Not to mention the Bar Stool Economics story is an analogy. It's 10 years old. Of course the percentages don't match up. What are you trying to get at. Not to mention that the graphs you show'd only look at tax brackets and we're left to assume that each one hold's roughly the same number of people, thus making each tax bracket equivalent to one person in the story. And that isn't right, because those tax brackets are split up by earnings not by numbers in the population.
Taxes have never been 90%. When they were baseline 90% there were so many more deductions than we have today. I still can't find any account of any individual paying much more than 40%. Stop going back to that.
@AndroidPolitician 1. Wrong. Both Japan, Germany & many other countries carved out a bigger market in automobiles, electronics etc. Capital controls don't control imports, those are decided by tariffs. #FAIL.
2. Wrong. Once again I don't have the patience to explain basic monetary economics to you.
3. There was no move towards de-industrialization and plenty of jobs went overseas.
4. Wrong. Growth were the highest in 50s & 60s and brief period in the mid 80s.
@AndroidPolitician No. "After 1952, direct private investment began to increase & portfolio investment rose markedly. In late 1950s, new private direct investment was increasing yearly by $2 billion or more. .During the 1960–73 period, value of US-held assets abroad increased by nearly 12% annually"
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) I doubt you mean outsourcing. which is contracting out some process. Ford outsources tires to other corps, and that could be a US, corp, I doubt you object to that. Offshoring seems what you mean. If WalMart fills its shelves with Chinese product, thats importing. If Ford builds factories in Mexico, Brazil, you object. 1st is importing, 2nd offshoring, and DOES require sending capital OUT. Capital going out before Bretton Woods ended.
"There is literally no evidence of this happening"
Umm yeah it's called "capital flight" and there is plenty of EVIDENCE from all over the world, Even today some estimated $10 trillion is sitting overseas. Also the EFFECTIVE tax rates in the 50s and 60s were much lower. That's why Hauser's law shows us why the revenue has remained the same.
This is why economic illiterates shouldn't make videos on ehm...economics.
Capital isn't people, rich people stay in the US even when taxes are higher. And the effective tax rates for the 50s and 60s were higher than the effective tax rates today.
That aside capital flight is because capital controls in the 70s were abolished. From the 40s to the 70s almost no capital flight happened despite taxes that were higher than today.
EFFECTIVE tax rate for the highest income bracket in 1960 was 34% and 32% today. Not much difference.
Umm yeah, hey sunshine, it was capital controls and Bretton woods that led to the stagflation and an almost complete collapse of the international monetary system. Good God my head hurts from educating your dumbass. Whatever, I got shit to study. Believe whatever the fuck you want.
No effective taxes today for the richest is 15% because effectively rich people mostly make money from investing.
Uh capital controls first of all is the reason jobs didn't go overseas which I assume is what you're arguing here, but more importantly it lead to growth rates that were unparalled today.
Take a look at average GDP growth in the 70s, it was better than any time after it.
@AndroidPolitician "Rich people mostly make money from investing" Source? And define "rich". Hell, I invest, and I am not rich. & we were talking about income tax btw.
LOL. Gold standard can't lead to inflation. Do you even know what inflation is? And nope, countries that weren't in Vietnam also suffered from stagflation.
@AndroidPolitician Fortune 500 corporations pay what they owe. They dont OWE the 35% corporate tax rate, because they are in many cases multinational. Money earned outside the US is taxed outside the US. The IRS cant just decide to tax every corporation on planet Earth. It can only if the money is brought back in, and taxes paid abroad are deducted. Foreign Tax Credit is 90% of ALL corp credits. Of course, far better to park the cash in overseas banks. CEO`s are rational.
Look there's no amount of arguing that will disprove
a) capital controls lead to higher growth and more employment.
b) capital controls do not violate property law.
c) welfare programs reduce poverty and unemployment.
and
d) The reason for vast inequality is because of a system that engrosses bankers and hurts working people, not because Bankers work 100 times harder than working people.
@AndroidPolitician Smoot Hawley tariffs passed 1929, put on over 3000 imported things, met by retaliatory tariffs from our trading partners in over 60 nations. World trade declined by 2/3. Unemployment soared from 8% to 25% in the 4 yrs following passage. Fine solution? Welfare programs simply set a level that dependent masses can refuse jobs, creating a vacuum of work that illegals stream in to take. Capital controls scare capital, keep it away, finding a means of escape
Smoot Hawley was passed in 1930 as a reaction to the depression and not even Milton Friedman thinks it lead to unemployment. That aside, Smoot Hawley was a tariff, not a capital control.
No they don't, poverty has never even been close to what it was prior to the Great Society or especially when it was 30-50% of all Americans in the 1800s. The countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare.
Weird because no jobs left when controls were in place.
@AndroidPolitician Passed in early 1929, enacted in 1930. So now, you have changed against tariffs, and only care about capital controls? I recall dozens of posts from you, falsely claiming Smith liked tariffs. You seem to think the welfare state reduced poverty, not economic growth of the industrialization and technological advances that ended an economy based on agriculture? Capital controls arent the only variable. By 1913, we had biggest economy, 7% gov, today 40%.
I never said Smith liked tariffs you fucking idiot and I even said that outright, Smith hated both tariffs and outsourcing. What I'm saying is tariffs and capital controls are not the same thing.
Ok so if it's not welfare why is it that countries like Sweden and Switzerland have the lowest poverty rates (using the same standard for all countries)?
@AndroidPolitician Culture, ethics. Strong Protestant work ethic among Swedes. Americans of Swedish ancestry have poverty level 1/2 US average, 6.7%, and the level in Sweden is 6.9%. Sweden has per capital GDP $36.6K, US $45.5K, and Americans of Swedish decent have $56.9K. 27% of Swedish households have more debt than assets, in US its 19%. Transfers to individuals in US in 1960 5% of budget, 2011 were 16.1%. Gee, great results, defense 9.3% 1960, 2011 was 4.7%.
Bahahahaha, oh wow, so how can it be possible that countries like Swaziland and South Africa which are more Protestant than the US, have more poverty? Or how countries like Germany and France, with almost no poverty have almost no protestants?
It might have something to with how the countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty.
You have to be fucking stupid to think it's "culture" or "genetics".
@AndroidPolitician This isnt rocket science. According to OECD, high school dropouts have 14.6% long term poverty rates, graduates 3.8%. Married couples with 2 kids 7.9% in poverty, single Moms 51.6%. Kids raised by a never-married Mom is 9 times more likely to be living in poverty than kids raised by two parents in marriage. Many Americans have no initiative, are pure trash, and are poor. Graduating, and not screwing until you get married is simple enough.
@AndroidPolitician Illigitimacy among black births during Great Depression was about 5%, nearly same as everyone else, today about 70%. Poverty has nothing to do with it. There was quite a high level of poverty then. What you object to is simply personal responsibility. If a guy screws all over town, no intention of helping his kids, and a woman screws every guy, without requiring a commitment first, knowing him a long time first, she, and the bastard are screwed.
I really doubt that, teenage births at a historical all time low right now and illegitimacy rates (as in percentage) is higher but the actual number is probably lower today because we have lower teenage parents overall.
The point is, single-parent homes etc. are a poor correlation for why the countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty.
Outsourcing is short for offshore outsourcing (offshoring is a bigger category).
@AndroidPolitician You play with wordsbecause you prefer not to debate. Once an industry is outsourced, cap controls are too late. When I state why tariffs harm us, you revert to outsourcing. Fine. All TV`s, radios, most electronics, toys, tools, etc are gone, the factories closed for decades. Even if cap controls work, they wont return the industries. Cap controls, fixed rates, tariffs are to cover Govt failures. Policies reducing profits, raising costs, making capital go.
If you want you can go to Wikipedia and look up "offshore outsourcing" and compare that to "outsourcing" and "off shoring" to see what I mean.
I never said the only step is to just reintroduce capital controls, we have to draw and develop industries back into the US and then put in the controls.
@AndroidPolitician You just crack me up. "Lets promise better conditions to trick them back in, then trap them". You sound like President Cardenas of Mexico. If we had followed policies allowing the US to be more profitable, the corps would still be here. I suspect that the policy you prefer is the one which would increase costs on the consumer, not decrease them.
I don't know what the President said but the point is the reason why corps stayed in the US for 30 years is because we followed policies that were both unprofitable and probably increased costs to consumers and yet resulted in much greater growth rates, wages etc. than today. They were forced to invest in the US.
It might sound silly on the surface but some kind of rebuilding of industry and "trapping" has to occur.
@AndroidPolitician Corp tax rates have been falling in OECD nations for quite a while, and environmental costs, lawsuit costs, permitting, regulations, all lower US profits. Labor is only one part, and when US Corps have better machines, productivity is what matters, not wage rates. Labor is not ALWAYS prohibitive, but this group of high costs IS. The solution is to follow policies that increase profit, here, in the US. War on Corps is a losing proposition. They give up & go
@AndroidPolitician Post 2). Lazaro Cardenas was a Mexican President in the 1930`s, who after US & other Oil interests developed the oil industry in Mexico, expropriated it. A building of industry, and trapping it. Of course, everyone thereafter knew what a piece of shit, lying, undependable piece of crap Mexico was, and it took 30 yrs until anyone ever had the balls to invest a nickel in Mexico again.
Who said jobs didn't go overseas? Germany & Japan increased their share of automobiles sold in the US. Just one of many industries where we lost jobs.
Nope. Wasn't "unparalleled" at all. 70s were marred with price controls, Nixon shock, recession of 1973 & a near 15% inflation. Apparently you don't even what "stagflation" means by definition. Just stop talking you idiot.
anyone who thinks that expanding government is a good idea only needs to look at the dmv, the post office, the public school system and even the politicians that make up the government to realize how shitty and inefficient a job they do at EVERYTHING!
ya ummm when the taxes where at 90% it was 1940 and it there wasn't as much of a globalized economy as there is today. it is 100x easier to set up shop in malaysia, pay 10 year olds 75 cents an hour to make t-shirts, and sell it back to the us. AND THAT IS WHAT IS FUCKING HAPPENING EVEN WITH A 40% TAX YOU DELUSIONAL MISINFORMED MORON!!!!! HE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT GETTING UP AND LEAVING, HE IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING HIS BUSINESS ELSEWHERE WHICH IS EVEN WORSE!!!!!!
When taxes were 90% no one paid them due to deductions. Besides that leaving was a lot harder back in the 60s. And USA was in a lot better shape compared to rest of the world than it is today. So people wanted to get IN, not out.
You don't really need any empirical evidence that people are more likely to leave if their taxes go up. It is pretty much self evident as taxes are a cost, people avoid costs. People are also incentivized to work less. Reality does support this assertion anyway though.
They're deducted taxes were still obviously greater then taxes today.
No empirical evidence? Setting aside that there is not a single case of a rich person leaving the US you're saying it's self evident you would leave the US and live in Mexico if your taxes went up?
@AndroidPolitician Prove that the deductions were not greater. Government and revenues were much smaller back then (relative to GDP), so I find it very hard to believe anyone paid higher taxes than today. But if you have some data I will believe you. Take the top say 1-5% and instead of looking at marginal tax rates look at how much taxes they pay as a group, relative to inc.
There are other places than mexico. And there sure are plenty of rich people leaving USA each year. Taxes = more likely.
Just check the revenue adjusted to GDP inc. states - deficits 60s.
Well, in fact I just saw this video of Steve Wynn. Then there is Jim Rogers...
In fact, pretty much every rich person I know something about is moving away or moving business away from US. I don't know that many well enough though.
Obviously you are more LIKELY to leave with tax rate of 80% than tax rate of 20%. Yet you argue with that.
Uh no actual cyclically adjusted revenue charts show a different story which correlates pretty obviously with effective higher taxes equaling higher revenue.
Wynn and Rogers both said they left because of taxes? I can't find anything on them saying the left because of taxes.
I argue with it because I don't see people moving en mass (or at all) to Taiwan and Somalia where taxes are obviously lower.
I agree that higher tax rates = higher revenue, unless they are a lot higher. The rates just haven't gone down but up, since you can't get deductions like you used to.
