IMF study indicates reasonable wealth redistribution increases GDP (ethical, politician, compare)

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by EugeneOnegin

About 40% of S&P 500 companies' profits are earned overseas now. Why should wages keep up with private sector profits that are not earned in this country? If GM builds a plant in China filled with Chinese workers that sells cars in the Chinese market, why should someone working at a GM plant in the US be entitled to some of that profit in the form of wages? If they're upper management, maybe, because they might have contributed to that, but a guy working the assembly line? He doesn't earn a higher wage because GM is making money in other countries.

That's my point. The system that worked for us and has been held in high esteem by the West has hit a road block. Globalization and technology will make us rethink the way our society should be run.

If tax laws are made more favorable for corporations repatriating overseas profits to the US, someone in the US who owns GM stock might see more of that profit, however.

Our tax code definitely needs an overhaul.

[pknopp]

"QE Was A Massive Gift Intended To Boost Wealth", Fed President Admits

We wonder how President Obama, that crusader for fairness, equality and all time Russell 200,000 highs, will feel about that? In the meantime, just like the Herp, QE is the gift that keeps on giving.. and giving... and giving... to the 0.001%.

US Income Gap Soars To Widest Since "Roaring 20s"

"QE Was A Massive Gift Intended To Boost Wealth", Fed President Admits | Zero Hedge

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by dv1033

The funny thing, not every wealthy or middle class person who has their "hard earned" money "confiscated" from them agree with you.

In your dreams.

Tiger Woods Moved Too, Says Mickelson Was Right About Taxes

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by InformedConsent

In your dreams.

Tiger Woods Moved Too, Says Mickelson Was Right About Taxes

1.) These two individuals don't represent all wealthy/middle class people.

2.) These individuals are fleeing high taxes, no where does the article agree with your notion that taxes are theft. I agree CA's taxes are too high.

You seem to be confusing fleeing high taxes with the notion of them agreeing with you. I don't know of anyone who would say taxes can't be too high....

Nice try.

[CDusr]

Originally Posted by pknopp

"QE Was A Massive Gift Intended To Boost Wealth", Fed President Admits

We wonder how President Obama, that crusader for fairness, equality and all time Russell 200,000 highs, will feel about that? In the meantime, just like the Herp, QE is the gift that keeps on giving.. and giving... and giving... to the 0.001%.

US Income Gap Soars To Widest Since "Roaring 20s"

"QE Was A Massive Gift Intended To Boost Wealth", Fed President Admits | Zero Hedge

One can see why Blackstone is promoting RBS now.
All Aboard The Bus To Home Ownership

quote:
With home-ownership rates collapsing and the likelihood of 'wealth taxes' potentially weighing on even the oligarchs and 1%-ers willingness to throw cash at US housing, we thought the following rusting hulks of a bye-gone era in a strorage yard deep in Middle America...

The American Homeownership Dream is officially dead...

[pknopp]

Its simply impossible that housing could be doing that poorly with the rates at such historically artificial lows.

(That's sarcasm)

[dv1033]

Originally Posted by pknopp

Its simply impossible that housing could be doing that poorly with the rates at such historically artificial lows.

(That's sarcasm)

Right. The rental boom is strong in Texas.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by dv1033

1.) These two individuals don't represent all wealthy/middle class people.

They represent large enough numbers of them that states are admittedly auditing those who move elsewhere to try to extort more taxes out of them.

2.) These individuals are fleeing high taxes, no where does the article agree with your notion that taxes are theft.

Actually, I said taxes are slavery. That is particularly so when not all are taxed equally, and not all receive the same proportion of benefits for the amount in taxes they've paid.

I agree CA's taxes are too high.

And even so, California is still in severe financial trouble.
Warnings From A Truth-Telling Treasurer | Santa Monica Mirror

Here's what California's Treasurer, Bill Lockyer, has to say about why that is...

"Now, in a mid-December speech in Thousand Oaks, the about-to-retire Lockyer has outlined the problems California must solve over the next generation in as bald a manner as Unruh ever did.

One is that too much of California’s state revenue now comes from income taxes and not enough from other levies like the sales tax. Like others, Lockyer believes this is one reason California continues to see a net out-migration to other states, even as foreign immigration fuels some increases in population."

Higher-income individuals are fleeing California, and poor immigrants are moving in. That's not sustainable, and the California Treasurer knows that.

He further stated...

"He also used the word “alarming” to describe the ever-increasing income gap between rich and poor Californians."

In Democrat liberal land? Why aren't the Hollywood limousine liberals doing something about that?

[EugeneOnegin]

Originally Posted by dv1033

That's my point. The system that worked for us and has been held in high esteem by the West has hit a road block. Globalization and technology will make us rethink the way our society should be run.

Two separate issues. You're talking about globalization depressing wages through labor competition with poorer workers in other countries, aka offshoring production. They're still selling the goods in the US, they're just producing them for less overseas using cheaper foreign labor.

I'm talking about whether Americans working at a plant in Tennessee should be entitled to profits earned in overseas markets just because the company is headquartered in the US. If Alibaba opens warehouses in the US, staffed by Americans, and sells to the US market, why should workers at Alibaba warehouses in China be entitled to some of that profit? That doesn't have anything to do with offshoring.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by dv1033

That's my point. The system that worked for us and has been held in high esteem by the West has hit a road block.

And what system would that be?

The Oppression System? That is the primary cause of all of your problems.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Globalization and technology will make us rethink the way our society should be run.

You're preaching to God. I already dictated the Bible on that.

I said that back in 2007 here on C-D, so you're like 7 years late to the party, but thanks for showing up just the same.

I discussed House-Husbands....many households that formerly had two full-time wage-earners will now have only one wage-earner, and that might be woman of the house. I mentioned that 6.5% of households had two wage-earners in the 1950s, increasing to 16+% by the 1970s, peaking at 67+% in 2007, and is now in decline.

In about 2-3 decades, you'll bottom out at 18%-23% (I'll have to look at my notes for the exact figures).

Naturally then, household income declines....with a corresponding decrease in disposable income per household.

Part of rethinking your society is sharing.....living accommodations. If a family of four must rent a 3-bedroom apartment (or house) and share it with a family of three, then that is what they must do.

Your idea of rethinking is taking everyone else's money and giving to them to so they can have their own personal private McMansions, 'cause, you know, throughout history, all children have always had their own personal private 24'x38' bedrooms.

And globalization?

A Critical Thinker would realize that "globalization" is a euphemism designed to do two things:

1] hide the embarrassing fact that US Foreign Policy and Geo-Political Strategy for the last 115 years has been a total and complete failure, and you can thank your "you-Harvards" for that; and

2] hide the embarrassing fact that it is Brasil, Russia, India and China who are developing the States that the US should have been developing over the last 115 years.

Originally Posted by dv1033

They aren't my graphs and I was never using them to directly prove the OPs point. I was merely pointing out a posters error in claiming a graph showed a discernible increase. It helps to keep up with conservation as it makes you look ignorant and bitter when your overall response is insulting and unnecessary.

Questionable Premise

If you have sufficient background information to know that a premise is questionable or unlikely to be acceptable, then you use this fallacy if you accept an argument based on that premise.

[emphasis mine]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

He rejected the premise, you accepted it....you engaged in a fallacy.

Originally Posted by dv1033

So your alternate user name is "del ragazzo". I don't think the Mods will be happy you are using two user names to insult people. Do you get paid by Reason twice as much per hour with two accounts....

You are devoid of Critical Thinking Skills, which makes it amusing that you'd call out someone else....and then you're still wrong....and no, I don't have multiple user-names.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Well then there are a lot of conservatives who seem to think the wealth should be trickling down.... Perhaps you should inform them of their erroneous thinking.....

There are no Conservatives who think that.

Our language is loaded with phrases that lead people into false beliefs and harmful actions, but the one I would nominate as the worst and most destructive of all is “trickle-down economics.”

It was devised by Democrats in the 1980s as a way to attack President Reagan’s economic policy combination of tax rate cuts and some relaxation of federal regulations. They needed a catchy, easy-to-remember zinger to fire at Reagan; a line that would keep their voting base angry.

"Trickle-Down Economics" -- The Most Destructive Phrase Of All Time? - Forbes

The erroneous thinkers are Liberals, but thanks for trying to twist history just the same.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Again..... now what? What is the significance of your response Mr. Critical Thinker?

GDP grew despite our employment situation and stagnant wages. Private sector profits have never been higher..... Why hasn't this growth produced more jobs and better wages in America?

Originally Posted by Mircea

Again, you got a lot of nerve.

The Critical Thinker would ask, "Why would that growth produce more jobs or better wages?"

Originally Posted by dv1033

Don't be butt hurt.

That's what the conservatives believe.... with Reaganomics and supply side economics and what not. It's curious you aren't correcting the conservatives on here.....

Conservatives do not believe that.

Straw Man

Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.

[emphasis mine]

http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/


I guess that means you're lying.

"Trickle-Down" is a Straw Man Fallacy in and of itself created by Liberals to attack Reagan's position.

It was common for Liberals during the Reagan Administration. I've mentioned other Straw Man Fallacies proffered by Liberals, such as Reagan's military build-up, and the Straw Man from the stupid idiot Tom Clancy and the morons at the Brookings Institute.

Originally Posted by dv1033

Wages and productivity have decoupled decade(s) ago.

Productivity is measured in unit volume or unit cost, not unit revenues, but thanks for trying to skew reality just the same.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Your statements indicate a level of understanding of Economics equivalent to that of a 3rd Grade child.

Originally Posted by dv1033

More hyperbole.....

Originally Posted by Mircea

Uh-huh....and what did the stock market do while US GDP growth was averaging 12.5% growth per quarter?

Originally Posted by dv1033

What did it do? You tell me.

If you don't know the answer --- and you don't --- it's not hyperbole....it's truth.


#1 The stock market loses 40.9% of its "value" over a period of 959 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.

Spoiler

If you said anything negative about the economy, then you would be wrong.

GDP growth was averaging an astounding 12.5% per quarter = economics fail for you.

That actually happened September 1939 to April 1942

#2 The stock market sets records over a period of 651 days. Characterize the state of the economy during that time.

Spoiler

If you said anything positive about the economy, then you failed.

That was the recession 1957-1961. The DJIA doubled in value from 250 to 500+.

#3 The stock market loses 45.1% of its value over a period of 694 days. Characterize the economy.

Spoiler

If you said the economy was bad.....then you failed.

That was January 1973 to December 1974 US GDP grew at rates of 1.03% per quarter to as much as 3.77% per quarter, averaging 2.24% per quarter over those 8 quarters.

Systematically....

Mircea