The middle class and "Screwflation"....

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Saw this on CNBC today and it hit home what I think (and many others around have been saying) has been happening for quite some time (Zebo comes to mind).

Click me...


In the 1970s, when growth was stagnant and inflation was high, economists spoke of "stagflation." Four decades later, there's another threat to a sustainable trajectory of economic and corporate profit growth. It's "screwflation," which combines inflation with the screwing of the struggling middle class. Like stagflation, screwflation also threatens the general health and valuation of the U.S. stock market.

While the U.S. economy, in real terms, has more than doubled in the past 30 years and corporate profits will soon attain a new peak, median real wages have made little recent progress, and surging food and energy prices (among other cost pressures) now eat up middle-class incomes. Moreover, the lost decade of flat stock prices and an unprecedented four years of declining home prices have further weakened the confidence and purchasing power of the middle-class screwees.

The structural weakness in the labor market also makes this cycle unusual, and far worse for many, long-term, than the downturns of the 1970s. Unemployment has exacerbated screwflation's impact on all but the wealthiest Americans.....(click link above to read entire article)

Short term profits while tearing the foundation out......
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,185
4,842
126
Saw this on CNBC today and it hit home what I think (and many others around have been saying) has been happening for quite some time (Zebo comes to mind).
I think the article is very hit and miss. Yes, profits are doing nicely and the wealthy are really benefiting while nominal handouts are given to the poor. This "screws" the middle class.

Although the "welfare" to the rich are much, much bigger. The poor may get ~$3000 in EIC free money. The wealthy though can get a $49000 SEP tax deduction ($16,170 in tax deduction plus defered taxes resulting in millions of dollars saved). The welfare to the rich was much, much bigger than that to the poor. The middle class doesn't get much (especially if you consider their inability to afford the few tax deduction opportunities they were given).

But, the rest of the article is fairly much crap.

The stock market is flat in the last decade, but that doesn't count dividends nor the massive gain that the middle class could have participated in during the last decade.

Housing is down for four years, but, it was massively, massively up for many years before that.

Inflation on a few small budget items (food and energy) is up right now, but over the last decade inflation is the lowest it has been since the 1940s. After this "surge" food and energy as percent of income is still pitifully small compared to much of history.
 
Last edited:

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
What do you expect when the weathy and powerful are the people who write the laws?

I don't disagree with this. They legislate disincentives so it's harder for competing participants to gain wealth/power.

But I thought 2008 election was all about change?
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Real equity gains including dividend reinvestment was 3% between 2000 and 2010. But yeah, wages were absolutely flat, maybe even a little negative, which is just sad. However, that's not without precedent in the last 50 years (happened once). Of course, the greatest periods of wage growth were typically during global wars so some happy medium should be attained, say 1%-2% wage growth above inflation. There needs to be more hostility toward the wealthy who leech off the system by distorting laws/regs/facts for their own gain (usually tax cuts/credits/subsidies) and especially those wealthy who don't create jobs who take leech-like stances.

I don't disagree with this. They legislate disincentives so it's harder for competing participants to gain wealth/power.

But I thought 2008 election was all about change?

Yawn troll.
 
Last edited:

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
I don't disagree with this. They legislate disincentives so it's harder for competing participants to gain wealth/power.

But I thought 2008 election was all about change?

Because clearly, all that's needed is for the man on top to wave a magic wand.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
Plutocracy and distract the middle class with lots of demagoguery while you're at it. Rinse, repeat, a few decades later you get half of them screaming socialism if you try and change it. Meanwhile, they are happy as pigs in sh*t to fill their debt-purchased vehicles with overpriced fuel on a stagnant pay check, either unaware or uncaring about the mathematically impossible future toward which they march inexorably.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
We can break non-existent inflation with an austerity induced Great Depression 2.0
GOP thinks we should.
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
We can break non-existent inflation with an austerity induced Great Depression 2.0
GOP thinks we should.
Or keep denying that our city is under siege and keep on spending that debt.

GOP thinks we should. I mean hell you don't actually think GOP and DEM are any different, do you? They are both debt-drunk parties of consumption.

Unless you actually think the US hasn't been in a recession for years. It has. Debt is the only thing covering that up.

Baghdad&
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Or keep denying that our city is under siege and keep on spending that debt.

GOP thinks we should. I mean hell you don't actually think GOP and DEM are any different, do you? They are both debt-drunk parties of consumption.

Baghdad%20Bob.jpg

City is under siege? You smoking something?
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,306
3
0
City is under siege? You smoking something?
Symbolism. Are you smoking something? You won't find many economists, or rating agencies for that matter, that don't think the US is on a clear path to major and systemic financial pain as a result of its debt-drunk profligacy. The longer the lies are juggled the more painful it will get. Don't believe me see Greece: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43381710. Don't believe that such a thing can happen to Greece see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43378973 , this an opinion by the guy who oversees the biggest mutual fund on the planet.

Or you can keep listening to Krugman.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Symbolism. Are you smoking something? You won't find many economists, or rating agencies for that matter, that don't think the US is on a clear path to major and systemic financial pain as a result of its debt-drunk profligacy. The longer the lies are juggled the more painful it will get. Don't believe me see Greece: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43381710. Don't believe that such a thing can happen to Greece see: http://www.cnbc.com/id/43378973 , this an opinion by the guy who oversees the biggest mutual fund on the planet.

Or you can keep listening to Krugman.

Krugman is right, so I'll keep listening to him.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
I don't disagree with this. They legislate disincentives so it's harder for competing participants to gain wealth/power.

But I thought 2008 election was all about change?

There is no disincentive to invest in commodities or stocks @15% cap gains that do nothing but increase inflation and gather more wealth/power. There is no lack of aggregation of wealth/power.

Fail post is full of fail.
 
Last edited:

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76

xaeniac

Golden Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,641
14
81
flat tax or abolish the fixed income limit one can be taxed on; and for gosh sakes get rid of the loopholes
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,976
141
106
and on the horizon are massive increases in energy due to the eco-KOOKS in the epa/obama admin. The price of all goods and services are tied to the cost of energy. Discretionary consumer spending will evaporate.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
What do you expect when the weathy and powerful are the people who write the laws?

so in other words you are agreeing that the liberals are dead wrong.

You're too excited to point the finger at the equally wrong Republicans because
1. you think they're more wrong and
2. you place your identity in the liberal party and feel the need to defend them.

if you had your identity, you wouldn't need the liberal party, and could step back and rationally recognize that both parties are doing BAD things for America.
 

dullard

Elite Member
May 21, 2001
26,185
4,842
126
so in other words you are agreeing that the liberals are dead wrong.

You're too excited to point the finger at the equally wrong Republicans because
1. you think they're more wrong and
2. you place your identity in the liberal party and feel the need to defend them.

if you had your identity, you wouldn't need the liberal party, and could step back and rationally recognize that both parties are doing BAD things for America.
I'm a libertarian that leans more left than right. The Democrats and Republicans are both wrong, usually. No, I don't need a liberal party any more than I need a conservative party. I do step back and rationally recognize that fact. But you had one part right: I think the Republicans are more wrong more often.

Take off your blinders and stop thinking people bashing the right are necessarilly on the left.

As a libertarian, I do not think there should be any government built-in massive shifts of weath around. I do not support the left's social engineering. But, I'm also intelligent enough to recognize that the wealthy have built the deck in their favor and that there is currently a massive shift of wealth to the wealthy. This built-in bias is just as wrong as the left's attempts to shift wealth around, even if that built-in bias isn't explict and goes under disguise as a fake free-market.
 
Last edited:

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Krugman has never been right about anything. He's so spectacularly wrong it's a safe bet to always assume the opposite of what he says is the truth.

http://www.luskin.net/krugmantruthsquad.pdf

Heh. Remarkable nerve to link the NRO, one of the greatest purveyors of trickledown flimflam to ever sucker punch the electorate. They're the bought & paid for voice of the financial elite.

They were touting the ownership society while Krugman pointed out its dangers... Tell me again, who was right about that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/opinion/12krugman.html