Don't give me cyclically adjusted BS. You can look at pretty much any year in 60s and all of them are lower revenue, by sizable margin (5-10% GDP). I am pretty sure you are also only looking at federal revenue.
I don't know the exact reasons why anyone leaves, but higher taxes = more likely to leave.
@AndroidPolitician Generally it isnt the rich leaving the US, people resist leaving their countries because it is home. In many cases it is just Capital leaving the US, the people stay here. Fed Reserve notes 40% of all stocks purchased inside the US today are of foreign corporations, and this is an increasing number. US Corps leaving for tax reasons is widely known, part of outsourcing.
Taxes just make leaving more likely. For some they maybe the final straw. For companies taxes are a cost like anything else, so they contribute very highly.
Anyway, I would leave if my taxes went up 20%, yup.
During recessions there is less revenue, but GDP is also smaller. But anyway, since every year of 60s the revenues were higher than pretty much every year of 2000s your point is moot. You probably got Fed revenue chart, not overall revenue.
Well that would your speculation but there has not been a single rich person to of even mentioned taxes as a reason for leaving. Haha so if push comes to shove you would live in Mexico for the rest of your of your life than pay 20% higher in taxes?
GDP growth is smaller but overall GDP is roughly the same size. And it's not a moot point, that very well could be distorted by recessions etc.
@AndroidPolitician Ok you are just idiot. You just don't understand what more likely means, and apparently because you can not find some rich person who left in the news, that means none have ever left. Yet many companies leave.
You have very similar simplistic logic on inflation too. "If we print money in recession, there won't be inflation". If you print money, prices are always going to be higher than they would have been. Further, even the CPI reports high inflation (4%), so you are wrong.
Companies are not people, moving capitol is not the same as rich people leaving and it's not "some rich person" it's finding ANY, not one single rich person. Not one.
First of all it's closer to 2% and second that's not even close to high inflation, high inflation is like 10%. Inflation will always happen because of supply and demand but when your in a liquidity trap it's extremely low.
@AndroidPolitician The percent of GDP going to the Federal Govt in taxes was about 17.3% in the 1950`s, with 91% top personal rates, and around 51% Corp tax rates. During Bush term, the top personal rate was 35%, and the corp rate 35% as well, and the percent of GDP going in taxes was about 17.4%. Top richest brackets paid more taxes after Bush cuts.
There's a supply and demand for money but we're not even at the point where we're even reaching modest inflation, let alone high inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
Capital is not what we're discussing and that has to do with profitability since capital movement was blocked by Bretton Woods.
Yes that's because those figures aren't cyclically adjusted.
@AndroidPolitician 1) What capital controls in effect for Bretton Woods? Reference? 2) Any printing of money is debasing the currency. If there are other deflationary effects at the same time, you may even have deflation, with increasing money supply, but deflation is less than it otherwise would be. Printing money is taking wealth from holders of currency 3) I agree agree business cycle affect tax revenue, but using decades of results smooths this out through many cycles
Fixing currencies is a strong disincentive to move capital and there were other direct measures countries adopted for balance of trade which Bretton Woods also required.
So where did the deflationary effects come from if bubbles are solely caused by printing money?
No it doesn't if it smoothed it out it would be flat and hurt my point.
@AndroidPolitician Bretton Woods failed, in quickly, when viewed historically. Note you are so vague, in "Other direct measures"? Why are you unable to articulate? Stock market bubble 1920`s, housing bubble 2005, both preceded a deflationary period, when bubbles burst, assets evaporated. This is deflationary. Govt tax revenue to GDP since 1950 IS cyclical, but was not at all higher, at 91% tax rates, compared to falling rates of next 50 yrs, over many business cycles.
Bretton Woods was based on a gold standard which is why it failed but capitol controls have astounding affects. Direct measures include things like VFCR but the biggest part was fixed currencies.
Deflation isn't just because of money printing you fundamentalist. Show me the increase in M2 for the 1920s, it wasn't there. Not all bubbles are because of money printing as the 20s were a massive supply-side bubble.
@AndroidPolitician Bretton woods didn't fail because it was based on a gold standard. It failed because the US expanded credit beyond the supply of gold that could actually be redeemed.
M2 isn't as meaningful as M3, and the 20's were riding the wave of monetary inflation that occurred during ww1.
@AndroidPolitician Also,we don't have M2 data going back to the 1920's. We can look at the monetary base,which shows a nearly 20% increase in the monetary base between 1922 and 1928, and the 1922 monetary base was already significantly higher than the 1916 monetary base level. Other analysts have tried to reconstruct their own versions of M2 and M3 for that period, and they reveal a massive increase in money substitutes, sometimes above 50% during the years between 22 and 29.
@tkwelge In addition, the reason why the monetary base stabilized somewhat after 25 was due to the fact that the US adopted a strategy of lowering interest rates to prevent gold from being hemorrhaged from the UK to the US. This would have slowed the growth of the monetary base, even while encouraging bubbles through money substitutes.
@AndroidPolitician I just showed you the money supply of the `20`s, on your other site, it is over 60 in 8 yrs. Bretton Woods failed because it is impossible to have many nations all tied together with fixed rates, unless they all follow the exact same monetary policy. Some nations are fiscally irresponsible, others very strict, and that makes the system fail.
No it wasn't but I generally agree with Bretton Woods failing.
Tax revenue was adjusted by the CBO and although there's a slight "curve", taxes at 100% do not result in 0 revenue it's just slightly lower than say 80%.
So you, luvcheney1, are saying we should have an 1800s money supply regardless of the population and demand for money. If America had a billion people we should still have an 1800s money supply.
@AndroidPolitician You have stated before Bretton Wodds failed, because of gold standard, now say it was an 1800`s sytem. Bretton ended in 1971, and you say the agreement was responsible for the great conditions of the postwar period. 1) make up your mind, is Bretton and gold a hallucination? 2) Was Bretton responsible for great conditions (says you), or not. 3) 100% taxes result in 80% revenue? Please refer me to this.
It wasn't exactly a gold standard it was convertible to gold, a pure gold standard is an 1800s money supply to be feasible unless you think it's possible to have a convertibility of something like .0000000 oz of gold to a dollar.
Look I'll simply this since you're a fanatic idiot who can't see distinctions:
- Bretton woods resulted in amazing conditions because of capital restrictions
But
- It was based on an unstable system that was doomed to collapse
@AndroidPolitician Reality was that when Roosevelt raised the price of gold (devalued the dollar) to $35/ oz, that was OVER the market price, and that was 1933. In addition to the increase from banning it to Americans, and having it turned in, gold flowed into the US from abroad, because the price was set too high. He did so because he wanted to inflate for years, without issues with gold. It was 11/1961 when the London Gold Pool was formed, market knew then gold was cheap
@AndroidPolitician Post 2). I suppose to you a fanatic is someone who is mentioning history? Anyway, the point is this: Gold`s price wasnt too low again until 1961, thats when the free market was determining too many dollars existed to make $35 reasonable. To state, and restate your mocking of "1800`s money supply" is absurd on 2 levels. 1) 1961 isnt 1800`s. 2) Raise the fucking price to whatever ratio is reasonable. You already hinted days ago, divide dollars by gold held.
No a fanatic is someone who manipulates and ignores history since the biggest bubble in US history, the 20s, was not because of an increase in Fed credit.
So something like .00000000001 oz per dollar is reasonable?
@AndroidPolitician Fed Statistics of the money supply show 46% money creation. Why does Govt have the right to just help itself to expropriating 46% of all the money and bank deposits developed in US history in 8 years? For inflation, or a bubble to inflate, there must be more "demand" as you like to remind us. HOW is demand expressed? With money. When Govt spews out 46% more money, it has to actually GO somewhere, and WHERE it goes inflates.
That's not how demand is expressed and is not why a bubble occurred, what caused it was supply side policy. If it was money supply than we would have massive inflation right now.
I'll ask again is something like .00000000001 oz per dollar a reasonable conversion?
@AndroidPolitician Before crash of 2008, we had money supply increases, and 1st DotCom bubble, then housing bubble. Surely you must know the crash of home prices crashed value of mortgages, even ones being paid, by the mark to market rule congress imposed? This means Trillions in assets wiped off planet, a deflation. New money now (inflation) is offsetting losses (deflation). With Gold Standard it`s expressed how many $ per oz, not how much oz per $. Gold is standard. see next
We also had deregulation and stagnant wages which lead to those bubbles. So supply and demand only works for deflation? The big question is why a modest increase in M2 that's not historically significant, lead to the biggest bubble in US history.
You did the math backwards it's gold/m2 which would be 0.0000270 oz per dollar.
@AndroidPolitician US Govt expressed definition of dollar as $20.66 gold/oz, $35 gold/oz, still $42.66/ oz. Gold the standard, dollar expressed in terms of it, not as if dollar center of system. You are misinformed on History of gold. M-2 up 83.2% from 1/95 - 1-05. Many Govt programs, agencies with goals to promote home ownership, CRA, VA, FHA, Fannie, Freddie, Low interest rates, with intent to put new money into housing. They succeeded.
By what definition? It's gold/m2 not the other way around. So a small increase in M2 lead to the greatest bubble in history?
The Fannie/CRA theory has been debunked a million times over, in fact the default rates on those loans was smaller than defaults for uninsured loans which made up the overwhelming vast majority.
@AndroidPolitician The dollar was pegged at $35/oz. Then, and still, is $42.66/oz. That is the way Govt, and everyone else expresses it. In the 1920`s, nobody expressed it as .02857. You a fucking idiot. US Dept of Housing and Urban Development made the first mortgage backed security, and Ginnie Mae sold it. Fed Govt started this as a derivative market. I Chairman Bernanke stating compliance to CRA "quid pro quo" to FDIC insurance. If Govt wants crap loans made, why not?
@luvcheney1 Post 2) 87% increase in M-2, when it ended up focused into mortgage market, due to many Federal Policies obviously was enough. Doesnt it occur to you that when everyone lives in a piece of real estate, and it is high value, and they all go up a lot, most everywhere, that additional mortgage money HAS to be created to accomplish that? You still havent commented on FACT that 30 yr US Govt bonds rose 30% in value in 2011. You say "no inflation", but there IS a bubble.
Yeah and it collapsed because there wasn't enough gold to sustain the kind of spending that the economy demanded.
Let me repeat it because you missed it the first time: default rates on gov-backed loans were smaller and only a small minority were insured. The overwhelming vast majority were privately backed. Gov insurance had virtually no effect.
Yep that would be a correlation like how a small amount of increased M2 correlated with the biggest bubble in US history.
@AndroidPolitician As if there wasnt economic growth before the Great Depression?For the 1st185 years? Really? That gold and silver coins werent money in ancient Greece, and Rome? That they werent the advanced?Is that the BS you are saying? Please explain HOW prices can go up on ho,es, if there wasnt new money to finance the higher prices.
Greece, Rome, 1930s America's etc. money supply is orders of magnitude smaller than the US economy and money supply today. What worked hundreds or thousands of years ago worked because those economies were smaller so there was enough gold to sustain them...this is like basic logic.
I've said it a million times, prices go up because of supply and demand. If prices stay the same it means the economy is staying the same.
@AndroidPolitician The amount of gold was far less, then as well, of course. This is basic logic. Far fewer mines, in far fewer places, with far more basic mining techniques. The amount is irrelevant. How much corn, orange juice, or coffee that is grown each year is irrelevant to availability, the price rises, or falls, to balance supply and demand, as with any commodity, like gold. Demand is expressed with AMOUNT of money offered. More money? Higher prices.
Are you fucking stupid? No the supply of gold was much much greater since we haven't mined all of it yet but that aside the economies were so small that using anything would of sustained them.
Money grows because economies grow, are you saying if we had 9% GDP growth for 10 years the m2 should stay the same?
Half of the Fed are rabid anti-infaltionists but notice what they said, "over the long run" which is kind of debatable only cranks think it's the only reason.
