patrick.net

duxbury001 says

This is among the dumbest statements… bar none… I have ever heard. Its not something you argue against…

Of course you can't argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

Reagan then took over and juiced the national debt to 40% of GDP by 1990, doubling it in real terms.

The 1970s saw the creation of TWENTY MILLION JOBS.

Then I posted W's great economic performance -- just 8 million piddly jobs created, all of which vanished once the recession hit since they were bubble jobs on a bubble economy.

I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980, but other than that life was super-fine since wages had also doubled to keep up with that inflation.

marcus says

When I fear for humanity’s future, it is because of authoritarian types like you who want daddy to tell them what to believe.

Actually what I am arguing against is pure and unadulterated criminality. Unions who have destroyed our country through their extortion, their kickbacks to the democrats. They have bankrupted not only the US, but many western states as well like Greece and Spain, where air traffic controllers make 450k and brought the nation to its knees. Today Hawaii is in darkness from thugocracy of absurdly overpaid electrical union workers.

You have to bear in mind the FDR did not allow public sector unions. He thought them wrong. My objection to them is not radical. After seeing the damages they have done I would argue that any remotely sane person would oppose.

Troy says

Of course you can’t argue against it. I posted graphs showing the 1970s showed jobs increased from 72 million in 1971 to near 92 million in 1980, while Congress held the national debt steady at 25% of GDP as the 1970s came to a close.

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70's second to the 30's in terms of overall economic misery. No sane person thinks the 70's were a booming time of prosperity. I don't know where they teach that... but it is an utterly dumbfounding statement.

Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire (where we were losing to the soviets in vietnam and afghanistan in the 70's). He succeeded. The deficit was then brought down as the peace dividend in the 90's when Newt took over. It was a staggering success.

duxbury001 says

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels,

Do I gotta pull another chart here to educate you out of your foolery again? Here's unemployment:

The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn't get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975 wasn't that much different in price in 1980. Unemployment was elevated, but both the baby boom and women were just flooding into the workforce.

The front half of the baby boom was aged 15 to 24 in 1970. The economy expanded by 20 million jobs for them. Not too shabby.

And the big mid-70s recession was a combination of the oil shock and interest rates doubling from 5% to 10%+.

Reagan increased the deficit to defeat the soviet empire

LOL such right-wing fantasyland tripe. Soviet "Empire" defeated itself through its shitty command economy and inability to get reform going under Gorbie before things apart thanks to oil prices falling under $20/bbl 1986-1989 (when Alaska and the North Sea peaked).

Conservatives always assert Soviet-style centralized economies can never work, but when they finally blew up in the late 80s, oh, Ronnie Raygun did it.

Pick a f---ing story already.

duxbury001 says

the problem is that inflation and unemployment increased to utterly unbearable levels, making the 70’s second to the 30’s in terms of overall economic misery

1% if inflation doesn't cause the same misery as 1% unemployment. Not even close. That's just some arbitrary "index" somebody came up with.

duxbury001 says

MarkInSF says

Please explain how low taxes and a few hundred dollars per person per year of EU aid money caused the financial industry to make over $100 billion of bad loans, and then completely collapse. There is an enormous gap in your logic here.

ummm.. you know if you want me to teach you basic economics you really need to pay me $100/hour (like public school teachers). Google Irish tiger… THEN SHUT THE F-UP.

Ok, thanks. Yeah that completely explains how government policy caused the financial collapse in Ireland.

marcus says

But I would argue that blaming government unions for states financial problems doesn’t make sense.

Yeah, I agree to an extent. Public unions get a lot of scrutiny these days because state revenues plummeted and deficits are huge and cuts have to be made somewhere. The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the "the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy", but it's a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we're still dealing with today.

Teachers are the least of my worries as far as pay is concerned. For example, here in San Francisco a typical firefigher makes $140K including benefits and overtime, with base pay of $100K. No I'm not cherry picking, go look at the numbers at http://www.contracostatimes.com/public-employee-salaries-results

And they get to retire after 30 years with 90% of that base salary, 100% guaranteed, which they will be drawing for another 20 years. Not even including medical coverage. I mean seriously, you don't think that's overcompensated?

duxbury001 says

OK, I realize your IQ is about half mine, but I am going to try to explain this in small words so that you might understand. Let’s give a try? C’mon.. try to listen this time.
If the US is doing really, really swell.. and has super, duper money!!! really happy! Daddy and Mommy might buy a German car like a Porsche (zoom, zoom!!). So because Daddy and Mommy have SOOOOOOOOOOO much money they buy lots of stuff overseas.
But those Germans aren’t doing so well.. they can’t get as many credit cards and other things. They don’t make as much money. So those germans don’t buy that many IBM computers from the US.
And to add to our problems… THOSE MEAN GERMANS AND JAPANESE put up trade barriers and super sneaky ones like the VAT which may our products super duper expensive over there.
So it ends up that we buy stuff from Germany than they buy from us… even though our economy is doing well at the time.

OK--how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

Your problem is that the data tells a different story than your narrative.. It helps when your mind isn't already made up before you see the data...

Troy says

Not having to deal with landlords over the past 30 years also has non-monetary benefits.

Well, not having to deal with mortgage brokers, realwhores, banks, and remodel/repair contractors also has its non-monetary benefits.

Troy says

I lived through the 1970s and it was pretty damn good. What cost a dime in 1970 cost a quarter in 1980

That’s fine so long as your purchases are limited to candy bars, but that’s more than a 100% increase in a decade and I can promise you the same candy bar was smaller. The same principle was present in the prices of everything in those years, which is what made it so painful. For whatever reason, when inflation is raging, you’re not only penalized by an increase in price, you’re penalized by a decrease in content at the same time. Here’s a representative example in the realm of automobiles, which is the next highest expenditure besides housing. In 1960, the least expensive Oldsmobile 98 could be bought for $3,900, and that was a large, powerful highway cruiser that could pass anything on the road. Ten years later, in 1970, that 98 could be replaced for $4,400, barely a 15% increase in price. And that increase in the golden age of GM engineering bought the best engines, air-conditioners and transmissions, the Turbo-Hydramatic 400, in GM history, with a 5 year/50K mile warranty since 1965. By 1974, warranties had been slashed to 1 year/12K miles and prices were increased five times during the year. By 1980, the thing that was called an Olds 98 had increased 115% to $9,400, while at the same time having extracted every component by the bean-counters that made it such an attractive vehicle in 1970. It was fitted with the weakest transmission and poorest quality air-conditioners in GM history and was driven by a weak-sister small V-8 with 150 HP. Prices doubled again to $20,000 by 1989. If the quality and content had remained constant, the increases would have been bad enough, but it was a double insult to be receiving so much less year after year while paying more and more. I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

Troy says

The late 70s economy was pretty decent. Real wages were steady. Inflation didn’t get *that* bad, like stuff in the Sears Catalog in 1975

http://www.miseryindex.us/customindexbyyear.asp

here's just economics 101... because it is painful to watch you make a fool of yourself in public. When inflation and unemployment are both high it is the most hellacious economic scenario because there are no solutions. You are doomed. Reagan (with volker) heroically raised rates induced the '82 recession and purged inflation. You would never see a modern politician do that. They'll spit out "stimulus" ad infinitum as long as the presses can print currency.

tatupu70 says

OK–how about using some numbers this time. I know you can write a nice story, but real arguments use data and numbers to back up their points.

Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can't fire me and if you bitch I'll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

MarkInSF says

True. Duxbury also ignores the unionization of workers in Germany and Japan. Somehow, even though unions in those industries were on the rise there, and on

Thanks for defending me, but I really can't take away the "jackass" label yet because Japan wasn't so stupid as to keep unions. They dumped them after we tried to foist them on them. They abolished them and whattahyaknow happened?? their economy went on a ferocious tear for 30 years until the out of control growth made a bubble. Germany has unions... but for whatever reason they aren't as psycho as US unions... they aren't making idiotic work rules that hamper production and welding beer cans in chryslers for fun.

duxbury001 says

Ok, but I am not here to give you an education and google charts all day so you gonna have to use common sense. If you want me to teach you I demand union terms. This means I get $100/hour, can fondle your daughter, you can’t fire me and if you bitch I’ll get 50 of my buddies to protest in front of your house.

Typical trollish response. You won't do it because you can't. There is no data to suppport your position.

MarkInSF says

The right, including duxbury here, are trying to claim unions they are the “the primary challenge confronting the West is thugocracy”, but it’s a pretty hard case to make. The certainly had nothing with the financial bust we’re still dealing with today.

It really isn't very hard since labor costs are a huge part of the budgets and funny whereever unions are strong you see budgets careening to oblivion.... but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are... 450k air traffic controllers in spain, 100k teachers in madison, 200k train conductors on amtrak and in france. like the rampant corruption in greece, portugal going bankrupt, cali going bankrupt, deficits in NJ, etc... basically if every public sector employee gets a million dollar pension your budget is screwed.

In my mind it is 10 times worse than that because unions fight for the most psychotic economic policies.. like encouraging unskilled illegals (who they view as social service clients). Paying welfare to encourage poor mothers to be brood mares with giant welfare payments for large families. Fighting accounting and efficiency methods. encouraging muslim immigraton with no intention of assimilation to create a giant underclass in france (dependent on unionized social services).

But the surest was is to contrast union vs. non union states.. financial chaos in maryland vs. financial stability in virginia a few miles away. It ultimately becomes a psychological issue, not a policy issue, if you can't see the problems with public sector unionization.

MarkInSF says

I really hate to be defending duxbury, since he called me a jackass and hurt my feelings, but union membership among public employees is actually much higher than is was in the 50’s and 60’s.

unions were wimps in the 50's and 60's because they were private sector unions... which means all they can do is shoot themselves in the foot with their extortion. They blew up the US industrial base because companies were run into bankruptcy or moved to the south... so private sector unionization is finished because it is so self-destructive. How many factories left in pittsburg? detroit? unions crushed the old factory towns. New factories are in Alabama or China away from thugocracy.

Public sector unionization is infinitely more powerful because you can extort all you want until the government goes bankrupt.. with no consideration of the naive taxpayer. Unions contributed hundreds of millions to the last election cycle + time. Andy Stern practically pushed obama care (Andy was the most frequent guest of obama). So Public sector unions (along with the trial lawyers) are a defacto labor party of the democrats.

I like communists and liberals, I find them naive and idealistic (but ignorant). Democrats are not liberals, they are thugocrats serving millionaire trial lawyers, public sector employees and a few favored companies.

tatupu70 says

Typical trollish response. You won’t do it because you can’t. There is no data to suppport your position.

READ AN ECONOMICS BOOK... PLEASE.

N Dr Lo R says

I’ve used this particular model as an example, but the same things were true across the board for all makes and models. It’s the main reason foreign cars became more popular as they were better built, but you were still getting less car than you had in the 60’s.

Detroit also found itself having to compete with a Japan that had its yen pegged at an insanely low 300-360 to the dollar.

Used Japanese cars actually went UP in value after 1978 when the yen went from ~260 to ~180.

As for 1970s inflation, here's 3 washers from Sears catalogs:

$200 -> $220 -> $288.

(that last one was pretty well-built, it's still going at my Mom's, after 30 years).

Prices went up, but so did wages. That was the wage-price spiral. The main people who got screwed were people on fixed incomes who didn't own their own houses, but the 1972 Congress added automatic COLAs and SSI in 1972 to help address that.

The public will not stomach the tax increases and it is constitutionally difficult to pass tax increases like that in California anyway.

True enough. The voters do in fact control this process, guided by all the anti-tax crap that has been tacked onto the State Constitution via initiatives. Not going to be pretty though.

when will the Dem-controlled state government actually make the tough calls?

Brown is right with you on this, and I'm with him. If the people want cuts, they're going to get cuts.

No free lunches here any more.

Good thing I was in LA in March-April 1992. I've seen this movie before. This is why when I talk about "fortresses" here it's with meaning.

I saw how the LAPD brought in the troops to literally defend Westwood when there was a gang shooting there in 1988. Black gangster-type people were simply not allowed anywhere in 90024 after that.

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-02-02/local/me-40025_1_westwood-village

duxbury001 says

but what really makes it obvious is how criminally inflated the wages are

Kind of like CEOs making $25M/year?

People want to be told the lies they want to hear.

Film at 11.

There is no fix for this. It is all going to end very badly.

Well, that's more a Downer-Debbie thing I guess. I was wrong in 1992 and maybe my pessimism will be proved wrong this decade too.

shrekgrinch says

Only one state currently has its own bank . . .North Dakota…and North Dakota doesn’t have any financing or budget problems:

That sounds an awful lot like the socialism

North Dakota has 40 acres of productive cropland per capita, which alone would be enough to support any economy.

On top of that it is producing 200bbl of oil per capita per year, twice that of the KSA.

On top of that it receives an extra 70c for each Federal tax dollar it sends to DC.

It would take a really concerted effort to screw that economy up.

But I do like the state bank idea.

We need a return to the Fairness Doctrine, there is no other solution since clearly the main mission of Big Money is to LIE in order to further it's own growth without regard to civil consequences.

heh, I thought I was repeating myself here:

http://patrick.net/?p=28379#comment-667013

Gotta get back to work now . . . see ya guys

Vicente says

We need a return to the Fairness Doctrine,

I totally agree. How else will the ideas of the left ever survive in the free marketplace without force and government assistance? "Air America" is a prime time example. They went bankrupt not only for financial reasons, but because virtually no one with a brain could stand listening to their childish, drooling ranting on the air.

@Nomograph - 99% of all housing materials are made overseas....your cement is probably made in mexico and the siding also. bathroom fixtures and door sets...please what percentage of product sold is made in the usa.

majority of laboratory glassware is made in turkey or india....

more plywood is imported into the usa than produced here....

your windows probably are made in the usa with illegal mexicans....

your ford was made in the usa...really....what percentage of the parts were made in the usa...your ford might have been 'assembled' but probably 65% were foreign parts....

Kewaunee equipment...maybe assembled in carolina but made in singapore and bangalore....

pyrex glass tubing...all made in china...all of it....i was a glass blower and manufactured custom laboratory glassware and 30 years ago the tube/rod glass was made in america...not today

ALL OF THE FANCY MEDICAL EQUIPMENT IS ASSEMBLED IN THE USA from parts made over seas.........very few of the parts are acyually made here.

i could go on and on but....if 95% of your stuff is made in america, why do we have a trade deficit...?....get real.

tatupu70 says

709hannah says

then go long GM stock …what are you waiting for. while you are at it go long treasuries and aapl and nflx and throw in some california RE

I’m more of an index guy.
709hannah says

….good luck and remember…dont do the numbers just read the headlines….good luck

No—headlines are often misleading. I’m assuming you are being sarcastic, and if so, it’s one thing I’ll agree with you on. Unfortunately, you appear to have your mind made up before you get to the numbers..

tatupu70 - can i be clearer...do the math! if you read the headline you will be lied to and mislead. my original post states 'do the math'. these idiots go by headlines and dont have a clue how the numbers are arrived at.........

709hannah says

i could go on and on but….if 95% of your stuff is made in america, why do we have a trade deficit…?….get real.

Ever heard of oil?

709hannah says

tatupu70 - can i be clearer…do the math! if you read the headline you will be lied to and lislead. my original post states ‘do the math’. these idiots go by headlines and dont have a clue how the numbers are arrived at………

I did the math. The math told a different story than you did...

what did it tell you...?

It told me that GM had a good year.

so without the oil component. we wouldnt have a deficit...BULLSH&T....!

numbers...dont give me a 'headline'....what was good? did they pay back the gov loans....buy back all the gm stock owned by the tax payers...?

709hannah says

numbers…dont give me a ‘headline’….what was good? did they pay back the gov loans….buy back all the gm stock owned by the tax payers…?

Which numbers would you like? Total sales? Net income? Retail sales? Cash flow? ROA? ROI?

how about sales of GM cars in china....up or down? thats their big new market isnt it...?

are GM production numbers/sales up or down....?

....so are inventories up or down...?

how much money has the gov pushed to GM....?

would GM make a profit if it had to pay taxes....?...$45bil gift from uncle sam

..and why has the stock price fallen to below the IPO price if it is doing so well...?

709hannah says

so without the oil component. we wouldnt have a deficit…BULLSH&T….!

No we still would. But petroleum based products are 50%+ of our current deficit.

I say invest in Southeast Asia, particularly the Phillipines. Can't own 100 per cent of land there but you can go into partnerships.

CAT, X, AAPL, have been good for me. UPS or FDX, or some leading indicators seem smart if there is a ramp up on the consumer side.

Why would homebuilders be good? Don't we have surplus houses that lie vacant?

Maybe CAT will do even better when they need those big D9s to bulldoze Vegas and the Inland Empire?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Caterpillar_D9

I agree that it is a problem that needs to be addressed, and some of their suggestions make sense. Others are vague and also questionable ethically.

Here are two excerpts from the Hoover document that I find at odds:

The system lacks discipline. The purpose of the public pension system has shifted away from providing retirement security to public employees. Today, the pension system is regarded as deferred compensation – the perceived tradeoff of earning a lower salary in the public sector in exchange for a good retirement
package.

and this

Recommendation 1: To reduce growing pension liabilities of current public workers, state and local governments must pursue aggressive strategies on multiple fronts.

The Legislature should give state and local governments the authority to alter the future, unaccrued retirement benefits for current public employees.

They acknowledge that this was understood as deferred compensation. And then later they say the state needs to take that compensation back (essentially raiding our pensions). They don't say that this would be a last resort after trying all other recommendations. And they are very vague about what this would even mean.

So I guess they are saying that after the state lured quality people into these jobs with a promise of compensation x, that now, when these employees have committed themselves and invested themselves, and now have less employment alternatives, they will decrease their compensation from what was promised ?

Other measures such as having caps, and preventing pension spiking I agree with.