Jump to content

Coronavirus: Already In a Neighborhood Near You


chasfh

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

How does that have anything to do with more financial stress on lower and middle classes?

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

im talking about the rise in differences between upper incomes and lower incomes.  the ease of free money and the low interest rates with which businesses and financial firms can borrow money has greatly contributed to the rise in upper incomes.  so has the internet.

there are other factors as well, but your refrain of "reagan ruined everything" is too simplistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

You telling’ me Henry wasn’t da Man!?

no, I'D be the one telling you he IS the man!

you would be the one arguing with me about how he started the process of the atlantic slave trade and was mean to africans.  or dont you remember our columbus conversations.  lol  😉

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, buddha said:

federal reserve with 0% interest rates and free money for businesses has more to do with it than anything reagan did.

There is truth to the fact that the combination of Bernanke’s inability to sell fiscal stimulus, Obama’s own economic conservatism, and the GOPs commitment to total obstruction did result in most of the post crash stimulus being monetary instead fiscal, which would have been a more normal course. Monetary stimulus does tend to flow much more  as a benefit to the class that already holds capital, while fiscal stimulus like infrastructure goes much more to wage earners. But this is an explanation which should not stand as an excuse. It was still bad governance choices that produced this outcome. And it only accelerated the trend to wealth concentration begun by the Reagan reductions in the progressivity of the tax code. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

There is truth to the fact that the combination of Bernanke’s inability to sell fiscal stimulus, Obama’s own economic conservatism, and the GOPs commitment to total obstruction did result in most of the post crash stimulus being monetary instead fiscal, which would have been a more normal course. Monetary stimulus does tend to flow much more  as a benefit to the class that already holds capital, while fiscal stimulus like infrastructure goes much more to wage earners. But this is an explanation which should not stand as an excuse. It was still bad governance choices that produced this outcome. And it only accelerated the trend to wealth concentration begun by the Reagan reductions in the progressivity of the tax code. 

its not an excuse.  its an explanation.

income inequality in america is not a simple issue.  it is extremely complex.  and increasing the highest tax rates on income back to what they were pre-reagan isnt going to solve the problem.  there are many more factors at play and one of the big ones - maybe THE biggest one - is the fed handing out free money.  

which is not an argument that this is all bernake's or obama's or yellen's fault, but it is to say that it is probably more important in the immediate rise in upper incomes than anything reagan did.

there are plenty if things they can do to transfer wealth to poor people from rich people, but the bigger issues are structural and have more to do with the fed's money policies and the government's lack of pursuit in breaking up big firms and preventing mergers.

a more aggressive sec would be a good first step (and not for overhyped "facebook isnt stopping people from saying "false" things garbage) but rather to stop the cycle of big getting bigger and preventing innovation and keeping all the money themselves. biden seems to have taken that step already, which is promising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Kacie said:

True, not many white, middle class or better Americans could.  I mean not the African American ones.  Too many in this country don't have a place to live or food to eat or medical care.  Doesn't seem like the USA is all that "rich".  

I thought this summed up the false perception versus reality very well:

“I asked Wharton students what they thought the average American worker makes per year and 25% of them thought it was over six figures,” Nina Strohminger tweeted late Wednesday. “One of them thought it was $800k.”

I tried to fact check that tweet when I saw it, and it appears Nina was confused between the difference between average and median. The median salary, as she reported, was about 45K (I think), but when i tried to find average data, it was pushing 60-70K. Makes sense, income is going to have a long right tail. I could see high cost of living areas like those that Ivy Leaguers come from (i.e. coastal cities) maybe having average wages pushing 6 figures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, buddha said:

which is not an argument that this is all bernake's or obama's or yellen's fault,

right-  Congress' refusal to do anything to prop up the system didn't leave the Fed much choice unless they were going to see themselves preside over a market bloodbath and a possible deflationary spiral. You can argue, and I probably would, they they could have tapered it off sooner but that's picking nits to the larger question of why the Fed felt forced to go it alone.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

no, I'D be the one telling you he IS the man!

you would be the one arguing with me about how he started the process of the atlantic slave trade and was mean to africans.  or dont you remember our columbus conversations.  lol  😉

LOL - can't lose track of which side we're on!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

NAFTA has nothing to do with this discussion right?

NAFTA DOES have something to do with it...

Oh... WAIT for it...

It was started by Ronald Reagan, and brought to agreement under Bush. Oh... you thought because it started in 1993 that it was all Clinton?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

right-  Congress' refusal to do anything to prop up the system didn't leave the Fed much choice unless they were going to see themselves preside over a market bloodbath and a possible deflationary spiral. You can argue, and I probably would, they they could have tapered it off sooner but that's picking nits to the larger question of why the Fed felt forced to go it alone.

yes, the republicans in congress face fault too.

and now - like lee was alluding to - were stuck.  raise rates and the market slows down and people start to panic and then we have to decrease rates again to heat things up.

easy money for everyone until inflation goes nuts or the world moves on from the dollar as the reserve currency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

NAFTA DOES have something to do with it...

Oh... WAIT for it...

It was started by Ronald Reagan, and brought to agreement under Bush. Oh... you thought because it started in 1993 that it was all Clinton?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

clinton had no choice but enter into nafta and let the chinese into the wto.  reagan made him do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, buddha said:

... there are many more factors at play and one of the big ones - maybe THE biggest one - is the fed handing out free money...

 

And the free money has gone in the opposite direction multiple times, crashing the asset valuations of the upper class. So NO, not the biggest, and not even close to the changes in Tax Codes by Reagan and Trump that benefited the upper class and investing classes, and penalized middle class and lower class benefits and states. And when states lose Fed money what do they do? Raise taxes and cut state benefits... for middle and lower classes. 

 

1 hour ago, buddha said:

...   and increasing the highest tax rates on income back to what they were pre-reagan isnt going to solve the problem....

Wrong, again. But like you said, it's more complex than just a simple statement like "raise taxes on the top 1%". Because the next issue is how those additional tax dollars are spent. On more support for states (I'll just use public education as an example)? That would lower State Tax burdens so an indirect benefit from tax the rich to benefit the middle and lower classes. How about something more direct? Increase income caps on FICA taxes to unlimited and lower everybody's FICA rates by 2%? That's a DIRECT benefit to the middle & lower classes at a cost to the top 5%. How about (wasn't it just in the news that the top 1%, or maybe it was 0.1%... pay on average 8% of their income in taxes?) a Minimum Required Tax, for anyone (no ifs, ands, deductions or buts), of 21%? I don't know what I pay... 30-33%. Great, lower everyone's tax rates by 2% by limiting tax avoidance by the top 1%. THAT's a direct benefit to middle/ lower classes at the expense of the highest of the upper class.

And you're saying what? That the middle and lower classes would NOT benefit from simple corrections such as this? Or are you saying that the problem is bigger than just some extra $'s in their pockets and therefore, there are more issues to resolve than just the few $'s?

You're right on that end. How about we fix the worst medical system in the civilized world? One that pauperizes people who get "too sick", availability that sucks, costs that suck, a middleman that offers NOTHING (medical insurance companies) in the way of medical services or savings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

 

I see a big, likely the most important, variable was not factored into that study.

 

Beware of overconfident numbers presented in a fancy way. There is no way anybody can quantify risk to the fourth decimal percentage point.

Edited by Edman85
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, buddha said:

clinton had no choice but enter into nafta and let the chinese into the wto.  reagan made him do it.

Just FYI:

I have no problem with NAFTA.

I'm an Independent. Caucus with Centrist Democrats. This type of Republican ideas win with me.

I'm on board with NAFTA. And TPP and other such...

PS: George W Bush approved China's entry into the WTO.

Also... the loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs is another, more complex issue. We were losing those jobs in the early 80's before NAFTA and the WTO. Steel, Auto, etc. were all getting hammered by cheap Japanese cars, gas-guzzling American cars affected by OPEC's shenanigans, etc. NAFTA didn't really affect manufacturing, at least IIRC the data shows that, but letting China into the WTO opened the floodgates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...