How little the MSM knows about economics

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:11 am

cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:52 pm
neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:14 pm

CASS; did you actually read sertorio's post? He stated unequivocally that the Portuguese economy is growing faster than at any time this century (2.5%). and you did not contradict that.

Clearly the higher taxes on the rich in Portugal have not stifled growth there.
I did not reply because I know almost nothing about insignificant Portugal. It will probably require two hours of research before I can give a good reply.
You did not reply because you couldn't. "Insignificant" Portugal has proven you wrong, and that bothers you. Because you are never wrong...

I have been trying to teach you some economics, but you are not willing to make the effort to understand what I am saying. You may have a degree in economics (do you?), but all you have learned are clichés. You have no idea of how economic variables relate to eachother, and can't tell what output comes from any particular input. Replacing knowledge with mantras does not lead to acceptable arguments.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by cassowary » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:41 am

Money talks louder than votes. Whether you like it or not rich people, especially the very wealthy, are never victims. Even in a well ordered democracy like the one I am privileged to be a citizen of rich individuals, even more so rich multi-national corporations, have too many ways to dodge paying their fair share of taxes even when the authorities crack down on their dodges. e.g.
An individual rich person might be more powerful than an individual poor person. But collectively in a democracy, the poor have more votes and so more power. If not, there won't be any welfare state. The welfare state redistributes income from the rich to the poor.

Power always flow from the weak to the strong. During the Ancien Regime, money flowed from the peasantry to the Nobles and King. That's because they were the ones with the power. Today, the cash flow is reversed, demonstrating who has more power.
Might I say that I hate your cavalier attitude to modern social welfare with a passion. How would you bloody-well know anything about the mission of the welfare state since you do not live in one. Since you identify yourself as a "wealth creator" I can safely dismiss your ignorant blatherings as giving venting to egocentric pride: you know - my sort are the very salt of the earth). You ignore the crucial role played by government in keeping the money circulating possibly because you are myopic about how it works. I find it hard to believe that a person like you who claims to have had higher education could be so ignorant about how a modern political economy functions.
I don't own any business and thus not a wealth creator. The government does not create wealth. It merely transfers wealth from the rich to the poor. I am very knowledgeable as to how a modern economy works. You don't because you have been influenced by Marx.
The point is that the rich are well organised to manipulate politics in their own favour whereas ordinary citizens - your so-called "wealth takers" (how damned disrespectful of you to stigmatise them/us as such) are characteristically not well organised and poor political lobbyists to boot. Which does not mean they are less deserving. It is just that as a rule they (we) lack the ruthlessness for getting their own way characteristic of successful politicians and the wealthy alike. No wonder the two are too inclined to see eye to eye.
If the rich are truly as powerful as you say, there won't be progressive taxation ie taxes go up with higher income. It would be like the Ancien Regime in France before the Revolution where the Nobles and King do not pay taxes. Now the top 1% income in the US is paying 38% of the income taxes collected.

That's paying more than their fair share.

Singapore is not much of a welfare state (there is more now than before). That's true. So I can see that low welfare spending does us no harm. Unemployment is lower than in the US. Health care is better giving us the third highest life expectancy. This means that our health care (after subsidies) is affordable for most people. If not, they won't be living so long.

Government spending as % of GDP by country

neverfail
Posts: 2170
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: putting it on the slate - US Federal (national?) debt; then and now.

Post by neverfail » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:52 am

(quote)" The United States recorded a government debt equivalent to 106.10 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2016. Government Debt to GDP in the United States averaged 61.14 percent from 1940 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 118.90 percent in 1946 and a record low of 31.70 percent in 1981."

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... ebt-to-gdp

Wow!

It is not surprising that the US had a massive debt back in 1946. The war debt from three and a bit years of participation in the Second World War (the Yanks still do not realise how lucky their country was that it was only for such a short time) had been preceded by the Roosevelt administration's years of deficit funding of the New deal.

Yet over the following (approx.) 35 years a succession of administrations, both Democrats and Republicans, reduced that debt to the point where by 1981 it was only a modest 31.7% of GDP. More likely, instead of paying down the debt physically they just left it much as it was in 1946; but in the interim 35 years the US economy grew enormously. So the debt dropped steadily as a percentage of a much expanded GDP.

It still speaks to me of laudable fiscal self-discipline in maintaining balanced budgets.

But 1981 was the first year of the first Reagan administration. The 8 year reagan incumbency turned the US from the World's biggest creditor country into it's biggest debtor - and the debt level has been rising steadily ever since.

Does anyone know why US governments were so prudent in their handling of fiscal policy before 1981 but have treated it with such reckless abandon ever since?

What has changed?

Will it end only when they drive the US into a state of national insolvency?

Jim the Moron
Posts: 883
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: putting it on the slate - US Federal (national?) debt; then and now.

Post by Jim the Moron » Thu Jan 25, 2018 5:34 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:52 am
(quote)" The United States recorded a government debt equivalent to 106.10 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2016. Government Debt to GDP in the United States averaged 61.14 percent from 1940 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 118.90 percent in 1946 and a record low of 31.70 percent in 1981."

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... ebt-to-gdp

Wow!

It is not surprising that the US had a massive debt back in 1946. The war debt from three and a bit years of participation in the Second World War (the Yanks still do not realise how lucky their country was that it was only for such a short time) had been preceded by the Roosevelt administration's years of deficit funding of the New deal.

Yet over the following (approx.) 35 years a succession of administrations, both Democrats and Republicans, reduced that debt to the point where by 1981 it was only a modest 31.7% of GDP. More likely, instead of paying down the debt physically they just left it much as it was in 1946; but in the interim 35 years the US economy grew enormously. So the debt dropped steadily as a percentage of a much expanded GDP.

It still speaks to me of laudable fiscal self-discipline in maintaining balanced budgets.

But 1981 was the first year of the first Reagan administration. The 8 year reagan incumbency turned the US from the World's biggest creditor country into it's biggest debtor - and the debt level has been rising steadily ever since.

Does anyone know why US governments were so prudent in their handling of fiscal policy before 1981 but have treated it with such reckless abandon ever since?

What has changed?



Will it end only when they drive the US into a state of national insolvency?
Your views are echoed by certain right-wing elements in the US - "fiscal hawks" and other such rif-raf. But there are Americans more to the center that would have it otherwise.

"Federal Debt Is Reaching $20 Trillion And That's Not A Bad Thing"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelfos ... 3dea3132ba

"National insolvency?" Check out assets to liabilities . . .

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 2049
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by cassowary » Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:06 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:11 am
cassowary wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 4:52 pm
neverfail wrote:
Wed Jan 24, 2018 12:14 pm

CASS; did you actually read sertorio's post? He stated unequivocally that the Portuguese economy is growing faster than at any time this century (2.5%). and you did not contradict that.

Clearly the higher taxes on the rich in Portugal have not stifled growth there.
I did not reply because I know almost nothing about insignificant Portugal. It will probably require two hours of research before I can give a good reply.
You did not reply because you couldn't. "Insignificant" Portugal has proven you wrong, and that bothers you. Because you are never wrong...

I have been trying to teach you some economics, but you are not willing to make the effort to understand what I am saying. You may have a degree in economics (do you?), but all you have learned are clichés. You have no idea of how economic variables relate to eachother, and can't tell what output comes from any particular input. Replacing knowledge with mantras does not lead to acceptable arguments.
OK. I will now reply. I did some research and this is what I found. One swallow does not make a summer, Sertorio. You just had 2.5% GDP growth, the fastest this century. But this is rebounding from a terrible recession. I suggest you look at how your country did over a longer period.

Portugal's GDP growth rate

Excerpt:
The Portuguese economy advanced 0.5 percent on quarter in the three months to September 2017, unrevised from the preliminary estimate and following a 0.3 percent expansion in the previous period. Household consumption was the main driver of growth while fixed investment contracted and net external demand contributed negatively. GDP Growth Rate in Portugal averaged 0.40 percent from 1988 until 2017, reaching an all time high of 3.30 percent in the fourth quarter of 1990 and a record low of -2.60 percent in the first quarter of 1991.
Your average GDP growth is a scelerotic 0.4% over the long haul. See what Socialist policies (ie high governmennt spending and high taxes) got you?

Now let's see what a strongly capitalist or right wing economy can do over the long haul.

Singapore's GDP growth rate
The GDP in Singapore advanced an annualized 2.8 percent quarter-on-quarter in the last three months of 2017, below 9.4 percent in Q3 and market expectations of 2.9 percent, advance estimates showed. GDP Growth Rate in Singapore averaged 6.77 percent from 1975 until 2017, reaching an all-time high of 37.20 percent in the first quarter of 2010 and a record low of -13.50 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008.
Singapore's average GDP growth rate was 6.77% over the long run. See the difference low taxes and government spending can do? In the end, people are better off with a capitalist economy than a Socialist one.

Do you want to compare other indicators? Say health care? Let's see who is healthier.

Life Expectancy table

See? Singaporeans live longer than Portuguese people by a full 2 years. So, capitalism has provided people with better health care.

Capitalism growths your wealth faster and so you can afford better health care.

......................................................................................................................................
By they way, I don't have a degree in economics. But I have a masters in Business Administration.

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:42 am

cassowary wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 7:06 am

OK. I will now reply. I did some research and this is what I found. One swallow does not make a summer, Sertorio. You just had 2.5% GDP growth, the fastest this century. But this is rebounding from a terrible recession. I suggest you look at how your country did over a longer period.

(...)

Your average GDP growth is a scelerotic 0.4% over the long haul. See what Socialist policies (ie high governmennt spending and high taxes) got you?

(...)

Do you want to compare other indicators? Say health care? Let's see who is healthier.

Singaporeans live longer than Portuguese people by a full 2 years. So, capitalism has provided people with better health care.

Capitalism growths your wealth faster and so you can afford better health care.
What you failed to see is that our present growth came after Portugal ignored the European Commission advice and increased both social expenditure and taxes on the wealthier. The previous (conservative) government followed the EU's advice, cut taxes and government social expenditure, and Portugal didn't grow at all. And our present growth has been lo a large extent due to a very substantial increase in exports, which means that our economy is getting more competitive, in spite of having a socialist government. And our budget already has a primary surplus of 1.5%, which means that our (socialist) government is spending well within its means.

As to health care, Portuguese live longer than people in many capitalist countries (for instance, the US). The fact that people in Singapore live two years longer may have many causes other than our economics.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by SteveFoerster » Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:34 am

Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:42 am
What you failed to see is that our present growth came after Portugal ignored the European Commission advice and increased both social expenditure and taxes on the wealthier. The previous (conservative) government followed the EU's advice, cut taxes and government social expenditure, and Portugal didn't grow at all. And our present growth has been lo a large extent due to a very substantial increase in exports, which means that our economy is getting more competitive, in spite of having a socialist government. And our budget already has a primary surplus of 1.5%, which means that our (socialist) government is spending well within its means.

As to health care, Portuguese live longer than people in many capitalist countries (for instance, the US). The fact that people in Singapore live two years longer may have many causes other than our economics.
In other words, when indicators are favourable, you assign your government the credit, but when they're unfavourable, that's due to "many causes other than our economics"? :lol:
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

User avatar
Sertorio
Posts: 1551
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2016 3:12 am

Re: How little the MSM knows about economics

Post by Sertorio » Thu Jan 25, 2018 10:47 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:34 am
Sertorio wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:42 am
What you failed to see is that our present growth came after Portugal ignored the European Commission advice and increased both social expenditure and taxes on the wealthier. The previous (conservative) government followed the EU's advice, cut taxes and government social expenditure, and Portugal didn't grow at all. And our present growth has been lo a large extent due to a very substantial increase in exports, which means that our economy is getting more competitive, in spite of having a socialist government. And our budget already has a primary surplus of 1.5%, which means that our (socialist) government is spending well within its means.

As to health care, Portuguese live longer than people in many capitalist countries (for instance, the US). The fact that people in Singapore live two years longer may have many causes other than our economics.
In other words, when indicators are favourable, you assign your government the credit, but when they're unfavourable, that's due to "many causes other than our economics"? :lol:
Two years difference in life expectancy is not exactly earth-shaking... Besides Portugal's rank worldwide is 21st, ahead of Germany, Denmark and the US...

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1246
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: putting it on the slate - US Federal (national?) debt; then and now.

Post by Milo » Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:14 am

neverfail wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:52 am
(quote)" The United States recorded a government debt equivalent to 106.10 percent of the country's Gross Domestic Product in 2016. Government Debt to GDP in the United States averaged 61.14 percent from 1940 until 2016, reaching an all time high of 118.90 percent in 1946 and a record low of 31.70 percent in 1981."

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-sta ... ebt-to-gdp

Wow!

It is not surprising that the US had a massive debt back in 1946. The war debt from three and a bit years of participation in the Second World War (the Yanks still do not realise how lucky their country was that it was only for such a short time) had been preceded by the Roosevelt administration's years of deficit funding of the New deal.

Yet over the following (approx.) 35 years a succession of administrations, both Democrats and Republicans, reduced that debt to the point where by 1981 it was only a modest 31.7% of GDP. More likely, instead of paying down the debt physically they just left it much as it was in 1946; but in the interim 35 years the US economy grew enormously. So the debt dropped steadily as a percentage of a much expanded GDP.

It still speaks to me of laudable fiscal self-discipline in maintaining balanced budgets.

But 1981 was the first year of the first Reagan administration. The 8 year reagan incumbency turned the US from the World's biggest creditor country into it's biggest debtor - and the debt level has been rising steadily ever since.

Does anyone know why US governments were so prudent in their handling of fiscal policy before 1981 but have treated it with such reckless abandon ever since?

What has changed?

Will it end only when they drive the US into a state of national insolvency?
What changed was that the US became and remains so powerful that it doesn't have to try very hard.

Debt means nothing when you can accumulate all you want and nobody can collect.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1389
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: putting it on the slate - US Federal (national?) debt; then and now.

Post by SteveFoerster » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:40 pm

Milo wrote:
Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:14 am
What changed was that the US became and remains so powerful that it doesn't have to try very hard.

Debt means nothing when you can accumulate all you want and nobody can collect.
I think it's more that debt means less when people will keep lending you more, which is not the same thing.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply