patrick.net

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.

spydah_hh says

Ok still you didn't provide how the wealth disparity is created

I did--I just didn't give my opinion as to why the income is "earned" unevenly.

spydah_hh says

Okay, so how is that other person making more money? By working harder? Coming
up with ingenious ideas? what? And why is that wrong?

It varies--sometimes from hard work. Many times not. What's wrong is that an economy doesn't function when wealth disparity gets to extreme levels like we have now. It's not a "fairness" issue, it's just pragmatic..

spydah_hh says

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.

OK--how come when I ask about how inflation causes wealth disparity, it usually comes back to the bailout. Regardless of whether you think it was needed-it was a one time event. It CAN'T be the cause of 30 years of increasing wealth disparity in the US.

spydah_hh says

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.

I'd be surprised if Citibank or B of A hold many shares in any of the above companies. Those companies' stocks are high because the public buys them. They are bought on the expectation for future profits.

spydah_hh says

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

No, it doesn't. As people are living longer, some adjustments have been necessary. And the baby boomer generation is so large that it skews everything. But, there is no reason why SS cannot survive indefinitely with a stable population and no growth.

It is absolutely NOT a Ponzi scheme.

tatupu70 says

It varies--sometimes from hard work. Many times not. What's wrong is that an economy doesn't function when wealth disparity gets to extreme levels like we have now. It's not a "fairness" issue, it's just pragmatic..

You're still not giving me any answer why wealth disparity gets to extreme levels. I'd like to hear why.

tatupu70 says

OK--how come when I ask about how inflation causes wealth disparity, it usually comes back to the bailout. Regardless of whether you think it was needed-it was a one time event. It CAN'T be the cause of 30 years of increasing wealth disparity in the US.

Bailout? No the banks have been receiving money from the Federal Reserve since its inception and it has been loaning money to the government since 1918. Don't think this stuff only occurred from the bailouts lol. This stuff is what caused the 1920 great depression because once again, the fed increased the money supply throughout the early twenties (started in 1924 I think to be exact) then in 1929 it reduced the money supply by 1/3 and cause all that cheap money to evaporate causing the stock market to bust and businesses to bust.

The Fed expanded the money supply in the 1920s in an effort to shore up the weak British Pound Sterling. Suddenly in 1929, the Fed reversed its monetary policy and begin contracting the money supply. Between the summer of 1929 and the election of 1932 the Fed reduced the money supply by 1/3. Individuals and businesses were caught short and forced to liquidate at reduced prices causing the economy to cave in on itself.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_did_the_federal_reserve_contribute_to_the_depression
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/MoneySupply.html

Also what's similar to the 1920s and today? There was a high wealth disparity back then in fact the 2nd highest (used to be the 1st).

Also I can't give you a step by step answer on how the money goes from the fed to the banks to the hedge funds, mutal funds, and the wealth individuals, because the in its 100 year history the FED has never been fully audit. The previous link I showed you was just a watered down audit. So know one really knows the exact steps, however, everyone who knows about the fed know they're responsible for creating booms and busts and wealth disparity.

tatupu70 says

I'd be surprised if Citibank or B of A hold many shares in any of the above companies.

Well be surprised because they do. Most of these companies have shares outstanding to several banks, investment funds, and even banks have shares in other banks same with the investment funds doing the same.

http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/tsla/ownership-summary
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/goog/institutional-holdings
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=amzn+Major+Holders
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=MSFT+Major+Holders
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders
http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/jpm/institutional-holdings
http://whoownsfacebook.com/

All you see down the list are banks, mutual/hedge funds, and trust funds (which are also banks), with some individuals owning a big shares but only because they're the CEOs or top level management who started the company in the first place, like Zuckerberg or Bezos, and etc.

tatupu70 says

No, it doesn't. As people are living longer, some adjustments have been necessary. And the baby boomer generation is so large that it skews everything. But, there is no reason why SS cannot survive indefinitely with a stable population and no growth.

It is absolutely NOT a Ponzi scheme.

