Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 204

Thread: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    More pedantics? You could have taken a shot at answering some of the questions concerning this mechanism you seem to imply, but you didn't go there. Just as you didn't go anywhere near the implications of who's a socialist and who's not, but instead chose a romp in the weeds over your idealized version of "federal". If you want to be taken seriously, you need to start acting like it. You wasted an initial presumption on jerk-like posting and now need to make a comeback. We'll see if you are up to that.

    I still stick by what I said regarding federal and I still think that your use, and the restless stubborness to engage in the topic is wrong. But lets move on. By all means, lets dive into the matter.

    Let me point out ways in which you will need to do better than this. You have not become an authority on socialism by virtue of current residence in Europe. Trying to claim status as an expert on such a basis is dishonest. You are complaining that things accepted as proven in your own mind may not be in mine. That's for sure. Your job would be to show why the conclusions you've reached are well-based and rational in their derivation. Maurice Sendak-style images of leeches are not going to get the job done. Got anything else?

    No, you are correct. Living in Europe does not make me an authority in this matter. But living in Europe, plus the fact that i have taken time t to study the situation does make me qualified to speak of it. Anyway, I don't even know who Maurice Sendak is.

    You've already walked away from two opportunities to do just that. Wllingness not noted.

    Look buddy. socialism comes in many forms and it has many applications. Especially in regards to how the economy is handles you have everything from state planned economy to market socialism as the way to go. I want to know which kind of socialism you want us to discuss because there are a lot of variations. Do you want to discuss Social nationalism, national socialism, democratic socialism, lenninism etc... pick the one you consider closest to your heart and lets discuss that one. I am not an expert on all branches but I am always willing to learn and study. From my study so far, all socialist business models, even the ones based the freest of market ideas, is a failure.

    Just like there are a lot of variations in how a capitalist economy is to be run. There is laissez-faire, interventionist, free market, corporate capitalism, etc.

    The capitalist economic model which is used in most of Europe, including the so called, socialist paradises of Denmark, Norway and Sweden, is social-market economy. Social-market economy has NOTHING to do with socialism. It is a capitalist ideology by which the state intervenes little in the financial part in terms of market stability but assures several rights and powers to the individual, and not the company. This is opposed to corporate capitalism which empowers the company to a great deal. The scandinavian peninsula is not a socialist heaven... it is just considered such. It is in fact, a capitalist heaven in which social measures are successfully implemented. But this is not because of the socialist ideology which plays little part but takes a lot of credit... it is because the Scandinavian people there are a good, hard-working, educated people who prize taking responsibility for their actions and thrive to create a good community for themselves. It is not the merit of socialism, but rather, patriotism.

    So. If you want to discuss socialism, pick a socialist ideology and we can discuss that one.


    This sort of thing is why I do not hold out much hope for you at the present time. Argument by proclamation? That's simply laughable.

    I'll just skip this one entirely.

    It doesn't sound to me like you understand very well what money is either. On this level, capitalism needs a lot of money -- money which it must extract from welfare uses to devote to the formation of ever more capital. Capital in capitalism is a bit like the church during the Dark Ages, sucking up ever more wealth that would have been used for necessities by serfs and devoting it instead to the construction of ever more grand but utility-lacking cathedrals and of course, comfy lifestyles for the priestly class. What I suppose you would call "socialist intrusions" are necessary on this level to prevent such "malinvestment" in the modern world.

    I understand exactly what money is. capitalism cannot suck up money. It is a system. It is an agreement basically which all of us agree to uphold. That's it. The money goes to whoever the system empowers. If you are talking about corporate capitalism, because a lot of power goes to the corporations, yes, they become the ones who garner a lot of the money. If you discuss the nordic model of market economy, then surprisingly, you get the same result but in a more decent and humane way. A proper way. However, the nordic model of market economy cannot work in the USA if you implement it today. Also, corporate capitalism is more or less a doctrine that has sprung out of the communist mentality.

    In perhaps more elegant terms, there is nothing at all within free-market economics that assures socially desirable or even socially acceptable outcomes. Markets are by definition amoral. They do not care what damage they might do so long as they can find or remain in what they experience as an equilibrium. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's Adam Smith with a warning that free markets are ever targets for manipulation and exploitation by the actors within them, all of course to their own benefit and the detriment of all others. Even he called for micro-level "intrusion" on such and other accounts.

    I generally agree with this paragraph. But the premise you started it on is more fitting if it is a continuation of what I wrote above, rather than your own paragraph.

    Then there is the longstanding historical example of laissez-faire macro practice having resulted in nothing but one long series of collapses, panics, scares, and depressions. All that has ever succeeded in calming the waters and introducing even remotely durable periods of macro-level consistency has been managed capitalism -- what latter-day right-wingers want to call socialism.

    I don't support laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is not the only capitalist ideology out there. There are numerous others as I have presented. Not all capitalist ideologies are good for this day and age but no socialist ideology is good for any day and age whatsoever.

    Your desire to run away from the "who's a socialist" data is meanwhile understandable as the distribution is rather shocking in its clarity. People nearly everywhere have made decisions in the matter of whether to rely on the public or private sector for the provision of goods and services that are very different from the ones we have made here. The data strongly suggest that the US has in fact undervalued the marginal utility of public sector production. Recent debates of the cost and effect of national health care systems should have highlighted that problem. Our profit-driven, private-sector dominated systems deliver at least nearly the worst levels of overall health care and do so at the highest levels of cost. Everywhere else relies more on "intrusions" into health care-related markets, and they get better and cheaper heath care for their trouble. The point seems to be lost on assorted free-market ideologues, however.

    Ok, granted... the USA way of doing business stinks. Change it. The nordic model won't work until the population becomes more united and more educated... which cannot happen in the USA out of various reasons. On the other point you made... Europe is not a socialist continent. It is often described as such, even by me, to avoid making entire paragraphs of points. Europe is a continent that promotes capitalism, mainly social-market capitalism which is a mixed economic model. It does however have successful running social programs that are not the result of socialism but rather, the result of patriotism. People making good work and trying to do the best they can for their people. This is why with the huge wave of immigration from africa and arabia, certain programs are starting to show cracks. France is rated for instance #1 in healthcare... but it is slowly slipping into #2 after Norway -> Norway, not being part of the EU, has managed to hold a grip on the unwanted wave of immigration to its own leasure... though the grip wasn't tight enough.

    So, I will see your supercilious "leeches" ramblings and put a few actual theses on the table for you. First, it is capitalism, not socialism, that drains wealth away and devotes it to non-welfare purposes. Second, free-market micro-level notions come out of the box offering no protection against amoral markets or against deliberate market-rigging by unscrupulous profiteers. Third, laissez-faire approaches have never known macro-level success and have been easily overshadowed by more "intrusionary" approaches. Fourth, utility evaluations in the US are so out of line with those of the rest of the economically successful world as to suggest that we have indeed missed something. Feel free to deal with one or more of those if you can.
    Ok. Given all I typed above, about the various capitalist and socialist ideologies I expect this last paragraph you made to be null and void.

    So if you want us to discuss this further and make comparisons lets do the following.
    a) Lets' pick the socialist ideology you find to be the most proper and the best out there. Pick it, portray it here... and lets discuss it. I won't continue a generalist discussion because there is no such thing. I mean, sure, we can discuss the USSR as general template because there is no other template universally known that has been a beacon of socialism in the world. But I don't think you will like where it will be heading. communist socialism is a failure... Alternatively, we can continue a general discussion and think about national socialism, which although it too stinks, it is not that big a failure as communist socialism. So therefore, I would suggest we don't go on the generalist line of discussion and we pick a proper ideology which you find attractive. There are quite numerous.

    b) I don't agree with corporate capitalism and pretty much agree with how you view it... as a ****ty economic model that leads to the destruction of the middle class if left rampant. I do however disagree that corporate capitalism is a good capitalism ideology... because it is mostly derived from communism. So when I discuss capitalism, I discuss European capitalism, which is based on a mixed economic model with a free market root ideology that serves to empower the individual in its transactions with a company. The only problem with capitalism in Europe is
    b1) the banking cartels
    b2) the incompetent politicians.

  2. #52
    Pontificator
    iliveonramen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    9,207

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    It doesn't sound to me like you understand very well what money is either. On this level, capitalism needs a lot of money -- money which it must extract from welfare uses to devote to the formation of ever more capital. Capital in capitalism is a bit like the church during the Dark Ages, sucking up ever more wealth that would have been used for necessities by serfs and devoting it instead to the construction of ever more grand but utility-lacking cathedrals and of course, comfy lifestyles for the priestly class. What I suppose you would call "socialist intrusions" are necessary on this level to prevent such "malinvestment" in the modern world.

    In perhaps more elegant terms, there is nothing at all within free-market economics that assures socially desirable or even socially acceptable outcomes. Markets are by definition amoral. They do not care what damage they might do so long as they can find or remain in what they experience as an equilibrium. "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." That's Adam Smith with a warning that free markets are ever targets for manipulation and exploitation by the actors within them, all of course to their own benefit and the detriment of all others. Even he called for micro-level "intrusion" on such and other accounts.

    Then there is the longstanding historical example of laissez-faire macro practice having resulted in nothing but one long series of collapses, panics, scares, and depressions. All that has ever succeeded in calming the waters and introducing even remotely durable periods of macro-level consistency has been managed capitalism -- what latter-day right-wingers want to call socialism.

