• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

We need a Dow Jones for the American people

Craig234

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
47,046
Reaction score
22,914
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
How's the economy doing? The answer most commonly turned to is the Dow Jones (or for some, the S&P 500).

Given that stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the richest Americans, and that stocks can increase a lot while most Americans get nothing, that's a very distorted picture of how the economy is doing. It's great propaganda and it distorts the economic picture. It's making people look only at how the rich are doing to discuss the country.

We need some equivalent 'Dow Jones' measure that looks at the economic well being of the American people. That would look very different than the Dow, as the chart below shows, but would help us actually discuss the issue more accurately.

It's basically nothing but a lie that we don't have such a measure and barely talk about how the American people are doing.

file-20170511-21596-1x4fzqb.jpg


Piketty-Saez-Zucman-2016-1980-vs-2014.png
 
If my income went up but my neighbor's income went up more then I did not lose anything.
 
Dow is looking very good today! If you have stocks or a 402k you are making money.

Dow 26,279.91 372.54 1.44%^
 
Craig234 said:
How's the economy doing? The answer most commonly turned to is the Dow Jones (or for some, the S&P 500).

Given that stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the richest Americans, and that stocks can increase a lot while most Americans get nothing, that's a very distorted picture of how the economy is doing. It's great propaganda and it distorts the economic picture. It's making people look only at how the rich are doing to discuss the country.

We need some equivalent 'Dow Jones' measure that looks at the economic well being of the American people. That would look very different than the Dow, as the chart below shows, but would help us actually discuss the issue more accurately.

It's basically nothing but a lie that we don't have such a measure and barely talk about how the American people are doing.
Click to expand...

Close... the stock market is not an economic indicator, it is an economic speculation and outlook indicator. Some may call it a predictive indicator.

Actual economic indicators are things like interest rates, various jobs indicators, per quintile income growth rates, average hours worked trends, labor participation rates, unemployment rates, capital goods orders, GDP trends, money supply, consumer sentiment indicators, things like that.

We have many equivalents to the "Dow Jones measure" as you say.

What are you really looking for? (I mean other than all this and your graphs.)
 
OrphanSlug said:
We have many equivalents to the "Dow Jones measure" as you say.

What are you really looking for? (I mean other than all this and your graphs.)
Click to expand...

I thought I was clear - I'd like a measure, an index, that reflects how the American people are doing economically.

The rich have the Dow Jones to measure the value of one large part of their wealth. I'd like a similar index for the economic situation for the American people broadly. Even 'net worth for the 99%' or broken down by quartiles could be ideas, but even that info isn't publicized much. The 'misery index' was one attempt, but seems pretty flawed, and when's the last time you saw it publicized?
 
Craig234 said:
I thought I was clear - I'd like a measure, an index, that reflects how the American people are doing economically.

The rich have the Dow Jones to measure the value of one large part of their wealth. I'd like a similar index for the economic situation for the American people broadly. Even 'net worth for the 99%' or broken down by quartiles could be ideas, but even that info isn't publicized much. The 'misery index' was one attempt, but seems pretty flawed, and when's the last time you saw it publicized?
Click to expand...

We have that, many of them. Everything you have mentioned so far we have indicators on.

What, as in exactly, do you think economists are not looking at?

(Or is this really about a general complaint of the wealth breakdown? With no real input from you on how to redistribute, that goes well beyond indicators.)
 
Craig234 said:
I thought I was clear - I'd like a measure, an index, that reflects how the American people are doing economically.

The rich have the Dow Jones to measure the value of one large part of their wealth. I'd like a similar index for the economic situation for the American people broadly. Even 'net worth for the 99%' or broken down by quartiles could be ideas, but even that info isn't publicized much. The 'misery index' was one attempt, but seems pretty flawed, and when's the last time you saw it publicized?
Click to expand...

How are you going to do that, specifically when it comes to retirement plans? Your graphs start showing a significant trend line change in the 80's. That was when IRA's and 401K's came about. The contributions generally get excluded from income which would skew "incomes" down and then drive stock market demand up which inflates the wealth of the top percentages who largely derive their incomes from stocks. I do 10% 401K with a 5% match so my income is understated by between 5-15% depending on how you look at it. How are you going to account for people like me on your charts?
 
OrphanSlug said:
We have that, many of them. Everything you have mentioned so far we have indicators on.

What, as in exactly, do you think economists are not looking at?

(Or is this really about a general complaint of the wealth breakdown? With no real input from you on how to redistribute, that goes well beyond indicators.)
Click to expand...

Obviously, I'm not talking about information economists can look at - do only economists look at the Dow Jones publicized to everyone all over the place constantly? No. You don't seem to understand the post's point, that the Dow should be replaced in what the public hears with an index that is about the American people, not only something almost entirely owned by the rich.
 
Drawdown said:
How are you going to do that, specifically when it comes to retirement plans? Your graphs start showing a significant trend line change in the 80's.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you read the second chart correctly. It's not a chart over time - it has just two lines, one for 1980 and one for 2014. That chart's x axis is showing different income levels.

How are you going to account for people like me on your charts?
Click to expand...

Fairly. I didn't say exactly what measure to use, but it should reflect the American people more broadly, while stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the rich.
 
Craig234 said:
Obviously, I'm not talking about information economists can look at - do only economists look at the Dow Jones publicized to everyone all over the place constantly? No. You don't seem to understand the post's point, that the Dow should be replaced in what the public hears with an index that is about the American people, not only something almost entirely owned by the rich.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point.

"That the Dow should be replaced in what the public hears with an index that is about the American people, not only something almost entirely owned by the rich" suggests telling the media, as well as anyone else that talks about the economy, what indicators or predictors to report on.

Sounds too much like media control, so much for the 1st Amendment.

I have no choice but to be harsh here, because it seems like I am talking to someone who just likes to rant with no real concept of what can be done about it.

So... how do you propose we go about forcing this? (And understand, this is all your own doing for going there.)

Speaking of... how do you propose we go about forcing income distribution changes for that matter? (Something else you started in on.)
 
there is basically no one...and i mean no one, who cant save

but we as a whole, we like to live at or above our means

we like nice fancy cars, bigger apartments, and newer furniture

so people go into debt....and stay there most of their entire lives

young people especially never seem to learn the basics of financial management

spend LESS than you earn....and if you arent earning enough, do something about it

is that harsh? maybe....is it reality...you bet

life never promised anyone a bed of roses....you get opportunities....it is your responsibility to make the MOST out of them all
 
Craig234 said:
I'm not sure you read the second chart correctly. It's not a chart over time - it has just two lines, one for 1980 and one for 2014. That chart's x axis is showing different income levels.



Fairly. I didn't say exactly what measure to use, but it should reflect the American people more broadly, while stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the rich.
Click to expand...

I didn't bother with the second chart. The first one is the one that was relevant to the point I was trying to make. I disagree with your position that stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the rich in the sense that about a sixth of the US stock market's value is held by 401K's alone. Lastly "Fairly" is a non-answer. Let's say my salary is $100K a year to make the math easy. I am really getting $105K because of the 401K, but my official income is only $90K because of my 10% contribution. How would I show up in your metric? What counts and what doesn't?
 
Drawdown said:
I disagree with your position that stocks are overwhelmingly owned by the rich in the sense that about a sixth of the US stock market's value is held by 401K's alone.
Click to expand...

Simple fact: 84% of stocks are owned by 10% of Americans. That's not very representative of the other 90%.

Lastly "Fairly" is a non-answer. Let's say my salary is $100K a year to make the math easy. I am really getting $105K because of the 401K, but my official income is only $90K because of my 10% contribution. How would I show up in your metric? What counts and what doesn't?
Click to expand...

It is an answer. And it's saying that the point is that it's fair, not to lay out exactly what the formula would be in this post. When FDR was calling for entering WWII, he wasn't debating the annual salary increases of Sergeants, even if he intended them to be fair.
 
OrphanSlug said:
You are missing the point.
Click to expand...

Some days, I regret handing out the irony of the day award early.

"That the Dow should be replaced in what the public hears with an index that is about the American people, not only something almost entirely owned by the rich" suggests telling the media, as well as anyone else that talks about the economy, what indicators or predictors to report on.

Sounds too much like media control, so much for the 1st Amendment.

I have no choice but to be harsh here, because it seems like I am talking to someone who just likes to rant with no real concept of what can be done about it.

So... how do you propose we go about forcing this? (And understand, this is all your own doing for going there.)

Speaking of... how do you propose we go about forcing income distribution changes for that matter? (Something else you started in on.)
Click to expand...

This is 'crazy person yelling to no one the street, avoid them' level crazy sometimes. Is the media 'forced' to publish the Dow Jones such that it's 'so much for the first amendment'? You seem to think the word 'forcing' is some big ref button you push to win an argument - it's not. Reducing income inequality is not the topic of this thread.
 
Craig234 said:
Some days, I regret handing out the irony of the day award early.



This is 'crazy person yelling to no one the street, avoid them' level crazy sometimes. Is the media 'forced' to publish the Dow Jones such that it's 'so much for the first amendment'? You seem to think the word 'forcing' is some big ref button you push to win an argument - it's not. Reducing income inequality is not the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

About income inequality, you are proposing exactly what?
 
OrphanSlug said:
About income inequality, you are proposing exactly what?
Click to expand...

Ask me in a thread about income inequality. If you have read me at all you should know I'm for a moderate level of inequality, far less than we have, and as I said, this thread isn't about the topic of reducing it.
 
Craig234 said:
Simple fact: 84% of stocks are owned by 10% of Americans. That's not very representative of the other 90%.



It is an answer. And it's saying that the point is that it's fair, not to lay out exactly what the formula would be in this post. When FDR was calling for entering WWII, he wasn't debating the annual salary increases of Sergeants, even if he intended them to be fair.
Click to expand...

51.9% of american own stocks directly or indirectly through funds.

And another non-answer as "fair" is a meaningless subjective term. Even if you look at "fair" wage calculators, their numbers vary wildly from city to city. Your FDR non sequitur is perhaps the worst straw man I have ever seen.
 
Drawdown said:
51.9% of american own stocks directly or indirectly through funds.
Click to expand...

Yes, which is a very misleading statistic, because most people own very little stock. I gave you the relevant statistic, and you just ignored it, showing you aren't into an honest discussion.
 
Craig234 said:
Ask me in a thread about income inequality. If you have read me at all you should know I'm for a moderate level of inequality, far less than we have, and as I said, this thread isn't about the topic of reducing it.
Click to expand...

Just to sum this up.

You go with an OP using graphs illustrating both Income Inequality *and* Income Growth... but you do not want to really talk about either one.

Make a complaint that "some equivalent 'Dow Jones' measure that looks at the economic well being of the American people"... I point out that we have plenty of them, but you do not want to talk about any of them.

Some of us assume you might be hinting at what is it talked about too much are the stock markets as they are "great propaganda and it distorts the economic picture"... so we ask about how that could be controlled to report on what you want reported, and you resort to ad hominem.

Finally we perhaps could conclude that you want to talk about what could "help us actually discuss the issue more accurately"... we point out that we have plenty of those indicators, we then ask about what you want to do about it these issues and you say talk about it in some other thread.

You even go after others saying they do not want honest discussion.

So... what the **** do you want to talk about?
 
The "Dow Jones" is a "Casio Game" based on "odd's makers" who promote "Trading Frenzy".... It is NO LONGER, based on the Ideals that the Stock Market was created for.

The Stock Market was created so that "Individuals and Institutional Investors, could invest in companies, to promote "stability", "research and development" and "MANAGED Growth"....

Quarterly Reporting WAS NOT designed to be about breaking records every quarter, it was about "true measure of "Actual Production and Actual Sales.

It was of origin designed for "long term investors" to assure to support the overall stability of business that was mass suppliers to the consuming public.
Click to expand...

This is not even remotely taught in Universities today... They Teach 'GREED GOUGING BY ANY MEANS"...

Stock Traders and Stock Analysis and Broker's Today will say anything... because they no longer care about the company, they care about the profit of the trade.

CEO's put Stock Holder interest in quick greed profits, above the "responsibility of the companies core purpose and values to serve the public with quality, goods and services".

Just the fact that it uses the word "Public" should mandate "real time true and accurate reporting, based on Actual Production and Actual Sales...not Fanciful Projections.

The profit stat's should fall based on actual performance... not "speculative gamble odds makers"...

Sadly the general public is not only illiterate on the original purpose of the Stock Market; the instruments in the system is crafted to bastardize the system, the terms are confounding to the average citizen, as many have no idea what the 'various" terms of measure and the terms of 'instrument function" is.

It has not been the real measure of life and economics now for many decades.... Its a "Casino" System... that wreaks havoc on our society, and cause otherwise good competitive existence of companies to be destroyed, and others to become monopolies, that wreaks havoc on product quality, employees, communities and cities... intimately damaging American Families across the nation.

The damages are horrendous
An estimated 12,000 shops could close by the end of 2019
 
Last edited:
OrphanSlug said:
Just to sum this up.

You go with an OP using graphs illustrating both Income Inequality *and* Income Growth... but you do not want to really talk about either one.

Make a complaint that "some equivalent 'Dow Jones' measure that looks at the economic well being of the American people"... I point out that we have plenty of them, but you do not want to talk about any of them.

Some of us assume you might be hinting at what is it talked about too much are the stock markets as they are "great propaganda and it distorts the economic picture"... so we ask about how that could be controlled to report on what you want reported, and you resort to ad hominem.

Finally we perhaps could conclude that you want to talk about what could "help us actually discuss the issue more accurately"... we point out that we have plenty of those indicators, we then ask about what you want to do about it these issues and you say talk about it in some other thread.

You even go after others saying they do not want honest discussion.

So... what the **** do you want to talk about?
Click to expand...

It's quite simple. The need for a popular version of the Dow Jones that reflects the broader public. There is no such thing now. You'll see the Dow everywhere, you will have to look hard for info regarding the broader public. You are posting but tedious nonsense. Calling nonsense nonsense is not 'ad hominem'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom