Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 204

Thread: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

  1. #181
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-17-12 @ 04:31 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Thread: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995...

    and the Republicans aren't finished yet!

  2. #182
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Wow. Cardinal Fang is off the reservation.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  3. #183
    Guru
    JohnWOlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    01-17-17 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,594

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    I think the problem can be better traced to when we began outsourcing to china and other countries so heavily.
    "We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy." -Reagan

  4. #184
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnWOlin View Post
    I think the problem can be better traced to when we began outsourcing to china and other countries so heavily.
    Well, that IMHO, can be traced back to when we became a "service based" economy, instead of a manufacturing based one.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #185
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Yes, I think I made that quite clear that Bush presence did not cause the 2001 recession.
    Lack of clarity was not the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    If you want to read about what everyone apart from you thinks, then read here Early 2000s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Nothing in the wikipedia article contradicts a single thing I have said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    No one has paid you either.
    They have for 40+ years and still do, and the total has come to quite a pile of money.

  6. #186
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Lack of clarity was not the problem.

    Nothing in the wikipedia article contradicts a single thing I have said.
    Really? Where do they talk about Bush presence is the cause of the slowdown in 2001?

    However they talk specifically about the NASDAQ bubble. Bubbles actually have an impact on economic performance.

    If your point has any merit, why don't you edit the article and put in "Bush presence caused the slowdown as investors got terrified of the thought of him being elected". I wonder how long time it will take before it will be reverted.

    They have for 40+ years and still do, and the total has come to quite a pile of money.
    Stop lying.

    Well can't we say the same with Obama then. Obama presence caused the recession in 2007. Investors got so terrified when they realized Obama may get elected so they sent US into an recession.

    Or do they only get terrified from right wing candidates? Because as we know all investors are left wing right.
    Last edited by Camlon; 10-01-12 at 04:35 PM.

  7. #187
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Camlon coming through with the critical thinking. Nicely done.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  8. #188
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Really? Where do they talk about Bush presence is the cause of the slowdown in 2001?
    That would be affirming Bush as the cause. As I stated, nothing in the wikipedia article contradicts anything I said. Affirming and contradicting are pretty much so different from each other as to be opposites. The wikipedia article does not in fact talk about causes of the Lesser Bush Recession at all. It describes contemporaneous events and leaves things at that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    However they talk specifically about the NASDAQ bubble.
    Just as predicted -- nothing to talk about but the NASDAQ. The NASDAQ as already noted is a secondary and inherently volatile market. I have already given reasons for the run-up and deflation of the NASDAQ that have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of tech bubble bursting. If there ever was a tech bubble, it was still inflating in 2000 and still is today.

    Quote Originally Posted by Missed AB View Post
    Bubbles actually have an impact on economic performance.
    Really? Where was all this impact you refer to? Can you point to it? What was going on with the DJIA at the time? What was the impact there? Where was there devastation anywhere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Missed AB View Post
    If your point has any merit, why don't you edit the article and put in "Bush presence caused the slowdown as investors got terrified of the thought of him being elected". I wonder how long time it will take before it will be reverted.
    If I felt like investing the time, I would. Your encouragement would not be necessary. In the meantime, why don't you stop helplessly trying to refute posts by linking to articles that don't refute anything that was said?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Stop lying.
    LOL! Can't face up to reality, eh? What a surprise. All of my degrees are in economics and I have been in (rather successful) professional public and private sector practice in that very field for more than forty years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Well can't we say the same with Obama then. Obama presence caused the recession in 2007. Investors got so terrified when they realized Obama may get elected so they sent US into an recession.
    No, because the facts are not in any sort of alignment with such a theory. Obama was a long-shot candidate just beginning a Presidential campaign in 2007. Meanwhile the federal funds target had already gone from 1% to 5.25%, the housing market had already cracked, and thanks to the efforts of unrestrained cowboy capitalists on Wall Street, mortgage default rates were already on the rise. The credit crisis was a done deal by that point.

    There would of course have been a period of business caution before and after the election of 2008, especially if the oucome had been perceived as actually in doubt, but Bush and his bunch of inept bungler cronies had made sure that any such event would be obliterated by the staggering depths and proportions of the already long in progress Great Bush Recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Or do they only get terrified from right wing candidates? Because as we know all investors are left wing right.
    Once again for the hard of hearing, all elections where a change in administration is certain are expected to come with a pre- and post-election period of caution. In 2000, that caution was significantly amplified because one of the candidates was proposing to dismantle decade-old economic structures that had led to unprecedented national prosperity, replacing them with extremist notions that no serious person could have put any actual faith in. Unfortunately, it was indeed the polarizing extremist candidate who became the one to take office. Faith in him and his policies continued to falter until 9/11 put a different menu on the table.

  9. #189
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Last Seen
    07-07-16 @ 08:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,854

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Really? Where was all this impact you refer to?
    If you don't know that bubbles affect markets, then open a economics text book.

    If I felt like investing the time, I would. Your encouragement would not be necessary. In the meantime, why don't you stop helplessly trying to refute posts by linking to articles that don't refute anything that was said?
    Such a lame excuse. You don't have time to add one sentence on wikipedia. But you do obviously have time to post here here all the time. As pointed out, if your point has any merit you should be able to change it.

    So why aren't you? Are you afraid those lame people at wikipedia would laugh in your face, after you tried to use yourself as a source?

    LOL! Can't face up to reality, eh? What a surprise. All of my degrees are in economics and I have been in (rather successful) professional public and private sector practice in that very field for more than forty years.
    I never contested that you have a degree in economics. A lot of people do, that doesn't mean they get economics. However the rest of your post is a lie. No one is interested in your lies. Am I talking about myself here? Why do you feel the need to pretend you are something you are not?

    If you were so successful, why are you posting so much here. I know very well that old people who come to political forums, and talk about how awesome they think they are, are not successful at all. They are running away from something.

    Real successful people do not feel the need to talk about how successful they think they are. They don't care.

    No, because the facts are not in any sort of alignment with such a theory. Obama was a long-shot candidate just beginning a Presidential campaign in 2007. Meanwhile the federal funds target had already gone from 1% to 5.25%, the housing market had already cracked, and thanks to the efforts of unrestrained cowboy capitalists on Wall Street, mortgage default rates were already on the rise. The credit crisis was a done deal by that point.
    Oh.. right, it was just the timing. However Democrats took over congress earlier. So using your arguments I guess the property markets headed south because they were afraid of democrats taking over.

    Shall I tell you a secret? Elections does not mean jack. What kind of power do you think the President have? A president does not have power over congress, they do not have power over state policy. One of their only power is to veto bills. And in addition presidents tend to moderate themselves when they get in office. Who really has power is congress, and congress was heading democratic.

    Your thinking is just as silly as republicans who think Obama getting kicked out of office will make a big difference. What they and you don't get is that investors don't care. Especially not in 2000 when confidence was high. They care about consumers, are anyone going to buy their products. That is why bubbles are so much more important, because when a bubble pops then demands drops.

  10. #190
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    02-15-14 @ 04:49 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,939

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    If you don't know that bubbles affect markets, then open a economics text book.
    There are no accepted textbooks that present your silly bubble theories. The vapid and deluded see bubbles everywhere. What's actually there is the simple fact that markets go both up and down. This is the nature of markets -- it's what they do. But the talentless are not able to see that far.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Such a lame excuse. You don't have time to add one sentence on wikipedia. But you do obviously have time to post here here all the time. As pointed out, if your point has any merit you should be able to change it.
    No, material for wiki has to be tightly proofed and sourced. You've obviously never added anything to wiki before. And as I've posted many times, DP is a time filler for me. Today for example, I must wait for the UPS guy to show up with our packet of post-season baseball tickets (signature required in person). And it is raining outside. Thus, I have some free time between stages of kitty litter changing in which to disabuse the massively disinformed of some of their sillier notions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    So why aren't you? Are you afraid those lame people at wikipedia would laugh in your face, after you tried to use yourself as a source?
    You are correct insofar as that was a claim that wikpedia does not accept original research. All of wikipedia is derivative information. Your correctness both begins and ends with that point, however.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    I never contested that you have a degree in economics. A lot of people do, that doesn't mean they get economics. However the rest of your post is a lie. No one is interested in your lies.
    I would have rather more than "a degree in economcis", and contrary to your pointless and feeble critiques, quite a number of people are and have been interested in my economic research and analysis over quite a long time. So much so that they have been willing to part with figures such as $300 per hour in order to obtain it. What is it that you do again?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Am I talking about myself here? Why do you feel the need to pretend you are something you are not?
    Have you forgotten already? I noted that no one had ever paid Sarah Palin for economic research and analysis. Someone was then sufficiently out of the loop to suggest that no one had ever paid me either. I am merely again correcting someone who was ignorant of the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    If you were so successful, why are you posting so much here. I know very well that old people who come to political forums, and talk about how awesome they think they are, are not successful at all. They are running away from something.
    May I suggest that you have no more future in psychology than you do in economics? Most of the last roughly 15 years of my economics work has been within the political sphere. By that I mean having one foot on K Street and the other on Capitol Hill. Maybe you are familiar with one or both of those from some once-upon-a-time ride past on a Tourmobile. But as I am in my late 60's now, I no longer have the energy for that on a full-time basis. It's a younger man's game. So, I'm easing now into semi-retirement, restricting work to that done through an LLC that I've long been a partner in. That lets me work only on what I want when I want, which presently means that work takes up maybe 35-40% of my time. I also direct my own modest 501(c)(3) charity and sit on the board of a larger one. There goes another 10-15% of my time. Still leaves a good chunk left over in which to amuse myself and potentially help others by cruising the relative slums of DP correcting the hapless right-wing blunderers as they blunder. I meanwhile don't bring any of this to the fore unless and until directly challenged on it. You won't find any mention of any of it in my profile, for example. But it was overtly put on the table here. Blame the guy who did that if you like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Real successful people do not feel the need to talk about how successful they think they are. They don't care.
    Quite so, I don't at this point need to care about having been in the top 1% of income for so long or in wealth terms, about being a millionaire this many times over, but I certainly suspect that you do which is why I mention it. Meanwhile, between my professional and charitable work, I've been quietly going one-on-one with very successful people for many, many years. I'd be pretty confident that I know more about the type than you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Oh.. right, it was just the timing. However Democrats took over congress earlier.
    Democrats took control of Congess in January 2007. 2007 was later than 2006, not earlier. The credit crisis horses were all out of the barn by January 2007. Yet again, your notions are seen to be frauds based on easily refuted disinformation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    So using your arguments I guess the property markets headed south because they were afraid of democrats taking over.
    Prices of long-term assets vary inversely with interest rates. Houses are long-term assets. Between mid-2004 and mid-2006 the federal funds target rate went from 1% to 5.25%. Can you do the math?

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Shall I tell you a secret? Elections does not mean jack.
    LOL!!! Why don't you post THAT on wikipedia and see how long it lasts? The grammar alone is atrocious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    What kind of power do you think the President have? A president does not have power over congress..
    Of course not. This is why Presidents may only suggest new rules for earmarks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    ...they do not have power over state policy...
    Yes, they do. In faithfully executing the laws of the land, the very role of the Executive Branch is in fact to develop and apply state policy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    One of their only power is to veto bills.
    Really? Not head of state? Not commander in chief of the military? Not the boss of every federal department? Not the guy whose staff drafts much of the legislation that Congress considers? I'm afraid there is an awful lot that has simply gotten past you. Civics is apparently right up there with economics and psychology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    And in addition presidents tend to moderate themselves when they get in office. Who really has power is congress, and congress was heading democratic.
    Congress does not head. It either is or is not controlled by a particular party. It was controlled exclusively by Republicans during the years in which the history of the credit crisis was written. No Democrat had his hand on any federal lever of power at all. No Barney Frank. No Chris Dodd. No Nancy Pelosi. It was ALL Republicans ALL the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    Your thinking is just as silly as republicans who think Obama getting kicked out of office will make a big difference.
    LOL! It would make a huge and terrible difference. Fortunately, with each time Romney opens his fool mouth, it is becoming increasingly unlikely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Camlon View Post
    What they and you don't get is that investors don't care. Especially not in 2000 when confidence was high. They care about consumers, are anyone going to buy their products. That is why bubbles are so much more important, because when a bubble pops then demands drops.
    This reminds of that game where you put word-dice into a cup, then roll them out on the table and see if you can make a sentence out of them. What a sorry and unsupportable ramble. You'd be better off just sticking to your crude attempts at personal insult.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 10-02-12 at 12:12 PM.

Page 19 of 21 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •