Post: #101

(06-29-2014 04:08 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  I don't know if anyone remembers, but the neo-feminists nixed most the "shovel ready" projects at the beginning of the "Big Stimulus" package because they weren't giving enough jobs to women.

I remember it well. They said that "burly men" shouldn't be the only ones benefitting from this infrastructure payola - so the money went to nurses, teachers, etc. Not exactly what it is was intended for, and not what a moribund construction sector needed.

I also remember Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate for the republican nomination, observing that "My dog has created more shovel ready projects than the Obama administration".

I'm no fan of the GOP - they are influenced too much by religious zealots for my tastes. But for shear destructive capacity, you can't top today's Democrats.

Post: #102

(06-29-2014 10:56 AM)The Father Wrote:  "Is headed" is a very conclusory statement. If you change it to "could be headed", I would agree with you: The factors you name below COULD lead to a very nasty outcome. However, they pale in comparison to the factors that COULD have spelled doom for the U.S. in the 1970's and 80's and early 1990's, but didn't. In fact, we went on to our richest economy ever (2007). Some of those factors were:

Nothing is absolutely certain when it comes to economics of course. I addressed the whole probability issue in another post. Maybe a president or reformer will come along who will enact serious policies that will stem the hemorrhaging going on. However, I wouldn't hold my breath for some economic Jesus to come along and wave his mission statement around to lead everyone to salvation.

Also, that booming gdp you are talking about was mostly due to the effects of the golden age from 1949 (after the post-ww2 mini recession) up until around 1970. The 70's onward was when the real benefits of GDP prosperity was largely being lost on the middle/lower class.

The GDP and stock market increased from 80-90's and this was also the period when:

Traditional families were being dismantled in favor of the dual income approach.

Massive amounts of outsourcing that bled a large portion of the blue collar middle class dry. The stock market increase was representative of large value stocks (big corp.) doing well but a non impact on your average American citizen.

The start of mass deregulation of the financial markets. First in the 80's then in the 90's with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which opened up the doors to the subprime crisis of 2008 and the increasing role of private sector banking on U.S. economic policy.

Quote:- The Cold War: This may seem quant to most people on this page, but schoolkids in the 1970s and 80s went to school every day wondering if this would be the day the soviets would nuke us. Start at 2:02 of this clip, that all school kids were shown.

The cold war is an example of a potential exogenous event that was always in the minds of policymakers and the U.S. public but actually had little real impact on the actual economy. The economy didn't even receive a significant bump through the usual Keynesian type spending that actual wartime build up gets either. It was more or less a non-event for the economy (until after the Soviet collapse) but a significant event for history.

This is quite different from the actual wasteful spending we are seeing being poured into our current expensive foreign policy "obligations" everywhere.

Quote:- An over-reliance on oil at a time when a cartel (OPEC) explicitly stated it would seek to deny us that oil.

The OPEC embargo was the equivalent of children throwing a tantrum. It was never going to have long term traction even though the short term impact was serious. OPEC actually shot itself in the foot because the resulting policy changes did not benefit them in the least. OPEC nations were highly reliant on the U.S. even then so it was a situation that was inevitably going to end.

Quote:- An economic boom in Japan that resulted in much of the prime real estate in New York, Los Angeles, and Hawaii being acquired by the Japanese and the general consensus, as expressed on the floor of the House of Representatives by Majority Leader Dick Gephardt that in the 1990's the U.S. would "not be a factor" in the global economy (this seems to be wishful thinking on the part of some Democrats in every generation).

Most of the alarmists were wealthy founders and CEOs of large American corporations who didn't like the increased competition and used their media clout to express that. The idea of Japan overtaking the U.S. was never a serious concern with people who knew what they were talking about it. It was just media fodder for the masses and to stoke nationalist feelings and various favorable trade policies. It was also used as a convenient scapegoat to dismantle the domestic automobile industry and ship it abroad.

Quote:You would do well to learn more about derivatives. How, exactly, are they "theft"?

It's not derivatives that were the problem and I never implied as such. A "method" is not a cause. The primary issue was and still is the pattern of deregulation which allowed derivatives to be used as instruments to defraud the public.

Do you really feel that missrepresenting credit worthiness and stuffing billions of dollars in derivatives full of complex junk (without real oversight) is how the financial markets should operate?

Post: #103

(06-29-2014 12:40 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The fact that real wages haven't increased in the U.S. since 1970 is an incredibly staggering and disgraceful fact. The reality is that workers should be making something like 2.5x their current wages in order to have the same purchasing power that working people did in 1970. So your standard $40k per year job should actually be paying around $100k, and guys pulling in six-figures should be making correspondingly more.

Exactly, the effect has been more or less a mortgaging away of America's future by slowly crushing the middle class.

In return you get cheap consumer goods and the illusion of prosperity which only benefits a very small percentage of the U.S. population.

Just consider it's almost always better to pay twice or multiples for the same consumer goods you could buy now while getting paid a wage that has theoretically kept up with inflation. The reason why is that you can always make decisions as a consumer on the other hand getting screwed from stagnant wages is something you can't do much about except to try and join the very small percentage of elite which most people falsely think is achievable except under exceptional circumstances.

Selling the typical American dream that it's possible to bootstrap your way to elite status is marketing snake oil to the ignorant masses so they don't get too antsy about their relatively low station in life.

Post: #104

This is news!

Post: #105

Lots of good discussions above and its a credit to us as men: Can you name me a women's blog ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD that discusses such topics?? Women's blogs are almost exclusively 1) mommy blogs that engage in navel-gazing ...isn't it wonderful that junior spit up so well or 2) feminasty griping that the reason men don't desire their fat, hairy asses isn't due to the nature of human sexuality, but because patriarchy.

One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity? Or would it be more "fair" if that wealth was distributed more evenly to the less-abled -- even though this would necessarily mean redistributing wealth FROM the people who created it TO people who had nothing to do with it?

So what do we owe the blue-collar and lower-skilled white collar workers among us? I would argue it is opportunity to compete to the best of their abilities (i.e., no affirmative action, female-first policies), and a booming economy that creates jobs. Further, I think we owe them our paternalism, a culture that says "Hey sorry to come across as judgmental, but if you are going to have kids out of wedlock we are going to shame you rather than put you on the dole".

Government, of course, is not interested in any of these things, at least not primarily interested: Government is interested in preserving and expanding its own power. So I think we should revert to the founders vision of limited government and instead give the wealthiest among us the problem: In exchange for something they want (lower estate taxes, perhaps), lets task the 1% with achieving, within 15 years, a less top-heavy distribution of income.

Post: #106

(06-29-2014 04:56 PM)The Father Wrote:  One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity?

Most people don't understand that GDP growth is only tangentially related to the well being of the middle/lower class. Just look at some developing countries out there with explosive growth but their lower class is still shit and their middle class is largely stagnant. Benefits can be marginal. You have to take a closer look at what the GDP growth is coming from and what impact it has on actual development.

Top heavy benefits going to corporations can skew GDP, as well as government spending, a commodities boom etc... It could be due to any number of reasons that have little visible impact on the average person.

There's also nothing inherently wrong with being rich and I certainly don't believe that wealth redistribution (except with fair taxation) is the key. The problem is when the elite uses their wealth to influence politics and enact policies (through lobbyists) that are the antithesis of capitalism. I'm talking about monopolies, pork barrel, mass outsourcing, importation of excess labor to mash down wages, etc.. These are the hallmarks of the corruption that big business interests has on politics that Alexander Hamilton pointed out back in the day. You can't prevent _all_ of this type of political influence from happening but you must maintain a system of checks and balances.

The whole American system was founded on that and when you start removing all these safety measures then it has an overall corrupting effect. It essentially turns the U.S. into a nation run by plutocrats who answer to business overlords. This is not becoming more _capitalist_ but heading towards a kleptocracy where people on the top just divvy up a everything. If you want to look at what that's like just take a close look at various developing nations where the ultra rich do whatever they want.

Post: #107

(06-29-2014 05:25 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 04:56 PM)The Father Wrote:  One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity?

Most people don't understand that GDP growth is only tangentially related to the well being of the middle/lower class.

I don't understand that, either

Post: #108

(06-29-2014 05:30 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 05:25 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 04:56 PM)The Father Wrote:  One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity?

Most people don't understand that GDP growth is only tangentially related to the well being of the middle/lower class.

I don't understand that, either

Benefits don't just automatically "trickle down" to the poor and middle class is what i'm saying. It has more to do with where the development is actually going during periods of gdp growth.

Post: #109

(06-29-2014 03:24 PM)The Father Wrote:  Finance is nothing but a conduit of capital from where it is to where it is wanted, in the same way a hose is a conduit of water from where it is (an underground well) to where it is needed (your garden). You can whine all you like about how nice it was when the water was in the well, but that's not where people wanted it, or they would have simply left it there.

This analogy is perfectly apt, although incomplete. In theory, the financial system is indeed a conduit that efficiently allocates money throughout the economy. In this regard it is like a hose spreading water from the well (money from banks, investors, institutions) to plants that need water (companies seeking capital). This is exactly the sort of analogy that Wall Street guys themselves always use.

The problem is that while it was true once, it no longer describes reality. Today's financial system is still a hose, but it has a giant cistern connected to one of its many outflows. This cistern serves absolutely no productive purpose except to store water for the use of its owners. The water is not used to water any plants, it just sits there after having been siphoned off from the rest.

Because the financial sector is a conduit, as you say, it is impossible for it to create any real wealth except through acting in this role. Any additional wealth it "creates" is therefore actually money being siphoned off during the process. To illustrate this example, picture the financial sector as being not a conduit of water, but of people: a train. People can pay a fare to board the train and travel from one destination to another. In this manner the train serves a valuable economic function by helping to facilitate transportation. The money earned from providing this service would represent the net economic value the service provided (assuming a free market allowing for an equilibrium price to emerge).

The modern financial sector, however, is like a train that not only charges people a fare to ride, but employs a gang of pickpockets to rob its passengers while they are on board. In this manner they are able to grow much wealthier themselves, but the wealth they generate has no economic benefit - it's simply a transfer payment from their customers to themselves. It is entirely zero sum. This is the real reason that the financial sector has more than doubled in size since the 1970s. It isn't that finance is suddenly providing twice as much value to the economy, it's simply that they've become increasingly shrewd and sophisticated in their ability to siphon away money while they ostensibly act as a conduit between investors and companies.

Objecting to the obscene bloat of the financial sector has nothing to do with class warfare, socialism or any other sort of leftist economics. It is simply recognizing a massive inefficiency within the economy, one that would not exist in a true free market. In fact, it is only big government's protection of the financial sector which has allowed it to grow so bloated over the past few decades. The true conservative, free market approach would favor the destruction of the unholy alliance between big capital and big government, which would result in both losing a considerable amount of power. This power would return to the hands of workers and small businesses, resulting in greater wealth generation and a more robust and free market.

Post: #110

(06-29-2014 06:23 PM)scorpion Wrote:  The modern financial sector, however, is like a train that not only charges people a fare to ride, but employs a gang of pickpockets to rob its passengers while they are on board.

How so? I've heard a lot of finance-bashing today, but no actual examples of how it is evil. So absent that, I conclude this is probably the result of one of two possibilities:

1) People have internalized the main-stream media propaganda that rich people are bad, or
2) People are naturally jealous of those who make more than them, even though most (not all) of these people made so much more than them because they are some combination of the following: Smarter, harder working, more aggressive, better educated, took bigger risks. Note that the last 4 are entirely in your control.

Post: #111

(06-29-2014 05:34 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 05:30 PM)The Father Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 05:25 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 04:56 PM)The Father Wrote:  One thing I note above is that there are two focuses: One on the economy as a whole, and secondly on middle and lower class folks. Its an interesting dichotomy that calls into question the very definition of "fairness" itself: Is it inherently unfair that the Bill Gates and Sergey Brin's of the world, due largely to their own efforts, get to become billionaires and keep the fruits of their labor and creativity?

Most people don't understand that GDP growth is only tangentially related to the well being of the middle/lower class.

I don't understand that, either

Benefits don't just automatically "trickle down" to the poor and middle class is what i'm saying. It has more to do with where the development is actually going during periods of gdp growth.

OK. Just take the richest nations by GDP per capita, according to the IMF: They are:

Singapore 64,584
Norway 54,947
United States 53,101
Hong Kong 52,722
Switzerland 46,430
Canada 43,472
Australia 43,073

(Note that I've left off a few rich outliers that are scarcely populated, such as San Marino, Luxembourg, Qatar, Brunei. Luxembourg has 500,000 people. The University of Michigan college campus nearly rivals that!).

Now, take your average schmoe in any of those countries. Now take the guy who shines his shoes, and i'll bet he has a better life than the average schmoe in any of the MIDDLE ten countries:

94 Turkmenistan 9,510
95 Albania 9,506
96 Maldives 9,173
97 Jamaica 9,048
98 Marshall Islands 8,990
99 Belize 8,716
100 Bosnia and Herzegovina 8,280
101 Guyana 8,250
102 Namibia 8,191
103 Tonga

The guy who cuts my hair also owns a bar. The guy who shines my shoes probably has a flat screen. He certainly has indoor plumbing and lives in a relatively crime-free neighborhood.

Not to mention the bottom countries...have any plans to vacation in Burundi or the Central African Republic? Me either!

So yeah, I think being poor or middle class in a rich country (i.e., a country w/ a high GDP per capita) likely means you are better off for it.

Post: #112

Japan is running a much larger version of QE than what the United States has. With globalization, I'd be shocked if America was the first one to go down - they would be a casualty in the domino effect though.

Post: #113

(06-29-2014 07:22 PM)The Father Wrote:  So yeah, I think being poor or middle class in a rich country (i.e., a country w/ a high GDP per capita) likely means you are better off for it.

I never said that when you compare developed and developing countries side by side they had a similar quality of life for the middle class. That's a false equivalence.

I'm saying that the effects of increasing gdp in a country are not necessarily felt from _within_ the same country by the middle/lower classes due to a variety of reasons.

Developed countries had decades of growth to invest in infrastructure, education, stable institutions, etc..

The question is where is that gdp growth going towards now in the U.S.?

Each country is its own particular case profile where you have to look at the specific circumstances.

For example the Philippines has been growing at a rate of around 7% the middle class is still tiny, the poor vast, and the rich are getting richer. Where does that GDP go? Well, it goes straight up to the wealthy who are majority stakeholders in both real estate, agribusiness, and other commodities trade.


What about the U.S. ? Where does that GDP growth disappear off to if the middle class isn't feeling it? Hmmm..

Post: #114

(06-29-2014 07:12 PM)The Father Wrote:  How so? I've heard a lot of finance-bashing today, but no actual examples of how it is evil. So absent that, I conclude this is probably the result of one of two possibilities:

1) People have internalized the main-stream media propaganda that rich people are bad, or
2) People are naturally jealous of those who make more than them, even though most (not all) of these people made so much more than them because they are some combination of the following: Smarter, harder working, more aggressive, better educated, took bigger risks. Note that the last 4 are entirely in your control.

Read the last paragraph of my post again. I stated clearly that the criticism I leveled has absolutely nothing to do with any kind of envy or "soak the rich" rhetoric. As for evidence of how the financial sector has been engaging in this type of behavior...have you been in a coma since 2008 or something? I can appreciate that you may have a difference of opinion, but an objective look at the facts paints a very clear picture: the financial system is extremely bloated and siphoning money away from the productive economy.

Post: #115

It seems even central bankers are coming out and saying the shit is about to hit the fan again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/busine...iness&_r=0

Quote:The organization, which reflects a widespread view among central bankers that they are bearing more than their share of the burden of fixing the global economy, often uses its annual reports to send a message to political leaders, commercial bankers and investors. But the B.I.S.’s language in the 2014 edition was unusually direct, as was its warning that the world could be hurtling toward a new crisis.

“There is a disappointing element of déjà vu in all this,” Claudio Borio, head of the monetary and economic department at the B.I.S., said in an interview ahead of Sunday’s release of the report.

He described the report “as a call to action.”

The organization said governments should do more to improve the performance of their economies, such as reducing restrictions on hiring and firing. The report also urged banks to raise more capital as a cushion against risk and to speed efforts to deal with past problems. Countries that are growing quickly, like some emerging markets, must be alert to the danger of overheating, the group said.

“The signs of financial imbalances are there,” Mr. Borio said. “That’s why we are emphasizing it is important to take further action while the time is still there.”

...

The overall, somewhat gloomy message from the central bankers was that the world is drunk on easy money and has already forgotten the lessons of recent years.

Post: #116

(06-29-2014 08:50 PM)scorpion Wrote:  As for evidence of how the financial sector has been engaging in this type of behavior...have you been in a coma since 2008 or something? I can appreciate that you may have a difference of opinion, but an objective look at the facts paints a very clear picture: the financial system is extremely bloated and siphoning money away from the productive economy.

No, not in a coma. I've had a ringside seat to it. In any event, "are you in a coma" is an insult, not a substantiation of your views. Allow for the possibility that the media or your own biases have had an impact on you; it might do you good to lay out just one sentence about where the greedy bad men from Finance have harmed you. I know you won't devolve to what some others have said, which are non-compelling ("because derivatives!").

My counter argument would be, modern finance is partly responsible for most of modern life's conveniences. Do you know that Walmart doesn't turn a cash profit until the day after Thanksgiving? The rest of the year, it funds its large inventory with commercial paper (i.e., finances it). You can argue that Walmart eliminates jobs at small companies - but it also lets people buy ordinary stuff at far cheaper prices than they otherwise could. Want to see what happens to a company that advantages the small local businessperson over the large national company that gets economies of scale? Look at Italy - its economy has slid to the eight largest in the world - it was 4 or 5, I think, 30 years ago. Would we be better off if the low-priced goods Walmart, Costco, etc brings to market couldn't get there? It's hard to see how. Same with mortgages - without modern finance, you'd have to pay all cash for your home. Have fun living at home with mom and dad until you're 50. And Wall St lending didn't create the housing bubble - Wall Street doesn't lend a dime; local savings and loans do. It was George W and Barney Fwank who somehow decided that every dead beat who couldn't afford a house should have one anyway, and forced lending to ridiculous levels. All Wall St did was trade those loans in the secondary market. I'm not aware of Wall St originating a single mortgage.

And it's not "Wall Street" lending Walmart money either - commercial paper is simply large companies lending to each other, with a broker or trader in between. It's all well and good to say they add no value, but consider this: Let's say Microsoft has excess cash to lend. It earns a paltry return in the bank, so it wants to lend to strong investment grade credits. Microsoft has the cash, but doesn't know Walmart needs it. Walmart needs the cash, but doesn't know Microsoft has it. Wall St knows both and introduces the parties, helps add price discovery, and gets paid in the process. Where's the crime?

You say its not envy or indoctrination, and I want to believe you...set forth one knowledgeable reason why Wall Street, not gov't, the Fed, or cyclical market forces, was responsible for this past recession. Where's the self-interest in it?? I'm not aware of any industry that has suffered more in this recession than finance - job losses, low trading volumes, increased regulation ...how is any of this in Wall St's favor? NOW, handing out free goodies to the voters so you can keep your elected office for another term or two, knowing that you'll be ready to retire when the music stops (W, Chris Dodd, Barney Fwank, etc)...hmmm...I'm starting to see a motive here! But Wall St? Wall St thrives on loan origination, high trading volumes, high deal flow, IPOs...none of which we've seen much of the past 6 yrs.

Post: #117

(06-29-2014 08:29 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  What about the U.S. ? Where does that GDP growth disappear off to if the middle class isn't feeling it? Hmmm..

I would say an awful lot of it goes to consumption. The middle class I know now drive BMW 3-series, have multiple flat screen TV's, own larger homes than they used to 20 yrs ago, give their kids more toys for one Christmas then my lower middle class dad gave me in a lifetime, and owns 6 iPhones - the current model and each of the past 5 models :/ They would do well to save more.

No, I don't see the middle class suffering. I see the lower class suffering, and I see young people who can't launch their careers. There is a bit of poetic justice in that - seeing that young people voted over-whelmingly for O. You put a "community organizer" who never held a real job in charge of the largest economy in the world, and you're surprised when it runs in place for 6 years? Say what you want about Mitt Romney (I'm no fan of the LDS, which is about as made-up as any other religion), but I don't think consumer confidence and investor confidence would be this low had he been elected.

Post: #118

(06-29-2014 10:19 PM)The Father Wrote:  I would say an awful lot of it goes to consumption. The middle class I know now drive BMW 3-series, have multiple flat screen TV's, own larger homes than they used to 20 yrs ago, give their kids more toys for one Christmas then my lower middle class dad gave me in a lifetime, and owns 6 iPhones - the current model and each of the past 5 models :/ They would do well to save more.

This sounds to me like you're unable to see the forest for the trees. What is happening in your specific neighborhood or bubble is not what is universally happening in the bigger picture analysis. It also doesn't indicate anything because most U.S. households finance their lifestyles through consumer debt of some type whether it be credit cards or home equity.

I assume you're a boomer and I guess if it's any consolation to you it's that you'll probably never be proven objectively "wrong" with real life events before you eventually die of old age or some other ailment. It's the younger generations that will be picking up the broken pieces.

Quote:There is a bit of poetic justice in that - seeing that young people voted over-whelmingly for O. You put a "community organizer" who never held a real job in charge of the largest economy in the world, and you're surprised when it runs in place for 6 years? Say what you want about Mitt Romney (I'm no fan of the LDS, which is about as made-up as any other religion), but I don't think consumer confidence and investor confidence would be this low had he been elected.

It appears to me that you're viewing this argument with intellectually disingenuous and simple minded Republican vs Democrat politics. My position is not based on dogmatic political positions but economic evidence. Based on that evidence it's not difficult to see that both parties are plutocracies out to enrich their largest campaign constituents with favorable business policies. The government is essentially heading towards being a defacto kleptocracy by enabling institutions to do as they please.

Post: #119

edited