If LBJ wasn't such a liar, would he be rated one of the best presidents ever?

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Actually, in a very simplistic view, he is correct that the average GDP growth for the decades was higher in the 60's and 70's. But he is ignoring all the other factors. The biggest one being the fact that the Fed deliberately tried to slow growth... to moderate it.... so that we wouldn't have such volatility in the growth.... which led during the 60's and 70's to longer periods of economic instability. He is trying to make an idiotic assumption that because the numbers average higher, that somehow that makes the period after Reagan somehow worse for the middle class. Whereas the exact opposite is true. The more stable economy with sustainable growth actually provided the average american more confidence in the market and the economy. But Cypress doesn't care about any of this, nor will he read it. All he cares about is that he found someone who averaged a number that looks really really pretty to him. What he fails to realize is that underneath that pretty wrapping paper is a box of shit.

His assertation on a family living off of one income is also simplistic. Because you could still live in the vast majority of this country on one income. But not if you adhere to the irresponsibility so many people have today to live beyond their means.

It's true that the GDP growth in the 60's and 70's was probably because of the fed. The fed has much more of an influence in the economy than most people realize. And the 80's paid for their runaway growth whenever a more rational fed got into the position. The prosperity of the 90's was a result of Greenspan's policies.

But you should also take notice that the median wage has been growing by a ridiculously small factor, compared to the runaway per capita GDP growth. This means that the lower class is pretty much staying the same, while the upper class is getting richer and richer. This is the result of Reagan's anti-welfare policies - the distribution of growth is horrible.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Water... yes, there is still a lower income class... there always will be. But are they better off than those in their income class were in the 60's and 70's?

Yes, the rich have gotten richer. But many in the middle class have moved up into the upper class. Some from the lower have moved to the middle and some have taken a hit.

But all in all, we are better off as a country than we were in the 60's and 70's.

That said, I would be interested to see your per capita GDP growth numbers to compare with median income growth.

 

[Cancel7]

Whatever SF. I could not be more bored.

You're FOS in my opinion when you claim that the middle class today could live on one income, if they weren't greedy. To me, that is self-evident.

And, though I don't know much about enonomics, I know that every time he has a statistic, you claim that it's correct, but doesn't give the "true story". So guess what? I don't know much about economics, but I know horseshit when I smell it. You'll do and say anything, in order to avoid giving any economic credit to a democrat. That makes anything you come up with highly suspect to me.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Darla... so, you will ignore everything I mentioned.... all the reasons he is wrong... just because he posted an number? THIS is the problem with society today. They are willing to accept the simplistic views rather than look at the entire picture... because it is EASIER to do so.

HIS OWN SITE.... WHERE HE GOT THE DATA FROM.... THE SAME AUTHOR STATED THIS....

"While there are some who would argue that a growing economy inevitably will grow more slowly as it gets larger, there is reason as well to believe that some of the decline may be related to the increase in tax rates and regulations that have inevitably accumulated over time. A worthwhile analysis might test the significance of total taxation and regulation as a causal variable against GDP growth. "

So tell me Darla... how is it that the larger averages translate to "superior" performance as he is claiming?

Or do you really think that the country was better off during Carter than it was during Clinton?

 

[cawacko]

Whatever SF. I could not be more bored.

You're FOS in my opinion when you claim that the middle class today could live on one income, if they weren't greedy. To me, that is self-evident.

And, though I don't know much about enonomics, I know that every time he has a statistic, you claim that it's correct, but doesn't give the "true story". So guess what? I don't know much about economics, but I know horseshit when I smell it. You'll do and say anything, in order to avoid giving any economic credit to a democrat. That makes anything you come up with highly suspect to me.

Maybe I'm missing something in this thread but I didn't think this had anything to do with partianship. It's not about Democrat vs. Republican although maybe Cypress thinks it is.

 

[Cancel7]

Maybe I'm missing something in this thread but I didn't think this had anything to do with partianship. It's not about Democrat vs. Republican although maybe Cypress thinks it is.

Yes, you are missing something.

I think it is. That's why I said it is.

Cypress is not my ventriloquist!

 

[Cancel7]

Darla... so, you will ignore everything I mentioned.... all the reasons he is wrong... just because he posted an number? THIS is the problem with society today. They are willing to accept the simplistic views rather than look at the entire picture... because it is EASIER to do so.

HIS OWN SITE.... WHERE HE GOT THE DATA FROM.... THE SAME AUTHOR STATED THIS....

"While there are some who would argue that a growing economy inevitably will grow more slowly as it gets larger, there is reason as well to believe that some of the decline may be related to the increase in tax rates and regulations that have inevitably accumulated over time. A worthwhile analysis might test the significance of total taxation and regulation as a causal variable against GDP growth. "

So tell me Darla... how is it that the larger averages translate to "superior" performance as he is claiming?

Or do you really think that the country was better off during Carter than it was during Clinton?

That's right SF. I'm what's wrong with this country. And Michael Moore is what's wrong with health care, as one pundit claimed.

If you on average, made more money last year than this year, which was the superior year for you? Yeah.

 

[Cypress]

"While there are some who would argue that a growing economy inevitably will grow more slowly as it gets larger,"

SPECULATION

"...there is reason as well to believe that some of the decline may be related to the increase in tax rates and regulations that have inevitably accumulated over time."

SPECULATION


-FACT: Economic growth in the pre-reagan years (1946-1980) was superior to the post reagan years (1980-2006).

-ASSERTION: In the pre-reagan years, a family could live a nice, comfortable life virtually anywhere in the United States - from Akron to San Diego - on one spouses income.

In the post-reagan years, large swaths of the country - from the rust belt, to small town america - are not economically viable to support a large healthy middle class.


I think that is a fair and accuarte assertion, broadly speaking.



SF: I'm just looking at and using raw data. I could care less what academic wankering and speculation is posted on that link. I don't automatically assume that the hypotheses of academic wankers are neccessarily true. That's why they're called hypothesis. They're essentially guesses, that aren't ground-truthed by testing.

That's why I'm relying strictly on the raw data. Cawacko asserted that the post reagan years were a golden age for the middle class, and that "all this wealth" had been created since 1980. Not accurate. On an inflationary-adjusted composite average, the economy and wealth was growing better in the pre-reagan years.

 

[cawacko]

Yes, you are missing something.

I think it is. That's why I said it is.

Cypress is not my ventriloquist!

Oh, my bad!

What is the partisan issue?

 

[Cancel7]

Oh, my bad!

What is the partisan issue?

Cawacko, don't make me get Prak in here to give you the class action lawsuit against your alma mater rant.

Seriously, read the thread, this is the third one in as many weeks. Always about, even though financial indicators show the economy doing better under Democratic Presidents, that doesn't tell the "real story".

Of course it's partisan.

Anyway, in the end, I know what has been happening to the middle class. As I keep saying, that is self-evident. All of the tap-dancing and twisting, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not qualified to ascertain which ecomomic indicator is misleading or not. Frankly, I don't believe for one moment that many on here are either. Leaving out, "the master" Topspin of course.

 

[cawacko]

Cawacko, don't make me get Prak in here to give you the class action lawsuit against your alma mater rant.

Seriously, read the thread, this is the third one in as many weeks. Always about, even though financial indicators show the economy doing better under Democratic Presidents, that doesn't tell the "real story".

Of course it's partisan.

Anyway, in the end, I know what has been happening to the middle class. As I keep saying, that is self-evident. All of the tap-dancing and twisting, doesn't mean anything to me. I'm not qualified to ascertain which ecomomic indicator is misleading or not. Frankly, I don't believe for one moment that many on here are either. Leaving out, "the master" Topspin of course.

But in the period Tax is arguing about post WWII there was Eisenhower, Nixon (and Ford) as Presidents. In the post 1980 there was Bill Clinton. So it's not strictly a Democrat vs. Republican issue. And NO there is no need to bring your friend over!

 

[Cancel7]

But in the period Tax is arguing about post WWII there was Eisenhower, Nixon (and Ford) as Presidents. In the post 1980 there was Bill Clinton. So it's not strictly a Democrat vs. Republican issue. And NO there is no need to bring your friend over!

It's all about Ronald Reagan.

Dont' worry, I was just kidding about the other.

 

[Cancel7]

With some LBJ bashing thrown in.

 

[Cypress]

But in the period Tax is arguing about post WWII there was Eisenhower, Nixon (and Ford) as Presidents. In the post 1980 there was Bill Clinton. So it's not strictly a Democrat vs. Republican issue. And NO there is no need to bring your friend over!

In this thread, I never suggested it was a Democrat vs. GOP thing.

I am suggesting its an ideological thing. Broadly speaking, the New Deal Keynesian consensus before Reagan (1946-1980) versus Libertarian Reaganomics post-1980.

Even the GOP presidents you mention, were basically stewards of the new deal and keynsian economics. Eishenhower didn't dare attack the new deal, and in fact he was a modest expander of the New Deal. Nixon was defintely not a Reaganite, nor was Ford. They were moderate, country club republicans who either protected the New Deal and the Keynesian consensus, or in fact, modestly expanded on the New Deal.

The craze over "deregulation", slashing goverment (except for military spending), and "free" trade began with Reagan. And Clinton, to a large extent, continued these policies.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"If you on average, made more money last year than this year, which was the superior year for you? Yeah."

Very good example... lets run with that.

Say you made $50,000 ten years ago. You receive 5% raises every year (adjusted for inflation) for the first five years. At the end of five years, you are making $63814. Over the next five years, you raise is 4.5% every year (again adjusted for inflation). Now you are making $79,523.

Now tell me, in terms of dollars... just which five year period did better for you? Percentage wise, you received a larger percentage raise in the first five years. 5% to 4.5%... wow big difference. Yet when you look at the actual results... you gained 13,814 in salary raises in the first five years and you gained 15,709 in the second five years. Which one is higher? Which one effects your bottom line purchasing power the most? The percentage gain or the dollar gain?

 

[Cancel7]

In this thread, I never suggested it was a Democrat vs. GOP thing.

I am suggesting its an ideological thing. Broadly speaking, the New Deal Keynesian consensus before Reagan (1946-1980) versus Libertarian Reaganomics post-1980.

Even the GOP presidents you mention, were basically stewards of the new deal and keynsian economics. Eishenhower didn't dare attack the new deal, and in fact he was a modest expander of the New Deal. Nixon was defintely not a Reaganite, nor was Ford. They were moderate, country club republicans who either protected the New Deal and the Keynesian consensus, or in fact, modestly expanded on the New Deal.

The craze over "deregulation", slashing goverment (except for military spending), and "free" trade began with Reagan. And Clinton, to a large extent, continued these policies.

I said it. Cawacko has trouble telling you and I apart. I tried to explain to him that I'm the one with the perky breasts, but I think it went wooosh.

 

[Cypress]

I said it. Cawacko has trouble telling you and I apart. I tried to explain to him that I'm the one with the perky breasts, but I think it went wooosh.

LOL.

Well, in fact, who were the architects and proponents of keynesian economics in the United States? The Democrats.

It just that it was so succefull, the Eisenhower republicans had to concede and play along as stewards of the new deal

 

[Cancel7]

"If you on average, made more money last year than this year, which was the superior year for you? Yeah."

Very good example... lets run with that.

Say you made $50,000 ten years ago. You receive 5% raises every year (adjusted for inflation) for the first five years. At the end of five years, you are making $63814. Over the next five years, you raise is 4.5% every year (again adjusted for inflation). Now you are making $79,523.

Now tell me, in terms of dollars... just which five year period did better for you? Percentage wise, you received a larger percentage raise in the first five years. 5% to 4.5%... wow big difference. Yet when you look at the actual results... you gained 13,814 in salary raises in the first five years and you gained 15,709 in the second five years. Which one is higher? Which one effects your bottom line purchasing power the most? The percentage gain or the dollar gain?

Ok, I stopped reading at "say you made 50 thous ten years ago"

That's why I gave this example:

"If you on average, made more money last year than this year, which was the superior year for you? Yeah."

You remind me of one of my brothers. He can borrow twenty dollars from you, and then when he goes to pay you back, throw around so many figures from so many years ago, that you are convinced you owe him thirty dollars.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"SF: I'm just looking at and using raw data."

That is just it... you are NOT looking at the raw data. You are looking at an average number and trying to make a grand statement based off of it. You are completely ignoring the FACT that Volker and Greenspan used the monetary policy better than their predecessors in CONTROLLING the growth RATE. They wanted to get inflation under control.

You are IGNORING the fact that to get those higher averages that the earlier years are basing off of smaller numbers... read the salary example I just posted for Darla.

"I could care less what academic wankering and speculation is posted on that link."

So you don't think that regulations and policy have an effect on the market or the economy? That the Fed has no control over the rate of growth in the country? That increased regulations and taxes have no effect on the economy? That isn't speculation Cypress.... THAT IS FACT. If the Fed were to raise rates by a full percent tomorrow, the economy would come to a screeching halt... the market would tank even faster. That is FACT.

"I don't automatically assume that the hypotheses of academic wankers are neccessarily true. That's why they're called hypothesis. They're essentially guesses, that aren't ground-truthed by testing. "

This is where you have a complete failure in your knowledge base... it is NOT hypothesis. It is fact. You raise interest rates... growth slows as money becomes tighter. You tighten regulations on any industry and you are going to slow growth. It is also fact that it is harder to gain 10% on a billion dollars than it is to gain 10% on $1000.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ok, I stopped reading at "say you made 50 thous ten years ago"

That's why I gave this example:

"If you on average, made more money last year than this year, which was the superior year for you? Yeah."

You remind me of one of my brothers. He can borrow twenty dollars from you, and then when he goes to pay you back, throw around so many figures from so many years ago, that you are convinced you owe him thirty dollars.

yes Darla, I understand your example. But I was trying to convey it to you in terms of Cypress's average rate of return to show you WHY his assertation was WRONG.

You want to keep it simple... then in ANY year.... if there is growth, it is better than the previous year. Does that mean economic performance under Bush is better than all previous administrations? Because GDP under him has never been higher with any other administration.

Is that what you want? To change the example to simple year over year gains?