Presidential Election: 2012

[Dapper]

Please cite them here as requested. Thanks.

http://moneymorning.com/2009/01/13/deregulation-financial-crisis/
http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted--20110909.swf
http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=6695

Here are the tax rates and the deregulatory legislation. Now explain how either lowering of top income's tax rates or less regulation has helped the US in general.

 

[Danoff]

First of all, thank you.

http://moneymorning.com/2009/01/13/deregulation-financial-crisis/

Ok, Reagan to present the cited regulations and deregulations in that article were as follows:
Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act:

• Allowed savings and loans to make commercial, corporate, business or agricultural loans of up to 10% of their assets.
• Authorized a capital assistance program – the "Net Worth Certificate Program" – for dangerously undercapitalized banks, under which the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. (FSLIC) and the FDIC would purchase capital instruments called "Net Worth Certificates" from savings institutions with net worth/asset ratios of less than 3.0%, and would theoretically later redeem the certificates as these shaky banks regained financial health.
• And, most frighteningly, raised the allowable ceiling on direct investments by savings institutions in nonresidential real estate from 20% to 40% of assets.

Everything I’ve read about the Depository Institution Acts says that it’s the enabling of sub-prime mortgages that are the real problem with this legislation. But ignoring that for a second – increasing the amount that savings and loans could lend from 5% to 10% of their assets is not exactly an earth-shattering change (or deregulation for that matter). I haven’t seen this being blamed for insolvency of financial institutions, and if it is, then wouldn’t 5% also have been a problem? Also, this point is entirely non-residential, which is not a major contributor to the housing bust.

The second point, authorizing a capital assistance program is actually an increase in regulation, not deregulation. It’s a bailout.

The last point only has to do with nonresidential real estate, which is not blamed for the housing bust. Non-residential real estate is a minor fraction of real-estate, and was not a major contributor to the bust (though that’s not to say that it won’t be sometime in the future). So the points highlighted in the article don’t really have teeth.

The point that DOES have teeth is one that I actually came up with. That the Depository Institutions Act enabled sub-prime mortgage lending – but this is not a deregulation on lenders, this is a deregulation on lendees, who could suddenly borrow at a non-fixed interest rate. If that’s the major problem (and I suspect that it is) it’s not banking deregulation that caused it. It’s borrowing deregulation. This points to the notion that greedy homebuyers, not greedy banks, were to blame for taking bad loans. This would not be a problem if nobody bought the loans. But someone did – the federal government. Banks could simply make the loans and sell them to the government.

Basel Accord

That year, the Basel Accord established international risk-based capital requirements for deposit-taking commercial banks. In a byproduct of the calculations of what constituted mortgage-related risk (by nature of the loans' long maturities and illiquidity) lenders should be expected to set aside substantial reserves; however, marketable securities that could theoretically be sold easily would not require significant reserves.

The Basel Accord is fairly complicated. I don’t understand it all. What I understand from this statement is that, provided that you had a buyer for your mortgage security, you didn’t have to have reserves to back it up. The US government was always a viable buyer – it is as though the US government was saying “I’ll bail you out if you get into trouble”… and indeed this was the case. In this case I don’t see how anyone could blame the Basel Accord as some sort of ridiculous deregulation that had no place in the market. The conclusion should be that the government should not be offering to buy bad loans… just as above.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, at once doing away with Glass-Steagall and the 1956 BHC Act

The article misleads the reader into believing that the Glass-Steagall limitations on banking reserves were done away with in this act. In fact that was not the case. GLB only got rid of the limitations on allowing investment and securities, and insurance companies to merge. It has been pointed out by many (democrats, liberals, and republicans alike) that almost no institutions merged under the new rule, and that the failures that prompted the housing crisis did not come from merged institutions.

f GLB was the problem, the crisis would have been expected to have originated in Europe where they never had Glass–Steagall requirements to begin with. Also, the financial firms that failed in this crisis, like Lehman, were the least diversified and the ones that survived, like J.P. Morgan, were the most diversified. Moreover, GLB didn't deregulate anything. It established the Federal Reserve as a superregulator, overseeing all Financial Services Holding Companies. All activities of financial institutions continued to be regulated on a functional basis by the regulators that had regulated those activities prior to GLB.

Bill Clinton, as well as economists Brad DeLong and Tyler Cowen have all argued that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act softened the impact of the crisis.

Calabria claimed that, prior to the passage of GLB in 1999, investment banks were already capable of holding and trading the very financial assets claimed to be the cause of the mortgage crisis, and were also already able to keep their books as they had.[26] He concluded that greater access to investment capital as many investment banks went public on the market explains the shift in their holdings to trading portfolios.[26] Calabria noted that after GLB passed, most investment banks did not merge with depository commercial banks, and that in fact, the few banks that did merge weathered the crisis better than those that did not.

So there seems to be some very well reasoned arguments from democrats, republicans and libertarians that GLB did not cause problems. Those that think it did cause problems simply claimed that it enabled some companies to become “too big to fail” (not that that happened), which is really an argument about government bailouts rather than deregulation.

SEC Ruling

On April 28, 2004, in a fitting and perhaps flagrant final act of eviscerating prudent regulation, the SEC ruled that investment banks may essentially determine their own net capital.

This is not deregulation. This is a ruling on an existing regulation.

So I’m not seeing the story that deregulation caused the financial crisis. The article also relies on some pretty sketchy tactics, the worst of which is its treatment of the Glass-Steagall and GLB, during which it invites you to fill in the blanks with inferences the article makes but which are absolutely false. More than anything, that kind of writing tactic really undermines credibility.
So no, deregulation did not cause the housing crisis. Instead, the government encouraging sub-prime lending and purchasing bad loans was the main catalyst. The ones really responsible for the crisis are the people that took the bad loans in the first place. It’s their right to do so, but they need to bear the responsibility for those actions or people will behave that way in the future.

http://visualizingeconomics.com/2007/11/03/nytimes-historical-tax-rates-by-income-group/
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fed_individual_rate_history_nominal&adjusted--20110909.swf
http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=6695

I concur that taxes have decreased (especially on the rich) over the time period you want to discuss.
Ok, my turn… I owe you a post. Give me some time to put it together.

 

[Dapper]

The point that DOES have teeth is one that I actually came up with. That the Depository Institutions Act enabled sub-prime mortgage lending – but this is not a deregulation on lenders, this is a deregulation on lendees, who could suddenly borrow at a non-fixed interest rate. If that’s the major problem (and I suspect that it is) it’s not banking deregulation that caused it. It’s borrowing deregulation. This points to the notion that greedy homebuyers, not greedy banks, were to blame for taking bad loans. This would not be a problem if nobody bought the loans. But someone did – the federal government. Banks could simply make the loans and sell them to the government.

Here is an op-ed article, the author has a PhD from MIT in economics and a Nobel Prize in economics, that describes his take on the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html

I think he is saying the impact was further reaching than you suspect. He says "this led to a radical change in American behavior", which is obviously harder to quantify than sub-prime mortgages or foreclosures. Nonetheless, this was a change in legislation that Regan is responsible for.

 

[Danoff]

Here is an op-ed article, the author has a PhD from MIT in economics and a Nobel Prize in economics, that describes his take on the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html

I think he is saying the impact was further reaching than you suspect. He says "this led to a radical change in American behavior", which is obviously harder to quantify than sub-prime mortgages or foreclosures. Nonetheless, this was a change in legislation that Regan is responsible for.

I found and read that article in researching my response to you. I already accounted for it.

 

[Dapper]

I found and read that article in researching my response to you. I already accounted for it.

I found that usually people who are qualified to teach, or have taught at the world's premiere universities are hard to argue against. But I forgot this is the internet.

...this is a deregulation on lendees...

Right, but that doesn't make it better. One time when laissez faire is a (proven) bad idea. I am not sure if you are using this as a defense for this bill or towards liberty and the constitution and all that other jazz, but thinking like this is a quintessential fail in republican ideology. Less government regulation resulted in bad things for the economy.

This points to the notion that greedy homebuyers, not greedy banks, were to blame for taking bad loans.

The banks were greedy, the home buyers just want a house. The government loosening regulations was a bad thing.

This would not be a problem if nobody bought the loans. But someone did – the federal government. Banks could simply make the loans and sell them to the government.

Exactly, that was Regan doing what republicans do in office- making their buddies a lot of money at the expense of everyone else. This gave banks a reason to be greedy.

 

[Danoff]

I found that usually people who are qualified to teach, or have taught at the world's premiere universities are hard to argue against. But I forgot this is the internet.

Well, I hope you're not standing on the notion that the legislation changed culture rather than having a demonstrable financial outcome as the crux of your argument against deregulation...

Right, but that doesn't make it better. One time when laissez faire is a (proven) bad idea.

It isn't laissez faire. You forget who's buying.

Less government regulation resulted in bad things for the economy.

When?

The banks were greedy, the home buyers just want a house.

You're ignoring my post again. I'm very close to shutting down on you again. I'm giving you this one last chance to have a decent conversation. Don't make me regret it.

Exactly, that was Regan doing what republicans do in office- making their buddies a lot of money at the expense of everyone else. This gave banks a reason to be greedy.

Well, if you're going to blame the government for buying bad mortgages (which you appear to be doing here), go ahead and blame the president(s) that oversaw the bad mortgages being purchased (Clinton and Bush). Also, not a great idea to jump on this bandwagon when you're advocating government as the cause of the problem.

 

[Dapper]

Well, I hope you're not standing on the notion that the legislation changed culture rather than having a demonstrable financial outcome as the crux of your argument against deregulation...

It was both according the economic expert guy.

It isn't laissez faire. You forget who's buying.

It is a step closer to laissez faire.

When?

What are we talking about? When the government passed Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act. That resulted in a lot of bad things for most Americans.

You're ignoring my post again. I'm very close to shutting down on you again. I'm giving you this one last chance to have a decent conversation. Don't make me regret it.

Shut her down, Danoff. You are fighting a losing battle. This bill lead to a ton of terrible things for America that most economist agree on, two I've posted in this thread.

Well, if you're going to blame the government for buying bad mortgages (which you appear to be doing here), go ahead and blame the president(s) that oversaw the bad mortgages being purchased (Clinton and Bush). Also, not a great idea to jump on this bandwagon when you're advocating government as the cause of the problem.

The government debt went down under Clinton! He made money.
The government that passed such a bill that allowed banks to do what they wanted was a bad idea, even though Clinton made it work. It is very clear that the government was doing things right for 50 years. I advocate that government, the kind that does things that work.

 

[Danoff]

It was both according the economic expert guy.

How is a change in culture deregulation?

It is a step closer to laissez faire.

Clearly not.

What are we talking about? When the government passed Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act. That resulted in a lot of bad things for most Americans.

I've already explained quite clearly why that act is not problematic in and of itself.

Shut her down, Danoff.

Based on your previous response, I will indeed. You're not worth having this discussion with.

The government debt went down under Clinton! He made money.

Not even remotely what we're talking about. It's this demonstrated lack of ability to have a conversation that is why I'm discontinuing this.

The government that passed such a bill that allowed banks to do what they wanted was a bad idea, even though Clinton made it work.

...and this.

This has nothing to do with reality. There is no such bill that allowed banks to do what they wanted to do. I explained that to you based on your own article. And Clinton did not make it work, he presided over the bubble. These are the reasons I refused to discuss this with you before, and it's the reason I'm refusing now.

I'm done. Don't worry, I'll keep posting with minimal effort to keep pissing you off. Until you can demonstrate that you can have a conversation like a human being, you're a waste of time.

 

[Dapper]

How is a change in culture deregulation?

You clearly do not know what was asked or how to respond.

I've already explained quite clearly why that act is not problematic in and of itself.

But you are wrong.

Based on your previous response, I will indeed. You're not worth having this discussion with.

And you never even responded to my original statement that you "seriously" wanted to answer. But I am not surprised you can't find anything to back your economic views.

Not even remotely what we're talking about. It's this demonstrated lack of ability to have a conversation that is why I'm discontinuing this.

If the government can afford to buy all the crap mortgages then there is no problem.

...and this.

This has nothing to do with reality. There is no such bill that allowed banks to do what they wanted to do. I explained that to you based on your own article. And Clinton did not make it work, he presided over the bubble. These are the reasons I refused to discuss this with you before, and it's the reason I'm refusing now.

Prove it, prove anything. Your explanations are really worthless, especially considering I linked to two economist explanations. Find some evidence or anything really. You have a terrible problem with that.

I'm done. Don't worry, I'll keep posting with minimal effort to keep pissing you off. Until you can demonstrate that you can have a conversation like a human being, you're a waste of time.

But you are still wrong in every economic way.

 

[arora]

Just some random things I've been looking at. Here is Hauser's Law, take it as you will. The federal rev did drop to around 15% of gdp in 2010(global melt down?), I'll generate a graph to show that too. Worth noting the gdp and fed rev have tripled sense 1960 or so. I guess I could put in the Laffer curve as well but you guys know all about it I'm sure.

Something else I discovered after listening to common complaints over marginal tax rates, Ragan was not alone. This probably won't line up for crap but ah well.(once again, global, and 13%?)

Table 1 Maximum Marginal Tax Rates on Individual Income
1979 1990 2002

Argentina 45 30 35
Australia 62 48 47
Austria 62 50 50
Belgium 76 55 52
Bolivia 48 10 13
Botswana 75 50 25
Brazil 55 25 28
Canada (Ontario) 58 47 46
Chile 60 50 43
Colombia 56 30 35
Denmark 73 68 59
Egypt 80 65 40
Finland 71 43 37
France 60 52 50
Germany 56 53 49
Greece 60 50 40
Guatemala 40 34 31
Hong Kong 25* 25 16
Hungary 60 50 40
India 60 50 30
Indonesia 50 35 35
Iran 90 75 35
Ireland 65 56 42
Israel 66 48 50
Italy 72 50 52
Jamaica 58 33 25
Japan 75 50 50
South Korea 89 50 36
Malaysia 60 45 28
Mauritius 50 35 25
Mexico 55 35 40
Netherlands 72 60 52
New Zealand 60 33 39
Norway 75 54 48
Pakistan 55 45 35
Philippines 70 35 32
Portugal 84 40 40
Puerto Rico 79 43 33
Russia NA 60 13
Singapore 55 33 26
Spain 66 56 48
Sweden 87 65 56
Thailand 60 55 37
Trinidad and Tobago 70 35 35
Turkey 75 50 45
United Kingdom 83 40 40
United States 70 33 39**

Source: PricewaterhouseCoopers; International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation.
*. Hong Kong’s maximum tax (the “standard rate”) has normally been 15 percent, effectively capping the marginal rate at high income levels (in exchange for no personal exemptions).
**. The highest U.S. tax rate of 39.6 percent after 1993 was reduced to 38.6 percent in 2002 and to 35 percent in 2003

And the debt.

I know the calculated gdp is always suspect but if the conversation is about growth and prosperity, well........

 

[Keef]

Democracies “devolve” into mob rule? I don’t see mob rule in the UK, or Canada, or Australia.

You're not thinking about this issue very deeply, and you're showing a lack of knowledge of what the word democracy actually means. Your suggestion that the UK, Canada, and Australia have pure democracies is proof of that fact. They do not have pure democracies, and I'm not aware of any current examples, but they do all have obvious elements of democracy, some more so than others.

Two examples of democracy in action in my local area...

The issue went to ballot, and the public voted to ban smoking inside private property. Not inside government buildings, but inside a bar or bowling alley owned by mom & pop. The business owner and the regular patrons were denied the right to smoke where they've always been perfectly happy to smoke by the majority (most people don't smoke) at the polls.

The Dayton and Cincinnati area is really hurting for jobs. Wilmington in particular, since DHL moved out of what once was a large shipping hub for them, providing a great many jobs to the whole city of Wilmington. Recently a group proposed building a casino resort near Wilmington, catering to the populations of Dayton and Cincinnati, and thorough plans had been made. There were other casino locations planned around the state of Ohio, which was once industrial and prosperous but at the time of this issue was stricken with unemployment. For some strange reason this casino proposal made it to the voting ballot. It was voted down by a majority concerned about crime or whatever, denying thousands of opportunities to a jobless minority.

Another example of democratic principles spreading throughout the US's republic. The Senate, which is the house of Congress next to the House of Representatives, holds members who are voted into office by the residents of that particular state. That wasn't always the case.

When our government was conceived, the House of Representatives was designed to represent the residents of various small regions within each state. The voting was done by a small local group of people, today maybe 500,000 people in a state of 20 million. But Senate members were elected by the governments of each state, not the people within the state. The House was designed to represent the interests of the people democratically, while the Senate was designed to balance that potentially dangerous democratic rule with the interests of the state as a whole (each state has its own constitution, and its government members are elected by people from that state, obivously). By giving the states the power to elect Senators, the states had a better chance of ensuring their sovereignty from the Federal government (which, remember, was designed to have very little power), and also ensuring that the state would keep the power to provide for the people in that state, without people from other states electing Senators who tried to take those powers away.

But democracy spoke, and that rule was changed. Nowadays Senators are also chosen by the people. What this has done is stunted state sovereignty severely, giving states very little power to provide for their people, and transferring all that power to the federal government.

One of the basic principles of a Republic is personal responsibility. Throughout the history of our country, the proliferation of democracy has corrupted the republic, transferring decision-making power away from the individual, away from their neighborhoods, or their local support groups, or their city, and away from the state, and given all that power to the Federal government. That's the way the people want it - it's easier if somebody else deals with your problems - but that's not the way that works. It's quite obvious now that one nation government is incapable of providing for all its citizens, who all live in different areas with different heritages, different professions, different resources, different needs, different religions, and different views of the world around them.

In a Republic, important decisions are made at the community level, and the Federal government's only job is to ensure that those people remain free to make those decisions.

A republic prevents oligarchy & mob rule? How about the Republic of Argentina with its constitution of 1853 closely modeled on the US Constitution? It was followed more than a century of revolving coups, popular uprisings, corruption, rule by oligarchic elites, military dictatorships, right & left wing terrorism, extra-judicial arrests, torture & executions. Take a look around the world today & see how many so-called republics are in a similar state.

The video clearly explained that it takes effort and caring by the people in order to keep a Republic alive and working. The video then clearly explains that if they stop caring, the powerful people within the government rise up without being noticed and then everything goes to hell. This is the condition that is plaguing countries around the world. After the US was founded, it set an example that led many other countries to follow a similar route. Then they all stopped caring. Luckily many US citizens are passionate and resilient, though we are teetering on the edge of our fragile government falling apart.

Or just look at the history of the United States. I’ve already shown how the adoption of the US Constitution didn’t prevent the continuation of slavery for another 90 odd years, it didn’t prevent the destructive violence of the Civil War & it didn’t prevent another 90 years of institutionalized racism.

The idea of Live, Liberty, and Property is a fairly new idea in the history of humanity. A basic idea of liberty was understood by the people trying the defend the Roman republic during their Crisis. Two thousand years is a drop in the bucket compared to how long the human brain has been evolving and philosophizing. Things are learned along the way, but despite the mistakes (the misunderstanding of minority rights was eventually corrected) our Constitution is certainly the best effort in the history of humanity. All people need to do is give a crap and we could keep this thing going.

Here’s what I would suggest: instead of immersing yourself in these cheap polemics, why don’t you try reading some actual history? Why don’t you try reading some of the serious thinkers on libertarian principles: Rosseau, Locke & Henry George. Read Hayek, Rothbard & Nozick. And then, so that you understand some of the opposing ideas, read Hume, Marx & Engels, Bukunin, Russel, Keynes & Rawls.

You've been around here long enough to know that I'm a devout studier of Austrian-theory economics, am always arguing from a moral perspective, and am a staunch libertarian, knowing that all three of those things are virtually synonymous.

Then come back & tell me if you still find that little “American Government” video so compelling.

The video was made and narrated by Aaron Russo, an outspoken libertarian movie producer.

 

[Dapper]

I know the calculated gdp is always suspect but if the conversation is about growth and prosperity, well........

Technological growth can not be slowed down. Even the current recession did not slow down technology growth. The problem is distributing the wealth, accumulated from this growth, throughout the population. All the deregulatory legislation and lowering of top marginal tax rates has not done that.

I don't think anyone has questioned the US's growth, I have posted GDP growth charts several times, but it doesn't mean much until income distribution is taken into account. Nice graphs though!

This is a good source for showing technology growth (throughout human history) and it's effects.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

The Double Exponential Growth of the Economy During the 1990s Was Not a Bubble

The economics part is under this ^ heading.

 

[arora]

I don't think anyone has questioned the US's growth, I have posted GDP growth charts several times, but it doesn't mean much until income distribution is taken into account. Nice graphs though!

I think you already know my take on that.

On a different note, something I read in some article about regression calculations.........(paraphrase)'redistribution of wealth always occurs, the question is only from whom to whom'

Might be important to say what I value to a society does not follow the norm, I'm still as conservative as they come(I guess) but I believe there are valued contributions without proper recognition. Scary close to the other side I despise

 

[Danoff]

If the government can afford to buy all the crap mortgages then there is no problem.

This is signature-worthy it's so bad.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

but it doesn't mean much until income distribution is taken into account. Nice graphs though!

Why? because the poor should have more than the rich?

 

[iridegravity]

The President will always be a douche bag Mofo from the 1% crowd. Forget voting or politics. Need a revolution first. You guys feel free to argue about left , right and center though. Won't change anything. Paul won't either.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

The President will always be a douche bag Mofo from the 1% crowd. Forget voting or politics. Need a revolution first. You guys feel free to argue about left , right and center though. Won't change anything. Paul won't either.

You haven't brought much of a solution to the table yourself, yes it's easy to say revolution but how do you go about it? If your sucessful with it then what? Go back to the way you were or find a new way? How do you plan to control and stop those people who are selfish and want mass power?

If you're trying to mirror any of the new age 2011 Protest you're not doing them any justice at all. Also bravo at typing what most of us have, the only arguments (since you seem to not have gone through the entire thread) have been Dapper vs Famine (not so much now) and Danoff. Or Dapper and all of us for that matter.

 

[arora]

You haven't brought much of a solution to the table yourself, yes it's easy to say revolution but how do you go about it? If your sucessful with it then what? Go back to the way you were or find a new way? How do you plan to control and stop those people who are selfish and want mass power?

It is much wiser to look at your local elections, city and county for small stuff but state is important, your state has some power to stand up to the feds. Going to the 2nd amendment should be a last resort.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

3 guesses who said that.

EDIT: oops, that one might be bogus, quoted in my haste

The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, ... or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press.

This one is defo not falsely attributed

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It is much wiser to look at your local elections, city and county for small stuff but state is important, your state has some power to stand up to the feds. Going to the 2nd amendment should be a last resort.



3 guesses who said that.

EDIT: oops, that one might be bogus, quoted in my haste



This one is defo not falsely attributed

You're talking to the wrong guy, it's the other guy that said it doesn't matter and nothing will be fixed until revolution. So...yeah

I agree with what you say and I understand my 2nd Amendment right as last resort, trust me. Not sure why your preaching to me, not to be mean.

 

[arora]

Didn't mean to preach to you about the last resort deal, was more saying that state gov is a first step, a different perspective then pres election or revolt 👍

Sorry for misunderstanding

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Didn't mean to preach to you about the last resort deal, was more saying that state gov is a first step, a different perspective then pres election or revolt 👍

Sorry for misunderstanding

Thanks for clearing it up and if I came off as a jerk I'm sorry.

 

[Dapper]

Why? because the poor should have more than the rich?

It bewilders me that Americans are complacent enough to let a very small group of people, almost a club, fleece all the profit our (kind of operative in this case) country has made over 30 years.

An average American's income has not gone up in 30 years. That, considering how much the GDP has gone up, is not right morally or economically.

 

[Danoff]

It bewilders me that Americans are complacent enough to let a very small group of people, almost a club, fleece all the profit our (kind of operative in this case) country has made over 30 years.

It amazes me that we allow the majority of the country to fleece this very small group of people to pay for their government.

An average American's income has not gone up in 30 years. That, considering how much the GDP has gone up, is not right morally or economically.

Citation please (and no, your old plots do not show this - but they will after you re-word what you wrote here).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States 30 years shows significant gain
Also here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

Also, I'll point out that median income is a conservative interpretation of your original statement. If you track "An average American" over 30 years he'll start below median, pass through median, and exceed median.

 

[Dapper]

It amazes me that we allow the majority of the country to fleece this very small group of people to pay for their government.

You get amazed by a phantom.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Both your wiki links say about a $1,000 increase per 10 years, essentially stagnant.
And a large majority of that growth was under Clinton.

 

[Danoff]

You get amazed by a phantom.
http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p60-226.pdf

Both your wiki links say about a $1,000 increase per 10 years, essentially stagnant.
And the majority of that growth was under Clinton.

That's not corrrect. Both wiki links show a 10% growth ($5k) in median income over 30 years. Keep in mind that's a very conservative interpretation of "An average american" who will likely start below median and end above median.

Just to prove that it's not a fluke, your own census link (over a different time period) shows a median growth of $8k over 30 years or closer to 20%.

Please don't make the mistake of double-bookkeeping inflation again.

Again you read your own information incorrectly.

 

[Biggles]

You're not thinking about this issue very deeply, and you're showing a lack of knowledge of what the word democracy actually means. Your suggestion that the UK, Canada, and Australia have pure democracies is proof of that fact. They do not have pure democracies, and I'm not aware of any current examples, but they do all have obvious elements of democracy, some more so than others.

It's obvious you have little understanding of the types of governments in question, how they operate, and how they evolve or devolve into other types.

Anyways, this video, which I assume you've seen before in various places on this forum, outlines three basic forms of government, of which there are a few variations, and how these governments transition to other types, typically devolving through corruption of power, war, and other naughty things.

OK. So your argument goes:

Democracies “evolve or devolve” into other types, “typically devolving through corruption of power, war, and other naughty things”. But the UK, Canada, & Australia are not examples of “pure democracies” & you’re “not aware of any current examples”. If this devolving of democracies was so "typical", I'd expect you to be able come up with lots of contemporary examples.

I can offer the example of what is probably the most democratic country in the world today. In Switzerland plebescites are held on a regular basis on a wide variety of propositions. To date Switzerland has not "evolved or devolved" into mob rule or oligarchy.

(And, incidentally, having lived in the UK for more than 20 years & Canada for almost 30, I suspect I know considerably more than you about how those governments “operate”).


While I appreciate you taking the time to put forward the examples you offer from the state of Ohio (a state I know very well incidentally) I don’t find them particularly compelling, & I simply don’t share your fear of democracy at work.

Having senators elected by state legislatures (NOT by the way by the state governments as you wrote) was abandoned partly because of how vulnerable that system was to bribery & corruption.

The crux of the matter is that I have more confidence in the democratic impulse than you. I am more concerned about the corrupting influence wielded by powerful elites than I am by democracy.

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and the well-born; the other the mass of the people ... turbulent and changing, they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the Government ... Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy." (Alexander Hamilton, Speech to the Constitutional Convention, June 1787)

I think Hamilton put it quite succinctly: classism & elitism is at the heart of most anti-democratic sentiment. It was in Hamiltons’ day & continues through Ayn Rand to the present day.

You've been around here long enough to know that I'm a devout studier of Austrian-theory economics, am always arguing from a moral perspective, and am a staunch libertarian, knowing that all three of those things are virtually synonymous.

First, what I suggested is that you read something other than by the Austrians. Unfortunately DEVOUT is the telling word. Perhaps reading some contrary viewpoints might challenge your quasi-religious beliefs & open your mind to other possible ways of looking at the world. I don't think being "devout" is a desirable quality when it comes to political, philosophical or economic thinking.

As far as “moral perspective” is concerned, I find many of the opinions you have expressed distinctly amoral.

Might that be the same situation when it comes to "Palestinian" land? As far as I can tell, it is defined as the region where Israel now is. A region. Not property. Not a state. Not a country. A region. And let's be honest here - regions don't belong to anybody until you claim it on a piece of paper, maybe put a fence around it or something.

So it appears as though Palestinians are simply butthurt that they didn't reserve their land when they should have, which was a hella long ass time ago.

I’ve already pointed out how this crude point of view is contrary to most libertarian writing on the subject.

Native Americans didn't seem to have any notion of property rights, and if they did they didn't act on it. So we took their land because it didn't actually belong to anybody.

You show up on a foreign continent where people have been living on the land for many generations, armed with a notion of “property rights” completely alien to them, take their land & then have the “right” to kill them when they resist. There’s nothing remotely “moral” about that.

 

[Biggles]

Wrong. I didn't read the rest of your post because you started with this. Quote exactly where I make this mistake. I know you'd LIKE for me to be this strawman. You'd LIKE for me to fall into your neatly defined category, but there is nothing to support this. You have misunderstood.

This is about as simple as I can make it.

The Berlin Wall

Which direction were the guns aimed? Which direction were people desperate to cross the wall? Which side had financial prosperity? Why did that side have financial prosperity?

Q.E.D.

As has already been said: nobody here is advocating communism. It is completely a straw man argument to set it up in opposition to what you are advocating.

In addition, the people fleeing East Germany were crossing into West Germany which had a very successful mixed economy, with a progressive taxation system, universal health care, & extensive social assistance programs. It was NOT a completely laissez faire capitalist economy.

 

[shmogt]

As has already been said: nobody here is advocating communism. It is completely a straw man argument to set it up in opposition to what you are advocating.

I haven't been reading for a while, but theoretically communism is the best out of all the systems. Everyone is perfectly equal and treated the same. Unfortunately greed won't let it happen. In practice as we have seen with all countries that have tried it a dictator runs everything and that the power goes to their head.

 

[Joel]

I haven't been reading for a while, but theoretically communism is the best out of all the systems. Everyone is perfectly equal and treated the same. Unfortunately greed won't let it happen. In practice as we have seen with all countries that have tried it a dictator runs everything and that the power goes to their head.

How is it the "best" when a brain surgeon and a Mcdonalds cook make the same money? Who's going to want to do a stressful job like brain surgery, and directly have people's lives in his own hands, when he could just cook fries for the same money? Call it greed, laziness, whatever, but nobody will be doctors if they can get the same money from an easy job. I doubt most doctors are "in it for the money", but that doesn't mean they'd do it for $20K.

 

[shmogt]

How is it the "best" when a brain surgeon and a Mcdonalds cook make the same money? Who's going to want to do a stressful job like brain surgery, and directly have people's lives in his own hands, when he could just cook fries for the same money? Call it greed, laziness, whatever, but nobody will be doctors if they can get the same money from an easy job. I doubt most doctors are "in it for the money", but that doesn't mean they'd do it for $20K.

Lol yup it is greed. Why shouldn't you want to save people's lives. It should not matter how much money you make from doing it. You have a skill that gives you the ability to literally save someone's life and your just going to say screw it I'll work at McDonald's just because of the pay. Complete jerk first of all lol and that's all greed. That's why communism won't work because people for some reason always have to be better than someone else. Why isn't that guy at McDonald's just as good as the brain surgeon? Why doesn't the person with brain cancer get to be saved? All over money, wow. If everyone was equal we wouldn't have these class problems, we wouldn't have greed problems, we wouldn't have any poverty problems. It solves like every problem and all it needs is open minded people who are willing to accept they are no better than anyone else. Like I said sadly it never works out because of greed.