Important Difference between recoveries Great Depression and "Great Recession"...

[blankslate]

Oh come on, really? He just manages to lazily pick numbers coming off a low and compares them to numbers tanking? Give me a break, lets at least call a spade a spade.




Just a guesstimate based a chart on the great depression wiki page. I would say 30-31 saw a contraction of about 10-15% in per capita income. While 33-34 probably saw a solid 5-8% in growth. We bottomed out in 1932.

Imagine what a different opinion piece he would have to write if he compared the first full year of the great depression to the first full year of the great recession?



That was my point in my previous reply. What is there to debate? I dont think anybody would argue the numbers didnt look good coming off the bottom in 33-34 while the numbers look bad on the downward slide in 09-10.

Interesting. Then those years aren't really a recovery and the main points of the charts are which people classified by income benefited the most from recoveries... kind of hard to say that 30-31 is a recovery. So, by the criteria in which data is chosen for the charts. Who benefited by category of income during the recoveries from the G.D. and G.R. the years 30-31 aren't really providing much data other than everyone was seeing their incomes go down.

 

[Genx87]

Interesting. Then those years aren't really a recovery and the main points of the charts are which people classified by income benefited the most from recoveries... kind of hard to say that 30-31 is a recovery. While 2009-2010 did start to show signs of a recovery.

I'd look at it differently myself. Our first full year of the great recession the middle class faired much better than those in the first full year of the great depression. According to his numbers 09-10 saw a .4% decrease in income compared to the 30-31 10-15 drop.

 

[blankslate]

Being able to get another country to move their capital to yours and/or prevent outside competition from devouring your own industries while you wait for them to become competitive is what creates a robust environment for job creation and true innovation

This part I really agree with. Japan was very protectionist when it came to their auto-industry while we weren't and even made fun of the first few imports from Japan. I'm pretty sure that the import tariffs Japan had on American made cars were borderline outrageous, although I'd have to do some research to really find out. Now Ford and GM when they talk positively about the quality of their cars compare them to Japanese cars.

 

[blankslate]

I'd look at it differently myself. Our first full year of the great recession the middle class faired much better than those in the first full year of the great depression. According to his numbers 09-10 saw a .4% decrease in income compared to the 30-31 10-15 drop.

I'm sure you would and you're welcome to of course. We'd need data from the 2009-2019 years, then compare it to 1930-40 years to really see who is benefiting from the recovery by income. Of course by sticking to 1930-31 you're really just doing what you're saying the author did. <shrug>

 

[Genx87]

This part I really agree with. Japan was very protectionist when it came to their auto-industry while we weren't and even made fun of the first few imports from Japan. I'm pretty sure that the import tariffs Japan had on American made cars were borderline outrageous, although I'd have to do some research to really find out. Now Ford and GM when they talk positively about the quality of their cars compare them to Japanese cars.

Heh yes we know when you protect something from failure the first thing they do is innovate to not fail.

Just ask the banks that Phokus hates right?

 

[Phokus]

This part I really agree with. Japan was very protectionist when it came to their auto-industry while we weren't and even made fun of the first few imports from Japan. I'm pretty sure that the import tariffs Japan had on American made cars were borderline outrageous, although I'd have to do some research to really find out. Now Ford and GM when they talk positively about the quality of their cars compare them to Japanese cars.

Not only did they have Tariffs, but they also had import quotas.

 

[Genx87]

I'm sure you would and you're welcome to of course. We'd need data from the 2009-2019 years, then compare it to 1930-40 years to really see who is benefiting from the recovery by income. Of course by sticking to 1930-31 your just doing what you're saying the author did. <shrug>

Not at all. I am tyring to compare apples to apples where the author was clearly trying to cherry pick numbers for his point. First year of both periods. How did we do?

 

[Phokus]

Heh yes we know when you protect something from failure the first thing they do is innovate to not fail.

Just ask the banks that Phokus hates right?

Banks don't innovate. And when they do, the innovation sucks wealth out of the economy. Banks should be heavily regulated with a boot on their throats (see: Canada).

We're talking real industries here that create wealth.

Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers were a fucking mess, but Japan's government kept bailing them out until they proved to be self sufficient on their own, now their autos are the envy of the world.

Retard rightwing free trade advocates in Japan argued that Japan should let those industries fail and instead trade in things like silk, because Japan had a 'comparative advantage' in silk. Japan would be a 3rd rate nation if they listed to those idiots.

 

[blankslate]

Not at all. I am tyring to compare apples to apples where the author was clearly trying to cherry pick numbers for his point. First year of both periods. How did we do?

Nope you're doing what you accuse the author of doing. Have fun.

 

[Genx87]

Nope you're doing what you accuse the author of doing. Have fun.

Heh if you cant comprehend comparing the first year of both economic downturns is apples to apples. I dont know what to tell you at this point.

 

[blankslate]

Heh if you cant comprehend comparing the first year of both economic downturns is apples to apples. I dont know what to tell you at this point.

Except the author is looking at the starts of recoveries and who is benefiting from them then and now? Not comparing the first years of both downturns? If you can't see that obvious point this conversation (between you and me specifically) is over...

 

[Genx87]

Banks don't innovate. And when they do, the innovation sucks wealth out of the economy. Banks should be heavily regulated with a boot on their throats (see: Canada).

We're talking real industries here that create wealth.

This is so amusing I dont know where to begin. Where does a company get capital to expand its facilities? The world of ferries and unicorns? That said innovate doesnt have to come from stream lining. But changing a process or business model to not fail. You think banks are going to change to not fail when the govt there to bail them out the next time it all gets fucked up?

Toyota and other Japanese manufacturers were a fucking mess, but Japan's government kept bailing them out until they proved to be self sufficient on their own, now their autos are the envy of the world.

Retard rightwing free trade advocates in Japan argued that Japan should let those industries fail and instead trade in things like silk, because Japan had a 'comparative advantage' in silk. Japan would be a 3rd rate nation if they listed to those idiots.

The funny thing about people like you is you argue too big to fail then complain when the govt enacts your policy on an industry you dont like.

 

[Genx87]

Except the author is looking at the starts of recoveries and who is benefiting from them then and now? Not comparing the first years of both downturns? If you can't see that obvious point this conversation (between you and me specifically) is over...

You really believe 2009 was a year of recovery? Joe Biden is that you?

 

[Phokus]

This is so amusing I dont know where to begin. Where does a company get capital to expand its facilities? The world of ferries and unicorns? That said innovate doesnt have to come from stream lining. But changing a process or business model to not fail. You think banks are going to change to not fail when the govt there to bail them out the next time it all gets fucked up?

You know people also get money from other sources: Friends, Family, Venture Capitalists, even governments

I agree, banks are important, but when they aren't regulated, they can destroy the economy. When they start creating products that very few people understand, when they engage in unethical behavior at the expense of their clients, then they need to be regulated a new asshole. Nobody said they shouldn't exist, 'genius', but they are the last people who deserve a handout from the government, both in moral and practical terms.

The funny thing about people like you is you argue too big to fail then complain when the govt enacts your policy on an industry you dont like.

Banks are really the lone exception.

Too bad the history of the fucking world is on my side. See: America circa 1800's through 1940's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_School_(economics)

 

[Genx87]

You know people also get money from other sources: Friends, Family, Venture Capitalists, even governments

I agree, banks are important, but when they aren't regulated, they can destroy the economy. When they start creating products that very few people understand, when they engage in unethical behavior at the expense of their clients, then they need to be regulated a new asshole. Nobody said they shouldn't exist, 'genius', but they are the last people who deserve a handout from the government, both in moral and practical terms.




Banks are really the lone exception.

Come on really? How many people ask friends for money to start an airline? That said I'd venture a guess 95-99% of capital for business expansion\mergers\ect is generated in our financial sector. A sector heavily regulated and bailed out by our govt. Knowing they pushed the envelope and were bailed out what course of action do you think will happen the next time they run us towards a cliff?

Like I said in my last reply. You build a system of too big too fail then complain when it is put in motion.

Your idea of protetionism with govt bailouts sounds like a perfect shit sandwich. The industry wont have to compete with innovative forieng firms and has the nanny state to bail them out when they pay themselves too much and fail. All the while forcing consumers to foot the bill on both ends.

Too bad the history of the fucking world is on my side.

What history is that? Instructing the govt to bail out industry and complain after the fact?

 

[Phokus]

Come on really? How many people ask friends for money to start an airline? That said I'd venture a guess 95-99% of capital for business expansion\mergers\ect is generated in our financial sector. A sector heavily regulated and bailed out by our govt. Knowing they pushed the envelope and were bailed out what course of action do you think will happen the next time they run us towards a cliff?

Like I said in my last reply. You build a system of too big too fail then complain when it is put in motion.

Your idea of protetionism with govt bailouts sounds like a perfect shit sandwich. The industry wont have to compete with innovative forieng firms and has the nanny state to bail them out when they pay themselves too much and fail. All the while forcing consumers to foot the bill on both ends.



What history is that? Instructing the govt to bail out industry and complain after the fact?

I didn't complain when we bailed out the Auto industry. Not only did it save those particular auto jobs, but also their suppliers and lots of other midwestern jobs that weren't even really connected to the auto industry. And now they're doing fine.

Banks are a fucking exception, what part don't you get.

Again, HISTORY is on my fucking side, virtually every wealthy nation engaged in mercantilism/neo-mercantilism/industrial policy and came out ahead.

