|
Pollyanna posted:
That already happened. 2008 saw a lot of people seeing their 401k or retirement funds evaporating into the ether. It's one of the reasons the young are facing high unemployment and dismal progression prospects even if they do have jobs. The old aren't leaving because they literally can't afford to. Now that it's perfectly legal to just evaporate the pension funds that did exist it's even worse. Of course they all blame Obama.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
And yet another reason why I see really, really bad things on the horizon for us. Jesus. edit: This makes me worry about what I'm gonna do for the future/my retirement/etc. gently caress it, socialism all the way. I think this is the point where people start getting politically antsy and pushy, so...welp, guess I know where that's going. Pollyanna fucked around with this message at 21:26 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:How could anyone think this is a good idea? Because just like you built the amount incrementally you will be draining the amount incrementally. Crashes and downturns don't really hold as much a sway when you're diversified across both stock markets and asset classes. You can just eat the small short-term loss because you will be dead in 20 years. Pollyanna posted:I also just can't really see a genuine, reliable way to make more than marginal profit off of the stock market without both a major crash and a whole bunch of luck. What? All you really need is time. A dead person could be a successful long-term investor given a couple of decades and a steady income. This is doubly true in the age of index funds were some lovely investor can't take your money and gamble it away on the derivatives market or whatever to earn himself a bonus. What you cannot make without luck, insider trading or a crash is massive short-term gains. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Thanks to 40 years of stagnant wages people are increasingly reliant on stock-based retirement packages. Of couse these are the same companies that have kept wages low and routinely fire thousands to appease the quarterly Wall Street gods so basically people can't win. Their retirement is directly at odds with their current employment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:27
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:Because just like you built the amount incrementally you will be draining the amount incrementally. Crashes and downturns don't really hold as much a sway when you're diversified across both stock markets and asset classes. You can just eat the small short-term loss because you will be dead in 20 years. I guess I don't quite understand how this all works. If this is the system we have to work with, I might as well figure out how to game it as much as possible... Proud Christian Mom posted:Thanks to 40 years of stagnant wages people are increasingly reliant on stock-based retirement packages. Of couse these are the same companies that have kept wages low and routinely fire thousands to appease the quarterly Wall Street gods so basically people can't win. Their retirement is directly at odds with their current employment. ... but this still isn't something we can keep up long-term. Honestly, we should be moving away from this crazy bullshit and towards something better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Now that it's perfectly legal to just evaporate the pension funds that did exist it's even worse. Of course they all blame Obama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
cheese posted:He's not the major player but he has certainly done his part to keep the system lovely. When given a real opportunity to push for change, he kept the knee bent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:I guess I don't quite understand how this all works. If this is the system we have to work with, I might as well figure out how to game it as much as possible... Financial literacy is a good skill to have until the day that the world reverts to some pre-1980's state or goes full communist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
http://www.epi.org/publication/retirement-in-america/#chart1 clearly 401(k)s are great if you're already well off but for the rest of us they're not so good! e: Here's some stuff from the creator of the 401k! Started out as a handout to businesses wanting to lower their tax liabilities and took off as a way for Wall Street ibankers to fleece average Americans out of their paychecks. http://www.marketplace.org/2013/06/13/sustainability/consumed/father-modern-401k-says-it-fails-many-americans rscott fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
cheese posted:He's not the major player but he has certainly done his part to keep the system lovely. When given a real opportunity to push for change, he kept the knee bent. There was also 8 years of deliberate obstructionism to content with and the fact that he inherited a burning, sinking ship from Bush.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Obstructionism is the only thing that stopped Obama from striking a "grand bargain" . He campaigned against the free trade deal with South Korea and attacked NAFTA in 2008 then pushed through the South Korea trade deal and used it as a model for pushing through the TPP -- which was also, ironically, probably only stopped thanks to GOP obstructionism. And good luck arguing that the Republican party somehow forced Obama to staff his economic team with Rubinites or his justice department with Wall Street hacks who wouldn't prosecute anyone. There's a very long list of terrible things Obama did that have absolutely nothing to do with obstructionism. Not to mention the fact he started his presidency with majorities in both houses of Congress. The reason that Obama kept negotiating with himself before even approaching the GOP isn't because the big mean Republicans strong armed them. He was using the GOP as an excuse to out maneuver the more liberal elements of his own party. I encourage people to read up on Obama's track record in the 1990s and early 2000s. He was being called out as a faker and sell-out by a lot of traditional voices on the left and within the black community and displayed a consistent instinct for neoliberal ideas. In fact Obama himself has been pretty candid about this at times and described himself as espousing ideas that would have placed him in the Republican party a couple decades ago. And the cherry on top is Obama and his people were in charge of the Democratic party as it was bleeding to death in state legislatures and Congress. Obama's people set the stage for the 2010 route and have only made things worse since then. Democrats need to stop blaming the GOP, Russia, the great unwashed masses, fake news, Fox, and basically everyone but themselves. Even the refrains about Hilary being an historically bad campaigner -- while true -- are off the mark. She was an expression of her party's internal rot, not the cause of it. In a more healthy political entity she never would have been nominated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:There was also 8 years of deliberate obstructionism to content with and the fact that he inherited a burning, sinking ship from Bush. But you are right, Lieberman refusing to be the 60th filibuster proof vote definitely crippled even the tiniest of reforms. Poor Obama 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Arguably the sell out began earlier when the Democrats won in 2006 on a wave of anti-war anger, did nothing to stop the war, and then coalesced around a presidential candidate two years later whose bold foreign policy proposal was ramping up the troop presence in Afghanistan and expanding the war to Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Arguably the sell out began earlier when the Democrats won in 2006 on a wave of anti-war anger, did nothing to stop the war, and then coalesced around a presidential candidate two years later whose bold foreign policy proposal was ramping up the troop presence in Afghanistan and expanding the war to Pakistan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:And yet another reason why I see really, really bad things on the horizon for us. Jesus. It's already here in the form of a woman in her 50s with a limp driving and delivering for FedEx, and the grandmother handing you a hot milk drink at your local starbucks'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
cheese posted:His presidency isn't even over yet and the historical narrative has already been rewritten, love it. Obama rode a wave of 08 Democratic victories so massive that they had to come up with a new term, Blue Dog Democrats, to describe all of the newly elected Democrats from traditional Republican states and districts. He had unitary Democratic government, a mandate for Hope and Change, and an economy that had just been gutted by Bush, the Republicans and Wall Street Vampires, all 3 of which were rightly given 90% of the blame for the Great Recession by the American voters. Obama had everything he needed to make massive changes to the American economy and he didn't even loving try. He didn't try because he was and had always been a neoliberal corporate shill, and rebuilding a better American economy that benefited the working class at the expense of the Democratic parties corporate donors was anathema to his ideology. oh sweet summer child
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
i am harry posted:It's already here in the form of a woman in her 50s with a limp driving and delivering for FedEx, and the grandmother handing you a hot milk drink at your local starbucks'. SaTaMaS posted:oh sweet summer child 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
cheese posted:Please tell me which part of what I said was wrong Do you realize there are other countries besides the US, and they have all done much worse than the US in the past 8 years? Obama did make massive changes and that led to things going from completely terrible to sorta good. I'm not sure why you think this best case scenario, whatever it is, would have even been achievable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Do you realize there are other countries besides the US, and they have all done much worse than the US in the past 8 years? Obama did make massive changes and that led to things going from completely terrible to sorta good. I'm not sure why you think this best case scenario, whatever it is, would have even been achievable. That's not really a counterargument in any way. Haha also what? Who is doing worse than the US? I guess the UK is steadily catching up to you on homelessness and poverty but the rich northern economies with some at their literal worst in centuries with massive unemployment are still a whole lot better than the US. The US is richer than almost every northern economy and on the list of exceptions the only relevant one is Norway. It doesn't have to be like this. MiddleOne fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Dec 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Do you realize there are other countries besides the US, and they have all done much worse than the US in the past 8 years? Obama did make massive changes and that led to things going from completely terrible to sorta good. I'm not sure why you think this best case scenario, whatever it is, would have even been achievable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:That's not really a counterargument in any way. If the argument is that an incremental improvement is bad because it's not a massive improvement, I'm not sure what the counterargument would be other than stop being a spoiled baby. MiddleOne posted:Haha also what? Who is doing worse than the US? I guess the UK is steadily catching up to you on homelessness and poverty but the rich northern economies at their literal worst in centuries with massive unemployment are still a whole lot better than the US. The US is richer than every northern economy of size bar Norway, it doesn't have to be like this. The EU has double the unemployment of the US, Russia is a basket case because of low oil prices, China is inflating a real estate bubble that will eventually be a repeat of the US in 2008, and Japan is just continuing to tread water.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
lol after what happened in November you neoliberals are still clinging to "just not achievable" I mean guys 90% of the gains in the "sorta good" economy went to the 1% but that's just the best we can do e: oh man hahahahahah look your wages haven't increased in 40 years and your rent and Healthcare costs are going through the roof? Be lucky you have a job plebe! I bet you have a refrigerator and a car and air conditioning too rscott fucked around with this message at 00:05 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
rscott posted:lol after what happened in November you neoliberals are still clinging to "just not achievable"
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
rscott posted:lol after what happened in November you neoliberals are still clinging to "just not achievable" Do you even know what secular stagnation is
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Do you even know what secular stagnation is I mean if you want to claim late stage managerial capitalism is facing a fundamental crisis I'm not going to deny it but I don't think your liberal market economics are going to solve it! PS secular stagnation doesn't explain why economic inequality has accelerated in Obama's two terms, but accelerating economic inequality can sure be a driver of persistent low growth rscott fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Do you even know what secular stagnation is
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
rscott posted:I mean if you want to claim late stage managerial capitalism is facing a fundamental crisis I'm not going to deny it but I don't think your liberal market economics are going to solve it! He increased taxes on the wealthy in order to help pay for the ACA. By any normal standards that is a significant achievement, but for some reason the goal posts have been moved to the 1000 yard line. Economic inequality generally increases because as Piketty has shown, that's what tends to happen when we aren't engaged in a world war. However it has not been accelerating in the US, it's been increasing at about the same rate that it has since 1980
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
We lucked out that the GOP was so resistant to Obama and everything he wanted to do that they wouldn't take the massive concession of a Grand Bargain. Basically the only reason that we weren't caught up in the same kind of austerity that Europe was is because the GOP decided not to let Obama do anything. That's going to change now that they are in charge, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Every administration since 1980 has been GOP or GOP-lite economically. Hell they even managed to get Bill Clinton to be their hatchet man with regards to NAFTA. When they go right, we go slightly less right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:He increased taxes on the wealthy in order to help pay for the ACA. By any normal standards that is a significant achievement, but for some reason the goal posts have been moved to the 1000 yard line. look guys he increased taxes on the wealthy by a trivial amount if you want anything other than that you're just a spoiled baby
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:He increased taxes on the wealthy in order to help pay for the ACA. By any normal standards that is a significant achievement, but for some reason the goal posts have been moved to the 1000 yard line. SaTaMaS posted:Economic inequality generally increases because as Piketty has shown, that's what tends to happen when we aren't engaged in a world war. However it has not been accelerating in the US, it's been increasing at about the same rate that it has since 1980
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
I thought he wrote that inequality increases because rich people expect their rate of return to outperform the economy at large. And that this ultimately requires state intervention because of bubbles, robber barons, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
In fact Piketty advocates a global wealth tax to fix the intergenerational accumulation and concentration of wealth but you know we're stuck on what's achievable and apparently that doesn't even include a $15/hr minimum wage or a public option for health care
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
rscott posted:look guys he increased taxes on the wealthy by a trivial amount if you want anything other than that you're just a spoiled baby you are though. america is a center-right to right-leaning nation and any attempt to move drastically outside that orthodoxy will get smacked the gently caress down. i mean, obama proposed mitt romney's healthcare plan and it got denounced as socialism and the greatest lefty policy in a generation. can you imagine what would've happened if it was a true socialized medicine? but who knows maybe with the orange one we'll get medicare for rscott posted:In fact Piketty advocates a global wealth tax to fix the intergenerational accumulation and concentration of wealth but you know we're stuck on what's achievable and apparently that doesn't even include a $15/hr minimum wage or a public option for health care the party proposing that stuff got blown the gently caress out this november because of whiny babies who either stayed home or were unwilling to compromise their precious, precious ideology for some good. they now will see what their petulant attitude gets them (it's not a $15/hr minimum wage, i'll tell you that)
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I thought he wrote that inequality increases because rich people expect their rate of return to outperform the economy at large. And that this ultimately requires state intervention because of bubbles, robber barons, etc. All true, but by far the biggest equalizers during that time were the world wars
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Look guys, I read Paul Krugman's blog every day and once time I even read a review of Thomas Pikety's Capital. And I'm here to tell you that the President isn't responsible for standing by while millions of people were kicked out of their homes thanks to fraudulent activity by the banks. I mean sure he could have intervened when the legal system started allowing companies to retroactively and fraudulently fill out paperwork establishing their claims over these homes and maybe he could have launched a few prosecutions but you see his highly accomplished economics team told him that would threaten the stability of the market so really his hands were tied and he just had to let millions of people lose their homes. And then he was forced to push through a bunch of awful trade deals that effectively give corporate tribunals a veto over national legislation. Sure almost the entire labour movement was united against the bill but I trust that the President had their best interests at heart. And hey, he slightly raised marignal tax rates. I mean sure he was trying to cut social security and he forced everyone to buy crapified insurance that in many cases had co-pays so high that people were still filing for bankruptcy when they got ill but you have to understand that passing a bill modeled on a plan from a conservative Republican think tank was actually a historic success. I mean, sure, the entire system has gone into a death spiral of withdrawing companies and rising premiums but no, I don't think that had anything to do with the Democrats losing in 2016. That was because of Russia! What's that you say? Obama oversaw a recovery that went almost exclusively to the 1%? But don't you see it's impossible to distribute gains from growth more evenly (let alone redistribute wealth) because ~*secular stagnation*~ ! Perhaps you'd understand if you had an e-mail notification coming to your phone every time Ezra Klein writes a new article.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Arguments of American exceptionalism are pretty poo poo, we're a center right country because our ostensibly left wing party sets the edge of discourse away from any policies that will fundamentally alter the status quo which is set up to benefit the wealthy. I carried water for the Democrats this election season because you should not be picky about your allies when attempting to bash the fash but as always the capitalists will choose protecting and further increasing their privileged place at the top of society over the atrocities that are sure to follow over the next 4-8 years.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Look guys, I read Paul Krugman's blog every day and once time I even read a review of Thomas Pikety's Capital. And I'm here to tell you that the President isn't responsible for standing by while millions of people were kicked out of their homes thanks to fraudulent activity by the banks. I mean sure he could have intervened when the legal system started allowing companies to retroactively and fraudulently fill out paperwork establishing their claims over these homes and maybe he could have launched a few prosecutions but you see his highly accomplished economics team told him that would threaten the stability of the market so really his hands were tied and he just had to let millions of people lose their homes. i'm in the industry and i'm gonna stop you right there and say that you have no idea what the gently caress you're talking about. were there homes foreclosed on where there was basically no documentation/proof? yes. but those were outliers in the group. usually it was a case where both the servicer and the borrower knew what was up but since the servicer couldn't prove it they were SOL. the majority of the loans that were robo-signed would've been proper so long as they didn't have a robot doing it. a lot of money went into fixing the problems around documentation and robo-signing with lots of nasty downstream effects that didn't get play in the press because they were ideology neutral. things like the FHA taking a massive bath on its insured properties because its lenders were unable to foreclose for years and so instead of getting a house in mostly good condition, they got a house 2 years later that was a hole in the ground. that ends up costing the government a lot of money since the FHA is now unable to sell the home and has to write off the asset as a total loss. if that happened even a few times it's a multi-million dollar loss to the government and i know that it happened a lot more than "just a few times" nothing is simple. anyone saying all the problems in america are caused by X and if we just did Y things would be fine have a child-like understanding of the economy. poo poo's complicated and casting heroes and villains will make you feel good but won't solve any problems. axeil fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Oh cool we got a guy who personally participated in red lining great please tell us how Bankers Did Nothing Wrong
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
cheese posted:Please tell me which part of what I said was wrong this part quote:His presidency isn't even over yet and the historical narrative has already been rewritten, love it. Obama rode a wave of 08 Democratic victories so massive that they had to come up with a new term, Blue Dog Democrats, to describe all of the newly elected Democrats from traditional Republican states and districts. quote:The Blue Dog Coalition, commonly known as the Blue Dogs or Blue Dog Democrats, is a caucus of United States Congressional Representatives from the Democratic Party who identify as conservative Democrats.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 01:08
|
|
