No Romney cannot blame it on Obama.
The mess we are in was created by 8 years of Bush Republicans de-regulation disaster.
No Romney cannot blame it on Obama.
The mess we are in was created by 8 years of Bush Republicans de-regulation disaster.
Pr0d1gy
Diamond Member
- Jan 30, 2005
- 7,774
- 0
- 76
Obviously, it is both sides fighting against the middle. Clinton repealed the Glass-Steigel just for an example of failure on the other side.
8-24-2012
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
The Middle Class Is Broke
One of the most important stories in the U.S. economy these days is the rise of extreme inequality.
Over the past 30 years, a larger and larger portion of America's income growth has gone to those in the top 10% of incomes, and especially those in the top 1%.
This is a major change from the prior 60 years, in which the top 10% and the bottom 90% shared in the income gains.
A stark and startling example of this trend is the fact that, adjusted for inflation, "average hourly earnings" in this country have not increased in 50 years.
Since 2000, the Pew says, "the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future."
Pew cites statistics showing that middle class earnings and net worth have plummeted since the mid-2000s and that about 85% of the middle class say it is harder to maintain their standard of living than it was 10 years ago.
But now, however, the middle class is increasingly strapped. And the resulting impact on spending is constraining the growth of companies that sell products and services to American consumers.
The causes of this middle-class decline are many, from globalization (jobs being shipped overseas), to the decline of private-sector unions, to the wholesale embrace of a "shareholder value" religion that values profit over everything else that companies produce. But the result of the trend can be seen vividly in two charts.
First, wages are now at an all-time low as a percent of the economy.
Second, corporate profits are now at an all-time high.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
The Middle Class Is Broke
One of the most important stories in the U.S. economy these days is the rise of extreme inequality.
Over the past 30 years, a larger and larger portion of America's income growth has gone to those in the top 10% of incomes, and especially those in the top 1%.
This is a major change from the prior 60 years, in which the top 10% and the bottom 90% shared in the income gains.
A stark and startling example of this trend is the fact that, adjusted for inflation, "average hourly earnings" in this country have not increased in 50 years.
Since 2000, the Pew says, "the middle class has shrunk in size, fallen backward in income and wealth, and shed some—but by no means all—of its characteristic faith in the future."
Pew cites statistics showing that middle class earnings and net worth have plummeted since the mid-2000s and that about 85% of the middle class say it is harder to maintain their standard of living than it was 10 years ago.
But now, however, the middle class is increasingly strapped. And the resulting impact on spending is constraining the growth of companies that sell products and services to American consumers.
The causes of this middle-class decline are many, from globalization (jobs being shipped overseas), to the decline of private-sector unions, to the wholesale embrace of a "shareholder value" religion that values profit over everything else that companies produce. But the result of the trend can be seen vividly in two charts.
First, wages are now at an all-time low as a percent of the economy.
Second, corporate profits are now at an all-time high.
Last edited by a moderator:
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Oh ya, you mean the GlassSteagall Act that was signed away by Clinton in 1999.
Bush - 13 years of Presidency and counting.
You take dumb to a whole new level.
Doppel
Lifer
- Feb 5, 2011
- 13,306
- 3
- 0
Stop fvcking spamming, holy crap.
You posted this YESTERDAY: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265947
Do you need a new thread for each article on it? You really couldn't post this in your other thread?
You posted this YESTERDAY: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2265947
Do you need a new thread for each article on it? You really couldn't post this in your other thread?
According to the chart presented in this thread the problem began BEFORE he was president.
Your ongoing denial is a sign of extreme indoctrination, of faith in falsity.
If there's a grease fire on the stove & you try to put it out with gasoline, then the problem really started before you applied the gasoline, right?
That's what Reaganomics accomplished, and what Repub policy has continued ever since. The problem of concentration of wealth & income at the tippy top has always existed, with the strictures of the New Deal having it largely contained until the technological changes of the 70's tipped the balance. That concentration is enormously deflationary by its very nature.
Reaganomics tipped it even further, and only massive govt spending has maintained the illusion that such is not the case. Reagan's defense spending tripled the debt, countering the deflationary aspects of policy with inflationary ones. The same is true of Bush, who doubled the debt.
Even worse is the fact that Bush policy allowed enormous private debt to be created in the form of the housing bubble. The collapse of that has been and will continue to be extremely deflationary, because it affects the middle class in a profound way.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
This is the same chart I keep showing you and yet some how you still manage to blame Reagan in this. There is a steady decline since the 70's that did not accelerate during the 80's, but I guess you will see thinjgs however your want.
This is the same chart I keep showing you and yet some how you still manage to blame Reagan in this. There is a steady decline since the 70's that did not accelerate during the 80's, but I guess you will see thinjgs however your want.
And you keep ignoring other economic shocks that occurred in the 70's- The end of the Vietnam war, Oil embargo, huge increase in the price of energy as a result. Those shocks had a temporary effect, but the Reagan sponsored paradigm shift in policy favoring wealth has been permanent, at least so far. Only the enormous acquisition of govt debt has countered the effects.
So you agree that it began before Reaganomics. So why do liberals focus on Reaganomics as the problem, when it is clear that it is not the causative event?
And 2nd, you have shown that housing prices were already the highest in history when Bush took office.
And hey its not like Clinton never let in bubbles form
This is the same chart I keep showing you and yet some how you still manage to blame Reagan in this. There is a steady decline since the 70's that did not accelerate during the 80's, but I guess you will see thinjgs however your want.
The chart shows a steady decline in the 70s and 80s.
Notice when the labor force participation rate went up
When more causative agents are added to the mix, which Reaganomics has become, the situation continues to deteriorate at an accelerating pace.
And 2nd, you have shown that housing prices were already the highest in history when Bush took office.
And hey its not like Clinton never let in bubbles form
Which means that sane policy would have acted to counter that forming bubble. Instead, we got more gasoline. The tech bubble wasn't squat compared to the housing bubble.
Bush had 6 years of a republican congress to do his bidding. Obama had 2 years without a supermajority and a record breaking fillibustering congress.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
You just don't give up do you. I have persented the evidence yet you are still in denial. The ending of the Veitnam war and the energy crisis are hardly factors in the decoupling of the lower and upper classes incomes. I guess you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what evidence is presented to you.
Right posting facts and theories that line up with that evidence makes you a "right wing spambot".
But claiming that Ronald Reagan is a wizard (explaining his ability to time travel) is completely rational.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
Right posting facts and theories that line up with that evidence makes you a "right wing spambot".
But claiming that Ronald Reagan is a wizard (explaining his ability to time travel) is completely rational.
That's typical for them, although usually it ends with them denouncing your intelligence when they are presented with facts they don't like.
Here's one floating around Facebook.
Not only is it not pointing to the right spot, the tax cuts didn't get signed into law till almost Aug 1981 but the decoupling in this one starts in the mid 70's.
Not to mention that it appears to be pointing to 1980 or 1979 when Jimmy Carter was president. I guess the Democrats are responsible for Reaganomics
Of course if the put their little arrow in August 1981 it would make it obvious they were full of it.
Matt1970
Lifer
- Mar 19, 2007
- 12,320
- 3
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter