Contributors

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Without Comment




30 comments:

last in line said...

Everyone you voted for was in office for 2 years with a veto-proof majority and this didn't change? Looks like your party wanted to keep things this way, otherwise they might have actually done something about it instead of talk about it all the time.

Anonymous said...

It's pretty small and hard to read.. Which % went down? You are in that % I assume?

Haplo9 said...

The summary of the thousands of words written on this subject on this website can be summarized as thus:

Mark: This is bad.
Numerous commentors: Why?
Mark: Because I said so.

Repeat, ad nauseum.

Mark Ward said...

Hap, I can't help it if you don't listen. As I have said MANY times now, the middle class drives this economy. With consumer spending representing two thirds of our economy, when the majority of the people have less money, our economy stagnates as it is right now. In other words, we don't grow. You can't run an economy like ours with more and more wealth concentrated at the top. The models that grow out of this simply don't work yet people like you continue to champion them.

So, your summation of my view, with its insulting simplicity, is completely wrong and clearly a dodge to allow you to avoid dealing with this very real problem for which you have no solution. To have one would mean giving a little on your ideology. That, of course, can never happen.

Haplo9 said...

No Mark, it's exactly as I've said. You've simply repeated the same thing over and over again, while either ignoring or failing to grasp the straightforward question you are being asked. I can't help it if you aren't able to think through the implications of your own claims. Let me try, yet again, to see if I can help you, for the nth time.

Yes, the middle class is an important part of our economy. Yes, it isn't a good thing when the middle class has less money to spend. With me so far? Now, imagine if we were able to magically cause all members of that top 1% to have no income next year. Zero. Would the income they didn't get somehow get transferred to the other income percentiles, and thus make the graph look better to you? If so, how and why would that happen?

That's the implication of your repeated insistence that this is a problem. That's why Last pointed you to an article saying that there were a lot fewer millionaires last year. The implication being hey - a lot fewer millionaires. Things should be better in Mark's opinion, right? Fewer people pushing up that red line, right? That's why Juris keeps asking you how you get fucked over by rich people. If the disparity in income is a problem, then those people making a lot of money must be directly hurting you somehow, right? Ok, so in what way do they hurt you?

For once in your life Mark - Think through your claims. Game out the logical implications of what you are saying and test them against the real world.

Haplo9 said...

One clarification:

when i say this:

Would the income they didn't get somehow get transferred to the other income percentiles, and thus make the graph look better to you?

It's probably wrong to ask whether the graph would look better to you, because the red line would probably get flattened out if the top 1% suddenly had no income, and it would look better to you. But that doesn't answer the far more important question - would those lower percentiles be better off?

Mark Ward said...

Game out the logical implications of what you are saying and test them against the real world

I don't have to game them out. How did our economy do when taxes were higher during the Clinton era? Clinton was a large proponent of the middle class being the main engine of our economy. His policies worked and he left office with a budget surplus. More people had more money and we did pretty well.

I can't help it if you or juris don't listen or accept the facts that I have presented. Honestly, there is something seriously wrong with your perception if you think that I am correlating reforming the tax code, eliminating loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealth expire with causing the top one percent to magically have no income. That's preposterous but it does go a long way in explaining how completely FUBAR your perception is of people who don't adhere to your catechisms.

You can't run an economy successfully with such an income and wealth disparity. If you think we can, explain how. Use evidence. How are stagnant wages and rising costs of the necessities of life a good thing? How do they not harm the economy?

6Kings said...

I don't have to game them out.

Money right there!

I BELIEVE!

Santa said...

Money right there!

Evidence ignored.

You believe!

Larry said...

Well, let's see, there was the large tech bubble that was being blown during the Clinton years that was starting to deflate even before Bush's inauguration. The housing bubble was beginning to inflate. Were either of those great? Hell, Fannie and Freddie just needed another several billions to stave off disaster.

Anonymous said...

You can't run an economy successfully with such an income and wealth disparity.

Why not?

What you're suggesting is that we should Eat the Rich!, just as your hero, Michael Moore suggests.

Haplo9 said...

>if you think that I am correlating reforming the tax code, eliminating loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealth expire with causing the top one percent to magically have no income.

Wow - I realize you aren't big on taking a theory and trying to see how it might apply to the real world, but you have absolutely no idea what I was talking about, do you. Here's a clue:

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

Maybe it would be have been easier to stick with the real world:

Last recently gave you a link that says that lots of millionaires disappeared from the tax rolls recently, because their incomes went down. Since those millionaires aren't making so much money now, that will likely send the red line (top 1%) in both of your graph downward. Key question - if the red line does indeed head downwards, indicating a reduction in the in the share of income of the top 1%, will the other quintiles be automatically better off? That is a yes or no question by the way. Your position on this subject would seem to be yes (though with the mush think you output, who really knows.) The obvious followup question would then be why.

>You can't run an economy successfully with such an income and wealth disparity.

Why not? (Leaving aside the rather odd framing that nobody "runs" the economy.) You've asserted this time and time again, but not actually given any reasoning for it. Why and how does having large amounts of income and wealth in the top 1% harm the lower quintiles?

>If you think we can, explain how.

Recall, Mark, that you just said "You can't run an economy that way." You're making the claim. The burden is on you to show why what you claimed is true. So far, you seem to think it's self evident. Not good enough. Me, I haven't seen any indication that the economy can't run just fine either way - with a relatively small portion of people making a lot of wealth, or without.

Mark Ward said...

Why and how does having large amounts of income and wealth in the top 1% harm the lower quintiles?

Yes, the middle class is an important part of our economy. Yes, it isn't a good thing when the middle class has less money to spend.

You answered your own question. But, again, you perception is off.

It's not a problem for me if there are wealthy people in this country. There are always going to be people that have more money than other people. That's the nature of capitalism. The problems arise when the top percentiles are reaping all of the rewards and there are less people spending money. The owners of these businesses are charging more money so they can reap higher profit to people that need the good and can't live without it. These same people who can't afford it have seen their wages stagnate or have been laid off-also by people who making more money than they ever have. As Manzi wrote in "Keeping America's Edge"

Furthermore, the divisive effects of this cluster of trends — ­rising income inequality and reduced income mobility, some degree of ­middle-class wage stagnation, increased personal debt, and increased class stratification of stable social behavior — are only intensified by climbing rates of assortative mating and residential segregation, as well as an increasingly crude and corrosive popular culture combined with the technology-driven fragmentation of mass media.

So economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social ­cohesion — but far more important, it is a symptom of our deeper ­problem. As the unsustainable high tide of post-war American dominance has slowly ebbed, many — perhaps most — of our country's workers appear unable to compete internationally at the level required to maintain anything like their current standard of living. And a shrinking elite portion of the American population, itself a shrinking fraction of the world ­population, cannot indefinitely maintain our global position.


I've answered this over and over again and, for whatever reason, you continue to ask the question. Ironic as well that juris laments me and his hope that he had after he pointed this article out to me yet he has actually the one that has ignored it (#3-Projection/Flipping)

You've also asked me another question (if the red line goes down, will the other quintiles be better off) which is another classic example of oversimplification. You're not looking at the broader picture, here as the Manzi quote above clearly illustrates. The answer is no, of course, but it doesn't address the problem and instead illustrates one of the many techniques you guys use to "win" the argument but completely ignore even beginning to address the problem let alone offering solutions to solving it.

Mark Ward said...

Hap, in our discussion over the last few days, all of the focus has been on me. You've engaged quite well in this:

7.Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several Fox commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it seems to have some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a "win."

The difference here, being, I don't lack confidence. I think you do because I don't see much in the way of comments that detail your preferred economic theory, examples of how it has worked in the past, and a critical examination of its shortcomings. Sure, you've stated that you don't think that wealth inequality is a problem but no real meat as to why that is. Instead, it's the continued rectal of me with the same questions asked in different ways.

I challenge you in your next response to put forth your own reasoning and not focus on my words as much. I think you are probably going to disagree with Manzi so explain why that is and, perhaps, use that as a jumping off point to detail your views. If choose to decline to do this, it's pretty obvious to me that you don't really have much substance to your ideas and they are simply uninformed opinions. You'd rather continue to dissect what I say as a way to avoid offering anything of real substance.

Mark Ward said...

A link to Manzi

http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge

mjh said...

Mark, Haplo9 is proof positive of your theory that the right is all about winning the argument and proving wrong. Does anyone else notice that he has no real substance to anything he says? It's all Ad Hominem (grilling Mark) and offering no counter point with his own set of information. Last in Line at least offers his own information to back up his views. I don't agree with them but at least he doesn't avoid the hot seat. You guys tease Mark and call him Brave Sir Robin and quote his standard list of responses yet he's here every day responding to you. It makes no sense given that none of you offer anything at all except your ONLY response-dissect Mark's statements and childishly taunt him.

Miriam said...

I've noticed it. Clearly, Mark has the patience of a saint. He must be an excellent teacher to be able to put up with this continued line of baloney.

Juris Imprudent said...

So economic inequality is likely to cause problems with social ­cohesion

So Manzi and you argue that social cohesion is 1) important, and 2) in trouble.

I don't recall Manzi offering any definition of social cohesion, so perhaps you'd offer one? Because I have trouble getting all worked up about something unless I understand what it is and why it is important. Oh, and don't give me the wiki definition - I'd prefer for you to define it in your own words, not someone elses.

Mark Ward said...

Social cohesion to me means less stratification between income groups and more stability for the larger (in numbers)portions of these groups. This is essential for two reasons. First, consumer spending drives our economy which means the the middle class is the engine that drives our economy. Second, having social cohesion means having a strong and flexible work force that can compete in the global market. If a large chunk of the population has stagnate wages, lack of good health care, and is trapped by high prices in markets with inelasticity of demand, we lose both that strength and flexibility.

This is where the government comes in and, obviously, our point of contention. I think they have and can do a good job at helping with this. You don't.

Juris Imprudent said...

Social cohesion to me means less stratification between income groups and more stability for the larger (in numbers)portions of these groups.

First off, thanks - it is nice when you engage.

So if I have this right, you are saying that lack of income mobility (which goes both up and down) is the major concern - more than simply the inequality of income at the top from the bottom. I agree with that - the problem I see is that there isn't very good data that this is a real problem right now. All of the stats I've seen (including the ones you've provided) don't show comparisons very well.

Second, having social cohesion means having a strong and flexible work force that can compete in the global market.

I don't follow this. How is cohesion important to the global competitiveness of U.S. labor? Education, skills development, etc. - those seem much more relevant.

So what exactly happens when social cohesion goes down (or up)? What are the effects?

Stagnant wages may be more of a symptom than a cause (though that would contribute to the lack of optimism about improving one's lot). Health care is an absolute non sequitir. And your mis- (or dis-) information about markets and elasticity of both supply and demand is laughably bad. Every time gas prices go up, you whine, but people consume less. Exactly as would be expected and hardly the catastrophe you claim.

This is where the government comes in

And does what exactly?

Mark Ward said...

You're welcome.

Education, skills development, etc. - those seem much more relevant.

That's true but this requires money especially at the higher levels of skills development and education. With the rising cost of so many essentials in life and wages stagnating, many people in this country are not able to have the opportunities they need to get these skills and compete in the world. Invariably, they end up in the service industry barely scraping by. It's a sign of the times that the service industry (service to whom?) is doing as well as it is.

Look at what happened in the past when our society was less stratified...the post war boom and the new frontier. If we had less inequality, we'd have similar stability.

And your mis- (or dis-) information about markets and elasticity of both supply and demand is laughably bad.

C'mon, juris, you just think that because of an emotional preference. You don't want the government involved in health care but they have to be because of inelastic demand and the suppliers taking advantage of that. If you are worried about freedom, recall the Heritage list of economic freedom. Switzerland , Canada and Denmark all have government run health care and rank higher than the US.

Every time gas prices go up, you whine, but people consume less.

Wrong. Demand for oil is so great in the world that our consumption doesn't matter. Even if we were a net exporter of oil(as Canada is) we'd still be shackled to the demand of the world market. If everyone in this country rode bikes and carried goods on horseback, we'd still have to deal with the billions of people in China, India and around the world who use a lot of oil, right?

And does what exactly?

Well, that's what the debate is all about right now. If we didn't to deal with certain people's ridiculous sensitivities about government right now, we might actually be able to come up with some solutions and solve problems.

The government can set the tone and provide the framework in a variety of areas that can improve these conditions. I'd point to the president's SOTU speech this year for the particulars. For example, how about increased efforts on next generation bio fuels like algae? That would help to solve our reliance on oil and the government has the more robust infrastructure to deal with that.

Juris Imprudent said...

With the rising cost of so many essentials in life

You keep asserting that, but inflation hasn't been an issue in the last 10+ years and is most worrisome in the future due to the deficits the govt is running (and the likelihood that that will lead to a devaluation of the dollar).

If we had less inequality, we'd have similar stability.

When was the longest period of sustained prosperity in U.S. history? The Clinton-Bush II years which is right in the heart of your supposed decay and instability. Care to try again?

C'mon, juris, you just think that because of an emotional preference.

No M, and you are projecting. I have a much deeper background in econ than you do, and you really don't know what you are talking about. What you say fits with a narrative you insist exists, absent any and all evidence.

Ironically there is an instance of inelasticity of supply and it relates to healthcare. The AMA makes sure that colleges don't turn out too many doctors which would negative impact the earnings of their members.

Demand for oil is so great in the world that our consumption doesn't matter.

Are you lying or just blind stupid committed to an ideology there M? The proof has been that when prices rise, consumption falls. You've been shown this every time it hits the news - and you keep denying the evidence. Could that be because it interferes with your faith?

we might actually be able to come up with some solutions and solve problems

SUCH AS? Fer chrissakes all you talk about is the need for solutions to problems and you never fucking say anything specific? Fuck "tone" and "framework" - I don't get that or desire it from the govt or any other person that thinks they know what I need in my life. I reject it from liberal sources as well as conservative.

And you still haven't said what happens when social cohesion increases or decreases. What is the upside? What is the downside?

Anonymous said...

"Even if we were a net exporter of oil(as Canada is) we'd still be shackled to the demand of the world market."

Can anyone please, PLEASE link me to THAT post where commenters tried feverishly to convince him of the truth of that statement, over his protests?

Anonymous said...

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10123622&postID=8464294422124469986&isPopup=true

Found it myself.

I apologize, Mark.

My memory of your position was wrong.

Mark Ward said...

It's not inflation that's causing the rising costs. It's the stagnant wages which means people are having make do with less. Risings costs doesn't mean that the price is going up necessarily-although that is true for health care-it's that people have less money.

Care to try again?

I don't have to because I do agree that Clinton did a great job with the economy. More people were working and making money...revenue was up...the rates were more fair than they are now...and more people had money. The middle class engine, remember, juris? I got that idea from Clinton. We don't have that now and that's a major cause of our problems.

I have a much deeper background in econ than you do, and you really don't know what you are talking about

And we're back to this again. If you don't like what I have to say or disagree, say so. Explain why. Explain how the various markets in health care are more elastic on the demand side. Again, I think you're just pissed because I'm right about something that you don't like. Your natural reaction is to say that I don't know what I'm talking about. Oh well...

Regarding solutions, I offered a specific one: next gen biofuels like algae.

Regarding social cohesion, I already explained what happens. With more inequality, we have less consumer spending and the diminished ability to compete in the world. That's what Manzi was talking about. When we have less inequality, we have what we had in the 90s. Or the late 40s into the early 60s.

juris imprudent said...

It's not inflation that's causing the rising costs.

Well then get yourself nominated for a Nobel Prize in Economics M.

I don't have to because I do agree that Clinton did a great job with the economy

Wait, you mean Clinton didn't just inherit a good economy from Bush I? Maybe you will one day get over the idea that the President is Economic Manager in Chief.

Explain how the various markets in health care are more elastic on the demand side.

No, on this you need to go learn. I am not your tutor. I don't have the time or inclination, but you can certainly read books (hint: not recommended by Michael Moore, TPM or DailyKOS), or you can even take a class or two.

I offered a specific one: next gen biofuels like algae

And what does that do to improve (or worsen) social cohesion?

With more inequality, we have less consumer spending and the diminished ability to compete in the world.

That makes zero sense. But if you feel that is an adequate answer - I guess it is for you.

As for income inequality - that has supposedly been a problem since the 70s. So I don't see how you can say it wasn't a problem in the 90s - except of course that a Democrat was President most of that decade. **cough** partisan hackery **cough**

No name said...

Wait, you mean Clinton didn't just inherit a good economy from Bush 1?

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic here.

Didn't the market crash in oct 88, then recession, then Perot had to run because he was disgusted with the deficit spending that had accumulated after the regan tax cuts.

Over simplified, maybe I'm just too old.

Mark Ward said...

Yes, Clinton did inherit an improving economy from Bush. That's because Bush saw the need to raise taxes.

Regarding the inelastic demand of health care, I'm not asking you to instruct me. I already know the answer. You disagree with it. Why? I'm asking for your view with supporting evidence.

Regarding algae, that's an example of an alternative fuel source that could lower energy costs for your average person.

juris imprudent said...

I already know the answer.

Yes, it is what your faith tells you. Not anything you ever learned in economics. If you would invest some time learning, you would see why your belief is wrong.

Regarding algae, that's an example of an alternative fuel source that could lower energy costs for your average person.

And that improves social cohesion how? Is there any way I could possibly make the question clearer? Or are you just randomly spewing bullshit because you think it sounds good?

@NN: Can't tell if you are being sarcastic here.

Only to those who believe the President is Manager in Chief of the Economy and all he has to do is pull some levers to make it work better.

Mark Ward said...

Alright, juris, let's try this one more time. Imagine the market for kidney dialysis with a blank supply and demand diagram. The demand curve is nearly vertical, is it not? People are going to pay for dialysis no matter what the price. The price will go up and the demand might fall off a little as a result but it will stay very inelastic because it's someone's life we are talking about here.

A second example would be the market for dexamethosone, a steriod that is used to treat multiple myeloma. My mother in law takes this drug. The demand slope would be similar for this market as well. If the price for this goes up, people will still buy it and the demand curve will look somewhat like the Leaning Tower of Pisa if you are seeing it with the top slanting to the left.

So, explain to me how this is not the case. Use your knowledge of economics to show me how the demand is more elastic than I say it is.

Regarding social cohesion, I don't think you are that dense and are just doing the usual fucking me with me thing but here we go...again. If people are paying less money for their energy needs, they then have more money to save or invest which leads to less inequality which leads to greater social cohesion. They also spend more money which, in our two thirds consumer spending economy, is also a good thing.

Clear on all this now? Or are we going to continue to blow a bowel?