    Your desire to run away from the "who's a socialist" data is meanwhile understandable as the distribution is rather shocking in its clarity. People nearly everywhere have made decisions in the matter of whether to rely on the public or private sector for the provision of goods and services that are very different from the ones we have made here. The data strongly suggest that the US has in fact undervalued the marginal utility of public sector production. Recent debates of the cost and effect of national health care systems should have highlighted that problem. Our profit-driven, private-sector dominated systems deliver at least nearly the worst levels of overall health care and do so at the highest levels of cost. Everywhere else relies more on "intrusions" into health care-related markets, and they get better and cheaper heath care for their trouble. The point seems to be lost on assorted free-market ideologues, however.

    So, I will see your supercilious "leeches" ramblings and put a few actual theses on the table for you. First, it is capitalism, not socialism, that drains wealth away and devotes it to non-welfare purposes. Second, free-market micro-level notions come out of the box offering no protection against amoral markets or against deliberate market-rigging by unscrupulous profiteers. Third, laissez-faire approaches have never known macro-level success and have been easily overshadowed by more "intrusionary" approaches. Fourth, utility evaluations in the US are so out of line with those of the rest of the economically successful world as to suggest that we have indeed missed something. Feel free to deal with one or more of those if you can.
    Wow...Amen!
    “Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.” John Maynard Keynes

  3. #53
    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 Rainman05 View Post
    Look buddy. socialism comes in many forms and it has many applications. Especially in regards to how the economy is handles you have everything from state planned economy to market socialism as the way to go. I want to know which kind of socialism you want us to discuss because there are a lot of variations. Do you want to discuss Social nationalism, national socialism, democratic socialism, lenninism etc... pick the one you consider closest to your heart and lets discuss that one.
    Do you recall any of this?

    That's great! We get lament after right-wing lament over the horrors of euro-socialism, and then it turns out that all these countries are actually beacons of free-market driven entrepreneurship. How many faces do you all have, anyway? It's plainly at least two.

    Overall, right-wingers have no consistent or coherent idea of what socilaism even is. But what many of them like to call socialism -- any sort of action or intervention by the state on behalf of citizens -- has been a smashing success adopted by the vast majority of the world's governments of every stripe. By the way, the people promoting lousy health care and reduced pensions in this country are all Republicans, not socialists.
    That's the stuff you dashed past in your haste to launch into grade-school semantic palaver over "federal". If you had bothered to read it instead, you would have known full well what form of socialism was being discussed here, and it wasn't Leninism, which experts recognize as being spelled without any double-letters, btw. It was the "cradle-to-grave nanny-state" whine of low-information right-wingers. It was what separates the 50%-of-GDP countries from the 20%-of-GDP countries. How much more clear could that have been made for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    capitalism cannot suck up money. It is a system. It is an agreement basically which all of us agree to uphold. That's it.
    The central and often enough blind purpose of capitalism is to accumulate more and more capital. Capital is the golden calf of capitalism. Capital is what promotes wealth and well-being. All must be sacrificed as offerings to capital formation. This is not a system that anyone has actually agreed to in a long, long time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Ok, granted... the USA way of doing business stinks. Change it.
    We did. And managed capitalism (what right-wingers call "socialism") MADE the US middle class and made them and us the envy of the world. But now a bunch of trained-seal lardheads is hoping to change it back. Basically back to the way things were in colonial times when small groups of gentleman farmers lived in comfortable seclusion with unquestioned dominion over all the land and everything on it while everyone else groveled in the streets in hopes of warding off starvation. That's not agreed to either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    It does however have successful running social programs that are not the result of socialism but rather, the result of patriotism.
    That's a thought that right-wingers will not be able to process at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    So if you want us to discuss this further and make comparisons lets do the following.
    No, let's try the following instead...Catch up to the thread. Get on a US-based page. That's what is being discussed here. No one is interested in some euro-prism view of the history of socialism on two sides of the Urals. Go sit in a coffee shop in Prague if that's what you want to talk about.
    Last edited by Cardinal Fang; 09-22-12 at 12:53 AM.

  4. #54
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    "Median" Income is not always the best barometer. People assume that it is the average when it is not.

  5. #55
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-26-14 @ 02:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,032

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Quote Originally Posted by Cardinal Fang View Post
    Do you recall any of this?


    That's the stuff you dashed past in your haste to launch into grade-school semantic palaver over "federal". If you had bothered to read it instead, you would have known full well what form of socialism was being discussed here, and it wasn't Leninism, which experts recognize as being spelled without any double-letters, btw. It was the "cradle-to-grave nanny-state" whine of low-information right-wingers. It was what separates the 50%-of-GDP countries from the 20%-of-GDP countries. How much more clear could that have been made for you?

    I will tell you at the end.

    The central and often enough blind purpose of capitalism is to accumulate more and more capital. Capital is the golden calf of capitalism. Capital is what promotes wealth and well-being. All must be sacrificed as offerings to capital formation. This is not a system that anyone has actually agreed to in a long, long time.

    Agree with what I underlined. The rest is an extremist POV that can happen if you allow inept lawmakers into office.

    We did. And managed capitalism (what right-wingers call "socialism") MADE the US middle class and made them and us the envy of the world. But now a bunch of trained-seal lardheads is hoping to change it back. Basically back to the way things were in colonial times when small groups of gentleman farmers lived in comfortable seclusion with unquestioned dominion over all the land and everything on it while everyone else groveled in the streets in hopes of warding off starvation. That's not agreed to either.

    Well managed capitalism has a bunch of schools of thought as it were... everything from Karl Marx to Milton Froiedman. People who propose how an economy should be run. Though I assume you mean, by default, you are in Milton Friedmans' camp since you live in the USA... something I don't agree with. I don't support friendmans' view and I find him to be part of the problem. Remember, when he was in charge of the federal reserve, the US had several financial crises. Especially after the 70's when even more authority and power was given to the federal reserve. Also, I doubt that republicans want to go back to how it was in the XIXth century. I'm pretty sure that is an exaggeration.

    That's a thought that right-wingers will not be able to process at all.


    No, let's try the following instead...Catch up to the thread. Get on a US-based page. That's what is being discussed here. No one is interested in some euro-prism view of the history of socialism on two sides of the Urals. Go sit in a coffee shop in Prague if that's what you want to talk about.
    Look... the history of socialism is important. Thankfully, the US can avoid making the same mistakes certain European countries have had to live through. Why not learn from them? Why not see what socialism really is about. If you want to see a good, proper example of socialism in the world today, look at north korea and Cuba. N. Korea... sh*thole. through and through.

    Cuba... had a ok lifestyle until recently, after the year 2000, when Cuba decided to allow foreign investment into the country and allow a private sector to develop side by side with its planned socialist economic doctrine. The result? An even better lifestyle, better country, better everything.Cuba is indeed a working socialist model. Sadly, it cannot be applied in the USA if you want to keep the Constitution.

  6. #56
    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 Rainman05 View Post
    I will tell you at the end.
    At the end of what? Time?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Agree with what I underlined. The rest is an extremist POV that can happen if you allow inept lawmakers into office.
    That may well have occurred here, but descriptions of the role of capital in capitalism came merely from sharpening focus after pruning away extraneous matter. Maximizing capital formation is the central point of capitalism, and in its unbridled forms, there is nothing not to be sacrificed to that end. Particularly not human welfare if history instructs us properly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Well managed capitalism has a bunch of schools of thought as it were... everything from Karl Marx to Milton Froiedman. People who propose how an economy should be run. Though I assume you mean, by default, you are in Milton Friedmans' camp since you live in the USA...something I don't agree with. I don't support friendmans' view and I find him to be part of the problem.
    Sheesh! Don't you presume a lot! I am an ardent opponent of Friedman and of the efforts (almost all of them failed) of the Chicago School in general.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Remember, when he was in charge of the federal reserve, the US had several financial crises. Especially after the 70's when even more authority and power was given to the federal reserve.
    Friedman was never Fed Chairman (perish the thought). Maybe you meant Volcker?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Also, I doubt that republicans want to go back to how it was in the XIXth century. I'm pretty sure that is an exaggeration.
    I was referring more to the 17th and pre-revolutionary 18th centuries. Where else can you find a combination of the extreme laissez-faire economics and unfettered rights and privileges of property that right-wingers of today seem to long for?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    Look... the history of socialism is important.
    So is stamp collecting, but neither is actually being discussed in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rainman05 View Post
    If you want to see a good, proper example of socialism in the world today, look at north korea and Cuba.
    As I was saying. Prague is actually famous for its coffeeshops, you know. Meanwhile, why don't you learn to use the quote function properly? You are only making a huge pain of yourself with all this red stuff.

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Obama ran on the platform that he was the man to fix what he labeled the Bush economy. He has failed, that is all there is to say about this in the end.

  8. #58
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,322

    Re: US Median Income Lowest Since 1995

    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #59
    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 sawyerloggingon View Post
    Obama ran on the platform that he was the man to fix what he labeled the Bush economy. He has failed, that is all there is to say about this in the end.
    Has your head been in a sack or something? Jobs have been turned from horrific monthly losses to solid monthly gains. GDP has gone from devastating declines to solid quarterly gains. Capacity utilization has gone from 66.8% to 79.2%. There isn't an economic indicator you can find that hasn't been turned around under Obama from the terrible shape it was in under Bush.

  10. #60
    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 j-mac View Post
    The article is from 2009. That's a long time ago, even in Cuba. And of course, the only people who hold up Cuba as some sort of model of "socialism" are brain-dead right-wingers.

Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •