[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
Printable View
[QUOTE=RoseCity07]Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
[QUOTE=shlver]Which has only happened like twice and only one candidate has lost with the majority popular vote.[/QUOTE]
That's a good point. I tried to do the wording in that sentence as neutrally as possible because I realized that while typing that post. In the original post that I had typed up, I realized that I was being too harsh and I changed up wording a bit before I submitted that post. Glad you didn't see what I had typed up in that paragraph before posting. :lol
I just try to be more careful nowadays before submitting reply. anyways I hope the rest of that post makes logical sense.
btw - plenty of electoral college members have gone against the popular vote in their own small area of the election. That wasn't what I was saying in that post though so I won't act like I was. Overall for national popular vote, only Al Gore has lost a national popular vote
[QUOTE=joe]The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is the deterioration of capitalism in our country, being replaced with socialist and tyrannical rule. The federal reserve is not an instrument of capitalism. The heavy regulation on our businesses is not an instrument of capitalism.
If you don't know what I'm talking about in that last paragraph, yet you think the problem is capitalism.. you need to do more research before you become part of the political movement in America that looks to continue to deteriorate capitalism, in favor of socialist legislation.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm
[QUOTE=Naruto-sama]:facepalm[/QUOTE]
It's true man. All this capitalism hate is extremely dangerous. Capitalism made us the prosperous country we are to begin with. Capitalism increases the wealth of the country, it uplifts the middle class and lower class. The problems in America have nothing to do with capitalism, because the truth is we don't have true capitalism in America right now. We have heavily regulated capitalism mixed with fascism, socialism, and big government. Those are your enemies, not capitalism.
[QUOTE=shlver]Of course. Wealth shows a strong correlation with age. People tend to save as they grow older.[/QUOTE]
This could be read in a misleading way.
Facts show that a SMALL majority of baby boomers have saved.
Their vast amount of economic stimilus to our society has been vested in buying.
I am a baby boomer , and never had done as much as the average middle class baby boomer , and yet I am in serious trouble.
When you talk about wealth correlates with age , you are only refering to individuals that have enough wealth to sustain their life styles as well as save lump sums of equity.
If I were to save as my parents advised me , to eventually buy the house I am in right now .. it would of taken a considerable amount of my life to acquire it , to find in less than 10 years that appreciation value had dropped 25-33%.
As many baby boomers have done borrowing is the name of the game.
That said the majority of baby boomers that are from 50-65 have little savings ,but on paper as I am are worth more than their parents because of all the money spent.
That spent money gets you seldom any revenue in return at the present time.
[QUOTE=Jasper]This could be read in a misleading way.
Facts show that a SMALL majority of baby boomers have saved.
Their fast amount of economic stimilus to our society has been vested in buying.
I am a baby boomer , and never had done as much as the average middle class baby boomer , and yet I am in serious trouble.
When you talk about wealth correlates with age , you are only refering to individuals that have enough wealth to sustain their life styles as well as save lump sums of equity.
If I were to safe as my parents advised me , to eventually buy the house I am in right now .. it would of taken a considerable amount of my life to acquire it , to find in less than 10 years that appreciation value had dropped 25-33%.
As many baby boomers have done borrowing is the name of the game.
That said the majority of baby boomers that are from 50-65 have little savings ,but on paper as I am are worth more than their parents because of all the money spent.
That spent money gets you seldom any revenue in return at the present time.[/QUOTE]
No it is not misleading at all. People tend to work and save as they get older and become more mature with money.
[QUOTE=joe]It's true man. All this capitalism hate is extremely dangerous. Capitalism made us the prosperous country we are to begin with. Capitalism increases the wealth of the country, it uplifts the middle class and lower class. The problems in America have nothing to do with capitalism, because the truth is we don't have true capitalism in America right now. We have heavily regulated capitalism mixed with fascism, socialism, and big government. Those are your enemies, not capitalism.[/QUOTE]
Unrestricted, unregulated capitalism can be as dangerous as unchecked communism, socialism, etc.
We have never had a completely capitalistic society. It didn't exist in America's formative years and it doesn't exist now. The best systems are ultimately the ones who can take the good aspects of different socio-economic systems and implement them while maintaining the integrity of the thing.
Funny that you mention the non-capitalistic ventures as what is killing America... As if implementing other systems in certain areas is a new idea... Or something that the founders didn't intend.
Do you know what a strict interpretation of capitalism leads to? The Triangle fire. Look it up...
iam not very surprised by that, the system has been [B]f[/B]ucked up for a while now.
Pareto principle. 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. Always been true, and will continue to be true.
[QUOTE=3ptShooter]and why no mention of who is paying what % of taxes? would seem to be helpful in a fair debate. how about the wealth they create (although I'd bet that is going down too compared to the past). [/quote]
It hasn't just gone down... It has shrunk to relatively nothing (compared to past decades). The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91-92%.
Now, it is mid-30%.
[url]http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php[/url]
People are calling Obama a socialist because he wants to raise the marginal tax rate for the Top 1% from 35% to 37%. Meanwhile, under Eisenhower and back when the middle class was at its absolute strongest, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.
If we are turning to socialism by going from 35 to 37%, what the hell kind of system was it when we were at 91%? It is fascinating to me that people fall for these talking-points.
Meanwhile, the redistribution of wealth to the top is absolutely clear.... And Obama is a socialist because he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 37%.
SMH
Not that it will solve anything to make such an incremental raise or even a massive raise in the top marginal tax rate. Our problems go far, far deeper than that, which I have outlined in prior posts.
However, I do think it is pretty ridiculous that our marginal tax rate stops at around $300,000. So, a person who makes $1 billion a year is paying the same taxes as a family who brings in $300,000 a year.
That tax rate should continue to go up as it gets into the ludicrously over-the-top salaries. Maybe, under a system like that, the top marginal tax rate can actually even approach what it was in the economic boom-time in America -- the 1950s.
