Americans are 40% poorer than before the recession

[JSSD]

I don’t find any logic in your response.

I think that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect huge fans of regulation to do so, and that’s why we have so many different political and economic opinions.

Especially where you task free trade with preventing wars.

But another part of the problem in not finding logic is also re-interpreting what I wrote. It isn’t free trade’s “task” to prevent wars, nor did I imply any sort of obligation or accountability. It is one component of many that helps. Good trade partners tend to not destroy each other. $0.02 Surely you see the logic in that?

For the portion where you seem to slight American made autos. The fact is that the EPA’s regulations have our vehicles running at standards we only dreamed of in the past. My own heavily used Chevy Truck has over 200,000 miles. Twice the expected lifespan of my first 1979 model. Obviously it is much safer as well. Using anything German as an example in this day and age shows a peculiar insular point of view. Germany a nation ran by banks with their enforced austerity seem to be telling the rest of Europe and the odd American to spend us out of our troubles. No thanks.

Also not even close to what I said. I didn’t suggest to buy any particular product or country, I suggested that I’m going to, let’s say, “spend wisely.” I actually suggest you do the same. As an example, in my mind it is definitely not Chevy, in yours it is. In my mind it has nothing to do with EPA regulations, in yours it seems it might. I’m happy your current Chevy is better than your 1979 model, my bar might be set higher / differently / elsewhere. Isn’t the free market wonderful? Well, I guess Chevy doesn’t have to play by those rules, but at least you and I have a choice, not just on products but even standards by which to judge those products.

The only reason I brought up Germany is because you suggest buying American, and I’d suggest that:

1. Your own Chevy isn’t as “American” as some “foreign” cars: news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/03/what-percentage-of-your-truck-is-made-in-america.html
   and
2. I’m going to buy the best performance for the money. In my mind, that’s not American anymore. In this case, two German companies fit my bill and no “American” ones do. It could easily be Swedish (Chinese?), Japanese, or Korean as well.

This is so far off topic as to no longer even be tangential. How does being nationalistic / protectionist on purchases even help the poor anyway? I’d argue it doesn’t, I’m certainly not more worried about American poor than others (aren’t we all God’s children?), and my point is that I’m not into the blame game (or the credit game) for macro-econ trends. We don’t always have to assign fault.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I think that’s fine. I wouldn’t expect huge fans of regulation to do so, and that’s why we have so many different political and economic opinions.

But another part of the problem in not finding logic is also re-interpreting what I wrote. It isn’t free trade’s “task” to prevent wars, nor did I imply any sort of obligation or accountability. It is one component of many that helps. Good trade partners tend to not destroy each other. $0.02 Surely you see the logic in that?

“Also not even close to what I said. I didn’t suggest to buy any particular product or country, I suggested that I’m going to, let’s say, “spend wisely.” I actually suggest you do the same. As an example, in my mind it is definitely not Chevy, in yours it is. In my mind it has nothing to do with EPA regulations, in yours it seems it might. I’m happy your current Chevy is better than your 1979 model, my bar might be set higher / differently / elsewhere. Isn’t the free market wonderful? Well, I guess Chevy doesn’t have to play by those rules, but at least you and I have a choice, not just on products but even standards by which to judge those products.”

"The only reason I brought up Germany is because you suggest buying American, and I’d suggest that:

1. Your own Chevy isn’t as “American” as some “foreign” cars: news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/03/what-percentage-of-your-truck-is-made-in-america.html
   and
2. I’m going to buy the best performance for the money. In my mind, that’s not American anymore. In this case, two German companies fit my bill and no “American” ones do. It could easily be Swedish (Chinese?), Japanese, or Korean as well."

"This is so far off topic as to no longer even be tangential. How does being nationalistic / protectionist on purchases even help the poor anyway? I’d argue it doesn’t, I’m certainly not more worried about American poor than others (aren’t we all God’s children?), and my point is that I’m not into the blame game (or the credit game) for macro-econ trends. We don’t always have to assign fault.

"

You said this about free trade. “No, I believe mutual respect based upon free trade prevents wars.” I’m sure this is tasking.

Spending wisely means spending your money where it will do the most good. Not spending money to please yourself alone. You mentioned that you were angry about the auto industry bail outs. So, you weren’t going to buy any more Big Three autos. More about you than helping anyone. I guess we agree Germany is a poor example though. This is not without hope.

If you want to say I’m a nationalist fine I’ll take that. What I hope you take away from this exchange is that we are part of our society and have certain obligations to our fellows. Claiming to be concerned about the poor of the world after your previous post doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Spending money on the products of American Companies ensures that money stays in our country. Not only in taxes, but also is services that those companies avail themselves of. Things as simple as hotel, and convention center use. These are ways we can help the poor. But as you pointed out the original thread topic was workers making less. How buying American can help this really doesn’t require an explanation does it?

ATB

 

[JSSD]

Your first paragraph is arguing just to argue. It is not “tasking.” Do vaccines prevent infections? Does handwashing? Are both “tasked” with preventing all infections? Please.

I’m afraid it does require more explanation. If you say buying foreign is all about me, and somehow implying selfishness, then the logical extension is that, in fact, German quality is much higher. Otherwise, why would one do it? I’d agree the quality is much higher, but I disagree it is selfish even a little. So, what I am taking away is that you are more concerned with fellows in Michigan than those in other parts of the world, or perhaps even a different region of our country. You have yet to make a compelling morality argument for buying Big 3. $0.02

So, where will one’s money do the most good? I guess I also require explanation of how rewarding poorer quality, union cronyism, inferior technology, and chronic mismanagement is somehow a “greater good” argument, because that is not a morality nor economic argument I understand.

Lastly, on hotels, taxes, and convention centers, I completely disagree with your S&D analysis, but we clearly see the world of economics differently.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

Your first paragraph is arguing just to argue. It is not “tasking.” Do vaccines prevent infections? Does handwashing? Are both “tasked” with preventing all infections? Please.

I’m afraid it does require more explanation. If you say buying foreign is all about me, and somehow implying selfishness, then the logical extension is that, in fact, German quality is much higher. Otherwise, why would one do it? I’d agree the quality is much higher, but I disagree it is selfish even a little. So, what I am taking away is that you are more concerned with fellows in Michigan than those in other parts of the world, or perhaps even a different region of our country. You have yet to make a compelling morality argument for buying Big 3. $0.02

So, where will one’s money do the most good? I guess I also require explanation of how rewarding poorer quality, union cronyism, inferior technology, and chronic mismanagement is somehow a “greater good” argument, because that is not a morality nor economic argument I understand.

Lastly, on hotels, taxes, and convention centers, I completely disagree with your S&D analysis, but we clearly see the world of economics differently.

There’s just nothing here. You seem to have a few axes you wish to grind. Not really worth talking about.

 

[Rau]

I believe the economic facts reveal that:

• average real incomes in the USA are about where they were in 1995;
• the share of income that is earned by the very wealthy continues to rise.

What astounds people where I live (not in the USA) is that Americans don’t seem particularly perturbed by an economic, social and political “system” that delivers these kinds of results!

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I believe the economic facts reveal that:

• average real incomes in the USA are about where they were in 1995;
• the share of income that is earned by the very wealthy continues to rise.

What astounds people where I live (not in the USA) is that Americans don’t seem particularly perturbed by an economic, social and political “system” that delivers these kinds of results!

Pen raised sheep.

 

[JSSD]

There’s just nothing here. You seem to have a few axes you wish to grind. Not really worth talking about.

There did seem to be something here when you noted “we are part of our society and have certain obligations to our fellows” and I asserted what you find self-serving is probably “spending wisely” which for you means “spending where it will do the most good.” It is fair that there is nothing worth talking about when we clearly see this so differently and have very different ideas of what even constitutes “American” or how promoting inefficiency helps the American worker or the poor. Agreed we need go no further.

As an aside, though, the former pharmacist in me did particularly enjoy the juxtaposition of being insinuated selfish by a user handle chosen named after the date rape drug! http://www.chicitysports.com/forum/images/smilies/beer.gif

I believe the economic facts reveal that:

• average real incomes in the USA are about where they were in 1995;
• the share of income that is earned by the very wealthy continues to rise.

What astounds people where I live (not in the USA) is that Americans don’t seem particularly perturbed by an economic, social and political “system” that delivers these kinds of results!

Who says they don’t, but what “system” proves better and how would you achieve implementation?

 

[Rau]

…
Who says they don’t, but what “system” proves better and how would you achieve implementation?

The Americans we see in our media I suppose, and the apparent lack of criticism. If your perspective is different, I’m happy to hear it.

The fundamental capitalistic, democratic system is not necessarily the problem, for there are many such Countries that manage to promote a less unequal society. For whatever reason, the USA excels in rewarding the already very rich.

 

[WilT]

I believe the economic facts reveal that:

• average real incomes in the USA are about where they were in 1995;
• the share of income that is earned by the very wealthy continues to rise.

What astounds people where I live (not in the USA) is that Americans don’t seem particularly perturbed by an economic, social and political “system” that delivers these kinds of results!/QUOT

npatrol:: so true.

 

[JSSD]

The Americans we see in our media I suppose, and the apparent lack of criticism. If your perspective is different, I’m happy to hear it.

The fundamental capitalistic, democratic system is not necessarily the problem, for there are many such Countries that manage to promote a less unequal society. For whatever reason, the USA excels in rewarding the already very rich.

I think there are plenty of folks who do a lot of complaining about this. Did the “Occupy” movement make the news by you? They did a tremendous amount of noisemaking but offered virtually zero in terms of suggestions or solutions. Only anger and general mayhem. Have you seen any American political websites or facebook pages? There is a very high amount of “perturbed” but the offerings they can propose center on tax and welfare redistribution ideas. This incentivizes tax strategies and disincentivizes work at the lowest socioeconomic strands. It disincentivizes hiring. It raises prices.

This is what I was getting at before. The problem with our “wealth distribution pattern” if it is actually a problem, like so many others, has a multitude of causes. I’d say there are more causes than one could reasonably list and some of the causes are problems in and of themselves. I don’t even want to throw a few out and be accused of “tasking” the solution to those or blaming the poor.

I would also agree that it isn’t the fundamental capitalistic, democratic (we are a representative republic, incidentally) system. We are not truly capitalistic or free market. We do excel in rewarding the “already very rich” but we also excel at minting newly rich too. This is still very much a land of opportunity for those willing to seize it.

 

[weller2]

The melt down was caused chiefly by de-regulation of the banking industry.

That was the cause; but the trigger was peak oil. Oil supply became inelastic in late 2009 (OPEC could not increase production despite rising demand, because they were already pumping at max capacity), triggering a price spike with cascading effects through the financial system.

Strengthening Glass-Steagal rather than replacing it with Gramm, Leach, Bliley. Would have prevented the need for bailouts.

Correct. With Glass-Steagal, you would have a “normal” recession like the first oil crisis, not a complete financial meltdown. There would be a rapid drop in GDP and write-off of assets, after which the economy would start working around the damage. People would invest in fuel-saving vehicles etc.

Even the folks how brought GLB forward now admit that it was disastrous in the end. Jobs shifting over seas, the housing bubble bursting, and a variety of criminal activities were straws for the camels back. The governments of George Bush, and Barack Obama took steps to ensure the worlds economy didn’t slide off of the cliff.

Which I posit was a huge mistake. This policy replaces a short and deep recession with a shallow and prolonged recession, which will end with economic collapse anyway.

On the other hand, this policy is understandable given that you have no Glass-Steagal anymore, as Glass-Steagal would essentially limit collapse to the financial sector. Without Glass-Steagal, the collapsing financial sector will take the real economy down with it.

The Shale oil we are bringing up is going to be a game changer for our country.

No it won’t. All it will do is delay collapse for 10 years (2010 → 2020).