by Nullset ➕follow (0) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 74 - 113 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
Sure:
Earnings at the 10th percentile as a share of median worker earnings in selected OECD countries, late 2000s
A couple of things leap out at me one is that the statistics are based on household income which is known for misleading numbers. This is because as the divorce rate skyrocketed a couple of decades ago which distorts household income. My theory is that foreign countries were not hit as hard by the Gloria Steinem meme as the US
The second trick that these guys use is that government transfers are not counted as income in the lowest quin tile this includes things like section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, healthcare etc. This skews the numbers. I think this gives Mexican immigrants a big advantage in the work place as they are subsidized by the government.
A third thing is that categories are not real flesh and blood people so changes in a category do not reflect real people. This is because people move out of categories very quickly they are Absolutely not static.
Graphs have many inputting factors which do not isolate the things they are purported to show. This is the reason that Austrians don't use them as much as Keynesian who want to solve everything with math. While ignoring logic.
A couple of things leap out at me one is that the statistics are based on household income which is known for misleading numbers. This is because as the divorce rate skyrocketed a couple of decades ago which distorts household income. My theory is that foreign countries were not hit as hard by the Gloria Steinem meme as the US
The second trick that these guys use is that government transfers are not counted as income in the lowest quin tile this includes things like section 8 housing, WIC, food stamps, welfare, healthcare etc. This skews the numbers. I think this gives Mexican immigrants a big advantage in the work place as they are subsidized by the government.
LOL - you are so full of shit. Sure, any data that proves you wrong is a "trick". Riiight... You lobbed a ball at me and I smashed it right back down your throat. Now you're hemming and hawing like a fiend. Just admit you lost the argument - everyone knows it.
Again--completely wrong. You are a poor student of history. Government inaction leads to disparity. Laissez Faire leads to inequality. Unrestrained capitalism naturally leads to inequality.
Hmm, I am pretty sure we have more government intervention today than we did 30, 40 or even 100 years ago. Yet today is the largest wealth disparity this country has ever seen, even larger than the 1920s.
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since
There are a lot of reasons why wages were high from 45-80s. One reason from the 40-70's, U.S. companies didn't have a lot of competition for U.S. consumers (most of that being thanks to the war). For example, The Japanese cars didn't come until the 70s or late 60s to compete, global workers were not competing with U.S. workers, until somewhere around the mid 70s and became worst during the 90s and turn of the century.
Plus I am not even getting into the U.S. dollar and our monetary policy that's a page of their own.
Nope--because history says so. Look at 1929. Look at the history of real wage gains and understand why gains were high in the 1945-1980ish time period, but have basically stopped since
That is a Tat quote somehow that got jacked up
Hmm, I am pretty sure we have more government intervention today than we did
30, 40 or even 100 years ago. Yet today is the largest wealth disparity this
country has ever seen, even larger than the 1920s.
I'm pretty sure we don't. Reagan started the era of deregulation and it has continued for 30+ years.
I'm pretty sure we don't. Reagan started the era of deregulation and it has continued for 30+ years.
That is a fallacy.
That is a fallacy.
No it's not. I didn't say Reagan was the only President responsible--only that the deregulation started under his watch. The last 30+ years has seen significant easing of regulation. Do you disagree?
No it's not. I didn't say Reagan was the only President responsible--only that the deregulation started under his watch. The last 30+ years has seen significant easing of regulation. Do you disagree?
If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.
If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start
any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.
I did read it and it says some deregulation started in the late 70s under Carter. So it did not start under Reagan. True. Also says Reagan did not deregulate everything he promised and highlighted some regulations that increased.
Must have been an except from an old opinion piece, so was hard to follow. The bottom line is if you do not think deregulation happened under Reagan, I kindly guide you to, as an example:
1982 - Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act PL 97-320
1982 - Bus Regulatory Reform Act PL 97-261
1989 - Natural Gas Wellhead Decontrol Act PL 101-60
Reagan didn't start deregulation, true. But he wasn't some great bureaucrat either. And his message paved the way for the Republican party platform even today, which has been all over:
1992 - National Energy Policy Act PL 102-486
1996 - Telecommunications Act PL 104-104
1999 - Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act PL 106-102
2000 - The Commodity Futures Modernization Act
2006 - Credit Rating Agency Reform Act of 2006
If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start
any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.
I read it as well. Like the previous poster said--some deregulation activity started with Carter. It was implemented by Reagan. Some further activity started and was implemented by Reagan. What's your point?
Nitpicking aside--do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?
do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?
No quite the opposite.
No quite the opposite.
examples?
Locally look to California and the growth of public sector salaries and benefits, legislators who pass 900 new laws a year.
Federally the government spends 1/3 of the budget with borrowed money.
The average federal worker makes twice what a private sector counterpart makes.
You are now going to say that is not regulation. But these mutts have justify their paycheck somehow. So we end up with seat belt laws that cost $200 or other traffic violations that cost absurd amounts of money. Business is leaving the state in droves.
At the FED level we have Frank Dodd that will be a bigger impediment to commerce than Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare that will enslave the economy forever. Bush's TARP was the beginning of the end based on pure propaganda. The CRA planted the seed for Greenspan to impale the future of the US.
Locally look to California and the growth of public sector salaries and benefits, legislators who pass 900 new laws a year.
That's not a regulation.
Federally the government spends 1/3 of the budget with borrowed money.
That's not a regulation
The average federal worker makes twice what a private sector counterpart makes.
Not only is that not a regulation, it's a purposely misleading statement.
You are now going to say that is not regulation
You're right. I already did.
At the FED level we have Frank Dodd that will be a bigger impediment to commerce than Sarbanes Oxley. Obamacare that will enslave the economy forever. Bush's TARP was the beginning of the end based on pure propaganda. The CRA planted the seed for Greenspan to impale the future of the US demise.
So, Frank Dodd and Sarbanes Oxley are all you've got? The whole CRA narrative is bullshit and has been disproven many times on here. The fact that you still cite it is proof that you don't care to learn anything, but rather continue to spout your nonsense ad nauseum.
Among the true causes of the housing bubble was Deregulation--namely the Gramm/Leach/Biley Act of 1999. The repeal of Glass Steagall...
Among the true causes of the housing bubble was Deregulation--namely the Gramm/Leach/Biley Act of 1999. The repeal of Glass Steagall...
Doesn't matter had Greenspan not made the money available it would not have happened.
As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.
The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.
Doesn't matter had Greenspan not made the money available it would not have happened.
Of course it would have--you don't need low interest rates to abandon underwriting practices.
As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.
Glass Steagall separated commercial from investment banking.
The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.
You're right--it wouldn't have been a problem. It would have been an effing disaster.
Of course it would have--you don't need low interest rates to abandon underwriting practices.
What? If you cannot get the loans it is moot.
As far as derivatives go they were not regulated by Glass Steagall anyway.
Glass Steagall separated commercial from investment banking.
It still did not cover derivatives.
The problem would have not been a problem if Bush and company had simply said to Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs you fucked up now you have to go where Lehman went. Previous administration would have done exactly that.
You're right--it wouldn't have been a problem. It would have been an effing disaster.
Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book
What? If you cannot get the loans it is moot.
But with no underwriting standards, you can!
It still did not cover derivatives.
It also didn't cover gambling on the Super Bowl. Who cares?
Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book
Sorry--David Stockman's opinion is just that. His opinion. There are LOTS of folks that disagree with him.
Nope pure Kool Aid, David Stockman goes over it in excruciating detail in his 700 page book
Sorry--David Stockman's opinion is just that. His opinion. There are LOTS of folks that disagree with him.
Reagans budget director is just an opinion? Wow so your opinion is equal in value?
If things are so bad here why do we keep getting immigrants?
LOL. Immigrants as a % of the population, the US ranks just behind Belize and slightly above Djibouti.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_immigrant_population
LOL. Immigrants as a % of the population, the US ranks just behind Belize and slightly above Djibouti
There you go with the graphs again. How do you figure this is a correlation to the standard of living of the poor?
Reagans budget director is just an opinion? Wow so your opinion is equal in value?
Nope--not mine. Try these:
The new study, based on tens of millions of anonymous tax records, finds that the mobility rate has held largely steady in recent decades, although it remains lower than in Canada and in much of Western Europe, where the odds of escaping poverty are higher."
In our latest episode of lies, damn lies, and statistics
We see where the "venerable" Mr Saez rears his head again, he is venerable because he went to Berkeley, the same school as our own venerable economist Roberto.
In his latest rendition of the poor are getting sodomized by the rich he again misses the fact that his trope does not include public transfers to the poor or after tax income of the sodomizers. In the words of genuinely accurate economist:
"Even aside from the fact that the U.S. has the most progressive tax system in the OECD,
the pretax, pretransfer “facts about growing inequality†from Piketty and Saez, are entirely
irrelevant to the topic of tax progressivity − for the obvious reason that they ignore taxes,
transfers and refundable tax credits. The highest tax rates could be doubled and/or means-tested
transfers to the poor tripled with no direct effect at all on income as Piketty and Saez define it,"
Located here:
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/WorkingPaper-9.pdf
Pages 16-18
If you bother to read that attachment it explains how Reagan did not start
any deregulation. Or you can continue to be willfully ignorant.
I read it as well. Like the previous poster said--some deregulation activity started with Carter. It was implemented by Reagan. Some further activity started and was implemented by Reagan. What's your point?
Nitpicking aside--do you agree that the last 30 years have seen a lot of deregulation activity?
But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.
Nope--not mine. Try these:
Well the oracle was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout so or course he praises it.
A Sacramento Bee examination of regulatory records has found that his extensive holdings in financial firms have made Buffett, the world's second-wealthiest person behind Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, one of the top beneficiaries of the banking bailout.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/05/65496/buffett-champion-of-bailout-is.html#storylink=cpy
Obama's utilizing trickle up economics. How does that work?
Similar to pissing up a rope.
That's not data, that's ad hominem.
No there is a difference, I'm pointing out a non sequitar an assumption.
My data is simply that if the US was that bad off people would not immigrate here, but they do.
But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.
Yes--probably. That's hardly meaningful though. The 1920s led to the Great Depression.
We have much less regulation than in the 1945-1975 time period.
But even with the deregulation we still have way more regulations today than we did back in the 1920s. Plus it's not just about regulations but also Fed plus government intervention.
Yes--probably. That's hardly meaningful though. The 1920s led to the Great Depression.
We have much less regulation than in the 1945-1975 time period.
How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3629
I am not going to go through all the acts and regulations but there's no way we have less regulation today than in 1945-1975. We have more because we have accounted for all the technological and social changes that have occurred.
Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1789-1901
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_1901-2001
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_legislation,_2001-present
Now here's a list of those that were repealed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_repealed_legislation
The list of those that were repealed is very very small while yet each year we're making up new legislation that provides more government intervention and regulations.
Also this is just federal legislation this does not include state or even local legislation either.
How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.
That's my point. Lack of regulation leads to wealth disparity.
Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:
Legislation does not equal regulation.
Well the oracle was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the bailout so or course he praises it.
Doesn't make him any less right.
How is it hardly meaningful? Other than today the 1920s is probably the 2nd period where there was income disparity was highest.
That's my point. Lack of regulation leads to wealth disparity.
Here's a superlist of acts and regulations starting from 1789 to present:
Legislation does not equal regulation.
No you're missing the point...
I said back int he 1920 there was less regulation today but yet we still had high wealth disparity.. Today we have a lot more regulation but have the highest wealth disparity. If anything I am pretty sure that wealth disparity will have more to do with the monetary policy.
Not all legislation are regulations no, but some or many are. They can be one in the same really.
You are so out of it. The wealth of 85 people on Forbes is more than the wealth of 3.5 billion people. And the real trillionaires like the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers, are not even on the list.
Prove it
Nobody cares about facts when getting pitched by POTUS. The graph above was not available
No Obama quote?
or current graph?
Obama quote?
No. Care to grace us with your most astute observation?
Not that I'm defending Bush but the current debt is 17 trillion and climbing and we still have 2 yr to go.
By the time we see the full effects of Obama care and Frank Dodd Bush will look like a miser. Of course that will be a very short lived photo opportunity.
Banks are currently meeting to mount a lawsuit against the framers of Dodd-Frank for consequential losses of bailouts they would have otherwise received.
The main point I'm making is that the debt is increasing faster now than under Bush.
The same two guys that were central to the problem in the first place created the fix. Oh this couldn't possibly go wrong.
It is hard to predict what the outcome will be but from what I read it will not be effective there are many articles about it.
A comparison might be Sarbanes Oxley that was passed after the Enron scandal. It is estimated to cost the economy 1.5 trillion dollars per year. It has yet to find one instance of financial irregularity in over 10 years.
Another side effect may be a drop in IPOs since the passing of SOX.
This would be a more likely result of Frank Dodd.
And no wonder it's so hard to make sense to your type, all the standard lingo has been turned around backwards... by well paid media commentators ... which you would call liberal, but you would mean to imply that media exists to effect downwardly distributed benefits which the five families that own media would never wish to do.
None of us know all the details of the health plan but the reality is it will cost, actually drain the economy, in perpetuity
A similar thing happened when LBJ passed medicare at the time (1967) it was estimated to cost 6 times as much by 1990, actually it cost 61 times as much by 1990.
Today it is the biggest unfunded liability and a boat anchor to the economy subject to a gigantic amount of fraud.
The reality is that when you reduce the cost to 0 the demand skyrockets the country will have no choice but to ration the care.
« First « Previous Comments 74 - 113 of 301 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,236,311 comments by 14,783 users - komputodo, mell, Patrick, RC2006 online now