I bet I can get a lady to cry on my shoulder by taking someone's money to pay for another's treatment. What an accomplishment!! Man, I think I am going to have to rethink my vote!!
John Kerry does indeed have the same lavish lifestyles as Mitt Romney. Yet their policies are the exact opposite which is why there was no criticism of Senator Kerry.
The former recognizes that the middle class is the engine that drives this economy and that wealthy people like himself should contribute more tax dollars to support that fact. The latter ignores fundamental economics and thinks that consumer demand matters not. As along as the suppliers have their taxes very low, than everything will just trickle down to the rest of us.
But here we are again with a very large misinterpretation of Democrats. I have no problem with rich people, dave. I have no problem with inequality because that's the nature of capitalism. What I have a problem with is ridiculous inequality couple with a a complete failure to recognize how important the middle class is to the economy. I have a problem with stoking the plutonomy fire...especially as we head from a unipolar world to a multipolar one.
Kerry policies? You mean becoming those perfectly timed stock trades in healthcare companies he made during the healthcare debate? He recognizes that wealthy people should pay more taxes while he docks his boat in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes on it. Actions, not words.
...for who are we going to blame for our ills and tax for our excesses?
I have no problem with inequality because that's the nature of capitalism. What I have a problem with is ridiculous inequality
...which I have yet to define at what number inequality ceases and 'ridiculous' inequality begins.
couple with a a complete failure to recognize how important the middle class is to the economy.
...where I also have yet to define what the proper or healthy percentage of middle class spending should make up our economy, but since it is a 'high' number we have to reinforce it....whether or not I can show that it should be reinforced....
I have a problem with stoking the plutonomy fire...
...but no problem is stoking the class warfare fire...
which I have yet to define at what number inequality ceases and 'ridiculous' inequality begins.
Defined many times, GD. The problem is that when you hear it, you don't like the facts. So, you switch to personal insults and other tactics (which you quickly accuse me of doing to "head me off at that pass") and...ahem...conveniently, the point is lost.
...but no problem is stoking the class warfare fire..
It's only class warfare when the poor fight back:)
You recently complained that a blogger linked back to his own posts - you can't seem to even be bothered to reference your own answers. A vague 'as I've said before' seems to suffice for you.
It's only class warfare when the poor fight back
You realize that after the Bourgeois are brought into the new social order then the Proletariat who are to reap the glory of the new workers paradise usually don't actually get any glory or paradise. If they are lucky they just get to starve under the new economic reality. The others get a bullet in the head from their new 'equal masters'.
The poor don't 'fight back' in your little schemes. The poor just get to die so you can show again and again and again that your plans would just work if 'we had the right people in charge'.
I'd be happy to have a discussion on the fallout from gross inequality, GD, but if you think it can be simplistically defined as one number, than there really is no point. As with any research, there are multiple factors to consider and it's many of those that I illustrate continually on this site.
The poor just get to die so you can show again and again and again that your plans would just work if 'we had the right people in charge'.
Hoo boy. Alright, GD, I'm just going to give this to you straight: Stop acting like an hysterical old lady. Your paranoia about Marxism (which is being perfectly exploited by our plutocracy) is preventing you from having a rational discussion about the very serious and fundamental problems with the foundation of our economy. I'm imploring you to listen to guys like Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer who have explained time and again that capitalism is not being threatened by Che lovers in a drum circle. It's being threatened by sociopaths who have a gambling problem and an addiction to money.
People like me, President Obama, Harry Reid, and many, many Democrats are trying to save this country from a socialist revolution. If you set aside your emotions, you would see this.
I'd be happy to have a discussion on the fallout from gross inequality, GD, but if you think it can be simplistically defined as one number, than there really is no point. As with any research, there are multiple factors to consider and it's many of those that I illustrate continually on this site.
You propose to forcibly take monies from people who have 'too much' money and are the 'cause' of inequality. Despite your claim that inequality is indeed a feature of capitalism you cannot delineate at which point inequality become 'ridiculous' inequality. Forgive me if I am cautious and reticent to hand over the keys to the theft machine to a person whose only guideline is that 'he knows ridiculous inequality when he sees it'.
And 'save the country from a socialist revolution'? By instituting socialist practices? Hah!
Keep stoking the fires of class warfare Mark. You can call it anything you'd like, but it is what it is.
You propose to forcibly take monies from people who have 'too much' money and are the 'cause' of inequality.
The Constitution of this country is very clear on the issue of taxes, Guard Duck. Congress has the power to tax. I know you don't like this but it's the law. Grow up. It's why our country was, is and will be great.
you cannot delineate at which point inequality become 'ridiculous' inequality.
Of course I can. It's not a simple discussion, however, so there may not be any point in pursuing it if you are going to continue to be so ridiculous and emotional.
Let's see how you do with a simple question: what is your solution for the stagnation of middle class income? Since our economy is driven by consumer spending and less consumers are spending money because their wages have flat lined, how is our economy going to grow? We can't have a healthy economy if only a few wealthy people are spending money.
By instituting socialist practices?
The problem here is YOU, GD, not me. And your very warped perception. Anything to the left of the one yard line on the right side of the field is socialism, right? Truly, you are delusional and people are paying dearly for your paranoid fantasies every day.
Blah blah blah. That has not a fucking thing to do with what you propose. You want to take money from people not in some manner of fairly providing for needed expenditure. No, you want to take it from them for the sole reason that you think they have too much. That is theft, no matter how you wrap it up in pretty sounding intentions.
Of course I can.
But you have yet to do so, despite being asked to. I don't think you can. Excusing it as 'too complicated' is so much bullshit as well. If when you are told a government can't spend more than it makes indefinitely and your only reply is to require a date at which point we fall into a boiling pit of sewage (yeah, you are sooo mature) then I can also ask you for some number that determines the difference between acceptable mere inequality and unacceptable 'ridiculous inequality'.
driven by consumer spending
You've yet to answer what the percentage of middle class spending should make up a healthy economy. If you can't answer that, how can you take any sort of action that would change it? In other words, if you want to reinforce middle class spending as a percentage of the economy shouldn't you be able to show, first, that increasing that percentage is desirable?
what is your solution for the stagnation of middle class income?
You want to take money from people not in some manner of fairly providing for needed expenditure.
No, I don't. I want the 1 percent to recognize that they are honestly nothing without the 99 percent. Who is going to buy what they are selling when no one can afford to buy it?
After they recognize this, I want them to start paying employees enough money so they can afford to buy what they make. That's what Henry Ford did and look what happened as a result. You can't pay workers shit and expect them to have incentive. This is certainly going to be true of the emerging global middle class.
Obviously, I can't force them to do it and I'm not entirely certain that the government should force them to do it either. It would be nice if they did it voluntarily but I think there are far too many wealthy people who have serious compulsion issues. So, basically, all the choices on how best to solve this issue kinda suck.
I don't think you can.
You've yet to answer what the percentage of middle class spending should make up a healthy economy
I'm not sure how long you have been reading my site, GD, but I would urge you to go back through the archives. It's a waste of my time to continue to repeat myself. Start with this tag...
The quote is a link - that's where it comes from.........
I want them to start paying employees enough money
And you claim to have knowledge of economics.......
Supply Demand The employer is the demand and the employee is the supply.
My boss isn't supplying me with a job, he is a consumer of labor. I am a supply of labor. My wage is a mutually agreed upon market price for the type of labor I supply.....
This is pretty basic stuff I know, but I can't help to think you don't really understand it when you come up with that above statement.
Plenty of data for you to peruse.
Don't be so smug - I've been reading you for years - you have not answered that - and most of your crap is crap.
So what's the damned number? At what % point do we fall into a boiling pit of sewage?
Yes, it is. So why are you missing the part about bosses not hiring due to lack of demand? And I'm talking about wages and how higher wages mean people can actually afford to buy stuff which, in turn, increases demand in the marketplace, bosses hiring more people, and economic growth. Unfuck yourself from supply side economics.
So what's the damned number?
There isn't one. You and the others from Kevin's site have assured me that you are all serious and logical people who use the scientific method in approaching problems. Now you say it's all one number? Tsk tsk...doesn't sound very grounded in reason at all.
Stop oversimplifying a very complex issue in the childish hope of "winning the argument." When you are ready to explore all of the factors in the equation, I'll be happy to examine all of your research and evidence. For example, do you think that improving education and nutrition for the bottom part of our society is important to fueling economic growth? What about eliminating corporate welfare for private sector companies who clearly can create wealth but not economic growth?
Point number one - If you don't know that number, and therefore can't know if that number needs to be higher or lower, explain how you can recommend policy to change it.
Point number two - Does this mean you will also stop being childish and demanding to know from us 'when the US is going to fall into a boiling pit of sewage' due to deficit spending?
So how about finding a source that is unbiased
You know how to read and sort truth from falsity? You can do math? Bias only matters for the opinion and conclusions. Is the meat of the matter accurate or not?
. Unfuck yourself from supply side economics.
While you engage in inappropriate relations with demand side Keynesian economics? No thanks. Funny how you treat that topic like it's a given you are right though.
Yes, juris. I don't want to talk about it. That's why I have a tag called "Wealth Inequality" and several posts with that tag. Sheesh....
explain how you can recommend policy to change it.
Who said I needed one number to have a policy change? And you still aren't listening because policy changes aren't the only thing I'm advocating. I'd like to see the private sector change on their own and recognize the wisdom of guys like Henry Ford.
Does this mean you will also stop being childish and demanding to know from us 'when the US is going to fall into a boiling pit of sewage' due to deficit spending?
Well, if you note, I haven't used that phrase in a while because you guys asked me not to do so. Yet again, though, you are creating a false equivalency. I'm happy to talk about all the factors in play with wealth inequality. I've got a post going up tomorrow with Stiglisz that address some of them. You want me to talk about one number. That doesn't make any sense at all when you consider the various complexities of the US economy.
Saying that the US is going to fail because of debt and deficit issues is and then failing to say when that is going to happen is another entirely. Again, perfectly willing here to talk about all these issues...just not oversimplify it to one number. In contrast, you are not willing to provide historical evidence for your claim nor are you willing to say when this Armageddon will occur. Convenient, as it allows you to continue to panic monger and play on people's fears.
I'm not trying to play on people's fears. I want them to recognize that we have a problem and take steps to fix it. I wonder sometimes if guys like you even want to fix our problems. It has to be done YOUR way and you have to "win" otherwise you are willing to let it all fall apart. I say that's pretty dangerous.
Is the meat of the matter accurate or not?
No, because his claim that only the median incomes are examined is false. That's not what the CBO did. They looked at all incomes. But this brings up a larger issue.
Facts don't matter anymore. Mother Jones presents its facts. AEI presents its facts. Where is the truth? I can tell you for a fucking fact that it's not "in between" as that nauseating cliche goes. Sometimes there is only one side to the story. Or there are seven sides.
While you engage in inappropriate relations with demand side Keynesian economics?
I don't even know what that means. Our problem right now is one of demand. If you have a better idea on how to increase demand, I'm all ears. Cutting taxes and spending is not the answer. We've been trying that and the results are clear. That's why you guys slay me when you shout about "Do it again only harder!"
Who said I needed one number to have a policy change?
Oh I'm listening Mark, but you aren't. If you cannot come up with a number that is ideal, or even a number that is better or worse than the current number, then you cannot show that that number needs to be or even should be changed.
Can you understand that concept? Is more better? Is less better? You can't answer that but you still want to mess with the number. What if you change it to more and that makes it worse? If you don't understand what you were doing in the first place you wouldn't even recognize that you screwed it up after messing around with things you don't understand.
It's complicated? Boo-hoo. Then don't fucking mess with it. You've yet to be able to understand the simple cause effect mechanism of government involvement with the EMTLA act but you use the effects of it to argue for further government involvement in health care. Yeah, you did. (I tried to show it to before, yet you keep dismissing it as 'government hate' or some shit)
ou are not willing to provide historical evidence for your claim nor are you willing to say when this Armageddon will occur.
So income inequality is soooooo complex that you can't simplify it, but you won't accept an argument about the ill effects of deficit spending without me being able to prognosticate an exact date when everything fails? Fuck you. That's would be the stupidest thing you've ever said if you hadn't said so many other stupid things.
“How did you go bankrupt?" Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” ― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
Everything looks fine and manageable, by the time it looks like it's a problem then it is already to late.
I don't even know what that means.
It means unfuck yourself from demand side economics - Two schools of thought and your side isn't necessarily the correct one, so stop acting like it is the default position.
Is it? I know it seems simple and intuitive. But didn't you just say that it was all soooooo complex? But you can narrow the problem down to one cause? Perhaps the problem right now is one of debt and a bubble that we have prevented from properly re-centering the economy. Perhaps 'shoring' up demand in that case will not only not fix things but actually make them worse?
But since it's all so complicated that you can't provide a 'number' that is ideal for that demand but yet you still want to increase it....despite it being sooooo complicated.....but it's simple......but it's complicated....
Cutting taxes and spending is not the answer. We've been trying that and the results are clear.
When the fuck have we cut spending? Jaysus, our federal spending goes up and up and up and the morons in DC call a reduction in the rate of growth of that spending a cut......
And that spending is either taken as taxes from actual wealth production activities or financed to the future via debt spending. So while, because of the flawed manner in which we calculate our GDP and consider it a measure of our wealth, we are 'increasing' our wealth via a manner that is decreasing our ability to create wealth.
Oh, and one more thing....
For a guy who likes to use the term 'multi-polar world', you don't seem to understand globalization. It'd be nice if some big fat cat paid American workers more.....but since he has to sell his product in competition with some other 'fat cat' who makes his product in Zimbabwe at a much lower labor cost then the first fat cat won't be in business for very long and all his highly compensated American workers won't even have a fucking job anymore.
I'd like to see the private sector change on their own and recognize the wisdom of guys like Henry Ford.
Ah, yes - good ol' Henry. Quite the paternalist as well as capitalist. A bit odd that you would so admire someone who used his corporate power so freely. Then again, consistency has never been your thing.
If consistency (let alone fairness) was at all a consideration, the picture of Obama would've been one of him on the golf course with his fat cat buddies, with Marine One sitting in the background ready to whisk him away to Air Force One to go to his next fundraiser or vacation.
If you cannot come up with a number that is ideal, or even a number that is better or worse than the current number, then you cannot show that that number needs to be or even should be changed.
It can't be defined as one number. The CBO's research looked at 6 different income levels. After that, you have to look at how those different levels look over not just the last 30 years but the last 50...the last 70...the last 100...and that's simply getting started.
but you won't accept an argument about the ill effects of deficit spending
We have data what we can examine on the effects of deficit spending. Let's start with the deficit spending that went on during the Reagan administration. Your thoughts?
Perhaps the problem right now is one of debt and a bubble that we have prevented from properly re-centering the economy. Perhaps 'shoring' up demand in that case will not only not fix things but actually make them worse?
People aren't out buying things because of government debt? People aren't out buying things because they don't have any money. The only people that can spend very seriously are the wealthy and many are now admitting that they alone can't drive growth.
There's always a danger in too much demand too soon with inflation issues but we are not there at all. Since the government is gridlocked over spending, there has to be a concerted effort in the private sector to make changes that encourage growth.
And that spending is either taken as taxes from actual wealth production activities
Taxes are very low right now, GD. Since this is undeniably true, why isn't the economy booming? We have been under GOP Tax cuts for 11 years. The economy sucks and you still want to cut taxes more. Unbelievable.
you don't seem to understand globalization. It'd be nice if some big fat cat paid American workers more.....but since he has to sell his product in competition with some other 'fat cat' who makes his product in Zimbabwe at a much lower labor cost then the first fat cat won't be in business for very long and all his highly compensated American workers won't even have a fucking job anymore.
Actually, I do and I have said this very same thing many times on here. We live in a global marketplace where things are Made in the World. Labor is plentiful and cheap (for now) and the middle class is growing in other countries. All in all, this is a good thing but it does hurt us here at home.
This is why it cracks me up that you guys worry so much about socialism. The entire world is turning in to one giant ball of capitalism. Cuba is allowing private property to be sold. The Arab Spring has brought about free elections and we all know where that leads next. Yet still you worry...
This is why it's important to not be so irrational about the federal government. They are the ones who keep us in the game...a game which is fast becoming an economic (and not a military) competition. No doubt, we will always be a major player in the world but we are going to share power with BRICS. Since that is inevitable, we have to look to future markets that will keep us an economic power. One is certainly green tech. Energy in general is going to be vital and we are poised to take advantage of that with natural gas.
We aren't going to get anywhere, however, with backward thinking and I hear an awful lot of it from the right these days.
This reminds me of the whole GM thread - such classic Mark there.
Mark: GM is too interconnected to let it fail! Me: How do you measure interconnected-ness? Mark: I have a measure, it's on the internet. Me: Ok, where? Mark: I have a measure. Me: Anything? Mark: Juvenile! Government hater!
I'm sure Mark will say otherwise, but that's exactly how it went, every time. Some things don't change it seems.
Well, Hap, what do you think about the six different levels of income analysis done by the CBO since 1979? The data is in both links above. I have provided numbers and analysis. Now it's your turn to respond as to why these numbers aren't significant.
I went back and looked - there isn't a link to the CBO. Are you talking about the abcnews link? Which means you haven't looked at the data at all - you are referencing a journalistic summary of it.
I was under the impression, however, that putting up summaries from (ahem) other sites was OK. If we are going to look at original sources only, that's fine. That includes everyone and not just me.
I don't mind you putting up a link from somewhere - but give proper credit for it. You weren't talking about the CBO study - you were talking about a news account of it. You understand the difference, right?
Now, let's talk about the study. It was published in Oct 11 but only included data up to 2007. It could well be that later data was not available, or it could be that they were told not to look beyond 2007. What we do know is that high incomes took a big hit post 2007. We could also ask what is significant about the starting date of 1979.
Sure enough, everyone's income - in real terms - grew, every single band. The rich got richer and so did the poorest. So the poor did not get poorer - not in real terms (i.e. inflation adjusted) and not in purchasing power terms. So let us take a hypothetical minimum wage worker and a hypothetical big-time entertainer (one for each extreme). Both were better off in 2007 than in 1979, right? So what exactly is the problem?
Now here is a very interesting tidbit:
Specifically, in 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. That shift reflects the growth in spending for programs focused on the elderly population (such as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance), in which benefits are not limited to low-income households.
>Well, Hap, what do you think about the six different levels of income analysis done by the CBO since 1979?
I think you have shown that income inequality exists, and it varies over time. Good job. Now, get back to GD's point - what is the right amount of inequality? How do you tell what the right amount is? How do you tell when it is too high or too low? I don't think this will be fruitful for the same reason as the GM thread. You're making an assertion (GM is too interconnected, income inequality is too high) which isn't supported by anything other than your assertion. GD called you on it, and now you're trying to bluster and bullshit. Same thing, different day.
Myself, I still haven't seen a compelling reason to care about income inequality. I might care if you could show that the inequality was due to the top actively taking it from lower quintiles, but you certainly haven't come close to that. (Though you tend to imply it each time the subject comes up.)
I do care whether inflation adjusted incomes are increasing or decreasing, which your links show that they are, though those numbers no doubt took a dip after 2007, and it wouldn't be surprising if that occurred for all quintiles.
I don't think this will be fruitful for the same reason as the GM thread.
That's because your refuse to accept fundamental realities. Is it really your assertion that GM doesn't have very many businesses that rely on it? Do you honestly want me to "prove" that it does? It's a simple fact that it's true but this is what happens when you play the games that you do.
Which is why there is no one number that I can throw out and say, "This is it!" Suppose I said I'd like to see the 300 percent growth in income for the middle three quintiles. That's my number. But now, with more people buying more things (given that 70 percent of our economy is consumer spending), we would likely have inflation issues.
How do you tell when it is too high or too low?
Multiple factors. Did you ever read the Manzi piece that juris and I talk about? Will you read Stiglitz's book? I'll be putting up posts in the coming weeks after I get done with the book and perhaps I can change your mind to care about inequality.
Then for fucks-sakes NAME SOME and what establishes the high/low boundary on them. You keep saying there are factors - okay, what are they? Put up or shut the fuck up.
You won't of course put up because you are an idiot preacher of progressive platitudes. You aren't even smart enough to know when you are being used, or worse - you know and you just don't care because it's like a drug and you just like the way the high feels.
I've said since you first posted on Manzi - neither he nor you nor anyone else referenced actually specifies what the fraying of the social fabric is or what the consequences are (oh, we won't feel as connected to each other or some other 70's hippy-to-NewAge claptrap). That is the intellectual 'depth' you are so concerned about.
Sure enough, everyone's income - in real terms - grew, every single band. The rich got richer and so did the poorest... better off in 2007 than in 1979, right? So what exactly is the problem?
What is the problem? Can you answer that at all? You can even use "multiple factors" - as long as your FUCKING say what they are. C'mon M - man up for once: explain what you are talking about in detail, or admit that you are just a retarded progressive preacher. Either response is acceptable, but there's no middle ground left.
Oh, and something else I never knew about M's model capitalist Henry Ford - he was a raving anti-semite.
Well, those in power always need demons to throw fear into the masses. You can't keep the masses in line if they aren't shitting their pants about something that you just happen to have the answer to.
Then for fucks-sakes NAME SOME and what establishes the high/low boundary on them. You keep saying there are factors - okay, what are they? Put up or shut the fuck up.
I've name several in this thread alone...stagnation of middle class income...consumer spending...wages...taxes...private sector trends...historical time periods...there are many more. The problem here is that Hap is asking for a quantitative analysis and that's too rigid a way to look at it. You have to look at it from a qualitative one as well.
For example, another factor to add to the list is education. If people in the bottom quintiles can't afford an education, then they can't get a decent job. They can go massively into debt on student loans (we've seen the problems on this issue) or they can simply find a low paying job. But if they do that, they don't have enough money to spend in our economy which inhibits growth. We have a lot of these people right now in our society. So, education is a obviously a big factor and not always something that can be defined by a number. Quality of education is important as well.
neither he nor you nor anyone else referenced actually specifies what the fraying of the social fabric is or what the consequences are
Again, you aren't listening. Sluggish economic growth...less competitive in the world marketplace...overall, less power. You can't accept this because it would then lead to the inevitable: the government being a useful tool in helping to improve this. We can't have that now, can we?:)
The income that went up from 1979 to 2007 in real terms, right? The middle bands in the CBO study.
consumer spending
Is a measure of inequality? I might save more than you, does that make our incomes unequal?
wages...taxes...private sector trends...historical time periods
I apologize, I obviously asked for something that you just don't have the intellectual equipment to provide.
You can't do quantitative analysis, and really you can't do qualitative either. You personally that is.
For example... can't afford an education
The public school system doesn't charge tuition to either the rich or the poor. Primary education spending today is, in real terms, twice what is was around 1979 - yet are the results better (let alone twice as good)? No, the results are worse. Obviously money is not the issue. If you had true intellectual curiosity, that would trigger something - other than a rant that is.
Anyway, thanks - you proved that you just don't have a clue, but you have a big heart and an even bigger mouth. That's all ya got and I shouldn't expect more.
Sluggish economic growth...less competitive in the world marketplace...overall, less power.
Ah, less power - there's the adolescent boy moaning about not being able to push people around - make them do what hewants. If that stems from parenting I believe the Jungians refer to it as impeded individuation.
You don't want a vibrant, dynamic economy - it causes too much upset to small-minded little boys that find the world to be a big, demanding and hostile place. You want to sit in mommy's lap, safe from all of that - well cared for, prevented from doing anything that might cause you harm. And that way, when something bad does happen - it has to be someone else's fault.
And what specifically about Ford being anti-semitic was irrelevant? Particularly coupled with his paternalistic treatment of employees. I would find that very relevant in discussing how Ford used the power of his position and wealth, wouldn't you?
It wasn't me expressing my admiration for him, it was you.
Let's add another factor into the mix: debt. You talk a lot about the housing bubble, juris. What drove that bubble? People who bought things they couldn't afford. Why couldn't they afford them? Because their wages were stagnant. But they still wanted to buy that stuff so they could be like the 1 percent.
And the 1 percent were all too happy to sell it to them because they were making money on the deal as well. Here's where your wealth envy really comes into play and it bit everyone on the ass...except those made bets on things falling apart.
So now people have all this debt because they were trying to buy things with money they didn't have. Imagine what would have happened if they had they money and their wages had risen along with the top quintile. We'd be talking about inflation right now and not lack of aggregate demand.
I submit that inequality was a major factor in the crash of 2008.
Trying to muddy up the waters in the hopes that your outstanding failures slip away un-noticed? No, how about you man up for a change? Either explain further your points - and why I my comments are wrong/off-target, or retract and try again [honestly].
But they still wanted to buy that stuff so they could be like the 1 percent.
Thanks M - envy it is. Nothing new under the sun, etc.
I submit that inequality was a major factor in the crash of 2008.
No, it was the Queen of England - that bitch was the cause of it all. That's what I submit. See how convincing that is?
You keep saying there are factors - okay, what are they? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Trying to muddy up the waters in the hopes that your outstanding failures slip away un-noticed?
Did you forget to take your mediation today, juris?
Let's suppose that I do as you guys request and pick a number. How about 33 percent of the wealth for the top ten percent? That's what it was in the 1950s, The Golden Age. As of 2007, it's around 45 percent. So we get it down to 33 percent and the remaining 12 percent is distributed downward.
But we don't live in the 1950s anymore. America is not trying to spread free market capitalism all around the world in order to combat the Soviets. We've spread liberal economic theory everywhere in the world and maybe 33 percent might not work given the realities of today's global marketplace.
So, that's why you can't pick a number without considering other factors. Past numbers may have shown stability and economic growth for that time period but it may not be true for today given current trends and conditions in the world...in other words, multiple factors.
Hey, here's a link with some answers to your questions about the effects of income inequality...with actual data!!
Did you forget to take your mediation today, juris?
You were trying to throw in another thing - an irrelevancy - rather than better explain what you already claimed. This isn't cooking spaghetti - where you keep throwing noodles at the wall to see if it sticks.
But finally, you actually stick a number up - good. We can debate whether that is the right number, but that definitely moves your point forward.
You even have a reasonable point about why that might no longer be the right number. But here's the kicker - you haven't demonstrated that 45% is bad, except because you say it is. You say 33% is better because of your nostalgia for an era you didn't even live in versus 45% now - yet you really can't say why one is good and the other bad.
We've been over the IMF study before I believe, and it does not demonstrate the point you claim it does. It posits a relation between economic growth/stability and lower inequality - and that is debatable as well, but at least it is a point (though not the one you are making).
As for the wiki - did you look at social cohesion? It's damn thin gruel. But the first sentence on your link is classic why wiki can be totally shit as a reference:
Research has shown an inverse link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.
"Research" - what research? There isn't a single footnote for any of that. So some jackass wrote this without even following the most basic process requirement in wiki - document sources and don't write unsupported material. If I gave a shit, I'd flag and comment on it - but it isn't important because anyone with half a brain would not use this as a reference. The first cited item is flagged with a note that the talk page has criticism of the paper.
The discussion of homicide and inequality ought to be of obvious concern to you since while inequality had been going up, the homicide rate has been falling - absolutely the opposite of what these social scientists claim.
Quite simply - outside of moralistic howling, you can't point to objective measures that demonstrate when/where/why inequality goes from acceptable to not. That said, this actually is an improvement from you - as little as that amounts to.
Also, let's go back to your very first factor: stagnating middle class income.
How is it stagnant if between 1979 and 2007 it showed improvements in real terms? That is exactly what your link to the CBO showed. Do you perhaps have some other data that would at least tend to validate your belief? Or is it all because a bunch of whining leftwing pussies agree?
And I'm actually saying that 33 percent might be bad as well given current conditions. This is why picking a number isn't the way to solve this problem. I don't think that it must be a quantitative analysis exclusively. Why do you have such an issue with qualitative analyses?
The first chart heading: Growth in Real After-Tax Income from 1979 to 2007
Did you not read your own link? Again. Were/are you unable to comprehend what the graphic conveys?
Why do you have such an issue with qualitative analyses?
Because you can't establish any kind of policy on that basis. Ultimately, if you aren't just pounding your moral pud here, you want some enactment of policy. You can't write laws that say "too much inequality is bad" without quantifying it. For gawdsakes, even you can't be that stupid.
On the other hand, that is almost the purest expression of progressivist moralizing I've ever heard - it isn't about the results, it is all about how fucking wonderful our progressive ideals and intents are.
Of course I read it. As you remind me often, I unfairly criticize you and misinterpret things you say. I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same chart.
You can't characterize that as improvement necessarily when you consider the rise in cost of goods and services from 1979-2007. 18 percent might seem nice for the lowest group might seem substantial but when you consider how much gas or a gallon of milk costs today, it becomes a different story.
You can't write laws that say "too much inequality is bad" without quantifying it.
I agree but it's not simply one number. Nor is it only quantification.
Mark, if you read it, you obviously didn't read it carefully. The very first sentence defines some terms (something you usually strenuously resist doing), one of which is that they're talking about "real (inflation adjusted) average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes".
And try writing a binding law that doesn't specify some hard numbers. If you don't even have targets, I suggest you either don't know enough, or it's politically inconvenient to admit the numbers in mind. Either of which should automatically disqualify it from consideration.
You can't characterize that as improvement necessarily when you consider the rise in cost of goods and services from 1979-2007.
Holy fucking shit. Real terms IS adjusted for inflation. You are a total moron. I hope to god your only connection with a school is that you sweep the floors and clean the bathrooms - you have absolutely no business standing in front of a bunch of captive children instructing them.
I thought Leftboro Baptist was a quip, but it actually describes you - you are a mouthbreathing freak.
And try writing a binding law that doesn't specify some hard numbers.
Let's take a look at this from another angle. You guys tell me all the time that you want smaller government....that it's bloated and ineffective. What number constitutes "smaller?" What number constitutes "bloated and ineffective?"
Now do you see how ridiculous it is?
Real terms IS adjusted for inflation.
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly here, juris. You are saying that the bottom groups have just as much economic opportunity as the top group due to their incomes showing real growth. That inflation herein includes ALL expenses that they incur...not just gallons of milk and gas but health care, education, and other services? Is that what you are saying?
You can look at it from any angle you like - you are full of shit. Small govt or large, you can't make it effective based on "qualitative" policy. Stupid govt - small or large - is not a good thing (though obviously large is stupid multiplied).
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly here
It isn't me that you are having trouble understanding - it is the basic economics that the CBO is talking about. I gather that you finally realize that what you thought that study said isn't actually what it does say. Good - you are capable of learning, even if you bitterly resist.
. I gather that you finally realize that what you thought that study said isn't actually what it does say.
Not at all, juris. Remember that the CBO report includes average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes. This, of course, inflates the share of income going to those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution and makes it seems like there is economic opportunity for them, which is why I asked you that question.
I chose the CBO report because I thought it would be a more "fair" way to look at this and I assumed that you would take this account in the interest of a critical discussion. I mean, these are government programs that lessen inequality and improve the situation for the lower quintiles. Doesn't that fly in the face of libertarian ideology? As Emmanueal Saez notes
“So, the argument (of the right) has to be: cash market income of the bottom 99 percent of adults has stagnated but the bottom 99 percent get much more expensive private and government provided health care benefits, some more government transfers, and they have fewer kids. This does not seem like a great situation, especially from a conservative point of view.”
This is also why you have to take into account these government programs when considering what they paid for a gallon of milk or gas. I just assumed that you did this when you asked me above...
Do you understand what is being said there?
My mistake for not being more clear so I apologize. (And I'm not being sarcastic)
Doesn't that fly in the face of libertarian ideology?
You keep trying to criticize that which you don't understand. Nor it "libertarian ideology" the point here - income inequality is and your insistence that we have an unacceptable degree of it. You totally fail to elaborate why it is now unacceptable and at what point it transitions from an acceptable amount to the realm of unacceptable. Like the Supreme Court on porn - you know it when you see it. [That may be the epitome of qualitative judgement.]
Contrary to the common assertion, not only did the rich become richer, but so did the poor. This accounts for inflation, but not technology changes; e.g. computers and internet connectivity were hardly common household items in 1979 and by 2007 these were broadly available. In between there was much liberal hand-wringing about the "digital divide" - a phantom of their fevered minds.
And no, you didn't understand what they were talking about in the paragraph that I quoted. You still don't, nor do you grasp why I pointed it out.
55 comments:
Wait..wait...
I bet I can get a lady to cry on my shoulder by taking someone's money to pay for another's treatment. What an accomplishment!! Man, I think I am going to have to rethink my vote!!
Conservatism-The Party of Sensitivity and Consideration. Maybe you should read the story of Stephanie Miller before acting like a boor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/05/stephanie-miller-obama-health-care_n_1652714.html
Did I miss your critical commentary on the lavish lifestyles of the Kerry's or is it just a Republican sin?
John Kerry does indeed have the same lavish lifestyles as Mitt Romney. Yet their policies are the exact opposite which is why there was no criticism of Senator Kerry.
The former recognizes that the middle class is the engine that drives this economy and that wealthy people like himself should contribute more tax dollars to support that fact. The latter ignores fundamental economics and thinks that consumer demand matters not. As along as the suppliers have their taxes very low, than everything will just trickle down to the rest of us.
But here we are again with a very large misinterpretation of Democrats. I have no problem with rich people, dave. I have no problem with inequality because that's the nature of capitalism. What I have a problem with is ridiculous inequality couple with a a complete failure to recognize how important the middle class is to the economy. I have a problem with stoking the plutonomy fire...especially as we head from a unipolar world to a multipolar one.
What, you couldn't find a picture of Mitt and the wife eating deep fried kittens?
Guess you really loved that "compassionate conservatism" that W peddled.
Kerry policies? You mean becoming those perfectly timed stock trades in healthcare companies he made during the healthcare debate? He recognizes that wealthy people should pay more taxes while he docks his boat in Rhode Island to avoid paying taxes on it. Actions, not words.
I have no problem with rich people,
...for who are we going to blame for our ills and tax for our excesses?
I have no problem with inequality because that's the nature of capitalism. What I have a problem with is ridiculous inequality
...which I have yet to define at what number inequality ceases and 'ridiculous' inequality begins.
couple with a a complete failure to recognize how important the middle class is to the economy.
...where I also have yet to define what the proper or healthy percentage of middle class spending should make up our economy, but since it is a 'high' number we have to reinforce it....whether or not I can show that it should be reinforced....
I have a problem with stoking the plutonomy fire...
...but no problem is stoking the class warfare fire...
There, fixed it for you.
which I have yet to define at what number inequality ceases and 'ridiculous' inequality begins.
Defined many times, GD. The problem is that when you hear it, you don't like the facts. So, you switch to personal insults and other tactics (which you quickly accuse me of doing to "head me off at that pass") and...ahem...conveniently, the point is lost.
...but no problem is stoking the class warfare fire..
It's only class warfare when the poor fight back:)
Defined many times, GD.
Yeah? Where? What's the number?
You recently complained that a blogger linked back to his own posts - you can't seem to even be bothered to reference your own answers. A vague 'as I've said before' seems to suffice for you.
It's only class warfare when the poor fight back
You realize that after the Bourgeois are brought into the new social order then the Proletariat who are to reap the glory of the new workers paradise usually don't actually get any glory or paradise. If they are lucky they just get to starve under the new economic reality. The others get a bullet in the head from their new 'equal masters'.
The poor don't 'fight back' in your little schemes. The poor just get to die so you can show again and again and again that your plans would just work if 'we had the right people in charge'.
Thought so...
(Appreciate your honesty, though...)
Yeah? Where? What's the number?
I'd be happy to have a discussion on the fallout from gross inequality, GD, but if you think it can be simplistically defined as one number, than there really is no point. As with any research, there are multiple factors to consider and it's many of those that I illustrate continually on this site.
The poor just get to die so you can show again and again and again that your plans would just work if 'we had the right people in charge'.
Hoo boy. Alright, GD, I'm just going to give this to you straight: Stop acting like an hysterical old lady. Your paranoia about Marxism (which is being perfectly exploited by our plutocracy) is preventing you from having a rational discussion about the very serious and fundamental problems with the foundation of our economy. I'm imploring you to listen to guys like Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer who have explained time and again that capitalism is not being threatened by Che lovers in a drum circle. It's being threatened by sociopaths who have a gambling problem and an addiction to money.
People like me, President Obama, Harry Reid, and many, many Democrats are trying to save this country from a socialist revolution. If you set aside your emotions, you would see this.
I'd be happy to have a discussion on the fallout from gross inequality, GD, but if you think it can be simplistically defined as one number, than there really is no point. As with any research, there are multiple factors to consider and it's many of those that I illustrate continually on this site.
You propose to forcibly take monies from people who have 'too much' money and are the 'cause' of inequality. Despite your claim that inequality is indeed a feature of capitalism you cannot delineate at which point inequality become 'ridiculous' inequality. Forgive me if I am cautious and reticent to hand over the keys to the theft machine to a person whose only guideline is that 'he knows ridiculous inequality when he sees it'.
And 'save the country from a socialist revolution'? By instituting socialist practices? Hah!
Keep stoking the fires of class warfare Mark. You can call it anything you'd like, but it is what it is.
You propose to forcibly take monies from people who have 'too much' money and are the 'cause' of inequality.
The Constitution of this country is very clear on the issue of taxes, Guard Duck. Congress has the power to tax. I know you don't like this but it's the law. Grow up. It's why our country was, is and will be great.
you cannot delineate at which point inequality become 'ridiculous' inequality.
Of course I can. It's not a simple discussion, however, so there may not be any point in pursuing it if you are going to continue to be so ridiculous and emotional.
Let's see how you do with a simple question: what is your solution for the stagnation of middle class income? Since our economy is driven by consumer spending and less consumers are spending money because their wages have flat lined, how is our economy going to grow? We can't have a healthy economy if only a few wealthy people are spending money.
By instituting socialist practices?
The problem here is YOU, GD, not me. And your very warped perception. Anything to the left of the one yard line on the right side of the field is socialism, right? Truly, you are delusional and people are paying dearly for your paranoid fantasies every day.
Congress has the power to tax.
Blah blah blah. That has not a fucking thing to do with what you propose. You want to take money from people not in some manner of fairly providing for needed expenditure. No, you want to take it from them for the sole reason that you think they have too much. That is theft, no matter how you wrap it up in pretty sounding intentions.
Of course I can.
But you have yet to do so, despite being asked to. I don't think you can. Excusing it as 'too complicated' is so much bullshit as well. If when you are told a government can't spend more than it makes indefinitely and your only reply is to require a date at which point we fall into a boiling pit of sewage (yeah, you are sooo mature) then I can also ask you for some number that determines the difference between acceptable mere inequality and unacceptable 'ridiculous inequality'.
driven by consumer spending
You've yet to answer what the percentage of middle class spending should make up a healthy economy. If you can't answer that, how can you take any sort of action that would change it? In other words, if you want to reinforce middle class spending as a percentage of the economy shouldn't you be able to show, first, that increasing that percentage is desirable?
what is your solution for the stagnation of middle class income?
Has middle class income stagnated?
the observations in the chart above nonetheless contradict conventional wisdom because three of the four chosen definitions of “middle class” outperformed the overall economy. In other words, the middle class got at least its fair share of overall growth, and arguably more. Moreover, all four versions of “middle class” outperformed every definition of “rich”; in short, the gap between the rich and the middle class got smaller, not larger.
Anything to the left of the one yard line on the right side of the field is socialism, right?
And you've said think you are on the fifty yard line. That places you firmly in the delusional camp. I know where I am.
What's even funnier is while you keep accusing us of being emotional, you are the one acting with your emotions.
Yup, heading off at the pass my ass.
You want to take money from people not in some manner of fairly providing for needed expenditure.
No, I don't. I want the 1 percent to recognize that they are honestly nothing without the 99 percent. Who is going to buy what they are selling when no one can afford to buy it?
After they recognize this, I want them to start paying employees enough money so they can afford to buy what they make. That's what Henry Ford did and look what happened as a result. You can't pay workers shit and expect them to have incentive. This is certainly going to be true of the emerging global middle class.
Obviously, I can't force them to do it and I'm not entirely certain that the government should force them to do it either. It would be nice if they did it voluntarily but I think there are far too many wealthy people who have serious compulsion issues. So, basically, all the choices on how best to solve this issue kinda suck.
I don't think you can.
You've yet to answer what the percentage of middle class spending should make up a healthy economy
I'm not sure how long you have been reading my site, GD, but I would urge you to go back through the archives. It's a waste of my time to continue to repeat myself. Start with this tag...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search/label/Wealth%20Inequality
Plenty of data for you to peruse.
Not sure where your quote comes from but I'd like to see some supporting sources.
Finally, if you are serious about examining the data with this issue, I would read "The Price of Inequality" by Joseph Stiglitz.
The quote is a link - that's where it comes from.........
I want them to start paying employees enough money
And you claim to have knowledge of economics.......
Supply
Demand
The employer is the demand and the employee is the supply.
My boss isn't supplying me with a job, he is a consumer of labor. I am a supply of labor. My wage is a mutually agreed upon market price for the type of labor I supply.....
This is pretty basic stuff I know, but I can't help to think you don't really understand it when you come up with that above statement.
Plenty of data for you to peruse.
Don't be so smug - I've been reading you for years - you have not answered that - and most of your crap is crap.
So what's the damned number? At what % point do we fall into a boiling pit of sewage?
The quote is a link - that's where it comes from.........
Weird. It worked on my iPhone but not on my home computer. Not surprising as my home PC is old.
What other sources do you have to support his theory? You understand that the AEI is a biased source. Just like this one.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph
So how about finding a source that is unbiased?
Also, this statement
Of course not; I need to analyze the millions of households making up the middle class, not just the middle household.
is exactly what the CBO did. They looked at six income groups. Not just the middle group.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/income-doubles-top-percent-1979/story?id=14817561
This is pretty basic stuff I know
Yes, it is. So why are you missing the part about bosses not hiring due to lack of demand? And I'm talking about wages and how higher wages mean people can actually afford to buy stuff which, in turn, increases demand in the marketplace, bosses hiring more people, and economic growth. Unfuck yourself from supply side economics.
So what's the damned number?
There isn't one. You and the others from Kevin's site have assured me that you are all serious and logical people who use the scientific method in approaching problems. Now you say it's all one number? Tsk tsk...doesn't sound very grounded in reason at all.
Stop oversimplifying a very complex issue in the childish hope of "winning the argument." When you are ready to explore all of the factors in the equation, I'll be happy to examine all of your research and evidence. For example, do you think that improving education and nutrition for the bottom part of our society is important to fueling economic growth? What about eliminating corporate welfare for private sector companies who clearly can create wealth but not economic growth?
It's not a simple discussion, however, so there may not be any point in pursuing it if you are going to continue to be so ridiculous and emotional.
So you just won't talk about it. You won't define a single thing beyond what you want. Real mature approach there M.
There isn't one
OK, then two points.
Point number one - If you don't know that number, and therefore can't know if that number needs to be higher or lower, explain how you can recommend policy to change it.
Point number two - Does this mean you will also stop being childish and demanding to know from us 'when the US is going to fall into a boiling pit of sewage' due to deficit spending?
So how about finding a source that is unbiased
You know how to read and sort truth from falsity? You can do math? Bias only matters for the opinion and conclusions. Is the meat of the matter accurate or not?
. Unfuck yourself from supply side economics.
While you engage in inappropriate relations with demand side Keynesian economics? No thanks. Funny how you treat that topic like it's a given you are right though.
So you just won't talk about it.
Yes, juris. I don't want to talk about it. That's why I have a tag called "Wealth Inequality" and several posts with that tag. Sheesh....
explain how you can recommend policy to change it.
Who said I needed one number to have a policy change? And you still aren't listening because policy changes aren't the only thing I'm advocating. I'd like to see the private sector change on their own and recognize the wisdom of guys like Henry Ford.
Does this mean you will also stop being childish and demanding to know from us 'when the US is going to fall into a boiling pit of sewage' due to deficit spending?
Well, if you note, I haven't used that phrase in a while because you guys asked me not to do so. Yet again, though, you are creating a false equivalency. I'm happy to talk about all the factors in play with wealth inequality. I've got a post going up tomorrow with Stiglisz that address some of them. You want me to talk about one number. That doesn't make any sense at all when you consider the various complexities of the US economy.
Saying that the US is going to fail because of debt and deficit issues is and then failing to say when that is going to happen is another entirely. Again, perfectly willing here to talk about all these issues...just not oversimplify it to one number. In contrast, you are not willing to provide historical evidence for your claim nor are you willing to say when this Armageddon will occur. Convenient, as it allows you to continue to panic monger and play on people's fears.
I'm not trying to play on people's fears. I want them to recognize that we have a problem and take steps to fix it. I wonder sometimes if guys like you even want to fix our problems. It has to be done YOUR way and you have to "win" otherwise you are willing to let it all fall apart. I say that's pretty dangerous.
Is the meat of the matter accurate or not?
No, because his claim that only the median incomes are examined is false. That's not what the CBO did. They looked at all incomes. But this brings up a larger issue.
Facts don't matter anymore. Mother Jones presents its facts. AEI presents its facts. Where is the truth? I can tell you for a fucking fact that it's not "in between" as that nauseating cliche goes. Sometimes there is only one side to the story. Or there are seven sides.
While you engage in inappropriate relations with demand side Keynesian economics?
I don't even know what that means. Our problem right now is one of demand. If you have a better idea on how to increase demand, I'm all ears. Cutting taxes and spending is not the answer. We've been trying that and the results are clear. That's why you guys slay me when you shout about "Do it again only harder!"
Headed off at the pass...again!!
Who said I needed one number to have a policy change?
Oh I'm listening Mark, but you aren't. If you cannot come up with a number that is ideal, or even a number that is better or worse than the current number, then you cannot show that that number needs to be or even should be changed.
Can you understand that concept? Is more better? Is less better? You can't answer that but you still want to mess with the number. What if you change it to more and that makes it worse? If you don't understand what you were doing in the first place you wouldn't even recognize that you screwed it up after messing around with things you don't understand.
It's complicated? Boo-hoo. Then don't fucking mess with it. You've yet to be able to understand the simple cause effect mechanism of government involvement with the EMTLA act but you use the effects of it to argue for further government involvement in health care. Yeah, you did. (I tried to show it to before, yet you keep dismissing it as 'government hate' or some shit)
ou are not willing to provide historical evidence for your claim nor are you willing to say when this Armageddon will occur.
So income inequality is soooooo complex that you can't simplify it, but you won't accept an argument about the ill effects of deficit spending without me being able to prognosticate an exact date when everything fails? Fuck you. That's would be the stupidest thing you've ever said if you hadn't said so many other stupid things.
“How did you go bankrupt?"
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
― Ernest Hemingway, The Sun Also Rises
Think about that quote for minute.
Then go read this piece.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2753128
Everything looks fine and manageable, by the time it looks like it's a problem then it is already to late.
I don't even know what that means.
It means unfuck yourself from demand side economics - Two schools of thought and your side isn't necessarily the correct one, so stop acting like it is the default position.
Watch this piece:
http://iroots.org/2012/07/10/paul-krugmans-spanish-spanking-video-clip/
Our problem right now is one of demand
Is it? I know it seems simple and intuitive. But didn't you just say that it was all soooooo complex? But you can narrow the problem down to one cause? Perhaps the problem right now is one of debt and a bubble that we have prevented from properly re-centering the economy. Perhaps 'shoring' up demand in that case will not only not fix things but actually make them worse?
But since it's all so complicated that you can't provide a 'number' that is ideal for that demand but yet you still want to increase it....despite it being sooooo complicated.....but it's simple......but it's complicated....
Cutting taxes and spending is not the answer. We've been trying that and the results are clear.
When the fuck have we cut spending? Jaysus, our federal spending goes up and up and up and the morons in DC call a reduction in the rate of growth of that spending a cut......
And that spending is either taken as taxes from actual wealth production activities or financed to the future via debt spending. So while, because of the flawed manner in which we calculate our GDP and consider it a measure of our wealth, we are 'increasing' our wealth via a manner that is decreasing our ability to create wealth.
Oh, and one more thing....
For a guy who likes to use the term 'multi-polar world', you don't seem to understand globalization. It'd be nice if some big fat cat paid American workers more.....but since he has to sell his product in competition with some other 'fat cat' who makes his product in Zimbabwe at a much lower labor cost then the first fat cat won't be in business for very long and all his highly compensated American workers won't even have a fucking job anymore.
Yes, juris. I don't want to talk about it.
I guess that is true - you won't talk, but you will preach and bullshit and dissemble.
All the logic and facts you have - what an arsenal.
I'd like to see the private sector change on their own and recognize the wisdom of guys like Henry Ford.
Ah, yes - good ol' Henry. Quite the paternalist as well as capitalist. A bit odd that you would so admire someone who used his corporate power so freely. Then again, consistency has never been your thing.
If consistency (let alone fairness) was at all a consideration, the picture of Obama would've been one of him on the golf course with his fat cat buddies, with Marine One sitting in the background ready to whisk him away to Air Force One to go to his next fundraiser or vacation.
If you cannot come up with a number that is ideal, or even a number that is better or worse than the current number, then you cannot show that that number needs to be or even should be changed.
It can't be defined as one number. The CBO's research looked at 6 different income levels. After that, you have to look at how those different levels look over not just the last 30 years but the last 50...the last 70...the last 100...and that's simply getting started.
but you won't accept an argument about the ill effects of deficit spending
We have data what we can examine on the effects of deficit spending. Let's start with the deficit spending that went on during the Reagan administration. Your thoughts?
Perhaps the problem right now is one of debt and a bubble that we have prevented from properly re-centering the economy. Perhaps 'shoring' up demand in that case will not only not fix things but actually make them worse?
People aren't out buying things because of government debt? People aren't out buying things because they don't have any money. The only people that can spend very seriously are the wealthy and many are now admitting that they alone can't drive growth.
There's always a danger in too much demand too soon with inflation issues but we are not there at all. Since the government is gridlocked over spending, there has to be a concerted effort in the private sector to make changes that encourage growth.
And that spending is either taken as taxes from actual wealth production activities
Taxes are very low right now, GD. Since this is undeniably true, why isn't the economy booming? We have been under GOP Tax cuts for 11 years. The economy sucks and you still want to cut taxes more. Unbelievable.
you don't seem to understand globalization. It'd be nice if some big fat cat paid American workers more.....but since he has to sell his product in competition with some other 'fat cat' who makes his product in Zimbabwe at a much lower labor cost then the first fat cat won't be in business for very long and all his highly compensated American workers won't even have a fucking job anymore.
Actually, I do and I have said this very same thing many times on here. We live in a global marketplace where things are Made in the World. Labor is plentiful and cheap (for now) and the middle class is growing in other countries. All in all, this is a good thing but it does hurt us here at home.
This is why it cracks me up that you guys worry so much about socialism. The entire world is turning in to one giant ball of capitalism. Cuba is allowing private property to be sold. The Arab Spring has brought about free elections and we all know where that leads next. Yet still you worry...