@AndroidPolitician Gold was money in many economies, from 3700 yrs ago Mesopotamia until 1971. Even before Mesopotamia, in Egypt, gold and electrum ( natural alloy of gold and silver) used as store of value. In last 2 days, Fed`s statement of loose money though 2014 sent gold soaring, increased my net worth over $14,000. Asia Pacific Central Banks adding gold too. You deny 5000 yrs of reality. If GDP exceeds M-2 growth, prices fall. 1873-1890 5% growth, falling prices, so?
@AndroidPolitician Part2) You confuse POLICY opinions ("rabid anti - inflationists) with a fact ( inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy). Everyone knows over the short run, oil and crop fluctuations, and others, influence inflation ( reason WHY Fed states LONGER RUN). Productivity growth (GDP) also has long term effects on inflation, hence the Fed states (PRIMARILY). Sorry, you happen to believe in "Magic".
You are literally too stupid to argue, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome etc. had currencies orders of magnitude SMALLER than today (<------- Are you getting this? Did you notice this part yet? There was enough gold to sustain them because amount of money circulated was tiny)
The Fed isn't saying "only money supply influences inflation" you fundamentalist, they're saying during the Long run which means full employment since supply and demand have peaked leving monetary policy.
@AndroidPolitician The Dow average in year 2000 could be bought with 40 ounces of gold. Today, it can be bought with only 7 ounces. A $150K home could be bought with 500 ozs, today, 90 ozs. The Dow average was about $35 in the 1930`s, and gold too. The Dow average was about $800 around 1980, and gold too. That was a 1 to 1 ratio. Gold today is $1725, Dow $12,000? You think I am stupid, but I`m getting rich, doing nothing, the markets agree with me, not you.
@AndroidPolitician Gold is serving as a safe haven currency, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Over 50% of all gold mined is being bought by just 2 nations, China, and India, and both have many times the population, and growing wealth and personal incomes. When a monetary event, like Bernanke saying no monetary tightening until 2014, gold surges forward. Why? Everyone knows his words mean printing money, devaluing the dollar.
First of all China and India aren't buying gold to be used for currency which would have near genocidal economic effects or be completely impractical and secondly gold prices are higher because of speculation which has nothing to do with Fed actions.
Yeah except that's for buying and selling to make a profit, what you are doing is saying prices and exchange rates are the same thing which they aren't. Exchange rates for gold are like 0.0000 oz per dollar.
@AndroidPolitician China, India`s Gov adding gold to central bank reserves. China, India`s PEOPLE saving gold personally , as store of value, for future. Both reasons are monetary, as in MONEY. I dont deny speculation is happening & speculation in currency, the dollar, Euro happen every fucking day, & gold being speculative is NOTHING different than that. People/Govts buying gold is for MONETARY reasons, responds to monetary actions. 100`s of millions invest in gold, as money
Ugghhh no they're not, they're buying gold to make a profit off, just like the US, if they used gold as a money supply (which they aren't) it would collapse the economy.
@AndroidPolitician Money has more than one function. Medium of exchange is one, but a store of value is another. India, China, and some other Asia- Pacific nations are adding to central bank reserves, wanting the benefit of the store of value function. They want greater stability in their reserves, out of fear. It is a natural, logical conclusion, given the behavior of the US, and EU. When "store of value" function gets out of hand, the medium of exchange function will wane
Sorry but commodities have "store value" not money, you don't buy dollars etc. they're using it the same way they use oil, to auction it for profit or to control it as a resource for leverage and power over other countries.
@AndroidPolitician The term is "store of value", something that can be put away over time, and redeemed in the future at a value similar to when it was put away. Most of the gold ever mined in all of history is still above ground, not consumed. Oil, and most commodities only have a very short time period of usage above ground. Over 1000`s of yrs of history, gold is the preferred store of value. Central bank, and individual current demand and price indicates its return.
@AndroidPolitician but you didnt debunk anything. you attacked the republican plan, ok. Also you dont think there is any evidence of business going over seas?
Its debunking the idea that we should only be concerned with percentages when only the rich get any kind of percent cut.
And yes, businesses have gone overseas but rich people haven't and we know why businesses went overseas and that has nothing to do with taxes but has to do with removal of capital controls.
@AndroidPolitician If Capital found the US a great place to do business, it wouldnt go overseas. Your plan is tariffs, and capital controls forcing the capital to stay here, and work in an uncompetitive way. There wont be much exports, as other nations abroad will dominate abroad, & here in the US prices will soar, as efficient business die, and inefficient ones are born, and costs rise for a multitude of reasons here. Taxes, regulations, permits, lawsuits, environment etc.
The US was never a good place to do business the reason why jobs didn't leave en mass for cheap post-war labor was because of capital controls.
Well first of all it's obvious exports will increase given that we import our products but more importantly, costs will be offset by higher growth since more people in the US will be working.
@AndroidPolitician Japan made our cheap , same as China now. Tariffs on foreign goods will be met by retaliatory ones, just like China recently retaliating against our cars, for Obama`s tire tariffs. In free trade nation, business must be in industry they do efficiently. Tariffs force capital out of the efficient industries, into the ineficient, that must make the items that they cant make efficiently. Making a nation more inefficient is silly, reason most economists oppose it
@AndroidPolitician Capital controls are inconsistent with freedom. Forcing someone as to where he invests, is merely an excuse to enable the govt to be abusive. There is no need for capital controls, when govt is not abusive. You support it, because the policies you support will render US Corps uncompetitive in the world, and capital would flee. That wont just lock the capital up to be raped, it will lock up US consumers to be raped as well. Adding layers of costs paid by THEM
A practice used by different companies to reduce costs by transferring portions of work to outside suppliers rather than completing it internally." US automakers outsourced tires to Goodyear, Firestone, etc, in the past. My Fprd F-150 truck has tires made by Hankook, a South Korean corp. In any case, automakers dont make all components, they outsource. This may result in imports, regardless of your nonsense.
@AndroidPolitician Const Art 1, Sec 8 enumerates powers of FedGovt. FedGov has NO authority to limit rights unless it is granted power in that area. This fact created a heated debate with the founders, over Bill of Rights. Some wanted BoR to state some important issues, others did NOT want them listed ( Hamilton,"bills of rights..are unnecessary in proposed Constitution, would even be dangerous), because some uneducated person would interpret we only have the rights in BoR.
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) Furthermore, private property rights are protected directly in the Bill of Rights, the 5th Amendment. If I am allowed to own property, how do I aquire it, unless I am allowed to invest, to buy it?
@AndroidPolitician Capital controls reduce the value of capital, by prohibiting it`s most effective and profitable use. Assume we protected US Steel`s ability to continue producing, even though they couldnt compete on prices. They can sell for US usage at higher prices. The Corp, and employees benefit. The rest of nation pays more for steel products, must cut back on other purchases, damaging other industries. Protected innificiency, damaged efficicieny.
No actually most people lose because it leaves behind mass unemployment, profits may increase but overall economic growth decreases.
Just look at growth for the past 30 years compared to 30 years prior, even in the 70s growth was higher the only reason the system has continued to exist is because of high profits, this is especially true now.
@AndroidPolitician Profit in the long run always returns to normal levels. Around 1980 I bought a RCA VCR for $350, thought it was a deal. Today, you can easily get a VCR, DVD player, recorder for $100, I believe I saw one for $79 at WalMart. Higher profits moves capital to China factories, until competition puts it back to normal. Profit level of US Corps goes up, and down. 2009, was very low, now is high. Recession eventually will return, profit will fall again, as usual
@AndroidPolitician 12 million illegals find work, lack of valid SS numbers prevents unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps. Avg unemployment benefit is $300 week, a minimum wage job in Ca. Libs say you cant live on minimum, but fact is many millions of Americans live on that wage anyway, without getting off the sofa. With a far smaller safety net, unemployment rates would plummet.
Undocumented immigrants have almost no impact on the official unemployment rate and growth has been the same low level for about 30 years (ie prior to many immigrants).
Are you really going to try and keep this up? Just admit that outsourcing is detrimental to the economy, it's a hopeless argument.
@AndroidPolitician By paying Americans NOT to work, we enable them to choose to stay home, rather than take jobs illegals take. This is removes them from being a job seekers, to any job they consider not suitable. They are counted as unemployed, when they are choosing not to take available work they believe is "beneath" them. My home business is cyclical and slow, I will find work in 2 or 3 days when I want to work, this June. then quit, in Aug or Sept.
@AndroidPoliticiani Paying people to do nothing damages them permanently. Myself, and many of my friends made lives and careers out of jobs we started at minimum wages. I personally know many guys who have no educations, making close to $100K a year today, and before the crash far more, with jobs they started selling cars, sometimes making minimum. I know Mexican guys, started as illegal dishwashers too, now as Managers at $50K. It took willingness to TAKE the low pay job.
@AndroidPolitician Note you wont touch the point? Unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, MediCaid all together create a minimum level of income, & that few folks will actually go to work in the economy, at any wage similar to that level. They voluntarily stay OUT. Possessing a SS number allows you to. This is the reason for many decades tens of millions upon tens of millions of illegal hispanics come here, to work at jobs those with SS numbers can CHOOSE to refuse.
@AndroidPolitician Money is a convenience. Its purpose is to be something people are willing to trade, in exchange for commodities, services, things they want/need. As such, its value in terms of real things is paramount. How often do real folks talk about exchange rates? They talk about prices. Some investors do, and some folks know exchange rates AFFECT prices, but what money can buy (a commodity) is the point of money.
@AndroidPolitician Post 3). By "magic", I mean you think printing money can create wealth. It does not create wealth, any more than mining gold can. Money, or gold as money, is simply the medium of exchange. When Spain stole Gold from the Incas and such, and brought it back to Europe, there was a devaluation of Gold`s value, because of growth in "money supply". Printing money, mining gold simply TRANSFERS wealth, from those who HOLD money, to those who increase its supply.
@AndroidPolitician Post2) Today, Federal Reserve Press release ( want the URL, private messaged to you?), "The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy". Funny but YOU said, "I`ve said it a million times, prices go up because of supply and demand". Monetary Policy is simple enough, it is expanding or contracting the money supply, which has influence on interest rates ( int rates are the price of money).
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) US Treasury says Gold 261.5 million ozs. Nov 2011 M-2 from Fed Res, dividing together is $38.000 /oz gold at 100% backing, which we never had. 10% reserve requirement, like bank deposits would mean $3800 / oz, double price a few months ago. This would require Fed STOP loaning at 0% to banks, who multiply it 9 times, and loan it out on homes at 4%, or invest in Treasuries. FED enriches banks & devalues our savings, which we worked for, they PRINT?
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) Hauser`s Law, 1946 to 2007, fed tax receipts as % of GDP averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9%. Statistics from White House Historical Tables. I value business cycles, but using 50 yrs gives plenty of opportunity for many, many cycles. The present collapse is an outlier, of course, being the wrost disaster in 75 yrs. But again, cycles explain why Bush had deficits early in Admin, why do Dems forget this, at least you have 1 good quality?
Hauser's law has been discredited a million times over, basically it uses all taxes which is problematic since revenues on income and corporate taxes fluctuate and social security taxes don't get counted as revenue.
What I was saying was there is a slight curve to taxes but it's not like the laffer curve where a 100% tax results in 0 revenue whereas in reality it results in slightly less revenue which is why Carter's revenue is only slightly higher than Clinton's.
@AndroidPolitician Post 2). Please refer me to your references to your belief that 91% tax rates had higher govt tax revenue as percent of GDP that 35% or 39.6%. I guess you would agree that the deficits of Bush, early in his term were not due to tax policy, since his term started in recession, the bursting of the Nasdaq?
Yes exactly, because of the business cycle tax revenue was roughly equal in the 50s and 2000s. You have to cyclically adjust them which shows that they were higher back then.
@AndroidPolitician Since the 50's were a more prosperous economic period than the 2000's, wouldn't you have to adjust those revenue estimates for the 50's DOWN rather than up? Obviously, people pay more taxes when profits are growing and business is good/consumer spending is rising.
M2 does actually go back to the 20s and it's a roughly 30% increase from 1920 to 1928 (as compared to close to 120% increase during WWII) but your logic of it "riding WWI" doesn't even make sense since there was a short depression in 1921.
What actually happened was a supply-side bubble that spurred irrational spending without anything dramatic on the Fed's part. Or put simpler, it's possible to have a bubble without a rapid expansion of Fed credit.
That's because gold is too small for the demand of money given the modern economy, the idea that you can have an 1800s money supply with a 2000s population is outlandish.
And when I said 2000s I basically meant 1999 which was at full employment whereas the 50s not so much.
@AndroidPolitician Gee, if $20/oz gold money supply is too small, all you do is raise the price of gold to $35, then it wouldnt be so small. OOOPS, thats exactly what Roosevelt did! If $2000 doesnt work, make it $3000, that increases it 50%. Need 100%? Make it $4000. Need 50% more? Make it whatever you want. This procedure, historically speaking is called "devaluation". Of the currency, not gold, of course.
@AndroidPolitician I asked you already WHO is adjusting your figures for you, refer me to it. The problem for you is this: You can look at 60 yrs of data, and over such a long time, business cycles come and go throughout, and the revenue govt got in the `50`s and `60`s is not high at all, compared with other long periods.
@AndroidPolitician I am reading about the capital controls now, thanks for bringing up the point. I will reply, but capital controls are obviously Anti- freedom and Liberty.
In the barstool analogy who gets the refund is obviously simple. The rich guy who's been paying the vast majority of the tab all along should get ALL of the refund. Mebbee kick a little something back to the 9th guy, who should refuse. But it is arrogant and greedy and ungrateful for the other 8 people to expect anything back. They've been taking, and taking, and taking from the rich guy all along...and to NOT show appreciation for his efforts shows an appalling lack of civility and gratitude.
All this cluelessness aside....this is the heart of the matter: people like Android and other liberal posters here think that someone paying $100,000 in taxes shouldn't get more of a tax break than someone paying $10,000 in taxes. They don't see the inherent discrepancy there. All they see is that if Mr. Middleclass gets a 10% tax cut it's unfair if Rich Basturd gets a 11% cut. Nevermind that Rich Basturd still contributes almost 10x more than Mr. Whiney.
First of all equal taxes do not have equal consequences (ie 10% of $10,000 is not the same as 10% of a million since you still have exorbitant wealth left while the first guy does not) and this is obviously extended into a regressive tax.
That aside, the rich often benefit off public utilities more (not including subsidies) such as education for their workforce, roads etc. so they should contribute more.
@AndroidPolitician The rich do NOT have to pay for education! It is simple enough to build a factory in Canada, enjoy a well educated workforce educated there. Besides, the corp tax rate is far lower. Go in ANY Ford, or Chevy dealer, and the cars ALWAYS say "US and Canadian parts content X%". NEVER says just US parts content". Gee, I wonder WHY? Roads are built with gas, diesel taxes, licensing fees, very high on big rigs, they already pay for their own fucking roads.
I never said Smith did (although he did explicit call for things like bank regulations) what he called for was not outsourcing out of a home bias and basic human decency.
The fact that you find it impossible for people not to outsource unless there's a trade barrier is kind of telling.
@AndroidPolitician Education costs money. Federal spending on education is only about 8%, it is mostly local in the US. As it is local, it also is mostly funded through property taxes. Property taxes are paid anyone owning property, and indirectly by anyone using property, like renters, or customers of corporations. Property taxes of corps are paid for by their customers, as are all corp costs.
That's the point, the rich benefit off of things like education, roads, police etc. but rarely pay for it which is violating the social contract.
And that earlier comment about corporations building roads is the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say for a while, yes materials are used but the roads are built by state workers and financed by tax payers.
typical no brain libs making wildly false statements because they just want mo monay!!!
the rich 1% pay 38% of all income taxes by themselves alone. the top 10 pay 68%. and the lower 50 pay 3%. all the while 45% of americans don't pay any at all. and most of those are the poor. so you tell me, who really isn't pulling their fair share?
Yes the Bretton Woods system effectively acted as a trade barrier against outsourcing which is why taxes were 90%.
The top 1% pays 40% of income taxes because they OWN 40% of the nation's income, this would still be true even if we had a flat tax. This claim has been debunked a million times over.
they get 19% of the income. they possess 40% of the wealth. there is a difference. when you say bill gates is worth $50 billion, that doesn't mean he has that in his bank account. by saying it you are simply acknowledging that he owns his own company. and who cares if they do? they literally finance america. without them you would be living in a mud hut that you made yourself.
They pay 28.1% in all federal taxes and own roughly as much income.
I commented and saw Whittle's massive straw man of a video, no one is advocating we confiscate all wealth let alone random billionaires and corporations, but if we confiscated all the wealth from the top 10% we would pay down about 90% of all the US debt in one year (that's debt not deficit).
@AndroidPolitician please say thats the way to go! lets eat the rich! eat everything! eat the hand that feeds us and canibalize america! sell of everything so we can put a meal on the table today and die tomorrow. if your numbers are correct then yes we could do that but than china would go from owning our capital to owning EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS IN AMERICA! sounds like a great plan. you have no idea what wealth is where it comes from or how to make it.
No one is saying we should eat the rich you idiot but the policies that cause our debt are done for the rich (tax cuts, military budget, Medicare subsidizing private care etc.).
As an example If we had single payer our healthcare outcomes would not only be better but we would be running a budget surplus from that alone.
@AndroidPolitician and how is this a straw man? people think all the money is held by the rich and if we just took it from them we could have what we want (health care, better pay). what this shows is just how little they actually have. we could take all that away from them, live for 1 year and then sink like a stone.
@AndroidPolitician do me a favor search for bill whittle's eat the rich video. watch it. and come back to me and argue. it is eye opening. but if you are so confidant that what you believe is truth this should be no problem. if you can give me 1 rational reason that this is the right way to go then i will vote for obama
the problem isn't wealth distribution because you can make your own wealth. the problem is the tax system shackleing the businesses of america. big gov ALWAYS FAILS
But here's the point, for all your fuming about the rich paying taxes based on the most basic social contract there is nothing you can address in my video.
Was there a single rich person that left because of high taxes? Did anyone but the rich get a benefit from the Republicans tax plan?
I'd suggest instead of coming here looking for an argument you actually address the video.
@AndroidPolitician According to the IRS, "SOI Tax Stats - individuals", "Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile—Early Release", then table 1, you can use a clculator, and see the top 1% paid 36.9% of all income taxes in 2009, and earned 16.9% of all national income. Top 50% pay 97%, bottom 50% pay 3%. Did you notice the incomes of the rich fell 34% 2007-2009?? Bottom 50% only 3%?
Federally they pay 28.1% of all federal taxes but have double the wealth.
Income for the rich doubled over the past 30 years (quadrupling for the top 0.01%) as compared to almost no movement at all for the bottom 90%. It's kind of disingenuous to look at 3 years.
@AndroidPolitician Printing money, (abandoning sound money, off gold ) changed the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, from a producer, to a consumer. THIS is result of Federal Reserve, created by Congress & Lib Progressive Wilson. Tax productivity, tax investing, reward failure. Reward mortgage debt. Low interest rates encourage debt, discourage saving. These are GOVT Policies. NOT the rich! ALL policies creating stupid, unproductive, poverty inducing behavior.
@AndroidPolitician Your repeated nostalgia for Bretton Woods agreement is confusing to me. The system had as its main point Gold. The US govt was to maintain the dollar/ Gold ratio at $35/ounce, & other nations would peg their own currencies to ours, and to stay in an agreed range. This was a gold standard, with fixed exchange rates. The US kept printing money anyway, and eventually the Free Market knew gold would rise, & in 1971, gold standard ( Bretton) died.
Pegging currencies had the consequence of being an effective trade barrier for outsourcing which is what kept jobs inside the country since capital couldn't move to cheaper post-war Europe.
I'm obviously not for the gold standard but I am either for pegging currencies or restricting outsourcing outright.
@AndroidPolitician It's funny that you care so much about the right income distribution.
But when your employers/jobs are setting sales to poorer countries you start to bark.
Enacting trade barriers just makes everyone poorer.
Pegging currencies was not why capital didn't move. Rather there had to be capital controls for the system (Fixed exchange rate and monetary autonomy) to work.
@AndroidPolitician Pegging currencies didnt work in the long run, as it is not possible to peg, unless you stop printing. The Euro is a new attempt to peg nations together, with one currency, without Gold being the peg. This system is also bound to fail eventually too, as the only possible way for it to work is if each European member of the zone pursues identical fiscal restraint. This is impossible. Germans fear inflation ( Weimar), show restraint. see next
@AndroidPolitician Post2). Greece, Italy, Spain are stupid, show far less restraint than the Germans, so there is a dilemma. They must behave better, cut size of Govt drastically, OR strong nations (germany mainly) will bail out the stupid. Austerity will rule, or Germany will inflate and wreck its own country, and collapse will still come. Cut Govt, or inflate and kill the Euro. US in same process, either cut govt, or inflate and destroy dollar. You say trade barriers.
@AndroidPolitician Post3). Barriers. Put barrier on Chinese tires, high enough to stimulate growth in US tire industry. You see growth, jobs, profits in US tire corps. Every person pays more for tires, and each must cut back on something else. There is decline in jobs, profit, in every place tire consumers cut back too. It a wash. Real damage is transfer of trade from existing efficient corps, to a non- competitive industry. Economy is less efficient, damaged productivity.
Not to mention the Bar Stool Economics story is an analogy. It's 10 years old. Of course the percentages don't match up. What are you trying to get at. Not to mention that the graphs you show'd only look at tax brackets and we're left to assume that each one hold's roughly the same number of people, thus making each tax bracket equivalent to one person in the story. And that isn't right, because those tax brackets are split up by earnings not by numbers in the population.
TheAJOlding 4 days ago
Taxes have never been 90%. When they were baseline 90% there were so many more deductions than we have today. I still can't find any account of any individual paying much more than 40%. Stop going back to that.
TheAJOlding 4 days ago
@TheAJOlding
Taxes were effectively higher in the 50s than effectively today and increased from almost nothing. No rich people left.
That has nothing to do with the principle of rich people paying lower taxes as percents.
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
this guy pisses me off so much! he is a reply blockerbanner
MrRazzeldazzel88 6 days ago
@H1TMANactual
1. They come from companies deciding to invest in a country, from WWII to the 70s, capital controls "caged" companies to only invest in the US.
2. Monetarism said the exact same thing that's why monetarists wanted to remove fixed exchange rates (in this case the gold standard).
3. There was a very slow move towards deindustrialization but no job actually went overseas.
4. Real growth (growth adjusted for inflation) was still higher in 70s.
These are the facts.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician 1. Wrong. Both Japan, Germany & many other countries carved out a bigger market in automobiles, electronics etc. Capital controls don't control imports, those are decided by tariffs. #FAIL.
2. Wrong. Once again I don't have the patience to explain basic monetary economics to you.
3. There was no move towards de-industrialization and plenty of jobs went overseas.
4. Wrong. Growth were the highest in 50s & 60s and brief period in the mid 80s.
Try again.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician No. "After 1952, direct private investment began to increase & portfolio investment rose markedly. In late 1950s, new private direct investment was increasing yearly by $2 billion or more. .During the 1960–73 period, value of US-held assets abroad increased by nearly 12% annually"
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
2/2
FDI, DPI etc. isn't outsourcing. Outsourcing is outsourcing, and that didn't happen until capital controls were removed.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) I doubt you mean outsourcing. which is contracting out some process. Ford outsources tires to other corps, and that could be a US, corp, I doubt you object to that. Offshoring seems what you mean. If WalMart fills its shelves with Chinese product, thats importing. If Ford builds factories in Mexico, Brazil, you object. 1st is importing, 2nd offshoring, and DOES require sending capital OUT. Capital going out before Bretton Woods ended.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
"There is literally no evidence of this happening"
Umm yeah it's called "capital flight" and there is plenty of EVIDENCE from all over the world, Even today some estimated $10 trillion is sitting overseas. Also the EFFECTIVE tax rates in the 50s and 60s were much lower. That's why Hauser's law shows us why the revenue has remained the same.
This is why economic illiterates shouldn't make videos on ehm...economics.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago in playlist More videos from AndroidPolitician
@H1TMANactual
Capital isn't people, rich people stay in the US even when taxes are higher. And the effective tax rates for the 50s and 60s were higher than the effective tax rates today.
That aside capital flight is because capital controls in the 70s were abolished. From the 40s to the 70s almost no capital flight happened despite taxes that were higher than today.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Yeah no shit "capital isn't people". Are you stupid?
EFFECTIVE tax rate for the highest income bracket in 1960 was 34% and 32% today. Not much difference.
Umm yeah, hey sunshine, it was capital controls and Bretton woods that led to the stagflation and an almost complete collapse of the international monetary system. Good God my head hurts from educating your dumbass. Whatever, I got shit to study. Believe whatever the fuck you want.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
No effective taxes today for the richest is 15% because effectively rich people mostly make money from investing.
Uh capital controls first of all is the reason jobs didn't go overseas which I assume is what you're arguing here, but more importantly it lead to growth rates that were unparalled today.
Take a look at average GDP growth in the 70s, it was better than any time after it.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician "Rich people mostly make money from investing" Source? And define "rich". Hell, I invest, and I am not rich. & we were talking about income tax btw.
LOL. Gold standard can't lead to inflation. Do you even know what inflation is? And nope, countries that weren't in Vietnam also suffered from stagflation.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
The fortune 500 pay an average of around 15%. The only way that's possible is if they only invest.
No but gold standards limit currency output which increased leading to inflation.
Yes jobs went overseas because Nixon removed capital controls.
So are you going to actually look at the growth rate in the 70s? I'll give you a hint: it's greater than now or the 90s or the 80s.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Fortune 500 corporations pay what they owe. They dont OWE the 35% corporate tax rate, because they are in many cases multinational. Money earned outside the US is taxed outside the US. The IRS cant just decide to tax every corporation on planet Earth. It can only if the money is brought back in, and taxes paid abroad are deducted. Foreign Tax Credit is 90% of ALL corp credits. Of course, far better to park the cash in overseas banks. CEO`s are rational.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Look there's no amount of arguing that will disprove
a) capital controls lead to higher growth and more employment.
b) capital controls do not violate property law.
c) welfare programs reduce poverty and unemployment.
and
d) The reason for vast inequality is because of a system that engrosses bankers and hurts working people, not because Bankers work 100 times harder than working people.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Smoot Hawley tariffs passed 1929, put on over 3000 imported things, met by retaliatory tariffs from our trading partners in over 60 nations. World trade declined by 2/3. Unemployment soared from 8% to 25% in the 4 yrs following passage. Fine solution? Welfare programs simply set a level that dependent masses can refuse jobs, creating a vacuum of work that illegals stream in to take. Capital controls scare capital, keep it away, finding a means of escape
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Smoot Hawley was passed in 1930 as a reaction to the depression and not even Milton Friedman thinks it lead to unemployment. That aside, Smoot Hawley was a tariff, not a capital control.
No they don't, poverty has never even been close to what it was prior to the Great Society or especially when it was 30-50% of all Americans in the 1800s. The countries with the least poverty have the most generous welfare.
Weird because no jobs left when controls were in place.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Passed in early 1929, enacted in 1930. So now, you have changed against tariffs, and only care about capital controls? I recall dozens of posts from you, falsely claiming Smith liked tariffs. You seem to think the welfare state reduced poverty, not economic growth of the industrialization and technological advances that ended an economy based on agriculture? Capital controls arent the only variable. By 1913, we had biggest economy, 7% gov, today 40%.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
I never said Smith liked tariffs you fucking idiot and I even said that outright, Smith hated both tariffs and outsourcing. What I'm saying is tariffs and capital controls are not the same thing.
Ok so if it's not welfare why is it that countries like Sweden and Switzerland have the lowest poverty rates (using the same standard for all countries)?
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Culture, ethics. Strong Protestant work ethic among Swedes. Americans of Swedish ancestry have poverty level 1/2 US average, 6.7%, and the level in Sweden is 6.9%. Sweden has per capital GDP $36.6K, US $45.5K, and Americans of Swedish decent have $56.9K. 27% of Swedish households have more debt than assets, in US its 19%. Transfers to individuals in US in 1960 5% of budget, 2011 were 16.1%. Gee, great results, defense 9.3% 1960, 2011 was 4.7%.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Bahahahaha, oh wow, so how can it be possible that countries like Swaziland and South Africa which are more Protestant than the US, have more poverty? Or how countries like Germany and France, with almost no poverty have almost no protestants?
It might have something to with how the countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty.
You have to be fucking stupid to think it's "culture" or "genetics".
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician This isnt rocket science. According to OECD, high school dropouts have 14.6% long term poverty rates, graduates 3.8%. Married couples with 2 kids 7.9% in poverty, single Moms 51.6%. Kids raised by a never-married Mom is 9 times more likely to be living in poverty than kids raised by two parents in marriage. Many Americans have no initiative, are pure trash, and are poor. Graduating, and not screwing until you get married is simple enough.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
@luvcheney1
Oh gee and what causes single-parent households and high school dropouts?
It's poverty and unemployment which is caused mostly by outsourcing. Social programs are caused by economic problems not the other way around.
It's not just a coincidence that social problems increased when jobs left the US.
AndroidPolitician 6 days ago
@AndroidPolitician Illigitimacy among black births during Great Depression was about 5%, nearly same as everyone else, today about 70%. Poverty has nothing to do with it. There was quite a high level of poverty then. What you object to is simply personal responsibility. If a guy screws all over town, no intention of helping his kids, and a woman screws every guy, without requiring a commitment first, knowing him a long time first, she, and the bastard are screwed.
luvcheney1 6 days ago
@luvcheney1
I really doubt that, teenage births at a historical all time low right now and illegitimacy rates (as in percentage) is higher but the actual number is probably lower today because we have lower teenage parents overall.
The point is, single-parent homes etc. are a poor correlation for why the countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty.
Outsourcing is short for offshore outsourcing (offshoring is a bigger category).
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
@AndroidPolitician You play with wordsbecause you prefer not to debate. Once an industry is outsourced, cap controls are too late. When I state why tariffs harm us, you revert to outsourcing. Fine. All TV`s, radios, most electronics, toys, tools, etc are gone, the factories closed for decades. Even if cap controls work, they wont return the industries. Cap controls, fixed rates, tariffs are to cover Govt failures. Policies reducing profits, raising costs, making capital go.
luvcheney1 3 days ago
@luvcheney1
If you want you can go to Wikipedia and look up "offshore outsourcing" and compare that to "outsourcing" and "off shoring" to see what I mean.
I never said the only step is to just reintroduce capital controls, we have to draw and develop industries back into the US and then put in the controls.
AndroidPolitician 3 days ago
@AndroidPolitician You just crack me up. "Lets promise better conditions to trick them back in, then trap them". You sound like President Cardenas of Mexico. If we had followed policies allowing the US to be more profitable, the corps would still be here. I suspect that the policy you prefer is the one which would increase costs on the consumer, not decrease them.
luvcheney1 3 days ago
@luvcheney1
I don't know what the President said but the point is the reason why corps stayed in the US for 30 years is because we followed policies that were both unprofitable and probably increased costs to consumers and yet resulted in much greater growth rates, wages etc. than today. They were forced to invest in the US.
It might sound silly on the surface but some kind of rebuilding of industry and "trapping" has to occur.
AndroidPolitician 2 days ago
@AndroidPolitician Corp tax rates have been falling in OECD nations for quite a while, and environmental costs, lawsuit costs, permitting, regulations, all lower US profits. Labor is only one part, and when US Corps have better machines, productivity is what matters, not wage rates. Labor is not ALWAYS prohibitive, but this group of high costs IS. The solution is to follow policies that increase profit, here, in the US. War on Corps is a losing proposition. They give up & go
luvcheney1 1 day ago
@luvcheney1
Taxes in OECD nations after World War II were lower if not non-existent (in the case of Germany) yet capital was trapped in the US.
Seriously it's a losing argument, you're not going to change the reality that corporations were forced to stay and would of left if they could.
If I recall Mexico economically did pretty well with ISI. It was only after it deregulated that growth started falling.
AndroidPolitician 1 hour ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2). Lazaro Cardenas was a Mexican President in the 1930`s, who after US & other Oil interests developed the oil industry in Mexico, expropriated it. A building of industry, and trapping it. Of course, everyone thereafter knew what a piece of shit, lying, undependable piece of crap Mexico was, and it took 30 yrs until anyone ever had the balls to invest a nickel in Mexico again.
luvcheney1 1 day ago
@AndroidPolitician (2/2)
Who said jobs didn't go overseas? Germany & Japan increased their share of automobiles sold in the US. Just one of many industries where we lost jobs.
Nope. Wasn't "unparalleled" at all. 70s were marred with price controls, Nixon shock, recession of 1973 & a near 15% inflation. Apparently you don't even what "stagflation" means by definition. Just stop talking you idiot.
H1TMANactual 1 week ago
@H1TMANactual
(cont.)
And one last thing, it was the gold standard and money spending on Vietnam that lead to stagflation, not capital controls.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
anyone who thinks that expanding government is a good idea only needs to look at the dmv, the post office, the public school system and even the politicians that make up the government to realize how shitty and inefficient a job they do at EVERYTHING!
jinx121991 1 month ago
ya ummm when the taxes where at 90% it was 1940 and it there wasn't as much of a globalized economy as there is today. it is 100x easier to set up shop in malaysia, pay 10 year olds 75 cents an hour to make t-shirts, and sell it back to the us. AND THAT IS WHAT IS FUCKING HAPPENING EVEN WITH A 40% TAX YOU DELUSIONAL MISINFORMED MORON!!!!! HE ISN'T TALKING ABOUT GETTING UP AND LEAVING, HE IS TALKING ABOUT TAKING HIS BUSINESS ELSEWHERE WHICH IS EVEN WORSE!!!!!!
jinx121991 1 month ago
When taxes were 90% no one paid them due to deductions. Besides that leaving was a lot harder back in the 60s. And USA was in a lot better shape compared to rest of the world than it is today. So people wanted to get IN, not out.
You don't really need any empirical evidence that people are more likely to leave if their taxes go up. It is pretty much self evident as taxes are a cost, people avoid costs. People are also incentivized to work less. Reality does support this assertion anyway though.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@Keyguya
They're deducted taxes were still obviously greater then taxes today.
No empirical evidence? Setting aside that there is not a single case of a rich person leaving the US you're saying it's self evident you would leave the US and live in Mexico if your taxes went up?
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Prove that the deductions were not greater. Government and revenues were much smaller back then (relative to GDP), so I find it very hard to believe anyone paid higher taxes than today. But if you have some data I will believe you. Take the top say 1-5% and instead of looking at marginal tax rates look at how much taxes they pay as a group, relative to inc.
There are other places than mexico. And there sure are plenty of rich people leaving USA each year. Taxes = more likely.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@Keyguya
To measure revenue you have to use cyclically adjusted revenue which shows that when taxes were 90% it was obviously more revenue than today.
Name a single rich person who said they left because of taxes. Name one.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician There was no more revenue than today:
usgovernmentspending com
Just check the revenue adjusted to GDP inc. states - deficits 60s.
Well, in fact I just saw this video of Steve Wynn. Then there is Jim Rogers...
In fact, pretty much every rich person I know something about is moving away or moving business away from US. I don't know that many well enough though.
Obviously you are more LIKELY to leave with tax rate of 80% than tax rate of 20%. Yet you argue with that.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@Keyguya
Uh no actual cyclically adjusted revenue charts show a different story which correlates pretty obviously with effective higher taxes equaling higher revenue.
Wynn and Rogers both said they left because of taxes? I can't find anything on them saying the left because of taxes.
I argue with it because I don't see people moving en mass (or at all) to Taiwan and Somalia where taxes are obviously lower.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician
I agree that higher tax rates = higher revenue, unless they are a lot higher. The rates just haven't gone down but up, since you can't get deductions like you used to.
Don't give me cyclically adjusted BS. You can look at pretty much any year in 60s and all of them are lower revenue, by sizable margin (5-10% GDP). I am pretty sure you are also only looking at federal revenue.
I don't know the exact reasons why anyone leaves, but higher taxes = more likely to leave.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@Keyguya
You need to cyclically adjust it because during recessions there's less revenue and during boom periods there's high revenue.
Taxes are virtually no reason at all, are you telling me if your taxes went up 20% tomorrow you would just pack your bags and leave forever?
The same can be said for rich people which is why there has not been a single case of a rich person saying they left because of taxes.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Generally it isnt the rich leaving the US, people resist leaving their countries because it is home. In many cases it is just Capital leaving the US, the people stay here. Fed Reserve notes 40% of all stocks purchased inside the US today are of foreign corporations, and this is an increasing number. US Corps leaving for tax reasons is widely known, part of outsourcing.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician
Taxes just make leaving more likely. For some they maybe the final straw. For companies taxes are a cost like anything else, so they contribute very highly.
Anyway, I would leave if my taxes went up 20%, yup.
During recessions there is less revenue, but GDP is also smaller. But anyway, since every year of 60s the revenues were higher than pretty much every year of 2000s your point is moot. You probably got Fed revenue chart, not overall revenue.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@Keyguya
Well that would your speculation but there has not been a single rich person to of even mentioned taxes as a reason for leaving. Haha so if push comes to shove you would live in Mexico for the rest of your of your life than pay 20% higher in taxes?
GDP growth is smaller but overall GDP is roughly the same size. And it's not a moot point, that very well could be distorted by recessions etc.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Ok you are just idiot. You just don't understand what more likely means, and apparently because you can not find some rich person who left in the news, that means none have ever left. Yet many companies leave.
You have very similar simplistic logic on inflation too. "If we print money in recession, there won't be inflation". If you print money, prices are always going to be higher than they would have been. Further, even the CPI reports high inflation (4%), so you are wrong.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@Keyguya
Companies are not people, moving capitol is not the same as rich people leaving and it's not "some rich person" it's finding ANY, not one single rich person. Not one.
First of all it's closer to 2% and second that's not even close to high inflation, high inflation is like 10%. Inflation will always happen because of supply and demand but when your in a liquidity trap it's extremely low.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician The percent of GDP going to the Federal Govt in taxes was about 17.3% in the 1950`s, with 91% top personal rates, and around 51% Corp tax rates. During Bush term, the top personal rate was 35%, and the corp rate 35% as well, and the percent of GDP going in taxes was about 17.4%. Top richest brackets paid more taxes after Bush cuts.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
There's a supply and demand for money but we're not even at the point where we're even reaching modest inflation, let alone high inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
Capital is not what we're discussing and that has to do with profitability since capital movement was blocked by Bretton Woods.
Yes that's because those figures aren't cyclically adjusted.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician 1) What capital controls in effect for Bretton Woods? Reference? 2) Any printing of money is debasing the currency. If there are other deflationary effects at the same time, you may even have deflation, with increasing money supply, but deflation is less than it otherwise would be. Printing money is taking wealth from holders of currency 3) I agree agree business cycle affect tax revenue, but using decades of results smooths this out through many cycles
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Fixing currencies is a strong disincentive to move capital and there were other direct measures countries adopted for balance of trade which Bretton Woods also required.
So where did the deflationary effects come from if bubbles are solely caused by printing money?
No it doesn't if it smoothed it out it would be flat and hurt my point.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Bretton Woods failed, in quickly, when viewed historically. Note you are so vague, in "Other direct measures"? Why are you unable to articulate? Stock market bubble 1920`s, housing bubble 2005, both preceded a deflationary period, when bubbles burst, assets evaporated. This is deflationary. Govt tax revenue to GDP since 1950 IS cyclical, but was not at all higher, at 91% tax rates, compared to falling rates of next 50 yrs, over many business cycles.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Bretton Woods was based on a gold standard which is why it failed but capitol controls have astounding affects. Direct measures include things like VFCR but the biggest part was fixed currencies.
Deflation isn't just because of money printing you fundamentalist. Show me the increase in M2 for the 1920s, it wasn't there. Not all bubbles are because of money printing as the 20s were a massive supply-side bubble.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Bretton woods didn't fail because it was based on a gold standard. It failed because the US expanded credit beyond the supply of gold that could actually be redeemed.
M2 isn't as meaningful as M3, and the 20's were riding the wave of monetary inflation that occurred during ww1.
tkwelge 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Also,we don't have M2 data going back to the 1920's. We can look at the monetary base,which shows a nearly 20% increase in the monetary base between 1922 and 1928, and the 1922 monetary base was already significantly higher than the 1916 monetary base level. Other analysts have tried to reconstruct their own versions of M2 and M3 for that period, and they reveal a massive increase in money substitutes, sometimes above 50% during the years between 22 and 29.
tkwelge 1 month ago
@tkwelge In addition, the reason why the monetary base stabilized somewhat after 25 was due to the fact that the US adopted a strategy of lowering interest rates to prevent gold from being hemorrhaged from the UK to the US. This would have slowed the growth of the monetary base, even while encouraging bubbles through money substitutes.
tkwelge 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician I just showed you the money supply of the `20`s, on your other site, it is over 60 in 8 yrs. Bretton Woods failed because it is impossible to have many nations all tied together with fixed rates, unless they all follow the exact same monetary policy. Some nations are fiscally irresponsible, others very strict, and that makes the system fail.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
No it wasn't but I generally agree with Bretton Woods failing.
Tax revenue was adjusted by the CBO and although there's a slight "curve", taxes at 100% do not result in 0 revenue it's just slightly lower than say 80%.
So you, luvcheney1, are saying we should have an 1800s money supply regardless of the population and demand for money. If America had a billion people we should still have an 1800s money supply.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician You have stated before Bretton Wodds failed, because of gold standard, now say it was an 1800`s sytem. Bretton ended in 1971, and you say the agreement was responsible for the great conditions of the postwar period. 1) make up your mind, is Bretton and gold a hallucination? 2) Was Bretton responsible for great conditions (says you), or not. 3) 100% taxes result in 80% revenue? Please refer me to this.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
It wasn't exactly a gold standard it was convertible to gold, a pure gold standard is an 1800s money supply to be feasible unless you think it's possible to have a convertibility of something like .0000000 oz of gold to a dollar.
Look I'll simply this since you're a fanatic idiot who can't see distinctions:
- Bretton woods resulted in amazing conditions because of capital restrictions
But
- It was based on an unstable system that was doomed to collapse
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Reality was that when Roosevelt raised the price of gold (devalued the dollar) to $35/ oz, that was OVER the market price, and that was 1933. In addition to the increase from banning it to Americans, and having it turned in, gold flowed into the US from abroad, because the price was set too high. He did so because he wanted to inflate for years, without issues with gold. It was 11/1961 when the London Gold Pool was formed, market knew then gold was cheap
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2). I suppose to you a fanatic is someone who is mentioning history? Anyway, the point is this: Gold`s price wasnt too low again until 1961, thats when the free market was determining too many dollars existed to make $35 reasonable. To state, and restate your mocking of "1800`s money supply" is absurd on 2 levels. 1) 1961 isnt 1800`s. 2) Raise the fucking price to whatever ratio is reasonable. You already hinted days ago, divide dollars by gold held.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
No a fanatic is someone who manipulates and ignores history since the biggest bubble in US history, the 20s, was not because of an increase in Fed credit.
So something like .00000000001 oz per dollar is reasonable?
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Fed Statistics of the money supply show 46% money creation. Why does Govt have the right to just help itself to expropriating 46% of all the money and bank deposits developed in US history in 8 years? For inflation, or a bubble to inflate, there must be more "demand" as you like to remind us. HOW is demand expressed? With money. When Govt spews out 46% more money, it has to actually GO somewhere, and WHERE it goes inflates.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
That's not how demand is expressed and is not why a bubble occurred, what caused it was supply side policy. If it was money supply than we would have massive inflation right now.
I'll ask again is something like .00000000001 oz per dollar a reasonable conversion?
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Before crash of 2008, we had money supply increases, and 1st DotCom bubble, then housing bubble. Surely you must know the crash of home prices crashed value of mortgages, even ones being paid, by the mark to market rule congress imposed? This means Trillions in assets wiped off planet, a deflation. New money now (inflation) is offsetting losses (deflation). With Gold Standard it`s expressed how many $ per oz, not how much oz per $. Gold is standard. see next
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
We also had deregulation and stagnant wages which lead to those bubbles. So supply and demand only works for deflation? The big question is why a modest increase in M2 that's not historically significant, lead to the biggest bubble in US history.
You did the math backwards it's gold/m2 which would be 0.0000270 oz per dollar.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician US Govt expressed definition of dollar as $20.66 gold/oz, $35 gold/oz, still $42.66/ oz. Gold the standard, dollar expressed in terms of it, not as if dollar center of system. You are misinformed on History of gold. M-2 up 83.2% from 1/95 - 1-05. Many Govt programs, agencies with goals to promote home ownership, CRA, VA, FHA, Fannie, Freddie, Low interest rates, with intent to put new money into housing. They succeeded.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
By what definition? It's gold/m2 not the other way around. So a small increase in M2 lead to the greatest bubble in history?
The Fannie/CRA theory has been debunked a million times over, in fact the default rates on those loans was smaller than defaults for uninsured loans which made up the overwhelming vast majority.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician The dollar was pegged at $35/oz. Then, and still, is $42.66/oz. That is the way Govt, and everyone else expresses it. In the 1920`s, nobody expressed it as .02857. You a fucking idiot. US Dept of Housing and Urban Development made the first mortgage backed security, and Ginnie Mae sold it. Fed Govt started this as a derivative market. I Chairman Bernanke stating compliance to CRA "quid pro quo" to FDIC insurance. If Govt wants crap loans made, why not?
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1 Post 2) 87% increase in M-2, when it ended up focused into mortgage market, due to many Federal Policies obviously was enough. Doesnt it occur to you that when everyone lives in a piece of real estate, and it is high value, and they all go up a lot, most everywhere, that additional mortgage money HAS to be created to accomplish that? You still havent commented on FACT that 30 yr US Govt bonds rose 30% in value in 2011. You say "no inflation", but there IS a bubble.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Yeah and it collapsed because there wasn't enough gold to sustain the kind of spending that the economy demanded.
Let me repeat it because you missed it the first time: default rates on gov-backed loans were smaller and only a small minority were insured. The overwhelming vast majority were privately backed. Gov insurance had virtually no effect.
Yep that would be a correlation like how a small amount of increased M2 correlated with the biggest bubble in US history.
AndroidPolitician 4 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician As if there wasnt economic growth before the Great Depression?For the 1st185 years? Really? That gold and silver coins werent money in ancient Greece, and Rome? That they werent the advanced?Is that the BS you are saying? Please explain HOW prices can go up on ho,es, if there wasnt new money to finance the higher prices.
luvcheney1 4 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Greece, Rome, 1930s America's etc. money supply is orders of magnitude smaller than the US economy and money supply today. What worked hundreds or thousands of years ago worked because those economies were smaller so there was enough gold to sustain them...this is like basic logic.
I've said it a million times, prices go up because of supply and demand. If prices stay the same it means the economy is staying the same.
AndroidPolitician 4 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician The amount of gold was far less, then as well, of course. This is basic logic. Far fewer mines, in far fewer places, with far more basic mining techniques. The amount is irrelevant. How much corn, orange juice, or coffee that is grown each year is irrelevant to availability, the price rises, or falls, to balance supply and demand, as with any commodity, like gold. Demand is expressed with AMOUNT of money offered. More money? Higher prices.
luvcheney1 4 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Are you fucking stupid? No the supply of gold was much much greater since we haven't mined all of it yet but that aside the economies were so small that using anything would of sustained them.
Money grows because economies grow, are you saying if we had 9% GDP growth for 10 years the m2 should stay the same?
Half of the Fed are rabid anti-infaltionists but notice what they said, "over the long run" which is kind of debatable only cranks think it's the only reason.
AndroidPolitician 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Gold was money in many economies, from 3700 yrs ago Mesopotamia until 1971. Even before Mesopotamia, in Egypt, gold and electrum ( natural alloy of gold and silver) used as store of value. In last 2 days, Fed`s statement of loose money though 2014 sent gold soaring, increased my net worth over $14,000. Asia Pacific Central Banks adding gold too. You deny 5000 yrs of reality. If GDP exceeds M-2 growth, prices fall. 1873-1890 5% growth, falling prices, so?
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Part2) You confuse POLICY opinions ("rabid anti - inflationists) with a fact ( inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy). Everyone knows over the short run, oil and crop fluctuations, and others, influence inflation ( reason WHY Fed states LONGER RUN). Productivity growth (GDP) also has long term effects on inflation, hence the Fed states (PRIMARILY). Sorry, you happen to believe in "Magic".
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
You are literally too stupid to argue, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome etc. had currencies orders of magnitude SMALLER than today (<------- Are you getting this? Did you notice this part yet? There was enough gold to sustain them because amount of money circulated was tiny)
The Fed isn't saying "only money supply influences inflation" you fundamentalist, they're saying during the Long run which means full employment since supply and demand have peaked leving monetary policy.
AndroidPolitician 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician The Dow average in year 2000 could be bought with 40 ounces of gold. Today, it can be bought with only 7 ounces. A $150K home could be bought with 500 ozs, today, 90 ozs. The Dow average was about $35 in the 1930`s, and gold too. The Dow average was about $800 around 1980, and gold too. That was a 1 to 1 ratio. Gold today is $1725, Dow $12,000? You think I am stupid, but I`m getting rich, doing nothing, the markets agree with me, not you.
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Yes because those are commodity prices not exchange values you massive retard.
Gold unlike dollars is a commodity with it's own price, there is no "price" for currency, just exchange values.
AndroidPolitician 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Gold is serving as a safe haven currency, regardless of your opinion on the matter. Over 50% of all gold mined is being bought by just 2 nations, China, and India, and both have many times the population, and growing wealth and personal incomes. When a monetary event, like Bernanke saying no monetary tightening until 2014, gold surges forward. Why? Everyone knows his words mean printing money, devaluing the dollar.
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
First of all China and India aren't buying gold to be used for currency which would have near genocidal economic effects or be completely impractical and secondly gold prices are higher because of speculation which has nothing to do with Fed actions.
Yeah except that's for buying and selling to make a profit, what you are doing is saying prices and exchange rates are the same thing which they aren't. Exchange rates for gold are like 0.0000 oz per dollar.
AndroidPolitician 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician China, India`s Gov adding gold to central bank reserves. China, India`s PEOPLE saving gold personally , as store of value, for future. Both reasons are monetary, as in MONEY. I dont deny speculation is happening & speculation in currency, the dollar, Euro happen every fucking day, & gold being speculative is NOTHING different than that. People/Govts buying gold is for MONETARY reasons, responds to monetary actions. 100`s of millions invest in gold, as money
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Ugghhh no they're not, they're buying gold to make a profit off, just like the US, if they used gold as a money supply (which they aren't) it would collapse the economy.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Money has more than one function. Medium of exchange is one, but a store of value is another. India, China, and some other Asia- Pacific nations are adding to central bank reserves, wanting the benefit of the store of value function. They want greater stability in their reserves, out of fear. It is a natural, logical conclusion, given the behavior of the US, and EU. When "store of value" function gets out of hand, the medium of exchange function will wane
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Sorry but commodities have "store value" not money, you don't buy dollars etc. they're using it the same way they use oil, to auction it for profit or to control it as a resource for leverage and power over other countries.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician The term is "store of value", something that can be put away over time, and redeemed in the future at a value similar to when it was put away. Most of the gold ever mined in all of history is still above ground, not consumed. Oil, and most commodities only have a very short time period of usage above ground. Over 1000`s of yrs of history, gold is the preferred store of value. Central bank, and individual current demand and price indicates its return.
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician but you didnt debunk anything. you attacked the republican plan, ok. Also you dont think there is any evidence of business going over seas?
Naptownstreetsquid 2 weeks ago
@Naptownstreetsquid
Its debunking the idea that we should only be concerned with percentages when only the rich get any kind of percent cut.
And yes, businesses have gone overseas but rich people haven't and we know why businesses went overseas and that has nothing to do with taxes but has to do with removal of capital controls.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician If Capital found the US a great place to do business, it wouldnt go overseas. Your plan is tariffs, and capital controls forcing the capital to stay here, and work in an uncompetitive way. There wont be much exports, as other nations abroad will dominate abroad, & here in the US prices will soar, as efficient business die, and inefficient ones are born, and costs rise for a multitude of reasons here. Taxes, regulations, permits, lawsuits, environment etc.
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
The US was never a good place to do business the reason why jobs didn't leave en mass for cheap post-war labor was because of capital controls.
Well first of all it's obvious exports will increase given that we import our products but more importantly, costs will be offset by higher growth since more people in the US will be working.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Japan made our cheap , same as China now. Tariffs on foreign goods will be met by retaliatory ones, just like China recently retaliating against our cars, for Obama`s tire tariffs. In free trade nation, business must be in industry they do efficiently. Tariffs force capital out of the efficient industries, into the ineficient, that must make the items that they cant make efficiently. Making a nation more inefficient is silly, reason most economists oppose it
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Outsourcing and importing are not the same thing. Tariffs are completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Secondly for about 30 years after WWII what every basically did was agree to restrict outsourcing via capital controls in the Bretton Woods system.
AndroidPolitician 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Capital controls are inconsistent with freedom. Forcing someone as to where he invests, is merely an excuse to enable the govt to be abusive. There is no need for capital controls, when govt is not abusive. You support it, because the policies you support will render US Corps uncompetitive in the world, and capital would flee. That wont just lock the capital up to be raped, it will lock up US consumers to be raped as well. Adding layers of costs paid by THEM
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician From investopedia, "Definition of 'Outsourcing'
A practice used by different companies to reduce costs by transferring portions of work to outside suppliers rather than completing it internally." US automakers outsourced tires to Goodyear, Firestone, etc, in the past. My Fprd F-150 truck has tires made by Hankook, a South Korean corp. In any case, automakers dont make all components, they outsource. This may result in imports, regardless of your nonsense.
luvcheney1 2 weeks ago
@luvcheney1
Investpedia probably has a different definition for importing.
And how is investing "freedom"? I don't happen to recall a right to invest or "freedom of investment".
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Const Art 1, Sec 8 enumerates powers of FedGovt. FedGov has NO authority to limit rights unless it is granted power in that area. This fact created a heated debate with the founders, over Bill of Rights. Some wanted BoR to state some important issues, others did NOT want them listed ( Hamilton,"bills of rights..are unnecessary in proposed Constitution, would even be dangerous), because some uneducated person would interpret we only have the rights in BoR.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) Furthermore, private property rights are protected directly in the Bill of Rights, the 5th Amendment. If I am allowed to own property, how do I aquire it, unless I am allowed to invest, to buy it?
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Capital controls are not depriving property because last time I checked:
a) the people didn't own a factory in Mexico/China prior to the decision to do so and
b) most controls are just heavy fines or taxes and
c) the workers have every right to buy and control the factory or control it through eminent domain.
It was only because of blatant judicial activism like Local 1330 v. U.S. Steel that that's barely even possible.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Capital controls reduce the value of capital, by prohibiting it`s most effective and profitable use. Assume we protected US Steel`s ability to continue producing, even though they couldnt compete on prices. They can sell for US usage at higher prices. The Corp, and employees benefit. The rest of nation pays more for steel products, must cut back on other purchases, damaging other industries. Protected innificiency, damaged efficicieny.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
No actually most people lose because it leaves behind mass unemployment, profits may increase but overall economic growth decreases.
Just look at growth for the past 30 years compared to 30 years prior, even in the 70s growth was higher the only reason the system has continued to exist is because of high profits, this is especially true now.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Profit in the long run always returns to normal levels. Around 1980 I bought a RCA VCR for $350, thought it was a deal. Today, you can easily get a VCR, DVD player, recorder for $100, I believe I saw one for $79 at WalMart. Higher profits moves capital to China factories, until competition puts it back to normal. Profit level of US Corps goes up, and down. 2009, was very low, now is high. Recession eventually will return, profit will fall again, as usual
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Not when there's mass unemployment it doesn't. In fact, growth has not returned to what it was pre-1970 in all the years after that.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician 12 million illegals find work, lack of valid SS numbers prevents unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps. Avg unemployment benefit is $300 week, a minimum wage job in Ca. Libs say you cant live on minimum, but fact is many millions of Americans live on that wage anyway, without getting off the sofa. With a far smaller safety net, unemployment rates would plummet.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Undocumented immigrants have almost no impact on the official unemployment rate and growth has been the same low level for about 30 years (ie prior to many immigrants).
Are you really going to try and keep this up? Just admit that outsourcing is detrimental to the economy, it's a hopeless argument.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician By paying Americans NOT to work, we enable them to choose to stay home, rather than take jobs illegals take. This is removes them from being a job seekers, to any job they consider not suitable. They are counted as unemployed, when they are choosing not to take available work they believe is "beneath" them. My home business is cyclical and slow, I will find work in 2 or 3 days when I want to work, this June. then quit, in Aug or Sept.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
No it doesn't it allows them to use invest their benefits for a better life.
- Poverty rates in the US have never been as high as they were prior to the Great Society, they have never been as high as the 1800s.
- The countries with the most generous welfare have the least poverty (not counting benefits as income).
All this completely destroys any notion that welfare promotes poverty or unemployment.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPoliticiani Paying people to do nothing damages them permanently. Myself, and many of my friends made lives and careers out of jobs we started at minimum wages. I personally know many guys who have no educations, making close to $100K a year today, and before the crash far more, with jobs they started selling cars, sometimes making minimum. I know Mexican guys, started as illegal dishwashers too, now as Managers at $50K. It took willingness to TAKE the low pay job.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@luvcheney1
Well who you know is kind of pointless when we have entire countries showing that the more generous welfare is the less poverty there is.
That aside, I know people that were on welfare and minimum wage for a time but now make $80k.
AndroidPolitician 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Note you wont touch the point? Unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, MediCaid all together create a minimum level of income, & that few folks will actually go to work in the economy, at any wage similar to that level. They voluntarily stay OUT. Possessing a SS number allows you to. This is the reason for many decades tens of millions upon tens of millions of illegal hispanics come here, to work at jobs those with SS numbers can CHOOSE to refuse.
luvcheney1 1 week ago
@AndroidPolitician Money is a convenience. Its purpose is to be something people are willing to trade, in exchange for commodities, services, things they want/need. As such, its value in terms of real things is paramount. How often do real folks talk about exchange rates? They talk about prices. Some investors do, and some folks know exchange rates AFFECT prices, but what money can buy (a commodity) is the point of money.
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 3). By "magic", I mean you think printing money can create wealth. It does not create wealth, any more than mining gold can. Money, or gold as money, is simply the medium of exchange. When Spain stole Gold from the Incas and such, and brought it back to Europe, there was a devaluation of Gold`s value, because of growth in "money supply". Printing money, mining gold simply TRANSFERS wealth, from those who HOLD money, to those who increase its supply.
luvcheney1 3 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Post2) Today, Federal Reserve Press release ( want the URL, private messaged to you?), "The inflation rate over the longer run is primarily determined by monetary policy". Funny but YOU said, "I`ve said it a million times, prices go up because of supply and demand". Monetary Policy is simple enough, it is expanding or contracting the money supply, which has influence on interest rates ( int rates are the price of money).
luvcheney1 4 weeks ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) US Treasury says Gold 261.5 million ozs. Nov 2011 M-2 from Fed Res, dividing together is $38.000 /oz gold at 100% backing, which we never had. 10% reserve requirement, like bank deposits would mean $3800 / oz, double price a few months ago. This would require Fed STOP loaning at 0% to banks, who multiply it 9 times, and loan it out on homes at 4%, or invest in Treasuries. FED enriches banks & devalues our savings, which we worked for, they PRINT?
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2) Hauser`s Law, 1946 to 2007, fed tax receipts as % of GDP averaged 17.9%, with a range from 14.4% to 20.9%. Statistics from White House Historical Tables. I value business cycles, but using 50 yrs gives plenty of opportunity for many, many cycles. The present collapse is an outlier, of course, being the wrost disaster in 75 yrs. But again, cycles explain why Bush had deficits early in Admin, why do Dems forget this, at least you have 1 good quality?
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Hauser's law has been discredited a million times over, basically it uses all taxes which is problematic since revenues on income and corporate taxes fluctuate and social security taxes don't get counted as revenue.
What I was saying was there is a slight curve to taxes but it's not like the laffer curve where a 100% tax results in 0 revenue whereas in reality it results in slightly less revenue which is why Carter's revenue is only slightly higher than Clinton's.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Post 2). Please refer me to your references to your belief that 91% tax rates had higher govt tax revenue as percent of GDP that 35% or 39.6%. I guess you would agree that the deficits of Bush, early in his term were not due to tax policy, since his term started in recession, the bursting of the Nasdaq?
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Part 2
Yes exactly, because of the business cycle tax revenue was roughly equal in the 50s and 2000s. You have to cyclically adjust them which shows that they were higher back then.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Since the 50's were a more prosperous economic period than the 2000's, wouldn't you have to adjust those revenue estimates for the 50's DOWN rather than up? Obviously, people pay more taxes when profits are growing and business is good/consumer spending is rising.
tkwelge 1 month ago
@tkwelge
M2 does actually go back to the 20s and it's a roughly 30% increase from 1920 to 1928 (as compared to close to 120% increase during WWII) but your logic of it "riding WWI" doesn't even make sense since there was a short depression in 1921.
What actually happened was a supply-side bubble that spurred irrational spending without anything dramatic on the Fed's part. Or put simpler, it's possible to have a bubble without a rapid expansion of Fed credit.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@tkwelge
That's because gold is too small for the demand of money given the modern economy, the idea that you can have an 1800s money supply with a 2000s population is outlandish.
And when I said 2000s I basically meant 1999 which was at full employment whereas the 50s not so much.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Gee, if $20/oz gold money supply is too small, all you do is raise the price of gold to $35, then it wouldnt be so small. OOOPS, thats exactly what Roosevelt did! If $2000 doesnt work, make it $3000, that increases it 50%. Need 100%? Make it $4000. Need 50% more? Make it whatever you want. This procedure, historically speaking is called "devaluation". Of the currency, not gold, of course.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician I asked you already WHO is adjusting your figures for you, refer me to it. The problem for you is this: You can look at 60 yrs of data, and over such a long time, business cycles come and go throughout, and the revenue govt got in the `50`s and `60`s is not high at all, compared with other long periods.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician I am reading about the capital controls now, thanks for bringing up the point. I will reply, but capital controls are obviously Anti- freedom and Liberty.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
In the barstool analogy who gets the refund is obviously simple. The rich guy who's been paying the vast majority of the tab all along should get ALL of the refund. Mebbee kick a little something back to the 9th guy, who should refuse. But it is arrogant and greedy and ungrateful for the other 8 people to expect anything back. They've been taking, and taking, and taking from the rich guy all along...and to NOT show appreciation for his efforts shows an appalling lack of civility and gratitude.
dydxyzzwhy 2 months ago
All this cluelessness aside....this is the heart of the matter: people like Android and other liberal posters here think that someone paying $100,000 in taxes shouldn't get more of a tax break than someone paying $10,000 in taxes. They don't see the inherent discrepancy there. All they see is that if Mr. Middleclass gets a 10% tax cut it's unfair if Rich Basturd gets a 11% cut. Nevermind that Rich Basturd still contributes almost 10x more than Mr. Whiney.
dydxyzzwhy 2 months ago
@dydxyzzwhy
First of all equal taxes do not have equal consequences (ie 10% of $10,000 is not the same as 10% of a million since you still have exorbitant wealth left while the first guy does not) and this is obviously extended into a regressive tax.
That aside, the rich often benefit off public utilities more (not including subsidies) such as education for their workforce, roads etc. so they should contribute more.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician The rich do NOT have to pay for education! It is simple enough to build a factory in Canada, enjoy a well educated workforce educated there. Besides, the corp tax rate is far lower. Go in ANY Ford, or Chevy dealer, and the cars ALWAYS say "US and Canadian parts content X%". NEVER says just US parts content". Gee, I wonder WHY? Roads are built with gas, diesel taxes, licensing fees, very high on big rigs, they already pay for their own fucking roads.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
I never said Smith did (although he did explicit call for things like bank regulations) what he called for was not outsourcing out of a home bias and basic human decency.
The fact that you find it impossible for people not to outsource unless there's a trade barrier is kind of telling.
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
So what if every country decided to not have an educational system and corporations had nowhere to go to?
This is just talking about utility not even about the consequences of having 300 million of illiterate people in the US.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Education costs money. Federal spending on education is only about 8%, it is mostly local in the US. As it is local, it also is mostly funded through property taxes. Property taxes are paid anyone owning property, and indirectly by anyone using property, like renters, or customers of corporations. Property taxes of corps are paid for by their customers, as are all corp costs.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
That's the point, the rich benefit off of things like education, roads, police etc. but rarely pay for it which is violating the social contract.
And that earlier comment about corporations building roads is the dumbest thing I've heard anyone say for a while, yes materials are used but the roads are built by state workers and financed by tax payers.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician you are soooooo stupid...
typical no brain libs making wildly false statements because they just want mo monay!!!
the rich 1% pay 38% of all income taxes by themselves alone. the top 10 pay 68%. and the lower 50 pay 3%. all the while 45% of americans don't pay any at all. and most of those are the poor. so you tell me, who really isn't pulling their fair share?
jinx121991 1 month ago
@jinx121991
Yes the Bretton Woods system effectively acted as a trade barrier against outsourcing which is why taxes were 90%.
The top 1% pays 40% of income taxes because they OWN 40% of the nation's income, this would still be true even if we had a flat tax. This claim has been debunked a million times over.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician WRONG AGAIN!!!! you make it too easy for me
they get 19% of the income. they possess 40% of the wealth. there is a difference. when you say bill gates is worth $50 billion, that doesn't mean he has that in his bank account. by saying it you are simply acknowledging that he owns his own company. and who cares if they do? they literally finance america. without them you would be living in a mud hut that you made yourself.
jinx121991 1 month ago
@jinx121991
They pay 28.1% in all federal taxes and own roughly as much income.
I commented and saw Whittle's massive straw man of a video, no one is advocating we confiscate all wealth let alone random billionaires and corporations, but if we confiscated all the wealth from the top 10% we would pay down about 90% of all the US debt in one year (that's debt not deficit).
(Cont.)
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician please say thats the way to go! lets eat the rich! eat everything! eat the hand that feeds us and canibalize america! sell of everything so we can put a meal on the table today and die tomorrow. if your numbers are correct then yes we could do that but than china would go from owning our capital to owning EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS IN AMERICA! sounds like a great plan. you have no idea what wealth is where it comes from or how to make it.
btw what qualifies you to speak abt this?
jinx121991 1 month ago
@jinx121991
No one is saying we should eat the rich you idiot but the policies that cause our debt are done for the rich (tax cuts, military budget, Medicare subsidizing private care etc.).
As an example If we had single payer our healthcare outcomes would not only be better but we would be running a budget surplus from that alone.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician and how is this a straw man? people think all the money is held by the rich and if we just took it from them we could have what we want (health care, better pay). what this shows is just how little they actually have. we could take all that away from them, live for 1 year and then sink like a stone.
jinx121991 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician do me a favor search for bill whittle's eat the rich video. watch it. and come back to me and argue. it is eye opening. but if you are so confidant that what you believe is truth this should be no problem. if you can give me 1 rational reason that this is the right way to go then i will vote for obama
the problem isn't wealth distribution because you can make your own wealth. the problem is the tax system shackleing the businesses of america. big gov ALWAYS FAILS
jinx121991 1 month ago
@jinx121991
But here's the point, for all your fuming about the rich paying taxes based on the most basic social contract there is nothing you can address in my video.
Was there a single rich person that left because of high taxes? Did anyone but the rich get a benefit from the Republicans tax plan?
I'd suggest instead of coming here looking for an argument you actually address the video.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician According to the IRS, "SOI Tax Stats - individuals", "Individual Income Tax Returns with Positive Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) Returns Classified by Tax Percentile—Early Release", then table 1, you can use a clculator, and see the top 1% paid 36.9% of all income taxes in 2009, and earned 16.9% of all national income. Top 50% pay 97%, bottom 50% pay 3%. Did you notice the incomes of the rich fell 34% 2007-2009?? Bottom 50% only 3%?
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Federally they pay 28.1% of all federal taxes but have double the wealth.
Income for the rich doubled over the past 30 years (quadrupling for the top 0.01%) as compared to almost no movement at all for the bottom 90%. It's kind of disingenuous to look at 3 years.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Printing money, (abandoning sound money, off gold ) changed the US from a creditor nation to a debtor nation, from a producer, to a consumer. THIS is result of Federal Reserve, created by Congress & Lib Progressive Wilson. Tax productivity, tax investing, reward failure. Reward mortgage debt. Low interest rates encourage debt, discourage saving. These are GOVT Policies. NOT the rich! ALL policies creating stupid, unproductive, poverty inducing behavior.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Are you psychotic or are you just bad at reading?
Here let me simplify it:
In the past 30 years:
Top 1% - doubled wealth it's wealth.
Bottom 99% - had almost no wealth gain.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Your repeated nostalgia for Bretton Woods agreement is confusing to me. The system had as its main point Gold. The US govt was to maintain the dollar/ Gold ratio at $35/ounce, & other nations would peg their own currencies to ours, and to stay in an agreed range. This was a gold standard, with fixed exchange rates. The US kept printing money anyway, and eventually the Free Market knew gold would rise, & in 1971, gold standard ( Bretton) died.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@luvcheney1
Pegging currencies had the consequence of being an effective trade barrier for outsourcing which is what kept jobs inside the country since capital couldn't move to cheaper post-war Europe.
I'm obviously not for the gold standard but I am either for pegging currencies or restricting outsourcing outright.
AndroidPolitician 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician It's funny that you care so much about the right income distribution.
But when your employers/jobs are setting sales to poorer countries you start to bark.
Enacting trade barriers just makes everyone poorer.
Pegging currencies was not why capital didn't move. Rather there had to be capital controls for the system (Fixed exchange rate and monetary autonomy) to work.
Keyguya 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Pegging currencies didnt work in the long run, as it is not possible to peg, unless you stop printing. The Euro is a new attempt to peg nations together, with one currency, without Gold being the peg. This system is also bound to fail eventually too, as the only possible way for it to work is if each European member of the zone pursues identical fiscal restraint. This is impossible. Germans fear inflation ( Weimar), show restraint. see next
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Post2). Greece, Italy, Spain are stupid, show far less restraint than the Germans, so there is a dilemma. They must behave better, cut size of Govt drastically, OR strong nations (germany mainly) will bail out the stupid. Austerity will rule, or Germany will inflate and wreck its own country, and collapse will still come. Cut Govt, or inflate and kill the Euro. US in same process, either cut govt, or inflate and destroy dollar. You say trade barriers.
luvcheney1 1 month ago
@AndroidPolitician Post3). Barriers. Put barrier on Chinese tires, high enough to stimulate growth in US tire industry. You see growth, jobs, profits in US tire corps. Every person pays more for tires, and each must cut back on something else. There is decline in jobs, profit, in every place tire consumers cut back too. It a wash. Real damage is transfer of trade from existing efficient corps, to a non- competitive industry. Economy is less efficient, damaged productivity.
luvcheney1 1 month ago