Maybe we also wouldn't have such a massive deficit. Food for thought.
[QUOTE=3ptShooter]btw: democrats and republicans supported nafta. when ross perot was attacking it, you know who debated him in favor of nafta?
[IMG]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/OPINION/05/28/larry.kings.top.5/story.nafta.debate.lkl.cnn.jpg[/IMG][/quote]
As I said early on in this thread, this isn't a left-right issue... Or it shouldn't be. This impacts everyone.
Do you want to know whom I consider the greatest offender in the absolute decimation of the US manufacturing base? It's not Reagan or Bush or Bush II or Obama...
It was Clinton. Sure, those other guys played a part and later presidents furthered his policies, but Clinton -- the face of the 'new' moderate democratic party -- was the one who pushed NAFTA through. He is the one who massively lowered tariffs. He is the one who endorsed other trade agreements that made it more cost efficient for companies to pack up their things and leave than to provide jobs to Americans and keep their money circulating in this country.
It was Clinton who I consider mainly responsible for these massive CEO earnings... And he is maybe the major culprit in the destruction of the middle class.
For as revered as he has become to the modern American left, if they really examined his policies and their impacts, I doubt many would walk away with a smile on their faces.
[QUOTE=3ptShooter][COLOR="DarkRed"]it's not greedy CEO's for damn sake! [/COLOR] don't you realize that when business is faced with cheaper labor and competion that is using it, they are usually forced to adapt or go under?
you mentioned cleveland. i have family from the steel mill days. greedy CEO's didn't kill the mills, just like they didn't kill the car industry. cheap foreign competition and labor did it to [B]both[/B]!
[B]if all the ceo's got paid nothing, it wouldn't do a thing to solve the problem.[/B] :facepalm
i hate it as much as anyone, but class warefare doesn't help.[/QUOTE]
How can you possibly say that attempting to get these CEO salaries under control wouldn't help the situation? If a CEO was making, say, 50x the average worker instead of 500x, I think it is safe to say that said worker would be in much better shape to support his family, re-circulate that money into the economy, buy things... And, all of that extra money could also fund more jobs for more people.
No, it isn't going to 'solve' the real problem. These massive CEO salaries are only the RESULT of the core problems. But, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored and deemed hopeless in trying to remedy.
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]It hasn't just gone down... It has shrunk to relatively nothing (compared to past decades). The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91-92%.
Now, it is mid-30%.
[url]http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php[/url]
People are calling Obama a socialist because he wants to raise the marginal tax rate for the Top 1% from 35% to 37%. Meanwhile, under Eisenhower and back when the middle class was at its absolute strongest, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.
If we are turning to socialism by going from 35 to 37%, what the hell kind of system was it when we were at 91%? It is fascinating to me that people fall for these talking-points.
Meanwhile, the redistribution of wealth to the top is absolutely clear.... And Obama is a socialist because he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 37%.
SMH
Not that it will solve anything to make such an incremental raise or even a massive raise in the top marginal tax rate. Our problems go far, far deeper than that, which I have outlined in prior posts.
However, I do think it is pretty ridiculous that our marginal tax rate stops at around $300,000. So, a person who makes $1 billion a year is paying the same taxes as a family who brings in $300,000 a year.
That tax rate should continue to go up as it gets into the ludicrously over-the-top salaries. Maybe, under a system like that, the top marginal tax rate can actually even approach what it was in the economic boom-time in America -- the 1950s.
Maybe we also wouldn't have such a massive deficit. Food for thought.
As I said early on in this thread, this isn't a left-right issue... Or it shouldn't be. This impacts everyone.
Do you want to know whom I consider the greatest offender in the absolute decimation of the US manufacturing base? It's not Reagan or Bush or Bush II or Obama...
It was Clinton. Sure, those other guys played a part and later presidents furthered his policies, but Clinton -- the face of the 'new' moderate democratic party -- was the one who pushed NAFTA through. He is the one who massively lowered tariffs. He is the one who endorsed other trade agreements that made it more cost efficient for companies to pack up their things and leave than to provide jobs to Americans and keep their money circulating in this country.
It was Clinton who I consider mainly responsible for these massive CEO earnings... And he is maybe the major culprit in the destruction of the middle class.
For as revered as he has become to the modern American left, if they really examined his policies and their impacts, I doubt many would walk away with a smile on their faces.
How can you possibly say that attempting to get these CEO salaries under control wouldn't help the situation? If a CEO was making, say, 50x the average worker instead of 500x, I think it is safe to say that said worker would be in much better shape to support his family, re-circulate that money into the economy, buy things... And, all of that extra money could also fund more jobs for more people.
No, it isn't going to 'solve' the real problem. These massive CEO salaries are only the RESULT of the core problems. But, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored and deemed hopeless in trying to remedy.[/QUOTE]
You're correct, it shouldn't be a left right issue. The left and the right have both failed us.
Getting "CEO salaries under control" is to me, an anti-American statement. People have the right to make money in this country, and the government putting a cap on earnings has no business in a free society.
People spending money won't fix the economy, people saving money will. We need savings in this country, and to do that we need the federal reserve abolished. They are artificially keeping interest rates low, making the return of savings next to nothing. Then to make matters worse, they keep inflating the dollar, meaning that if you save money today you'll actually have LESS money in the future.
We need REAL savings, so that entrepreneurs can use that money to start businesses. Businesses that people actually WANT, not businesses that failed and had to be bailed out (a very anti-capitalist move). Failed businesses should be allowed to fail so that productive businesses can grow in their place. From there, we can create jobs and wealth.
Instead what we do is heavily regulate businesses so that EVEN IF the above were true, nobody would want to start a business in America anyway.
Obama isn't a socialist because he's raising taxes. He does however support some socialist policies, his health care reform being the most despicable of all.
Good intentioned but arrogant liberals laugh at republicans for their fear of socialism. I'm neither democrat or republican, and from my outside view it's democrats that are the wrongful party in that situation. Socialism IS something to be feared, and it IS slowly being integrated into America. It started with social security and welfare but it continues on today. Yelling "socialist!" isn't just a way for republicans to insult Obama, it's a very true criticism, and quite a scary thing.
We don't need tax rates going up on ANYONE, we need tax rates going down. We need massive cuts of government programs, we need to get out of these wars and withdraw our troops all over the world. Military spending needs to be cut, education spending, welfare, social security, all of these things need to be massively cut.
Then, the American people need to take a good hard look at the constitution and decide if they want it anymore. We're at a crossroads here people.. are we going to continue to be a free nation with all the personal responsibility it entails, or go down the road of big government, loss of freedoms, welfare state, weak economy? What do you guys want?
You mention that unregulated capitalism isn't perfect either. I agree, some regulations should exist. But we've over regulated and now we're driving businesses out of America, have been for some time. Not only that, but we're making the businesses that do stay here uncompetitive. Then people wonder why their company is cutting employees and moving to other cities. It's not profitable to do business in America now, entirely thanks to our government interfering with the economy. This has been a slow moving train that started in 1913, and now we're in complete free fall mode.
[URL="http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112189/who-owns-the-us?mod=bb-debtmanagement"]How much we owe in debt[/URL]
[QUOTE=joe]You're correct, it shouldn't be a left right issue. The left and the right have both failed us.
Getting "CEO salaries under control" is to me, an anti-American statement. People have the right to make money in this country, and the government putting a cap on earnings has no business in a free society.
People spending money won't fix the economy, people saving money will. We need savings in this country, and to do that we need the federal reserve abolished. They are artificially keeping interest rates low, making the return of savings next to nothing. Then to make matters worse, they keep inflating the dollar, meaning that if you save money today you'll actually have LESS money in the future.
We need REAL savings, so that entrepreneurs can use that money to start businesses. Businesses that people actually WANT, not businesses that failed and had to be bailed out (a very anti-capitalist move). Failed businesses should be allowed to fail so that productive businesses can grow in their place. From there, we can create jobs and wealth.
Instead what we do is heavily regulate businesses so that EVEN IF the above were true, nobody would want to start a business in America anyway.
Obama isn't a socialist because he's raising taxes. He does however support some socialist policies, his health care reform being the most despicable of all.
Good intentioned but arrogant liberals laugh at republicans for their fear of socialism. I'm neither democrat or republican, and from my outside view it's democrats that are the wrongful party in that situation. Socialism IS something to be feared, and it IS slowly being integrated into America. It started with social security and welfare but it continues on today. Yelling "socialist!" isn't just a way for republicans to insult Obama, it's a very true criticism, and quite a scary thing.
We don't need tax rates going up on ANYONE, we need tax rates going down. We need massive cuts of government programs, we need to get out of these wars and withdraw our troops all over the world. Military spending needs to be cut, education spending, welfare, social security, all of these things need to be massively cut.
Then, the American people need to take a good hard look at the constitution and decide if they want it anymore. We're at a crossroads here people.. are we going to continue to be a free nation with all the personal responsibility it entails, or go down the road of big government, loss of freedoms, welfare state, weak economy? What do you guys want?
You mention that unregulated capitalism isn't perfect either. I agree, some regulations should exist. But we've over regulated and now we're driving businesses out of America, have been for some time. Not only that, but we're making the businesses that do stay here uncompetitive. Then people wonder why their company is cutting employees and moving to other cities. It's not profitable to do business in America now, entirely thanks to our government interfering with the economy. This has been a slow moving train that started in 1913, and now we're in complete free fall mode.[/QUOTE]
Regulations making the US uncompetitive? Are you talking about minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety, etc?
Because, in order to be 'competitive' with places like China and India, we would have to use American workers 14 hours a day for $10 a day.
There are still major corporations in America that are bringing in RECORD profits... Not just profits, but RECORD profits. Americans still love buying stuff and this country still uses a hell of a lot of steel.
The biggest difference between now and 50 years ago are the trade agreements, globalization and the lack of tariffs on imported products... And that is why CEOs are making obscenely more money, there are virtually NO jobs that can support a family for unskilled workers and there has been a massive redistribution of wealth to the Top 1%.
If you want to take things back to when the Constitution was written, fine... Massive tariffs on imported goods and no trade agreements. I'm with you on those two things.
[QUOTE=joe]
People spending money won't fix the economy, people saving money will. We need savings in this country, and to do that we need the federal reserve abolished. They are artificially keeping interest rates low, making the return of savings next to nothing. Then to make matters worse, they keep inflating the dollar, meaning that if you save money today you'll actually have LESS money in the future.
We need REAL savings, so that entrepreneurs can use that money to start businesses. Businesses that people actually WANT, not businesses that failed and had to be bailed out (a very anti-capitalist move). Failed businesses should be allowed to fail so that productive businesses can grow in their place. From there, we can create jobs and wealth.
[/QUOTE]
And you do know that if people were saving money, many (if not most) would save up their money in the bank without ever touching it? It would essentially lead to money being "stuck" - not the best word to use for this situation but can't think of a better one. Not everyone will invest the money they save up, not even half will.
I actually hear a similar argument to that earlier today (much more extreme than your argument but their logic for end result is similar). The other person said that government needs to remove income taxes entirely so people have more money in their pockets to buy more things with and to invest more with, allowing the economy to flourish. I asked him "What happens when the people refuse to buy more things and refuse to invest and end up keeping the extra money they make in the bank?" He said "Well then it would be their choice." I wasn't too happy with that response. That tells me one of 2 things: a) He doesn't understand the basics of how taxation works and/or b) he doesn't understand that cutting all income taxes is not an answer to solving the economic problems.
As I mentioned in my opening post, capitalism works best when money is cycling between different sectors (i.e. public sector, private sector, etc). Taxing helps the money cycle between the government and the people. When the government receives the tax money, they spend that money on other matters, such as building roads and providing service to the people. As soon as the money cycle stops or slows down, capitalism starts to destabilize and fall apart.
Therefore, leaving the spending in the hands of the people is not a solution. If anything, it could hurt the economy more than help.
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]Regulations making the US uncompetitive? Are you talking about minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety, etc?
Because, in order to be 'competitive' with places like China and India, we would have to use American workers 14 hours a day for $10 a day.
There are still major corporations in America that are bringing in RECORD profits... Not just profits, but RECORD profits. Americans still love buying stuff and this country still uses a hell of a lot of steel.
The biggest difference between now and 50 years ago are the trade agreements, globalization and the lack of tariffs on imported products... And that is why CEOs are making obscenely more money, there are virtually NO jobs that can support a family for unskilled workers and there has been a massive distribution of wealth to the Top 1%.
If you want to take things back to when the Constitution was written, fine... Massive tariffs on imported goods and no trade agreements. I with you on those two things.[/QUOTE]
There are other differences between now and 50 years ago. 1- There are more regulations. For instance, due to the Patriot Act banks have to monitor their clients banking habits and are forced to report those habit to the government. That is extra time and money, and is one of many regulations we have on businesses today.
Another difference is government interference in markets. The most obvious example of this is college tuition. People wonder why college tuition is so high and I know the answer, it's a fairly simple one. They're high because the government guarantees the repayment of loans to the lenders. Because of this, the lenders take no risk by giving out loans. Even if the student doesn't pay them back, they get their money from the government. This leads to lower loaning standards, and now EVERYONE and their momma is able to get loans.
You'd think this would be a good thing, right? More kids could go to college? Actually it's a negative, because due to this, colleges can raise the tuition as high as they please. Because EVERYONE can get a loan, they don't lose any customers by raising the tuition.
If the government didn't guarantee tuition loans, tuition would be much cheaper. Colleges would be forced to lower prices to attract customers. Imagine trying to charge $25,000 a year for college, when customers had to pay cash? It'd be impossible. Prices would come way down.
And in fact that's what you see. Look at college tuition prices before government got involved and they're in the $2,000 a year range, more or less depending on the school.
Government is similarly involved in other markets, including medical care and real estate.
But by far the biggest difference between now and 50 years ago is inflation. We had inflation 50 years ago, sure, but it's continued to skyrocket since then and now we're at a precipice. This is caused by the Federal Reserve, an entirely unconstitutional bank that is allowed to expand the money supply at their own will.
Of course companies are still bringing in profits.. it's the smaller companies that are most hurt by regulations. The big companies can afford to pay the extra money, the smaller companies can't. They either go out of business or move overseas.
Also, their record profits may be misleading. With so much inflation, of course their raw dollar number is higher. But is it of the same worth?
[QUOTE=joe]There are other differences between now and 50 years ago. 1- There are more regulations. For instance, due to the Patriot Act banks have to monitor their clients banking habits and are forced to report those habit to the government. That is extra time and money, and is one of many regulations we have on businesses today.
Another difference is government interference in markets. The most obvious example of this is college tuition. People wonder why college tuition is so high and I know the answer, it's a fairly simple one. They're high because the government guarantees the repayment of loans to the lenders. Because of this, the lenders take no risk by giving out loans. Even if the student doesn't pay them back, they get their money from the government. This leads to lower loaning standards, and now EVERYONE and their momma is able to get loans.
You'd think this would be a good thing, right? More kids could go to college? Actually it's a negative, because due to this, colleges can raise the tuition as high as they please. Because EVERYONE can get a loan, they don't lose any customers by raising the tuition.
If the government didn't guarantee tuition loans, tuition would be much cheaper. Colleges would be forced to lower prices to attract customers. Imagine trying to charge $25,000 a year for college, when customers had to pay cash? It'd be impossible. Prices would come way down.
And in fact that's what you see. Look at college tuition prices before government got involved and they're in the $2,000 a year range, more or less depending on the school.[/quote]
College tuition and student loans are complete rackets. I think we can all agree on that... At least, anyone who has ever been to college. You are right in that there is no risk to lenders and there seems to be no cap on the ever-increasing price of tuition.
I think that there is another, less obvious problem at work, here, involving the current state of colleges, tuition and -- more importantly -- the value of a diploma.
There was a time when reaching the upper-levels of education by getting accepted into college and earning your degree was a real accomplishment that came with real rewards (full-time employment upon graduation, plenty of job offers).
These days, with the massive number of people attending universities and colleges across the country, the market-place has been totally diluted with students and graduates and they all cannot be compensated with work.
This goes back to your statement about the enterprise that upper-echelon schooling has become. It is no longer about developing the nation's future leaders and the people who are truly skilled in a subject, but about holding onto you for as long as possible (average time for degree completion has increased from four to five years in the last 15-20 years), milking as much money as possible out of you and then getting you out of there.
Things like graduation rates have supplanted actual education for a lot of schools, because the higher the graduation rate, the more they can charge.
Now, throw in the fact that the unskilled labor force is basically done in this country and you have an influx of students who may have worked in a mill for a good, livable wage right out of high school being forced to go to college to even have a shot at a similar paying job.
It is really a vicious circle. The fall of our manufacturing base has had ripples in literally every segment of society. From the ridiculous redistribution of wealth to the top 1% of the country to the completely deluded workforce all competing for the same jobs.
[QUOTE=joe]Also, their record profits may be misleading. With so much inflation, of course their raw dollar number is higher. But is it of the same worth?[/QUOTE]
Raw dollar numbers really have nothing to do with it. Again, in 1950, the average CEO made 30x the average worker. Now it is 300-500x the average worker. There is no amount of inflation that is going to explain away this disparity. It is staggering, frankly.
I would like to hear your opinions on NAFTA, tariffs and other trade agreements.
[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]College tuition and student loans are complete rackets. I think we can all agree on that... At least, anyone who has ever been to college. You are right in that there is no risk to lenders and there seems to be no cap on the ever-increasing price of tuition.
I think that there is another, less obvious problem at work, here, involving the current state of colleges, tuition and -- more importantly -- the value of a diploma.
There was a time when reaching the upper-levels of education by getting accepted into college and earning your degree was a real accomplishment that came with real rewards (full-time employment upon graduation, plenty of job offers).
These days, with the massive number of people attending universities and colleges across the country, the market-place has been totally diluted with students and graduates and they all cannot be compensated with work.
This goes back to your statement about the enterprise that upper-echelon schooling has become. It is no longer about developing the nation's future leaders and the people who are truly skilled in a subject, but about holding onto you for as long as possible (average time for degree completion has increased from four to five years in the last 15-20 years), milking as much money as possible out of you and then getting you out of there.
Things like graduation rates have supplanted actual education for a lot of schools, because the higher the graduation rate, the more they can charge.
Now, throw in the fact that the unskilled labor force is basically done in this country and you have an influx of students who may have worked in a mill for a good, livable wage right out of high school being forced to go to college to even have a shot at a similar paying job.
It is really a vicious circle. The fall of our manufacturing base has had ripples in literally every segment of society. From the ridiculous redistribution of wealth to the top 1% of the country to the completely deluded workforce all competing for the same jobs.
Raw dollar numbers really have nothing to do with it. Again, in 1950, the average CEO made 30x the average worker. Now it is 300-500x the average worker. There is no amount of inflation that is going to explain away this disparity. It is staggering, frankly.
I would like to hear your opinions on NAFTA, tariffs and other trade agreements.[/QUOTE]
Haven't done much research on NAFTA or US tariffs, but I'll do some and come back with an opinion later tonight (if I'm able to learn enough about it in a few hours to form some type of rational opinion).
To respond to your other points though..
1 - More people in college, college holding us there longer. I don't disagree with you but I don't necessarily blame the colleges for wanting people there longer. When you're making the amount of money they're making for one year of classes, it makes good business sense to get people to stay an extra year. I think the blame for this goes back to the government for guaranteeing the repayment of loans, allowing tuition prices to sky rocket.
The fact that so many people are attending college is again the governments fault. Hate to sound like a dead horse, but the truth is the truth is the truth. Government has made college a VERY profitable business venture. By guaranteeing the loan repayments, college tuition has skyrockets as a result. Of course this should lead to more colleges opening up. And that's what I find with my research:
[url]http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98[/url]
Scroll down and look at the chart. As you can see, the number of higher education institutions has increased every year studied.
That page also shows that colleges are enrolling more people every year. Again, this is the cause of government. If colleges weren't making $20,000 a year per student, they couldn't afford to allow so many people to enroll. They couldn't afford to build the extra dorms, hire the extra teachers, etc.
Then here's the real effect of this: College is leaving too many citizens with too much debt. The more debt a citizen has, along with the more taxes they pay, equals the less amount of money they have to save. Coupled with the federal reserve inflating the money/artificially lowering interest rates, saving is now more than ever an impossible option for most Americans. If you believe like me that it's a surplus of savings which allows new businesses to be born and to thrive... it becomes a huge problem.
How can new businesses be born when banks have no money to lend, and people have no money to spend?
To your point about the fall of our manufacturing base. This is a huge problem and the main reason for our trade deficit. We produce very little these days, which is why everything you own says "made in China" on it. In the 30's, it'd say "Made in the United States."
Production is the key to a great economy because it increases exports. Exports not only decrease our trade deficit but put us on the positive side of things.. we'd be owed more money than we owe.
There's many many factors to our lack of production and I can't pretend to know them all. I think the surplus of college students may be a small part of it, but I'd say the larger part is that [B]we as a country haven't had to pay the price of our negative trade deficit.[/B]
Because the dollar is the default currency, and because of our overall reputation as a prosperous nation, we've gotten away with all this importing, even when we hardly export anymore.
Eventually, sooner rather than later, this will all come crashing down. People aren't going to keep giving us cars/tv's/computers in exchange for the dollar soon enough, because the dollar won't be worth jack. When that happens, expect all of your standards of living to go down.
For now, other countries are propping our way of life up. But when they stop.. could be this year, could be within the next few years.. It will be a long fall down.
The inflation of the dollar, the big government, and everything else will act as a bed of spikes at the bottom of our fall.
The real estate bust isn't helping either.
Middle-class people who were trying to buy homes, ended up losing their homes and destroying their credit. Lower-class people completely lost any dream of owning a home. And the upper-class people with disposable income are buying up homes for dirt cheap... and then renting them to the poor and middle class people.
Rich get richer.
[QUOTE=bdreason]The real estate bust isn't helping either.
Middle-class people who were trying to buy homes, ended up losing their homes and destroying their credit. Lower-class people completely lost any dream of owning a home. And the upper-class people with disposable income are buying up homes for dirt cheap... and then renting them to the poor and middle class people.
Rich get richer.[/QUOTE]
Exactly whats happening in Florida.
[QUOTE=-playmaker-]I don't know what the f*ck you guys are talking about...10% of our households make $164k a year?
that is VERY GOOD!!!
10% is A LOT OF PEOPLE!!!
[B]hell the BOTTOM 10% makes $30k...that is pretty poor, but they are living, and that is our "dirt"...[/B]
these charts are good IMO...not bad
this country is well off![/QUOTE]
Re-read the chart.
That's not the bottom 10%. That's the bottom 90%.
Some people (not Breason :-)) like to blame the housing bubble/housing collapse/recession on capitalism.
The housing bubble was NOT the fault of rich people, or capitalism, or anything like that.
It is the fault of government interference with the economy.
What we currently have in the USA, is the federal reserve bank which artificially manipulates interest rates. I won't get into why or how, but they've been keeping interest rates artificially low for a very long time. Including the time period before the housing collapse. This means you get less return for saving, but you pay less interest to borrow.