This is why it's important to not be so irrational about the federal government. They are the ones who keep us in the game...a game which is fast becoming an economic (and not a military) competition. No doubt, we will always be a major player in the world but we are going to share power with BRICS. Since that is inevitable, we have to look to future markets that will keep us an economic power. One is certainly green tech. Energy in general is going to be vital and we are poised to take advantage of that with natural gas.
We aren't going to get anywhere, however, with backward thinking and I hear an awful lot of it from the right these days.
This reminds me of the whole GM thread - such classic Mark there.
Mark: GM is too interconnected to let it fail!
Me: How do you measure interconnected-ness?
Mark: I have a measure, it's on the internet.
Me: Ok, where?
Mark: I have a measure.
Me: Anything?
Mark: Juvenile! Government hater!
I'm sure Mark will say otherwise, but that's exactly how it went, every time. Some things don't change it seems.
...and that's simply getting started.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
Well, Hap, what do you think about the six different levels of income analysis done by the CBO since 1979? The data is in both links above. I have provided numbers and analysis. Now it's your turn to respond as to why these numbers aren't significant.
The data is in both links above.
I went back and looked - there isn't a link to the CBO. Are you talking about the abcnews link? Which means you haven't looked at the data at all - you are referencing a journalistic summary of it.
Here's the original link.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42537
I was under the impression, however, that putting up summaries from (ahem) other sites was OK. If we are going to look at original sources only, that's fine. That includes everyone and not just me.
I don't mind you putting up a link from somewhere - but give proper credit for it. You weren't talking about the CBO study - you were talking about a news account of it. You understand the difference, right?
Now, let's talk about the study. It was published in Oct 11 but only included data up to 2007. It could well be that later data was not available, or it could be that they were told not to look beyond 2007. What we do know is that high incomes took a big hit post 2007. We could also ask what is significant about the starting date of 1979.
Sure enough, everyone's income - in real terms - grew, every single band. The rich got richer and so did the poorest. So the poor did not get poorer - not in real terms (i.e. inflation adjusted) and not in purchasing power terms. So let us take a hypothetical minimum wage worker and a hypothetical big-time entertainer (one for each extreme). Both were better off in 2007 than in 1979, right? So what exactly is the problem?
Now here is a very interesting tidbit:
Specifically, in 1979, households in the bottom quintile received more than 50 percent of transfer payments. In 2007, similar households received about 35 percent of transfers. That shift reflects the growth in spending for programs focused on the elderly population (such as Social Security and Unemployment Insurance), in which benefits are not limited to low-income households.
Do you understand what is being said there?
>Well, Hap, what do you think about the six different levels of income analysis done by the CBO since 1979?
I think you have shown that income inequality exists, and it varies over time. Good job. Now, get back to GD's point - what is the right amount of inequality? How do you tell what the right amount is? How do you tell when it is too high or too low? I don't think this will be fruitful for the same reason as the GM thread. You're making an assertion (GM is too interconnected, income inequality is too high) which isn't supported by anything other than your assertion. GD called you on it, and now you're trying to bluster and bullshit. Same thing, different day.
Myself, I still haven't seen a compelling reason to care about income inequality. I might care if you could show that the inequality was due to the top actively taking it from lower quintiles, but you certainly haven't come close to that. (Though you tend to imply it each time the subject comes up.)
I do care whether inflation adjusted incomes are increasing or decreasing, which your links show that they are, though those numbers no doubt took a dip after 2007, and it wouldn't be surprising if that occurred for all quintiles.
I don't think this will be fruitful for the same reason as the GM thread.
That's because your refuse to accept fundamental realities. Is it really your assertion that GM doesn't have very many businesses that rely on it? Do you honestly want me to "prove" that it does? It's a simple fact that it's true but this is what happens when you play the games that you do.
Which is why there is no one number that I can throw out and say, "This is it!" Suppose I said I'd like to see the 300 percent growth in income for the middle three quintiles. That's my number. But now, with more people buying more things (given that 70 percent of our economy is consumer spending), we would likely have inflation issues.
How do you tell when it is too high or too low?
Multiple factors. Did you ever read the Manzi piece that juris and I talk about? Will you read Stiglitz's book? I'll be putting up posts in the coming weeks after I get done with the book and perhaps I can change your mind to care about inequality.
Multiple factors.
Then for fucks-sakes NAME SOME and what establishes the high/low boundary on them. You keep saying there are factors - okay, what are they? Put up or shut the fuck up.
You won't of course put up because you are an idiot preacher of progressive platitudes. You aren't even smart enough to know when you are being used, or worse - you know and you just don't care because it's like a drug and you just like the way the high feels.
I've said since you first posted on Manzi - neither he nor you nor anyone else referenced actually specifies what the fraying of the social fabric is or what the consequences are (oh, we won't feel as connected to each other or some other 70's hippy-to-NewAge claptrap). That is the intellectual 'depth' you are so concerned about.
Let me re-iterate...
Sure enough, everyone's income - in real terms - grew, every single band. The rich got richer and so did the poorest... better off in 2007 than in 1979, right? So what exactly is the problem?
What is the problem? Can you answer that at all? You can even use "multiple factors" - as long as your FUCKING say what they are. C'mon M - man up for once: explain what you are talking about in detail, or admit that you are just a retarded progressive preacher. Either response is acceptable, but there's no middle ground left.
Oh, and something else I never knew about M's model capitalist Henry Ford - he was a raving anti-semite.
Well, those in power always need demons to throw fear into the masses. You can't keep the masses in line if they aren't shitting their pants about something that you just happen to have the answer to.
Then for fucks-sakes NAME SOME and what establishes the high/low boundary on them. You keep saying there are factors - okay, what are they? Put up or shut the fuck up.
I've name several in this thread alone...stagnation of middle class income...consumer spending...wages...taxes...private sector trends...historical time periods...there are many more. The problem here is that Hap is asking for a quantitative analysis and that's too rigid a way to look at it. You have to look at it from a qualitative one as well.
For example, another factor to add to the list is education. If people in the bottom quintiles can't afford an education, then they can't get a decent job. They can go massively into debt on student loans (we've seen the problems on this issue) or they can simply find a low paying job. But if they do that, they don't have enough money to spend in our economy which inhibits growth. We have a lot of these people right now in our society. So, education is a obviously a big factor and not always something that can be defined by a number. Quality of education is important as well.
neither he nor you nor anyone else referenced actually specifies what the fraying of the social fabric is or what the consequences are
Again, you aren't listening. Sluggish economic growth...less competitive in the world marketplace...overall, less power. You can't accept this because it would then lead to the inevitable: the government being a useful tool in helping to improve this. We can't have that now, can we?:)
he was a raving anti-semite.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
stagnation of middle class income
The income that went up from 1979 to 2007 in real terms, right? The middle bands in the CBO study.
consumer spending
Is a measure of inequality? I might save more than you, does that make our incomes unequal?
wages...taxes...private sector trends...historical time periods
I apologize, I obviously asked for something that you just don't have the intellectual equipment to provide.
You can't do quantitative analysis, and really you can't do qualitative either. You personally that is.
For example... can't afford an education
The public school system doesn't charge tuition to either the rich or the poor. Primary education spending today is, in real terms, twice what is was around 1979 - yet are the results better (let alone twice as good)? No, the results are worse. Obviously money is not the issue. If you had true intellectual curiosity, that would trigger something - other than a rant that is.
Anyway, thanks - you proved that you just don't have a clue, but you have a big heart and an even bigger mouth. That's all ya got and I shouldn't expect more.
Sluggish economic growth...less competitive in the world marketplace...overall, less power.
Ah, less power - there's the adolescent boy moaning about not being able to push people around - make them do what he wants. If that stems from parenting I believe the Jungians refer to it as impeded individuation.
You don't want a vibrant, dynamic economy - it causes too much upset to small-minded little boys that find the world to be a big, demanding and hostile place. You want to sit in mommy's lap, safe from all of that - well cared for, prevented from doing anything that might cause you harm. And that way, when something bad does happen - it has to be someone else's fault.
And what specifically about Ford being anti-semitic was irrelevant? Particularly coupled with his paternalistic treatment of employees. I would find that very relevant in discussing how Ford used the power of his position and wealth, wouldn't you?
It wasn't me expressing my admiration for him, it was you.
Let's add another factor into the mix: debt. You talk a lot about the housing bubble, juris. What drove that bubble? People who bought things they couldn't afford. Why couldn't they afford them? Because their wages were stagnant. But they still wanted to buy that stuff so they could be like the 1 percent.
And the 1 percent were all too happy to sell it to them because they were making money on the deal as well. Here's where your wealth envy really comes into play and it bit everyone on the ass...except those made bets on things falling apart.
So now people have all this debt because they were trying to buy things with money they didn't have. Imagine what would have happened if they had they money and their wages had risen along with the top quintile. We'd be talking about inflation right now and not lack of aggregate demand.
I submit that inequality was a major factor in the crash of 2008.
Let's add another factor into the mix
Trying to muddy up the waters in the hopes that your outstanding failures slip away un-noticed? No, how about you man up for a change? Either explain further your points - and why I my comments are wrong/off-target, or retract and try again [honestly].
But they still wanted to buy that stuff so they could be like the 1 percent.
Thanks M - envy it is. Nothing new under the sun, etc.
I submit that inequality was a major factor in the crash of 2008.
No, it was the Queen of England - that bitch was the cause of it all. That's what I submit. See how convincing that is?
You keep saying there are factors - okay, what are they? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Trying to muddy up the waters in the hopes that your outstanding failures slip away un-noticed?
Did you forget to take your mediation today, juris?
Let's suppose that I do as you guys request and pick a number. How about 33 percent of the wealth for the top ten percent? That's what it was in the 1950s, The Golden Age. As of 2007, it's around 45 percent. So we get it down to 33 percent and the remaining 12 percent is distributed downward.
But we don't live in the 1950s anymore. America is not trying to spread free market capitalism all around the world in order to combat the Soviets. We've spread liberal economic theory everywhere in the world and maybe 33 percent might not work given the realities of today's global marketplace.
So, that's why you can't pick a number without considering other factors. Past numbers may have shown stability and economic growth for that time period but it may not be true for today given current trends and conditions in the world...in other words, multiple factors.
Hey, here's a link with some answers to your questions about the effects of income inequality...with actual data!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality#Effects_of_inequality
Here's another on inequality and economic growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality#Effects_of_inequality
The IMF study from 2011 has more current data.
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2011/sdn1108.pdf
Did you forget to take your mediation today, juris?
You were trying to throw in another thing - an irrelevancy - rather than better explain what you already claimed. This isn't cooking spaghetti - where you keep throwing noodles at the wall to see if it sticks.
But finally, you actually stick a number up - good. We can debate whether that is the right number, but that definitely moves your point forward.
You even have a reasonable point about why that might no longer be the right number. But here's the kicker - you haven't demonstrated that 45% is bad, except because you say it is. You say 33% is better because of your nostalgia for an era you didn't even live in versus 45% now - yet you really can't say why one is good and the other bad.
We've been over the IMF study before I believe, and it does not demonstrate the point you claim it does. It posits a relation between economic growth/stability and lower inequality - and that is debatable as well, but at least it is a point (though not the one you are making).
As for the wiki - did you look at social cohesion? It's damn thin gruel. But the first sentence on your link is classic why wiki can be totally shit as a reference:
Research has shown an inverse link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.
"Research" - what research? There isn't a single footnote for any of that. So some jackass wrote this without even following the most basic process requirement in wiki - document sources and don't write unsupported material. If I gave a shit, I'd flag and comment on it - but it isn't important because anyone with half a brain would not use this as a reference. The first cited item is flagged with a note that the talk page has criticism of the paper.
The discussion of homicide and inequality ought to be of obvious concern to you since while inequality had been going up, the homicide rate has been falling - absolutely the opposite of what these social scientists claim.
Quite simply - outside of moralistic howling, you can't point to objective measures that demonstrate when/where/why inequality goes from acceptable to not. That said, this actually is an improvement from you - as little as that amounts to.
Also, let's go back to your very first factor: stagnating middle class income.
How is it stagnant if between 1979 and 2007 it showed improvements in real terms? That is exactly what your link to the CBO showed. Do you perhaps have some other data that would at least tend to validate your belief? Or is it all because a bunch of whining leftwing pussies agree?
What part of the study are you looking at when you say "real terms?"
And I'm actually saying that 33 percent might be bad as well given current conditions. This is why picking a number isn't the way to solve this problem. I don't think that it must be a quantitative analysis exclusively. Why do you have such an issue with qualitative analyses?
The first chart heading: Growth in Real After-Tax Income from 1979 to 2007
Did you not read your own link? Again. Were/are you unable to comprehend what the graphic conveys?
Why do you have such an issue with qualitative analyses?
Because you can't establish any kind of policy on that basis. Ultimately, if you aren't just pounding your moral pud here, you want some enactment of policy. You can't write laws that say "too much inequality is bad" without quantifying it. For gawdsakes, even you can't be that stupid.
On the other hand, that is almost the purest expression of progressivist moralizing I've ever heard - it isn't about the results, it is all about how fucking wonderful our progressive ideals and intents are.
Did you not read your own link?
Of course I read it. As you remind me often, I unfairly criticize you and misinterpret things you say. I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same chart.
You can't characterize that as improvement necessarily when you consider the rise in cost of goods and services from 1979-2007. 18 percent might seem nice for the lowest group might seem substantial but when you consider how much gas or a gallon of milk costs today, it becomes a different story.
You can't write laws that say "too much inequality is bad" without quantifying it.
I agree but it's not simply one number. Nor is it only quantification.
Mark, if you read it, you obviously didn't read it carefully. The very first sentence defines some terms (something you usually strenuously resist doing), one of which is that they're talking about "real (inflation adjusted) average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes".
And try writing a binding law that doesn't specify some hard numbers. If you don't even have targets, I suggest you either don't know enough, or it's politically inconvenient to admit the numbers in mind. Either of which should automatically disqualify it from consideration.
You can't characterize that as improvement necessarily when you consider the rise in cost of goods and services from 1979-2007.
Holy fucking shit. Real terms IS adjusted for inflation. You are a total moron. I hope to god your only connection with a school is that you sweep the floors and clean the bathrooms - you have absolutely no business standing in front of a bunch of captive children instructing them.
I thought Leftboro Baptist was a quip, but it actually describes you - you are a mouthbreathing freak.
And try writing a binding law that doesn't specify some hard numbers.
Let's take a look at this from another angle. You guys tell me all the time that you want smaller government....that it's bloated and ineffective. What number constitutes "smaller?" What number constitutes "bloated and ineffective?"
Now do you see how ridiculous it is?
Real terms IS adjusted for inflation.
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly here, juris. You are saying that the bottom groups have just as much economic opportunity as the top group due to their incomes showing real growth. That inflation herein includes ALL expenses that they incur...not just gallons of milk and gas but health care, education, and other services? Is that what you are saying?
Let's take a look at this from another angle.
You can look at it from any angle you like - you are full of shit. Small govt or large, you can't make it effective based on "qualitative" policy. Stupid govt - small or large - is not a good thing (though obviously large is stupid multiplied).
Let me see if I am understanding you correctly here
It isn't me that you are having trouble understanding - it is the basic economics that the CBO is talking about. I gather that you finally realize that what you thought that study said isn't actually what it does say. Good - you are capable of learning, even if you bitterly resist.
. I gather that you finally realize that what you thought that study said isn't actually what it does say.
Not at all, juris. Remember that the CBO report includes average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes. This, of course, inflates the share of income going to those in the middle and bottom of the income distribution and makes it seems like there is economic opportunity for them, which is why I asked you that question.
I chose the CBO report because I thought it would be a more "fair" way to look at this and I assumed that you would take this account in the interest of a critical discussion. I mean, these are government programs that lessen inequality and improve the situation for the lower quintiles. Doesn't that fly in the face of libertarian ideology? As Emmanueal Saez notes
“So, the argument (of the right) has to be: cash market income of the bottom 99 percent of adults has stagnated but the bottom 99 percent get much more expensive private and government provided health care benefits, some more government transfers, and they have fewer kids. This does not seem like a great situation, especially from a conservative point of view.”
This is also why you have to take into account these government programs when considering what they paid for a gallon of milk or gas. I just assumed that you did this when you asked me above...
Do you understand what is being said there?
My mistake for not being more clear so I apologize. (And I'm not being sarcastic)
Doesn't that fly in the face of libertarian ideology?
You keep trying to criticize that which you don't understand. Nor it "libertarian ideology" the point here - income inequality is and your insistence that we have an unacceptable degree of it. You totally fail to elaborate why it is now unacceptable and at what point it transitions from an acceptable amount to the realm of unacceptable. Like the Supreme Court on porn - you know it when you see it. [That may be the epitome of qualitative judgement.]
Contrary to the common assertion, not only did the rich become richer, but so did the poor. This accounts for inflation, but not technology changes; e.g. computers and internet connectivity were hardly common household items in 1979 and by 2007 these were broadly available. In between there was much liberal hand-wringing about the "digital divide" - a phantom of their fevered minds.
And no, you didn't understand what they were talking about in the paragraph that I quoted. You still don't, nor do you grasp why I pointed it out.
Post a Comment