|
I would say that one problem with the American economy is that basically everyone thought lower fuel prices would translate into increased consumer spending, when in reality it's mostly going to paying down debt and recovering savings which are basically nil for most people The stock market and is basically worthless for determining the health of the economy though. Dow went up 400 points on poo poo gdp growth because that means the feds won't raise rates again and turn off the spigot of free money for them to throw around in the casino
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:You have evidence that the U.S. is suffering from high savings rates? No you don't. Stop repeating fox-news-grade just-so stories. I think he's talking about the estimated $10-20 trillion parked in off shore accounts not really doing anything at all, even ignoring the effects that has on the value of the dollar through monetary velocity, the $2-3 trillion dollars in government revenue that could be reasonably expected to be recovered of that money through taxes is not insignificant when it comes to the world's overall economic growth. Overall, it appears that we have reached the end of what supply side monetary policy can accomplish in propping up a top heavy, ridiculously unbalanced economy. The best thing the US government could do right now is to print money and hand it out to people who are going to spend it immediately. Inflation is the last thing anyone should be worrying about, if anything deflation could be an issue in the future. rscott fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Jan 30, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Because it subsidizes the lifestyle preferences of wealthy white people http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/03/18/business/economy/taxes-take-away-but-also-give-back-mostly-to-the-very-rich.html?referer=
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:Wages have been stagnating for a while, so the BLS revising their data to show a contraction in wages rather than growth isn't all that surprising. It sucks that this is basically being picked up by right wing nutjobs as an "Obama's economy!" story when revisions like this are really common. In fact, it's way more instructive to look at BLS revisions than it is to watch for headline numbers as they're released. The BLS doesn't normally revise estimates by 4.6% in any direction, what was the reason they gave?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:http://www.bls.gov/news.release/prod2.nr0.htm Yeah wages being strong all year despite other fairly weak indicators did seem strange to me as well.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Lucy Heartfilia posted:Helicopter money instead of negative rates, please. Companies won't lend money from banks unless they think people will buy their products. That would raise the spectre of inflation and apparently fighting inflation is more important than the economy actually growing
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:No Yeah but they were saying the same poo poo about QE and inflation is still flat as a rail
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
or anything, but I think if it comes down to printing money and handing out stacks of it, the whole system is just going to break down. Like...it will be the only option but taking that option will begin a slide into dollar devaluation that the Fed won't be able to rein in.
|
Franks Happy Place posted:Core inflation perhaps, but there are asset bubbles all around the world. Yes that is what happens when you give banks a bunch of money to stimulate lending in an economy with a fundamental demand deficit (cuz everyone but the top quintile is broke as gently caress)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Also it's very easy to look at income inequality and miss wealth inequality. Wealth moves across borders easier than income, making it harder to tax. Also wealth is much whiter than income, making going after it less politically palatable. But it's wealth inequality that has such devastating outcomes. If you have wealth you don't need income to live very well, but if you have income without wealth, you're one bad turn from the poorhouse. Donald Trump and a guy sleeping in his car might have equivalent income but vastly different amounts of wealth. There's only a few ways to fix wealth inequality (socializing the means of production, a 100% estate tax over a certain amount, a wealth tax) and none of them are palatable to liberals because intergenerational accumulation of wealth is literally what capitalism is designed to do.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 13:09
|
|
|
The owner of the company I work for has probably maxed out his contributions to the Democratic party this year and still dicked everyone who works for him on a raise this year while dropping several hundred grand minimum on a newer king air. We can pretend that Clinton is above reproach and isn't influenced by the typical classist rear end in a top hat with a bunch of money to throw around but the lower levels of the party absolutely are, and that's largely where your bench is coming from. That winds up leaving the national party only candidates sympathetic to a decidedly centrist economic policy to choose from, unless they bring in people like Elizabeth Warren from the academic and technocratic side.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:Markets like Republicans because they like corporate welfare. Republicans love deficit spending when they control all the branches of government
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
They still need another $30 billion before they even launch the fund, you're as gullible as the average Trump voter
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Those 50,000 jobs are as real right now as the performance incentives on Ricky Williams' rookie contract
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2016 05:20
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Sure, does that make the comparison invalid in terms of economic mobility? It seems like it tells a story. The most accurate and unbiased way to do it would be to go off the head of household's income, regardless of gender, since that would capture interesting data given the increase in single parent households
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The top 1% captured 91% of the real income growth per family during the 2009-2012 recovery period, with their pre-tax incomes growing 34.7% adjusted for inflation while the pre-tax incomes of the bottom 99% grew 0.8%. Measured from 2009–2015, the top 1% captured 52% of the total real income growth per family, indicating the recovery was becoming less "lopsided" in favor of higher income families. By 2015, the top 10% (top decile) had a 50.5% share of the pre-tax income, close its highest all-time level. According to an article in The New Yorker, by 2012, the share of pre-tax income received by the top 1% had returned to its pre-crisis peak, at around 23% of the pre-tax income. By 2015, real incomes of bottom 99% have now recovered about two thirds of the losses experienced during the Great Recession from 2007 to 2009. Clearly economic inequality has returned to those halcyon days of 1996
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Yes if you start measuring right after a massive drop, you're going to see a big spike. Also as you said "close its highest all-time level" The peak in income for the top 1% was in 2012, you don't know what the gently caress you're even talking about, just stop. e: I mean if your argument is that Obama isn't any better or worse than Clinton, Bush or Reagan cool I don't think anyone is disputing that since that's the point all the leftists in this thread have been making all along rscott fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Jan 1, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:Share of income is a better measure, and that peaked around 2007 http://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2015.pdf Same guy says otherwise??? e: Whoops top 10% vs top 1%
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:
Because they have to? That's why ppaca is a handout to insurance companies and the health care industry as a whole, you're forced to buy insurance but the price controls are weak to non existent, the out of pocket maximums even before you take into account out of network providers are so high as to put the majority of Americans in default if they face a major medical issue
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:In Canada, about 15% of bankruptcies are due to medical bills*, while in the US, about 18%-25%** of bankruptcies are due to medical bills *15% of Canadian seniors ** One study done by a guy publishing in the Wall Street Journal, other estimates place it between 45-60% of bankruptcies in the US There fixed that so it's actually accurate instead of the intentionally misleading crap you have constantly posted in this thread
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Xae posted:By pushing more people into the individual market you lower the overall cost per person of the pool. Everywhere I've worked that has offered insurance has shown how much the employer covers and how much the employee is responsible for.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Xae posted:The plans employers provide are subject to the same rules and regulations that the individual market is. My employer offers High Deductible health plans on Bronze, Silver and Gold which are nearly identical to what I can get in the exchange. The only difference is the ~$500 subsidy my employer provides. How are market forces/mechanisms going to drive down prices and increase efficiency when a person is facing a decision that could wind up with them dying or having a permanently diminished quality of life, or the life of a loved one, which would induce even more "irrational" decisions. This imbalance of power between buyer and seller creates tons of perverse incentives to rent seek, as demonstrated in the pharmaceutical industry today. Markets are fine for the distribution of many goods provided they are properly regulated (and owned by their workers of course) but scarce goods that we simultaneously declare a fundamental human right must be provided as a public service for that declaration to mean anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:Lol, strong economic growth Income for the top 1% increased 8% last year that's strong growth!
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:And that deficit is paid with: taxes. Which will slow economic growth (all other things being equal.) Money does not come from thin air. Or rather, fiat value doesn't. Money is a social construct
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Xae posted:The other thing is that you aren't just getting an MRI, you're probably getting some crazy rear end fancy poo poo with 100x the resolution needed. This is due to market forces acting on people's inability to make rational decisions about their healthcare. Of course they want the da vinci robot and the top of the line mri machine and the most cutting edge medicine. What good is avoiding being in debt if your kid or wife is dead or crippled? I mean gently caress have you seen the commercials for Apdivo? A CHANCE TO LIVE LONGER is the opening line. How much money is another 6 months with grandma worth to you? I mean I had a doctor recommend me an epidural between my T7 and T8 for chronic upper back pain despite the risk/reward ratio in terms of paralyzing me and providing lasting relief. I got a nice bill for $1200 after insurance decided whatever they were going to cover. Doctor sold it to me by playing up the efficacy while completely neglecting to mention any of the risks involved.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2017 01:08
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:And why exactly would it be impossible to remove the legal ban on negotiating prices or tweak said formula? Apparently the fact that Medicare is forbidden to negotiate is some axiomatic property of the program and not, you know providing health care to people regardless of their ability to pay for care
|
|
#
¿
Jan 8, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
I'm currently looking at pulling money out of my 401k to afford to get a bunch of dental work done, it's fantastic
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:It's at least partially an ethics argument, is one American falling into poverty while 100 people in developing countries get a chance at better life a good exchange? Because that's close to the numbers you get. Ultimately if you only care about yourself then yes, globalism may have hurt of benefited you depending on where you are in the American society. I'd call you an utterly immoral sociopathic monster, but hey each to his own. You haven't made a case as to why this is because of globalization and not in spite of it, considering how much economic wealth is siphoned from third world counties to sit in off shore bank accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2017 22:03
|
|
" is a red herring, since the companies would never do that. It's the same as saying gently caress them let them die in starvation I don't care, if they were "fit" enough to compete with Americans they'd have a chance to live.
|
Yep no one ever complained about what outsourcing does to American workers before Breitbart brought it up Next you'll be conflating socialists and Nazis because they both have "social" in their names
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:I always thought that was the more petty and populist side of leftism/socialism, but sure nationalism as far as jobs go has been around for a long time (see UK Labour campaigning against Irish immigrants and Indian industry back in the early 20th century). That doesn't make it right, not the least because where do you stop? Unless you take an explicitly nationalist position there is no difference compared to the jobs moving from one city/region of America to another, so should that be banned as well? There's a huge difference in terms of freedom of movement for labor moving within a country compared to emigrating to another one. That's actually one of the biggest things about globalization, the free movement of capital to chase the best return is to the detriment of laborers all around the world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
If you don't anything about concentration of wealth and how it affects markets why do you think you are qualified to give your opinion on economic matters I'm not trying to be a dick but that's a pretty fundamental aspect of macroeconomics
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 05:35
|
|
|
Even trying to quantify economic output in terms of dollars is difficult because monetary value isn't necessarily tied to social utility value. A society that is focused on equality isn't going to value bizjets, luxury yachts, ostentatious oversized cars and real estate. I don't know how things like that would be adapted to fit a post-capitalist world.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 06:15
|
|
|
Japan industrialized in the 1880s though, they had the type of high tech capabilities to move beyond being a bulk exporter of cheap goods, much like Germany, which iirc they took a lot of inspiration from even before the Alliance with the Nazis
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2017 13:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 12:37 |
|
|
Private Speech posted:By counter examples you mean the ones from 19th century, including Japan in particular which started developing only after a long period of isolation ended by the country being forcibly opened to American markets? US which heavily engaged in international trade? Or modern South Korea which is literally called an example of "export-oriented industrialisation"? If you google that term you get dozens of hits from Korea, or you can read this which is a 28 pages long article about the history of korean industrialisation If you want a Korean perspective on globalization Ha-Joon Chang is a good place to start
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2017 15:53
|
|