It's a ponzi scheme that depends on the working class providing SS to those who are retired. The government just takes income from those who are working to those who are retired. Which means the working class has to continue to expand and be bigger than those who are collecting SS checks.

When you have to find more clients and take money from them in order to pay off your existing clients, you are by definition running a ponzi scheme.

spydah_hh says

Also what's similar to the 1920s and today? There was a high wealth disparity
back then in fact the 2nd highest (used to be the 1st).

You are trying to draw a correlation of money supply and income disparity. I asked you earlier but did not see a response - what if I showed you a significantly long period of increasing money supply and falling inequality? This would imply no correlation between the two, right?

control point says

spydah_hh says

Also what's similar to the 1920s and today? There was a high wealth disparity

back then in fact the 2nd highest (used to be the 1st).

You are trying to draw a correlation of money supply and income disparity. I asked you earlier but did not see a response - what if I showed you a significantly long period of increasing money supply and falling inequality? This would imply no correlation between the two, right?

No necessarily no. It would depend on the time period and what else is going on in the market.

But I'd like to see it anyway.

spydah_hh says

No necessarily no. It would depend on the time period and what else is going on
in the market

Perhaps you should examine the scientific method then. What you have been saying as LAW is that Fed policy, and increasing the money supply specifically, is what causes inequality.

If that is true, other factor do not matter - we should see measurable inequality increasing just as we see measurable money supply increasing - and vice versa - we would see inequality falling when money supply falls.

Anything other than that would imply OTHER factors affect inequality. You could say increasing money supply may be ONE factor that increases inequality, but there are other factors as well. That could be true.

Data that shows falling inequality with increasing money supply would imply that money supply increase, even if it is a factor, is a MINOR factor.

In which case, you are bitching about something that is, at best, a minor contributing factor in inequality.

spydah_hh says

But I'd like to see it anyway.

Here you go:

First, inequality depicted by the share of top 1% and .5% share of overall income, historical from 1910 to present. Notice the downward trend from ~1930 through about 1980.
(Figure 3)

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

And second, money supply vs. GDP (ie, money supply growth shown above and beyond economic growth) for 1947 through 1980.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sL2

Couldn't find data all the way back to 1930, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the money supply grew more than the economy through the depression and WW2.

At least it is shown that for a 33 year period (from 1947 through 1980) where money supply grew more than the economy - income inequality fell.

control point says

Perhaps you should examine the scientific method then. What you have been saying as LAW is that Fed policy, and increasing the money supply specifically, is what causes inequality

How about you just show me your data so we can discuss it. If the money supply gone up I am willing to bet inflation or wealth disparity has gone up too. the only exception I can think of that would not result into wealth disparity would be if the money supply has gone up during war. Because I know that in 1938-1948 the money supply was increased but during most of that period we were in war and that actually shifted the dynamics of wealth.

Also we're not talking about scientific method we're talking about the economic law. There's a difference.

spydah_hh says

How about you just show me your data so we can discuss it.

See above.

It is hard data contradicting your hypothesis - but I bet your opinion doesn't change. Prove me wrong.

control point says

money supply grew more than the economy through the depression and WW2.

Not during the great depression no. It did during WW2 as a means to help finance the war.

The money supply grew in 1967-1980 after 1948. Wealth disparity grew again in the 1970s and grew exponentially after 1980's thanks to the big recession that occurred and has ever since grown rapidly. But the money supply didn't grow rapidly again until the 90s I think and thank's to that we got the dot com bust and ever since then we've been expanding the money supply pretty fast.

So really it still goes back to show that the increase of the money supply has grown the wealth disparity, with the exception of WW2.

But i'll discuss more later I have to go to work.

spydah_hh says

Not during the great depression no.

According to this, money supply bottomed in 1933 and had effectively more than doubled by the time WW2 started in 1941.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm

Do you see the minor peak on figure 3 around 1933, then falling rapidly after as money supply more than doubled?

Look at the charts!!! What you are saying is 100% untrue!

spydah_hh says

So really it still goes back to show that the increase of the money supply has
grown the wealth disparity, with the exception of WW2.

Nothing, and I mean nothing, of the hard data I have shared with you shows this, at all.

What I have now shown is money supply growing from 1933 through 1980, (47 years) - at the same time as top 1% share of income falling from ~19% to about 9%. Effectively halving.

1. I have shown money supply growing from 1933 through 1942, more than doubling. GDP did not double over same time period.
2. We agree that the money supply grew through WW2.
3. I have shown money supply growing more than GDP from 1947 through present.
4. I provided a chart that showed .5% and 1% share of income from 1910 to present. It shows a falling trend from 1930 to 1980. Money supply only fell from 1930 to 1933. The rest of this time period, money supply grew while inequality fell.

47 years of inequality falling and money supply growing. How do you reconcile this?

spydah_hh says

When you have to find more clients and take money from them in order to pay off
your existing clients, you are by definition running a ponzi scheme

You need to look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme then. A Ponzi scheme depends on always increasing the number of payers into the system. SS does not. That's why it is not a Ponzi scheme.

SS works with a stable population. It does not need growth.

spydah_hh says

Also I can't give you a step by step answer on how the money goes from the fed
to the banks to the hedge funds, mutal funds, and the wealth individuals,
because the in its 100 year history the FED has never been fully audit

Thank you--in other words, you don't know. So, given that you don't actually know how money gets from the Fed to people's pockets and you've been shown data that clearly shows little to no correlatoin between money supply and wealth disparity--any chance you'd rethink your theory?

tatupu70 says

So, given that you don't actually know how money gets from the Fed to people's pockets

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=sM8

tatupu70 says

you've been shown data that clearly shows little to no correlatoin between money
supply and wealth disparity--any chance you'd rethink your theory?

This is where, typically, Fed cultists get their fingers two knuckles deep in their ears.

Let's see how smart this one is.

control point says

This is where, typically, Fed cultists get their fingers two knuckles deep in their ears.

Let's see how smart this one is.

Back at ya, there is a correlation if you don't crater into your graphs.

Certainly now and in the 20s. It is just that inflation is not evenly spread amongst all classes. The opposite was true in deflation but that is not the FED's MO.

The inflation meme is created by the government/cronys which you have sucked like a sponge.

indigenous says

Back at ya, there is a correlation if you don't crater into your graphs.

Right. "you don't crater," meaning don't abandon or cast aside the argument because of the graphs.

In other words, ignore the data and the argument holds. Got it.

indigenous says

It is just that inflation is not evenly spread amongst all classes.

I assume you mean "inflation" here to mean "money supply" since you are a cultist who holds onto 19th century definitions of inflation.

So you are saying that the money supply was not spread evenly across all classes. That is what spydah says - the rich get the money first and this is why they benefit causing inequality. Its not his idea Ron Paul said it a few years ago in an interview.

The problem with all of this is - data shows otherwise. Money supply grew - and the 1% and .5% did not benefit vs. everyone else, from 1933 to 1980.

control point says

I assume you mean "inflation" here to mean "money supply" since you are a cultist who holds onto 19th century definitions of inflation.

The truth is timeless regardless of your coloring it in the pejorative "19th century" thinking.

control point says

So you are saying that the money supply was not spread evenly across all classes. That is what spydah says - the rich get the money first and this is why they benefit causing inequality. Its not his idea Ron Paul said it a few years ago in an interview.

Nobody claimed it was their idea, it is not Ron Paul's either, probably an Austrian's.

But it does illustrate the problem which was most prevalent during the 20s and now.

control point says

The problem with all of this is - data shows otherwise. Money supply grew - the 1% and .5% did not benefit vs. everyone else, from 1933 to 1980.

I would guess that the money supply grew commensurate to the economy. Looking at graphs for inflation I see that inflation was somewhat under control except during WWll and 1970 to 1980. WWll as all wars caused inflation. 1970 is when Nixon took us off of the gold standard followed by the boomers entering the work force.

I would guess that the upper 1% did very well during the war as well?

Even though there has been 6 trillion dollars printed out of thin air the money has not been put into circulation therefore no where near the kind of inflation you would expect.

indigenous says

Even though there has been 6 trillion dollars printed out of thin air the
money has not been put into circulation therefore no where near the kind of
inflation you would expect.

lol--so what's your definition of inflation again? Was that a Freudian slip there?

indigenous says

I would guess that the upper 1% did very well during the war as well?

You would be wrong - look at figure 3. Their share of income fell throughout.

indigenous says

I would guess that the money supply grew commensurate to the economy.

You would be wrong again, the graph provided shows money supply growth outpacing GDP growth.

indigenous says

Even though there has been 6 trillion dollars printed out of thin air the
money has not been put into circulation therefore no where near the kind of
inflation you would expect.

Here is where you are right. You just don't know it. And you also contradict your response here:

indigenous says

The truth is timeless regardless of your coloring it in the pejorative "19th
century" thinking.

Allow me to explain. You said above the money has not made it into circulation so nowhere near the inflation you would expect. You have made this argument before, and correctly identified it as "money velocity" falling.

Well, I pointed out previously that Money velocity is merely derived number = it is GDP/Money Supply.

So what you are saying is that inflation is low in the face of exploding money supply because money velocity is decreasing. Hence, inflation is affected by combination of money supply AND Money Velocity, right?

This is actually true. But lets use some math, shall we?

Inflation = Change in (money supply * money velocity.)
Money Velocity = GDP/Money Supply.
Substitute:
Inflation = Change in (Money Supply * ( GDP/Money Supply))

Therefore, Inflation = Change in (GDP.)

Change in nominal GDP is the sum of all demands this year / sum of all demands last year. To get real GDP, you normalize (compare apples to apples) this years demands to last years demands.

Difference between the nominal and real GDP is inflation.

So, inflation is the difference in demand this year vs. the demand last year of the same goods/services.

Inflation is driven by demand.

tatupu70 says

You need to look up the definition of a Ponzi scheme then. A Ponzi scheme depends on always increasing the number of payers into the system. SS does not. That's why it is not a Ponzi scheme.

SS works with a stable population. It does not need growth.

Yes SS is a ponzi scheme. My definition of a ponzi is the exact same definition you just said.

Please look into SS as you don't seem to understand how it works.

tatupu70 says

Thank you--in other words, you don't know. So, given that you don't actually know how money gets from the Fed to people's pockets and you've been shown data that clearly shows little to no correlatoin between money supply and wealth disparity--any chance you'd rethink your theory?

Like SS you clearly don't seem to understand how the money supply creates wealth disparity and how the FED operates. There are plenty of correlations between money supply and wealth disparity. I've provided my links and my statements just you and control simply refuse to believe in them.

Also how's that higher wagers from one person compared to another person creates wealth disparity argument going? I am still dying for you to tell me how does that person with the higher wage get the wage in the first place.

spydah_hh says

Please look into SS as you don't seem to understand how it works.

I'd ask you to do the same. SS absolutely does not need an expanding population.

spydah_hh says

There are plenty of correlations between money supply and wealth disparity.

Great--please provide some. Any. Because the ones I've seen posted here do not show correlation.

spydah_hh says

Also how's that higher wagers from one person compared to another person creates wealth disparity argument going? I am still dying for you to tell me how does that person with the higher wage get the wage in the first place.

It's going fine. I didn't think I had to go into too much explanation because it's brutally obvious. If one person continuously "earns" more than another, over time their wealth will grow faster and disparity will increase. Isn't that self-expanatory?

There are many ways how/why one person might "earn" more than another. But, that's not the point of the discussion.

control point says

According to this, money supply bottomed in 1933 and had effectively more than doubled by the time WW2 started in 1941.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/depmon.htm

Do you see the minor peak on figure 3 around 1933, then falling rapidly after as money supply more than doubled?

Look at the charts!!! What you are saying is 100% untrue!

Not sure what that site is but I am getting different readings else where.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0
http://mises.org/content/nofed/chart.aspx?series=TMS
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/11/chart_of_the_we_2.html
http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/exponential-money-finite-world/29744

tatupu70 says

I'd ask you to do the same. SS absolutely does not need an expanding population.

Omg.. for the last time it does. I've already provided my statements and links same with a few others. If you want to be left in the dark about it be my guess.

tatupu70 says

It's going fine. I didn't think I had to go into too much explanation because it's brutally obvious. If one person continuously "earns" more than another, over time their wealth will grow faster and disparity will increase. Isn't that self-expanatory?

You still didn't explain how that person is earning more and why is that wrong. If a doctor earns more than a taxi driver, are you saying that creates wealth disparity abd enough for people like you to cry over and say, "Hey! That doctor owns too much, I want my fair share!

tatupu70 says

There are many ways how/why one person might "earn" more than another. But, that's not the point of the discussion.

If it isn't then wth is your point?

spydah_hh says

Omg.. for the last time it does.

How do you figure? SS has been running a surplus for the vast majority of its existence. People are living longer so there needs to be an adjustment to reflect that fact--but assuming life spans were stable, there is no reason why an expanding population is necessary.

spydah_hh says

If it isn't then wth is your point?

Are you kidding me? You've gone so far off topic that you don't even remember what the topic was??

The original question was how does inflation/the Federal Reserve cause wealth disparity. You've already admitted that you don't know the answer. And others have shown that historical data doesn't support your thesis.

Do you remember now?

spydah_hh says

You still didn't explain how that person is earning more and why is that wrong

Because it doesn't matter. And it's not "wrong". spydah_hh says

If a doctor earns more than a taxi driver, are you saying that creates wealth disparity abd enough for people like you to cry over and say, "Hey! That doctor owns too much, I want my fair share!

Nope. That's not what I'm saying.

And if indigenous is reading this--that was a stawman

spydah_hh says

Not sure what that site is but I am getting different readings else where.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/money-supply-m0

http://mises.org/content/nofed/chart.aspx?series=TMS

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2005/11/chart_of_the_we_2.html

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/exponential-money-finite-world/29744

None of those 4 links provide data on money supply during the Great Depression. Mine does.

They show money supply growth since 1959, which I do not dispute and have already shown. Use one of your links showing money supply growth since 1959, and use this graph (Figure 3) to see falling income inequality from 1959 (11% share for top 1%) to 1980 (9% share of top 1%.) Money supply grows on one graph 1959-1980, inequality falls on the other 1959-1980.

How do you explain that?

I don't enjoy arguing with morons, so last chance.

control point says

Well, I pointed out previously that Money velocity is merely derived number = it is GDP/Money Supply.

How does that account for speculation? or that clearly the velocity of money would be much higher in NY than Jackrabbit gulch NV?

control point says

So what you are saying is that inflation is low in the face of exploding money supply because money velocity is decreasing. Hence, inflation is affected by combination of money supply AND Money Velocity, right?

No it is just money supply the velocity is irrelevant.

control point says

This is actually true. But lets use some math, shall we?

No math is required or apt

control point says

Inflation = Change in (money supply * money velocity.)

As I said before just the money supply and also as compared to the need for additional money.

control point says

So, inflation is the difference in demand this year vs. the demand last year of the same goods/services.

Inflation is driven by demand.

No it is not.

Another thing to consider is that your math is taken from the viewpoint of the aggregate rather than from the viewpoint of how the individual actually behave.

If the velocity of money being exchanged increases then the velocity of goods must also increase. Which limits the velocity of money as only so many goods can be consumed by the customer.

The prices will rise more slowly at the beginning stages of inflation and faster as the inflation continues to a point where it will rise faster than the supply of money towards the final stages of inflation. The point is that the inflation is not proportional to the volume of money. It is actually tied to the desire of the good.

indigenous says

It is actually tied to the desire of the good.

Right. Desire = Demand.

The rest of what you wrote is nonsensical. I don't know why you respond to me; you must be a masochist.