Is it my fault that you can't read infographics? We will be lucky to get that straight-line straight for the next four years. And if Donald Dork thinks he can berate countries like he rebuked his suppliers in the US, he is either truly thick , or has one helluva lesson to learn, or both. He is facing outright hostility in all major European countries from the get-go due to his idiotic personal remarks. (First and foremost recently against Merkel.) His only friend over here is a fellow plutocrat - Tsar Vladimir ...
There is no economic science in play as long as central banks interfere and distort markets and any semblance of price discovery
You continue to apply French economics to the US. Reagan's first post recession year the economy grew at 7%. In one quarter alone one millions new jobs were created. America first applies not only to international trade but also to domestic policy. The EU depends on the US for defense. Trump knows exactly what Putin is and that Russia is basically an economically weak nation whose economy is based on the prices of oil and nat gas. Putin is a thug with nuclear weapons but he is extremely vulnerable. Obama was played by Putin like a cheap flute.
We are not debating jobs. My point regarding Reckless Ronnie was uniquely about the fact that he brought Upper-income taxation down from 70% to less than 30% (and effectively around 20%). Which has cause the stampede upwards of Income into Wealth, and which is grossly unfair. Had that income been taxed properly, America would have a decent National HealthCare System and the funds necessary to put its kids through a postsecondary educational program absolutely necessary nowadays to obtain a decent income. You go on about jobs, jobs, jobs as if they were the center-of-the-universe. In a market-economy there will always be jobs. That is, until another jerko like Dubya allows Wall St. to write SubPrime Loans that almost sank Wall Street. You are not looking at where the real menace is located. "Un-blind" yourself to reality ... What you know about Europe would fit a thimble. Europe has long since mounted its own defense. America has a few garrisons here and there, and that's about all. Trump has never met Putin, who refused a meeting the last time that Trump was in Moscow several years ago - when those famous tapes were made in a Moscow hotel. (And which Putin can certainly use to pressure Trump, if he wants to do so. They are now sudden buddies, because both are plutocrats. Tsar Vladimir stole his last election (see here), and to stay in power will steal also the next one. Iow, they have much in common! You deride Obama because he treated Putin with indifference. Unless you want to fight a war with Russia, that indifference paid off in terms of mutual respect. Putin did not mess about with the Ukraine as he had wanted to do. He was prepared to invade the country, and it was Obama who convinced Putin of his folly. Russia instigated the war between Assad (a Shiite Muslim) and the Syrian Sunnite rebels - the two religious "tribes" have been fighting one another since the year 800AD - by furnishing military equipment to the Shiites, and bombing innocent Sunnite civilians from Russian aircraft. Why? Because Assad is from Latakia, which has the only Syrian naval port on the Mediterranean Coast (and access to that vital sea, which America's 7th fleet defends from Naples, Italy). The war is costly, so now that it is over (Assad is the winner for the moment), Putin will dump Assad.
The distribution of wealth did not change under Reagan. And jobs are important - that is the conduit by which human capital is converted into economic success and a higher standard of living for individuals. And we know that the housing bubble was the result of D housing policies. Bush 43 had some part of that but also attempted to reign in Freddie and Fannie but the D's blocked that. The financial crisis was the result of banking regulations and again dumb gov actions (Bear was saved but Lehman was not - financial system freeze). Putin gained control in Syria because Obama drew a red line and then failed to act. He abdicated to Russia who couldn't believe the blunder and hundreds of thousands are now dead. Putin did that because he gained international prestige and power. That is what motivates Putin. Obama was played.
Wrong and dead wrong. The Wealth Chart (from here): Now find the year in which inflection upwards begins. (1980/81) Who was made PotUS in 1980? Reckless Ronnie. Why do you think they make so many statues to the guy?
Where is the missing 9.9% ?? Why the choice of 0.1% and 90% ?? Since 1940 through the % of wealth held by the 0.1% has been ~ 20% +/- 5%. That's most likely about the error band of the calculation. Your graph is meaningless in the manner you are attempting to use it for. Attempting to draw some conclusion from an inflection point on a this chart shows a complete lack of understanding of statistics. Piketty has condemned the use of his data in such a way. His point is that the distribution of wealth is today at its all time fairest. The best measure of the economic welfare of a country is the median household income.
No. Piketty's point is that increasing inequality, in the modern global economy - with its effects evident to more people than ever before - will likely result in the collapse of capitalism - very different from your benign reading of his 'intent'.
Not according to Dr. Piketty. http://www.wsj.com/articles/robert-rosenkranz-piketty-corrects-the-inequality-crowd-1425854415 Behind a paywall - Google: Piketty Inequality ROSENKRANZ
CAPITALISM & WEALTH I agree, because Piketty is an economics teacher and he understands the word "capital". Besides, anyone who thinks "capitalism" will bring about economic destruction has no understanding of the meaning of the word. Once upon a time, long, long ago when mankind settled into communal living "abracadabra" it found that specialization of work enhanced productivity. (Not totally lost on caveman, who understood that males did the hunting whilst females did the gathering. 6000 years later and we are reinventing those meanings.) Capitalism evolved when bartering proved to be too cumbersome a medium of exchange. Meaning what? This: "Capitalism" is not an economic theory. It is a market-economy mechanism for the exchange of goods/services and the employment of labor as well as investment Capitalism gone awry by means of unfair accumulation by a certain class IS the central issue of the debate presently. And we must ask ourselves why and how? The patent response is that taxation plays a Central Role in the accumulation of Income into Wealth. One may want to call both "capital", and they would not be wrong. But, in our language we associate "capital" with investment, and the result of investment is profit. There is, of course, nothing wrong with profit. Except when excessive profit becomes Income by means of excessive pay-scales, stock-option cash-in, and very low tax rates. All three evils beset America today, because of our excessive emphasis on "success" as a metric in terms of both Income and Wealth. There are most certainly other and perhaps more important "measures" of success. However, we as a nation have become so obsessed with Wealth, that we have unjustly elected a multi-billionaire ...
And yet income inequality is increasing , which is one of the reasons for Trump's recent election. And in Europe, this growing disparity in incomes between, as well as within countries has led to resentment toward immigration, especially by negatively affected working class people, and may well result in the destruction of the EU itself. On skills and education, not everyone is suited for post secondary education. As for wealth inequality, poverty remains a very real disfigurement of society (about which Trump had plenty to say in his inauguration speech), and such poverty is inexcusable in a productive, technologically advanced, modern economy. Even Trump realises that inequality AND poverty, side by side destabilise society, especially in today's highly visible social environment, with implications for law enforcement, security and crime. Now, how are the EU, UK and US - and China - all going to eliminate poverty and un/underemployment, simultaneously, given that Trump thinks you have to erect trade (and immigration) barriers in order to defend your own economy?
So what - median household income is the best metric for economic and standard of living progress. The best way to increase that metric is to grow the economy. One of Trump's highest priorities is to reform education so that low income minorities have the same opportunities for a quality education that children from higher income families have so that they can develop their human capital and future economic success. The D's talk about this but act in opposition due to their corrupt relationship with the teachers unions. Where do you get the idea that Trump will erect trade barriers ??
What certain class ?? Most billionaires are self made. What economic class did Bill Gates, Steve Wozniak, Warren Buffet, Mark Cuban, .... come from ?? You seriously think that those people who voted for Trump are obsessed with wealth ??
MAINTAINING THE UNFAIR TAXATION STATUS-QUO Self-made? Howzat? Without a market-economy of 320 million consumers, nobody is "self-made". How many people do you know made a megabuck on a deserted island. Like it or not, this market-economy consists of you plus a great many other people. A market-economy does not play favorites unless we allow it to do so. Which we did "BigTime" when Reckless Ronnie brought down upper-income tax rates to the ridiculously low actual level of around 20%: From 0.1% to 5% of Income-earners at a flat-rate tax of about 20%, we have created a Trickle-up Income Taxation that becomes Wealth benefiting a select group of plutocrats: Thus allowing them, by means of "unrestricted contributions" to manipulate the political system with only One Objective in Mind: To Maintain The Unfair Taxation Status-Quo at ridiculously low levels! They accomplish this objective by distorting the election process of both key powers of governance - the Congress and the PotUS. And who is at fault? We, the sheeple, who allow them to do so by consistently voting them into office. They now control all three elements of governance: the PotUS, both Chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court! MY POINT This happened in a nation that was conceived upon a simple idea that was born of a revolution against a British Monarch who had also complete and unfair power over the original colonies. In terms of the evolution of our democracy, we are now today back to Square One ...
They started with very little, worked hard, and became billionaires. That's how. Your Piketty chart is meaningless as I've explained and as Piketty himself acknowledges. Where is the data on real median household income ??
They took advantage of a flat-rate tax of only 20% - that's what they did. It was a rip-off of the lower and middle-classes who - had the upper-class incomes been properly taxed - would have a National Health Service and free Tertiary Education. Meaning they would not be paying the highest medical fees on this planet or mortgaging the house to send their kids to university. People like you are inveterately blind to reality - all you can see as a point of reference is the muney, muney, muney. Simpletons ... Show me where ... I want a direct quote from Piketty The Right try to shoot holes in his findings because they do not like at all the resulting data. And they have every reason to be worried about the gross Income Disparity that the charts show. After-all, nearly half the Income that America generates goes to only 10% of the working population, which is the kind of unfairness that is very difficult to swallow ... PS: And by the way, here is the percentage of children living below the poverty threshold, with the US right up near the top: How's that achievement for the "richest nation on earth" ... ?
They took advantage of the opportunities available by the economic system of the US. The income inequality "schtick" is meaningless. And so is the data on childhood poverty ?? Is the same standard of living basis used for every country ?? The link on Piketty is up thread.
Who says? There are many things that might be properly considered, eg youth unemployment, and as I said, social instability (including crime) resulting from poverty alongside growing inequality, which you blithely disregard. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/youth-unemployment-rate Youth Unemployment Rate in the United States decreased to 10 percent in December from 10.10 percent in November of 2016. Youth Unemployment Rate in the United States averaged 12.28 percent from 1955 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 19.50 percent in April of 2010 and a record low of 7.80 percent in September of 1956. A record low in 1956! That's progress for you - not! Why do think young people are staying with their parents for longer? On education, I say again, not everyone is suited to post-secondary education. yet there is plenty of socially useful work that could be funded by the public sector eg environmental maintenance. [Ofcourse the best education commensurate with individual abilities ought to be provided by the state as well]. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/20/nort...from-trumps-trade-barriers-goldman-sachs.html north-asia-will-be-hit-the-hardest-from-trumps-trade-barriers-goldman-sachs
Real median household income is a measure of the mid point of households. Half are above and half are below. When the upper range is unlimited averages become skewed high. Why would anyone base economic progress on youth unemployment rate ?? What is the definition of a youth ?? Why are youths not in school ?? Your cnbc article is speculation.
I know what the median income is.. no need for you to explain it to me. My point is that, by itself, it is a poor indicator of the quality of a society's living environment and the nature of social interaction of its citizens (eg, crime or its absence). Your string of questions shows your indifference to the realities of youth, poverty, and indeed anyone facing structural change. I said that that Trump plans trade barriers. You denied that.... but since he has said as much, now you are saying GS comments on the issue are mere speculation. Twisting and turning?
I ask questions to determine your reasons for thinking that youth unemployment is a valid metric for determining economic success. How does the minimum wage correlate with your suggested metric. Young people with poor educations are the first to lose jobs when a minimum wage is increased. Trump has threatened to use import tariffs if countries with whom we trade do not remove the tariffs they have on US goods. Anyone who knows anything about economics (and he does) knows that is a bad policy and will do harm to the US economy but it will also damage those countries who do not remove those tariffs. Trump does not plan to use them but to use the threat as a negotiating "stick." Trumps plan to make the US more competitive on the global markets are to reduce the gov imposed costs on production such as the business income tax rate and regulations such as ObamaCare which also act to increase the costs of production. Trump is not planning to use trade barriers to make goods imported into the US more expensive. To do so would damage the US economy as the Smoot-Hawley Act did in the early 30's and the steel tariff did in the early 00's.
I repeat: the issue includes the benefits, particularly for youth, of the experience of participating in the social and economic life of the community, as opposed to exclusion. Therefore, any youth unemployment is a disaster for the community. On trade, Bruce Springsteen had some interesting things to say today (ok he's anti-republican, but listen up...). He recognises "that some good people voted for Trump" , namely, those who have been hurt by long term economic processes, and who see Trump as offering a reversal of their fortunes. Springsteen himself claimed to have been railing against the "de-industrialisation of America, and globalisation" since these began decades ago. (Did he live in Detroit?). As for tariffs - whether 'unfair' or not: surely the very low wages in the third world, and especially hitherto in China itself, have played a significant role in the loss of employment in first world industry and manufacturing since the 60's. Keynes (no fool!) in 1944 set out a visionary scheme for dealing post-war with these difficult matters of competitive trade between nations with differing resources, capabilities and levels of development, without resort to harmful tariffs, trade and currency wars, on behalf of the worthy goal of enabling mutually beneficial trade. His forward looking ideas were rejected because of the basest reasons of self-interest. And meanwhile every other nation also has to become 'more competitive'; while the ever diminishing tax base (personal and business) doesn't bode well for quality universal education. Well, we don't have to wait long now, to see who the new winners and losers will be.
DISINFORMATION! Your version of history is highly biased. Roosevelt implemented most of Keynes' notions of Stimulus Spending as of 1934, which is how the Hoover Damn (and other such massive projects like the TVA were implemented)! What is true is that up to 1939 the unemployment rate in the US never descended below 15%, but it was descending from 20% its highest in 1934. It took WW2 to finally bring the rate down to 2%. After which it rose to the 5% level after the war closed. (See here.) After the war, it was the Bretton Woods Agreement that created the institutions that more or less "oversee and participate" in the furthering of World Trade. Esteemed at the time as "essential" to the reconstruction of a world devastated by WW2. It was the GATT in 1990 that evolved the WTO in its present version. Keynes' writings on the matter contributed to post-war "thinking" in the matter of market-economies in the early 1930s: In fact, it is his evocation of the multiplier-effect (which is simple logic regarding consumer propensity-to-spend) that is key to the recovery from any recession or depression. And it still is. Moreover, we shall test that theory presently. The election of Trump to the presidency is sooo controversial that America will see first-hand whether it has a little or a big effect upon future consumer spending. I should hope not for the former, which will affect the life-style of millions of American consumers. I fear nonetheless exactly that outcome will happen. This past election was the grossest error since that of Dubya. It is amazing how Uncle Sam keeps shooting himself in the foot at PotUS elections ...
What is even more telling in this discussion is the distribution of wealth. Not sure if this has been offered earlier here...but it shows things rather dramatically. (Back in 2009. Things have gotten worse.) [video=youtube;QPKKQnijnsM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/video]
THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE Thanks. A better way of putting the argument, more visual and less wordy (than mine!) The facts remain the same, as they were originally found by Prof. Domhoff's work at the U-of-Cal (Santa Cruz) The Class-Domination Theory of Power. Or if one prefers a more visually succinct distribution of wealth graphically by these two pie-charts: Clearly, something is very wrong in the land of Oz where 20% of the population owns 89% of the nation's Total Net Worth (or, Wealth minus Debt). I reiterate once again some mischievous untruths about Financial Power that we Yanks don't sufficiently appreciate: *First, "socialism" is dead and gone. It died with Russian Communism and when the Bamboo Curtain came crashing down in 1991. Socialism exists nowhere on earth (except perhaps North Korea) that the government owns all the means of production - leaving none to a "private sector". (None, zilch, nada, niente, zip, nichts, tipota!) *Social Democracy in Europe, however, accommodates itself quite well with "capitalism"; and upper-income taxation, whilst higher than in the EU, is not confiscatory. *Capitalism is not an economic theory. It is quite simply a "mechanism" for exchange in a market-economy. Without it, we'd all be back to bartering. (Been there, done that, not fun!) *But capitalism will go awry where countries manipulate income-taxation in favor of a particular group, which the above pie-charts show to have happened in the US. This occurred under reckless Ronnie in the 1980s. No matter how you count the cookies, the facts demonstrated in the above shown two pie-charts are the fundamental consequence of the American Way of Life ...
