Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty

But... But... I like my xbox...

 

Just go outside and play soldier like most kids used to. Just requires a stick and a little imagination, not some worker-oppressing Call of Duty download

That is where the left's complaints fall apart though--they like the stuff they buy that doesn't create jobs, but it is the evil corporations' fault for making it available to them, so they should be robbed of their profits to create jobs for workers who produce things nobody wants.

 

No, 1% is not ideal, and it is not even historical in the US. Growth normalized for population in the US varies considerably and usually follows the roughly 7 year business cycle.

The USA real GDP growth rate per capita has been 1.11% in 2011, 2.06% in 2012, 1.15% in 2013. Does the economy feel "ideal" to you?

You keep mentioning population growth, population growth can increase the direct GDP measures but that is accounted for in per-capita real GDP measures.

 

What is the average inflation adjusted growth in per capita output from 1700 to 2014?

And remember 1% compounded adds up, it doubles the per capita output in 77 years, quadruples it in 154 years...in 300 years that a times 16 multiplier...
And the population of the US increased 100 fold in that time. 1% average growth means an inflation adjusted GDP that is 1600 times what it was in the 1700's.
That would take the $100 per capita income of 1700 and convert it to $1600 unadjusted or about $40,000 inflation adjusted...
in 2012 per capita GDP is $51,000, that is just a smidge more than 1% per capita growth would produce....
You don't have to do the math, I just did it for you...

 

Lefty's like their food organic and GMO free. They buy their stuff from Etsy, hand made to order. They drink craft beer and small batch whiskey. They smoke only the best weed. They hire architects and skilled carpenters and pay them good money to realize their particular vision of living. They stock their smartphones with apps made in places like Brooklyn and Boston and Austin. They make their kids go outside to play and encourage them to be self reliant, letting them travel alone even in a big city. They cater to local shops and eateries as much as possible.
They support local labour intensive industry. They embrace the unknown future.

Righty's stock their pantries and houses with mass produced products. They drink Budweiser and Miller and Jack Daniels. They smoke weed from Mexico. The buy mass produced cookie cutter houses in massive suburban developments that destroy productive farmland, wetlands and forests. They buy only the apps made for their Microsoft tablet by Microsoft engineers in China because they do not trust anyone else. They let their kids play Xbox games 20 hours a day because they are afraid they will be snatched if they ever go anywhere by themselves, even in the back yard. They shop only at large chain stores and eat only at chain restaurants.
They fear both the unknown and the future so it makes sense for them to throw their support to a future that is even more of the same than today, the same slow reduction of choices to be made, the same slow reduction of living standard, just like frogs put into a cold pot of water and slowly cooked to death.

 

From 1790 to 2013 the real GDP growth rate per capita is 1.72% (data before 1790 is unreliable).

Your assumption is that a constant 1% growth rate is equal to a growth rate that fluctuates between -4% and +7%. I'm not sure thats true. When there is a contraction, the unhealthy and wastefull economic activities are flushed out which frees up resources for new opportunities. When there is a large expansion, there is excess capital and opportunity to pursue new ventures and innovation. As we are seeing since 2008, a 1%-2% growth rate is treading water - it simply maintains the status quo at best.

 

Bravo, I haven't heard someone use so many words to say absolutely nothing since Obama's second inaugural. Well played.

 

No I can be right all the time

"One of the most persistent claims about the 1980s is that Ronald Reagan and
George Bush were responsible for the large budget deficits of that decade and the
resultant national debt.
In reality, of course, both Congress and the administration share the
responsibility. The problem is that the role that Congress played in deficit
spending over 1982-93 is usually ignored. Congress often revises or entirely
ignores White House budget requests, as with Reagan’s “dead on arrival”
budgets. Because of the persistance of this charge, we examine the question:
Who was mostresponsible for the increase in the national debt, Reagan or the
Congress?
Comparing the Reagan budget requests with the amount of spending Congress
actually approved, we conclude:
• Tax cuts had little to do with the explosion of the deficit. The deficits of the
1980s are often blamed on the Reagan tax cuts of 1981. But the problem was
not government income. Government receipts had almost doubled, rising
from $517 billion in 1980 to $1.031 trillion in 1990.
• Congress outspent Reagan in every year. Congress typically savaged
Reagan’s spending requests as draconian and heartless. Then, the
appropriators rewrote the budget for their priorities and spent a cumulative
$209 billion above Reagan’s requests from 1982-1989.
• Congress spent substantially more on entitlements than Reagan requested.
Reagan routinely asked for money-saving entitlement reforms. Congress
ignored the reforms and increased benefits and eligibility for entitlements.
• Reagan’s budget requests for the military were consistently higher than the
levels Congress appropriated. Congress spent about $80 billion less than
Reagan requested on the military, but still spent around $390 billion more on
domestic programs.
• Reagan recission requests were ignored.Reagan asked that $43.4 billion of
appropriated funds not be spent. Congress approved only $16.5 billion,
leaving $26.8 billion spent."

http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/whose-free-lunch--the-truth-about-the-reagan-deficits

 

LOL, you cite a right wing propaganda organ, that's why you are wrong all the time, you're a victim of disinformation, MOD EDIT - Rule 3

 

Do the math, your link says congress approved 209 billion more than Reagan asked for, Reagan added 1.6 trillion to the debt.
And your link failed to point out that the Senate was Republican for most of the Reagan administration, and that Republicans voted for all those budgets that exceeded what Reagan asked for, during the two years that Democrats controlled both houses of congress, congress approved less than Reagan asked for.

But the real truth is that there was never much difference between what Reagan asked for and what congress approved....

 

1.7% average, and that includes the period with the highest growth rate in history.
There is real reason to believe that growth is going to be in the 1 to 2 % range for a long time...and closer to 1 than 2....

 

Read the article, the Dems drove the higher spending while Reagan requested less.

So what, Reagan didn't run it and the Congressional Dems supported his lower spending request while the House led by Tip O'Neil pressed for higher. You do know how government works? Compromise. They spent more than Reagan wanted and less than the Democrats wanted.

 

I know that right wing propaganda is going to claim that, but even if Reagan had gotten exactly the spending he wanted, he would have still added 1.4 trillion to the debt, and he promised a balanced budget by 1984.
But even your propaganda rag can't show where congress and the president differed very much in spending, Reagan and the Bushs got pretty much exactly what they asked for for spending...Reagan spent over 7.5 trillion dollars, even if he got everything he wanted according to the article he would have spent 7.3 trillion dollars, and a lot of that overage wasn't really overage, it was under budgeting mandatory spending by using Rosy Scenarios to budget unemployment, welfare and food stamps, and when things weren't as vastly improved as the budget assumed, there was a lot more spending....automatically

 

Yes, growth is going to be low and the real reason is government regulation and manipulation of the economy and private activities.

And you have not addressed your assumption that a constant growth rate equal to the average rate is equal to or superiior to a growth rate that fluctuates.

And you have not addressed the fact that we have had a roughly 1% growth rate for the last 5 years, and the economy is at best a jobless and weak "recovery". This is what you see as "ideal"?

 

I didn't say ideal, I said real, that is what we can expect, that is the precedent, the example and the lesson of history.
We have had some serious breakthroughs industrial, electronic, nuclear over the past few hundred years, those can supply bursts of growth. But over time, supplying huge growth requires importing techniques and technology, and we can't do that.
China can, India can, but even those two recent superstars of growth are seeing growth moderate, 10% growth from next to nothing is easy, because all you need to add is 10% of next to nothing. But when you are one of the wealthiest nations, growth is difficult.
What could supply the US economy with the basis for rapid growth?

 

About all we can do now is ask the wealthy if they could pretty please distribute some of that wealth back down.

I'm reading the book too and what I'm getting out of it is that we reached a point some time ago where returns are greater on dollar-churning than they are on labor and production. If it was up to me there would be sales taxes on investment instruments and capital gains would be treated the same as sweat-of-brow income, but that ain't going to happen. We've lost control.

 

We don't know and can't assume we can operate with the facts we have and Reagan requested lower spending and the Democrats requested higher spending so blame the Democrats.

What propaganda rag I wasn't citing a magazine so you attempts to marginalize are quite empty.

If you something of substance to refute the study then post it, your baseless rants do not.
But if you believe the deficits then were bad where is your criticism of the Obama deficits, he took it to $!,400B and kept it about $1,100B for 4 years and he DID get the spending he wanted.

 

Why not earn your own?

It's been roundly debunked.

OK then no tax on the gains.

 

It must be a struggle to go through life, unable to do the math.....
Even if your biggest possible variance is accepted as fact, and it comes from a suspect source, Reagan doesn't triple the debt, he only makes it 2.9 times what it was when he took office....and that is your point......and its based on false assumptions, because the Congress passed spending that was less than Reagan asked for, when the congress was controlled by Democrats. It passed more than Reagan asked for when it was controlled by Republicans, and Conservative Democrats.....

Your link is a right wing propaganda web site, or didn't you notice?

I refuted your premise with mathematical precision, you just demonstrated it went way over your head....
Obama took a 1 .4 trillion dollar deficit and cut it in half. Reagan didn't do that.....

 

"Why not earn your own?", said the Sheriff of Nottingham to Robin Hood.

You really didn't expect rightwingers not to debunk it, did you?

 

More garbage. Throughout history people have claimed we had reached the pinacle, there would be no more great breakthroughs in technology, agriculture, science, manufacturing. There were even people that claimed we were doomed because population growth would exceed our means of support and civilization would collapse in the 1970's, then the 1980's, the 1990's, etc.

Who predicted the transistor? Or GPS, the internet, the PC, refrigeration, the cotton gin? Nobody. And nobody is going to predict the next great revolution either. These advances only come about when people are allowed the freedom to pursue their interests and dreams. Thats were the govt gets in the way, and thats why we are stuck in a miserly 1% growth rate.

 

This isn't consistent with reality. Government interventionism has been a key part of innovation 'revolution'. This of course reflects the innate market failure associated with risk aversity

 

And insults are all you are left with?

The source is not suspect but highly respected you inability to refute them noted.

 

BS. The govt did not predict any of the major innovations - the automobile, the internet, GPS, transistor, microprocessor, refrigeration, cotton gin, and on and on. Even the technology revolution spurred by innovations that were initiailly heavily funded by the govt (such as GPS and the internet) were not predicted.

GPS was intended to be a military weapon technology and the US govt took great measures to limit its non-US military usefullness, which through totally private sector innovation were circumvented. Due to these circumventions and private sector visionaries the govt was forced to drop most of their measures to limit GPS usefullness. Nobody in the govt predicted the current use of GPS.

The same with the internet, it was to be a limited govt only communication system - a glorified text email system was the govt's vision. Beyond the initial funding, the web has developed due to private sector innovation and funding, and in spite of the govt.

Going back even further, the transistor was not a govt invention, and the first true microprocessor had absolutely nothing to do with the govt but was funded by a Japanese calculator company.

And while I am on electronics, the development of the PC had zip to do with the govt.

Before the early 20th century, the govt had almost nothing to do with any innovation that didn't have an immediate national need (such as ship building for the US Navy, or rifle & cannon development). It wasn't until WW1 that the govt began spending money in R&D after the airplane was shown to be so valuable.

And don't forget the Wright Borthers had zero govt funding. In fact, the govt funded program (headed by Samuel Langley and staffed with all the "best" govt engineers and scientists) suffered multiple failures. AFter Langley's final failure, he concluded
""we are still far from the ultimate goal, and it would seem as if years of constant work and study by experts, together with the expenditure of thousands of dollars, would still be necessary before we can hope to produce an apparatus of practical utility along these lines."

A week later, the Wright Brothers flew at Kitty Hawk.

Thats the real world govt, not your fantasy govt.

 

See, for example, spin-off technologies involved in the military sector. The most ill-liberal sector (even the structure reflects government demands, with the 'last supper' leading to mergers to allow for economies of scale effects).

Your position is based on utopianism, ignoring the nature of risk. Crikey, even firm creation has been linked to government welfare policy (providing a safety net that then allows for more risk-taking behaviour by individuals)