literally as well as in topic. From what I can see the last generation to have retirement plans either are currently retired or just about to. Those below 60 are royally screwed because they pushed those 401ks and removed this as a benefit and this is in high paying career oriented professional jobs, never mind the working stiff. It might even be that the white collar professionals have less than the working stiff (blue collar) and that would be a nice thing to find out on.
Because this is the rest of it as I understand it and I pointed out to the older release of the IMF selling gold, whereas here's an older one with India buying all that IMF put on the market.
Or did I do a dupe really?
The thing thing time is it affected the gold market, unlike this November announcement.
At least the corporate welfare side does have the ability to be a producer. The individual welfare side only produces more babies.
A producer??? Negative, that's why it's called "corporate welfare." The layer upon layer of financialization, producing nothing, sucking the guts out of any viable economy, ends up producing people who can never be bothered with anything so trivial as THE FACTS!
You've got to be kidding me, right? With Wall Street spending endless amount of time, and wasting and stealing endless amounts of recources in coming up with ever more financial (scams) engineering schemes to peddle their debt, which they then transfer to the rest of us, while keeping their profits and assets acquired by said peddling of debt, is simply criminal.
Even the most simple-minded should be able to comprehend that, dude!
I'm working on a follow up to the (unfortunately, not too well written) healthcare cost post, tying together pension funds, private equity LBOs, heatlhcare costs and credit derivatives.
I recall you posted quite a bit of bogus data on health care out of political philosophy. This is the problem, bogus data or assuming one cure if it involves "the government" is evil or bad, such as one which involved Macro economic theory must be "evil or bad" or involves the markets must be "evil or bad".
Now, the point of EP should be to examine the facts, objective facts and remove the political spin or philosophies.
That's why this site is an economics site. It's clearly very easy for people to argue over political philosophies and very hard for them to bother to study down into what a credit default swap is and how exactly it caused the threat of contagion resulting in the biggest corporate welfare gift we've seen in the history of the U.S.
That's yet another reason one had better do their home work and validate their facts and data and why it's a huge no no to take some corporate lobbyists "white paper" and claim it's true on this site.
Not only do you have to have your facts straight, but you had better find out if your sources are spinning and presenting biased data too....and the only way to figure that one out is to educate/improve your critical reading and analysis skills.
By arguing without the real facts or by philosophies, we have what we have...a CORPORATE written health care bill that's not going to pass and doesn't reduce costs, reduce the monopoly power of health insurance companies instead of a well cited, well reasoned system which works and would be cheaper.
If people would get over their philosophies there might be a prayer's chance to do some very simple, common sense things. Like who here believes drug companies would be allowed to run TV ads? Marketing is the most of their costs, it's not R&D, so doesn't it make sense to force drug companies to limit their marketing budgets if you want to bring down costs?
So, once again, EP is supposed to be about facts, not beliefs or philosophies and why it's an econ/finance site.
There are many, many, many people living in the USA that feel their needs must be met by the government.
The two major parties have their own way of garnering power over the population. The dependent class has yet, maybe never will, figure out the welfare mentality trap. Plus you have a lot of people telling them they don't even need to entertain the thought that it may be a trap.
The other side uses corporate welfare to keep their power structure.
At least the corporate welfare side does have the ability to be a producer. The individual welfare side only produces more babies.
Will we ever, ever vote out the scoundrels that promote all taxpayer give-a-ways. I fear that the answer is no.
Look at how many people read this site, read the data, the news bits and commentary...and agree with it...
yet if you try to label it as "Progressive" or "Populist" or "Conservative" or whatever per issue...
they get all upset thinking you're insulting their political identity and bent.
This is why this site is non-partisan because if you focus on the problems and detail out the facts, stats, theory...
the solutions become more self-evident and based on common sense instead of political philosophy.
I think this is important because frankly to get anything in this country, we need the public on board. Corporate lobbyists run D.C. obviously and the only prayer's chance for anything to really happen is from the people.
to waste breath on such nonsense statement such as wrong winger.
I could also point out stats that can show how "progressives" of the past have gotten it wrong.
Common sense economics rides in the middle of the road. It can be said that all out capitalists (which I know none) would just let things run rough-shod over the people. It can be said that Progressives would like to have so many economic laws that economics would be used for social engineering.
Neither sides reflects the average American which is I believe, someone that is neither far left or far right.
Using a term like wrong-winger immediately puts you in the corner of far leftist and you would be out of step with the Average American. Or if you aren't one, what is your favorite pejorative term for someone on the far left?
When those thoughts were evolving there was no welfare check in the mail, no food stamp card, no section 8, no medicaid, etc etc.
The government placated the very poor to create a dependent class of society that does nothing but feed off the middle class workers who pay a higher tax rate than the ultra wealthy. I for instance cannot afford to hide money in the Caymans that I need to pay the mortgage.
Central Falls, RI (for instance) a community made up of nearly 100% Columbians ) a fact that was highlighted by the national media when huge cocaine busts were being made by the feds there) has an average household income of $22,000 a year. The state here picks up 100% of their ongoing school costs and 97% of their building maintenance and new building costs. Other communities pay about 50% of the ongoing costs and 100% of the building costs. This entire community is in effect on welfare. 50% of all Central Falls HS students are failing 100% of their classes. The average teacher salary at that HS is over $72,000 a year in contrast to the population they serve. They are babysitters.
Taxpayers have left that community and taxpayers are leaving RI to avoid paying for the 'my babys daddy' and 'my babys mommas' that are an increasingly larger part of the population. RI is just a view of what will happen to the country as a whole.
We used to tax the wealthy at 90%+ but now 35% is too much even though they pay less than the AMT.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too.
Either we raise taxes considerably and or we cut back on the benefit programs that are part of the mandated spending that is not frozen by Obama's paygo fantasy.
Interesting and I wonder why and what the difference is, but according to EconomPic Data, China buys treasuries through the U.K....
ok, glad we've cleared that up and have yet another level of obfuscation to determine which nations, which foreign entities are buying up U.S. Treasuries (sic).
which is yet another reason I think one needs to really make sure policy solutions will work and plain stay away from issues that are not "on topic".
I literally have to turn off the TV, for every time the trivial happens, which is daily, that is what they will harp on and another reason blogs have become so popular.
The Non-Partisan League was essentially a North Dakota phenomenon. By 1916, its successes had prompted copies in Minnesota. This budding movement was snuffed out by the reactionaries in coordinated raids following the entry of USA in WWII. Supposedly, the crime of Minnesota NPL types was that they were pro-German.
The Minnesota farm progressives staggered around but finally got their feet under them during the 1920s when they founded the Farmer-Labor Party. They finally elected a governor of Minnesota in 1932 by the name of Floyd B. Olson. The Farmer-Labor Party eventually lost its independent status when Hubert Humphrey arranged a merger between the FL and the Democratic Party. It is called the DFL until this day.
As for a basic primer into upper midwest Populism / Progressivism, I have tried to cover the main issues here:
http://elegant-technology.com/ETcurinPOP.html
to have very specific, analyzed policy prescriptions as agendas.
I'll bet if you ask 100 self identified conservatives what they mean by smaller government, you'll get 100 different answers and 80 of them vague.
I think if people focused on policy items they want and why they want them,understand how exactly they should work, it would be better.
I think the great partisan divide at this point is almost a corporate lobbyist creation. It helps keep bills and policies they do not want from getting passed.
It's like network news is almost diversionary noise.
Though an interesting thing about the Non-Partisan League is that is also did not concern itself with whether someone was a Democrat or Republican. The NPL laid down a program of specific policy objectives it wanted to achieve. These policies were all designed to assist farmers in getting fair treatment and prices when dealing with banks, railroads, terminals, elevators, grain processors and traders. The NPL maintained it would support either a Dem or Rep, so long as the candidate agreed to support the Non-Partisan League's policy objectives.
I'm not sure of the exact history, but I do know that the Farmer-Labor parties were not originally allied with the Democratic Party, and merger came a number of years later. Lindbergh was a Republican, and one of the most visible faces of the NPL, but a decade or two later it was the Democratic Party that absorbed most of the NPL network.
This site is an economics site. It's officially non-partisan and there is good reason for that.
So, to claim "Progressive is good" and "wrong-wingers are bad" is really getting off the focus of this site.
Truly, I see more people who do not understand, let's say CDSes or the WTO and the "free movement of capital" or why MNCs scout the globe, how it's encouraged for them to scout the globe due to differing tax jurisdictions and currency exchange rates, growth rates and this is one of the reasons money pours of the U.S. like a sieve.