You rightwingers can engage in your daydream 'theories' that never seem to pan out, while the rest of us deal with FACT and REALITY.

 

[werepossum]

I think Germany is the exception to the manufacturing example of Europe. However, they do market their exports as premium and luxury items when it comes to their cars.

This is interesting since when I did live in Germany I did see economy versions of Mecerdes and if I remember right a I even saw a mercedes that wasn't much bigger than a SMART car.

Yes, Germany is an example of manufacturing done right.

Back in the early eighties I knew a salesman who wanted a Mercedes because of their reliability over very high mileage, but also needed a station wagon to carry parts around, and he didn't want to spend an arm and a leg. At that time Mercedes did not sell a wagon in the States; nor did they sell anything but luxury models. He bought a Mercedes wagon while on vacation in Germany, had it shipped to the States, and paid excise taxes for about twenty grand. The wagon had no power anything; it didn't even have air conditioning. In Germany, Mercedes competes like Ford or GM in the States, with a wide range of models.

 

[xBiffx]

You mean like the Right just totally ignoring the problem?

Thanks for making my point and bringing nothing to the table. You are also wrong, which is no surprise.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/20/us-usa-budget-idUSBRE82H0B820120320

Cutting taxes on wage earners is a start.

 

[woolfe9999]

You really believe 2009 was a year of recovery? Joe Biden is that you?

He's comparing the years in which the recessions ended by textbook definition: no more decline in GDP.

In reality, we need to see all years of each economic event to get a clearer picture.

 

[blankslate]

Cutting taxes on wage earners is a start.

It is a start, but wages are very different from earning income from capital. Bushes tax cuts should expire and the top tax rate should go back to 39.5%

We should also see if it is possible to get out of the free-trade treaties we are in employ tariffs and other policies that would encourage manufacturing in the U.S.

 

[xBiffx]

It is a start, but wages are very different from earning income from capital. Bushes tax cuts should expire and the top tax rate should go back to 39.5%

There are more than capital income earners in the top tax bracket.

 

[blankslate]

There are more than capital income earners in the top tax bracket.

Well then, raise the tax on short-term capital gains and perhaps a smaller increase on long-term capital gains while increasing the time required for capital income to be considered long-term capital gain.

Then allow the Bush tax cuts to expire but let the top rate go up to 35-37% instead of 39%

 

[Darwin333]

Let the Bush Tax Cuts expire and return to the top marginal rates that were in place in the 90s. (39% iirc).

Perhaps even roll back the tax cuts Reagan put in place.

Out of curiosity, how does letting the Bush tax cuts expire help the middle class when it will raise their taxes? Heck, how does increasing the taxes on the top .01% raise the wages of the middle class?

 

[werepossum]

A couple things. You are claiming IP is the new currency then say the value in the product is the manufacturing product. Which is it? It cant be both. And I think it is pretty obvious with how easy it is to offshore manufacturing of a product that IP is the value.

Doesn an iPad garner a higher cost because of its manufacturing or because its an Apple(IP)?

Secondly. China lacks any kind of meaningful IP law. Without that they wont innovate squat and thus wont be much more than the worlds factory until they do.

Specifically I am acknowledging that currently it's accepted that IP is the new currency while pointing out that the bulk of the value is in the manufacturing. For instance, a laptop might cost $300 to manufacture, be sold to the US company for $360, be sold to Walmart for $432, and be sold to the consumer for $518, assuming a 20% markup at each stage. The bulk of the value accrues to the manufacturing country - 58% when the US company owns the manufacturing plant, or 69% when the manufacturing company is owned by the country in which it is located. The former situation rapidly becomes the latter; just look at the rapid rise of companies like FoxConn and the correspondingly rapid fall of American companies who used to design the products now manufactured by FoxConn and similar Chinese companies. And as Chinese companies become better at designing products, American companies' profit margins must drop drastically to compete. That 20% markup is already a pipe dream for most companies.

Companies like Apple, which design good products but also derive a solid premium due to marketing, are of course outliers here. Apple and therefore America might earn more from each iPad than does China, but I doubt it. More typically, the company makes more money but the nation gets hosed as we lose the manufacturing.

As far as China's IP laws, they have exactly the IP laws they need, geared toward protecting their own IP whilst plundering that of other nations. When the situation is reversed so that China would benefit from more stringent IP laws, China will no doubt change their IP laws to be more strict.

 

[Craig234]

Ryan plan would cut taxes on the top earners by 10%, and gut Medicare to pay for it. Because clearly the problem with America is that the super wealthy are not mega wealthy.

Why are you targeting Medicare for money to hand to the rich, Rep. Willie Sutton?

Because that's where the money is. We drained the middle class of wages and home value.