patrick.net

tatupu70 says

I read it. Please point out the part that details specifically how the new money increases wealth disparity. I've yet to see that.

You keep asking the same thing I already provided that.

How about this provide me once again if you ever have details on how wages are the cause of wealth disparity? And why inflation is suppose to help with labor and consumers?

tatupu70 says

1. Overall wages are growing faster than inflation

Where's your proof?

tatupu70 says

2. Disparity is the cause of median rising slower than mean

No disparity is caused by inflation, which is caused by the increasing the money supply. Here read the definition here:

in·fla·tion [in-fley-shuhn] Show IPA noun
Economics . a persistent, substantial rise in the general level of prices related to an increase in the volume of money and resulting in the loss of value of currency (opposed to deflation ).

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inflation

Oops, accidentally clicked dislike on my own post, so in addition I clicked the like too, just to state it on record.

spydah_hh says

The charts states the national avg wage was 42k in U.S. are you going to deny
that?

No--it shows my point.

spydah_hh says

If not then your CPI model is wrong.

Nope--the CPI model is fine. Overall US wages increased faster than inflation.

spydah_hh says

Where's your proof?

In the links I provided earlier.

spydah_hh says

No disparity is caused by inflation, which is caused by the increasing the
money supply. Here read the definition here:

Please explain the mechanism. That's my question. How does inflation cause disparity?

spydah_hh says

How about this provide me once again if you ever have details on how wages
are the cause of wealth disparity? And why inflation is suppose to help with
labor and consumers?

You need me to tell you how income causes wealth disparity?? When one person earns more than another, their wealth increases more quickly.

I don't believe I've ever stated that inflation is supposed to help labor and consumers.

spydah_hh says

You keep asking the same thing I already provided that.

fyi-you haven't provided it.

tatupu70 says

You need me to tell you how income causes wealth disparity?? When one person earns more than another, their wealth increases more quickly.

That's not the cause of wealth disparity it's a result. Tell me the cause of wealth disparity.

Also what is wrong with someone making more than someone else? You saying that someone who works harder or comes up with an ingenious idea that results in higher income should not be paid more money?

Are you a socialist?

tatupu70 says

spydah_hh says

You keep asking the same thing I already provided that.

fyi-you haven't provided it.

Yes I have you just refuse to believe it. I lead you to the water but I can't force you to drink it.

spydah_hh says

That's not the cause of wealth disparity it's a result

huh? Some people getting more money than others is THE cause of wealth disparity. We can argue the reasons why they are getting more money, but that most definitely is the cause.

spydah_hh says

Also what is wrong with someone making more than someone else? You saying
that someone who works harder or comes up with an ingenious idea that results in
higher income should not be paid more money?

Are you a socialist?

This strawman has been played already. That's not what I think and I'm not a socialist.

spydah_hh says

Yes I have you just refuse to believe it. I lead you to the water but I can't
force you to drink it.

OK--please point me to where you explained how inflation or money creation causes wealth disparity. We've established that nobody goes to houses and gives it away. So, how DOES it happen?

spydah_hh says

No disparity is caused by inflation, which is caused by the increasing the
money supply. Here read the definition here:

What if I showed you a time period of increasing money supply and falling income inequality?

Hint: I have had this conversation before and have the data ready.

control point says

mell says

You gave a very specific example, the numbers look different depending on kids

and marital status and esp. mortgage etc. But for your example the answer is YES

- absolutely.

It was a typical nuclear family example. Median income, 2 kids, etc.

So why do you think that the tax burder on the typical nuclear family should go up while the tax burden on a high earner should go down?

There is no typical nuclear family anymore, that's why SS and every other ponzi scheme that depends on eternal population multiplication is collapsing. The fact that you added in a mortgage to the nuclear family illustrates the problem with this economy (they shouldn't have one and not be incentivized to have one). Taxes are a collective burden, the minimum you have to pay is $0. The "higher" earners as defined by those roughly making 200K+ (but not 0.1%-1%ers) already bear the brunt of the tax-load and should have their burden reduced.

mell says

There is no typical nuclear family anymore, that's why SS and every other ponzi
scheme that depends on eternal population multiplication is collapsing.

Bullshit. Social security does NOT depend on population multiplication. Please stop spreading that BS

mell says

The fact that you added in a mortgage to the nuclear family illustrates the
problem with this economy (they shouldn't have one and not be incentivized to
have one).

You don't believe a family with a median income (50%) should own a house? They should be rent slaves to the capitalist class?

BTW, I generally agre with you - for completely different reasons. The EIC is a tax credit for small business, since the savings rate for EIC beneficiaries is essentially 0. It allows Mcdonalds franchisees to hire workers below a living wage. IE it increases the supply of labor, lowering the cost.

Of course large business benefits as well both directly and indirectly, but my understanding is low wage earners are mostly employed by small business.

And I also generally agree that $200k is not the same kind of rich as $20 million. I think taxes should be more progressive and think it is silly that the top tax rates is at $450k in income and above. It should keep going up to 90% for marginal incomes over $10 million.

Those that benefit the most from government should pay the most for it. The only thing keeping Koch's billions in their pocket is the government.

Otherwise I could show up on their doorstep tomorrow for a piece. I like my chances against those old pricks.

control point says

The only thing keeping Koch's billions in their pocket is the government.

That is conjecture

To your larger point, yup it is another example of cronyism. I wonder if section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, etc are more of the same?

indigenous says

To your larger point, yup it is another example of cronyism. I wonder if
section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, etc are more of the same?

I'd say it's an unintended consequence. Cronyism is just another way for you to muddy the waters and spew more propaganda.

tatupu70 says

I'd say it's an unintended consequence. Cronyism is just another way for you to muddy the waters and spew more propaganda.

Quite the opposite you are conflating in an attempt to keep things polarized. I'm not an R or a D just looking at what is which is hard to see with all the straw man arguments.

sbh says

He won't take any bets payable in fiat currency. You'll just have to nut up and pull out some Austrian commodities.

dumb and dumber

indigenous says

Quite the opposite you are conflating in an attempt to keep things polarized.
I'm not an R or a D just looking at what is which is hard to see with all the
straw man arguments.

I will give them this--Austrians are good at posting gibberish.

tatupu70 says

mell says

There is no typical nuclear family anymore, that's why SS and every other ponzi

scheme that depends on eternal population multiplication is collapsing.

Bullshit. Social security does NOT depend on population multiplication. Please stop spreading that BS

It's actually worse, so stop your childish rants and apply some logic for once.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/

mell says

It's actually worse, so stop your childish rants and apply some logic for once

lol--OK. SS is not a Ponzi scheme because, if designed correctly, it doesn't require an ever growing population to sustain it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

indigenous says

an argument that appears good at first view but is really fallacious

That's the definition of something else. Maybe a flawed argument or a specious argument.

tatupu70 says

SS is not a Ponzi scheme because, if designed correctly, it doesn't require an ever growing population to sustain it.

Exactly, it's a forced retirement scheme that has regressive contributions but progressive benefits.

corntrollio says

That's the definition of something else. Maybe a flawed argument or a specious argument.

Here is another:

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

from here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Strawman+arguments

mell says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardsalsman/2011/09/27/social-security-is-much-worse-than-a-ponzi-scheme/

Interesting this Salsman Plan. Economists predict that 2030 is going to be the cliff because of this along with demographics.

indigenous says

Here is another:

a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

from here:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Strawman+arguments

OK--now that you've learned the definition, please point out the strawman arguments that you referenced.

tatupu70 says

OK--now that you've learned the definition, please point out the strawman arguments that you referenced.

Every one of them look at my post?

sbh says

The definition of strawman argument is the same as the definition of brakelight: gubmint bad; free market good.

Is there some sort of medication you are supposed to be taking but aren't?

indigenous says

Every one of them look at my post?

OK--maybe you need to reread the definition.

And off topic, but why do you put a question mark at the end of your statements?

tatupu70 says

And off topic, but why do you put a question mark at the end of your statements?

Because you are questioning the obvious and correct, why would you do that?

indigenous says

Because you are questioning the obvious and correct, why would you do
that?

So, you're saying it's obvious that every argument in this thread is a strawman?

As I keep having to repeat for those of you who apparently don't already know--There's NO Chomsky like Noam Chomsky, there's NO Chomsky I know.

jazz music says

3.

a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous person, object, matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument: The issue she railed about was no more than a straw man.

This is the one that is mostly commonly used

sbh says

Unless the topic under discussion is the government or the free market, everything uttered by the Austrians is a strawman.

Good point. Saying "the government that governs least governs best" doesn't really tell us what good policy is and is largely orthogonal to the issues for the most part. That was certainly the case in the HSR thread.

Give me a break.

The straw man that is held up by the lefties is Walmart is exploiting the citizens.

This is easily refuted by indicating that Walmart has raised the standard of living of all their customers as well as the Chinese workers who make the products.

Of course the lefties then use the straw man argument that Walmart is utilizing labor that is trained by the public taxes and paying minimum wage.

But again this is easily refuted by virtue of the fact that they would otherwise be unemployed and again the customers would not go there if it were not a better deal.

So that is how a straw man argument works.
corntrollio quit pulling shit out of your cornhollio

tatupu70 says

huh? Some people getting more money than others is THE cause of wealth disparity. We can argue the reasons why they are getting more money, but that most definitely is the cause.

Ok still you didn't provide how the wealth disparity is created. For example, you said when one makes more than another that's wealth disparity. Okay, so how is that other person making more money? By working harder? Coming up with ingenious ideas? what? And why is that wrong?

tatupu70 says

OK--please point me to where you explained how inflation or money creation causes wealth disparity. We've established that nobody goes to houses and gives it away. So, how DOES it happen?

Here's another example of when the Fed got audited. All that money given to the banks have to go somewhere and it's in stocks and housing. It's why the banks own so much of the economy.

$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world's banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest.

http://www.sott.net/article/250592-Audit-of-the-Federal-Reserve-Reveals-16-Trillion-in-Secret-Bailouts

On top of that all that cheap and easy money doesn't go towards production or productive assets but instead go into speculative assets (stocks). Which explains why companies like twitter, facebook, tesla, amazon who make none to very little profits have either high stock prices or have astronomical value.

tatupu70 says

lol--OK. SS is not a Ponzi scheme because, if designed correctly, it doesn't require an ever growing population to sustain it.

Yes it does. It requires a growing working population to sustain it.

Most of the major shifts in worker-to-beneficiary ratios before the 1960s are attributable to the dynamics of the program's maturity. In the early stages of the program, many paid in and few received benefits, and the revenue collected greatly exceeded the benefits being paid out. What appeared to be the program's advantage, however, turned out to be misleading. Between 1945 and 1965, the decline in worker-to-beneficiary ratios went from 41 to 4 workers per beneficiary.

The Social Security program matured in the 1960s, when Americans were consistently having fewer children, living longer, and earning wages at a slower rate than the rate of growth in the number of retirees. As these trends have continued, today there are just 2.9 workers per retiree—and this amount is expected to drop to two workers per retiree by 2030.

http://mercatus.org/publication/how-many-workers-support-one-social-security-retiree

I think the article is a little too optimistic, I think it's actually worst and will be in the red by 2020-2025 simply because the economy will continue to get worst and worst with either more people getting dropped out of the labor market or getting paid less.

indigenous says

So that is how a straw man argument works.

corntrollio quit pulling shit out of your cornhollio

I may be the Great Cornholio, but you are still a person who does not know what a straw man is for your bunghole.

You're still using "straw man" wrong in your Walmart nonsense above. It's comical at this point, because several people have explained to you what a straw man is, and you still don't get it.

corntrollio says

You're still using "straw man" wrong in your Walmart nonsense above. It's comical at this point, because several people have explained to you what a straw man is, and you still don't get it.

Typical you have a contention with no argument to the contrary.

sbh says

And as usual after you have put your foot in your mouth you try to use the other foot as a makeshift shoehorn. It's a rare event for you to make a series of more than four or five posts without digging yourself a hole that you're just too clumsy to get out of.

Now you have gone way past medication time.

sbh says

Gettin' weary there, Indigence. You're supposed to say "projecting".

I'm glad to see I'm learning you some stuff.