GG Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Yes, the democrats brought Hitler to power and caused WW2. Sheesh! They did not, but the resulting devastation to the western industrial base left the US with zero competition for two decades. That will do wonders to clean up a fiscal mess that New Deal created. Which leads us to the tangent on your other thread. While there's no immediate threat of inflation, surely you can't be that sanguine about the Fed balance sheet exploding with private sector assets while there's virtually no real economic growth in sight and unemployment stuck near 8%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Did so. No, it really didn't. Roosevelt's policies exacerbated and lengthened the depression, which never ended; rather it transitioned into a war economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PTS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The only thing Obama's reprogressive policies do is make it harder for people to become rich. That's why the income gap is widening. Less rich people means more poor people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Yes, the democrats brought Hitler to power and caused WW2. Sheesh! Well, your Democrat hero Woodrow Wilson has a great deal of culpability regarding the root causes of WWII. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 No, it really didn't. Roosevelt's policies exacerbated and lengthened the depression, which never ended; rather it transitioned into a war economy. Short-sighted. Financial regulations (Glass-Steagall, FDIC, among others) created financial stability in the US until deregulation took hold in 1980. Social Security created a safety net. The NIRA gave firms pricing power and workers bargaining power which allowed workers to match wage growth to productivity growth until the mid-1970s. And this is the crux of the issue in this thread. Since the mid to late 1970s, the wage share has been stagnant even though productivity has continued to rise. There has been a systematic shift of income from wages to profits, consistent with rising inequality. Workers have been on the run for too long, and they are fighting back. They did not, but the resulting devastation to the western industrial base left the US with zero competition for two decades. That will do wonders to clean up a fiscal mess that New Deal created. Which leads us to the tangent on your other thread. While there's no immediate threat of inflation, surely you can't be that sanguine about the Fed balance sheet exploding with private sector assets while there's virtually no real economic growth in sight and unemployment stuck near 8%. And the size of the Fed's BS matters to what/whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The first mistake here, for those people, is believeing a politician care about anything other than staying in power. While I empathize with people losing their jobs, they had to be aware that they were maing darn good money at an airport to clean.... the question is will this last forever, or in a slow economy and downward pressure on Unions, is there a possibility of losing their jobs? One line that bugs me is the lady who says she may not be able to buy christmas presents this year.... well guess what, Christmas shopping is not food, heat, clothing or rent.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Well, your Democrat hero Woodrow Wilson has a great deal of culpability regarding the root causes of WWII. Yes, Bush Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Short-sighted. Financial regulations (Glass-Steagall, FDIC, among others) created financial stability in the US until deregulation took hold in 1980. Social Security created a safety net. The NIRA gave firms pricing power and workers bargaining power which allowed workers to match wage growth to productivity growth until the mid-1970s. And this is the crux of the issue in this thread. Since the mid to late 1970s, the wage share has been stagnant even though productivity has continued to rise. There has been a systematic shift of income from wages to profits, consistent with rising inequality. Workers have been on the run for too long, and they are fighting back. Wages have stagnated vs total income because total income includes equity compensation and excludes benefits, which sways the inequality towards the upper class which is more heavily tilted to equity compensation. The other thing you still ignore is that you compare a period where US had a global industrial monopoly to the one where US faced much more competition since the '70s. And the size of the Fed's BS matters to what/whom? It should matter to taxpayers who may be on the hook for some of those assets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Wages have stagnated vs total income because total income includes equity compensation and excludes benefits, which sways the inequality towards the upper class which is more heavily tilted to equity compensation. The other thing you still ignore is that you compare a period where US had a global industrial monopoly to the one where US faced much more competition since the '70s. It should matter to taxpayers who may be on the hook for some of those assets. The competition begins in the 1960s--it didn't take twenty years to re-build. Why would taxpayers be on the hook for assets the Fed buys? Taxpayers don't fund the Fed (directly) or its asset purchases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 How have proletariat revolutions work out in history? With or with the US standing by to deconstruct? We will see the results when it happens within... Especially in an already socialized country. And proletariat revolution is a bit harsh. Maybe a proletariat "nudge." No, it really didn't. Roosevelt's policies exacerbated and lengthened the depression, which never ended; rather it transitioned into a war economy. Wow... You nut jobs really do want a 1929 mulligan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Wow... You nut jobs really do want a 1929 mulligan. Either that, or I've studied economic history extensively, and know exactly what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 This is rich. Libs get their guy, get the opposite result, & then tell the people who predicted this "I told you so." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 The competition begins in the 1960s--it didn't take twenty years to re-build. True competition began in the '70s, as that's when Japanese products started to be world class and began knocking the socks off lazy US industries. Why would taxpayers be on the hook for assets the Fed buys? Taxpayers don't fund the Fed (directly) or its asset purchases. You're assuming that the Fed will fully unwind the assets back into the private sector with no hiccups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Obama's Big Michigan Right-To-Work Lie: Lower Wages The president says right-to-work laws mean "the right to work for less money." So how does he explain the fact that incomes are up in RTW states while forced unionism is a proven job killer? Campaigning Monday in Michigan as it stood poised to become the nation's 24th right-to-work state, President Obama spoke the exact opposite of the truth to union workers at a Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in the birthplace of organized labor. "What we shouldn't be doing," he told the small crowd, "is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages. We don't want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top." Yet looking at the hard numbers, becoming a right-to-work state is a direct line to the top. According to Michigan's Mackinac Center, using data taken from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Bureau of Labor Statistics, private-sector, inflation-adjusted employee compensation in right-to-work states increased by 12% between 2001 and 2011 compared with just 3% over the same period in forced-unionization states. These good wages came from good jobs. Employment in right-to-work states expanded 2.4% over the same stretch vs. a 3.4% decline in non-right-to-work states. Ironically, Obama is taking credit for jobs created in RTW states. : http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/121112-636665-right-to-work-means-better-wages.htm#ixzz2ErnmmlQ1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 Good call. Romneys magic job's would appear out of nowhere and save everyone. keep believing in miracles. Not magic. No miracle required. Unleash the private sector. Get out of the way of small, medium and big businesses. But that won't happen at this point. Class envy is to ingrained with the great unwashed schmuck out there that voted for a marxist pos hack. You want it now live with it and don't blame the rich, Bush or anyone else except our fearless leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 (edited) The only thing Obama's reprogressive policies do is make it harder for people to become rich. That's why the income gap is widening. Less rich people means more poor people. You and TPS really !@#$ things up here for us dyslexic people. Edited December 12, 2012 by Chef Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 You and TPS really !@#$ things up here for us dyslexic people. Wait until Ducky runs out of names to switch to and is forced to go to his fallback handle---PMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 This is rich. Libs get their guy, get the opposite result, & then tell the people who predicted this "I told you so." Many libs did NOT support Rahm... He is a bully. IMO, I do not even think he was eligible to be mayor w/the whole residency sham... See... That is the thing about us libs... We are NOT afraid to go up against our own factions... Not like the lock step conservatives that eventually kill themselves... Which you see is happening after the last general election. Sorry, must be the American mut in me... "He Man Gov't Hater" charter member: 3rdnlng, what say ye? You are gonna follow me around like a lost puppy dog anyway... :-P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 You and TPS really !@#$ things up here for us dyslexic people. True competition began in the '70s, as that's when Japanese products started to be world class and began knocking the socks off lazy US industries. You're assuming that the Fed will fully unwind the assets back into the private sector with no hiccups. No, I'm saying that the amount the Fed gets when it unwinds the assets has no impact on the Fed's operations or taxpayers. The Fed doesn't mark2market and it's not a profit-making corporation. They did not, but the resulting devastation to the western industrial base left the US with zero competition for two decades. That will do wonders to clean up a fiscal mess that New Deal created. Btw, the fiscal mess started in 1981 with supply-side economics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 12, 2012 Share Posted December 12, 2012 No, it really didn't. Roosevelt's policies exacerbated and lengthened the depression, which never ended; rather it transitioned into a war economy. History repeating itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts