billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Are the rich really the engine of the economy? Surprising datas from a new study.
By
ShcShc11, in Speakers Corner
Recommended Posts
jgoose71 0
To the OP and every one else in this thread:
What the fuck does this report have to do with the price in China? After reading all 48 pages of this report and your responses, it's clear no one knows what the fuck they are talking about.
No where in the PDF does it talk about tax rate and the jobless rate.
No where in the PDF does it talk about current affairs that might effect jobs.
No where in the PDF does it does it talk about jobs in general. For those of you that don't know, it's the jobless rate and entitlement programs right now that are having the greatest effect on the economy.
It does however, go into great detail about how people who have jobs spend and dodge taxes.
Get a clue, you worthless dumb fuck scholars. You can't spend unless you have a job.
End rant.....
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Quote
You can't spend unless you have a job.
And hopefully the job is in the private sector...
We are all engines of karma
Remster 30
QuoteTo the OP and every one else in this thread:
What the fuck does this report have to do with the price in China? After reading all 48 pages of this report and your responses, it's clear no one knows what the fuck they are talking about.
No where in the PDF does it talk about tax rate and the jobless rate.
No where in the PDF does it talk about current affairs that might effect jobs.
No where in the PDF does it does it talk about jobs in general. For those of you that don't know, it's the jobless rate and entitlement programs right now that are having the greatest effect on the economy.
It does however, go into great detail about how people who have jobs spend and dodge taxes.
Get a clue, you worthless dumb fuck scholars. You can't spend unless you have a job.
End rant.....
Did we read the same document???????
Remster
jgoose71 0
QuoteQuoteTo the OP and every one else in this thread:
What the fuck does this report have to do with the price in China? After reading all 48 pages of this report and your responses, it's clear no one knows what the fuck they are talking about.
No where in the PDF does it talk about tax rate and the jobless rate.
No where in the PDF does it talk about current affairs that might effect jobs.
No where in the PDF does it does it talk about jobs in general. For those of you that don't know, it's the jobless rate and entitlement programs right now that are having the greatest effect on the economy.
It does however, go into great detail about how people who have jobs spend and dodge taxes.
Get a clue, you worthless dumb fuck scholars. You can't spend unless you have a job.
End rant.....
Did we read the same document???????
Either we read different documents, our level of understanding is different, or you did not read the document at all. Care to elaborate? After all, that is the purpose of SC corner I thought, to have a discussion.
Can't discuss much on your last post.....
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
devildog 0
Quote
Either we read different documents, our level of understanding is different, or you did not read the document at all. Care to elaborate? After all, that is the purpose of SC corner I thought, to have a discussion.
It's mostly to pound your chest and throw poo from what I can tell :)
You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.
Quote>Why are cigarette taxes to fund day care so popular?
Partly because people feel that this is a tax that accomplishes two goals - funding something worthy (i.e. daycare) and discouraging something undesirable for the population in general (i.e. smoking.)
partly. but 80% of it has to do with the fact that the smokers are 20% of the population. We don't see beer taxes get much traction.
jgoose71 0
QuoteQuote
Either we read different documents, our level of understanding is different, or you did not read the document at all. Care to elaborate? After all, that is the purpose of SC corner I thought, to have a discussion.
It's mostly to pound your chest and throw poo from what I can tell :)
Well, that definitely explains the smell........
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Bolas 5
Quote
I would be very happy to have my taxes go up, with the money used to pay down the Rescumlican's credit card bills from the two wars that WERE OFF BUDGET until a responsible adult became POTUS. Use my taxes to fund abortions on demand for low income women, or to fund quality prenatal and post natal care. Use my taxes to pay for elections that are free and even handed, not bought by the highest bidder. Use my taxes to pay for the impeachment and prosecution of the Supreme Court members who are up to their eyebrows in partisan political activiites and lie about their families involvement in partisan politics.
Raise everyone's taxes ASAP. We ran up the bills, now we have to pay them. That is a REAL conservative position. Not the bullshit puked out by Faux news, et al.
Actually paying for things that were charged by the irresponsible idiots elected by same is a fiscally responsible, and highly conservative political position.
So you want to increase taxes and increase spending?
That's not gonna fix things.
We have a tax and a spending problem. We need to address the spending problem first as we also have a mindset currently that any additional revenue can be spent versus saved. Hell, when banks started paying back TARP money Congree wanted to spend it.
Yes we need to pay the bills, but we need to cut spending so future bills won't be as high.
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.
jgoose71 0
Since Remster isn't elaborating, I guess I will. And since Streetscooby seems to be the most economic minded of all here in SC, maybe he can correct me if I am out of line in any of my analysis....
The whole premise of the PDF is that the rich do not drive the economy. All I can say to that is "No shit Sherlock, way to state the obvious...."
The Economic factors that do shape the Economy are GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the Unemployment rate. The spending of the rich will follow these factors.
The PDF only tracks tax rates and spending by income level. It does not take into account any other external factors. This is key.
Top economic analysts would refute the findings. What they don't show you in the findings is that the U.S. had a Monopoly on manufacturing from 1945 to the mid 70's. The tax rate could have been 99% and we still would have made a killing because until Europe and Japan (And yes, even Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia were devastated by WWII, Japanese Occupation you know) were in shambles. The U.S. manufacturing capabilities were in full swing. This is what brought us out of the Great depression.
20 years later in the 60's and 70's Europe and Asia had rebuilt their infrastructure and we were stuck in Vietnam. that brought us to the Carter Administration in the late 70's that was a complete failure.
During the 80's Regan dropped our tax rate to allow us to compete better with the foreign economies, but the 80's also brought us NAFTA, with was the start of the outsourcing of jobs along with Amnesty for the first group of illegals, which started to undercut the American worker.
The 90's brought us the .Com boom. While all of our manufacturing was being shipped over seas, everyone became a small business owner. We were able to further cut the overhead of business even during the Clinton tax hikes by buying products from over seas, store them in warehouses in the middle of no where and ship the products on demand via the internet.
After we saw as much growth as we possibly could with that, then came the housing bubble in the 2000's. People making money off of selling houses over and over again because congress forced lower lending standards and it was easy to get money, until the books didn't match the inventory.
Basically, since the 80's we've been living off of market gimmicks once our monopoly on manufacturing ran out.
The rich spend by the economy. They sock away money when they can and spend when they can. The economy does not follow the rich.
What the rich can do for us though is hire us to work for them. They can only do that when they feel that they have money to spare. When they do that it increases the GDP. because the average person no longer saves. Advent of Social Security and the "Got to have in now" attitude brought on by the baby boomers of the 60's have pretty much ended the idea of personal responsibility.
That is pretty much America's financial history in a nut shell. It's also why I think that this study is a colossal waste of time.
The whole premise of the PDF is that the rich do not drive the economy. All I can say to that is "No shit Sherlock, way to state the obvious...."
The Economic factors that do shape the Economy are GDP (Gross Domestic Product) and the Unemployment rate. The spending of the rich will follow these factors.
The PDF only tracks tax rates and spending by income level. It does not take into account any other external factors. This is key.
Top economic analysts would refute the findings. What they don't show you in the findings is that the U.S. had a Monopoly on manufacturing from 1945 to the mid 70's. The tax rate could have been 99% and we still would have made a killing because until Europe and Japan (And yes, even Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia were devastated by WWII, Japanese Occupation you know) were in shambles. The U.S. manufacturing capabilities were in full swing. This is what brought us out of the Great depression.
20 years later in the 60's and 70's Europe and Asia had rebuilt their infrastructure and we were stuck in Vietnam. that brought us to the Carter Administration in the late 70's that was a complete failure.
During the 80's Regan dropped our tax rate to allow us to compete better with the foreign economies, but the 80's also brought us NAFTA, with was the start of the outsourcing of jobs along with Amnesty for the first group of illegals, which started to undercut the American worker.
The 90's brought us the .Com boom. While all of our manufacturing was being shipped over seas, everyone became a small business owner. We were able to further cut the overhead of business even during the Clinton tax hikes by buying products from over seas, store them in warehouses in the middle of no where and ship the products on demand via the internet.
After we saw as much growth as we possibly could with that, then came the housing bubble in the 2000's. People making money off of selling houses over and over again because congress forced lower lending standards and it was easy to get money, until the books didn't match the inventory.
Basically, since the 80's we've been living off of market gimmicks once our monopoly on manufacturing ran out.
The rich spend by the economy. They sock away money when they can and spend when they can. The economy does not follow the rich.
What the rich can do for us though is hire us to work for them. They can only do that when they feel that they have money to spare. When they do that it increases the GDP. because the average person no longer saves. Advent of Social Security and the "Got to have in now" attitude brought on by the baby boomers of the 60's have pretty much ended the idea of personal responsibility.
That is pretty much America's financial history in a nut shell. It's also why I think that this study is a colossal waste of time.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything
Life, the Universe, and Everything
ShcShc11 0
QuoteQuote
You can't spend unless you have a job.
And hopefully the job is in the private sector...
lack of demand.
lack of demand.
lack of demand.
lack of demand.
...etc...
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201112060005
"NFIB Survey: Lack of Demand Is Biggest Impediment To Growth (And The Second-Biggest, Too)"
The Private Sector is simply incapable of bridging this DEMAND GAP because the private sector is busy paying down their debt.
This is a simple Google image, but it clearly shows what the Private Sector has been doing lately.
http://misc.mortgagebrokers.ie/images/blogimages/2010/October2010/US%20Private%20Debt%20to%20GDP.jpg
Essentially, when the Bush bubbles burst in 2008 (back to 2000s levels), the Private Sector accumulated an enormous debt and had no choice to pay down their debt.
Businesses had to take radical cost cutting measures including laying off workers. If the PRIVATE SECTOR is busy paying down their debt, then they are incapable of bringing DEMAND up.
In other words:
If demand remains lackluster then businessmen don't have any incentives to expand or invest into new PPE/labour/long-term investments. They are easily filling the demand with what they have now.
If businessmen don't hire enough labour, the labour don't have enough money to pay down its debt.
If they can't pay down their debt, then demand goes lower.
etc...
**
Its a very simplified overview of what happened since 2008. A lot of us end up having these mundane "Private vs Public" sector debates yet doesn't understand the underlying factors to what happened to the economy, what is happening and why its happening this way.
This isin't about PRIVATE VS PUBLIC and should never have been about that. It should never have been about the RICH vs MIDDLE CLASS.
The question should be:
"What tools (private or public tools) would be MOST efficient and would have the MOST multiplier effects in order to bring DEMAND higher and to prevent money hoarding"
In a better world that base policies on empirical evidences, we would be:
-having higher inflation targets
-expanding the money supply to discourage cash-hogging
-take advantage of a historical low of the U.S 10 years bonds to invest for the future.
But all of this is now highly politicized and none of the parties will go anywhere near these solutions because they became taboo.
Instead what is the public asking the Politicians to do? "Bring down the debt" and bring DEMAND LOWER.
Now instead of having just the PRIVATE sector paying down their own debt, we now have a full fledge Great Recession/Little Depression because the PUBLIC sector is also trying to do the same.
There is no entity trying to start the engine again. All this because we keep making the false analogy that debt in an economy is like "a credit card".
...
It really is lovely to see people caring about the debt because they don't want to burden their children. But this is the factor that is destroying future U.S economic outputs and ironically destroying the next generation's future by preventing them to have the jobs that would launch their careers.
Recent graduates entering the labour late will never catch up to its full potential...ever. Worse, U.S States such as NJ, TX, California cut EDUCATION in the name of "debt cutting".
...
Back to some of the solutions:
-having higher inflation targets
-expanding the money supply to discourage cash-hogging
-take advantage of a historical low of the U.S 10 years bonds to invest for the future.
This is unfortunately designed to punish people who saved money and reward people who accumulated debt (bc inflation would erode private sector debt).
Someone is (or at least should) say that this immoral.
And its true. It is.
Why punish people who have been saving money?
Economics is not a morality play.
If you want to restart the economy, if you want unemployment down to 5%, if you want to stop social unrests (e.g: Occupy movement) then people have to simply accept this.
Money needs to flow in the economic engine and we can only do this by punishing the savers (through money-value erosion).
Else people are just in lala fantasy land thinking its Obama's fault or its some political party's fault.
It is our fault because we keep trying to make economics a moral play. We keep obsessing over the debt and inadvertently make the country far weaker (far below its economic potential). When was the last time people protested because they wanted 4% inflation in the U.S... (uh never.)
Cheers!
Shc
airdvr 210
Quote>So, let me get this right. You think it'd be the right thing to raise taxes?
Until we pay our debts, yes. Then lower them.
Otherwise we will continue our free ride indefinitely.
So when Obama cut taxes he was being stupid?
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
RonD1120 62
QuoteQuoteMr. Romney proposes to have tax cuts for the rich because it would be good for the economy
I have nothing against the rich.
I don't really care much about the constant rhetorics happening around them.
But there was an interesting article on how much the rich actually contribute to the real economy.
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-slemrod-giertzJEL12.pdf
'[...] the measure of such changes’ supply-side effects is the sensitivity of reported income to marginal rates. If people work and invest more in response to tax cuts, their reported income will rise when marginal rates fall. True supply-siders believe that this sensitivity is well over a value of 1, implying that cuts in marginal rates raise reported income enough that government tax revenues nevertheless rise. Several natural-experiment studies concluded that the best available estimates of this sensitivity range from 0.12 to 0.40. The midpoint of the range, 0.25, implies that if the marginal tax rate for high earners decreased from its current level of 35 percent to 28 percent , reported income would rise by just 2 1/2 percent"
In a few decades, we'l end up seeing this whole rich worshipping ("the engine of economy") the same way we see Communism today.
"how could we have been so dumb in spite of all the datas??"
Cheers!
Posting factual information that conflicts with the belief systems of the dumb fucks that are Right Wing Conservatives is a waste of time. There is no amount of factual information that will cause any change in their belief structure.
This mental illness is much like the so called "christians" who quote the bible in support of their beliefs. They pick and choose little bits from here and there to support their previously established beliefs, while ignoring the the bits that are 100% the opposite of what their beliefs are. When the obvious stuff is pointed out, like the rules for handling slaves, and the sale of female children, they always say "We don't believe in or use those parts of the bible any more". Funny how that works, isn't it. It totally exposes the lies upon which the belief system is built.
Bottom line, we cannot afford to re-elect BHO.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
billvon 2,991
>I'm fine with tax increases provided spending cuts are first.
I'm fine provided they happen TOGETHER.
If not, the democrats won't cut spending until the republicans raise taxes. And the republicans won't raise taxes until the democrats cut spending. And nothing will change.
I'm fine provided they happen TOGETHER.
If not, the democrats won't cut spending until the republicans raise taxes. And the republicans won't raise taxes until the democrats cut spending. And nothing will change.
airdvr 210
Quote>I'm fine with tax increases provided spending cuts are first.
I'm fine provided they happen TOGETHER.
If not, the democrats won't cut spending until the republicans raise taxes. And the republicans won't raise taxes until the democrats cut spending. And nothing will change.
Yep. That's how it's going to be until the government is forced to do something. I figure we'll default on our loans first. Good thing we have a strong military.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Please don't dent the planet.
