Several former treasury secretaries have a bit of a laugh over income inequality

[fskimospy]

We're proving that evidently you don't care if inequality is going up so long as it happens under Obama or another Democrat (at 0.476 most recent figures by St Louis Fed provided by the chart).

Lol. How do you think your chart proves that?

I'm genuinely trying to figure out if you were duped too. Do you understand why the net increase in inequality under Bush was zero and then suddenly shot up under Obama? The answer is super obvious.

 

[realibrad]

Lol. How do you think your chart proves that?

I'm genuinely trying to figure out if you were duped too. Do you understand why the net increase in inequality under Bush was zero and then suddenly shot up under Obama? The answer is super obvious.

Bush was not black?

Sorry, too easy.

The economy coming out of the dot com bubble was growing as people found now things to over invest in. When 9/11 happened, the push to grow the economy happened to make everyone feel safer. This allowed the economy to be propped up and drove investments into sectors that were very risky. Once the bubble burst toward the end of Bush's term it collapsed. Obama being left with an economy in shambles did what he thought would help (I don't think it helped that much). Those with large amounts of wealth isolated themselves from the devaluing market, but those below could not.

 

[Spungo]

Almost as hilarious as this one? The irony here is that you're always accusing other people of being dishonest.

It's interesting how inequality explodes immediately after leaving the gold standard in 1971. Rich people own stocks, and stocks rise in value under a fiat system. Poor people are paid in paper, and paper loses values under a fiat system. As Elizabeth Warren, a democrat, pointed out, minimum wage would be about $22 per hour if wages kept up with productivity. Economies are naturally deflationary, so prices of things should be falling every year as productivity rises. Areas with the fastest productivity advancements see the highest deflation, such as cell phones getting better and cheaper every year. Areas with flat productivity, such as housing, keep getting more expensive, and wages never keep up with inflation.

houses are more unaffordable than ever. Now economists are saying we should go to negative interest rates. If you liked paying $300,000 for a house, you'll love paying $600,000 for one.

For the record, I hope we do go into negative interest rate territory. I already own real estate, so the high inflation tends to make me wealthier while making everyone else poorer.

 

[glenn1]

Lol. How do you think your chart proves that?

I'm genuinely trying to figure out if you were duped too. Do you understand why the net increase in inequality under Bush was zero and then suddenly shot up under Obama? The answer is super obvious.

Keynesianism, but does that really matter? You guys are the ones who think income inequality is a bad thing, unless your side does it and for the "right reasons."

 

[fskimospy]

Bush was not black?

Sorry, too easy.

The economy coming out of the dot com bubble was growing as people found now things to over invest in. When 9/11 happened, the push to grow the economy happened to make everyone feel safer. This allowed the economy to be propped up and drove investments into sectors that were very risky. Once the bubble burst toward the end of Bush's term it collapsed. Obama being left with an economy in shambles did what he thought would help (I don't think it helped that much). Those with large amounts of wealth isolated themselves from the devaluing market, but those below could not.

High income people get a disproportionate share of their income from investments. That collapsed at the end under Bush and rebounded under Obama.

Using the cut point of January 2009 is as dumb here as it is when people say gas was $1.80 or whatever when Obama came into office.

 

[fskimospy]

It's interesting how inequality explodes immediately after leaving the gold standard in 1971. Rich people own stocks, and stocks rise in value under a fiat system. Poor people are paid in paper, and paper loses values under a fiat system. As Elizabeth Warren, a democrat, pointed out, minimum wage would be about $22 per hour if wages kept up with productivity. Economies are naturally deflationary, so prices of things should be falling every year as productivity rises. Areas with the fastest productivity advancements see the highest deflation, such as cell phones getting better and cheaper every year. Areas with flat productivity, such as housing, keep getting more expensive, and wages never keep up with inflation.

houses are more unaffordable than ever. Now economists are saying we should go to negative interest rates. If you liked paying $300,000 for a house, you'll love paying $600,000 for one.

For the record, I hope we do go into negative interest rate territory. I already own real estate, so the high inflation tends to make me wealthier while making everyone else poorer.

Do you want to explain how the other highest periods of inequality in US history happened under the gold standard then?

Fiat currency is the only sane monetary system that exists. Tying your currency (by fiat, no less, haha) to a random mineral dug out of the ground is senseless. There's a reason why the whole world stopped doing it.

 

[glenn1]

Do you want to explain how the other highest periods of inequality in US history happened under the gold standard then?

Fiat currency is the only sane monetary system that exists. Tying your currency (by fiat, no less, haha) to a random mineral dug out of the ground is senseless. There's a reason why the whole world stopped doing it.

And yet somehow contrary to your causal explanation for Obama's increase in inequality, GINI behaved exactly opposite to your hypothesis. Rose at the peak of the Great Depression, fell in recovery from it, and continued falling until almost exactly when we abandoned the gold standard. But don't be consistent or anything, just keep on deciding what you think after the fact and based on your political considerations.

 

[fskimospy]

And yet somehow contrary to your causal explanation for Obama's increase in inequality, GINI behaved exactly opposite to your hypothesis. Rose at the peak of the Great Depression, fell in recovery from it, and continued falling until almost exactly when we abandoned the gold standard. But don't be consistent or anything, just keep on deciding what you think after the fact and based on your political considerations.

It's almost like nationwide income dynamics in 2008 are different than they were 80 years earlier. (Look at what drove the gini coefficient increase in the 30s vs now)

You posted a dumb chart that you were apparently duped by. It's ok, you get duped a lot it seems.

 

[realibrad]

High income people get a disproportionate share of their income from investments. That collapsed at the end under Bush and rebounded under Obama.

Using the cut point of January 2009 is as dumb here as it is when people say gas was $1.80 or whatever when Obama came into office.

Disagree with the word disproportionate as it implies too much or too little. I think you mean to say majority.

Everything else yes.

I could say that chattel slavery was never lower then when it was under Bush, and it would be just as pointless. I will also say that income inequality seems to be a bipartisan issue. Inequality will always happen when people are born with unequal abilities. Thank god right?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The lack of originality was the point, guy!

Regardless, do you think glenn's chart is a good one? You appeared to.

The numbers used in Glenn's chart exactly track those from FRED. You have a problem with the FRED numbers? Are they dishonest too?

 

[realibrad]

It's interesting how inequality explodes immediately after leaving the gold standard in 1971. Rich people own stocks, and stocks rise in value under a fiat system. Poor people are paid in paper, and paper loses values under a fiat system. As Elizabeth Warren, a democrat, pointed out, minimum wage would be about $22 per hour if wages kept up with productivity. Economies are naturally deflationary, so prices of things should be falling every year as productivity rises. Areas with the fastest productivity advancements see the highest deflation, such as cell phones getting better and cheaper every year. Areas with flat productivity, such as housing, keep getting more expensive, and wages never keep up with inflation.

houses are more unaffordable than ever. Now economists are saying we should go to negative interest rates. If you liked paying $300,000 for a house, you'll love paying $600,000 for one.

For the record, I hope we do go into negative interest rate territory. I already own real estate, so the high inflation tends to make me wealthier while making everyone else poorer.

You should stay away from economics.

Paper money does not lose value in a fiat system inherently. It goes up and down.

Economies are not naturally deflationary. Just because productivity increases, does not mean the value of goods goes down. As products become cheaper, it allows for those products to be consumed in more ways which can and often does lead to new innovation. If you ignore innovation, then yes, it would be.

You should stop and just leave this alone.

 

[fskimospy]

The numbers used in Glenn's chart exactly track those from FRED. You have a problem with the FRED numbers? Are they dishonest too?

The FRED numbers are great! Glenn's chart is still dishonest though.

I'm quite sure you know why too. Even someone as gullible as you shouldnt be duped by that.

 

[Sonikku]

Keynesianism, but does that really matter? You guys are the ones who think income inequality is a bad thing, unless your side does it and for the "right reasons."

Some income inequality is good. No inequality is bad. And extreme inequality is even worse. Guess which direction America is heading towards?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The FRED numbers are great! Glenn's chart is still dishonest though.

I'm quite sure you know why too. Even someone as gullible as you shouldnt be duped by that.

What exactly am I being duped by? Facts? Or the framing of the facts in a way that makes your team look bad?

 

[fskimospy]

What exactly am I being duped by? Facts? Or the framing of the facts in a way that makes your team look bad?

There's your problem, you look at this like a team thing. Any person who cares about being informed should agree that the chart's framing is dishonest.

I guess the question is if you care about being informed?

 

[Spungo]

Economies are not naturally deflationary. Just because productivity increases, does not mean the value of goods goes down.

If that were true, workers with experience would be virtually unemployable. I have many years of experience in engineering and CAD, and my productivity is literally 100x greater than it was when I started. Hiring me would cost less than hiring a fresh grad because my productivity is higher.

By all means, I want you to test your economic model, and I really hope it succeeds. Hire the most unproductive people you can find. It should keep costs down so you get more business. Also, exclusively hire women and minorities since you can pay them less for the same work.

 

[glenn1]

What exactly am I being duped by? Facts? Or the framing of the facts in a way that makes your team look bad?

Even if you use the highwater mark of the Bush admin, GINI is still up around 8 basis points through most recent data (2013). So with the very most charitable summary we could give, inequality is up equal/more under Obama than Bush, and Clinton more than Obama.

President | Lowest GINI | Highest GINI | Differential
Clinton | 0.428 | 0.459 | 0.031
Bush | 0.462 | 0.470 | 0.008
Obama | 0.468 | 0.477 | 0.009 (0.008 current as of most recent 2013 data)

 

[realibrad]

If that were true, workers with experience would be virtually unemployable. I have many years of experience in engineering and CAD, and my productivity is literally 100x greater than it was when I started. Hiring me would cost less than hiring a fresh grad because my productivity is higher.

By all means, I want you to test your economic model, and I really hope it succeeds. Hire the most unproductive people you can find. It should keep costs down so you get more business. Also, exclusively hire women and minorities since you can pay them less for the same work.

What in the world are you on about?

If you are a worker and your productivity doubles and you are the only expense that goes into production, then the cost of the item would be cut in half. However, in economics we have something called supply and demand. See, when supply increases relative to demand, the price per unit goes down. If the supply were to go up, but the demand goes up more, then price will still be higher. So, even if you were to increase you productivity by 100x, it would not mean the price of the good would inherently go down.

You simply do not understand supply and demand. This is the basics here, and it seems to have missed you.

 

[fskimospy]

Even if you use the highwater mark of the Bush admin, GINI is still up around 8 basis points through most recent data (2013). So with the very most charitable summary we could give, inequality is up equal/more under Obama than Bush, and Clinton more than Obama.

President | Lowest GINI | Highest GINI | Differential
Clinton | 0.428 | 0.459 | 0.031
Bush | 0.462 | 0.470 | 0.008
Obama | 0.468 | 0.477 | 0.009 (0.008 current as of most recent 2013 data)

Except of course that you're making the same mistake, just on the other side of the dividing line, haha.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

SO for a dummy like me Bush was the best President in recent times?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

SO for a dummy like me Bush was the best President in recent times?

Yep...and by that logic, Reagan caused it all!!! This is the mentality we're dealing with.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

There's your problem, you look at this like a team thing. Any person who cares about being informed should agree that the chart's framing is dishonest.

I see people left and right dishonestly framing issues all the time. Excuse me if I get a little jaded at times.

I guess the question is if you care about being informed?

Yeah...that's the ticket! Awesome conclusion!

 

[glenn1]

Except of course that you're making the same mistake, just on the other side of the dividing line, haha.

So your argument boils down to since Obama started from a depressed base, that his highest in the last 80ish years GINI isn't a big deal? Here, I'll play along - pick any starting point during the Obama admin you wish and explain why you think he has a good record on reducing inequality. Hell, pick any starting point in any administration you want and explain why you think he's doing well on inequality.

 

[runzwithsizorz]

Change is coming I don't believe it will be people with pitchforks but at some point politicians will have to do something. Many more people are talking about it than just a couple of years ago. Look at the Republicans giving zero push back on stockbroker tax loop holes. When this was discussed in 2008 we were going to hurt job creators if we taxed their brokers more.
Several extremely wealthy people have said they should be taxed more. Change will happen.

Ah yes, the job creators. Why, we can't hurt them! So each state, and the feds offers them sweetheart deals, tax breaks, and loopholes, even free land. And how did they return this generosity? Since 2001 they have moved, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND FACTORIES OFFSHORE! This left millions without gainful employment. And what of the jobs companies cannot export, well, there was a plan for that too.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Ah yes, the job creators. Why, we can't hurt them! So each state, and the feds offers them sweetheart deals, tax breaks, and loopholes, even free land. And how did they return this generosity? Since 2001 they have moved, ONE HUNDRED THIRTY TWO THOUSAND FACTORIES OFFSHORE! This left millions without gainful employment. And what of the jobs companies cannot export, well, there was a plan for that too.

And why is that, pray tell?