|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Economics 101 - Evidence Based Decision Making | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
In the thread about the primaries in the USA, NWR makes this pertinent comment:
Just a minor point here. If people want to discuss the principles of government, can we have a new thread on that? Let's keep this one to discussing primaries. I'm game if you are. Since most of these off-topic posts seem to concern various misconceptions about basic economics, I think somewhat narrowing the subject to that field of endeavor is appropriate, To begin the discussion I would like to present you with a few observations. The greatest economic rate of growth in the USA occurred between 1945 and 1970. Coincidentally, this was also when the USA had the highest tax rates on the wealthiest individuals, indeed under Eisenhower as high as 91%. Recent developments since 1980 seem to indicate taxing people who actually work for a living at a greater rate than those rich parasites who destroy companies, offshore jobs, lay off workers, and buy politicians like both frequently buy prostitutes results in lower growth. Illegal immigrants appear to be the only people willing to perform the awesome difficulty of actually performing as agricultural laborers. As Georgia and Alabama farmers soon discovered, crackdowns means their produce rots in the field. There are only two USA politicians in recent times that I know of who have the proven ability to balance a budget without legal coercion, Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown. There are likely others, please feel free to educate. That should be enough to get things started. Wherever you think it belongs Admins. Edited by anglagard, : Screwed up titleRead not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Thread copied here from the Economics 101 - Evidence Based Decision Making thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
The greatest economic rate of growth in the USA occurred between 1945 and 1970. Coincidentally, this was also when the USA had the highest tax rates on the wealthiest individuals, indeed under Eisenhower as high as 91%. Recent developments since 1980 seem to indicate taxing people who actually work for a living at a greater rate than those rich parasites who destroy companies, offshore jobs, lay off workers, and buy politicians like both frequently buy prostitutes results in lower growth. Yes, wealth inequality seems to be the greatest roadblock to economic growth.
quote: To add insult to injury, productivity of U.S. workers has been increasing (as we'd expect) but incomes have been immobile since around the 1970s:
The only conclusion to draw from all this is that the additional productivity has been going to the owner class for nearly the past half century; that the working class has not been compensated for a large share of their productivity. And what do we call it when people are not compensated for the productivity of their labor? Slavery of course. The wealth inequality in the U.S. is not only economically stupid, but morally disgusting. Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
There are only two USA politicians in recent times that I know of who have the proven ability to balance a budget without legal coercion, Bill Clinton and Jerry Brown. There are likely others, please feel free to educate. You can add Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton to the list:
quote: By comparison all republican governors from Wisconsin's Scott Walker to Kansas's Sam Brownback to Virginia's Terry McAuliffe to N. Carolina's Pat McCrory are all dealing with budget deficits that republican policies made happen. Thus we can see that the same type of policies (tax cuts for the rich, benefit cuts for the poor) result in the same economic problems on a state level that happened on a national level under Schrubbia. We can also see that Minnesota under Dayton had inherited deficits from previous republican governor that did not get turned around the first year, due to the carryover of previous budgets, but that the policies that Obama would like to see applied nationally did in fact work at the state level, policies that have been blocked by the republicans -- including minimum wage and increasing tax rates on the upper brackets. If you want to see a balanced US federal budget you need to get rid of the republicans. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread, Message 160
mikechell writes: It was asked, where I got the numbers I did ... they were directly from the Internal Revenue Service.
Do you mean the last 7 years where Obama spent a fraction of what Schrubbia spent? The 7 years where Obama brought the deficit down from the record height created by Scrubbia? In spite of dogged obstructionism at every step by the republicans? Those 7 years? You're turn ... where do you get these numbers? According to the U.S. National Debt Clock : Real TimeWe are now at 2+ times the debt we had at the beginning of NObama's dictatorship. Answering here as a more appropriate thread for this issue:
It was asked, where I got the numbers I did ... they were directly from the Internal Revenue Service. Ah, so your numbers only apply to the reported "taxable" income and not to real income. The amounts left after loop holes and offshore accounts have sequestered the majority of the real income. And the Bush tax cuts ...
We are now at 2+ times the debt we had at the beginning of NObama's dictatorship. As others have already pointed out debt is different from deficit. There are several factors that make the numbers you see, not least of which is that Schrubbia never reported the debt from his wars but pretended that stealing money from the Social Security fund covered it (money that still has to be repaid). Of course the cost of Scrubbia's wars carries over into Obama's administration -- the war didn't end when Schrubbia left office. The cost of operating Gitmo for instance is all over Scrubbia's lap like a leaky diaper.
You're turn ... where do you get these numbers? ... Seeing as I was talking about deficit rather than debt all we need is a quick google to find:
quote: Now you will likely look at those numbers and complain about 2009 being assigned to Bush and that it should be more like 2008. The problem is that the major difference between 2008 and 2009 is that 2009 honestly reports the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars when 2008 (or previous years) does not. Then there is the financial crisis and the TARP bailout. Let's go a little further down the page on the link above:
quote: I suppose you blame Obama for the financial crisis eh? Please note the dip at 2000 when Clinton left a surplus to Bush and Bush began to squander it, jumping to the peak value that he left to Obama to fix. The highest peak other than WWI and WWII ... that is one of the Schrubbia "legacies" ... Obama has dropped the deficit spending of Bush every year since ... in spite of obstruction from republicans. If you don't think that the Bush tax cuts to the richest people doesn't have long lasting effects on the deficit then you don't understand how to balance a budget. The fantasy of "trickle-down" economics has done more damage to this country than any policy of the Obama administration by orders of magnitude. If you want to balance the budget then we will have to get rid of spendthrift republicans who think "fiscal responsibility" means getting someone else to pay for your mistakes. Stop drinking the Faux Noise Koolaid and look at the real numbers, and the causes of the real numbers. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Capitalism.
And what do we call it when people are not compensated for the productivity of their labor? Jon writes:
No, slavery is when you're not allowed to quit your job.
Slavery of course.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Certainly not slavery since they were free to quit their job at anytime.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 836 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
jar writes: Certainly not slavery since they were free to quit their job at anytime. Not precisely the equivalent, but real damn close. Thanks for the reminder.Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
No, slavery is when you're not allowed to quit your job. It's probably not worth it to argue over terminology, but there is a difference between forced labor for which you are properly compensated and forced labor for which you are not properly compensated. In a general sense, pretty much all labor is 'forced', even outside of capitalism: work or starve.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
If you want to have a serious discussion, you should avoid saying things like, "This is murder!" when it isn't. Labour is not slavery, no matter how badly you are paid, as long as you are free to go and find another badly paid job. The topic title is not "Economics Jerry Springer Style".
It's probably not worth it to argue over terminology, but there is a difference between forced labor for which you are properly compensated and forced labor for which you are not properly compensated.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
ringo writes: Labour is not slavery, no matter how badly you are paid, as long as you are free to go and find another badly paid job. That precept is why I posted the example of company money. If the company owns the house you live in and you are paid in a currency that is not transferable or portable and you are not someone with a talent that is scarce and needed are you really free to go find another badly paid job?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jar writes:
It might be acceptable to call those circumstances "slavery" but Jon was using a much broader brush.
If the company owns the house you live in and you are paid in a currency that is not transferable or portable and you are not someone with a talent that is scarce and needed are you really free to go find another badly paid job?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
So as is so often the case the devil is really in the details. The mill workers were certainly not considered slaves in any legal sense (at least in the US) and unlike the case of slaves (again in the US) there was no owner and the company was not free to send hunters after an employee who left and the State Governments were not under a legal obligation to return runaway workers, yet they were every bit as much property as slaves or many sports figures.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
If you want to have a serious discussion, you should avoid saying things like, "This is murder!" when it isn't. Labour is not slavery, no matter how badly you are paid, as long as you are free to go and find another badly paid job. The topic title is not "Economics Jerry Springer Style". Yes, ringo, this thread is about economics. Economically there is no difference between a slave who receives compensation far below his productivity and a wage-earner who receives compensation far below his productivity.Love your enemies!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Jon writes:
Then don't use terms like "slavery" and "morally disgusting". Stick to an economic vocabulary.
Yes, ringo, this thread is about economics. Jon writes:
The difference, of course, is that the wage-earner has competition for his job whereas the slave does not. The wage-earner is under-compensated because he can be replaced by somebody who's willing to work for less.
Economically there is no difference between a slave who receives compensation far below his productivity and a wage-earner who receives compensation far below his productivity.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024