Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy.

You are correct. But that was *after* he cut taxes in 2003 and created a boom in 2006-2008. The 2008 stimulus was an effort to ameliorate the effects of the Great Recession. As usual, the so-called stimulus didn't do much, did it?

[/quot]We need velocity in the economy- the dollar changing hands many times. Only then will we see economic growth. People are saddled with too much debt and stagnant salaries aren't spending.[/QUOTE]

You simply do not change velocity by government taking a dollar out of my pocket and putting it in someone else's pocket. The velocity stays the same.

Every study that shows a positive effect assumes I'm going to bury that dollar in my back yard. That's why most legitimate studies come up with a range of $0.70 to $1.25 (or close to it). The Marxist Democrats and the media always play up the $1.25 but never the $0.70.

It is *far* more likely in my opinion that the $0.70 is closer to the truth. You have to pay someone in government to effect the transfer and they provide no net benefit to the economy in doing so!

 

To my blind friend , I'm not pointing out a difference that would be revealed between the city with higher wages and outside of the higher wage area. If they are the same numbers tell me how the wage increase inside the area has any value. Considering you get the same local results even when they don't have a minimum wage increase. If that's the case then the minimum wage increase hasn't changed anything. I'll draw a picture for you next time. Keep arguing though it shows the level of understanding that is lacking in your group.

 

1. When you want to study employment outside the boundary of the area where the minimum wage was increased then you *are* wanting to include extraneous data in the study.
2. I've never once used the term commie. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

You simply do not change velocity by government taking a dollar out of my pocket and putting it in someone else's pocket. The velocity stays the same.

Every study that shows a positive effect assumes I'm going to bury that dollar in my back yard. That's why most legitimate studies come up with a range of $0.70 to $1.25 (or close to it). The Marxist Democrats and the media always play up the $1.25 but never the $0.70.

It is *far* more likely in my opinion that the $0.70 is closer to the truth. You have to pay someone in government to effect the transfer and they provide no net benefit to the economy in doing so![/QUOTE]

 

I'm sure I can get you the figure. But if it is anything greater than zero then it had a negative impact on the economy!

Very few of local and regional banks lost any assets. Most of them were either good loans or were bundled into securities and sold.

That's why the FDIC wasn't overwhelmed with smaller banks failing and why only 1000 or so even had to take TARP loans to stay in business.

Even the smaller banks could go to the FED and get zero-rate loans. Many did. But guess what? They turned around and bought Treasuries with the money at guaranteed interest rates! A whole lot less risk than actually loaning the money out under Dodd/Frank!

 

It seems you are implying that those people making less money than your son deserve to make less money because they all made bad life choices, and has nothing to do with wage stagnation and the shrinking of the middle class. I'll agree that having children is a drain on your income, especially at a young age. However, people less affluent aren't all less affluent because of bad choices. Move your son from St. Louis to New York on the same salary, and his lifestyle would be very different. Now imagine those making a $1000 a month less in the same place.

You don't have to see individual numbers on that graph to see the trend. Look to the far right side of the chart, where wealth is being concentrated, and the shift of the majority of the population to much lower on the chart. While the very richest among us see their income growing enormously, the rest is experiencing a flattening of income distribution.

Here's the link you mentioned- http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/12/demise-of-the-us-middle-class-now-official.html

 

No, he isn't right. He is fundamentally wrong.


A tax break is not a gift.
The government is not giving you money.
It is taking less from you.

This is as fundamentally wrong as it is to call a + a -


Tax break is not subsidy.
That is bad maths.


£100 - £50 in tax = £50

Government took, £50.

Now lets apply a tax break.

£100 -£10 - £90.
Government took £10.

At not point was any money given by the government. In both examples they took money not gave it.


And this simple correction is key to understanding property rights.
The government does not own everything and simply licence you to hold what it thinks you deserve.

 

Mr cut and paste,
It doesn't matter what you called anyone, commie , Marxist, socialist because you have no clue what they mean anyway. You say it Its all around us, then you give a definition of it that has zero parallel to what exist here and somehow that's proof to you. This guy is clueless and offers nothing but gibberish . I'm trying to make him a better man buy educating him with facts against his blather.

