It's The Economy, Stupid

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Poor–someone who struggles with making ends meet regularly and has no assets.[/quote]

I disagree with this definition. Credit card debt can cause normal people with decent jobs to fall into this category. I would argue that if one is poor by your definition - then it could very easily be a choice rather than a condition.

Someone with 2 kids, is debt-free, and makes more money than they need to make ends meet would not qualify as poor even if their income is only 15-16K per year.

On the flip side, you could have a childless married couple that make a combined 90K per year, but they could be considered poor simply because of the bad choices they make, i.e tons of credit card debt, 2 big car payments, and living in a high rent area.

I think that going back on the gold standard limits growth. There is no more making more pie - the number of slices is fixed.

I am confused. You say your money will be worth less next year, then you talk about runaway inflation.

You can’t have it both ways.

42

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I disagree with this definition. Credit card debt can cause normal people with decent jobs to fall into this category. I would argue that if one is poor by your definition - then it could very easily be a choice rather than a condition.
[/quote]
Some times being poor is a result of bad choices as well as where one comes from. All I know is that my definition for being poor is someone who cannot afford to live.

Correct–one’s salary or pay is irrelevant to one’s financial status on its own. We must factor in all the things that contribute to a “normal” quality of life as well.

Also correct, one’s financial situation is based on the choices one makes throughout one’s life–sometimes those choices that allow someone to become super-wealthy do not present themselves to a particular person. It’s also about being in the right place at the right time. Luck is relevant, too.

This is what we want!! Growth has nothing to do with the medium of exchange–gold–gold is just a standard we use to add real value to paper money. Wealth is a byproduct of surplus production.

Remember, price is reflected in the amount of money in the system. If there is $10 billion floating in the system and an item costs $1 it will cost $10 for the same item once $100 billion is leaked into the system–it costs 10x more because there is 10x more money in the system. The people who suffer are the ones with last access to newly printed money.

Inflation makes money worthless. Prices are inflated due to more money being in the system, thus money represents less gold than it originally did. This is exactly what supply and demand predicts.

43

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I think that going back on the gold standard limits growth. There is no more making more pie - the number of slices is fixed.

[/quote]

I never understood that argument.

Now we have constant inflation. Then we would have constant deflation.

Where is the problem?

If the money supply is more or less constant, goods will become constantly cheaper.

Hasn´t hurt us in the computer industry.

44

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Some times being poor is a result of bad choices as well as where one comes from. All I know is that my definition for being poor is someone who cannot afford to live.[/quote]

And yet - several days ago, Lifticus wrote this:

One wonders: what will Lifticus believe tomorrow?

45

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I think that going back on the gold standard limits growth. There is no more making more pie - the number of slices is fixed.

I never understood that argument.

Now we have constant inflation. Then we would have constant deflation.

Where is the problem?

If the money supply is more or less constant, goods will become constantly cheaper.

Hasn´t hurt us in the computer industry.

[/quote]

When more people compete for a set number of pieces of pie - the pieces each become more valuable. Inflation would be rampant on the gold standard. Growth would be nill. Think of it like everyone bidding for a pair of tickets to a popular rock concert. Face value may say 50 bucks, but you wind up paying 385.

Under the gold standard, the only way to have more money is to have more gold.

Is there inflation off the free floating system? Yes. Inflation is just part of the cyclical nature of the economy.

46

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
People have such a better standard of living today than in 1980 it is amazing.

But it is slipping. The disparity between the uber-wealthy and the poor grows by leaps and bounds. This is bad for overall quality of life as it creates inflation.[/quote]

In extremis, it creates a (French) Revolution.

I don’t think it’s slipping. I think there’s more people. Most everyone starts poor. There’s just more people that don’t get rich. It’s not because they are being held back, it’s because getting rich isn’t easy.

47

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

Some times being poor is a result of bad choices as well as where one comes from. All I know is that my definition for being poor is someone who cannot afford to live.

And yet - several days ago, Lifticus wrote this:

poverty is not cultural

One wonders: what will Lifticus believe tomorrow?

[/quote]
What I stated is absolutely true. Culture is just one aspect of humanity. What I mean by “Poverty is not cultural” is that poverty does not distinguish between cultures.

Westerners look at indigenous tribes as living in poverty yet they are able to survive under their own economic structures–living off the land, etc. Poverty to these people would happen when they were no longer able to support themselves because of environmental constraints–they would have to become skilled in a trade and move into urban areas. Their idea of living standards has nothing to do with “western cultural” standards.

48

[quote]kroby wrote:
I don’t think it’s slipping. I think there’s more people. Most everyone starts poor. There’s just more people that don’t get rich. It’s not because they are being held back, it’s because getting rich isn’t easy.[/quote]

Yes it is slipping…not being able to keep up with the cost of living because of inflation causes the poverty level to grow. I am not arguing that getting rich should be easy…or else we’d have way more rich people–which would only change our definition of rich.

Rich people with good credit are part of the problem because they don’t spend their own money when they know they can get cheap loans and pay back with deflated dollars. This is compounded by the fact that bankers make bad investments and sell bad loans to people with no money or no job (again, this would not matter if banks didn’t practice fractional reserve banking).

Our government then bails out the bankers at the tax payers expense just so they can continue to make bad investments–and keep deflating the value of our money–which results in more poverty.

Why is this simple concept not understood?

49

[quote]rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I think that going back on the gold standard limits growth. There is no more making more pie - the number of slices is fixed.

I never understood that argument.

Now we have constant inflation. Then we would have constant deflation.

Where is the problem?

If the money supply is more or less constant, goods will become constantly cheaper.

Hasn´t hurt us in the computer industry.

When more people compete for a set number of pieces of pie - the pieces each become more valuable. Inflation would be rampant on the gold standard. Growth would be nill. Think of it like everyone bidding for a pair of tickets to a popular rock concert. Face value may say 50 bucks, but you wind up paying 385.

Under the gold standard, the only way to have more money is to have more gold.

Is there inflation off the free floating system? Yes. Inflation is just part of the cyclical nature of the economy.

[/quote]

If you think it through you agree with me at least in part.

It is not inflation you describe but DEFLATION because instead of losing value, the dollar would GAIN value steadily.

Why you think it would happen so quickly as to be desastrous in a world with fierce competition and scarce resources is beyond me.

So the amount of gold is not the problem. Since you had a gold backed paper currency anyway, you could print milli- or even nano-dollars if prices sank too low to make the handling difficult.

The true “pie” is not the money, but investment and consumer goods and money is just a way of keeping score. There is no need to inflate the numbers of your score keeping mechanism during the game, it is like constantly giving bigger points for a touch down BUT ALLWAYS FOR THE COWBOYS FIRST.

Now would they win every game? No. Do they have an unfair advantage? Yes.

Inflation is artificial. You print more money, you dilute the money supply. More score points - same amount of goods, score points count for less.

50

Who cares?

The recession begin Q4 2007…

51

[quote]rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Reagan cut, then promptly raised and raised and raised…(class envy?)
Bush raised (class envy?)
Clinton raised and cut (class envy?) economy soars deficit shrinks (good)
Bush 2 cut, cut and cut and deficit spends to counter. (bad)

and of course nobody spends like Republicans (historically and currently)
and obviously surplus spending better than deficit spending.

Regan cut. The dems forced a raise because of THEIR spending.

Clinton never cut. The middle class tax cut was nothing of the kind. His boom was because the economy recovered by the time he was sworn in. He tried to get a $16billion “economic stimulus package” passed but even the dems couldn’t go along with him and his idiocy. The best thing that ever happened to him was the revolution of 1994.

Every president you have mentioned was a deficit spender.

Show a little integrity.

Trickle down works. [/quote]
Reagan submitted 29.4 billion more than passed. (we’ve been through this before?)

Clinton most importantly raised and in that environment none of the predictions made by “trickle downers” came true?

Uhmm yes I guess, this is relative.

Trickle up also works.

Integrity non existant due to “class envy”?

52

[quote]100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
100meters wrote:
Reagan cut, then promptly raised and raised and raised…(class envy?)
Bush raised (class envy?)
Clinton raised and cut (class envy?) economy soars deficit shrinks (good)
Bush 2 cut, cut and cut and deficit spends to counter. (bad)

and of course nobody spends like Republicans (historically and currently)
and obviously surplus spending better than deficit spending.

Regan cut. The dems forced a raise because of THEIR spending.

Clinton never cut. The middle class tax cut was nothing of the kind. His boom was because the economy recovered by the time he was sworn in. He tried to get a $16billion “economic stimulus package” passed but even the dems couldn’t go along with him and his idiocy. The best thing that ever happened to him was the revolution of 1994.

Every president you have mentioned was a deficit spender.

Show a little integrity.

Trickle down works.
Reagan submitted 29.4 billion more than passed. (we’ve been through this before?)

Clinton most importantly raised and in that environment none of the predictions made by “trickle downers” came true?

Uhmm yes I guess, this is relative.

Trickle up also works.

Integrity non existant due to “class envy”?
[/quote]

What is trickle upsupposed to mean?

You cannot cut the taxes of the poor, they pay none.

53

So much for “trickle down”

Corporate profits surge to 40-year high
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – U.S. corporate profits have increased 21.3% in the past year and now account for the largest share of national income in 40 years, the Commerce Department said Thursday…

Meanwhile, the share of national income going to wage and salary workers has fallen to 56.9%. Except for a brief period in 1997, that’s the lowest share for labor income since 1966…

Despite the flood of cash coming in the door, corporations are investing comparatively little in expanding their operations. Capital spending has been below average, especially considering the strength of the economy, the level of profits and the special tax breaks given to boost investment…

While not paying corporate taxes…
The GAO study found that 71 percent of foreign-controlled corporations operating in the United States paid no taxes in those five years; nor did 61 percent of US-controlled companies.

SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME GOING TO WAGES AND SALARIES AT RECORD LOW IN 2006: Share of Income Going to Corporate Profits at Record High
Commerce Department data released today show that the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record, with data going back to 1929. The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record…
http://www.cbpp.org/8-31-06inc.htm

2006 Personal Savings Fall to 74-Yr. Low
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2840706

And since tax cuts for the individual stimulate the economy so much, I guess the best thing to do would be for everyone to just stop paying taxes. (there is no law that requires you to pay income tax anyway) These people must already know that…

Federal Workers Owe Billions in Unpaid Taxes
WASHINGTON - As the 2006 tax season approaches, the federal government is still trying to recover nearly $3 billion from its own employees who failed to file income tax returns for 2005.

31 Questions and Answers about the IRS
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

54

[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Who cares?

The recession begin Q4 2007…[/quote]

I believe that it’ll hit when unemployment numbers come out next year. As they raise, there will be more default of mortgages… and that will spiral into recession.

If unemployment stays put, there will be no recession. If working people are confident that their jobs are safe, they will buoy the economy up, like they’ve done year after year.

Now, if there is less capital for investment (thus employer growth), there will be fear @ DJIA and more wildly fluctuating daily swings. The FED is liable to make a calculated mistake and inflation will rise. Hello recession.

There’s got to be quite a few domino’s lined up for this possibility.

Keep your finger poised on the [sell] buttons on your mutual funds.

55

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
So much…[/quote]

Dude. Do you offer a class for your fact finding abilities?

56

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
The Left and The Right…two arms of the same monster.[/quote]

Well said!

Not only that, they feed the same mouth.

merlin

57

[quote]100meters wrote:

Clinton most importantly raised and in that environment none of the predictions made by “trickle downers” came true?[/quote]

He handed Bush an economy that was tanking. Unless you want to actually sit there and say that Bush killed the economy in less than 9 months in office.

Surely you wont tell me that. CLinton’s handling of the economy created a recession in spite of the gains made.

[quote]Trickle up also works.

Integrity non existant due to “class envy”?
[/quote]

Define trickle up. The poor pay no taxes. Never have.

What would you know about integrity?

58

[quote]100meters wrote:
Trickle up also works.
[/quote]

Aaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha! LOL!:-]

What a complete load of shit. Thanks for the laugh Lumpy.

59

Republican sponsor of bill toughening lending standards found dead
Sept. 5, 2007
WASHINGTON (Thomson Financial) - A key Republican sponsor of legislation aimed at toughening standards for non-bank lenders was reported dead today.

News reports said Paul Gillmor of Ohio, the top Republican on the House Financial Services subcommittee on banks, was found dead today in his apartment…
http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2007/09/05/afx4084917.html

Congressman Likely Fell to Death
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - U.S. Rep. Paul Gillmor, who was found dead in his apartment in suburban Washington earlier this week, died of blunt head and neck trauma consistent with a fall down stairs, according to a medical examiner’s report released Friday…

Seth Tobias, Hedge-Fund Boss and TV Commentator, Dies
Sept. 5 (Bloomberg) – Seth Tobias, the managing member of hedge-fund firm Circle T Partners LP and a financial-news commentator, was found dead yesterday in the pool of his Florida mansion, police said. He was 44…
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aIDuN2Nm7MOQ&refer=us

Same day no less…

60

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What I stated is absolutely true. Culture is just one aspect of humanity. What I mean by “Poverty is not cultural” is that poverty does not distinguish between cultures.

Westerners look at indigenous tribes as living in poverty yet they are able to survive under their own economic structures–living off the land, etc. Poverty to these people would happen when they were no longer able to support themselves because of environmental constraints–they would have to become skilled in a trade and move into urban areas. Their idea of living standards has nothing to do with “western cultural” standards.[/quote]

Lifticus, you are an intellectual fraud.

When you made that statement, we were discussing the cause of poverty in the black community - and you insisted culture was not a driver of that poverty.

Now we get some hogwash on poverty-as-compared-between-cultures - which, of course, both of us know was not what you meant when you wrote the above.

Why pretend? What a hack.