Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Economics 101 - Evidence Based Decision Making
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(2)
Message 1 of 36 (760244)
06-19-2015 3:29 AM


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 title

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 06-19-2015 8:23 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 4 by RAZD, posted 06-20-2015 8:27 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 36 (760246)
06-19-2015 3:53 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Economics 101 - Evidence Based Decision Making thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 3 of 36 (760254)
06-19-2015 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-19-2015 3:29 AM


Inequality & Growth
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:
Wikipedia on Economic Inequality:
According to International Monetary Fund economists, inequality in wealth and income is negatively correlated with subsequent economic growth. A strong demand for redistribution will occur in societies where much of the population does not have access to productive resources. Rational voters have to internalize this dynamic problem of social choice. 2013 Economics Nobel prize winner Robert J. Shiller said that rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere is the most important problem faced in the U.S. and elsewhere. High levels of inequality prevent not just economic prosperity, but also the quality of a country's institutions and high levels of education.
Berg and Ostry of the International Monetary Fund found that of the factors affecting the duration of growth spells in developed and developing countries, income equality is more beneficial than trade openness, sound political institutions, or foreign investment.

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:
(source: Income Inequality in the United States
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-19-2015 3:29 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 06-21-2015 2:37 PM Jon has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(5)
Message 4 of 36 (760370)
06-20-2015 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
06-19-2015 3:29 AM


balanced budgets
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:
TAX CUTS: Governor's plan for Minnesota budget surplus
ST. PAUL, Minn. (KMSP) -
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton is proposing $616 million in tax cuts for married couples and working families in light of the state's projected $1.2 billion budget surplus.
The governor's supplemental budget and tax cut plan come on the same day the Minnesota House voted to pass a $503-million tax cut plan of its own -- many aspects of which mirror Dayton's proposals.
Dayton wants to keep $455 million for budget reserves, warning "this cannot be a free for all" in spending the surplus however the Legislature would like.
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.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 06-19-2015 3:29 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2016 11:41 AM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(4)
Message 5 of 36 (760377)
06-20-2015 10:01 PM


from Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread
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 Time
We 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:
What is the Deficit?
Deficit: The amount by which the government’s total budget outlays exceeds its total receipts for a fiscal year. US Senate Budget Committee
This year, FY 2015, the federal government in its latest budget has estimated that the deficit will be $564 billion.
Recent US Federal Deficit Numbers:
Obama Deficits Bush Deficits
FY 2016*: $474 bln FY 2009: $1,413 bln
FY 2015*: $583 bln FY 2008: $458 bln
FY 2014: $483 bln FY 2007: $161 bln
FY 2013: $680 bln FY 2013: $680 bln
FY 2012: $1,087 bln FY 2005: $318 bln
FY 2011: $1,300 bln for more years click here.
FY 2010: $1,294 bln
Although the federal deficit is the amount each year by which federal outlays in the federal budget exceed federal receipts, the gross federal debt increases each year by substantially more than the amount of the deficit each year. That is because a substantial amount of federal borrowing is not counted in the budget. See here.
Note:
* Federal Deficit is budgeted.
Some people have emailed to insist that the FY 2009 deficit should be assigned to Obama. But conventional wisdom maintains that the deficit in the first year of a president’s first term belongs to his predecessor.
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:
US Federal Deficits in the 20th Century
The two major peaks of the federal deficit in the 20th century occurred during World War I and World War II.
Deficits increased steadily from the 1960s through the early 1990s, and then declined rapidly for the remainder of the 1990s. Federal deficits increased in the early 2000s, and went over 10 percent of GDP in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008.
In the recovery from the Crash of 2008 deficits have slowly reduced to 3 percent of GDP.
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.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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)

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 06-22-2015 4:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 6 of 36 (760408)
06-21-2015 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Jon
06-19-2015 8:23 AM


Re: Inequality & Growth
Jon writes:
And what do we call it when people are not compensated for the productivity of their labor?
Capitalism.
Jon writes:
Slavery of course.
No, slavery is when you're not allowed to quit your job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Jon, posted 06-19-2015 8:23 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-21-2015 3:18 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 06-21-2015 5:44 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 7 of 36 (760410)
06-21-2015 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
06-21-2015 2:37 PM


Capitalism
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 06-21-2015 2:37 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 06-21-2015 4:14 PM jar has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 8 of 36 (760416)
06-21-2015 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
06-21-2015 3:18 PM


Re: Capitalism
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 06-21-2015 3:18 PM jar has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 36 (760420)
06-21-2015 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ringo
06-21-2015 2:37 PM


Re: Inequality & Growth
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ringo, posted 06-21-2015 2:37 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-22-2015 11:49 AM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 10 of 36 (760460)
06-22-2015 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jon
06-21-2015 5:44 PM


Re: Inequality & Growth
Jon writes:
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.
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".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jon, posted 06-21-2015 5:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 06-22-2015 12:01 PM ringo has replied
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 06-22-2015 12:44 PM ringo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(2)
Message 11 of 36 (760463)
06-22-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
06-22-2015 11:49 AM


Re: Inequality & Growth
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-22-2015 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-22-2015 12:05 PM jar has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 12 of 36 (760465)
06-22-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by jar
06-22-2015 12:01 PM


Re: Inequality & Growth
jar writes:
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?
It might be acceptable to call those circumstances "slavery" but Jon was using a much broader brush.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by jar, posted 06-22-2015 12:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by jar, posted 06-22-2015 12:15 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 13 of 36 (760470)
06-22-2015 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by ringo
06-22-2015 12:05 PM


Re: Inequality & Growth
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by ringo, posted 06-22-2015 12:05 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 36 (760476)
06-22-2015 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by ringo
06-22-2015 11:49 AM


Re: Inequality & Growth
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by ringo, posted 06-22-2015 11:49 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by ringo, posted 06-22-2015 12:59 PM Jon has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 15 of 36 (760483)
06-22-2015 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jon
06-22-2015 12:44 PM


Re: Inequality & Growth
Jon writes:
Yes, ringo, this thread is about economics.
Then don't use terms like "slavery" and "morally disgusting". Stick to an economic vocabulary.
Jon writes:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jon, posted 06-22-2015 12:44 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Jon, posted 06-22-2015 7:35 PM ringo has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024