U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich

[Phokus]

It's not overly complex. The rich are getting richer during the bubbles, and the poor are getting poorer during the bursts. There was a chart HuffPo had a while back which showed unemployment numbers broken down by class, and of course, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be unemployed. If you want to stop the shrinking of the middle class, you gotta get rid of the busts, and if you want to get rid of the busts, you gotta get rid of the bubbles. And if you want to get rid of the bubbles, you gotta get rid of the Fed. It's been said by the Austrians that monetary inflation leads to the destruction of the middle class, we're just proving them correct.

You have to be smoking crack to actually believe this drivel. The middle class is shrinking because, thanks to our laws and technology, it's incredibly easy to shift capital away from the US to countries where labor can be done cheaply. A near infinite supply of cheap labor far outstripping demand has been a boon to the rich and a calamity for the poor and middle class.

 

[gingermeggs]

So it's time to lynch them is it?

with taxes yes!

 

[Cogman]

Their questions made it pretty clear that they basically think progressive and communist are the same thing, and I reached the limit for how many times I can politely point out the difference long ago. So I kept it short and simple instead, as seemed appropriate given the intended audience.

Whatever then, if you aren't going to bother with anything more then a "You don't know me" type of response, then there really isn't much more to discuss with you. (and I'm not in the mood of playing the "Guess what I interpret this political stance to be." game with you.)

 

[Craig234]

And there goes the marxist reference.

I swear its getting hard to tell you and Glenn Beck appart

Glenn Beck is the less crazy one.

 

[gingermeggs]

You have to be smoking crack to actually believe this drivel. The middle class is shrinking because, thanks to our laws and technology, it's incredibly easy to shift capital away from the US to countries where labor can be done cheaply. A near infinite supply of cheap labor far outstripping demand has been a boon to the rich and a calamity for the poor and middle class.

Labor cost aren't the biggest reason for offshoring; environmental regulations are more costly, just ask BP.
There needs to be some standards applied to world trade agreements so things are produced sustainably environmentally and for labour rights so as not to create a slave class- if not mother nature will wreak havoc as she is the final judge on humanity.

 

[gingermeggs]

So if someone has the ability to build a guitar, they should be paid more even if the market doesn't need any more guitars, or is full of guitar makers?

Try tell that to the financial industry!

 

[Craig234]

It's not overly complex. The rich are getting richer during the bubbles, and the poor are getting poorer during the bursts. There was a chart HuffPo had a while back which showed unemployment numbers broken down by class, and of course, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be unemployed. If you want to stop the shrinking of the middle class, you gotta get rid of the busts, and if you want to get rid of the busts, you gotta get rid of the bubbles. And if you want to get rid of the bubbles, you gotta get rid of the Fed. It's been said by the Austrians that monetary inflation leads to the destruction of the middle class, we're just proving them correct.

Ah, the good old days before the Fed, when there were no bubbles and bursts. Funny, the Fed being created specifically in order to better reduce bubbles and bursts.

What happened to the American middle class, again, in the 60 years after creating the Fed?

What happened to bubbles and bursts from FDR through Carter compared to other times?

Oh, that's right, the economy had huge booms and bursts regularly before the Fed, and the biggest crashes appear more from concentration of wealth and finance deregulation.

The middle class grew much wealthier from FDR to Carter - with the Fed - and skid way back from Reagan to W - also with the Fed. Hmm.

 

[Phokus]

Labor cost aren't the biggest reason for offshoring; environmental regulations are more costly, just ask BP.
There needs to be some standards applied to world trade agreements so things are produced sustainably environmentally and for labour rights so as not to create a slave class- if not mother nature will wreak havoc as she is the final judge on humanity.

environmental regulations don't explain why white collar jobs are moving offshore.

 

[Craig234]

Nope.

It is funny to see how mistaken you guys are about progressive views though.

Isn't it though? The bizarre misrepresentations of liberals' views from the right explains their frequently idiotic commentary about them, but not why they are so ignorant about it.

 

[Craig234]

Bingo.
The whole point of money is a medium of exchange. If it sits around doing nothing its basically useless. If it circulates its useful. The rich generally keep it circulating better than the poor.

Wow. It doesn't get much more wrong than that, even most of the right will agree I suspect.

I guess I get to pull out the water metaphor.

Money for the poor is like a river, it comes in an pretty much all goes right out. Money for the rich is like a lake - it accumulates.

Shorty doesn't get that the rich spending far more per person is still a far, far lower percentage of their income spent on consumerism than the ~100% of the poor's income.

So the skyrocketing share of consumer spending from the rich isn't because they're 'better at spending', it's because the concentration is so extreme, the poor have less to spend.

 

[Cogman]

Isn't it though? The bizarre misrepresentations of liberals' views from the right explains their frequently idiotic commentary about them, but not why they are so ignorant about it.

So do tell where "progressives" and "liberals" stand. I've yet to see someone on this forum truly defend or define the liberal or progressive ideology. I've only seen stupid posts like this one "Hur Hur! You don't understand what being a progressive means, Hur hur!".

 

[Kappo]

Isn't it though? The bizarre misrepresentations of liberals' views from the right explains their frequently idiotic commentary about them, but not why they are so ignorant about it.

Your party's entire platform is based on taking from people who produce and giving it to the people who don't, which ensures them more power as those people become dependent on the government instead of themselves for sustenance. Do I get a prize?

Moreover, what do you think is worse for people in general? Giving them the basics which ensures that many will never try harder? Or letting people figure out their own path and letting them flourish/fail under their own power?

No wonder liberals live at home so long, they feel everyone needs that safety net.

 

[sandorski]

All ya need is more Tax Cuts and less Regulation and you'll see the Economy Boom raising everybody out of Debt and Poverty!

 

[Kappo]

All ya need is more Tax Cuts and less Regulation and you'll see the Economy Boom raising everybody out of Debt and Poverty!

Less regulation is good. Having 10k stupid laws that "regulate" is bad.

If they could figure out how to legislate, then less laws and regulation will be needed. You know how you do that? You have people who have worked in the private sector and know how things run. Obama's 7% of folks who have had a real job isn't going to do that.

 

[sandorski]

Less regulation is good. Having 10k stupid laws that "regulate" is bad.

If they could figure out how to legislate, then less laws and regulation will be needed. You know how you do that? You have people who have worked in the private sector and know how things run. Obama's 7% of folks who have had a real job isn't going to do that.

Fail. Been tried, doesn't work.

 

[Kappo]

Fail. Been tried, doesn't work.

Really? The lowest % of people in the private sector was JFK with 25% (if Im remembering correctly). You are saying that the person least qualified to actually know what the hell is going on is the best? Why not just put a retard in charge of our whole country? Oh wait...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Really? The lowest % of people in the private sector was JFK with 25% (if Im remembering correctly). You are saying that the person least qualified to actually know what the hell is going on is the best? Why not just put a retard in charge of our whole country? Oh wait...

I thought we were supposed to stop bitching about the Bush administration.

 

[sandorski]

Really? The lowest % of people in the private sector was JFK with 25% (if Im remembering correctly). You are saying that the person least qualified to actually know what the hell is going on is the best? Why not just put a retard in charge of our whole country? Oh wait...

Don't "but Bush" this thread.

 

[Craig234]

(My straw man version of) Your party's entire platform is based on taking from people who produce and giving it to the people who don't, which ensures them more power as those people become dependent on the government instead of themselves for sustenance.

Fixed.

Do I get a prize?

Your booby prize sounds a lot better from its name than it is.

 

[Kappo]

Fixed.



Your booby prize sounds a lot better from its name than it is.

Agree with taxing more : yes.
Agree with giving more of that tax to the poor : yes.
Agree that there should be a penalty for doing better : yes.
Agree that everyone should be afforded all basics of living : yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but giving someone the choice of taking $1k per month for life for doing nothing or getting $100 per month but the ability to to make your own way is what your party does (numbers rounded ).

You don't care where the money comes from or how it is spent. You can always tax more and oppress those people who will not strive for more because they are hungry. I CAN say it's a great ploy to grow the lower class instead of making it smaller. Good job on that!

 

[StageLeft]

Regulation works and it's a good idea. Laws that pretend to regular but really are nothing more than gigantic fellatio machines for corporations do not work. And here's a hint. If a bill requires a full weekend to read, it's too long.

 

[Craig234]

Agree with taxing more : yes.
Agree with giving more of that tax to the poor : yes.
Agree that there should be a penalty for doing better : yes.
Agree that everyone should be afforded all basics of living : yes.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but giving someone the choice of taking $1k per month for life for doing nothing or getting $100 per month but the ability to to make your own way is what your party does (numbers rounded ).

You don't care where the money comes from or how it is spent. You can always tax more and oppress those people who will not strive for more because they are hungry. I CAN say it's a great ploy to grow the lower class instead of making it smaller. Good job on that!

It's funny how the more you try to prove you aren't making straw men by saying more of your views, the more you prove the opposite.

 

[xj0hnx]

It's funny how the more you try to prove you aren't making straw men by saying more of your views, the more you prove the opposite.

So why not set them straight and lay out the progressive ideology?

 

[dmcowen674]

U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich

Even more evidence that we are not heading for a very sustainable recovery.

I told you guys this 8 years ago.

How come took so long for it to sink in?

 

[Kappo]

So why not set them straight and lay out the progressive ideology?

I already did He can't refute it because it is what it is. You can candy coat it all you like, but that is what it boils down to.