Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you missed the part about household income going from 54k to 50 k in Obamas first 4 years?
So you missed the fact that prices, besides just food are rising?
So you missed the fact that the dollars purchasing power is getting smaller.
You not reading posts is on yOU.
Purchasing power flucuates over time. There are pros and cons to a weak dollar.... makes our exports cheaper to other countries. As for the household income..... I think maybe some sort of economic downturn maybe responsible for that... along with previous policies dating back to the 1970s when income started stagnating.
Quote:
It worked for the hand picked winners. We the people, the ones who didn't get bailed out, paid for it.
So the ones that didn't overextend themselves, who did the correct and sound thing, get hurt while their ineffective and reckless competition gets bailed out. Why reward losers?
I can make money if government pays off my gambling losses.
Blah blah blah. Losers get rewarded in the private sector and the public sector. Don't be naive.
Quote:
Sigh.... every time the economy gets manipulated we have booms and busts. The busts are always worse then the booms. Who are a handful of people to tell us what is or isn't important and therefore should be manipulated? We the people tell the market what is important to us through our purchasing power.
All oligarchys act in their own best interest. Or did you not notice the gap between the rich and the poor getting larger?
You saying the free market doesn't exist doesn't make it so. Getting closer to a free market by taking off the restraints and manipulation of government helps we the people.
We have booms and bust regardless.... You need a better look at history... Or at the very least read up on the gilded age.
Quote:
The forgotten man ring a bell? Company A benefits from governments blessing. What about the competition in the same field that didn't get the benevolent hand of government to help?
I'm not saying its perfect, but the same applies in the private sector. Private sector is full of cronyism just like the public. You seem to be under the assumption the private sector knows best and best represents the free market... I disagree. Private sector is just as corrupt, idiotic as the public sector and often times the lines between them are blurry.
Quote:
Do you even have a thought?
So you aren't aware of the different schools of thought within Austrian economics..... not surprising sense you are just some poser.....
The economy is recovering fine - slower than I'd like but definitely recoverying.
No it's not. The figures you use are fraudulent. The economy is stagnant at best. Rising housing prices, which you site as a form of recovery, are artificial and those rising prices hurt the consumer.
When we get the numbers, over a period of time, then an informed decision can be made. Using unemployment and CPI are not reliable indicators.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
The gap between rich and poor has been widening since the Reagan year (so much for all that "trickle down" crap) - so that point is pretty irrelevant to last 4 years.
Ken
Since something happened when Reagan was president and is still happening now, it is somehow irrelevant? Why, because you said so?
Purchasing power flucuates over time. There are pros and cons to a weak dollar.... makes our exports cheaper to other countries.
Its been going down for a very very long time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
As for the household income..... I think maybe some sort of economic downturn maybe responsible for that... along with previous policies dating back to the 1970s when income started stagnating.
Big government strikes again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Blah blah blah. Losers get rewarded in the private sector and the public sector. Don't be naive.
Since when does a government bailout count as the private sector? Don't be idiotic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
We have booms and bust regardless.... You need a better look at history... Or at the very least read up on the gilded age.
But you are uninformed about that. Government through its expansive monetary policy and through it's hand picked lending practices has been the cause.
Gilded Age - There was no income tax, no central bank, and no military-industrial-complex; the largest federal program at the time was the U.S. Postal Service. This, coupled with a rapidly expanding population, due in large part to increased immigration, meant that sufficient capital existed for such growth.
Were there times of bad economy? Sure but if you went beyond scratching the surface you'd see the reason for the downturns. Expanding beyond the available means. That ring a bell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
I'm not saying its perfect, but the same applies in the private sector. Private sector is full of cronyism just like the public. You seem to be under the assumption the private sector knows best and best represents the free market... I disagree. Private sector is just as corrupt, idiotic as the public sector and often times the lines between them are blurry.
Blurred? When government subsidizes something it is no longer part of the private sector.
The private sector offers competition in the form of pricing and quality. Don't like Ford go buy a Chevy. We don't have competition in the public sector. We are stuck.
Why comment when you don't understand a basic economic principle like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
So you aren't aware of the different schools of thought within Austrian economics..... not surprising sense you are just some poser.....
LMAO Because you said so? With no proof yet again people should believe you? Prove that I don't know?
Different schools of thought??? The basics of Austrian Economics are the same through out.
Your economic posts are a joke. They scratch the surface at best plus you make things up. Why listen to you? You haven't got much correct yet.
robots/automation open up different fields of employment. Someone has to make and service them. In the long run Fords assembly line helped the economy and created jobs.
You hit the nail on the head with brainpower. Always good to work hard, better to work smart.
The downside you failed to discuss is robots further devalue unskilled labors' fair market value. Working smart is not simply better, it is fast becoming not a choice, but a do it or be permanently a member of the underclass.
We need to elevate our post secondary education graduation rates. Roseanne isn't going to be employed assembling toys anymore; as that job, properly, is in China.
We can rank far better in terms of education; we cannot compete on cost. There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we focus on what we can do.
No it's not. The figures you use are fraudulent. The economy is stagnant at best. Rising housing prices, which you site as a form of recovery, are artificial and those rising prices hurt the consumer.
When we get the numbers, over a period of time, then an informed decision can be made. Using unemployment and CPI are not reliable indicators.
[/color][color=red]Since something happened when Reagan was president and is still happening now, it is somehow irrelevant? Why, because you said so?
Blah, blah, blah - same "fingers in the ears" ignorant nonsense. You don't like the data so you just claim it's "fraudulent". Sadly for you, your opinion on the subject is unimportant. The economy will continue to recover whether you accept it or not.
Gilded Age -[i] There was no income tax, no central bank, and no military-industrial-complex; the largest federal program at the time was the U.S. Postal Service. This, coupled with a rapidly expanding population, due in large part to increased immigration, meant that sufficient capital existed for such growth.
"Gilded Age" - same income inequality as now (and THAT'S something you are PROMOTING?)
(from 2011):
"...Things start to look especially good for the top fifth of earners, who saw their cash flow jump by 65 percent.
But it's among the top 1 percent where the growth was breathtaking. That contingent saw their incomes spike by 275 percent.
"It is really stunning the degree to which rewards have been concentrated at the top," said Josh Bivens, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "We have now returned to Gilded Age levels of inequality..."
The trends you mention are nothing new - nor do they have anything in partucular to do with Obama anymore than any other President since (and including) Reagan and has little to nothing to do with this particular economic recovery. It's been a trend for a long time.
Income inequality over the last 125 years has flattened. While there are spikes, the overall trend is toward LESS inequality. Right now we are in a period of more inequality. It's cyclical.
Blah, blah, blah - same "fingers in the ears" ignorant nonsense. You don't like the data so you just claim it's "fraudulent". Sadly for you, your opinion on the subject is unimportant. The economy will continue to recover whether you accept it or not.
Ken
Like how you rely on cooked government figures like the fraudlent CPI? It was proven to you that Health Insurance was counted as .6 percent, not even one percent when the facts show it is close to 25 percent of income compensation for the average family. That's not an opinion, that's a FACT.
Like how you never saw the biggest economic collapse since the great depression yet we should listen to you discuss economics?
Your posts are a joke. I'm embarrassed for you.
There is currently no recovery.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 01-22-2013 at 01:21 AM..
"Gilded Age" - same income inequality as now (and THAT'S something you are PROMOTING?)
No it's not something I'm promoting. That's just another lie from you because you are ignorant on economics. Why give credence to something you precieve another has said when your own posts are a joke? Like how you use CPI when that has proven to be fraudulent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordBalfor
(from 2011):
"...Things start to look especially good for the top fifth of earners, who saw their cash flow jump by 65 percent.
But it's among the top 1 percent where the growth was breathtaking. That contingent saw their incomes spike by 275 percent.
"It is really stunning the degree to which rewards have been concentrated at the top," said Josh Bivens, an economist at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. "We have now returned to Gilded Age levels of inequality..."
The trends you mention are nothing new - nor do they have anything in partucular to do with Obama anymore than any other President since (and including) Reagan and has little to nothing to do with this particular economic recovery. It's been a trend for a long time.
You read an article, didn't do anything but scratch the surface at best and proclaimed you know something. I doubt you know when the gilded age ended.
Education or immigration play into the income differences back then sport?
You do know that the standard of living grew during the gilded age don't you? probably not
You do know that income disparity by itself isn't necessarily a bad thing don't you? probably not.
The reason I brought up income disparity was to show how government intervention, like the Housing Bubble and the cash for clunkers debacle has helped the rich and hurt the lower and middle class. That went right over your head which isn't surprising considering the posts you've made.
There are two kinds of people in this world those that seek the truth and those that want to be right. You are the latter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