 

No it didn't.

Nope. Businesses have been doiby this for a long time.

Nope. Businesses couldn't get loans because their credit sit was ****, or they had too high debt to income ratio.

No, I'm laughing at the crazy and moronic things conservatives say.

 

@upside222

Diddy banks were protected. Big banks? they couldn't afford to guarentee them.
I lost 2/3 of every thing I owned in bank stocks. They lost 2/3 of their asset values over night.

 

If the co-op member buys stock in the co-op and then keeps it when he retires and can will it to his children then it is no different than the ATT stock that I own today! Much of the stock I own today I still own for the dividends - i.e. the profit sharing. I got nothing for my ESOP stock. It was worth less when I retired than when I got it. I couldn't redeem it.

The only one dodging here seems to be you. You somehow want to play like a co-op is something special. It's no different than any LLC where the partners work in business. LLC's have to file the very same kind of papers laying out the structure and operation of the LLC.

 

You don't have a citation for your claim of BS. Revolutions absolutely do extend from economic inequalities. Perhaps you've heard of the French Revolution? Let them eat cake? Our own revolution was over being taxed to pay for a war in Europe. We rejected the idea that money made here should leave here because a king needed money.

America does have riches, no doubt. America's poor are wealthier than the poor in many countries, no doubt. However, the real issue is our stagnant economy. It is stagnant because of the shift in income away from the middle, where it provided velocity in the economy, to the wealthy, where it does not provide velocity in the economy. You don't have to care. That's your prerogative. We can keep on this same path and become a poor country with only a very few extremely wealthy people. Maybe you think you'll be one of the Warren Buffet's of this nation, but odds are, you're moving in the other direction with the majority of the country.

 

ROFL! By 2012 Obama was crowing we were in a "SUMMER OF RECOVERY". Yet this is also when failures got bigger than startups.

I know that must be an inconvenient truth for you to accept but it *is* the truth nonetheless!

Then why did the lfpr go up under Bush and continued to go down under Obama?

Willful ignorance is *not* a survival trait.

 

*WHAT* bank stocks? The regional bank I own stock in didn't see their share price budge an inch!

And the big banks *did* insure the securities. What do you think a CDS is? The problem is the insurance companies like AIG who issued the insurance didn't have enough reserves to pay off when the entire housing market collapsed.

 

No it isn't.

Baby boomers.

Lol, correcting you isn't MY willful ignorance.

Stop getting all your talking points from right wing batshit crazy rags, and actually educate yourself.

 

@upside222

So the banks then lost the uninsured money.
Which happened to be my money.

Banks I lost on were HSBC, about a third half. Lloyds, lost 90%.
Barclays lost about 50%.

The big banks, not the diddy ones.

There isn't really much point you telling me it didn't happen. It happened.
Life changing event for me.

 

The French Revolution happened when the people didn't have enough to eat and no place to live! Not because of income inequality. The people of America are not starving and dying on the street!

Nor were the people of the colonies starving and dying in the streets like they did in the French Revolutions. The War of Independence was just that, it wasn't to overthrow the rulers in England and lay them low!

Again, the wealthy do *NOT* bury their money in back yard. Why do you persist on preaching this fantasy? They either spend the money or use it to buy assets. *Someone* has to make those assets which means they have a job! So the *dollar* in investment gets transferred to the laborer who created the asset and the velocity of the money continues!

Our problem is that today much of that money doesn't represent velocity HERE. It represents velocity in China and Thailand and South Korea! Because that's where so many assets are made!

If you *really* want to fix the velocity of money here instead of just punishing the rich by redistributing their wealth, then you need to advocate for tax and regulatory policies that make us competitive on the global stage so the velocity of money stays *HERE* instead of overseas!

 

You create velocity by taking money out of the hands of those that don't spend it and put it in the hands of those that do.

If the banks are paying 0% interest, how is that any different than you burying it in your back yard, other than dirt?

The whole purpose of raising the minimum wage is get the economy out of the doldrums, by putting money in the hands of those that will spend it. It needs to come in the form of salaries, because that is sustained over time, not a one time shot, like Bush's tax rebate checks. If you don't want the economy to recover, then follow your economic theory. Because that is exactly what we've been doing for too long. The financial tricks have been used, and the economy has grown 1-2%, when we need 2.5-3.0% sustained economic growth. If we keep doing what we've been doing, we're going to get the same result. We NEED economic growth. We NEED economic velocity. We only get that by spending… lots of spending.

Now, you tell me how people are going to get the economy going with the same money they have now. If that worked, the economy would be growing now.

 

I've never owned shares in any big banks, at least not directly. I'll have to look at my mutual funds to see what is in there.

Where do you suppose Goldman Sachs got the money to pay back their TARP loan? Was it TARP money that went to AIG that then passed on to G-S to fulfill the insurance policy payout?

If the big banks lost uninsured assets it was their fault and no one elses.

 

Velocity of money, isn't to be confused with investment.

Our savings are all invested. Pensions, bank accounts, houses, cars. jewellery etc.
And so this money is being practically used in the economy. Either to fund businesses as investments or as tools to do work, or places for people to live in.

Velocity of money is the speed at which money gets passed between people.
Think trades per second. The more trades per day you make, the more times the same capital can earn you a profit in one day.

But. The real people who profit most from velocity of money are the traders themselves. Those who take a skim of every transaction. The banks and the taxman are both advantaged by increased velocity of money. So they encourage this very much.

 

I don't know the history of Goldman Sachs, I know where Barclays got the money to buy Lehmans with.
It got it from me.

So sources fro Goldmans will be in one of the usual places. An interbank loan, a loan from the government (Fed), a rights issue. (issuing and selling new shares in the company to the general public). Or depositors. Given the credit crunch, I expect the answer to be a bank in China, bank in Dubai or the Federal reserve printing it.

 

But who doesn't spend their money? Are you still fixated on believing in Scrooge McDuck?

It's no different with bonds. Everyone that has had liquid assets for a decade has invested in equities in order to find a decent rate of return! What do you suppose companies do with shareholder money/

You keep repeating this over and over and over ...... ad infinitum. But you never explain how taking a dollar out of my pocket (that I was just getting ready to give to the grocery store) and putting it in someone else's pocket helps the economy in any way!

I think I just tried to point out how Bush's stimulus did *NOT* work. Now you are admitting that?

Obama raised the capital gains tax. *THAT* is why we are in the doldrums. Obama lowered the work week to 30 hours and instituted regulations to keep businesses from growing past 49 workers. *THAT* is why we are in the doldrums.

Fix those and you'll see an immediate jump in the economy!

Now you are arguing we should grow the money supply? That just devalues the dollar and helps no one!

 

So you *do* accept the truth that it was Obamacare and tax increases that caused us to move into having more business failures than business startups?

[quote[Baby boomers.[/quote]

Sorry. The 65-up age cohort was the only cohort that saw their lfpr go UP. The worst hit was the 25-34 age cohort. Go to bls.gov and look at the graphs!

You aren't correcting anything. You are just throwing crap against the wall hoping something sticks.

I have the data behind me, like at bls.gov. All you have is willful ignorance!

 

It would be useless to compare McDonalds just outside Seattle. Sure, normally that would be a great way to establish a baseline to compare to but not in this case. The UW study didn't include McDonald's inside Seattle nor any other corporate restaurants even though they represent 40% of the minimum wage market. The study is far too limited in scope to be of much value. Hopefully after peer review they'll go back and complete their work.

 

Bullshit, who measured income inequality in which famous revolution?
Answer: No one.

The Syrian revolution? Income inequality or.... a flood of violent migrants from the neighbouring country displaced by a war?

The America revolution? They fought against the unfair taxes? The people they fought against paid 386 times as much tax and that tax got spent on costly foreign wars in America which only Americans benefited from.

Now go to the Scottish independence movement. Also claiming to be unfairly taxed, also paying less tax than those they blame. Also being subsidised, just like the Americans were.
Same story for Ireland.
Same story in every revolution. But it is just a story. The same old story. The one that every one is always willing to believe.
"You are hard done by". "You are being oppressed". "You are being kept down". No inadequacies you feel when compared to a man doing better than you are your own. It's not your fault you are victim.

And if you just make me your leader instead... you will get richer.