patrick.net

Bellingham Bill says

That's not going to work, the rich will just move their money else where to avoid taxes

LOL, wtf you thinkt eh rich have been doing as of late?

spydah_hh says

LOL, wtf you thinkt eh rich have been doing as of late?

Getting Congress to dance to their tune.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/effective_rates_0.pdf

spydah_hh says

You're just to ignorant to know wtf is wrong with the economy.

you've run out of light, and heat, and reduced to emitting smoke now.

Good job moving down to the bottom rung of argument, too.

mell says

it doesn't really matter if it's "only" 2%-3% per year, if wages don't keep up that's fucking brutal.

in the end, the inflation will stop if wages fail to keep up. Prices simply cannot go up if wages (and/or consumer debt) doesn't go up with them.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=u8A

shows our big-two outgoes -- housing and healthcare -- are over 50% of incomes now.

should other sectors of the economy go up, some others will face headwinds and might even go down.

the sectors with the biggest economic rents -- housing and health care -- are also the ones where government has a large ability to intervene, with both supply side solutions and sheer price control attempts.

Capital is not some scarce commodity like it was in the hard-money pre-industrial 19th century. The Fed has pushed $3.2T into the economy since 2008:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=u8E

and there's nothing stopping them adding another $4T this decade.

Capacity utilization:

https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/TCU

is still at what was recessionary levels in the 1970s, so we don't have a supply-side issue, we simply have consumers that are essentially self-liquidated now.

Inflation is not some homogenous miasma, it is simply consumers bidding up the cost of goods, since all goods are allocated on the bid.

No bidding power, no inflation.

Problem is we've also distributed trillions of USD into the global economy via our immense trade deficits 1990-now, promissory notes that we'll give the bearers that dollar-denominated wealth in return.

Exports are very inflationary, and I do fear China et al buying up our food production this century, leaving us with less to eat and more dollars to chase up prices.

But, again, the long poles in the inflationary tent are housing and health care. Solve these issues -- cut the rents -- and we'll have more of our incomes available for other life necessities.

Unfortunately, like I said above, the housing and health care cartels are very powerful interests. Even in California the Dems have yet to go toe-to-toe with the Howard Jarvis people, even though the latter attacks the democratic coalition regularly.

spydah_hh says

And what do you propose?

Highly progressive taxation, inheritance tax, increase capital gains taxes--that would be a good start.

Call it Crazy says

Whaa, whaa, whaa........

I'm not crying--I'm doing fine. I just want to point out what the problems are so if others want to discuss solutions, we have a common baseline.

If/when you want to have an adult discussion, let me know.

indigenous says

Yes a game of Whack a Mole. It is interesting how the memes are propagated, and the ignorance of critical thinking.

Please enlighten me then--how am I incorrect?

1. Do you disagree that the reason median wages are lagging inflation is because all the wealth is going to the top? Keep in mind I can very easily prove this to be the case.

2. Do you think the US economy is capital constrained? Keep in mind interest rates remain incredibly low.

Let's start with those two questions.

tatupu70 says

that would be a good start.

treating the symptoms and punishing the many (rich) for the sins of the few (rich).

taxing corporate profits more and capital gains not at all would be OK with me, too.

conservatives argue as if

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP/

does not currently exist (never seen them try to defend it at least)

but without fixing the supply shortage of housing and healthcare, we're really chasing our tails here. The end-user cost of a worthwhile higher education is also an issue now, too.

what we need is the nordic socialism without the nordic mortgage debt leverage. Unfortunately, the NO/SE/DK sphere is only 20M people, half Swedes, this scale is almost a toy economy compared to ours ($1.3T in total GDP, the combined GDPs of Ohio, NJ, and Georgia).

(man, Norway has the same GDP as Sweden with half the population, guess with their oil they can afford to run a weaker currency regime)

tatupu70 says

Keep in mind I can very easily prove this to be the case.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GINIALLRH

done in one

moving away from fiscal stuff, socially:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/health/daily/051606/teensex.html

lot easier to run a welfare state if the teen pregnancy rate is 30% ours, and 2/3 of teen pregnancies end in abortion, twice our termination rate.

We're going to have 100M more people by 2050, Sweden, maybe 1M.

Wish I'd studied Swedish in college instead of Japanese, LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zvv2l_P_SRI&list=UUmkzxLsMxufAK_UoPXCX8LQ

Call it Crazy says

You cry about wealth disparity in almost every thread.... Apparently you aren't doing so well or you wouldn't be harping on it all the time....

Really? Why is it that Gates and Buffet complain about disparity then?

This is the problem with many conservatives--they care only about themselves so that can't believe that others don't share their selfish outlook...

tatupu70 says

This is the problem with many conservatives

note his tactic of avoiding the top end of the pyramid and shifting the thread to the ad-hom.

It's just diversion, the tactics of bullshitters and disrupters.

spydah_hh says

2004

Gold = 526

Oil = 51

Milk 16.04

Corn = 2.47

Soybeans = 7.56

Cattle = 89.67

Coal = 81.60

Wage = 35,648

Wage/wk = 685

2012

Gold = 1,638

Oil = 95

Milk = 20.01

Corn = 6.67

Soybeans = 13.95

Cattle = 127.58

Coal = 182.48

Wage = 44,321

Wage/wk = 852

8 - Yr Percentage Change

Gold - 211% Increase

Oil - 85% Increase

Milk - 25% Increase

Corn - 170% Increase

Soybeans - 84% Increase

Cattle - 42% Increase

Coal - 123% Increase

Wages/Yr - 24% Increase

Wages/Wk - 24% Increase

Every Item I've listed in the 8 year period (except for the price of milk) has vastly outpaced the rate of wages

Well said. The US malinvestment on housing loan, that sent housing soaring 2X -3X since 1997 and the signing of the CRA has likely caused false valuation of other commodities. We should enact fiscal policies that are moral, such as a basic goal for saving and frugality. The CRA (even though it may be true that its leakage into standard loans was not 100% correlated) caused a huge malinvestment in homes, and then the government grew in size (because so much was being made richly in real estate). Now that the bubble has since popped (and therein also reinflated by another malinvestment, QE1- QEn) the goverment stayed large and expensive, more $$ is spent on salaries than infrastructure, and the cost of commodities and disposable goods are trapped in a correlated manner with high housing.

Thus, the discussions on what the fed does next and how each path is perilous is true.

Call it Crazy says

I think you have that wrong... The conservatives want the government out of the way so they can take care of themselves

Nope, I have it correct. The conservatives want the government out of the way so they can exploit the less fortunate.
Call it Crazy says

I guess you consider conservatives "selfish" because they want to care only about themselves and not "share" their successes with the rest of the country who won't become self-sufficient....

You almost have that correct. Replace "won't" with "can't" and you're getting closer. It's hard to be self sufficient when there are no jobs available and/or the jobs are part time at minimum wage with no benefits.

Call it Crazy says

Which is why you cry wealth disparity all the time so the nanny state can come change your diapers and take care of you...

Again--I'm doing fine. You know where Westfield is I think. Do you think I'm on welfare living here?

tatupu70 says

It's hard to be self sufficient when there are no jobs available and/or the jobs are part time at minimum wage with no benefits.

alternatively, it's easy being 'self-sufficient' when you have legal title to millions of dollars worth of existing productive capital and/or land.

Especially land. The conservatives of the midwest with their 1500+ acre farms (given away for essentially free back in the 19th century) crack me up. Yeah, if every household could have 1500 productive acres, we wouldn't need gummint so much. Too bad we only have 400M acres of productive cropland, and ~100M households, that's 4 acres per household -- only 1 out of 400 households can have that 1500+ acre freehold to be self-sufficient.

Not that these rural conservatives can't get by without government, they're on the dole as bad as anyone, really.

Bellingham Bill says

Not that these rural conservatives can't get by without government, they're on the dole as bad as anyone, really.

That's a fact. It amazes me how easily they have been brainwashed...

tatupu70 says

It amazes me how easily they have been brainwashed.

nah, 'got mine fuck you' explains a lot. People in large groups, where divisions become apparent, become nasty pieces of work.

The mix of oligarchic facism -- the traditional GOP moneybags, like those behind the alleged plot to get rid of FDR in 1933

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

plus Old South corn pone racism, Midwest rural conservatism, end-timer Christian fundamentalism (20-30% of the population right there), anti-government survivalist nutballs . . . the rightwing coalition is one piece of work.

I'll be staying in the (west coast) blue areas from now on, and if that fails, it's off to Japan.

Though maybe Maui would be OK for me. Having monthly access at least to a real Costco would be nice.

tatupu70 says

That's a fact. It amazes me how easily they have been brainwashed...

I love how you guys just seem to throw around facts when 95% of the time they're just total BS.

http://www.paulgraham.com/cornpone.html

is an interesting read, something I knew existed but hadn't actually read yet.

Twain was a smart, smart man.

spydah_hh says

I love how you guys just seem to throw around facts when 95% of the time they're just total BS.

Percentage of "total BS" refuted by you in this thread: 0%.

Move up the pyramid, good sir.

tatupu70 says

2. Do you think the US economy is capital constrained? Keep in mind interest rates remain incredibly low.

Absolutely! This is what you and Bill don't seem to understand. You can bring up that record "profits" graph for the umpteenth time, but this is majorly the result of leveraged debt. Companies "take advantage" of cheap interest, take on debt, sell their own bonds (woo-hoo!) etc. Truth is this country is continuing to build on debt leverage and those record profits don't mean shit when the next crash comes and the banks start calling in their revolving credit facilities on a massive scale to once again try and stay solvent. Then leveraged AKA "record profit" companies will start folding left and right again and you will cry for the next bailout. Same goes for "private wealth. There is no massive wealth, esp. not compared to the massive debt. Most of that wealth depends on asset valuation and can vaporize within weeks if not days, nothing of that is substantial. And any of that wealth that is tangible is always one step from being moved abroad or stashed away in foreign bank accounts. Don't be fools. The US is VERY capital constrained, it's just flush with fiat credit which is not the same ;)

mell says

but this is majorly the result of leveraged debt

unsupported assertion. and even if true (it's not) corporate profits should be taxed more anyway.

There is no massive wealth, esp. not compared to the massive debt

Actually the massive wealth -- the 1%'s -- is lent out to the massive debtors -- the middle quintiles.

In 2010 the top 1% had 40% of the net worth, the bottom 80% 5%.

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Top 1% owes 6% of the debt, while the bottom 90% owes 70%.

Don't be fools. The US is VERY capital constrained

I think we're talking past each other, LOL.

By capital I mean the ability to pay for goods and services required while creating new wealth.

This can be private credit facilities or outright printing by the Fed given to enterprises via the Treasury.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCSRESNW

shows there's $2.5T sitting unused at the Fed earning 0.25% or whatever. And the Fed itself could push $25T into this economy if it wanted to get everyone back to work (think Solyndra x 50,000 LOL)

Might have to, too, given how fucked our politics are.

The parasitical rich you defend here can flee with suitcases of gold, but they can't flee with the US's cropland, physical plant, built infrastructure, natural resources, or workforce, and that's the true wealth of this and any nation.

Here's hoping they fuck off to Dubai or whatever sooner rather than later, too.

Bellingham Bill says

in the end, the inflation will stop if wages fail to keep up. Prices simply cannot go up if wages (and/or consumer debt) doesn't go up with them.

That's nonsense. This certainly can happen when productivity does not increase. We are in a global economy. Look for Argentina as a recent example.

mell says

tatupu70 says

2. Do you think the US economy is capital constrained? Keep in mind interest rates remain incredibly low.

Absolutely! This is what you and Bill don't seem to understand. You can bring up that record "profits" graph for the umpteenth time, but this is majorly the result of leveraged debt. Companies "take advantage" of cheap interest, take on debt, sell their own bonds (woo-hoo!) etc.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/04/cash-cow-of-50-largest-us-companies-who.html

Bellingham Bill says

(think Solyndra x 50,000 LOL)

I have a better idea than solyndra. Lets just pay people to watch porn. According to you, that would be a great economic development.

gsr says

According to you, that would be a great economic development.

nope, if I thought that I wouldn't decry our $1T waste of natsec spending.

What I want is actual wealth-accretion, capital formation for the Keynesian BS we've got to do because we're too chickenshit to tax the powers-that-be marginally more.

New homes with new appliances. New freeways. New trains. New CNG-powered buses. New PV panels for solar roofs across the nation. Nuke plants. A four lane tunnel through the Sierras. You name it, I want it built this decade and next.

Not just the $3.2T the Fed funneled to TBTF. That didn't work, but $3.2T divided by $100,000 would have paid for 4 million jobs for 8 years, half the actual recovery that we've seen:

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

gsr says

This certainly can happen when productivity does not increase.

that's just it though, we have 12M people now sitting home unemployed.

are there not factories for these people?

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MANEMP

2M construction jobs lost:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USCONS

Information employment levels back to the early 1990s:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/USINFO

we're not fucking Argentina, we're the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

We put a dozen men on the moon FFS.

gsr says

We are in a global economy

That can be better integrated. Neoliberal globalism has screwed us pretty bad -- Perot was entirely correct in 1992.

Free trade with trade deficits is what has screwed us. We're $4.2T in the hole already, that's all the money from our paycheck economy we've lost overseas.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

Bellingham Bill says

gsr says

We are in a global economy

That can be better integrated. Neoliberal globalism has screwed us pretty bad -- Perot was entirely correct in 1992.

Free trade with trade deficits is what has screwed us. We're $4.2T in the hole already, that's all the money from our paycheck economy we've lost overseas.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/intinv/intinvnewsrelease.htm

So you're advocating that the government just nationalize everything?

spydah_hh says

So you're advocating that the government just nationalize everything?

I'd like to see a 'public option' for health insurance (like Canada and the rest of the first world) and personal finance market segments (a 'state bank' like what Norway and N Dakota has), but that's about it.

The problem with gov't owning/running everything is that that becomes a single point of failure in the system wrt labor stoppages, etc, and it stifles competition.

What I want to see is more free market competition, not less.

The thing that conservatives either BS about or don't understand is that modern corporate capitalism abhors the free market. Comcast isn't so big due to "cronyism," it's just right-sizing itself until it owns everything, just how Microsoft found the right leverage points to capture ~97% of the US domestic PC OS market 1980-2000.

Bellingham Bill says

What I want to see is more free market competition, not less.

To get more free markets, the government needs to cut many regulations to allow free markets to happen. The problem is right now there are too many barriers of entry. I would agree a lot of those barrier are placed because of some corporate hand shakes with congress. But until we remove those barriers mom and pop stores will never be able to form, grow, and challenge the big companies.

Bellingham Bill says

The thing that conservatives either BS about or don't understand is that modern corporate capitalism abhors the free market.

Yes and no. It's government that abhors free market because they're the one who regulate the market. If government said, "hey, we're leaving everything to the market, we're removing all corporate handshakes and letting the markets do their thing." The big corporations would lose a ton of market share. Sure its possible another corporation would probably run things so efficiently that they'll for a time being run a big portion of the market share, but unless government intervenes they won't stay on top for very long. No one does, not even standard oil or U.S. Steel did.

Edit: Also just one more thing to add. It's congress who makes these laws not corporations. I don't see how many blame the big companies for the crony capitalism that was imposed by our government. Blame the government.

spydah_hh says

To get more free markets, the government needs to cut many regulations to allow free markets to happen.

dogma not reality.

But until we remove those barriers mom and pop stores will never be able to form, grow, and challenge the big companies

jesus. It's like the 19th century is a total blackout for conservatives.

No one does, not even standard oil or U.S. Steel did.

FTW!

. I don't see how many blame the big companies for these crony capitalism that was imposed by our government. Blame the government.

FTW2!

Bellingham Bill says

spydah_hh says

To get more free markets, the government needs to cut many regulations to allow free markets to happen.

dogma not reality.

But until we remove those barriers mom and pop stores will never be able to form, grow, and challenge the big companies

jesus. It's like the 19th century is a total blackout for conservatives.

No one does, not even standard oil or U.S. Steel did.

FTW!

Read the Book called "The Robber Baron Myth".

But as for you if I can't have an intellectual discussion with you then I realize I am just wasting my time. There will be nothing I have to say for you to believe what I am saying. I can give you all the data or facts you'll just turn it around and call it dogma and so far all the information you provided isn't even true, for instance wages rise with the rate of inflation which is clearly not the case. Then you call for money to go into the hands of the middle class but don't seem to understand the consequences of that action.

Also you seem to believe that the FED have the powers to fix an economy when they don't, even if they were to somehow flow that excess money to the hands of the people you seem to think that that'll work.

Finally, you don't have a clue how the rich and corporations avoid taxes. You increase taxes upon corporations and all they will do is pass it into wages (paying workers less) or into consumers (having them pay more, which lowers demand and leads to layoffs) or even go to tax haven areas.

spydah_hh says

Then you call for money to go into the hands of the middle class but don't seem to understand the consequences of that action.

yes, inflation, of course I understand that.

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

But we can channel it so this inflation does not hit real estate or health care, and to do this we need supply-side solutions for real estate (building an oversupply of homes) and price-controls for health care, just like every other major economy operates by.

And price inflation only hits areas were buyers bid up the price in the face of scarcity, as suppliers find pricing power over buyers.

We're pretty much in a post-scarcity world for a lot of consumer goods and services, and we'd have even less scarcity if we could get more production going here at home.

I can give you all the data or facts you'll just turn it around and call it dogma

no, I just call assertions unsupported by anything and otherwise nonsensical dogmatic, like mom & pop stores going up against a totally deregulated Walmart and winning.

That's just ridiculous, and the main point of online argumentation is identifying the point of departure where competing, debating viewpoints irreconcilably differ.

I'm pretty happy parting intellectual company with you over stuff like that.

Also you seem to believe that the FED have the powers to fix an economy when they don't, even if they were to somehow flow that excess money to the hands of the people you seem to think that that'll work.

Sure, like I said above a wage-price spiral (like 1920s Weimar and 1970-82 in the US) serves to lift the existing burden of debt, a burden that largely sits on the lower quintiles, the lower two of which actually have negative net worth.

You increase taxes upon corporations and all they will do is pass it into wages (paying workers less) or into consumers (having them pay more, which lowers demand and leads to layoffs) or even go to tax haven areas.

again, constructed conservative dogma pushed by your corporate-funded think tanks like Heritage Foundation and AEI. Other nations tax 2X what we do.

Happier nations at that.

spydah_hh says

You increase taxes upon corporations and all they will do is pass it into wages (paying workers less) or into consumers (having them pay more, which lowers demand and leads to layoffs) or even go to tax haven areas.

Why would you think that? As corporate tax rates have gone down, did they lower prices? Raise worker pay?

Of course not. They pocketed the difference.

Bellingham Bill says

we're not fucking Argentina, we're the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

We put a dozen men on the moon FFS.

Uh-ha! Jingoism is the new liberal mantra. If a conservative says this, it would be abhorring. But it is ok since a self-proclaimed socialist says that.

Yes, I remember reading similar tone in history, particularly from National Socialist Party members in Germany.

Bellingham Bill says

I'd like to see a 'public option' for health insurance (like Canada and the rest of the first world) and personal finance market segments (a 'state bank' like what Norway and N Dakota has), but that's about it.

All of these countries depend on this country to save their asses. And, none of them have yet sent a man on the moon. So stop cherry-picking data to support your assertions.