What made the big disparity in wealth?

Wait, which people are you talking about, and when did I call them experts?

For the people you choose to quote? Why would I spend my time finding valid sources for you?

You don't have credit to give. It was always mine.

Wow, that's pretty damned condescending. Borderline flame bait.
Luckily, the opinion of some random anonymous stranger on a web forum has zero importance to me.

 

The cause of the increasing bifurcation between "rich and poor" is obvious to free market economists like Peter Schiff and Ron Paul. Just look at the data...

[/IMG]





Are we seeing the connection yet?

 

You're right, it's vital - as long as people are borrowing and spending money.

Once again, companies don't hire people just for fun. Hiring people increases operating costs. You ONLY hire when you have to - like when consumer demand increases and drives expansion.
Similarly, you don't invest in a business that doesn't have growth potential.

In short, it boils down to consumer spending.

Sorry, I've painted as clear a picture as possible without the use of crayons.

- - - Updated - - -

Great, so my original point (that "trickle down economics" is broken) is not a point of contention for you.
Nice chatting with you... Have a great day.

 

Establishment economists:

You're the one asserting the expertise of establishment economists like Jared Bernstein and Art Laffer, not me. I simply asked you what criteria you use in order to judge an individual's expertise and you responded with their "batting average". If that is the case, please provide us with Mr. Bernstein's batting average along with the data and methodology you used to arrive at that average.

I was an 0311 myself, so it's hard for me to totally dismiss you, even if you are a partisan progressive.

 

Swiss are grateful to have sugar daddy Bernanke on their side, too.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/05/23/feds-1-trillion-bailout-foreign-banks

They included $127.5 billion given to MBS Credit Suisse (Switzerland), $117.8 billion to Deutsche Bank (Germany), $63.1 billion to Barclays Capital (UK), $55.5 billion to UBS Securities (Switzerland), $27 billion to BNP Paribas (France), $24.4 billion to the Royal Bank of Scotland (UK), and $22.2 billion to Nomura Securities (Japan). Another $4.2 billion was given to the Royal Bank of Canada, and $917 million to Mizuho Securities (Japan).

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_mbs.htm

Click on the excel spreadsheet at the bottom of the page for more details.

 

They get phased out smart boy.

 

People spend money even during recessions, they just spend less of it. Either way, you have admitted that, yes, money in the bank is actually "vital" to economic growth and development. Now you are just trying to soften the blow by making nebulous qualifications.

Never said or implied otherwise. If you're going to resort to blatant strawmen, I'll have to take your credit back.

I know how it works. I've actually done some consulting work for a multi-million dollar security firm and they cannot hire fast enough (looking for some security work?). You see, the economy is heterogeneous and adaptive . Your view is homogeneous and static. That's why you're irrationally fixated on mindlessly increasing "consumer demand" instead of facilitating economic freedom, which is the true driver of economic growth and development.

Never said or implied otherwise. You seem to believe that businesses cannot retain growth potential in a recession. Yes, many firms decrease in size or even leave the market entirely, but other firms reorganize and reassess and come back even stronger. That's how the self-correcting mechanisms of the market work. If you listened to more Peter Schiff, you'd know these things...

An utterly simplistic and narrow fixation that ignores a multitude of variables that impact economic growth and development.

You haven't explained anything about why that would not be feasible or desirable.

My point of contention concerns your original characterization of Jared Bernstein as a "subject matter expert". He's nothing more than another run of the mill establishment hack.

 

So by saying one person is a subject-matter expert, I've necessarily singled out Bernesten and Laffer as such? Seems like a hasty generalization to me.

No need to get sentimental. Also no need to pigeon-hole someone who supports changing the status quo (be definition "progressive") and believes that one political party tends to be more interested in doing so than the other (ie: partisan).

- - - Updated - - -

Relevance to their move to cap executive salaries?

 

You specifically characterized Bernstein as a "subject matter expert" in the post I cited. And you said this about Laffer:

The progressive movement are the ones who created the status quo.

 

Look at the Eisenhower Tax Code. Okay he inherited it from FDR/Truman but he did not undo it either.
He built an Interstate Freeway system.
JFK referred to himself as an Anti New Dealer !
The bipartisan Tax Cuts fostered by both parties as they became the RepubloCratic Party - starting in 1960
created the disparity we witness today.
It is time to adopt a Progressive Economic Policy for our times.
Anyone who renounces America over it does not ever get to visit again.
One Tax Code.
Jail Time for White Collar Crime, especially when it collapses a global economy.
FAIR Trade, No Free Trade.
Trust Busting.
A significant "inheritance tax" so inheritors will still be very wealthy, just not uber wealthy.
What am I leaving out?


Moi
The Progressiviest member on Board

No ​

 

George W Bush was who you were holding up at the time as the proof that "trickle down failed", when he is only 1 out of the 4 Presidents whose Presidencies had "trickle down" in effect.

I'm shocked that there are people who could be dumb/partisan enough to blame the entire mortgage collapse on GWB, considering how multifaceted the issue was. That's why I asked you to provide some examples of the multiple threads that you claim exist. Not too surprising that the specifics are lacking in your response.

You just finished saying that excluding the topic of the GWB Presidency is "cherry-picking", but when I asked you to provide specifics for one of your GWB claims, suddenly you called it "off-topic". I agree, the number of contradictions here are overwhelming, and you keep making them.

How is that a dodge? It was included in the text you quoted originally:

Can we chock this up as more carelessness on your part?

Pointing out and refuting the strawman arguments you are making is not semantics, but I don't blame you for trying to backpedal out of the false claims you are making.

I wasn't the one who brought up GWB's Presidency, you were. When I asked you to expand upon one of your arguments, suddenly it became "off topic thread derailment". I'm sure you will fool some of the people following along, so don't feel too bad.

Non sequitur. I'm referring, of course, to special tax breaks and exemptions that favor big business and allow them to pay little to no taxes. You seem to be laboring under the assumption that corporate welfare is companies paying employees close to what their skills are worth on the open market.

I don't have to. You support the IRS and the current progressive tax system we have on the books that allow companies like GE to avoid paying billions in taxes.

How was I demonizing them? I'm simply disagreeing with your claim that they can't survive on less than what you consider to be a "living wage".

Just a reminder, a very small percentage of adults currently work minimum wage or less. The overwhelming majority of people who earn the minimum wage are part time workers under the age of 24 — many are students, many live at home. Of those who start off making minimum wage, the overwhelming majority are given raises after a short probationary period.

Your scenario assumes that someone would only work 40 hours a week. Certainly someone making that little should work more hours. Is it easy? No, but it can be done, and has been done by millions of people over the years. As they hopefully gain skills they become more marketable, and their earning potential increases.

Lame reduction to absurdity attempt aside, it's very telling that the same person who wants poor people to have a "living wage" would say "tough" to all of the small business owners, and the people they hire, who would go out of business once their labor costs double.

Uhhh, yes they are saying that: "Striking fast-food workers protest minimum wage jobs in nearly 60 cities, seek $15 an hour.". $15 is actually over double the minimum wage in most states.

Once again, you're focusing on only big companies who can absorb a doubling of their labor costs and - once again, I will point out that most small businesses can't do this.

What's a "progressive private-sector management role"? Were you in charge of hiring? Did the janitors make $20 an hour?

Conservatives didn't want Romney. He was the establishment's pick, and the one the left wanted Obama to run against. Again, conservatives were trying to do away with the current tax code in 2012 in favor of a flat tax. Progressives on this very site argued that it was going to allow the rich to get even richer at the expense of the poor, so they clearly preferred the status quo over what would be the fairest tax system of all. The problem is that conservatives and neo-Marxist progressives have very different definitions of what "fair" is. To me, it would be "fair" if everybody paid the same percentage of their income to taxes. "Fair" to a progressive would be for the rich to not get richer than everybody else. That is what they fixate on, and why they would rather the poor be poorer than the rich get richer. Theirs is a completely different mindset, one based on jealousy and greed, more than anything else.

"Fair" being a vague and ultimately useless term. I'm still not sure if it was FDR or LBJ who did the most harm to this country, but it's clear that FDR's love of socialist programs had a big part to play in the country currently sitting at 87 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

It's not a fallacy at all, your argument, if you even want to call it that, doesn't make sense. Hiking the minimum wage is a real possibility, but putting a salary cap on CEOs or profit caps on businesses is completely out of the realm of possibilities. Businesses will simply close and move elsewhere, and rightly so.

Your reply doesn't even make sense.

Oh, I left out the word "than" in the sentence "For the purposes of this conversation progressives are more likely than conservatives to support the Government bureaucracy known as the IRS and the current progressive tax code." I suspect you knew this, because the sentence doesn't really make sense otherwise in context, but you decided to respond the way you did anyway.

The divergence actually began while Carter's last fiscal year budget was still in effect. At 3/4 of the way between 1981 and 1982, we can already see the rich pulling ahead the bottom fifth falling behind. Which Reagan policies in effect in 1981 caused this to happen?

Now who is arguing semantics? So someone can't be a partisan Democrat without making explicit generalizations using the word "Republicans"?

Funny how Reagan was such an architect of bad economic policies and responsible for all of this inequality, yet it doesn't stop you and the ThinkProgress contingent from siding with him on economic policies that you are advocating. Unfortunately, the video you posted is disingenuously comparing two separate things. Reagan was talking about closing loopholes that allow Obama's cronies at GE to avoid paying taxes on their billions in profit. Obama was primarily talking about raising tax rates, and yes, there is a difference. Furthermore, Obama was fact checked about the secretaries of the world being taxed more than their millionaire/billionaire bosses.

 

The relevance is to the disparity between the poor and rich. We're trying to not so subtly tell you WHY it happens.

 

I didn't say anything either way about Laffer (ie: whether he was an expert or not), other than to say that - when it comes to forecasting economic events - he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Clearly, my indication that one person is a subject matter expert does not mean that I acknowledge all persons as such. Your assertion is a failed straw man.

Really? Please illustrate what progressive implmented the trickle down economics that contributed to today's income disparity.

 

That's an awful lot of points to address. My point is this: more people spending more money drives the economy. Concentrating wealth among people who spend the lowest percentage of that wealth is not a valid way to improve the economy.

Yes, there are lots of variables - all of which are influenced by consumer spending. Trickle down is broken, and always has been.

I have better things to do than reply to random ad hominems and misrepresentions from someone who's clearly choosing to be argumentative for entertainment purposes.

Have a nice day.

 

Swiss banks trading sizes in the US is about half of Switzerland annual GDP. They're making more money over here than in their own country. When the bets go wrong, they can always dump them to the Federal Reserve. If anything, Swiss are beneficiaries of America crony capitalism system.

You want to cap salaries for Swiss banks CEO's, fine. I have a better idea, just cut them off....but but but that would not fit well with your belief that Bernanke's monetary policy is saving the world.

 

Straw man much?

 

It's trial and there is no such thing is an error. QE4EVER is a huge success for the super wealthy.

You can't have it both way, strongly support tax increase and the policy that makes rich richer at the same time.

 

Okay, credit taken back. You clearly have an issue with intellectual dishonesty.

It was the progressive movement who imposed FIAT money and central banking on the American people in 1913. FIAT money is a scam invented by ancient Chinese warlords in the 11th century who were trying to consolidate their power and accumulate unearned wealth. It's how bankers get rich while the rest of us get poor.

 

Then we should spend $100 trillion and really "drive the economy", right?

But that's what the progressive monetary system does.

Ad hominems and misrepresentations? Simply untrue. You just can't refute my arguments, so you make excuses instead of trying to seek understanding.

 

Are you questioning that (*)(*)(*) pedophile pseudo intellect Keynes's econ magic?

How dare you?

 

Oh goodie, my favorite playmate is back...

Then you should have no problem providing the post in which I did that... as previously asked.

I agree the issue was multifaceted. Which does not change the fact that there were threads dedicated to assigning blame, and many of those placed blame on Dubya. Not sure why you think I would waste my time providing you with those

I mentioned that there were a number of threads in which Dubya was blamed for the GFC, and you choose to make the conversation about that, rather than the thread topic... How is that a sign that I'm being contradictory again?

The fact that you use the term "completely" in later posts doesn't change where you insinuated the majority of blame lies. Word games fail to impress.

Right, you mentioned every administration from Carter to Obama except for Dubya's... By mentioning that he was in that timeframe too - and even going out of my way to illustrate that he didn't create the situation either - suddenly I was "cherry picking" him (but you weren't by excluding him) and being partisan...

Oh, I see, we're allowed to discuss tax issues - but not the fact that these same companies are pilfering billions from welfare systems... and then you say I am promoting a welfare state...

Please provide the post where I said I support the current tax system.

Oh, you weren't implying that they spent money frivolously?

I take it you have statistics to support this assertion?

Remind me again what the purpose of minimum wage was?

Not every business is viable. That's a fact of life. Suck it up.

Once again, what's the counter-offer? Eat less?

Businesses that can't afford to pay employees aren't based on viable business models. So what?

By progressive, I mean I've experienced upward mobility across a number of roles in the private sector.

Interesting backpedal from the election...

Validate that assertion with sources.

Right, a country with this many people will surely have no operating businesses.

Another unfounded assertion?

Partisan implies I've promoted the policies of one party over another. Please illstrate where youi spouted partisan rhetoric only in response to partisan comments made by me, and how that wouldn't be a tu quoque fallacy.

Everything he said in that clip would be called "Marxist" coming from anyone else.

 

LOL, I see your divorce from reality was granted....and your inability to understand numbers is not being called into question.
The deficit under Carter was minuscule compared the the disaster of the Reagan-Bush years.
Under Carter the inflation adjusted national debt shrunk.
http://home.adelphi.edu/~bl16056/deficits.html
Under Reagan it ballooned, not because of any uncontrollable circumstances, like a huge financial collapse, but by Reagan's policy of slashing taxes on the wealthy.

 

"Did I say Ethereal wasn't an expert?" isn't the same as asserting you are.
"Did I say Ethereal was an expert?" isn't the same as asserting you're not.

For someone who plays so many word games, you're not very good at them.

Right. The income disparity of 2013 is a direct result of the central banking system "imposed" on the American people a century ago.

Seriously, you're boring me.

 

I never left. I posted only a few hours after you did.

Sure thing:

But somehow it was still all his fault?

Why not? You're wasting time with unsubstantiated blather, why not make it at least somewhat substantial?

Bush's fault, can't explain why. Got it, let's move on.

Thread drift is a natural part of a political discussion. You'll notice that this thread has gone over many somewhat related topics, including the debt, deficits, mortgage collapse, and many others. You were an active participant in these deviations until you were asked to substantiate one of your claims. Then suddenly you ruled that it was off topic. The timing couldn't have been more convenient.

Oh, I "insinuated" that, did I? Sounds like were making an inference. I'm not responsible for those.

Wrong. In the context of the discussion regarding wealth inequality, I was referring to Reagan-Clinton, or the 80's and 90's. You brought up GWB in that discussion. Find a post in this thread where I talked about wealth inequality under Carter or Obama.

Your entire premise is so faulty it's almost not even worth dissecting. Companies aren't stealing from the welfare system simply because they aren't paying their employees $15 an hour. $15 - $7.75 =/= extra profits that hit their income statement. Companies aren't responsible for keeping their employees off of welfare.

Who'd you vote for in 2012?

Some do, some don't. What's your point? Are you saying that none of them spend their money frivolously?

Of course I do. Unlike some, I don't rely on my say-so.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/19/who-makes-minimum-wage/

Just like all progressive policies, it's a warm-and-fuzzy generator that causes problems in the markets.

They're generally viable as long as progressives don't vote themselves raises they didn't earn to satiate their own entitlement complexes. Few businesses in this country could afford to double their labor costs, which would force them out of business and cause tens of millions of people to lose their jobs. Maybe if you tell them to "suck it up" and be happy for the giant corporations who are still in business with fewer workers, they'll feel better.

I already listed some of things they could do to make and save more money. Somehow people have been able to work minimum wage jobs all this time at less than $15 an hour.

Why do you believe a business isn't viable if it can't double the cost of labor at the drop of a dime? That's such a silly expectation to have, where does it come from?

So the Government didn't have to come in and force them to pay you more? They voluntarily hired you at higher and higher increments? Gee, why would they do that?

Feel free to be specific on what you are disagreeing with. I'll gladly clarify.

Sure thing. Unlike some, I don't rely on just my say-so.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323353204578127374039087636

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/A_Bleak_Future.pdf

Right, because there's never been a populous country with not enough businesses in the economy

Seems unfair that I am asked to produce sources and substantiation for my arguments while you get to sit there and make dopey arguments like these.

I doubt it.

You have yet to produce one quote critical of any of the Democrat politician named in this discussion. You can't even acknowledge that wealth inequality went up faster during Clinton's Presidency than it did during Reagan's, even though the proof of that was put in front of your face multiple times.

I doubt it. Few conservatives are happy about companies like GM skating by without paying a dime in taxes while small businesses are being crushed under the tax and regulate policies of the Obama Administration. Reagan believed the same thing in his day. Although since you've spent all this time talking about how Reagan's policies have failed and he was responsible for all this wealth inequality, why would you agree with what he says, here? Seems inconsistent, although there's a pattern of that by now.

 

More lazy, unmotivated, dependent, braindead "progressives"?