most people live in households with more than 1 person!

sbh says

It's a sign of a struggling, weakening argument when you trot out "projecting". It's a dimwitted way of saying "I know you are, but what am I" as some prattling 8 year old who has run out of shit to say.

A good description of yourself indeed. You just ran out of argument, and now going on 100% ad hominn attack against someone who you know nothing about.

Since, as beings having been on earth for more than a few moments, we all have demons, why import yours to our shores? If you're going to spew bile why don't you direct it back to the themes that tyrannize you instead of trying to pretend we are beset by them here? Nothing native to us resonates with you. You're an artificial person, as stolid an event as clicking a FAQ tab on a cheap website.

Now you are in full-blown brown-shirt National Socialist mode. Like I suspected, you were just projecting. No, it was not "prattling" but an accurate observation of your racist nature.

For my part, I don't hide behind our flag. My list of what is wrong with my country is very, very long. But my list of what is right about my country is virtually endless. What disgusts and infuriates you is that we have a codified country at all.

Codified laws that circumscribe the limit of the power of the government is what made the US (well, actually the anglo-saxon experience) unique. Codified "laws" that give government ever expanding power had been around for thousands of years, at least since the time of Hammurabi of Mesopotamia some 3500+ years ago.

control point says

Even if you get 10 years out of a car you bought new for $20k,

I never bought a car for more than $10K.

control point says

Do you have a cellphone? That is at least another $50

You can get that for half with republic wireless.

control point says

Cable TV? $100

Completely unnecessary (TV at all actually).

control point says

Electricity, water, heating? At least $200.

Not unless you house women or kids.

control point says

I guess you never go to the doctor,

That's indeed a problem rooted in the extorting health care system - more reason to save on everything else.

control point says

Do you eat?

The less you eat the healthier you are usually - opt for less but organic or at least natural.

control point says

go out on a date, take a vacation, gym membership

Unnecessary, esp. gym membership. Go running, biking hiking and do strength work on the trails.

That budget is tight no doubt but should be entirely possible for a single person. The majority of the costs come from heavily regulated and protected/propped up sectors such as housing (go for roommates to save money) and health care of which health care is the hardest to avoid.

Reality says

4 gallons of milk at $2.50 each; $20 on about 10lbs of other kinds of meats

Where are you buying milk for $2.50 a gallon? $2 per pound for various meats? What kinds of meats can you buy for $2 per pound? Even costco chicken breast is 3.50 per pound.
20-30 pounds of fruits and veggies for $30? Thats $1.50 per pound at most. Where?

Maybe russet potatoes you can get for $1.50 per pound. You can probably buy carrots or celery at that price. Doubt you are buying broccoli or blueberries on that budget.

Where are you getting your prices? 1996?

And yes vacation and dating is not necessary. You said you were spending less than $1000. Its bullshit.

seeitnow says

Reality says

4 gallons of milk at $2.50 each; $20 on about 10lbs of other kinds of meats

Where are you buying milk for $2.50 a gallon?

Costco price is $2.49/gallon.

$2 per pound for various meats? What kinds of meats can you buy for $2 per pound? Even costco chicken breast is 3.50 per pound.

Until about a year ago, Costo price of frozen boneless chicken breast was $2/lb. Now seems to be a little higher, whereas lean pork loin is $2/lb. A year ago, the two were the other way around. Pork shoulder can be had for less than $1.50/lb; so do chicken drumsticks.

20-30 pounds of fruits and veggies for $30? Thats $1.50 per pound at most. Where?

Maybe russet potatoes you can get for $1.50 per pound. You can probably buy carrots or celery at that price. Doubt you are buying broccoli or blueberries on that budget.

Costco Oranges are about $0.84/lb, bananas $0.40/lb, water melons $0.25/lb ($5 for a 20lb one). Buy 10lbs of those, and you will get your a couple pounds of $3.50/lb blueberries in that $1.50 average (not in winter, obviously).

Where are you getting your prices? 1996?

2013 and 2014.

And yes vacation and dating is not necessary. You said you were spending less than $1000. I said, and still say, bullshit.

I was. I was spending around $600 on personal expenses per month, not including housing, car or dating. The car was paid for long time ago, but even divided back in, still less than $1000/mo. Dating cost more only because I make substantially more than median income or what the girl does so I'm expected to pay for the dates; whatever I pay, she doesn't have to, so it should not be included in the budget of a person at or below median income. When I was making only median income or below, many years ago, I did not go to expensive places for dates. I still cook at home for some dates, and really enjoy the home made meals made by the girl when she treats me to a date.

Reality says

In other words, you are admitting that you don't have a counter-argument.

Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.

Income equality will always exist, but the widening gap is a symptom of the underlying fraudulent credit expansion sanctified by the government, as explained pretty well by KD in this article:

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=227971

"The correct metric is not whether a CEO makes a higher multiple over the line worker than he did before but whether he makes a greater amount adjusted for monetary and credit expansion than he did before.

He does not. The problem is that the common man doesn't keep up!

Why has there been no income growth in excess of monetary inflation for the common man?

Because fraudulent credit expansion -- the lending into existence of spendable credit backed by nothing, and the hiding of the full extent of that leverage through selling people securities described internally as vomit to "investors" along with various forms of dodgy derivatives that require no daily marking to the market and posting of cash margin against underwater positions, along with various bogus monetary machinations such as QE makes possible that expansion of credit and thus the appearance of being able to keep up.

But in fact for the common man it is nothing of the sort.

The common man is induced to borrow not for three or four years to buy a car with 20-25% down but six or eight years while rolling the negative equity on his previous car into the loan; that is, borrowing not just with zero down but with an effective negative down payment. He is induced not to borrow for a house at 6% interest with 20% down but on a 1% "teaser" interest only note with zero down. He therefore is fraudulently led to believe he can "afford" to buy a house that is in fact priced at 2, 3, or even 5x what he can actually afford predicated on a fully-amortizing payment with appropriate limits on leverage (5:1) and a reasonable, risk-adjusted rate of interest. This in turn causes asset prices of all sorts to rise and further the cycle as now the so-called "lenders" can claim their "assets" are worth more -- yet another fraud as there is insufficient actual capital to purchase them were they to attempt to sell said assets into the market.

The fact is that this sort of lending is an outright fraud because no lender would actually lend their real, earned capital with this amount of leverage and at that rate of interest as any lender of actual capital would never lend more than he could recover from the asset if sold to someone paying with actual capital rather than borrowed ethereal funds.

How do we know this? Because there are real lenders who have real capital; they're known as "hard money" lenders. Go price actual money from them (since they have to have it before they can lend it) and tell me what it costs, along with the sort of terms they demand. That is the real cost of capital.

The banking system has conspired with regulators and Congress to defraud virtually everyone in the economy for the benefit of the few. The few -- that is, the CEOs of the world and other highly-compensated individuals -- fully understand the math and thus they refuse to work for less than a fair wage given the amount of credit expansion that is taking place.

But by and large these people are the ones committing the credit expansion, and they are selling it to the rest of you, whether it's 8 year car loans with negative down payments, zero-down house purchases with ridiculously-suppressed interest rates or something as simple as "$100 cell phones" that have an imputed $1,200 back-end charge in the contract over the two year period to pay for what is otherwise a $600 device. Incidentally, if you run the imputed interest rate on that "$100 cell phone" you'll find that it's in the neighborhood of 40%.

This is why the middle and lower class are being buried alive. Congress permits The Fed to intentionally violate its mandate because it too wants to spend more than it makes, and deficit spending cannot take place without that very same fraudulent credit creation.

It is that very fact that results in income inequality because it allows this paradigm to expand for years upon years. Unfortunately due to the laws of mathematics it cannot continue forever, and the properties of exponents guarantee that the longer this fraudulent system is allowed to continue the worse the correction will be when, not if, this practice is stopped."

Sums it up pretty well.

sbh says

going on 100% ad hominn

Ugh. Now it's "ad hominem" added to "projecting"? This the two-step distraction of the impotent and the incompetent. Stop it! I expect you to at least dip in to your bag of formulaic one-liners.

What is this? 4th grade spelling class? Obviously the message got across despite the typo.

sbh says

Reality says

Now you are in full-blown brown-shirt National Socialist mode.

......and

Reality says

your racist nature.

Is there an Asbergers school of Austrian anarchy? You can't get the social message can you? (Do you watch Bones?) Your tin ear for English slops over into your tone deaf reading of this entire forum. I'm one of the more liberal posters here and yet your want me to be a racist?

No I don't watch "Bones." Being "liberal" and being racist are not mutually exclusive: after all Hitler was the one who brought socialized medicine to Western Europe. It was not even co-incidental: a central planning nationalistic socialistic program would have to eventually resort to "us" vs. "them" when "other people's money" is used up and the pie is shrinking.

sbh says

What ethnic expositions can you point to, hmmmm?

You are against anyone who doesn't fit your vision of "native" stereotype, just like the Nazi's idealized "blond and blue eyed Germanic race," which Hitler himself did even fit.

And further, my advocacy of national structure and cultural identity makes me a fascist, hmmm? Do you realize that by these standards EVERYONE ON THIS FORUM IS A RACIST FASCIST, everyone but your lapdog, Indigenous.

Your criticism of anyone and everyone who doesn't fit your "national structure" and "cultural identity" despite their belonging to this nation and this culture is what makes you a Racist and Fascist.

sbh says

I think you're a Eurotrash trauma-child converted to America,

You couldn't be more wrong. I'm less than 1/32 European, and only spent time in Europe as a tourist.

sbh says

Racism in America is a subset of American conservatism. If you don't get that you're an idiot.

Racism is the inevitable phase/result of any and all central planning philosophy / movement grinding to its pie shrinking stage. Only classical liberalism, i.e. individualism, you would wrongly consider now as "conservative," can sustain a live-and-let-live social outlook. Your disgraceful nativism while claiming to be a "liberal" is proof of the dehumanizing nature of any central planning philosophy/movement.

indigenous says

The thing is that Germany runs a trade surplus they do this by keeping interest rates low. China does the same thing by keeping interest rates low and by devaluing the Yuan. This means that Germany does to Europe what China does to the world.

When a country runs a surplus another country has to run a deficit there is no other way this can be.

Germany then can either increase household income or national investment. China keeps the investment high as they have a lower household income, as a percentage of GDP, than any other country. The investment then goes into dams, cities, railways etc.

Germany can then invest in public programs.

indigenous says

Germany can then invest in public programs.

Since Germany's surplus is at the expense of other European countries like Spain for instance. It forces them into spending, just like the US is forced into spending because of the trade surplus with China. (the US cannot do anything about this because of the reserve currency status) So the PIGS have to be considered when looking at the lower income people in Europe. This is because they are tied together by the Euro and cannot inflate their way out debt.

This is from a book called the "Great Rebalancing" by Michael Pettis

recommended by Mish. Not that you care but others may.

What the hell does ANY of that have to do with the subject? Since you appear to have skipped over it a SECOND time, I'll once again repeat what I wrote:

I don't think you really looked at the data I posted. The median income of the top 20% in Germany is only $53,978. In the U.S., it is $82,666. Yet the bottom 20% in German have considerably more than they do in the U.S. It is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth that is the problem. The U.S. has plenty of wealth; it's just hoarded by the investor class.

I can't wait to see what rambling irrelevant sidetrack you'll get on next.

Homeboy says

A couple things to keep in mind:

1. Reality is an asshole.

2. Reality is full of shit.

Homeboy says

Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.

Ask yourself, and tell that to yourself.

Homeboy says

I don't think you really looked at the data I posted. The median income of the top 20% in Germany is only $53,978. In the U.S., it is $82,666. Yet the bottom 20% in German have considerably more than they do in the U.S. It is the DISTRIBUTION of wealth that is the problem. The U.S. has plenty of wealth; it's just hoarded by the investor class.

You are conflating wealth vs. income. The numbers are disposable income numbers, not wealth numbers. What's the difference between the two? A retired person can have a million dollar house but next to no income. At the other extreme, Warren Buffet has an annual income of about $30mil, but his net worth is $30bil; do you think he has lived for 1000 years? he's old, but not that old.

