jjamie12 Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 i'm serious. many have more but many more are 1 financial catastrpohe away from the title car loan usury store or the street. and the number in that precarious position increases every day. we reached the economic apex some time ago ( and it lasted only a couple of generations or so) and i fear the big drop will be sudden. I'm a little confused. You first argued against the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. To address that, I pointed out that 'the 99%' is WAY better off today than they were 100 years ago. You know, sort of as a proof of the concept that a rising tide does, in fact, lift all boats. I agree that there are people who are 'close to the edge'. There will ALWAYS be people close to the edge. The idea is that the edge, today, is not only significantly higher in terms of living standards, but less steep and not nearly as deep. You ascribe almost no value to that and I think it's wrong to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 i disparage the quest for the magic bullet or pot of gold. but mostly i blame a culture that fosters and skillfully cultivates that quest and not those that have been successfully indoctrinated. And yet, your entire economic argument is "rob from the rich and give to the poor." How do you not see the irony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 20, 2013 Share Posted November 20, 2013 How do you not see the irony? It wasn't mentioned in his handbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) These last 2 pages have been a great example of why spending time here is valuable. You can always count on the PPP Financial Jedi Council for a good read. However, as good as it is? You're all working too hard. Just say: OBMACARE! From now until forever, OBAMCARE! is the argument ender, for essentially every political topic liberals/progressives raise....forever. (I imagine they will have to find yet another name after this debacle. I give Rush Limbaugh credit for killing "liberal", but, "they" are killing "progressive" all by their lonesome.) Look, I know it's going to take some time getting used to, for all of us. Especially for the Jedi Council, who would rather make informed points/give/take etc. And, I do not subscribe to the Krauthammer Vision that says OBAMACARE! is the the end of liberalism. That requires: therapy. Consider: we had an object lesson in the fall of the Soviet Union, AND, the constant failures of the socialist EU experiment, when NONE of those countries pay for their own defense(that's left to OUR budget), and only 1(Germany) has its act together. If Germany had to maintain a real standing army/navy/air force, their socialist aspirations would die the day after it was commissioned. Given all of this: we STILL have idiots trying to tell us that Marx wasn't completely misguided. Given all the deaths, and all the failure, and all the suffering their a-hole ideology has caused, they STILL won't accept reality = human nature demands individual outcomes for individual efforts. Safety nets are fine, but when they create dependence? They are counterproductive to a free society. I believe this refusal to accept reality means we are dealing with psychological dysfunction here. I suggest a simplistic Cognitive-Behavioral approach: It's the same one I suggest with my avatar for the loons on the football board. "Just try saying it: EJ is a rookie". If we can get them to say it, that starts them down the road of accepting it. But, we have to start small, and that means limiting our interaction. If all we just say: "OBAMACARE!" that confronts them them with the reality that is necessary, and doesn't allow them to wriggle around trying to grasp various loose ends of our arguments, and to make these straws into a comfort blanket of denial. Edited November 21, 2013 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) I'm a little confused. You first argued against the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. To address that, I pointed out that 'the 99%' is WAY better off today than they were 100 years ago. You know, sort of as a proof of the concept that a rising tide does, in fact, lift all boats. I agree that there are people who are 'close to the edge'. There will ALWAYS be people close to the edge. The idea is that the edge, today, is not only significantly higher in terms of living standards, but less steep and not nearly as deep. You ascribe almost no value to that and I think it's wrong to do so. sinking ships and downhill course graphically described: http://wallstcheatsh...html/?a=viewall. just a few other examples: record numbers of homeless students http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3756883, record and staggering student debt, record number of people on food stamps. And yet, your entire economic argument is "rob from the rich and give to the poor." How do you not see the irony? how do you not see the difference between avarice and fulfilling basic needs? Edited November 21, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 sinking ships and downhill course graphically described: http://wallstcheatsh...html/?a=viewall. just a few other examples: record numbers of homeless students http://www.scholasti....jsp?id=3756883, record and staggering student debt, record number of people on food stamps. how do you not see the difference between avarice and fulfilling basic needs? Nice to see people posting articles they don't understand and then slinking away when the explanation doesn't suit their beliefs. BTW, who crowned you the king to determine an individual's avarice. How would you compare a US citizen's basic need to someone in Bangladesh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 Nice to see people posting articles they don't understand and then slinking away when the explanation doesn't suit their beliefs. BTW, who crowned you the king to determine an individual's avarice. How would you compare a US citizen's basic need to someone in Bangladesh? Nice to see people posting articles they don't understand and then slinking away when the explanation doesn't suit their beliefs. BTW, who crowned you the king to determine an individual's avarice. How would you compare a US citizen's basic need to someone in Bangladesh? i'm right here. what is it that you contend that i misunderstood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 i'm right here. what is it that you contend that i misunderstood? Based on what I've been reading here for the past two days, pretty much everything you've been discussing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) i'm right here. what is it that you contend that i misunderstood? Off the top of my head so far in this thread : Life in general The English language Wealth Money Taxes Basic economics All the intelligent replies you've received Edited November 21, 2013 by Joe Miner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 sinking ships and downhill course graphically described: http://wallstcheatsh...html/?a=viewall. just a few other examples: record numbers of homeless students http://www.scholasti....jsp?id=3756883, record and staggering student debt, record number of people on food stamps. None of which have anything to do with the discussion I was attempting to have with you. But OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 None of which have anything to do with the discussion I was attempting to have with you. But OK. were you not describing trickle down economics or high tide lifting all ships? do the graphs showing decreasing income for all but the top percentiles not refute that thesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 were you not describing trickle down economics or high tide lifting all ships? do the graphs showing decreasing income for all but the top percentiles not refute that thesis? No, birdog, it doesn't. No one in their right mind would describe the last 6-7 years as a rising tide, so income gains since 2007 will of course be down in real terms. No one is arguing that point. The rising tide has occurred over the last 50 to 100 years. The 99%'ers living standards are better than they were 50-70-80-100 years ago, even with this down-draft over the past 6-7 years. The other charts show displays of disparate income/wealth gains. Again, there is no one here arguing that the 1% is not better off than the 99%. Nor is anyone arguing that the 1% has taken more share of any income/wealth gains made in the past few years or even in the last 50 years. The point that you keep missing is that even though that has happened, would you rather have the living standards of 1968 or of 2013? People keep telling you that, yes, the 1% is better off, but so what? So is the 99%! So yes, quite literally, a rising tide does lift all boats (including the 99%), just as a tide flowing out (think of the last 6 years) will lower all boats, disproportionally affecting the 99%. Which is why most here argue for policy decisions that will increase economic activity -- lifting the 99% ers -- while most of the policy actions you will recommend will actually decrease economic activity, by definition. Most people here are very concerned with the 99% (and the 50% and the 20% and the 10%), our view, though, is that actions that you promote would, while artificially narrowing the gap between the 99 and 1% actually HURT the very people you're trying to help the most. Consider: Would you rather have a job, or more food stamps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 were you not describing trickle down economics or high tide lifting all ships? do the graphs showing decreasing income for all but the top percentiles not refute that thesis? Is all capitalism "trickle down"? Can you explain what constitutes "trickle down" economics? I can't seem to find a single mention of trickle down economics on any of the thousands of pages worth of economic text books I have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 i'm right here. what is it that you contend that i misunderstood? Other than everything? You still can't grasp the difference between wages, income & wealth. The article you linked does a splendid job of illustrating the craptastic economic recovery that's been going on, and that the main reason incomes haven't budged is that the jobs haven't returned at the same pace that you would expect in a normal recovery. Keep pining for that summer of recovery v 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 how do you not see the difference between avarice and fulfilling basic needs? Oh, I absolutely do. I'm just not naive enough to think wealth redistribution is a magic bullet or pot of gold. that's going to fix it. There's your irony, you idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted November 21, 2013 Author Share Posted November 21, 2013 Is all capitalism "trickle down"? Can you explain what constitutes "trickle down" economics? I can't seem to find a single mention of trickle down economics on any of the thousands of pages worth of economic text books I have. the term is usually attributed to this man: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/?goback=.gde_4243114_member_253515662. perhaps, your texts use some other jargon to descibe the concept just as my texts never mention "tummy aches". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 birdog: In your own words please, what do you believe to be the relationships between capital formation and economic progress, between economic progress and improving standards of living, and lastly between improving standards of living and reductions in abject poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) the term is usually attributed to this man: http://www.forbes.co...ember_253515662. perhaps, your texts use some other jargon to descibe the concept just as my texts never mention "tummy aches". Now you !@#$ing get it! You're trying to have an economic/financial discussion and you're bringing the equivalent of tummy aches to the table, yet you refuse to defer to those of us who have actually studied the field and work in the industry. If this were a medical forum rather than a political forum, what might you say to me if I read through a chart and considered the symptoms and proposed a radical treatment like lap band to treat "tummy aches" and then linked to an article which had nothing to do with either "tummy aches" or gastric bypass? What if I did this regularly for years? Would you eventually see it my way because I genuinely care about the patient and mean well even though I'm completely ignorant on the subject of medicine? Trickle down isn't an economic theory. I can't find any evidence that Friedman has ever uttered the phrase. The bull **** article you linked to, written by your favorite Denning, doesn't even mention trickle down. Educate yourself http://www.tsowell.c...oover Proof.pdf Edited November 21, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Now you !@#$ing get it! You're trying to have an economic/financial discussion and you're bringing the equivalent of tummy aches to the table, yet you refuse to defer to those of us who have actually studied the field and work in the industry. If this were a medical forum rather than a political forum, what might you say to me if I read through a chart and considered the symptoms and proposed a radical treatment like lap band to treat "tummy aches" and then linked to an article which had nothing to do with either "tummy aches" or gastric bypass? What if I did this regularly for years? Would you eventually see it my way because I genuinely care about the patient and mean well even though I'm completely ignorant on the subject of medicine? Trickle down isn't an economic theory. I can't find any evidence that Friedman has ever uttered the phrase. The bull **** article you linked to, written by your favorite Denning, doesn't even mention trickle down. Educate yourself http://www.tsowell.c...oover Proof.pdf Just for its & giggles, we should start a medical advice thread and recommend that people get a lobotomy for any ailment they have. Because after the procedure, they wouldn't feel any more pain. Works just as well as the doctor's prescriptions for finance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Just for its & giggles, we should start a medical advice thread and recommend that people get a lobotomy for any ailment they have. Because after the procedure, they wouldn't feel any more pain. Works just as well as the doctor's prescriptions for finance. Recommending homeopathy would be a more accurate analogy. Because recommending brain surgery demonstrates at least a basic understanding of what the brain does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts