33 Shocking Facts Which Show How Badly the Economy Has Tanked

[Bowfinger]

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

And? The bribes will shrink simply because government will have even less power to curb abusive behavior. You don't have to bribe the guards if there aren't any. In case you haven't figured it out yet, those deep-pocketed interests aren't spending billions on bribery because they're good Samaritans trying to make society more fair for all.

 

[buckshot24]

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.

He blows smoke all the time.

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.

I am not posing any dichotomy let alone a false one. I said we'd be closer to Cuba if he got everything he wanted. In other words there is a gradation between the two points. AKA not one or the other. Or, not a dichotomy at all.

So to be clear, I don't think John's policies would give us exactly Cuba's economy. He probably wouldn't exert as much control as Fidel has. My point was that it would more closely resemble Cuba than it currently does.

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.

They don't apply to anything I wrote though.

I have addressed your remarks in regard to the dichotomy issue but you haven't told us how I constructed a strawman so I'm not sure how to reply. Perhaps you can lay it out for us?

 

[buckshot24]

And? The bribes will shrink simply because government will have even less power to curb abusive behavior. You don't have to bribe the guards if there aren't any. In case you haven't figured it out yet, those deep-pocketed interests aren't spending billions on bribery because they're good Samaritans trying to make society more fair for all.

Is there a more efficient use of bribe money than to bribe governmental officials and politicians?

 

[Matt1970]

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

So because you found a graph that shows our imports of oil increased in the 70's means all those import cars, electronics and other items never happened?

 

[shadow9d9]

So its still "conservative economic policies" when it has been done, by your own admission, during Democrat presidencies of the last 3 decades as well?

Congress controls economic policies... you vastly overestimate how much power presidents have. How many of those years have had a republican controlled congress? How many of the years since 2006 have had Republicans break records for fillibuster? Can't blame the democrats for bad policies when all their ideas are blocked...

 

[BlueWolf47]

Congress controls economic policies... you vastly overestimate how much power presidents have. How many of those years have had a republican controlled congress? How many of the years since 2006 have had Republicans break records for fillibuster? Can't blame the democrats for bad policies when all their ideas are blocked...

I am bewildered as to why so many people believe that the executive branch has total control over the state of the economy. Congress holds the most power when it comes to changing economic policies and when there is complete gridlock, no one can expect the status quo to change.

 

[Matt1970]

The part you're not getting, Matt, is that growth has been more than adequate. Your last graph shows that. It's just that our conceptualization of how to distribute the rewards (on the basis of work) doesn't reflect the reality that income sourcing has shifted to investment, much of it offshore.

Low taxes on enormous investment incomes only make that worse. As American capitalists' dependence on American labor has diminished, we end up on the losing end of currency imbalances & labor arbitrage. We also end up being subject to various forms of crowding out & economic extortion, as well. That's what current campaign financing & the whole Job Creator meme are all about.

Other first world nations have resorted to a variety of mechanisms to provide for their citizens, mechanisms that our version of Capitalism simply doesn't, and won't unless we change some of our underlying assumptions.

Most of our overseas investing didn't happen until recently. Look at page 5 of this PDF. In 1990 we invested less than $50 Billion. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21118.pdf

 

[Engineer]

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

We could move .0000001% away (toward Cuba) from what we have now and we would be "closer" to Cuba....not Cuba. Again, not addressing what I said at all. I've never seen him say that we need to go to that extreme, period.

 

[fskimospy]

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

I'm going to take that as a no. Instead of trying to use anecdotal evidence that means nothing, I'm going to show you a graph of the intergenerational economic mobility. The lower the score, the less predictive your parents' incomes are to your income.

Now tell me this, would you characterize those countries that outperform the US on economic mobility as having less regulation than we do or more? Does that make you think any differently?

 

[Engineer]

So because you found a graph that shows our imports of oil increased in the 70's means all those import cars, electronics and other items never happened?

Never said that at all (but you knew that). I said that part of the rising trade deficit was because of a rise of oil imports. Also, what part of the trade inequality (deficit) resulted from the oil imports? Was the price (high in the 70's - 80's) of oil x the amount imported higher than those Japanese imports?

The 70's imports might have been a pre-cursor to the middle class decline but nothing compared to the full scaled "free trade war" that resulted from NAFTA, CAFTA, and what ever else has hit us since then....FREE TRADE....we trade them jobs and they trade us their products. Top gets more money, loans to those at the bottom to keep it going, bottom loses jobs and takes lower jobs and tax subsidies (and credit) until it all breaks down. Top then asks for (and receives) bailout and then asks for tax cut for top because they need even more to help (trickle down) those at the middle and bottom. Funny that it never gets there though.

 

[Jhhnn]

He blows smoke all the time.

I am not posing any dichotomy let alone a false one. I said we'd be closer to Cuba if he got everything he wanted. In other words there is a gradation between the two points. AKA not one or the other. Or, not a dichotomy at all.

So to be clear, I don't think John's policies would give us exactly Cuba's economy. He probably wouldn't exert as much control as Fidel has. My point was that it would more closely resemble Cuba than it currently does.
They don't apply to anything I wrote though.

I have addressed your remarks in regard to the dichotomy issue but you haven't told us how I constructed a strawman so I'm not sure how to reply. Perhaps you can lay it out for us?

I do love how you play coy when cornered. You've done this before, remember?

If we follow your line of reasoning about "closer to Cuba" (a nice bit of backhanded slander, btw) we'd inevitably conclude that this country was "closer to Cuba" 40, 50, even 60 years ago. That was the time when a broad middle class emerged as a result of New Deal policy after WW2. It blended Socialism & Capitalism into a compromise that was really good for everybody. The further we've strayed from that into this supply side trickle down free trade deregulated finance unstable job creator illusion, the more the system benefits fewer and fewer people, those at the top.

The numbers don't lie, no matter how badly you want to lie about them.

So, uhh, let's hear it for Freedumb!

 

[buckshot24]

We could move .0000001% away (toward Cuba) from what we have now and we would be "closer" to Cuba....not Cuba. Again, not addressing what I said at all. I've never seen him say that we need to go to that extreme, period.

Obviously I wasn't talking about .0000001% closer. Do I need to put a percentage on the "closeness" or can we just use everyday language and hope that my general idea is conveyed?

 

[Matt1970]

Never said that at all (but you knew that). I said that part of the rising trade deficit was because of a rise of oil imports. Also, what part of the trade inequality (deficit) resulted from the oil imports? Was the price (high in the 70's - 80's) of oil x the amount imported higher than those Japanese imports?

The 70's imports might have been a pre-cursor to the middle class decline but nothing compared to the full scaled "free trade war" that resulted from NAFTA, CAFTA, and what ever else has hit us since then....FREE TRADE....we trade them jobs and they trade us their products. Top gets more money, loans to those at the bottom to keep it going, bottom loses jobs and takes lower jobs and tax subsidies (and credit) until it all breaks down. Top then asks for (and receives) bailout and then asks for tax cut for top because they need even more to help (trickle down) those at the middle and bottom. Funny that it never gets there though.

Your quote says otherwise.

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

 

[Jhhnn]

Obviously I wasn't talking about .0000001% closer. Do I need to put a percentage on the "closeness" or can we just use everyday language and hope that my general idea is conveyed?

Yes. Your strawman as slander has been noted by many.

 

[Engineer]

Your quote says otherwise.

Sorry: My idea of "cheap, crappy imports" = all of the stuff that we are getting now. Not cars, high end stuff, etc. Miscommunication on my part.

Regardless, looking at the data, we had deficits and surpluses during the 70's. They rose higher during the oil peaks, leveled off until the mid 80's and then skyrocketed until the 90's. Took a turn lower in the early 90's and then skyrocketed to monstrous proportions from the mid 90's on. About the time the middle class was completely destroyed (figuratively speaking).

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.txt

1960 3,508
1961 4,195
1962 3,370
1963 4,210
1964 6,022
1965 4,664
1966 2,939
1967 2,604
1968 250
1969 91
1970 2,254
1971 -1,302
1972 -5,443
1973 1,900
1974 -4,293
1975 12,404
1976 -6,082
1977 -27,246
1978 -29,763
1979 -24,565
1980 -19,407
1981 -16,172
1982 -24,156
1983 -57,767
1984 -109,072
1985 -121,880
1986 -138,538
1987 -151,684
1988 -114,566
1989 -93,141
1990 -80,864
1991 -31,135
1992 -39,212
1993 -70,311
1994 -98,493
1995 -96,384
1996 -104,065
1997 -108,273
1998 -166,140
1999 -263,160
2000 -376,749
2001 -361,771
2002 -417,432
2003 -490,984
2004 -605,357
2005 -708,624
2006 -753,288
2007 -696,728
2008 -698,338
2009 -379,154
2010 -494,737
2011 -559,880
2012 -540,362

I find it interesting that Japan only imports less than 5,000 cars per year from the US to this day. That is "FREE TRADE"?

 

[Matt1970]

Sorry: My idea of "cheap, crappy imports" = all of the stuff that we are getting now. Not cars, high end stuff, etc. Miscommunication on my part.

Regardless, looking at the data, we had deficits and surpluses during the 70's. They rose higher during the oil peaks, leveled off until the mid 80's and then skyrocketed until the 90's. Took a turn lower in the early 90's and then skyrocketed to monstrous proportions from the mid 90's on. About the time the middle class was completely destroyed (figuratively speaking).


I find it interesting that Japan only imports less than 5,000 cars per year from the US to this day. That is "FREE TRADE"?

Well sure oil has something to do with it but all you have to do is go to Target or Wallly Worl or K-Mart and see the vast majority of the stuff on the shelves is made overseas.

 

[buckshot24]

I'm going to take that as a no.

I gave you a real world example of regulation making it basically impossible to enter the market. Would you address this example?

Instead of trying to use anecdotal evidence that means nothing, I'm going to show you a graph of the intergenerational economic mobility. The lower the score, the less predictive your parents' incomes are to your income.

There are countless other factors involved here. We're looking at entirely different economies and types of regulations and different social structure. Also, I don't think all regulation is bad. Some regulation causes larger barriers to entry than others.

Now tell me this, would you characterize those countries that outperform the US on economic mobility as having less regulation than we do or more? Does that make you think any differently?

Not really.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes. Your strawman as slander has been noted by many.

There was no strawman.

I believe your policies would get us closer to Cuba. Which is all I said.

But I like how you call me slanderous but call people racist for no good reason. Also remember that I never called any body a house ni##er unlike yourself.

 

[buckshot24]

I do love how you play coy when cornered. You've done this before, remember?

If I was racist I would have no problem telling you. I don't need to play coy.

If we follow your line of reasoning about "closer to Cuba" (a nice bit of backhanded slander, btw) we'd inevitably conclude that this country was "closer to Cuba" 40, 50, even 60 years ago. That was the time when a broad middle class emerged as a result of New Deal policy after WW2. It blended Socialism & Capitalism into a compromise that was really good for everybody. The further we've strayed from that into this supply side trickle down free trade deregulated finance unstable job creator illusion, the more the system benefits fewer and fewer people, those at the top.

Government had very little to do with it. The fact of the matter is the rest of the world started catching up with us and started demanding more of the world's resources. After WW2 a large portion of Europe was decimated which helped our economy more easily prosper. If we had no "New Deal" constraints on the economy the boom would have been much better.

 

[fskimospy]

I gave you a real world example of regulation making it basically impossible to enter the market. Would you address this example?

Yes, you're using a single regulation in isolation as opposed to viewing a country's regulatory scheme as a whole. This is simply an illogical way to look at the overall effects of regulation.

There are countless other factors involved here. We're looking at entirely different economies and types of regulations and different social structure. Also, I don't think all regulation is bad. Some regulation causes larger barriers to entry than others.
Not really.

So you want me to address a single case of regulation, but you ignore a full dozen examples of high regulation countries that have greater economic mobility than we have. Considering that every country is different due to the fact that...well... every country is different, you are basically saying that you will not accept any systemic evidence for the effects of regulation.

If that's the case that's simply a statement of ideology over evidence.

 

[Engineer]

Well sure oil has something to do with it but all you have to do is go to Target or Wallly Worl or K-Mart and see the vast majority of the stuff on the shelves is made overseas.

Now....not during then70's (if that was what you meant).

 

[Jhhnn]

If I was racist I would have no problem telling you. I don't need to play coy.
Government had very little to do with it. The fact of the matter is the rest of the world started catching up with us and started demanding more of the world's resources. After WW2 a large portion of Europe was decimated which helped our economy more easily prosper. If we had no "New Deal" constraints on the economy the boom would have been much better.

Heh. you can't admit that you're a racist to yourself, let alone anybody else.

Europe in rubble reponsible for postwar growth is just a bullshit excuse, a very tired trope, unsupported by the facts.

But the bad history is incidental; the really key point is that this is nonsense economics. Yes, our competitors were in ruins for a while; so were our customers (who were more or less the same countries). Basically, we had nobody to trade with. Here’s exports and imports as a percentage of US GDP:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/19/the-europe-in-rubble-excuse/

Yeh, it's the guy who sends righties into paroxysms of denial, but the numbers are valid.

Today, of course, New Deal constraints on the economy have been removed almost entirely, so where's the sustainable boom, anyway?

Righties got what they wanted, a bit here & a bit there, what they believed in so ardently, culminating in the efforts of the Bush Admin & a Repub Congress. Somehow, that didn't work out very well for a huge segment of America. Not that anybody with a lick of sense ever figured that it would.

 

[buckshot24]

Yes, you're using a single regulation in isolation as opposed to viewing a country's regulatory scheme as a whole. This is simply an illogical way to look at the overall effects of regulation.

Like I said I don't think all regulation is created equally. Maybe those other countries are smarter about the regulation they employ. I have no idea and neither do you. Correlation isn't causation. Which is why I used an example which is obvious to the point I was making. An example of BAD regulation making it harder for people to create wealth than it should be. Where wealth and influence is required to enter the market.

So you want me to address a single case of regulation, but you ignore a full dozen examples of high regulation countries that have greater economic mobility than we have. Considering that every country is different due to the fact that...well... every country is different, you are basically saying that you will not accept any systemic evidence for the effects of regulation.

If that's the case that's simply a statement of ideology over evidence.

What I'm saying is that there are more differences than just the quantitative level of regulation between all of those countries. I'm also saying that there are qualitative differences in the regulations between all of those countries that may account for some of those numbers. There are also countless other factors that could explain them as well. I'm simply not going to accept your conclusion without more evidence.

I also don't think regulation is the only thing keeping people from moving up the economic ladder. A lot of our population think that they have things owed to them simply because they are American for example.

 

[fskimospy]

Like I said I don't think all regulation is created equally. Maybe those other countries are smarter about the regulation they employ. I have no idea and neither do you. Correlation isn't causation. Which is why I used an example which is obvious to the point I was making. An example of BAD regulation making it harder for people to create wealth than it should be. Where wealth and influence is required to enter the market.

That a regulation COULD have such an effect does not mean that regulation as a whole has such an effect. It just doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

What I'm saying is that there are more differences than just the quantitative level of regulation between all of those countries. I'm also saying that there are qualitative differences in the regulations between all of those countries that may account for some of those numbers. There are also countless other factors that could explain them as well. I'm simply not going to accept your conclusion without more evidence.

I also don't think regulation is the only thing keeping people from moving up the economic ladder. A lot of our population think that they have things owed to them simply because they are American for example.

Considering you do not view a direct comparison of states on the level of economic mobility present, can you describe what sort of evidence you would accept? Please be specific.

 

[buckshot24]

Heh. you can't admit that you're a racist to yourself, let alone anybody else.

I think I'll leave it here with you. I don't think talking to people calling black people house ni##ers is a good use of my time. Have a good one.