Cynthia Tucker writes Dumbest Article Ever

[BigPapaVol]

Your reading comprehension is so so poor.

clearly I'm the one with the issues. Guess I don't have the incredible double major or economics daddy to help me view the world through the correct glasses. Some of you guys are just born darned lucky.

 

[BigPapaVol]

you aren't seriously arguing that millions of foreclosures wouldn't significantly hurt the economy are you? please give me a SINGLE example in world history where foreclosures haven't effected the broader economy.

You just don't get it. Tax breaks leading to income disparity imploded the Real Estate market.

 

[Ed12111]

You haven't explained anything. If you did, I missed it. Several solidly educated people have asked you to show off that incredible diploma of yours by helping us understand.

Rising income inequality decreases the marginal utility of money. So your brain can understand it imagine the economy as 10 people. Take income inequality to the most extreme if one person had literally every dollar. Can you not see how that money would not be used as efficiently as if the money were a little more spread out. Of course this is ignoring the moral or societal impacts, but whatever.

 

[Ed12111]

Whoa, this is a departure from simply pointing out the reasons for the collapse. Maybe you don't realize, but you just moved to the aftermath. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but most are aware that the RE bubble burst. Most are aware that that has been devastating to the economy. You have, in a very twisted way, try to pin said burst on income disparity and tax increases. That was dead wrong, so you've now gone to a circular argument in trying to use the outcome to explain the instigator. Awesome.

Go back and read the thread from the beginning this way you can stop putting words in my mouth and arguing with my imaginary positions. I have long been saying on this thread that deregulation (especially of the financial sector) was the biggest reason for the recession. Your bizarre fixation on taxes and only taxes notwithstanding

 

[BigPapaVol]

Rising income inequality decreases the marginal utility of money. So your brain can understand it imagine the economy as 10 people. Take income inequality to the most extreme if one person had literally every dollar. Can you not see how that money would not be used as efficiently as if the money were a little more spread out. Of course this is ignoring the moral or societal impacts, but whatever.

But, you're acting as if there has been some enormous shift of capital that would result in enormous savings levels. First, the shift has been nowhere near large enough to even begin making this silly point. Second, your point is steeped in capital on the sidelines because the wealthy are hording it. Given the limited capital bases of our financial institutions and our negative savings rates, does this make even the tiniest bit of sense.

I understand that, in your world of high powered degrees and theoretical classroom style economics, crap like decreasing marginal utility of money sounds good, but it just isn't working that way. This recession wasn't based upon wealthy decreasing the multiplier rates or this income disparity you're claiming.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Go back and read the thread from the beginning this way you can stop putting words in my mouth and arguing with my imaginary positions. I have long been saying on this thread that deregulation (especially of the financial sector) was the biggest reason for the recession. Your bizarre fixation on taxes and only taxes notwithstanding

and your response to my question about deregulation was one response regarding commodity futures, which was just worthless.

Several people asked you about deregulation and specifics and that was the best you could do.

 

[volinbham]

Then at least realize the economy and world is more complex than I got mine I'll be fine.

Rising income inequality decreases the marginal utility of money. So your brain can understand it imagine the economy as 10 people. Take income inequality to the most extreme if one person had literally every dollar. Can you not see how that money would not be used as efficiently as if the money were a little more spread out. Of course this is ignoring the moral or societal impacts, but whatever.

The economy and world is complex unless you are trying to answer a question then it consists of 10 people in total where only one has any cash.

Now I see.

 

[Ed12111]

But, you're acting as if there has been some enormous shift of capital that would result in enormous savings levels. First, the shift has been nowhere near large enough to even begin making this silly point. Second, your point is steeped in capital on the sidelines because the wealthy are hording it. Given the limited capital bases of our financial institutions and our negative savings rates, does this make even the tiniest bit of sense.

I understand that, in your world of high powered degrees and theoretical classroom style economics, crap like decreasing marginal utility of money sounds good, but it just isn't working that way. This recession wasn't based upon wealthy decreasing the multiplier rates or this income disparity you're claiming.

Sigh. You ask for a more concrete answer and I give it then you dismiss it as "theoretical classroom talk". You're also really underselling the shift in capital in this country. There have been several articles on this issue lately I'm sure you could find in about 1 second on Google. In short, the amount of wealth controlled by the tp 1, 5, and 10% is unseen since the days of Vanderbilt and Rockefeller.

 

[Ed12111]

The economy and world is complex unless you are trying to answer a question then it consists of 10 people in total where only one has any cash.

Now I see.

The example stands you're being a massive crybaby.

