33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly the Economy Has Tanked

[blackangst1]

Sigh. You're not getting it, nor will you ever in all likelihood. You want not to get it, after all. I'd much rather that people at mid income make a lager share of national income so they could pay the same tax rates as they did pre-Reagan. If income distribution had remained unchanged from 1979, median families would be making ~40% more. Even paying higher taxes, they'd be a lot better off, as would the economy in general.

So you STILL believe wealth is static? :awe: Im not sure if you know this, but the wealth pie is not fixed, and the players do not remain the same:

“The analysis also found that the composition of the very top income groups changes dramatically over time. Less than half (40 percent or 43 percent by different measures) of those in the top 1 percent in 1996 were still in the top 1 percent in 2005. Only about 25 percent of individuals in the top 0.01 percent in 1996 remained in the top 0.01 percent in 2005.” SOURCE

 

[Engineer]

So you STILL believe wealth is static? :awe:

No, but what's your point? The share of income to the bottom has dropped per capita while it has skyrocketed for those at the top. So the 'growing population' has a smaller piece of the 'growing pie' while the top brass gets an even larger slice. Even as the tide rises (wealth) in this case, only the yachts are rising....the rafts started sinking long ago....

Edit: and it doesn't matter if the wealth is rotating around the top 1% (or .01%)....it's not rotating to the bottom 99%, especially the 'middle and lower tiers'.....unless you consider the Chinese and other cheap labor middle and lower tiers....and it's definitely going there.

 

[blackangst1]

Edited response:

No, but what's your point? The share of income to the bottom has dropped per capita while it has skyrocketed for those at the top. So the 'growing population' has a smaller piece of the 'growing pie' while the top brass gets an even larger slice. Even as the tide rises (wealth) in this case, only the yachts are rising....the rafts started sinking long ago....

Edit: and it doesn't matter if the wealth is rotating around the top 1% (or .01%)....it's not rotating to the bottom 99%, especially the 'middle and lower tiers'.....unless you consider the Chinese and other cheap labor middle and lower tiers....and it's definitely going there.

I agree. The primary problem is the devaluing of the dollar, and wages being stagnant. Im just not seeing how this makes the ultra wealthy the bad guys. *shrug* Too many people think incorrectly that the wealthy's part of the pie growing faster than everyone elses is because of something wealthy are doing TO everyone else, as if its the wealthy's fault.

 

[Engineer]

Well at least its different people getting their share

That's nice for those at the top. The bottom and middle (as I said above) are not getting it. No foundation......no building that will stand....

 

[Thebobo]

By the way, part of the "trade deficit" from 1970 upward comes from here....and had little to do with "cheap, crappy imports".

True, part of it. But things have turned around since 2005.

Daily U.S. oil production hits 22-year high

 

[Engineer]

True, part of it. But things have turned around since 2005.

Daily U.S. oil production hits 22-year high

Wasn't talking so much about oil imports and domestic as was talking about the fact that the trade deficit essentially started in 1970....oh...about the same time as oil imports started skyrocketing.

(Although I do love seeing the US grow its' own energy and tell OPEC to stick it up their asses).

 

[Jhhnn]

So you STILL believe wealth is static? :awe: Im not sure if you know this, but the wealth pie is not fixed, and the players do not remain the same:

I referenced growth earlier. It only benefits those who actually receive a share of it, however. About half of American families have received bumpkus or have gone downhill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/u...verty-but-struggling.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

[Jhhnn]

Edited response:



I agree. The primary problem is the devaluing of the dollar, and wages being stagnant. Im just not seeing how this makes the ultra wealthy the bad guys. *shrug* Too many people think incorrectly that the wealthy's part of the pie growing faster than everyone elses is because of something wealthy are doing TO everyone else, as if its the wealthy's fault.

You understate the power of wealth in today's society. Who finances political campaigns? Who finances the myriad of institutes, think tanks, foundations & so forth that shape public opinion? Who owns & runs the Media? Poor people?

 

[ElFenix]

Edited response:



I agree. The primary problem is the devaluing of the dollar, and wages being stagnant. Im just not seeing how this makes the ultra wealthy the bad guys. *shrug* Too many people think incorrectly that the wealthy's part of the pie growing faster than everyone elses is because of something wealthy are doing TO everyone else, as if its the wealthy's fault.

you mean like lobbying to free up trade with a slave state so that they can make more money while laying off 100s of thousands?

 

[buckshot24]

When reason fails, go with false attribution, create a strawman, argue against that. You'll win every time.

Would you make up your mind? Getting closer to Cuba is going to get you closer to income equality. Are you saying you don't want income equality now?

 

[buckshot24]

You understate the power of wealth in today's society. Who finances political campaigns? Who finances the myriad of institutes, think tanks, foundations & so forth that shape public opinion? Who owns & runs the Media? Poor people?

This goes against your position of large governmental controls. The lower the level of control the government has on an economy the less likely "big money" can influence government by donating to political campaigns. I'm glad to see that you're arguing for smaller government now.

The fact of the matter is by putting more and more regulation on business you make it much harder for the poor to get out of the lower income brackets. Governmental controls increase barrier of entry which the rich can more easily overcome.

 

[fskimospy]

This goes against your position of large governmental controls. The lower the level of control the government has on an economy the less likely "big money" can influence government by donating to political campaigns. I'm glad to see that you're arguing for smaller government now.

The fact of the matter is by putting more and more regulation on business you make it much harder for the poor to get out of the lower income brackets. Governmental controls increase barrier of entry which the rich can more easily overcome.

Your choices are between big money influencing government, over which we have some control, or big money influencing society in countless ways in which we have no control.

Wait, did you really think if we made the government less powerful that all that money would stop working to influence the structure of society? Don't be so naive, it would just become even less accountable.

 

[fskimospy]

This goes against your position of large governmental controls. The lower the level of control the government has on an economy the less likely "big money" can influence government by donating to political campaigns. I'm glad to see that you're arguing for smaller government now.

The fact of the matter is by putting more and more regulation on business you make it much harder for the poor to get out of the lower income brackets. Governmental controls increase barrier of entry which the rich can more easily overcome.

Also, can you please show me any evidence whatsoever that shows a negative correlation between regulation and economic mobility? Like, any at all?

 

[blackangst1]

You understate the power of wealth in today's society. Who finances political campaigns? Who finances the myriad of institutes, think tanks, foundations & so forth that shape public opinion? Who owns & runs the Media? Poor people?

Im not discounting the importance of your point, but tell me something. What political system has ever NOT had these things? Saying theyre a negative drain on society is one thing. Proposing a solution is quite another.

 

[Bowfinger]

Would you make up your mind? Getting closer to Cuba is going to get you closer to income equality. Are you saying you don't want income equality now?

Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.


False Dichotomy:
A false dichotomy or false dilemma occurs when an argument presents two options and ignores, either purposefully or out of ignorance, other alternatives.

In general, a false dichotomy gives the impression that the two opposite options are mutually exclusive (that is, only one of them may be the case, never both) and that at least one of them is true, that is, they represent all of the possible options.

For example, the claim that “you’re either with me, or you’re against me” is an example of a false dichotomy. This form of rhetoric is used to persuade or even threaten, but it ignores the fact that the individual or group addressed may have a neutral opinion towards the speaker. It is logically possible for someone to be neither with nor against an individual.

A more obvious example would be the claim ‘All animals are either mammals or fish.’ We could use that, with the premise ‘my pet parrot is not a mammal’ to conclude that ‘my pet parrot is a fish’. Clearly, something went wrong. The problem here is not a failure of logic in the argument form, but that the first premise is a false dichotomy. That premise is false — there are also birds, for one, as well as other groups of animals.

 

[buckshot24]

Your choices are between big money influencing government, over which we have some control, or big money influencing society in countless ways in which we have no control.

Sweet, an argument for governmental corruption!

Wait, did you really think if we made the government less powerful that all that money would stop working to influence the structure of society? Don't be so naive, it would just become even less accountable.

This may be true but there is no more efficient way to get what you want than to have a government regulate it for you. So they may try to influence society but the money would be less effective in doing so than if you get a congressman in your hip pocket.

 

[blackangst1]

you mean like lobbying to free up trade with a slave state so that they can make more money while laying off 100s of thousands?

Just playing devil's advocate here...what is a company's FIRST and primary goal (assuming theyre big enough they would have a lobbyist)? Something other than returning investment to shareholders?

 

[buckshot24]

Also, can you please show me any evidence whatsoever that shows a negative correlation between regulation and economic mobility? Like, any at all?

You live in NYC. Go start a cab company and tell me how easy it is to get off the ground.

 

[Bowfinger]

Im not discounting the importance of your point, but tell me something. What political system has ever NOT had these things? Saying theyre a negative drain on society is one thing. Proposing a solution is quite another.

The solution starts with getting money out of politics. In our current, essentially no-holds-barred model, money is effectively synonymous with corruption. Get rid of the money and the playing field levels substantially. Of course that would require rejecting the notion that money is protected speech.

 

[buckshot24]

Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

John is wrong because he is an idiot, which would be an ad hominem fallacy.:awe:

But I didn't make any conclusions other than to say that if he got his way we would be closer to Cuba than we are now. I think that is pretty self evident. Do you have any argument to the contrary?

Thanks for showing us you know how to copy and paste.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just playing devil's advocate here...what is a company's FIRST and primary goal (assuming theyre big enough they would have a lobbyist)? Something other than returning investment to shareholders?

While that's fine as a primary goal, it shouldn't be the only goal, or its unmitigated goal. It is perfectly reasonable to add a the constraint: without harming society. Certainly we, as individuals, are expected to live our lives that way. We can look out for #1, but not at the expense of harming others.

 

[buckshot24]

The solution starts with getting money out of politics. In our current, essentially no-holds-barred model, money is effectively synonymous with corruption. Get rid of the money and the playing field levels substantially. Of course that would require rejecting the notion that money is protected speech.

Reduce governmental control over society and political "bribes" will reduce.

 

[Engineer]

[/LIST]
John is wrong because he is an idiot, which would be an ad hominem fallacy.:awe:

But I didn't make any conclusions other than to say that if he got his way we would be closer to Cuba than we are now. I think that is pretty self evident. Do you have any argument to the contrary?

Thanks for showing us you know how to copy and paste.

So there is complete rising inequality (which is what we have) or there is 'total equality' (Cuba), based on what you are saying. There are NO in between models (based on your comments). I've never seen Jhhnn ask for total equality....just something better than the yachts rising and rafts sinking situation that we have now. People in the yachts (those at the top) are letting more water from the damn (federal reserve) into the lake (economy) and shooting holes in the rafts (everyone not at the top) while doing so.

Heh...

 

[buckshot24]

So there is complete rising inequality (which is what we have) or there is 'total equality' (Cuba), based on what you are saying. There are NO in between models (based on your comments). I've never seen Jhhnn ask for total equality....just something better than the yachts rising and rafts sinking situation that we have now. People in the yachts (those at the top) are letting more water from the damn (federal reserve) into the lake (economy) and shooting holes in the rafts (everyone not at the top) while doing so.

Heh...

How about you re-read what I wrote? I said we'd be closer to Cuba if he got his way. Not Cuba.

 

[Bowfinger]

[/LIST]
John is wrong because he is an idiot, which would be an ad hominem fallacy.:awe:

Yes, it would certainly be a fallacy. He consistently makes intelligent arguments and supports them with factual evidence. You blow smoke and make personal attacks.

But I didn't make any conclusions other than to say that if he got his way we would be closer to Cuba than we are now. I think that is pretty self evident. Do you have any argument to the contrary?

It's pure, emotional tripe, intended to divert attention from the fact that you can't really address his points. We had much greater income equality up through the 70's than we do now. Were we like Cuba then? You are intentionally posing a ludicrous false dichotomy.

Thanks for showing us you know how to copy and paste.

My pleasure. It seemed like knowledge you lack. Further, whether you can digest it or not, it's a handy reference for everyone else so they can more readily recognize what you're doing. I wouldn't want anyone to be fooled into thinking your comments were substantive.