patrick.net

indigenous says

It would be interesting if CP posts the times when inequality was at it's
greatest.

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

Figure 3, its the best I could find. Rising from 1931 due to austerity measures until the recession of 1936-37 allowed Roosevelt to increase spending, enacted the WPA, SSA, and Wagner Act.

All fine and dandy until the deregulation boom started in the late 1970s, then trending upwards ever since. Trending upwards since 2009 due to the recovery...as it did in 2003, 1994, and 1982. You simply cannot look at a short time period and correlate the data to anything - there are other factors.

However, over the long term - there was a fundamental shift in the late 1930s through the late 1970s of a decline in inequality. This started with increasingly progressive tax rates, strengthened labor unions, and social programs.

This trend ended and was revered starting in the late 1970s - after a fundamental shift was undertaken regarding progressive income taxes, regulations, and weakening of labor unions. This trend has maintained an overall positive slope through 4 major recessions. The low level of inequality in the early 90s recession was much higher than the high level of inequality during the go-go mid 1980s. The low in inequality after the mid 90s recession was higher than any time during the 1980s and even the feel good Gulf War early 1990s. The low level of inequality after the "Great Recession" was barely lower than it was at the peak of the tech boom.

Look at the chart - it has two inflection points. What happened in the late 1930s and late 1970s that completely changed the slope of inequality? I have given my theories - what are yours?

Look, I am not advocating removing any safety nets here, neither am I putting myself into the Austrian corner (who started that anyways?), all I am saying I believe a nation must embrace capital formation and curb debt-driven spending and let interest rates adjust. And I am saying that logic defies the notion that printing money - even worse when injecting it at the top - increases the general state of any economy (same goes for permanent price controls). That's all. If that's Austrian, so be it.

mell says

There is no solution to this because recessions are a naturally occurring
phenomenon.

No, they're not like a tornado, it takes deliberate actions on behalf of various people to make a recession.

My questions were in response to this remark by you:

mell says

If increasing the money supply would benefit everyone instead of just the
first-in-line receivers (banks, wealthy, connected), why don't they allow every
poor and middle-class schmuck to print their own money (you can even limit the
max. amount if you want to be fancy)?

A $17 trillion dollar economy doesn't run on 50 bucks, and acting as if it does is disingenuous, just as much as claiming that there's some ultimate and grand benefit to spending money first, when the process of the monetary system functions.

upisdown says

A $17 trillion dollar economy doesn't run on 50 bucks, and acting as if it does is disingenuous, just as much as claiming that there's some ultimate and grand benefit to spending money first, when the process of the monetary system functions.

If you encourage people to take on more debt even for less interest by depressing rates, the economy will never be on sound footing. And as long as there is no fairness enforced, as long as bankers who committed clear cut fraud, can't recall where the 500 million in their untouchable (by law) customer accounts went, roam free or worse, continue to get million dollar bonuses and pay raises instead of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your only hope is that they get wiped out in the next recession and there are no grand solutions, certainly not QE. The people who are smart enough to save will likely diversify outside of US territory on such a negative outlook (which will hurt the economy further).

mell says

The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

Do you see this because of international currency re-balancing?

mell says

If you encourage people to take on more debt even for less interest by
depressing rates, the economy will never be on sound footing. And as long as
there is no fairness enforced, as long as bankers who committed clear cut fraud,
can't recall where the 500 million in their untouchable (by law) customer
accounts went, roam free or worse, continue to get million dollar bonuses and
pay raises instead of being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, your
only hope is that they get wiped out in the next recession and there are no
grand solutions,

All that to repeat what you've already said?

mell says

certainly not QE.

Is that not an asset swap? Yes, it artificially inflates bank reserves when they were never reserve restricted anyway.

control point says

Look at the chart - it has two inflection points. What happened in the late 1930s and late 1970s that completely changed the slope of inequality? I have given my theories - what are yours?

Mine is simple when the money supply increased it benefited the rich by being able to invest ahead of the inflation. This is indicated on your graph and mine in the late 20s and again in the 2000s.

indigenous says

Mine is simple when the money supply increased it benefited the rich by being
able to invest ahead of the inflation. This is indicated on your graph and mine
in the late 20s and again in the 2000s.

So money supply didn't increase from the late 1930s through the late 1970s?

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

I don't think so....

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

And wow, I have 12 ignores all gained when I was arguing with Darrell 2 years ago. Shocking stuff.

Pretty much, since you never bring anything of substance to the discussion....

Then we share something in common apparently.

Bigsby says

Duh, I don't start threads because I don't feel the need to draw attention to
myself. You on the other hand... And pretty much everyone here argues with
others, do they not? That's all you do. The difference with you is that you get
your arse handed to you time and time again and yet you still come back for
more. Seemingly, your stupidity knows no bounds.

And wow, I have 12 ignores all gained when I was arguing with Darrell 2 years
ago. Shocking stuff.

LOL, I warned you about his nonsense. Having a rational discussion with him is like trying to drown a fish.

It won't ever happen.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Then we share something in common apparently.

Not even close, but here, I have something for you for all your hard work:

Presumably that's part of your monthly pay check.

bgamall4 says

You are condemned. You may as well just kill yourself after saying God is a
Zionist.

LOL, 2 fictions make 1 real, right?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

Is 'he' recording all your hoax drivel as well? Falsely accusing parents of faking their childrens' deaths can't exactly be a good thing. And hey, maybe God is a zionist...

You are condemned. You may as well just kill yourself after saying God is a Zionist.

With any normal person, I'd think you were joking, but as it's you...

I have a question, because I'm not certain on the exact mechanics of it all.

How did all the dollars in existence today, come into existence?

The USDollar is barely 100 years old, so that means at the turn of the 20th century, usdollars didn't exist. How did all of the dollars that exist today, enter circulation?

bgamall4 says

Yeah, well, you have to understand that Zionism is real. David Rockefeller
said there is a NWO. The capital, according to David Ben-Gurion, father of
Israel, will be the world court in Jerusalem.

Anything else? I can't prove the existence of God to anyone. He proves it to
his elect. As the Apostle Paul said:

LOL, you're consistant and persistant redundancy isn't to be admired or worn like a badge of honor. The NWO?

Are you sure that there's enough room or even demand for more than one kook on the net or in this world with the Alex Jones dogma?

A curse? LOL

bgamall4 says

Bigsby just said that God is a Zionist. The curse applies.

Good grief you plum. I'm an atheist. I'm pointing out that you have zero knowledge of the existence of God and that for all you know 'he' may be a zionist. It's just as likely as your particular version of what God is.

indigenous says

mell says

The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

Do you see this because of international currency re-balancing?

Yes, I think those calling for a more serious dollar devaluation were early, esp. since the race for debasement is joined by many countries and since there is international money flowing into the US mostly in real estate because they are afraid of their governments. But on the long run I see the dollar weakening and more and more trades being done outside of the petrodollar in alternative currencies. That's also why they need to continue tapering.

control point says

indigenous says

Mine is simple when the money supply increased it benefited the rich by being

able to invest ahead of the inflation. This is indicated on your graph and mine

in the late 20s and again in the 2000s.

So money supply didn't increase from the late 1930s through the late 1970s?

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

I don't think so....

money supply in comparison to the market

The data displays what's known in statistics as heteroscedasticity.

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

Simple interpretation: some conservatives are devout Christians who don't drink very much, while those other conservatives who drink do so at higher consumption levels than the average, whereas liberals have more average consumption patterns.

I'd also guess that liberals tend to have more European drinking patterns, drinking wine regularly but moderately with their meals (as opposed to binge drinking). Most of the wine drinking in the US is in the blue states/counties.

mell says

indigenous says

mell says

The US is next to go through that transformation and become a bigger nation of savers again.

Do you see this because of international currency re-balancing?

Yes, I think those calling for a more serious dollar devaluation were early, esp. since the race for debasement is joined by many countries and since there is international money flowing into the US mostly in real estate because they are afraid of their governments. But on the long run I see the dollar weakening and more and more trades being done outside of the petrodollar in alternative currencies. That's also why they need to continue tapering.

Additionally the trade deficit will go down.

sbh says

Inanity after inanity. You must wear yourself out.

not an argument, just a comment

sbh says

OK, what market are you talking about with this inane dodge?

Please be clear what inanity you are referring to?

indigenous says

money supply in comparison to the market

What market?

Call it Crazy says

upisdown
says

Having a rational discussion with him is like trying to drown a fish.

It won't ever happen.

Really??

I provided you with 8 links to data,

http://patrick.net/?p=1237805&c=1049892#comment-1049892

How many have you provided back?? ZIPPO!!!! I'm STILL waiting for a SINGLE
data point from you....

Talk about rational...

LOL, WOW! You took my summation of you and turned it into a prophecy.

Way to go, you showed me!

control point says

indigenous says

money supply in comparison to the market

What market?

The economy.

sbh says

comparison to the market

How are you saying the money supply works?

The short-sighted, dim-witted, bible-thumping patsies for oligarchs like the Koch brothers has driven me to drink.

"Naked Face Eater Bites Dust".

sbh says

.....the market.....the economy.....the market.....the economy.....ask a question, any question, just keep the dodge going. This is what you do every time you paint yourself into a corner. Haven't you found anything on mises.org to obfuscate your way back to safer ground. Say something about government coercion, c'mon, that's good fer what ails ya!

This is not an argument just more ad hominem

sbh says

Now, you've heard my argument, so tell me the substance of your statement about the "market" compared to money supply.

As stated before the increase in the money supply correlates with the inequality in the graph.

This was true in the 20s and it is true now with captain Benny spending 6 trillion.

indigenous says

The economy.

Try again.

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

The share of income of the 1% was falling over the entire period shown on this GDP vs. money supply graph.

And over the entire period shown (1947 through 1972) money supply growth outpaced GDP growth.

control point says

indigenous says

The economy.

Try again.

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

The share of income of the 1% was falling over the entire period shown on this GDP vs. money supply graph.

And over the entire period shown (1947 through 1972) money supply growth outpaced GDP growth.

That graph does not show the 2 periods of time we are talking about.

Another factor is money velocity which is at historic low right now and I would think back in the 20s

sbh says

Bad short term memory. You have to make a substantive statement with the word "MARKET" in it. Remember? Remember? Hello? Hello? Come back and deal with it.

and while you're googling:

indigenous says

As stated before the increase in the money supply correlates with the inequality in the graph.

No it doesn't. It doesn't correlate in any way you posit. The most you could say, without obvious manipulative lying, is that they are coincident. Besides, you always trash correlation in favor of causation and you have even less of that at work here.

Accusation without any facts. Try to be coherent

indigenous says

That graph does not show the 2 periods of time we are talking about.

Another factor is money velocity which is at historic low right now and I
would think back in the 20s

It does show increasing money supply relative to the economy over a given time period.

This means that what you are saying - when money supply grows faster than the economy, inequality increases - was not observed from 1947 through 1972. 25 years. Reference earlier graph - inequality fell consistently over that time period. QED, you lose.

You are hopeless.

By the way velocity is a useless point. It is calculated, GDP/Money. No shit money velocity fell during the recession - it would have with zero money supply growth.

Just give up. This is why I wasn't going to pull up the data - because no matter how hard it slaps you in the face you never give up your blind faith in the cult. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse of others.

Call it Crazy says

Why three years? Because by then Obama will be gone (absent some very radical changes to presidential term rules), and Obamacare will be someone else's problem.

Onetime I farted as I pulled into work, I knew it was going to be a bad one. So I quickly pulled my keys out of the ignition and opened the door and promptly closed it as quick as I could. Later that day at 5, after I long forgot about it. When I got back in my car to leave, that Jimmy Dean chicken biscuit I ate for breakfast came back to roost. It waited 8 long hours for me.

Obamacare will always be his problem, especially in History.

control point says

This means that what you are saying - when money supply grows faster than the economy, inequality increases - was not observed from 1947 through 1972. 25 years. Reference earlier graph - inequality fell consistently over that time period.

Money supply grew barely if at all during that period, only towards the end it accelerated. If you assume some delay for velocity and then look at the continued much higher growth of money supply into today, then the trend stays intact IMO. If you look at 2008 inequality was shrinking fast until QE was announced and started. Surely there are other factors, but injecting money at the top (banks) will always disproportionally benefit the wealthy, why do you think they didn't send the money directly to the middle class instead?

control point says

This means that what you are saying - when money supply grows faster than the economy, inequality increases - was notht observed from 1947 through 1972. 25 years. Reference earlier graph - inequality fell consistently over that time period. QED, you lose.

Where it is accentuated as during the 20s and since 2008 is where the rich can invest ahead of inflation.

control point says

By the way velocity is a useless point. It is calculated, GDP/Money. No shit money velocity fell during the recession - it would have with zero money supply growth.

Then why is it so low now with 6 trillion dollars printed.

control point says

Just give up. This is why I wasn't going to pull up the data - because no matter how hard it slaps you in the face you never give up your blind faith in the cult. You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse of others.

Why you are clearly better with the math and graphs yet I disprove your ideas.

mell says

Money supply grew barely if at all during that period, only towards the end it
accelerated.

The graph I posted shows otherwise. Consistently steeper slope for money supply growth than GDP.

mell says

Surely there are other factors, but injecting money at the top (banks) will
always disproportionally benefit the wealthy, why do you think they didn't send
the money directly to the middle class instead?

Except for 1947 through 1972 as shown.

indigenous says

Then why is it so low now with 6 trillion dollars printed.

Because money supply and GDP growth are not correlated.

indigenous says

Why you are clearly better with the math and graphs yet I disprove your
ideas.

This is a joke. You can take a student to class but you can't make him learn. Thanks for playing, but I view this as a two way street - I learn, I teach. I can do neither with you so I give up.

control point says

Because money supply and GDP growth are not correlated.

No we are talking about inequalitycontrol point says

This is a joke. You can take a student to class but you can't make him learn. Thanks for playing, but I view this as a two way street - I learn, I teach. I can do neither with you so I give up

Don't flatter yourself you just fade away like you always do.