You don't help your credibility when you respond as a Libertarian ideologue with such a baseless attack on someone who has written volumes of outstanding commentary.
You can, if you can recommend something decent and not Libertarian junk propaganda out to try to spin the events to defend ther ideology.
We disagree. Even most right-wingers seem to have concluded more regulation is needed.
Or do you have your own definition of laissez-faire that tries to dodge that issue?
Libertarians are to the economic crisis like Creationists are to science book authors - an ongoing disruption who would pose a real menace if they had any power.
We don't need yet another book trying to lie with such messages as trying to blame the miniscule problems from government-driven subprime loans for the crisis.
Also how was the wealth that has been created distributed? It all went to few at the top.
Righties, find data for the *median* American, that includes the national debt they owe.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 36,371
- 10,685
- 136
Frankly, I blame you. All Americans are to blame for the greedy debt leveraging we have done. It has become our culture, our way of life.
By the way, the biggest disaster I see is in our "recovery" efforts, not in the natural ebb and flow of the markets.
Can yoiu clarify the lie you are trying to tell? You made no sense with this version. And just to amuse myself, I'll say you should post some evidence and facts for your position.
You make a valid point, but it's pretty much unrelated to the thread and the current economic crisis, which was at its core the excesses of Wall Street, not middle America.
There are other problems middle America faces because of the debt you mention, but they should not be confused with this crash.
There are some right-wingers who don't get that and are looking for ways to blame their usual villains instead of dealing with the actual problems that defy their ideology.
That's such bullshit. Who do you think Wall Street was lending to, and for what purpose?? The notion that somehow the common man in the US was "duped" into massive lines of credit and buying houses and SUV's they couldn't afford is nonsense.
I found this part one of the most fascinating
I've said that in the past several times, and no one believed it, and here it is again. The gov't does its accounting under a whole different set of rules and only under those rules was a surplus ever achieved. In my eyes, it lends credibility to the author that he's willing to be honest about this point.
I've said that in the past several times, and no one believed it, and here it is again. The gov't does its accounting under a whole different set of rules and only under those rules was a surplus ever achieved. In my eyes, it lends credibility to the author that he's willing to be honest about this point.
It is not like the government was getting less money every year, it actually increased yearly. Sounds more like a fiscal responsibility issue with the government and its inability to budget.
With that piss poor management in mind, I can't justify the government taking more of people's money.
This is the mindset of class warfare, based on jealousy. Someone making more money then me be is not a bad thing. And its not taking 'our' money, it was theirs to begin with that our government almost gets a 1/3 of anyway.
Bill Gates becoming a billionaire does NOT negatively affect me. Its actually benefited me personally, and our school district has benefited from his charity.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
LOL, you and Moonbeam with your "ideologue." Like it's a bad word, a bad thing. Damn you Liberals!
Hey, you know what Craig, that "Libertarian junk propaganda" is flying off the shelves,...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03...rdnonfiction.html?_r=1
And those "right-wingers" don't know what they are talking about either. Do I have my own definition of laissez-faire? Well, let me tell ya, my definition certainly doesn't support any kind of Federal Reserve, no artificially set interest rates, no inflationary monetary policies, and no GSE's either. You aren't the only one in opposition to the booms and busts creating a wealth displacement that's eating up the middle class, you just don't know what's causing it. Your buddy in Congress, Kucinich, is starting to understand, when will you? Buy that book, Craig, and read it, because it surely isn't about CRA. Read the reviews, hell even the author created an account and posted responses to some of the reviews.
StageLeft
No Lifer
- Sep 29, 2000
- 70,150
- 5
- 0
Without them, though, it couldn't really have happened. Sub-prime was a two-party deal (at its simplest, the lender and borrower). Not to say the blame is equal.
FWIW, only when I had some semblance of fiscal responsibility could I see the irresponsibility so clearly in others, and I know first-hand that some of them have not learned their lesson. Many are still living hand to mouth and trying to buy as much as they can, almost totally oblivious to what's going on or what very likely could happen to them soon.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
That is simple not true.
nice chart
The chart shows income in constant dollars.
In 1980 the bottom 10% of the country made $9515 by 2003 that had rose to $10536.
That is a 10% increase in income, not great, but not bad and certainly not a drop.
The middle 50% have gone from $37447 to $43318 a rather nice increase.
Quite simple, really, even for a leftie. Looking at wages alone ignores the fact that the value of retirement contributions, social security matching, and health insurance benefits has increased.
http://www.nber.org/feldstein/...IVITY.meetings2008.pdf
The level of productivity doubled in the U.S. nonfarm business sector
between 1970 and 2006. Wages, or more accurately total compensation per hour,
increased at approximately the same annual rate during that period if nominal
compensation is adjusted for inflation in the same way as the nominal output
measure that is used to calculate productivity.
More specifically, the doubling of productivity represented a 1.9 percent
annual rate of increase. Real compensation per hour rose at 1.7 percent per year
when nominal compensation is deflated using the same nonfarm business sector
output price index.
In the period since 2000, productivity rose much more rapidly (2.9 percent a
year) and compensation per hour rose nearly as fast (2.5 percent a year).
The second error that some analysts make is to compare productivity growth
with wages rather than with total compensation. Because of the rapid growth of
health insurance benefits and other fringe benefits, wage and salary payments
declined from 89.4 percent of total compensation in 1970 to just 80.9 percent in
2006. As a result, the annual rate of increase in wage and salary payments was
0.3 percent less than the rate of increase in total compensation
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
And the top 5% have gone from 108,894 to 154,120, a 42% increase. Are you really trying to claim that this graph shows anything besides the rich getting the most benefit from the increase in the economy over the past 30 years? And hey, since we're linking to Wikipedia graphs, here's an interesting one: Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income between 1979 and 2005. The bottom 20% saw a modest 5-10% growth rate. The top 1% enjoyed a 175% growth rate. So even if you object to Phokus saying that real wages dropped for the lowest income earners, you're going to have a hell of a time making the case that it is not the highest income earners who are seeing the greatest benefits from the economic events of the past 3 decades.
Here's what I don't understand:
Lets just say (I don't agree or disagree...I trust no one, on either side) that the truly rich (and that somewhat depends where you live) really have prospered disproportionally than the rest of us commoners'.
So what?
Even if these Rich are taxed at 90% of yearly earnings (and cut out any loopholes), does that amount truly make even the slightest dent in our yearly Fed./State/County/Local budgets, or the long term deficts/problems???
I've got to think that's a big No.
The solution seems to be, no matter which way it's cut, to a.) reduce government spending, and b.) start actually saving (by paying off debt, or, gasp, banking it) money.
Chuck
EDIT: Changed stop to reduce.
Lets just say (I don't agree or disagree...I trust no one, on either side) that the truly rich (and that somewhat depends where you live) really have prospered disproportionally than the rest of us commoners'.
So what?
Even if these Rich are taxed at 90% of yearly earnings (and cut out any loopholes), does that amount truly make even the slightest dent in our yearly Fed./State/County/Local budgets, or the long term deficts/problems???
I've got to think that's a big No.
The solution seems to be, no matter which way it's cut, to a.) reduce government spending, and b.) start actually saving (by paying off debt, or, gasp, banking it) money.
Chuck
EDIT: Changed stop to reduce.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 36,371
- 10,685
- 136
My parents have always said they lived better on $13,500 a year in the early 70s than they do with $100,000 today. That chart seems to disagree with that, if it places them below the bottom 20% back then. Something is failing to add up here, especially with what I know of inflation at the store or other prices throughout the years.
Haven?t the cost of goods (anything really) gone up 200-300% since 1980? Yet it claims the bottom income has only risen 10%. All this data simply doesn?t add up to tell the same story.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter