patrick.net

indigenous says

By virtue of the fact that self employed is different than small
business?

Yep--

From your earlier post, you're defining small business as less than 500 people, it appears. So, at MOST, 1 out of the 500 people would show up as "self employed". You would be missing 499 out of the 500 people.

tatupu70 says

From your earlier post, you're defining small business as less than 500 people, it appears. So, at MOST, 1 out of the 500 people would show up as "self employed". You would be missing 499 out of the 500 people.

That is irrelevant

indigenous says

That is irrelevant

lol--how do you figure?

If small business goes from 50 people to 250 people--hiring 200 people, you would miss it.

How is that irrelevant?

Small business creates all new jobs.

If small business is languishing job creation is languishing.

The graph show that small business creation has been shrinking.

indigenous says

So you are saying that these graphs are not FED graphs?

indigenous says

the basic premise is that small business creates jobs even the POTUS know this. If small business is down so are jobs. Just a fact.

No, it isn't a "fact":

"...recent economic research shows that small companies play no greater role in job creation than large ones do. What matters more is age: New businesses account for the biggest share of job gains. Those companies tend to be small yet unprofitable. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-04/time-to-debunk-the-myth-of-small-business-as-job-engine.html

finehoe says

"...recent economic research shows that small companies play no greater role in job creation than large ones do. What matters more is age: New businesses account for the biggest share of job gains. Those companies tend to be small yet unprofitable. "

Bloomberg is famous for it's liberal bias. They site a Treasury department study, a government agency telling us how what to think about small business, do you think they may be biased?

Another way to look at is what percentage of the jobs come from business with more than 500 employees, probably about 20%

indigenous says

You're using BLS to prove BLS statistics are wrong.

What do you mean by this?

John Bailo says

We saw this ever since 2009. People worry about resuscitating dinosaurs when
we?ve got incredible growth available for small and mid sized business in
nanotechnology, fuel cells, knowlegebased computing, and many. many more
areas.

Instead of loosening capital markets its become tighter and more restrictive
and people put their money in dead stuff like gold and real estate to try and
hang on to a past that keeps evaporating.

You've got to be kidding. There is an almost limitless supply of capital available right now. Look at savings rates. Look at treasury rates. There is so much money floating around looking for any kind of return right now it's not even funny.

We have a demand problem, not a capital problem.

John Bailo says

Yes exactly!

During the 1930s Depression there were key new industries that could have been jobs creators and were capital starved.

Aviation, movies (talkies), chemicals (nylon).

Remember Howard Hughes? During that time, he privately funded key sectors of emerging industry while everyone else keep looking backwards at all the (unnecessary) jobs that disappeared!

We saw this ever since 2009. People worry about resuscitating dinosaurs when we?ve got incredible growth available for small and mid sized business in nanotechnology, fuel cells, knowlegebased computing, and many. many more areas.

Instead of loosening capital markets its become tighter and more restrictive and people put their money in dead stuff like gold and real estate to try and hang on to a past that keeps evaporating

Thank you, finally some one who knows which way is up

indigenous says

Demand is created by the entrepreneur it does not exist without it being
created

Demand requires ability to pay. No entrepreneur can create the abilty for his customer to pay.

indigenous says

Bloomberg is famous for it's liberal bias. They site a Treasury department study, a government agency telling us how what to think about small business, do you think they may be biased?

Then give us a source that proves your "fact" that
indigenous says

Small business creates all new jobs.

indigenous says

Bloomberg is famous for it's liberal bias.

Reality tends to have a liberal bias too.

finehoe says

Then give us a source that proves your "fact" that

indigenous says

Small business creates all new jobs.

Already did earlier

indigenous says

Already did earlier

So wait...you think the SBA and the BLS aren't government agencies?
indigenous says

They site...a government agency telling us how what to think about small business, do you think they may be biased?

indigenous says

This is a monopoly game that never ends.

there's a reason Monopoly was designed as a land buying game and not a retail selling game.

but to address your point more directly, when retail productivity was less efficient much more money stayed within the paycheck economy, even though we had less stuff to show for it.

Walmarts suck billions of out local communities -- which is why 5 or whatever of the richest people in the US are Walmart heirs -- but it is true that Amazon is taking this productivity to a another level:

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

shows retail employment is at late 1990s levels.

Don't look for any job growth in transportation and warehousing, either:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES4300000001

real retail wages have risen 40c/hr since 2011:

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

but are still far below 2006 levels.

(cont'd)

Retail isn't the monopoly game. Hell manufacturing isn't the monopoly game:

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

This is the monopoly game:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CUUR0000SEHA

Bellingham Bill says

there's a reason Monopoly was designed as a land buying game and not a retail selling game.

The only way monopoly can exist is through a government
Originally the king would give exclusivity to a crony

Bellingham Bill says

but to address your point more directly, when retail productivity was less efficient much more money stayed within the paycheck economy, even though we had less stuff to show for it.

That is ambiguous

Bellingham Bill says

Walmarts suck billions of out local communities -- which is why 5 or whatever of the richest people in the US are Walmart heirs -- but it is true that Amazon is taking this productivity to a another level:

Walmart raised the standard of living of it's customer or they would not have shopped there

Bellingham Bill says

shows retail employment is at late 1990s levels.

Not good and indicative of what I see

Bellingham Bill says

real retail wages have risen 40c/hr since 2011:

But through service differential more jobs should have been created and less menial onesBellingham Bill says

but are still far below 2006 levels.

As I would suspect

Bellingham Bill says

Retail isn't the monopoly game. Hell manufacturing isn't the monopoly game:

The only monopoly is through crony capitalism

indigenous says

Walmart raised the standard of living of it's customer or they would not have shopped there

sure, that's the rightwing economics theology.

and it's true in the short-term, individual shoppers are initially better off shopping at walmart than local retailers.

problem comes in the macro, as more and more of the wealth flows of the economy leave the paycheck level -- both the shopper's local economy and the global working wage economy -- and accumulate with capital -- "the 1%" to lack a better term.

That's been the story of 1970 to now and entirely why things are so fucked now.

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

But through service differential more jobs should have been created and less menial ones

Less money circulating in the paycheck economy means less demand. The middle quintiles have their wages beaten out of them via the high economic rents in energy, medical care, and housing.

There are some jobs being provided in these sectors -- 200,000 in oil:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES1021100001

14M in health care:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CES6562000101

but household expenses in just these two fields works out to over $200,000 per job in these industries, giving an scale of the flow going to the capital ownership and not the labor factor.

The only monopoly is through crony capitalism

"Crony capitalism" is just a thought-terminating cliche, something stupid people say when they don't really understand (or want to understand) reality.

Monopoly is a feature of any unregulated market. Power begets power.

See Microsoft for how that worked, 1980-now. No "cronyism" required.

Bellingham Bill says

problem comes in the macro, as more and more of the wealth flows of the economy leave the paycheck level -- both the shopper's local economy and the global working wage economy -- and accumulate with capital -- "the 1%" to lack a better term.

That's been the story of 1970 to now and entirely why things are so fucked now.

And that is the left wing conjecture...

Bellingham Bill says

Less money circulating in the paycheck economy means less demand. The middle quintiles have their wages beaten out of them via the high economic rents in energy, medical care, and housing.

Not as bad as you think:

the average incomes for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years

From this article:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/national/thomas-sowell/sowell-income-disparity-a-big-lie/article_6c0f6ff2-9287-545f-ba2d-712f00a3448d.html

Bellingham Bill says

but household expenses in just these two fields works out to over $200,000 per job in these industries, giving an scale of the flow going to the capital ownership and not the labor factor.

What?

Bellingham Bill says

Monopoly is a feature of any unregulated market. Power begets power.

See Microsoft for how that worked, 1980-now. No "cronyism" required.

That is not true at all. Microsoft is heading towards it's final days, if google decides to do an operating system it has the muscle and no legacy crap to deal with. Apple has an operating system that runs MS apps better than MS does. With everything in the cloud now and the internet 3.0 in it's nascent stages MS is done. No government intervention necessary.

Power does not beget power, as I indicated above the highest turnover in any quintile is a the top 1%. Unless they are cronies.

indigenous says

From this article:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/national/thomas-sowell/sowell-income-disparity-a-big-lie/article_6c0f6ff2-9287-545f-ba2d-712f00a3448d.html

Not an article. A Neoliberal's opinion column.

indigenous says

From this article:

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/national/thomas-sowell/sowell-income-disparity-a-big-lie/article_6c0f6ff2-9287-545f-ba2d-712f00a3448d.html

Okay...

The CBO report shows that, while the average household income fell 12 percent between 2007 and 2009, the average incomes for the lower four-fifths fell by 5 percent or less, while the average income for households in the top fifth fell 18 percent. For households in the "top one percent" that seems to fascinate so many people, income fell by 36 percent in those same years.

Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited, showing the top brackets improving their positions more so than anyone else?

I'll tell you why, because that's just 2007 to 2009. A lot of rich people took huge hits in investment income in the crash.

"Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited"

Because the figures widely cited are usually over a period of 10 years or more.

Funny and he starts off his piece talking about propaganda. Unbelievable.

It was either Adolf Hitler or his propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, who said that the people will believe any lie, if it is big enough and told often enough, loud enough.

And then of course he proceeds to lie, in an off the charts pathetic attempt to paint the truth as propaganda. I wonder if he believes himself. My guess is yes, and we all know why (hint: it isn't because he's intelligent)

His conclusion is the best.

For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

thunderlips11 says

I'll tell you why, because that's just 2007 to 2009. A lot of rich people took huge hits in investment income in the crash.

"Why are these data so different from other data that are widely cited"

Because the figures widely cited are usually over a period of 10 years or more.

Funny and he starts off his piece talking about propaganda. Unbelievable.

Ok show them

marcus says

And then of course he proceeds to lie, in an off the charts pathetic attempt to paint the truth as propaganda. I wonder if he believes himself. My guess is yes, and we all know why (hint: it isn't because he's intelligent)

Ad hominem

marcus says

His conclusion is the best.

For different reasons, both politicians and the media have incentives to spread misconceptions with statistics. So long as we keep buying it, they will keep selling it.

So you believe politicians are unimpeachable?

indigenous says

Ok show them

How about this. I know the analysis isn't as robust as his ONE SINGLE PIECE OF DATA (2007 - 2009).

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/183929-sober-realist/21758-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-u-s

Here's a good graphic 1982 versus 2009.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/news/economy/1110/gallery.wealth_gap_growing.fortune/index.html

These are just a couple I found in 10 seconds. THe analysis I've read about the growing wealth disparity in recent years is ALWAYS ALWAYS talking about longer term.

Wtf ? 2007 - 2009. Are you kidding me ?

marcus says

How about this. I know the analysis isn't as robust as his ONE SINGLE PIECE OF DATA (2007 - 2009).

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/183929-sober-realist/21758-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-u-s

This appears to be a continuation of the equality meme. The reality of this is that those quintiles do not contain the same people over time. As mentioned especially at the upper level.

Another factor is that tax law changes starting in the early 80s made it less expensive to pay taxes personally that as a corporation.

Another factor is that middle class benefits do not show up as income in reports.

Another factor is that they cook the books for household income because it gets cut in half after every divorce which has been going up for the last 30yr.

I do not see where it specifically shows that the rich lost their ass in 2007?

marcus says

These are just a couple I found in 10 seconds. THe analysis I've read about the growing wealth disparity in recent years is ALWAYS ALWAYS talking about longer term.

Again the people in those quintiles change a lot especially at the top.

Next time look at the material for comprehension

indigenous says

Ok then what about these numbers?

Cost of a new house 1933: $5,750.00 (equivalent to $93,565.72 in 2010)

Cost to rent a house in 1933: $18.00 per month (equivalent to $292.00 in 2010)

Brand New Plymouth in 1933: $445.00 (equivalent to $7241.17 in 2010)

Gallon of gas in 1933: 10 Cents (equivalent to $1.62 in 2010)

I don't have time for anaysis of this, but it's noteworthy that you are selecting a moment when deflationary forces of the preceding years were as strong as ever in the past century, and unemployment was higher than ever. We're talking breadlines, shanty towns, the great depression.

People couldn't afford those cars or gas, or homes. So what are we supposed to infer about standard of living, now versus then ?

marcus says

People couldn't afford those cars or gas, or homes. So what are we supposed to infer about standard of living, now versus then ?

There were other things like bread , soup, hamburger, eggs

If you don't get this I cannot explain it to you

indigenous says

Again you to realize that the monopoly has an end the economy does not.

There's no rule that Monopoly *has* to have an ending. That's just in your head. It can be made to go on forever (seemingly) by players that aren't aggressive and don't really understand the game.

Most people of worth by age 12 or so figure out that you get rid of that stupid Free Parking wealth-redistribution lottery (which is not even in the rules), buy everything in sight even if you don't want it, mortgage everything to the hilt when you need to buy more, and screw everybody in auction and trade negotiations (hopefully there are people at the table dumber than you). This is an armchair economics for Today's World.

indigenous says

Arguably Montgomery Wards had a monopoly on retail because of their catalog sales, then Sears took that away because they offered brick and mortar stores to urban shoppers, then Walmart took that monopoly away because of better efficiency through computers, now Amazon

This is just quibbling over Water Works and The Electric Company while somebody smarter at the table is busy buying up all the real estate.

"You have won second prize in a beauty contest. Collect $10."

I'm just saying I don't know. Several years of deflation, and deflationary pressure before 1933, and very low demand. The economy wasn't functioning.

It's sort of like the person talking about gold price versus now. It's going to depend on whether you use 1975, 1980, how about if you use 2001 ?

Yes, yes, staple food items are nothing like gold. But my point is that your selection of 1933 is a very specific choice that happens to be widely known as a time when money had actually been increasing in purchasing power for several years going in to that moment.

I won't resort t to commenting about your comprehension, or saying hey if you don't know what I'm talking about, I can't help you. IT's up to you. Play your stupid game however you want. I'll put you on ignore once you've confirmed you're one the same trolls I've put on ignore many times before (under other names).

According to this calculator. $100 in 1929, has the same purchasing power as $76 in 1933

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=1929&year2=1933

Also, same calculator says $65 in 1933 buys what $100 bought in 1920.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=1920&year2=1933

Hmmm. I wonder how you're analysis would have worked with a basket of goods from 1920, until now.

Why don't you try, and let me know.

I guess it might work out sort of the same, but tell me, is the standard of living better in 1933 than it was in 1920 ? Or better than 1929 ?

marcus says

According to this calculator. $100 in 1929, has the same purchasing power as $76 in 1933

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=1929&year2=1933

Also, same calculator says $65 in 1933 buys what $100 bought in 1920.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=1920&year2=1933

Hmmm. I wonder how you're analysis would have worked with a basket of goods from 1920, until now.

Why don't you try, and let me know.

I guess it might work out sort of the same, but tell me, is the standard of living better in 1933 than it was in 1920 ? Or better than 1929 ?

that is the best you can do?

Fucking troll, wants me to put him on ignore, so he can spread his misinformation to the dimbulbs.

marcus says

Fucking troll, wants me to put him on ignore, so he can spread his misinformation to the dimbul

yes put me on ignore, another government parasite.

indigenous says

This is just another form of Ad hominem. Both of you are doing this because
you have conceded the point

What is your point???

indigenous says

You have yet to show how rich people have taken a hit between 2007 - 2009

lol. I'm sure they did. But a 2 year downturn for rich people is basically meaningless when compared to the 40 year run of increasing wealth disparity.

tatupu70 says

What is your point???

That keynes has adversely effected our standard of living.

tatupu70 says

lol. I'm sure they did. But a 2 year downturn for rich people is basically meaningless when compared to the 40 year run of increasing wealth disparity.

Not when Bernanke bails them out.

indigenous says

That keynes has adversely effected our standard of living.

Well, no offense, but you've done a pretty crappy job of proving your point. You showed a list of prices of a few goods in 1933. How about you present a case for how those prices are relevant, how our standard of living was affected, and how Keynes is responsible. If you can do that, then you might have a point.

indigenous says

Not when Bernanke bails them out.

huh? I don't even know what you mean here.

tatupu70 says

I don't even know what you mean here.

I agree

lol--are you saying Bernake's bailout will make Rich people poorer? Or that it will reverse the 2 year trend?

indigenous says

You have yet to show how rich people have taken a hit between 2007 - 2009

Everyone who was invested in equities and had homes (2007-2009) had decrreases in their net worth regardless of how they rank. Those who actually sold equities and/or walked away from their homes actually locked in that loss. Capitulation/fear has reprecussions.

David Asman slammed New York Times economist Paul Krugman calling him a “nasty liberal worm” Tuesday on FBN.

Krugman’s feud with Harvard economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart spilled over on Sunday when Reinhart posted a letter on her website castigating Krugman for “spectacularly uncivil behavior” in his critique of their paper Growth in a Time of Debt.

Despite the well publicized data omissions in “Growth in a Time of Debt,” leading economists have noted the principle Reinhart Rogoff thesis that high amounts of public debt constrains economic growth remains accurate.

http://freebeacon.com/beastmode-asman-krugman-is-a-nasty-liberal-worm/

"Waaah, Krugman pointed out our research backing Austerity was full of mistakes and errors. He's a meanie!!!"