What this did was allow many people who had no business borrowing money, to borrow money from banks. Now we've got a bunch of Americans with loans looking for something to spend the money on.
Then, we've got the government guaranteeing bad mortgages. They say to any mortgage company, that if a person defaults on their loan, don't worry about it, we'll pay you the money. Because of this, mortgage companies lowered their standards. Even if you had not-so-good credit, they'd accept you and give you the money for a home.
Meanwhile, the false perception was growing that homes were a good investment. The thought was that the price of homes would continue to rise forever, so smart people should borrow money, buy a home, and later sell it for a profit. Remember all those people with the bank loans? This is what they spent their money on.
Because the DEMAND for homes was growing from people who seemed to have money (they didn't REALLY have money, they just borrowed it), companies began to increase the supply to match it. We had companies all over the USA building new homes, thinking there'd be massive amounts of people with money ready to buy them all up.
This my friend, is what we call a bubble. We had a housing bubble. So how did the bubble burst?
The bubble burst because banks/real estate brokers/mortgage companies realized the people couldn't really afford those homes they bought. We got people defaulting on their loans left and right, and suddenly the price of real estate is going DOWN because the companies see that nobody can really afford these houses at the inflated prices. Meanwhile we've got all these homes being built across the country that nobody can afford anymore (nor could they truly ever).
The true cause of the housing bubble was government interfering with the economy. If the federal reserve wasn't messing with interest rates, companies could better read if people had money to spend, and banks wouldn't be giving out loans to people who didn't have the money to pay it back. If the government wasn't guaranteeing mortgages, we wouldn't have a bunch of people buying homes that truly couldn't afford them.
This also helped cause the recession, but I'll get into that another time if anyone is still interested.
And now what direction are we going in? We are only getting more government interference with the economy, and worse yet, the people are CLAMORING for it! They don't understand that that's what caused these problems to begin with.
I'm a Real Estate agent with a BA in Economics... but thanks.
I didn't blame anything on "the rich people". I simply stated that the real estate bust is further increasing the wealth gap between the upper, middle, and lower class.
I'de say 90% of the homes I sell these days are secondary homes or investment properties... and most of them are short sells as well(meaning the original owner is defaulting on the loan).
[QUOTE=bdreason]I'm a Real Estate agent with a BA in Economics... but thanks.
I didn't blame anything on "the rich people". I simply stated that the real estate bust is further increasing the wealth gap between the upper, middle, and lower class.
I'de say 90% of the homes I sell these days are secondary homes or investment properties... and most of them are short sells as well(meaning the original owner is defaulting on the loan).[/QUOTE]
My fault, didn't realize you had a background in economics. Honestly, that "rich get richer" bit you said was true, but most people who say that are people who AREN'T educated in economics. "Oh, the rich get richer, what a horrible country we are," calling for the end of capitalism and what not. That's why I went off on that whole lecture. My apologies.
[QUOTE=joe]My fault, didn't realize you had a background in economics. Honestly, that "rich get richer" bit you said was true, but most people who say that are people who AREN'T educated in economics. "Oh, the rich get richer, what a horrible country we are," calling for the end of capitalism and what not. That's why I went off on that whole lecture. My apologies.[/QUOTE]
No worries man, it was good info.
I personally hold the lending institutions largely responsible for the real estate bust... and many of my good friends are loan officers (or were). These institutions were making loans they knew people couldn't afford, and then after everyone started defaulting on their loans, these same institutions tried to act like they were the victims.
I feel part of the blame falls on my shoulders too. I was selling homes to people even though I knew they couldn't afford them, and connecting them with my friends (loan officers) to get them pre-approved. Some of these sub-prime loans these people were taking out were beyond ridiculous, and I knew they could never pay them... but I said nothing. I have plenty of former clients who have defaulted on their loans, and it's something that I regret everyday of my life.
ps- a sub-prime loan is a loan that starts off with a low, fixed interest rate, but then changes to an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), increasing the monthly payments on the loan. Most the people who took these loans could barely pay their initial monthly payments, and once the ARM kicked in, they were forced to default on the loan.
[QUOTE=bdreason]No worries man, it was good info.
I personally hold the lending institutions largely responsible for the real estate bust... and many of my good friends are loan officers (or were). These institutions were making loans they knew people couldn't afford, and then after everyone started defaulting on their loans, these same institutions tried to act like they were the victims.
I feel part of the blame falls on my shoulders too. I was selling homes to people even though I knew they couldn't afford them, and connecting them with my friends (loan officers) to get them pre-approved. Some of these sub-prime loans these people were taking out were beyond ridiculous, and I knew they could never pay them... but I said nothing. I have plenty of former clients who have defaulted on their loans, and it's something that I regret everyday of my life.
ps- a sub-prime loan is a loan that starts off with a low, fixed interest rate, but then changes to an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), increasing the monthly payments on the loan. Most the people who took these loans could barely pay their initial monthly payments, and once the ARM kicked in, they were forced to default on the loan.[/QUOTE]
My brother in law worked for a mortgage company, and he feels some of the same guilt you speak of. Got to do what you got to do to support yourself/the family, though.
He worked with people to re-structure the terms of their mortgage, so they wouldn't have to default. This generally let people lower their monthly fee, but added years and years of repayment overall, and of course much more interest to be paid overall as well.
[QUOTE=sawyersauce]Re-read the chart.
That's not the bottom 10%. That's the bottom 90%.[/QUOTE]
you're right, I completely f*cked that up...thank you
[QUOTE=-playmaker-]you're right, I completely f*cked that up...thank you[/QUOTE]
You're welcome.
It was a nit-pick, but I figured that mis-read was shaping your latter argument.
[QUOTE=sawyersauce]You're welcome.
It was a nit-pick, but I figured that mis-read was shaping your latter argument.[/QUOTE]
yes it was...not a nit pick at all really...It actually had a great deal to do with how I viewed the entire thing...
the later charts go on to say that the average medium net worth is $120k or so though...how is that even possible making 30k a year?
seems like a lot of this you just kind of have to accept...and it also feels like a lot of it is very misleading...
but whatever...I am just trying to worry about myself, I know this country is far from perfect...but we are still much better off than most...
it also says your odds of being a millionare are 1 in 22...
that seems very high to me, not low...that is a shit load of millionares...
[QUOTE=joe]My brother in law worked for a mortgage company, and he feels some of the same guilt you speak of. Got to do what you got to do to support yourself/the family, though.
He worked with people to re-structure the terms of their mortgage, so they wouldn't have to default. This generally let people lower their monthly fee, but added years and years of repayment overall, and of course much more interest to be paid overall as well.[/QUOTE]
It's an incredibly volatile situation. The people buying the home want the loan, even if they can't afford it (or don't know they can't afford it). I want to sell them the home, because that's how I earn my living... and the loan officer is in the same boat. Everyone wants to get the deal done, so if there is anyway (sub-prime loan) to get it done, everyone turns a blind eye to the possible problems down the road. The entire situation was like a perfect storm, and when you throw big money commissions into the equation, it turns into a tornado. At times, it didn't even seem real. Like we were operating outside the box, in some fantasy world. I imagine that's what it must feel like for the people working on wall street as well. Playing with peoples livelyhoods like it's funny money in fantasy world. I considered becoming a stockbrocker or investment analyst coming out of College, but I got into real estate because I thought I could make a good living providing an honest service (and because many of my family members work in real estate). For the most part I feel like I have stayed true to myself, but there is no doubt that I've ruined peoples lives to improve my standard of living, and its something I think about all of the time.
Sorry for the rant. It's late, I'm tired.
[QUOTE=bdreason]It's an incredibly volatile situation. The people buying the home want the loan, even if they can't afford it (or don't know they can't afford it). I want to sell them the home, because that's how I earn my living... and the loan officer is in the same boat. Everyone wants to get the deal done, so if there is anyway (sub-prime loan) to get it done, everyone turns a blind eye to the possible problems down the road. The entire situation was like a perfect storm, and when you throw big money commissions into the equation, it turns into a tornado. At times, it didn't even seem real. Like we were operating outside the box, in some fantasy world. I imagine that's what it must feel like for the people working on wall street as well. Playing with peoples livelyhoods like it's funny money in fantasy world. I considered becoming a stockbrocker or investment analyst coming out of College, but I got into real estate because I thought I could make a good living providing an honest service (and because many of my family members work in real estate). For the most part I feel like I have stayed true to myself, but there is no doubt that I've ruined peoples lives to improve my standard of living, and its something I think about all of the time.[/QUOTE]
It's a volatile situation indeed, but there's a few other factors that need to be mentioned.
1- Those mortgage companies messed up, no doubt about it. Not only was it immoral to make those loans, but it was also very bad business. If you know someone can't pay back a loan, you shouldn't make the loan. You're getting screwed just as much as them in the end.
It's those business practices that should have put these companies out of business, yet we bailed many of these companies out. What would've happened if we let them fail? Well, many people would lose their jobs (maybe even you). There would be a lot of mis-allocated resources in the economy, causing a recession (or a dip). However, in place of those failed companies, over time, newer and better mortgage companies would emerge. These new companies would create more jobs, and create more wealth in the economy. The recession could end peacefully.
But what we did instead was bail them out. Now we're stuck with companies that the people clearly don't want, as they failed. Just to save a few jobs? That's not how capitalism is supposed to work.
The good companies should survive, the bad companies should die off.
2) It's in large part the federal reserves fault, for messing with interest rates. They keep rates too low, allowing any schmoe to get bank loans, regardless of if they can realistically pay it back. Since banks can get money from the fed damn near anytime they want, they've lowered lending standards. This led to many people having loans that SHOULDN'T have had them to begin with.
If those people couldn't get loans, like they wouldn't be able to in a free market economy.. everyone and their brother couldn't go and buy a house as a supposed "investment."
The argument for and against deregulation, or how much deregulation was to blame for the entire situation is an interesting topic. I'll post my opinions tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. I will say that, in the end, the federal reserve is really the one dictating everything. That's reason enough to require significant regulation, if for no other reason than to dampen the boom and bust cycles the Fed creates. Less regulation, less government, and truely free markets would obviously be ideal if we weren't dealing with a central banking system that calls all the shots, and answers to nobody.
[QUOTE=bdreason]The argument for and against deregulation, or how much deregulation was to blame for the entire situation is an interesting topic. I'll post my opinions tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. I will say that, in the end, the federal reserve is really the one dictating everything. That's reason enough to require significant regulation, if for no other reason than to dampen the boom and bust cycles the Fed creates.[B] Less regulation, less government, and truely free markets would obviously be ideal if we weren't dealing with a central banking system that calls all the shots, and answers to nobody.[/B][/QUOTE]
Totally agree with the bolded. If you do post those thoughts I'll make sure to read them.
Anyone in here still think capitalism is the problem? If so open your mind. This country was built on capitalism, and we had our most prosperous times because of it. Along with the constitution, it's the most important building block of our country. Sadly, both of those things are very misunderstood and trampled upon in 2011.
just have a few questions
if things get worse, rich get richer poor poorer, would a revolution happen?
[QUOTE=Stuckey]just have a few questions
if things get worse, rich get richer poor poorer, would a revolution happen?[/QUOTE]
Idk if this was directed at me but I'll answer it anyways because I'm bored.
As far as a violent revolution, I don't really see that happening right now. People don't care enough about this stuff to risk their lives for it. But a revolution of thought is certainly possible, especially if things get bad enough.
It seems somewhat of a revolution of thought is going on right now, but it's fighting for the wrong things. A lot of young people got excited about politics in 2008, I was one of them, but we keep begging for our own destruction. We want socialized medicine. Bigger government. Less freedoms in exchange for protection from terrorism.
Some people are on the right track, however.
If the rich keep getting richer, poor keep getting poorer, my hope is that THIS is the revolution:
People realize our government has been hijacked by corporations, and our politicians are corrupt. They are disregarding the constitution at every turn, and that needs to be stopped. The government must be shrunk, and we need to bring our troops home from EVERYWHERE, not just the middle east. We want our personal liberties back, and in return we'll abolish this welfare state. Real capitalism is to be restored. We want the return of sound money, which means the federal reserve shall be abolished, and we go back on the gold standard. We want much fewer regulations on business. We need less prisoners, and companies shouldn't profit from putting people behind bars. End of the drug war. Legalization of marijuana and other drugs. FREEDOM. The constitution restored, and followed strictly.
My fear is that THIS may be the revolution:
We desire socialist policies because that's the only "fair" way to do things. It's not right that some people are filthy rich while others can't afford food. We want these dirty businessmen to give some of their wealth to us. We want "free" healthcare, even though it's entirely unconstitutional and will cost a bunch in taxes. The constitution is outdated, and only restricts us from growing as a country. We need harsher regulations on business because that's the only way to keep them from stealing from the poor. We need more military spending because terrorists lurk at every turn. We need more welfare because I don't want to support myself. More "republican Vs Democrat" non-sense, when the fact is they're nearly the exact same thing, policy wise.
What I think will probably happen?
People will continue to not really care about any of this. They think hell, the country's messed up but why should I care? I just want to live my life and enjoy it, no sense in worrying about politics.
That attitude, which currently permeates most of the country.. will continue on until the dollar collapses. At that point people will want answers, and because they're still not educated, they'll be convinced that "what they need is THIsss...", with "THIssss" being more policy that keeps the current powers that be in power, so they can continue to pass ridiculous legislation that helps no one but themselves.
Naysayers will continue to be marginalized in the media. Ignorant Americans will continue to believe everything the news tells them, because, "if they're on tv, they must know what they're talking about."
And then the masses will be convinced that they want more socialization in the government. That they want more war. That it's good for them, good for us as a country. Just as they're being convinced of that now by Obama and his cronies.
And the people will not only get what they want.. but they will beg for it. For the very things that will bring us down in the end.
Sad face.
you really think the dollar will collapse?
[QUOTE=Stuckey]you really think the dollar will collapse?[/QUOTE]
I do think so sadly. I could be wrong, but from my own research.. and from the words of experts I trust on this topic.. that seems to be where we're headed unless there's major changes. And FAST. But that doesn't seem likely.
The basic problem is the federal reserve keeps inflating the dollar. It's losing its worth steadily over time, and relatively sharply in the last few years. That obviously doesn't make all of our debtors happy. China especially. There's no possible way we'll ever be able to pay China back everything we owe them.
Meanwhile, we're not taking any steps to help that situation. We're still inflating. We're making it impossible for new businesses to form, ones that actually produce things (thanks to all of our regulations, taxes, etc.) If we had businesses exporting products, it'd lower our trade deficit. But most businesses we have are consumer businesses, that don't produce goods. Things like movie theatres, wal-mart, etc. That's all well and good, but it doesn't help the trade deficit. And more importantly, most of the goods we buy are from other countries (because we don't produce much). That helps the other countries while simultaneously hurting us.
While this is all going on, China keeps propping us up. They allow us to raise the trade ceiling. They keep exporting us products at a deficit. They buy our dollars.
But what may (and I think will) happen eventually, is China will get tired of that. They will realize we aren't making any changes that would help us to pay them back in the future. The dollar will keep being worth less and less over time. Eventually, China will pull out. They'll stop supporting us.
When that happens.... is when the dollar would collapse. And our economy will be in shambles.
Many say the Chinese would never do this, because we're their biggest exporter. Without us, who would they sell all of their stuff too? And while it's true that it'll hurt them a bit in the short term, in the long term dropping us will only strengthen their economy and quality of life. Instead of exporting all of their products to us, the Chinese people will actually be able to enjoy some of those things for themselves. There's plenty of people in China with money to spend.
I'm still in the continuous process of educating myself on these things as well, so I may be missing some additional details. But that's basically the bare bones of the situation.
Also, it's important to note that this is nothing unexpected. This is what happens to countries that use paper money, as we do. Our money used to be backed by gold, but is no longer. When the money isn't "tied down," so to speak, the way of things is inflation, corruption, and everything else we see. The only answer is to abolish the federal reserve. And while that is just one of the many things that need to happen for America to get back on track, it may very well be the most important.
It's also important to note that there's no guaranteed time line of when this will happen. It could happen this year, it could be in the next few years. It depends on how China decides to play it. But from what I'm hearing from reliable experts, and from what I read, it will happen. Barring a miracle of policy change in the USA, that is.
healthy inflation is 5% a year and we have been below that recently...we aren't inflating much, our shit is going down in value...we have been deflating at times even...
we owe China an amount that is near impossible to pay back they guess what....they have a huge debt with us as well...
in order for the dollar to collapse there needs to be hyperinflation and that isn't anywhere in our near future...
[IMG]http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/Inflation500x312.gif[/IMG]
^^^ see that, we were deflating there for a while during that recession, meaning that the dollar gained value...people are hungry for money
but that is a BAD THING ALSO...obviously
for the economy to remain healthy, 5% inflation is needed...inflation like that let's our property rise and gain value...
you buy a house 15 years ago, and you are still making payments on it based on what the dollar was valued BACK THEN!!!
so inflation is good for home owners...you see?
if we were to inflate to the point that 1,000 is nothing, then suddenly my morgage payments are nothing...(extreme example, obviously that would be a bad thing if 1,000 was nothing)
but can you see how a little inflation helps the economy?...it raises the value of what we own...