 

[volinbham]

The example stands you're being a massive crybaby.

you'll never know how much I've enjoyed the irony of your posts. :hi:

 

[BigPapaVol]

Sigh. You ask for a more concrete answer and I give it then you dismiss it as "theoretical classroom talk". You're also really underselling the shift in capital in this country. There have been several articles on this issue lately I'm sure you could find in about 1 second on Google. In short, the amount of wealth controlled by the tp 1, 5, and 10% is unseen since the days of Vanderbilt and Rockefeller.

No, I'm telling you that it's just wrong.

Articles mean exactly jack. What they haven't said anything about is how much middle class wealth was destroyed by the RE market devaluation, which has been the main culprit in this so called wealth redistribution. Idiotic pundits want to tie it to things like income stagnation, but that make no sense. The marginal utility of capital gibberish makes no sense because the capital simply wasn't available for several years. It was absolutely destroyed as people and financial institutions levered up in RE.

 

[Ed12111]

you'll never know how much I've enjoyed the irony of your posts. :hi:

Cute. I wonder(I know) if the irony is lost on you when you claim I should be able to write a regulatory reform bill in one paragraph, and then whine when I write a sound simple economic illustration. I invite you and your "multiple advanced business degrees" to actually debate the marginal utility of money, rather than making trite little posts.

 

[BeecherVol]

This is probably your worst effort and that's saying something given the string of very poor ones.

I haven't one time in my life believed in the government as a solution to anything, especially economics. Never, ever, ever. Hence, your second sentence was simply nonsensical.

Your claim as to what led to the burst was lefty election rhetoric, but had nothing to do with actual economics. Your point regarding tax cuts and income disparity, that you can't even remotely begin to tie to the recession was just wrong.

Uh oh.

Thats unAmerican.

 

[Ed12111]

No, I'm telling you that it's just wrong.

Articles mean exactly jack. What they haven't said anything about is how much middle class wealth was destroyed by the RE market devaluation, which has been the main culprit in this so called wealth redistribution. Idiotic pundits want to tie it to things like income stagnation, but that make no sense. The marginal utility of capital gibberish makes no sense because the capital simply wasn't available for several years. It was absolutely destroyed as people and financial institutions levered up in RE.

Middle class wealth has been disappearing for years long before the current recession. If you read any of the articles you would see that this trend has been happening for quite a while. This was actually my main point about taxes before "the wannabe dude" sidetracked it.

 

[volinbham]

Cute. I wonder(I know) if the irony is lost on you when you claim I should be able to write a regulatory reform bill in one paragraph, and then whine when I write a sound simple economic illustration. I invite you and your "multiple advanced business degrees" to actually debate the marginal utility of money, rather than making trite little posts.

Once again, I never claimed you could or should write a regulatory reform bill in a paragraph. I asked you (repeatedly) to briefly explain how the tax cuts started the recession.

As for the concept of marginal utility of money, it works perfectly fine in your tightly controlled ceteris paribus world. I can certainly see that income inequality in extremes may result in longterm economic problems however you've provided no convincing argument that income inequality resulting from Bush policies (presumably tax cuts in 2001 and 2003) started a major recession in 2008. Marginal utility of money certainly doesn't explain it nearly as well as more direct factors in RE devaluation.

Hell, look at the growth in the stock market during Clinton's time in office. That certainly had major impacts on income inequality and wealth inequality. Where was the massive recession?

Look at the recent run up in the stock market coupled with the current unemployment and continual drop in housing wealth - uh oh, income inequality and wealth inequality is continuing to grow - damn you Obama!

 

[Ed12111]

Once again, I never claimed you could or should write a regulatory reform bill in a paragraph. I asked you (repeatedly) to briefly explain how the tax cuts started the recession.

As for the concept of marginal utility of money, it works perfectly fine in your tightly controlled ceteris paribus world. I can certainly see that income inequality in extremes may result in longterm economic problems however you've provided no convincing argument that income inequality resulting from Bush policies (presumably tax cuts in 2001 and 2003) started a major recession in 2008. Marginal utility of money certainly doesn't explain it nearly as well as more direct factors in RE devaluation.

Hell, look at the growth in the stock market during Clinton's time in office. That certainly had major impacts on income inequality and wealth inequality. Where was the massive recession?

Look at the recent run up in the stock market coupled with the current unemployment and continual drop in housing wealth - uh oh, income inequality and wealth inequality is continuing to grow - damn you Obama!

Why argue something especially so vehemently when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you going to argue that income inequality rose more during Clinton's presidency than Bush. The past ten years have been the only time in American History where the vast majority didn't see any income growth. And yeah the rising stock market is what largely contributes to it not the dropping of the top tax bracket from 90% to 35% today( somehow I have a feeling you're one of the tards whining we're becoming socialist).

Edit: Should be only time they haven't seen growth during expansion obviously.

 

[droski]

the idiocy is assuming comparing incomes is a zero sum game.

 

[Ed12111]

the idiocy is assuming comparing incomes is a zero sum game.

Arthur Laffer:thumbsup:

 

[volinbham]

Why argue something especially so vehemently when you clearly haven't a clue what you're talking about. Are you going to argue that income inequality rose more during Clinton's presidency than Bush. The past ten years have been the only time in American History where the vast majority didn't see any income growth. And yeah the rising stock market is what largely contributes to it not the dropping of the top tax bracket from 90% to 35% today( somehow I have a feeling you're one of the tards whining we're becoming socialist).

Edit: Should be only time they haven't seen growth during expansion obviously.

You continue to misunderstand and misstate my arguments. Then you call me a tard. Nice work. Reread what I've posted and try again.

 

[sjt18]

Whatever legitimate criticisms you might have of individual pieces of her article, and whatever legitimate complaints you might have about Obama, there is more than a kernel of truth to the point that the GOP has actively resisted bibartisanship at virtually every level since '08.

No. They have hardly resisted enough. What constitutes "bipartisanship" LG? Conservatives say that gov't is NOT the answer to most of the nation's problems. Dems say exactly the opposite. So when Dems say "We need a stimulus bill and more regulation"... what does a bipartisan compromise look like? Basically you would be looking for something more modest than the Dems want but still assenting to their basic notion that gov't is the answer, right? That isn't bipartisan. That is capitulation... because what will be the next debate? The next debate will be over a bill where the Dems get the rest of what they wanted.

In fact, those few times a Republican has steped up to the plate he or she has been shouted down by the Tea Partiers as disloyal or a RINO.

So what were Dems called who dared to say there should be a debate over privatizing social security? What happens to pro-life Dems who try to rise through the party?

If someone believes that the Dems are right in their philosophy of gov't then they should join the Dems and stop pretending. A "moderate" (regardless of how appealing the word sounds) is nothing more than a liberal who wants to grow gov't at a slightly slower pace.

Showing a willingness to compromise, no matter how noble the ideal, gets any GOP member targeted by his own party.

OK, here's a compromise and you tell me how many Dems will go along with it without being slammed by other Dems: Many people have a problem with the worldview being pushed in secular humanistic public schools therefore parents should be able to take the "per student expense" of their child and pay tuition with it. That IS a compromise. It does not say you have to change public schools or anything of the sort. It simply gives people another option.

Its a shame because the country right now needs everyone puitting their heads together and the far left just won't allow it because they are too busy demonizing small gov't conservatives and Tea Party activists.

FYP

FTR, if Obama would come out in favor of reducing gov't cost in real dollars and reducing the size and scope of the federal gov't... he would have plenty of support from the Right.

 

[droski]

Arthur Laffer:thumbsup:

And anyone with common sense.

 

[sjt18]

Middle class wealth has been disappearing for years long before the current recession. If you read any of the articles you would see that this trend has been happening for quite a while. This was actually my main point about taxes before "the wannabe dude" sidetracked it.

Middle class wealth has not been "disappearing". It has not grown at the same pace as upper class wealth but it hasn't been "disappearing".

FWIW, this "decline" has directly paralleled the growth of gov't spending and involvement in the economy AND the growth of federal debt. It has particularly increased since the "moderate" Nixon took us completely off the gold standard and turned monetary valuation over to the Fed.

 

[Ed12111]

You continue to misunderstand and misstate my arguments. Then you call me a tard. Nice work. Reread what I've posted and try again.

I read it you didn't post anything of substance. You continually ask me to explain my argument I do then you write more nonsensical deflectionary garbage.
1. You asked for a specific I gave you marginal utility of money.
2. You go off on some dismissive diatribe.
3. I say would you like to disagree.
4. You respond yeah well.. and then go down some other rabbithole.

All you do is change the subject and twist my words. I'm still not sure why you're hung up on taxes causing the recession, when I have repeatedly made clear to you my problem with Bush's tax policies were mostly with income inequality and the deficit in mind. Interesting that you never bother to show a "causal link" for any of your claims, instead just throwing them out there as some absolute truth.

 

[Ed12111]

Middle class wealth has not been "disappearing". It has not grown at the same pace as upper class wealth but it hasn't been "disappearing".

FWIW, this "decline" has directly paralleled the growth of gov't spending and involvement in the economy AND the growth of federal debt. It has particularly increased since the "moderate" Nixon took us completely off the gold standard and turned monetary valuation over to the Fed.

Oh really? Hasn't had anything to do with the tax bracket going from 90-35%. That's a pretty fantastic claim.

 

[droski]

Oh really? Hasn't had anything to do with the tax bracket going from 90-35%. That's a pretty fantastic claim.

So your theory is if the rich had higher taxes and the poor the same that the economy would be better because the income disparity was less. Right?