The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number. It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI. In many of these cases, the taxpayer paid medical bills alone can easily bankrupt a person making only the median of the top 20%; $80k can be burned up in a US hospital in a matter of a month (if not a week), not a year. The cash value of in-kind medical transfer is much lower in Germany.

Reality says

You are conflating wealth vs. income.

Bullshit. I am conflating nothing.

Reality says

The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number.

You are missing the point. If you can present DATA that show the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the U.S., please do so. Otherwise, your contribution to this discussion is not relevant. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are different ways to measure wealth and income doesn't prove anything.

Reality says

It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI.

You obviously missed our previous discussion about transfers. Please scroll back up the page and re-read the thread before you make stupid assumptions that have already been refuted.

Homeboy says

Reality says

You are conflating wealth vs. income.

Bullshit. I am conflating nothing.

You cited (disposable) income numbers then talked about wealth and wealth distribution. Income is not the same as wealth. I already explained the difference between the two in the previous post. You will do better by reading it instead of emitting knee-jerk "bullshit."

Homeboy says

The German disposable income number is not at all comparable to the US disposable income number.

You are missing the point. If you can present DATA that show the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the U.S., please do so. Otherwise, your contribution to this discussion is not relevant. Simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are different ways to measure wealth and income doesn't prove anything.

hmm, I thought you were trying to prove that the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the US. In any case, I already explained in the previous post why the disposable income numbers are not the full picture. Medicine is much more expensive in the US, and for the bottom 20% in the US, medicine is provided essentially free of charge by taxpayers, yet not reflected in your numbers.

Homeboy says

It's not clear whether the numbers are adjusted for taxes and cash transfers . . . but it certainly does not include massive in-kind transfers such as Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI.

You obviously missed our previous discussion about transfers. Please scroll back up the page and re-read the thread before you make stupid assumptions that have already been refuted.

Before calling people stupid, you can do better by paying attention to what I wrote: I made a specific distinction between in-kind transfer for medicine vs. cash transfer. The numbers you cited did not include in-kind transfer for medicine.

Reality says

Homeboy says

Why would I need a counter-argument to ad hominem, baiting, and lies? If you ever decide to make a cogent argument, I will counter it.

Ask yourself, and tell that to yourself.

Nope, I'm talking about you.

Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting. Saying that other countries don't cover medication is a lie. That's nothing more than trolling, and doesn't merit any kind of response other than to correctly point out that you're an asshole. The fact that I got 3 "likes" on that proves it. If you act like an asshole, you will be treated as such.

Reality says

You cited (disposable) income numbers then talked about wealth and wealth distribution.

Why do you put disposable in parentheses? I cited income, not disposable income. The reason I did so was to counter Indigenous' post in which he attempted to prove his point using INCOME charts. I showed that his charts were either manipulated or out of date, and used the same data source his INCOME chart supposedly came from to show that the bottom 20% in many developed countries are better off than in the U.S. If you have a beef with that, please bring it up with Indigenous.

Again, you need to scroll up and actually read the thread. Then you could avoid showing your ignorance as to what we are discussing.

Both wealth AND income are distributed unequally in the U.S. Your nitpick about wealth vs. income is simply not relevant. The point, that continues to elude you, is that in Germany (and that is only one country which happens to be the example we were discussing), the bottom 20% have a greater share of the country's money than do the bottom 20% in the U.S. You seem to have trouble seeing the forest for the trees.

Reality says

You will do better by reading it instead of emitting knee-jerk "bullshit."

No, I have read and participated in the thread. YOU are the one who doesn't know what's going on, and as a result are getting on really stupid sidetracks that aren't relevant to the discussion.

Reality says

hmm, I thought you were trying to prove that the bottom 20% in Germany are better off than the bottom 20% in the US. In any case, I already explained in the previous post why the disposable income numbers are not the full picture. Medicine is much more expensive in the US, and for the bottom 20% in the US, medicine is provided essentially free of charge by taxpayers, yet not reflected in your numbers.

This is merely a supposition on your part, and a weak one at that. Unless you have some DATA to contradict the data that I already posted, your contention that the poor in the U.S. are better off than the poor in other developed countries remains an unproven assertion, and everything you write here remains an irrelevant sidetrack. You might want to start by reviewing the discussion we already had about transfers before you make wild assertions about what you THINK you know about them.

You aren't providing any information here. You're merely selectively choosing OTHER people's contributions and picking away at them with stale criticisms. "Blah, blah, blah, your chart doesn't show x, y, z..." Great, post a chart that DOES show xyz and prove that it makes a difference. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

Reality says

Before calling people stupid, you can do better by paying attention to what I wrote: I made a specific distinction between in-kind transfer for medicine vs. cash transfer. The numbers you cited did not include in-kind transfer for medicine.

Nope, you just babbled about irrelevant nonsense. Please review the info on transfers. I won't waste my time re-posting things that you couldn't be bothered to read the first time.

Reality says

The bottom quintile in income in the US are mostly unemployed people on social security or SSDI. In many of these cases, the taxpayer paid medical bills alone can easily bankrupt a person making only the median of the top 20%; $80k can be burned up in a US hospital in a matter of a month (if not a week), not a year. The cash value of in-kind medical transfer is much lower in Germany.

Simple solution, prove it. We'll be waiting. and waiting and waiting and waiting.

BTW people collecting social security are called retired not unemployed. Perhaps you are not aware of it, but there are actually retired people in Germany also. They collect Germany's version of social security. Why don't they count?

Reality says

Dating cost more only because I make substantially more than median income or
what the girl does so I'm expected to pay for the dates; whatever I pay, she
doesn't have to, so it should not be included in the budget of a person at or
below median income.

I was talking about you, you said less than $1000 per month consistently for last 20 years. I said bullshit. It is still bullshit.

You proceeded to look up the cheapest stuff you could at Costco and post the prices for same. As if that has anything to do with what you have been doing consistently for the past 20 years.

If you buy only the cheapest meats available; changing from chicken breast to pork chops to chicken drumsticks; and you buy the cheapest fruits and vegetables regardless if you like them or not, and get some crazy deal on milk and car insurance. Not to mention depending on climate - either have your house extremely hot or extremely cold - and you don't have cable TV (but obviously an internet connection, one of the many monthly expenses I did not bring up and you didn't offer either.) You also apparently take your trash to the dump yourself.

And you dont go to the gym, or take vacations, or drink anything except water, never go out, or take someone on a date. You also never buy a snack or take a lunch break with coworkers.

Your car has lasted 14 years (probably 10 years after the warranty has expired) without any major repairs needed (or new tires, brakes, or even an oil change) and you never wash it apparently.

Then yes, I submit - you have lived the past 20 years on the equivalent of less than $1000 per month.

What a sorry 20 years they have been. No dating, no drinking, no vacations, driving around in a filthy beater car and living in a studio or 1 bedroom apartment that is always too hot or too cold, with no TV (or other forms of entertainment, apparently - Netflix?) except maybe a library card - where you read up on the German version of "General Theory."

Or you could be full of shit, and I am tired of talking to you. You are a sociopath whose lies come so fast and furious that I am not sure how you keep them straight. I guess that is your true talent.

Since your are incapable of being honest; you are incapable of actually learning anything. Your internet persona of a freedom seeking, Austrian liberatarian does not allow you to show that you have any understanding of the real world with real experience - otherwise - your ideology shows fault.

I am done arguing with a lying idealogue. Good job convincing exactly no one with an IQ over 105 of anything, ever.

Homeboy says

Nope, I'm talking about you.

Saying that other forum members take "feel good meds" is ad hominem, and it's childish baiting.

You volunteered such information yourself earlier.

Saying that other countries don't cover medication is a lie.

Not for the meds that you are taking.

That's nothing more than trolling, and doesn't merit any kind of response other than to correctly point out that you're an asshole. The fact that I got 3 "likes" on that proves it. If you act like an asshole, you will be treated as such.

Everyone has an asshole. If 3 "likes" by yourself means you don't have an asshole, you need more help from the doctors.