What made the big disparity in wealth?

This is not what I would call "simple". Sounds pretty convoluted and nebulous, if you ask me. The assumption that the tax break funds won't be reinvested into the company or the economy is just, well, an assumption. And even if your assumption is true, that money does not magically disappear. Maybe he uses the money to buy a new car for his daughter or maybe he invests the money into the stock market or into a savings account. Either way, that money will get back into the economy. And you didn't actually answer my question about how much "stimulus" is really needed. If $100K is good, then $100 trillion must be great, right?

 

Imagine that. A Wall Street's apologist is whining about others trust fund.

The dude is here to entertain the board ya know.

 

it's in the handbook, how to swindle the middle class and the poor, while pretending to help them. Set up a tax code to pound the middle and especially the upper middle classes, so that none will ever escape. Call it "taxing the 1%". Then take the proceeds and hand them out to your friends( the .0001%) in the form of government privilege. Then when the poor complain about getting further behind, raise the rates again.

Probably one of Kruggy's grad students.

 

The middle class doesn't pay dick in taxes anyway. Almost every necessary expense can get some sort of tax credit.

 

Please quote the post in which I excluded everything but that 25%.

Are you shocked that there were threads relating to the GFC, and that many of them were started by posters who blamed Dubya?
You might also be surprised to learn that there have been threads related to other national and world events...

Sorry, I thought we were talking about income disparity today and where it came from.... First you try to tell me the conversation is solely about the 80s-90s, and now you're telling me it's about 07-08? The number of contradictions here are overwhelming.

Oh, I see, you're going to dodge by manipulating the word "completely". If that wasn't so transparent, it would almost be clever. Almost, but not.

Only one of us is playing semantics here. (Hint: it's not me)

Not really, given that you were demanding a thread derailment by changing the subject, whereas I'm just asking you to validate your claim.

Great! So you agree that companies should not be able to underpay their employees (ie: rely on taxpayers to subsidize their salaries/wages expenses) and then distribute the pilfered funds to shareholders and executive staff. McDonalds alone would put $1.2billion back into revenue.

Can you quote the post where I said businesses should not be paying taxes?

Sorry, I thought this was the personality that claimed individual workers weren't being demonized... Obviously you've switched.
Let's take a look at your assertion that people can survive on a salary of $7.75:
- If these folks are given 40 hours/week of work (or are able to work two seperate jobs for a combined total of 40 hours), they're making $16120 per year ($1343 per month).
- Average renter paid 53% of his/her salary as rent last year. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/mone...y/2011-09-22/housing-affordability/50499656/1) Whereas this is probably a greater percentage for those making less income, let's assume a larger number of roommates keeps it around 50%. That means our low wage earner now has $671.50 per month.
- That $671.50 works out to about $22 per day to eat, stay clothed, pay for transportation to/from one or more jobs, any medical expenses... and let's hope they never use electricity that they'll need to pay for.

Sure, this low-income earner could choose to live in a cardboard box... that would save them half their income and they wouldn't have to worry about pesky electricity bills, right? After all, it's their own fault if they're not born into a family that could afford to support them.

Is this really the position you expect the government of the most prosperous country in the world to take - especially given that the government's role is to provide for the best interests of its constituents?

I take it you aren't referring to small businesses that are subsidiaries of larger businesses.
I'm sure there are a lot of businesses that would be economically viable if labor was free, or if Santa Claus was one of their suppliers (ie: they got free stuff)... Many of those business ideas simply aren't viable in a world where you actually have to pay staff and suppliers. Tough.

Once again, nobody has said that businesses need to "double their labor costs". Once again, you're arguing that it's simply not viable for a business to operate this way and - once again, I will point out that Costco already does.

I'm not still in school, not employed by the government and have had progressive private-sector management roles in my industry for the last 20+ years.

So the people that voted for Romney, (who clearly believed in moving jobs overseas, that businesses should be treated as private individuals, and that wealth should be further concentrated amongst the wealthy) are not the ones who support a tax code that allows the wealthy to pay less in taxes?
It's not conservatives who have routinely passed tax cuts that benefitted the wealthy more than any other sector?
Please provide some source to support that position.

What do you believe is the purpose of minimum wage and the 40 hour work week (both introduced as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 193?
Here's a little help: http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/flsa1938.htm
"On May 24, 1937, President Roosevelt sent the bill to Congress with a message that America should be able to give "all our able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." He continued: "A self-supporting and self-respecting democracy can plead no justification for the existence of child labor, no economic reason for chiseling worker's wages or stretching workers' hours." Though States had the right to set standards within their own borders, he said, goods produced under "conditions that do not meet rudimentary standards of decency should be regarded as contraband and ought not to be allowed to pollute the channels of interstate trade.""

You're assuming that labor costs on the front lines could only be mitgated by reducing the front line. This is a fallacy, as we've already discussed.

Let's face it "conservative progressive" is largely an oxymoron. It's precisely those conservatives who are routinely pushing for the tax breaks for the wealthy, and wanting businesses to have the rights of private individuals.

The chart's data commences in 1980, but that does not mean there was no disparity in income prior to that. The point at which the growth trend actually commenced was once we had a President who was very public about his belief that wealth should be concentrated at the top and allowed to "trickle down".

How many times in our conversation have I made any form of generalization about "Republicans"?
Let's compare that to the number of times you've used the specific the specific term "Team Democrat" in an attempt to flame bait.

Sorry, didn't realize Reagan and I were proposing anything "Marxist"...
[video=youtube_share;cgbJ-Fs1ikA]http://youtu.be/cgbJ-Fs1ikA[/video]

 

Goodie, you've provided one "subject matter expert" - the guy who designed the Laffer curve on which trickle down was based - as supporting trickle down theory... and choose to ignore the fact that his ability to objectively forecast is somewhere between zero and none.

As for "the one" I posted earlier, I believe I provided additional sources. For example:

"Virtually"? How many of those who did identify it were supporters of trickle down theory?

Can you provide a link illustrating that Ben Bernanke not only didn't identify the housing bubble, and not only denied the possibility when it was raised to him, but was arrogantly placing wagers on the stability of the economy?

 

Wow.

Ok, first of all, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann11.pdf):

- low income families have an average annual income of $17,563 and they spend around $24,806.
That means EVERYTHING they get is spent - and if they had more, they'd spend that too.

- the average family has an annual income of $63,685 and spends $49,705.
That means 78% of what they get is spent.

- the "wealthy" family has an annual income of $247,261 and they spend around $123,056.
That means that less than 50% of what they get is spent.

So, who pumps more money back into the economy: a person who reinvests 100% of their income, a person who reinvests 78% of their income, or a person who hoards over 50% of their income?

 

These quotes are from Bernanke, in his own words..

(October 20, 2005) "House prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the past two years. Although speculative activity has increased in some areas, at a national level these price increases largely reflect strong economic fundamentals."

(February 15, 2006) "Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise."

(February 15, 2007) "Despite the ongoing adjustments in the housing sector, overall economic prospects for households remain good. Household finances appear generally solid, and delinquency rates on most types of consumer loans and residential mortgages remain low."

(March 28, 2007) "At this juncture, however, the impact on the broader economy and financial markets of the problems in the subprime market seems likely to be contained. In particular, mortgages to prime borrowers and fixed-rate mortgages to all classes of borrowers continue to perform well, with low rates of delinquency."

(May 17, 2007) "All that said, given the fundamental factors in place that should support the demand for housing, we believe the effect of the troubles in the subprime sector on the broader housing market will likely be limited, and we do not expect significant spillovers from the subprime market to the rest of the economy or to the financial system. The vast majority of mortgages, including even subprime mortgages, continue to perform well. Past gains in house prices have left most homeowners with significant amounts of home equity, and growth in jobs and incomes should help keep the financial obligations of most households manageable."

(October 31, 2007) "It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve – nor would it be appropriate – to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions."

(January 18, 2008 ) "[The U.S. economy] has a strong labor force, excellent productivity and technology, and a deep and liquid financial market that is in the process of repairing itself."

(June 10, 2008 ) "The risk that the economy has entered a substantial downturn appears to have diminished over the past month or so."

(September 23rd, 2008 ) "My interest is solely for the strength and recovery of the U.S. economy."

This is the best one...

(January 10, 2008 ) "The Federal Reserve is not currently forecasting a recession."

A few month later, (*)(*)(*)(*) hit the fan....

 

I do not believe such data exists.

 

Ok, fair enough, let's agree that Bernanke was equally unable to distinguish his ass from a hole in the ground.
Please illustrate how this somehow indicates that "trickle down" theory was a success - given that it's failure was my point.

 

Whether you disagree or not is irrelevant. The fact is Bernanke has been dead wrong on many occasions.

Trickle-down or "wealth effect", sugar daddy Bernanke prefers the later term, has been a success for the super wealthy.

 

I totally agree with all of that, and would add that trickle-down has been a success for the super wealthy at the expense of everyone else. Seems like you're arguing with the wrong person in this...

 

You can't beat the 1%. They're the ruling class, they will always get what they want.

 

How nihilistic of you...
I don't believe "We the People" are totally defeated, and have no intention of quietly allowing myself or others to be victimized by a tiny group of elitists who serve nothing greater than themselves.

 

Shows how much credibility these so-called "subject matter experts" really have, eh? And supply-side economics encompassed much more than just the Laffer curve. I doubt you could find very many mainstream economists who would object to the underlying concept of the Laffer curve. That is why no in that vein seriously entertains a tax rate of 0% or 100%, because they all implicitly endorse the principle behind the Laffer curve.

I could also provide additional sources that support supply-side economics. What would that prove?

Irrelevant. The fact is most mainstream/institutional economists missed the housing bubble, including Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke. All of the most elaborate mainstream econometric models used by the establishment economists totally failed to predict it, so singling out Laffer smacks of inconsistency.

My pleasure.

[video=youtube;9QpD64GUoXw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw[/video]

 

As I explained earlier, consumer spending is not the only way to "reinvest income" back into the economy. The remaining 50% of the "wealthy's" income is not simply buried in the back yard, it's deposited in banks or invested in companies.

And you still haven't explained why, if it's such a good idea to "stimulate" consumer spending, we don't just spend $100 trillion on stimulus? If $100K is good, then $100 trillion must be great, right?

 

Yes, Bernanke, Greenspan, the SEC, the FDIC, and all the credentialed charlatans in Washington DC are quite clueless about how the real world works. Maybe there is hope for you yet.

 

Wait, did you - in the same paragraph - just imply that experts have no credibility AND illustrate that economic theories based largely on the Laffer curve must be valid because experts say so?

I suppose that depends largely on the credibility established by their "batting average".

You obviously missed the post #710... For your convenience:

So much for inconsistency...

 

Take my advice, you should abandon that belief for your own good. The sooner the better.

 

Yup, money sitting in a bank definately bolsters the economy in the same way as consumer spending... Especially overseas banks.
Similarly, investing money into a company definately bolsters the economy, even if there is no increased consumer spending.

Sure, a one-time stimulus package can have short-term gains... It helped the Australians prevent their economy from being affected by the GFC, for example.
However, getting a bonus is not the same as getting a raise.

 

Ok, so - for argument's sake - let's say it's all trial and error...
We've tried actively pushing wealth to the top, and found that most of it sticks there instead of "trickling down". Time to try something else now. Is that approach more to your liking?

 

You call them "experts", not me.

Of course not. You're the one who thinks they're "experts", so I'm just telling you what their opinion on the Laffer curve is. I never said you had to agree with their "expert" analysis; indeed, my entire point is that you don't have to agree with them.

Let me know when you have compiled sufficient data to ascertain such averages.

I give you credit for that. Maybe you will figure things out. If you're an 0311, that means you're probably more libertarian than you might realize.

 

Sorry, resigning myself to accepting slavery isn't in my nature. The more obvious it becomes to people that they're being bent over a barrel, the more quickly they'll vote for politicians who will implement change from the status quo.

Besides, the Swiss came pretty close... Surely we can get there too.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...rk-passions-as-swiss-split-ahead-of-vote.html

 

It doesn't just "sit" in the bank, though. It increases the amount of loanable funds the bank has available to them and drives down interest rates. I don't think I have to explain the importance of credit to you.

It does bolster the economy. Where do you think companies get the money to expand and hire new people to begin with? A money tree? No, it comes from investors and creditors.

Not sure I follow you. Do you have a reason why we cannot just spend $100 trillion on economic stimulus and have an economic boom or not?

 

I am not an advocate or defender of so-called "trickle down economics". Like Peter Schiff, I subscribe to free market economics.