The Truth About the Economy

Yurt said:
i did prove you wrong only in that you exaggerate the problem and miss the real issue, HOWEVER - DUMBASS - i agreed with you on a certain level....but you're obviously too stupid to understand that. i gave an analysis, backed it up and all you have is your usual weak "i'm right because i say am i right" you have nothing, you can't even formulate a one paragraph rebuttal to any fact presented. and more than one fact was presented. i have a feeling that since the response was more than two sentences, it was above your head so you decided a smart ass response would cover your low iq. care to rebut a single thing i said dune? i don't think you can.
Click to expand...



SLCNutbaroMeterDelusional.jpg




Link up, my delusional lil' bitch.​
 
Yurt said:
...i gave an analysis, backed it up ....
Click to expand...

Where's that analysis and the backup, my lil' bitch? Link up.


Of course, with Yurt, it's possible he may have been thinking of anal-ysis, which he indulges in with Stuporfreak.
 
Return of Dune said:
Maybe Superfreak can help you find some proof yurt.
Click to expand...

what proof are you looking for? you said what SF said was bullshit bullshit....it doesn't matter what anyone says to you, if it doesn't comport with your world view, you outright reject with absolutely no rebuttal. just a retarded:

i'm right and you're wrong.

i claimed you exaggerated the issue of the banks not lending, i also agreed with you that the banks not lending was and is a problem. yet, you continually tell me i'm wrong for agreeing with you in part. i then explained how you exaggerated the problem and WHY it isn't the real problem and EXPLAINED what the current situation is. what more are you looking for little dune?
 
You said you gave an analysis and backed it up.


Where is it?
 
Return of Dune said:
This remarkable lie deserves it's own response. Try to keep in mind that the population of owners increased during that time also, in addition to untold increases in productivity
Click to expand...

Do tell us Dune.... WHAT part of what I stated is a lie?

1) The economy doubled since 1980

2) The population went from just under 230 million to about 310 million (2010 census)

3) More women are in the workforce today vs. 1980

Which one of those is a lie Dune?

Yes, we have also had dramatic increases in productivity. Thanks for pointing to yet ANOTHER reason the economy would double while wages remain relatively flat.
 
The dude thinks lefties are crying like usual. IE. wages are flat when normalized to inflation. WTF
Also, most people because of productivity have way more stuff in the larger house v 1980 due to increased productivity (not the dude of course).
 
1) Yes, the economy has doubled since 1980. But keep in mind, the POPULATION also went from just under 230 million to about 310 million. In addition, far more women are in the workforce today than they were in 1980. So it would stand to reason that the wages would remain fairly stable relative to a doubling of the economy.

The economy doubled. The population increased by 50%. Meanwhile, the owners share of the profits doubled, while the amount of workers needed per unit of production diminished. Therefore, it does not 'stand to reason" that wages would remain stable. What stands to reason is that workers are getting screwed.

Nice try though, appologist.
 
The Dude said:
The dude thinks lefties are crying like usual. IE. wages are flat when normalized to inflation. WTF
Also, most people because of productivity have way more stuff in the larger house v 1980 due to increased productivity (not the dude of course).
Click to expand...

Bullshit.
 
workers are way better off, what turbo-lib bs theory says wages are supposed to grow faster than inflation?
Where is the argument that says workers had more stuff in thier houses in 1980 than they do now.

The for sure are eating more.
 
Liberty said:
Ignore this.

Click to expand...

I think one should contemplate what the country would have been like if there was no Federal Reserve printing money for the government and little taxes collected by the government. What would the social programs look like assuming there would be any.

The video mentions the Federal Reserve came into being in 1913. Also, (Excerpt) In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified. The amendment eliminated the need to base federal taxes on state population by stating, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." (End)
http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/a/incometax_2.htm

The loaning of money and collection of income taxes allowed the government to implement social programs, from SS to Medicare. While the present system may not be perfect imagine society today if the old ways were still in force. The elderly without pensions. The jobless without welfare.

Maybe things aren’t as bad as they seem.
 
they are most def not as bad as most make out. Wages are a large conponent inflation , it's kinda economically illiterate to state wages haven't doubled because the economy is twice as big.

Isn't it?
 
Return of Dune said:
1) Yes, the economy has doubled since 1980. But keep in mind, the POPULATION also went from just under 230 million to about 310 million. In addition, far more women are in the workforce today than they were in 1980. So it would stand to reason that the wages would remain fairly stable relative to a doubling of the economy.

The economy doubled. The population increased by 50%. Meanwhile, the owners share of the profits doubled, while the amount of workers needed per unit of production diminished. Therefore, it does not 'stand to reason" that wages would remain stable. What stands to reason is that workers are getting screwed.

Nice try though, appologist.
Click to expand...

Thanks for restating a PORTION of my statement "Mr. Out of Context".

Now add in the productivity gains and the fact that a greater percentage of women are now in the work force.

I am not stating the 'super rich' didn't garner a bigger share of total income. They did. What I was doing was putting Reich's bullshit into CONTEXT... you know... that thing you were bitching about?
 
Dune is clueless on inflation and ecnomics

take away the limonsine liberal talking points and he's mute.

Is he a limosine liberal without the limosine?
 
Yurt said:
what proof are you looking for? you said what SF said was bullshit bullshit....it doesn't matter what anyone says to you, if it doesn't comport with your world view, you outright reject with absolutely no rebuttal. just a retarded:

i'm right and you're wrong.

i claimed you exaggerated the issue of the banks not lending, i also agreed with you that the banks not lending was and is a problem. yet, you continually tell me i'm wrong for agreeing with you in part. i then explained how you exaggerated the problem and WHY it isn't the real problem and EXPLAINED what the current situation is. what more are you looking for little dune?
Click to expand...

hilarious...dune ran away from a real discussion again

he can't even explain what proof he wants, LOL
 
You said you gave an analysis and backed it up.


Where is it?
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks for restating a PORTION of my statement "Mr. Out of Context". Now add in the productivity gains and the fact that a greater percentage of women are now in the work force. I am not stating the 'super rich' didn't garner a bigger share of total income. They did. What I was doing was putting Reich's bullshit into CONTEXT... you know... that thing you were bitching about?
Click to expand...



Mr. Context doesn't seem to have any sources for his assertions. Why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top