Destinations by Roxanne
Destinations by Roxanne
pirana 0
QuoteThis is one of the biggest problems in our society. It also occurs on both sides of whatever fence you're fighting about. People, in general, have moved themselves to a position in which they no longer care about logical reasoning.
Exactly; cuz like I've always said (well, for the last 20+ years anyway) the vast majority of humans are not very rational creatures when it comes to anything beyond moment-to-moment survival. They are emotive creatures that occasionally plug in their frontal lobes to their full effect, versus rational creatures that sometimes follow their emotions; and therefore easily duped by those that see manipulation of others for personal gain as their bottom line purpose in life.
Which is exactly what allows people like Hitler, Jones, and others to at least temporarily flourish.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
ShcShc11 0
QuoteQuote>I'm fine with tax increases provided spending cuts are first.
I'm fine provided they happen TOGETHER.
If not, the democrats won't cut spending until the republicans raise taxes. And the republicans won't raise taxes until the democrats cut spending. And nothing will change.
Yep. That's how it's going to be until the government is forced to do something. I figure we'll default on our loans first. Good thing we have a strong military.
Once again good economics discussion is replaced by counter-productive debt talks.
And yet we keep wondering why unemployment is at 8.2%.
The U.K have been doing exactly what you guys want to prescribe. And guess what. U.K business confidence is at an all-time low.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jul/12/marketing-executives-slash-budgets?newsfeed=true
That article is just 2 days ago.
I can show you Cameron's policies brought business confidence down since 2010 because of his cut spending/raise tax mentality.
"THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO FEAR IS FEAR ITSELF".
Widely used quote mainly to give motivation to people. But that quote was about the economy.
When we look back at the 1930s Depression, we don't see it as: "oh they were trying to be responsible by trying to cut the deficit". We see it as the worst economic time period in modern American history.
"But this time is different, we can't afford it"
No its not different. We're just willing to ignore real-life economic experiments for some fantasy horror stories.
Cheers!
Shc
ShcShc11 0
QuoteQuote>I'm fine with tax increases provided spending cuts are first.
I'm fine provided they happen TOGETHER.
If not, the democrats won't cut spending until the republicans raise taxes. And the republicans won't raise taxes until the democrats cut spending. And nothing will change.
Yep. That's how it's going to be until the government is forced to do something. I figure we'll default on our loans first. Good thing we have a strong military.
oh and p-s:
You know who has a REAL chance of defaulting?
You know what is actually really scary in the economy right now?
http://av.r.ftdata.co.uk/files/2012/07/Screen-shot-2012-07-11-at-4.18.10-PM.png
This is a graph released only a week ago.
Spanish Capitals are flying out of the country and the country can't finance its debt.
You know why? Because people in Germany willfully accepted the notion that they can't afford it (that they have too much debt already... that they don't want to burden their children).
They've been trying to be so conservative "with debt" to the extent where they are willing to risk the very existence of the Euro. And unfortunately they will be paying much MUCH more to fix it (and we probably will too).
Cheers!
Shc
ShcShc11 0
QuoteWhich is exactly what allows people like Hitler, Jones, and others to at least temporarily flourish.
on a sidenote, would recommend "Wages of Destruction" by Adam Tooze about Nazi economics.
In summary:
Germany in the 1920s-1930s had two choice.
-Deal more business with the Americans so that the Americans will be the ones who would help Germans annule their war debts AND protect them from French military invasion (remember the French invaded and occupied Germany's industrial heartland of Rhineland in 1923).
-Take business into their own hands and forcefully annule war reparation debts with France and Europe.
They tried both and both failed spectacularly. The former was tried by the Weimar Republic and failed in the 1930s when Hoover refused to help them (and even raised border tarifs on German trades).
The latter was the course Hitler took.
Anyway, definitely recommending the book.
Cheers!
Shc
>and Sheldon Adelson the way little girls regard Justin Bieber … which is to say, with
>wide eyes, slack jaws, and the drool of adoration dripping from their chins.
Well, so do Democrats. They just court them differently.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites