09-24-2017, 10:45 AM
I very rarely update my blog, but my latest post was related to the theory so I thought I would post it here.
http://drakus79.tumblr.com/post/16565644...-socialism
http://drakus79.tumblr.com/post/16565644...-socialism
(09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system. Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.
(09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system. Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.
Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President. Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.
(09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system. Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.
Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President. Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.
...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.
(09-25-2017, 10:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system. Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.
Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President. Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.
...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.
There were no bank failures that caused money to disappear, partly because we had the FDIC, which we didn't in 1930. The spending in the "stimulus" bill didn't boost the economy any more than any other corporate welfare, and was part of the economic gestalt that prevented an actual recovery for the rest of the Obama administration.
(09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
(09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession. You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.
(09-25-2017, 06:44 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession. You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.
As with the meltdown of 1929.4-1932.4, the year and a half of the meltdown of 2007.4-2009.2 started with the bursting of a bubble. Bubbles devout capital that accountants book but end up worthless. The Reagan tax cut put an end to stagflation which was not the problem of either the 1920s or the Double-Zero Decade.
Quote:The "Reagan recovery" depended upon the lowering of expectations, with people settling for less than their dreams (like recent college graduates settling for jobs in retail and food service).
Quote:The slow-growth 1950s was the result of government trying to pay off national debt from World War II.
Economic reality is very different late in a 1T (circa 1960), the 2T/3T cusp (early 1980s) and the start of a Crisis Era. The market crashes of 1930 and 2008 were very similar in severity and immediate effect. he last three Crisis Eras began with financial panics (1857, 1930 -- the real crash was in 1930, and 2008). In a 3T people enjoy the warmth of an active volcano. The 4T begins with the eruption of the volcano.
Tax cuts mean something when the economy is humming along. When revenues crash in an economic meltdown, tax cuts are practically meaningless. In an economic meltdown, businesses are rightly more concerned with sales revenue than with taxes paid. It's the bubble that devours capital that could be going into productive activities that does the damage; the panic shows how pointless the investments were. Americans were not investing in plant and equipment.
Quote:The meltdown that began the Great Depression began when FDR backed the banks. The Obama bull market began when the government backed the banks. The difference between the two meltdowns was when the meltdowns ended, and not their severity after a year and a half.
Quote:It is best that the worst actors, the ones who created the mess, go out of business.
Quote:Government can promote the recovery of others. The auto industry was not particularly culpable in the real-estate fraud that was the illusion of wealth-creation in the Double-Zero decade.
Quote:Something else is happening this time: the end of scarcity in manufactured goods. There is no easy way in which to make money by simply making stuff. America got through the Great Depression by making more cars, appliances, and furniture that people did not have going into the Great Depression. By most accounts, life was better in the late 1930s than in the late 1920s. All that was down was stock prices. Consumer electronics are often dirt-cheap. You can buy a cell phone for about $20 bucks. Sure, it is a 'dumb phone' that won't give images or data... I have a reader and a camera, so I don't need data or photographic capacity on my cell phone.
Radio Shack is dead. J C Penney and Sears are dying. Toys 'R' Us is in a 'reorganization' intended to protect its suppliers. That's retail.
(09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession. You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.
(09-26-2017, 10:16 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 05:10 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 01:46 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]OK, so what would a 'real' recovery be like? Would it be one that begins after American standards of living fell to those of the early 1930s? After people started to starve?
Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
A real recovery would be one that recovered the economic losses, returning to the previous trend line, instead of just picking up a new, lower trend line starting at the bottom of the recession. You know, like the 8% postrecession/tax cut real growth in 1983, or the 6% postrecession growth in 1961, or the 8% post tax cut growth in 1965.
Your analysis is simplistic at best. But just to settle the growth argument, here is the rate of real growth from 1961 to present:
(09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.
(09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.
I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder. After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted. Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.
I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase. At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.
(09-25-2017, 10:29 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 10:08 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:19 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-25-2017, 09:15 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]We have 'socialism for the rich'. The old conservative idea that a smaller government would make people more self-reliant and willing to make sacrifices on behalf of economic elites no longer apply when the corporate elites bleed the system. Big Government can generate huge profits, as shown with the 43rd and 45th Presidents.
Let's not forget the trillion dollar patronage "stimulus" bill of the 44th President. Both parties do both corporate and individual welfare.
...intended to stop an economic meltdown that by early 2009 was analogous to the first year and a half of the 1929-1932 economic meltdown. Obama's stimulus at least paid for itself or came close to doing so. The problem was that Americans learned nothing from it. American economic elites went back to the ethos that no human suffering is in excess so long as those elites get what they want.
There were no bank failures that caused money to disappear, partly because we had the FDIC, which we didn't in 1930. The spending in the "stimulus" bill didn't boost the economy any more than any other corporate welfare, and was part of the economic gestalt that prevented an actual recovery for the rest of the Obama administration.
(09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.
I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder. After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted. Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.
I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase. At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.
(09-26-2017, 05:14 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ](09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.
I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder. After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted. Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.
I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase. At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.
Republicans wanted Obama to fail so that he would be a one-and-done President after which America would have voted in Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, almost all State legislatures, and would vote in a Hard Right Republican President, after which America would be the sort of place in which the common man is promised pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die in return for suffering for the Master Classes -- forever.
It took eight years instead of four years. How long will it last? Corrupt, brutal, selfish leadership such as is the current norm in America rarely yields power willingly.
(09-26-2017, 03:26 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ](09-26-2017, 12:30 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ](09-26-2017, 11:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]Thank you for posting a graph that proves exactly what I said and in fact highlights the lack of any real recovery after the 2008 recession.
I blame Obama for not pushing this immediately and much harder. After the whining and handwringing was over, the stimulus needed to restore the economy was turned into tax cuts ... as I noted. Tax cuts never create growth, they just sound good in TV ads.
I also notice that you deleted the data point I cited for the big spike in '83: a huge tax increase. At least Reagan understood that bad results need to be corrected.
If you would actually look at your own graph, you'd see that the spike in growth was already starting in 1982 before the supposed tax increase took effect. Of course, you're also ignoring the fact that the supposed increase didn't actually increase any income tax rates in any bracket.
TEFRA in Wikipedia Wrote:The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows:... but it didn't raise rates, per se.
- repealed scheduled increases in accelerated depreciation deductions
- tightened safe harbor leasing rules
- required taxpayers to reduce basis by 50% of investment tax credit
- instituted 10% withholding on dividends and interest paid to individuals
- tightened completed contract accounting rules
- increased FUTA wage base and tax rate