Yet we see all of these political terms, but if you ask almost everyone, what is the difference between a VAT and a tariff, they will not know the answer or if they have heard of a VAT, just one example of thousands.
Now, if you try to classify a VAT as "Progressive" or "Conservative", well, you really cannot, instead you'll see some from across the political spectrum who think it's a good idea to help with trade.
Now add to that political spin which isn't based in objective economic fact, theory, stats and definitions.
It's really no wonder one cannot get anywhere because all of this political soup can labeling keeps people from doing the hard work to dig around and really understand an issue.
and why I offered the definitions. I always used to think that populists were always the good guys, but it ain't necessarily so. Populists are only good to the degree that they are also progressive. Which I understand might make you uncomfortable, what with the name you selected for this site, but, believe me, I'm just trying to help clarify matters and point to the danger from the wrong-wingers. So, yes, the bagheads are populists, but they are not progressives, and that makes them something more than a mere nuisance.
all of these definitions. Well, I guess I want to redefine Populist to objectivity, focus on the actual statistics, results and policy prescriptions that are also based on sound theory and results, with the focus being on working America, or the middle class, i.e. Americans...and economy that's in the national interest, their best interests.
But to me, no one is going to get nowhere with just rage and outrage without understanding the economic details and how things really work ....
I would claim the tea party people are Populists by traditional terms but the problem is I don't think they understand the ramifications of so many policies being presented as solutions would in fact make things even worse.
They do not understand that unfettered capitalism will lead to a huge social divide between the haves and the masses who are have nots.
On the other hand we have policies that are seriously spun by various special interest groups that in fact will hurt further the U.S. middle class, working America and are not "smart spending"...
both sides I'd say are strongly infiltrated with corporate agendas, might be corporate lobbyists dress up their agendas as "left" flavors and "right flavors" depending on who they have bought off and who they are backing, who is in power.
literally as well as in topic. From what I can see the last generation to have retirement plans either are currently retired or just about to. Those below 60 are royally screwed because they pushed those 401ks and removed this as a benefit and this is in high paying career oriented professional jobs, never mind the working stiff. It might even be that the white collar professionals have less than the working stiff (blue collar) and that would be a nice thing to find out on.
Because this is the rest of it as I understand it and I pointed out to the older release of the IMF selling gold, whereas here's an older one with India buying all that IMF put on the market.
Or did I do a dupe really?
The thing thing time is it affected the gold market, unlike this November announcement.
We already knew all of this months ago. Maybe they figure that in today's ADD environment that people have forgotten this.
A producer??? Negative, that's why it's called "corporate welfare." The layer upon layer of financialization, producing nothing, sucking the guts out of any viable economy, ends up producing people who can never be bothered with anything so trivial as THE FACTS!
You've got to be kidding me, right? With Wall Street spending endless amount of time, and wasting and stealing endless amounts of recources in coming up with ever more financial (scams) engineering schemes to peddle their debt, which they then transfer to the rest of us, while keeping their profits and assets acquired by said peddling of debt, is simply criminal.
Even the most simple-minded should be able to comprehend that, dude!
I'm working on a follow up to the (unfortunately, not too well written) healthcare cost post, tying together pension funds, private equity LBOs, heatlhcare costs and credit derivatives.
Thanks!
I recall you posted quite a bit of bogus data on health care out of political philosophy. This is the problem, bogus data or assuming one cure if it involves "the government" is evil or bad, such as one which involved Macro economic theory must be "evil or bad" or involves the markets must be "evil or bad".
Now, the point of EP should be to examine the facts, objective facts and remove the political spin or philosophies.
That's why this site is an economics site. It's clearly very easy for people to argue over political philosophies and very hard for them to bother to study down into what a credit default swap is and how exactly it caused the threat of contagion resulting in the biggest corporate welfare gift we've seen in the history of the U.S.
That's yet another reason one had better do their home work and validate their facts and data and why it's a huge no no to take some corporate lobbyists "white paper" and claim it's true on this site.
Not only do you have to have your facts straight, but you had better find out if your sources are spinning and presenting biased data too....and the only way to figure that one out is to educate/improve your critical reading and analysis skills.
By arguing without the real facts or by philosophies, we have what we have...a CORPORATE written health care bill that's not going to pass and doesn't reduce costs, reduce the monopoly power of health insurance companies instead of a well cited, well reasoned system which works and would be cheaper.
If people would get over their philosophies there might be a prayer's chance to do some very simple, common sense things. Like who here believes drug companies would be allowed to run TV ads? Marketing is the most of their costs, it's not R&D, so doesn't it make sense to force drug companies to limit their marketing budgets if you want to bring down costs?
So, once again, EP is supposed to be about facts, not beliefs or philosophies and why it's an econ/finance site.
think they can have their cake and eat it.
There are many, many, many people living in the USA that feel their needs must be met by the government.
The two major parties have their own way of garnering power over the population. The dependent class has yet, maybe never will, figure out the welfare mentality trap. Plus you have a lot of people telling them they don't even need to entertain the thought that it may be a trap.
The other side uses corporate welfare to keep their power structure.
At least the corporate welfare side does have the ability to be a producer. The individual welfare side only produces more babies.
Will we ever, ever vote out the scoundrels that promote all taxpayer give-a-ways. I fear that the answer is no.
Look at how many people read this site, read the data, the news bits and commentary...and agree with it...
yet if you try to label it as "Progressive" or "Populist" or "Conservative" or whatever per issue...
they get all upset thinking you're insulting their political identity and bent.
This is why this site is non-partisan because if you focus on the problems and detail out the facts, stats, theory...
the solutions become more self-evident and based on common sense instead of political philosophy.
I think this is important because frankly to get anything in this country, we need the public on board. Corporate lobbyists run D.C. obviously and the only prayer's chance for anything to really happen is from the people.
I wrote about the North Dakota Bank here and the Pujo Committee here.
It's good to see these historical examples being recycled and remembered.
to waste breath on such nonsense statement such as wrong winger.
I could also point out stats that can show how "progressives" of the past have gotten it wrong.
Common sense economics rides in the middle of the road. It can be said that all out capitalists (which I know none) would just let things run rough-shod over the people. It can be said that Progressives would like to have so many economic laws that economics would be used for social engineering.
Neither sides reflects the average American which is I believe, someone that is neither far left or far right.
Using a term like wrong-winger immediately puts you in the corner of far leftist and you would be out of step with the Average American. Or if you aren't one, what is your favorite pejorative term for someone on the far left?
Ah ....feel better now.
When those thoughts were evolving there was no welfare check in the mail, no food stamp card, no section 8, no medicaid, etc etc.
The government placated the very poor to create a dependent class of society that does nothing but feed off the middle class workers who pay a higher tax rate than the ultra wealthy. I for instance cannot afford to hide money in the Caymans that I need to pay the mortgage.
Central Falls, RI (for instance) a community made up of nearly 100% Columbians ) a fact that was highlighted by the national media when huge cocaine busts were being made by the feds there) has an average household income of $22,000 a year. The state here picks up 100% of their ongoing school costs and 97% of their building maintenance and new building costs. Other communities pay about 50% of the ongoing costs and 100% of the building costs. This entire community is in effect on welfare. 50% of all Central Falls HS students are failing 100% of their classes. The average teacher salary at that HS is over $72,000 a year in contrast to the population they serve. They are babysitters.
Taxpayers have left that community and taxpayers are leaving RI to avoid paying for the 'my babys daddy' and 'my babys mommas' that are an increasingly larger part of the population. RI is just a view of what will happen to the country as a whole.
We used to tax the wealthy at 90%+ but now 35% is too much even though they pay less than the AMT.
We cannot have our cake and eat it too.
Either we raise taxes considerably and or we cut back on the benefit programs that are part of the mandated spending that is not frozen by Obama's paygo fantasy.
Interesting and I wonder why and what the difference is, but according to EconomPic Data, China buys treasuries through the U.K....
ok, glad we've cleared that up and have yet another level of obfuscation to determine which nations, which foreign entities are buying up U.S. Treasuries (sic).
which is yet another reason I think one needs to really make sure policy solutions will work and plain stay away from issues that are not "on topic".
I literally have to turn off the TV, for every time the trivial happens, which is daily, that is what they will harp on and another reason blogs have become so popular.
The Non-Partisan League was essentially a North Dakota phenomenon. By 1916, its successes had prompted copies in Minnesota. This budding movement was snuffed out by the reactionaries in coordinated raids following the entry of USA in WWII. Supposedly, the crime of Minnesota NPL types was that they were pro-German.
The Minnesota farm progressives staggered around but finally got their feet under them during the 1920s when they founded the Farmer-Labor Party. They finally elected a governor of Minnesota in 1932 by the name of Floyd B. Olson. The Farmer-Labor Party eventually lost its independent status when Hubert Humphrey arranged a merger between the FL and the Democratic Party. It is called the DFL until this day.
As for a basic primer into upper midwest Populism / Progressivism, I have tried to cover the main issues here:
http://elegant-technology.com/ETcurinPOP.html
to have very specific, analyzed policy prescriptions as agendas.
I'll bet if you ask 100 self identified conservatives what they mean by smaller government, you'll get 100 different answers and 80 of them vague.
I think if people focused on policy items they want and why they want them,understand how exactly they should work, it would be better.
I think the great partisan divide at this point is almost a corporate lobbyist creation. It helps keep bills and policies they do not want from getting passed.
It's like network news is almost diversionary noise.
Though an interesting thing about the Non-Partisan League is that is also did not concern itself with whether someone was a Democrat or Republican. The NPL laid down a program of specific policy objectives it wanted to achieve. These policies were all designed to assist farmers in getting fair treatment and prices when dealing with banks, railroads, terminals, elevators, grain processors and traders. The NPL maintained it would support either a Dem or Rep, so long as the candidate agreed to support the Non-Partisan League's policy objectives.
I'm not sure of the exact history, but I do know that the Farmer-Labor parties were not originally allied with the Democratic Party, and merger came a number of years later. Lindbergh was a Republican, and one of the most visible faces of the NPL, but a decade or two later it was the Democratic Party that absorbed most of the NPL network.
This site is an economics site. It's officially non-partisan and there is good reason for that.
So, to claim "Progressive is good" and "wrong-wingers are bad" is really getting off the focus of this site.
Truly, I see more people who do not understand, let's say CDSes or the WTO and the "free movement of capital" or why MNCs scout the globe, how it's encouraged for them to scout the globe due to differing tax jurisdictions and currency exchange rates, growth rates and this is one of the reasons money pours of the U.S. like a sieve.
Yet we see all of these political terms, but if you ask almost everyone, what is the difference between a VAT and a tariff, they will not know the answer or if they have heard of a VAT, just one example of thousands.
Now, if you try to classify a VAT as "Progressive" or "Conservative", well, you really cannot, instead you'll see some from across the political spectrum who think it's a good idea to help with trade.
Now add to that political spin which isn't based in objective economic fact, theory, stats and definitions.
It's really no wonder one cannot get anywhere because all of this political soup can labeling keeps people from doing the hard work to dig around and really understand an issue.
and why I offered the definitions. I always used to think that populists were always the good guys, but it ain't necessarily so. Populists are only good to the degree that they are also progressive. Which I understand might make you uncomfortable, what with the name you selected for this site, but, believe me, I'm just trying to help clarify matters and point to the danger from the wrong-wingers. So, yes, the bagheads are populists, but they are not progressives, and that makes them something more than a mere nuisance.
all of these definitions. Well, I guess I want to redefine Populist to objectivity, focus on the actual statistics, results and policy prescriptions that are also based on sound theory and results, with the focus being on working America, or the middle class, i.e. Americans...and economy that's in the national interest, their best interests.
But to me, no one is going to get nowhere with just rage and outrage without understanding the economic details and how things really work ....
I would claim the tea party people are Populists by traditional terms but the problem is I don't think they understand the ramifications of so many policies being presented as solutions would in fact make things even worse.
They do not understand that unfettered capitalism will lead to a huge social divide between the haves and the masses who are have nots.
On the other hand we have policies that are seriously spun by various special interest groups that in fact will hurt further the U.S. middle class, working America and are not "smart spending"...
both sides I'd say are strongly infiltrated with corporate agendas, might be corporate lobbyists dress up their agendas as "left" flavors and "right flavors" depending on who they have bought off and who they are backing, who is in power.
I'm in complete agreement but even the most liberal among the politicians don't say trickle down but vote for it.
Everything has to do through a government bureaucracy or come from some mighty connected company before it reaches someones hands (whats left of it).
The problem as always is those that are in power are displaced from everyday people to such an extent that they are clueless.
Pages