The guy that won't show his taxes wants to "fix" ours???

Craig234 said:
I live in California and very much disagree with the Fed as a big part of the issue (and CA only has the highest poverty rate when you adjust for cost of living - for example we have very generous healthcare for the poor with ~30% on free healthcare. Compare that to the rest states. It's a hell of a lot better. And we have something like 25% of all undocumented people in the US, as the country's leader in agriculture. So... ya, about the poverty, it's not as bad as it sounds. Our state works well overall.)

I think the country has far bigger problems now that Republicans have gotten their people on the court to allow unlimited money in the elections, now that they have a media system with control of 90% right-wing control of talk radio nationally and many other outlets, reflected in their winning a thousand more seats nationally at the same time they have driven inequality to record levels through policies.

It's the structure of the economy that's reinforcing the inequality; for example, it's not Fed that's the dominant factor in top companies' CEO pay increasing from about 25 times workers to over 300 times. Or Wall Street going from taking 10% of the country's profits to 40% - the distribution of the trillions after 2008 was a government policy choice, not the fed.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, when the Fed essentially prints trillions of dollars you can't say that's not part of the issue. I know it doesn't fit into the narrative you want to push but it is economic reality.

And as nice as it would be to not have to adjust for the cost of living it too is an economic reality which is why progressives push for and use the SPM. We are at 20% which is highest for any state in the country.

We have amazing wealth in our state and we have large amounts of poverty. The medium home price in the U.S. is something like $200K. In the Bay Area its $749K. It's only a little lower in LA. You want to talk about inequality? Yet we choose not to build enough housing to keep prices high. Is it any surprise the working and middle class is leaving our state at the rate it is? We are a state heavy at the top and bottom. Not exactly a model that would do well across the country
 
Althea said:
Agree about the Republican lies, but Clinton had the miracle that was the tech bubble. Hard to say what would have been.
Click to expand...

So I guess the technology disappeared the year after Clinton left office, when Bush skyrocketed the deficits back up the next 8 years. Sorry, Republicans don't get to make excuses for being so wrong immediately about a magic 'tech bubble'.
'
Was there a tech bubble? Yes.

Does that prove that Republicans were right in their predictions of doom for the economy if the Clinton budget was enacted, or even not wrong? Not even close.

That's just them trying to avoid the truth about how wrong they are on policy by coming up with an explanation.
 
Craig234 said:
I live in California and very much disagree with the Fed as a big part of the issue (and CA only has the highest poverty rate when you adjust for cost of living - for example we have very generous healthcare for the poor with ~30% on free healthcare. Compare that to the rest states. It's a hell of a lot better. And we have something like 25% of all undocumented people in the US, as the country's leader in agriculture. So... ya, about the poverty, it's not as bad as it sounds. Our state works well overall.)

I think the country has far bigger problems now that Republicans have gotten their people on the court to allow unlimited money in the elections, now that they have a media system with control of 90% right-wing control of talk radio nationally and many other outlets, reflected in their winning a thousand more seats nationally at the same time they have driven inequality to record levels through policies.

It's the structure of the economy that's reinforcing the inequality; for example, it's not Fed that's the dominant factor in top companies' CEO pay increasing from about 25 times workers to over 300 times. Or Wall Street going from taking 10% of the country's profits to 40% - the distribution of the trillions after 2008 was a government policy choice, not the fed.
Click to expand...
Exactly Poverty is magnified in states like Ca./NY, because of the glaring divide between the wealthy/everyone else, driving up the cost of living. There are plenty of impoverished who live in shacks all across Appalachia, but their lifestyles are accustomed to it.
 
Craig234 said:
So I guess the technology disappeared the year after Clinton left office, when Bush skyrocketed the deficits back up the next 8 years. Sorry, Republicans don't get to make excuses for being so wrong immediately about a magic 'tech bubble'.
'
Was there a tech bubble? Yes.

Does that prove that Republicans were right in their predictions of doom for the economy if the Clinton budget was enacted, or even not wrong? Not even close.

That's just them trying to avoid the truth about how wrong they are on policy by coming up with an explanation.
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the Clinton era is skewed due to the tech bubble, and isn't easy to compare to other periods in our economic history.

Of course the technology didn't disappear, but how may .coms went belly up in the first year? People were mesmerized by the ease of shopping in your underwear, on your couch. They became disenfranchised to some extent, when the obvious issues arose when they got shoes/shirts/pants that don't fit.

UPS/Fed Ex flourished, as they got paid to ship products in both directions. The big dogs lasted, and the start ups (Cawacko) that weren't able to garner market share went belly up.

But....many millionaires were made overnight, simply by purhcasing Yahoo/Google,etc. The ability to trade on Wall St from you couch also made for historic growth in that sector. It also made for a serious downtrend when the sharks got done with the day traders.
 
Althea said:
What I'm saying is that the Clinton era is skewed due to the tech bubble, and isn't easy to compare to other periods in our economic history.

Of course the technology didn't disappear, but how may .coms went belly up in the first year? People were mesmerized by the ease of shopping in your underwear, on your couch. They became disenfranchised to some extent, when the obvious issues arose when they got shoes/shirts/pants that don't fit.

UPS/Fed Ex flourished, as they got paid to ship products in both directions. The big dogs lasted, and the start ups (Cawacko) that weren't able to garner market share went belly up.

But....many millionaires were made overnight, simply by purhcasing Yahoo/Google,etc. The ability to trade on Wall St from you couch also made for historic growth in that sector. It also made for a serious downtrend when the sharks got done with the day traders.
Click to expand...

Most start ups fail. The old adage is people would wall paper their apartments with worthless stock options. That's not some new insight
 
cawacko said:
Stuck? Is that what you consider yourself since you don't want to acknowledge how they are funded?
Click to expand...
OK. Sit in the back of the class and take notes. Because you aren't going to make that point in an era where crowd sourcing is all the rage. That doesn't address the viability of longevity for any business, unless there is demand for a product.
 
Althea said:
OK. Sit in the back of the class and take notes. Because you aren't going to make that point in an era where crowd sourcing is all the rage. That doesn't address the viability of longevity for any business, unless there is demand for a product.
Click to expand...
Dude you are all over the place
 
Althea said:
Um...no. Some of us have moved past your silly claim about start ups, and are pondering that which occurs in a given economic situation.

No worries, just sit quietly and observe.
Click to expand...

Silly claim that start ups are generally funded by people with large amounts of money? Yeah, silly claim there
 
Bigdog said:
You want to see examples of plutocracy, ... you need only look at Socialist nations like North Korea, Venezuela, Russia, Cuba, etc.. :palm:
Click to expand...

The problem with your list is that it excludes capitalist plutocracies, which are very problematic as well - as well as being an inaccurate list.

Cuba is not a plutocracy. The Castro brothers nor other Cubans are billionaires at the expense of the people.

Russia is more a kleptocracy than a plutocracy, but it is plutocratic - headed by people who are anti-communist.

It's far more plutocratic now than when it was communist.

But the point here has nothing to do with communism - it has to do with plutocracy, and how we can be more or less plutocratic, with liberal or Democratic Socialist policies like in Scandanavia and somewhat Canada, western Europe, etc.
 
cawacko said:
Sorry man, when the Fed essentially prints trillions of dollars you can't say that's not part of the issue. I know it doesn't fit into the narrative you want to push but it is economic reality.

And as nice as it would be to not have to adjust for the cost of living it too is an economic reality which is why progressives push for and use the SPM. We are at 20% which is highest for any state in the country.

We have amazing wealth in our state and we have large amounts of poverty. The medium home price in the U.S. is something like $200K. In the Bay Area its $749K. It's only a little lower in LA. You want to talk about inequality? Yet we choose not to build enough housing to keep prices high. Is it any surprise the working and middle class is leaving our state at the rate it is? We are a state heavy at the top and bottom. Not exactly a model that would do well across the country
Click to expand...

Yes, I can, printing trillions of dollars is not the problem, and you need to change your tone from phrases like 'narrative you want to push' - I did not read the rest of your post.
 
Craig234 said:
The problem with your list is that it excludes capitalist plutocracies, which are very problematic as well - as well as being an inaccurate list.

Cuba is not a plutocracy. The Castro brothers nor other Cubans are billionaires at the expense of the people.

Russia is more a kleptocracy than a plutocracy, but it is plutocratic - headed by people who are anti-communist.

It's far more plutocratic now than when it was communist.

But the point here has nothing to do with communism - it has to do with plutocracy, and how we can be more or less plutocratic, with liberal or Democratic Socialist policies like in Scandanavia and somewhat Canada, western Europe, etc.
Click to expand...

Fidel is said to be worth $900 million. How did he earn that money not at the expense of the people?
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, I can, printing trillions of dollars is not the problem, and you need to change your tone from phrases like 'narrative you want to push' - I did not read the rest of your post.
Click to expand...

You are free to read what you would like but ignoring economic realities regarding the Fed and California doesn't make them not exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top