Via Red Hot, economic news I was unaware of:
International investors increased their net holdings of U.S. assets by $87.4 billion in July, suggesting that high current-account and budget deficits haven’t dimmed their view of the world’s largest economy.
The increase in net holdings of Treasury notes, corporate bonds, stocks and other financial assets was the fourth straight, the first time that’s happened since 1985. July’s figure compares with a net purchase of $80.9 billion in June. The median estimate of three economists surveyed by Bloomberg News was for a net purchase of $60 billion.
The increase was led by government agency debt and U.S. Treasury securities, with net demand from private investors at a record. The net purchases were the highest since January. The U.S. economy expanded 3.6 percent in the second quarter from a year earlier, more than any other country in the Group of Seven industrial nations…
The U.S. economy has grown by 3 percent or more at an annual rate for the last nine quarters, the longest streak in two decades.
Interesting.
Trent
John, do you feel that there’s any relavance to the makeup of an economic boom? I don’t want to paint it so black and white as corporate profits vs middle class growth because then we just become talking/barking heads.
But in a more general, NUANCED manner, do the details of an economic expansion matter? Or is growth the bottom line?
Mr Furious
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m really feeling the “trickle down”…
Stormy70
I saw this tidbit stated last month, but it was at the bottom of an article having to do with some other economic news. The businesses I deal with have all been adding jobs and expanding their operations. Of course, it may not be “nuanced” enough, because it is too positive to satisfy the left.
Trent
What businesses/industry is that, Stormy?
TallDave
Most people don’t realize just how wealthy the U.S. is compared to most of Europe and other industrialized countries.
For all the talk about China, they’re still very poor and have huge structural problems. They’re only growing as fast as they are because they’ve gone from total basket case Communists to robber baron capitalists, which is a big step up but is still way behind countries like S Korea and Taiwan that have half our per capita GDP.
As to the concern Trent raises, income disparity is a reflection of the market. The market is neither good nor evil. It doesn’t care whether you’re rich or poor, black or white or hispanic or asian, Democrat or Republican or libertarian, all it cares about is one thing: what can you produce. If you don’t acquire valuable skills, the market doesn’t want you.
And the more you tamper with the market to address perceived social ills, the more you destroy its effectiveness. Yes, we probably need a minimum wage; no, we can’t guarantee a middle-class income and full employment to everyone.
But there’s one economic gain that benefits the poor regardless of wage increases but is consistently overlooked: productivity gains, which make goods cheaper and better. Poor people 50 years ago lived much worse than today’s poor at the same income levels. Today, most poor people have enough food, a car, a TV, a microwave, in addition to having heat, shelter, and food.
Mac Buckets
It’s still the worst economy in the last million gajillion years. Ask any Democrat running in ’06.
slide
Now that is a tad deceiving isn’t it? Lets compare to it to the Clinton years:
So the article boasts that we’ve had growth of 3% for nine quarters straight and that hasn’t happened in over two decades yet, as I’ve shown, under Clinton we’ve had over 4% Growth over 4 consecuitive YEARS (16 quarters by my counting). So I guess the “trick” is that there musta been a quarter or two under clinton that didn’t make it over the 3% growth rate. Still its deceiving, don’t you think, as the article seems to imply that growth is better under bush than it had been in decades.. which is obviously not true.
Nice try though. You get points for effort.
slide
Oh, and the poverty rate has increased for four years running after having been reduced during the Clinton years. Economy not so good for those “folks” as Bush likes to call ’em.
Stormy70
It is all across the board, but I live in the DFW area which is really growing. Lots of medical companies are short-staffed, and are trying to hire. One machinist company has had to move to a bigger place. Another computer firm is adding new EEs every month. Small businesses with 3-5 EEs are adding people, as well. I think Houston has a 5% unemployment rate. This does not include all the illegal aliens employed here, either. Last year my busiest times were Nov-Dec., this year October will be just as busy. I deal with about 100 different companies, each one completely different from the next.
Trent
That’s BS.
You know, in Economics class, the first thing you learn is how great the market is. The second thing you learn is the huge number of ways in which the free market breaks down and requires intervention. Oligarchies, monopolies, free riders, unrealized and unpaid costs.
I can’t stand how people stand on and tout Free Market! Free Market! as if it can do no wrong. It’s such a 2 dimensional view of it.
I’m a total believer in the free market and capitalism. But i don’t believe in complete laissez-faire capitalism because the free market does not work in those cases. I’m sorry, it doesn’t. Read past the first chapter in an economics book. It’s just not true.
I’ll only speak for myself here, but i would argue that i argue AGAINST the crazy laissez-faire free-for-all capitalism that a lot of people promote BECAUSE of my belief in capitalism, not due to a lack of belief.
(And don’t accuse me of being a socialist. i’m not one.)
TallDave
That’s BS.
No, that’s simple economics.
No one believes in “complete laissez-faire capitalism.” But there will always be income disparities, because some economic actors are more rational than others.
Trent
But if you’re a salesman (which i’m guessing at), of course you’re going to only be dealing with growing companies.
Every economy has companies that are growing. Just every expansion has companies that are shrinking.
I don’t want to get into an arguement over whether this economy is in recession or expanding. It’s not in recession. But the details of the economic expansion are much more selective than other expansions.
And my ideal is an economy where EVERYONE becomes richer. I want the lower half to do better and i want the upper half to do better.
Right not, the lower half are not participating in the expansion nearly as much as the upper half.
(And watch the inference that they are simply not working hard enough.)
TallDave
And my ideal is an economy where EVERYONE becomes richer.
That’s our economy, thanks to productivity improvements.
Stormy70
But if you’re a salesman (which i’m guessing at), of course you’re going to only be dealing with growing companies.
This is not correct. I dealt with these companies when they were stagnant, and I am seeing growth across the board. Sorry if it does not live up to your view of it, but this is what I’m seeing.
TallDave
(And watch the inference that they are simply not working hard enough.)
It’s not that they’re not working hard enough, it’s that they’re not acting in ways that most benefit themselves economically, or to put it another way, they’re not making themselves valuable to the market. Less skilled labor gets less valuable every day. Highly skilled positions get more valuable. That’s inevitable in a technologically advancing society.
Trent
Wrong TallDave. Economics is not simple. It is hugely complex and deserves more than your conservative slogans and dismissive claims.
If you want to seriously talk about Economics, then great, but don’t start off with a smug attitude like all the secrets of the free market can be boiled down to a sound bite.
TallDave
Trent,
Some economics is simple. Valuable skills = more pay.
Jcricket
I agree. Anecdotaly, I look around and see a much better economy here than 5 years ago (2000-2001). However, healthcare and property tax costs are rising faster than income, and I certainly don’t see a large increase in the number of available jobs. I’ve also seen unemployment stay high (and actually go higher recently), which generally means that some people are not benefiting from the improved economy.
My belief is that most of the economic recovery has been in “corporate profits” (not inherently bad), created by slashing payrolls, decreasing benefits and reducing expansion plans. I agree that companies should do what it takes to become and remain profitable, but if only “shareholders” benefit, what’s the ultimate cost to the economy?
If we can only improve our economy by laying off workers, reducing pay increases or requiring workers to “do more with less” (i.e. do the work of two people), I’m a little worried for our long-term health as a nation.
Again, that’s not to say the economy isn’t better than it was 5 years ago, or that the government should be stepping in right now. I’m just arguing that some of the economic figures used to determine if the economy is growing or shrinking don’t take into account the apparent disconnect between company growth and individual growth.
Trent
So people deserve what they get, right?
It’s a very socially darwinian view of life and i suppose it is true. The problem i face is just viewing those people (which would include most people in my family) as chaff to be tossed aside because they didn’t keep up.
I’m not saying we gotta resort to socialistic solutions to deal with them, but i have trouble just excluding them from the discussion. Because it’s a lot of people. And it’s too simplistic to have the attitude of, “Too bad, your fault.”
My point is, i just think that discussions regarding economic progress should be framed in a way to try to include as many people as possible. There ARE ways of doing that that do not include protectionism, welfare states or handouts.
Clinton did this quite well. He encouraged entrepreneruship and everyone got rich under him. Bush does not do that in any way, shape or form. He cares about rich people and that’s it. His dumbass bankruptcy handout bill is the biggest discouragement to entrenpreurship i could think of.
ben
At what point does it become a concern that foreign countries continue to scoop up and control our debt?
Trent
Information Technology was a valuable skill and a lot of that gets outsourced. A lot of people woke up and said, “But i had a valuable skill!”
Sorry TallDave, i spent four years studying economics. It’s not simple. By it’s very definition, the interaction of billions of transactions and relationships and influences cannot be boiled down into a single slogan. Or theory. Or idealogue.
Free markets can break down for a variety of reasons. That is irrefutable.
slide
The poverty rate declined every year of the Clinton presidency and has increased every year under the Bush presidency. Put another way, the poverty rate was higher now than it was when Clinton left office. During the Clinton presidency, the poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to a low of 11.3 percent in 2000; it has risen every year that Bush has been in office, from 11.7 percent in 2001 to 12.7 percent in 2004.
KC
Off topic, but did anyone see this.
Narvy
Sure. Lack of valuable skills. That’s why all those degreed software engineers are looking for work.
I’m not enough of an economist to pontificate about the causes, effects, wisdom of policies, etc., but I think this may be a clue about (stress the next word) something:
The quote is from a NYT article on Wal-Mart salaries, and it seems to miss the point that 11,000 people in AZ and CA needed work. Possibly they are all inadequately skilled for anything other than Wal-Mart jobs, but if that’s the case maybe we ought to subsidize decent skill-building programs, maybe turn them all into software engineers.
Narvy
My God, is there no limit to this administration’s depraved political manipulation? Maybe they didn’t get the word about Bush’s disapproval of finger-pointing.
Trent
This is an interesting take on the positive effect that government can have on the economy. It’s a bit dense but worth the read. (It still stands out in my mind after reading it 2 years ago.)
The general thesis is:
Cringe if you want at the phrase “Social Engineering” but it’s no different than all the airline bailouts, farming subsidies and corporate tax breaks that currently exist. Instead, it’s talking about encouraging new markets to develop that helps to expand the economy and raises the standard of living of a large number of people.
Sounds like a smart mix of government and business to me.
Buckaroo
Slather the BS why don’t you!
Go to the US census web site and OBSERVE that the poverty rate has been the highest in 25+ years under Clinton and the lowest in RECORDED HISTORY under Dubya.
Narvy
At last, Trent says something I can disagree with. I do not believe that is true. All of the poverty-stricken folks displaced from New Orleans deserve what they got? The technical types whose jobs were outsourced to other countries by management decisions in which they had no part deserve what they got?
I would say “Give me a break!” but that’s such a cliché.
Trent
Buckaroo,
HUH???????? Are you unable to read a graph?
Rocky Smith
It’s Bush’s fault! Damn tax cuts!
slide
Buckaroo? You CAN’T be that DUMB can you? Don’t you know how to read a graph? LOL…. YOU MAKE MY POINT, EINSTEIN ! The graph clearly shows to anyone, with a 5th grade education or better, that the the rate of poverty steadily went down from 1992 when CLINTON took office to 2000 when it started going up under BUSH.
If you want to say the poverty rate was the highest under clinton, yeah.. in the first year when he inherited the economy of BUSH the first but after eight years of Clinton policies, the poverty rate was brought down to 11.3%. The rate currently under Bush is 12.7. God you guys are not very bright.
Trent
Yea, i wasn’t clear. My bad.
I didn’t mean to imply that it’s true that they deserve what they get. I meant, it’s true that people rise or fall according to their willingness to stay marketable and valuable to the marketplace.
But they don’t DESERVE it. As you pointed out, there are loads of circumstances that can affects a person’s ability to stay ahead of the curve. (Can you say rat race?)
My argument is that they DON’T deserve it. We can’t just cast those people off as failures, but try to look at ways to help as many people as possible find success. And that’s more than reciting the words “job training” over and over.
DecidedFenceSitter
No he’s just deliberately misinterpreting it. At Around 1992-93 unemployment hit an absolute high. You know at the beginning of Clinton Administration, when still dealing with Reagan and Bush fallout (Something a conservative friend said to me once was that you had to wait about 8 years to see how an economic policy plays out). I’m not sure where he got the lowest number since the lowest in percentage AND absolute terms was around 1999, or prior to G.W. Bush taking office.
DecidedFenceSitter
ACK! I apologize, I apparently wasn’t looking while I was posting.
John if you want to cut it down to just the last quote and my text, or eliminate my quoted text entirely that’s fine.
slide
DecidedFenceSitter was there some reason to blockquote the entire thread?
Narvy
I must be misreading the chart. It looks to me like the poverty rate increased until about 1994 when it began a decline that lasted almost to the end of Clinton’s term, that it has been steadily increasing since before the 2000 election and through Bush’s entire term to date, and that 1974 had a lower rate than any year under Bush. What am I missing?
This is not a snark. I can’t reconcile your assertions with the graph you pointed to.
KC
Narvy, I saw the same thing. It looks to me like from about ’94 on, the poverty rate went into decline, bottoming out before 2000. After that, it slowly started creeping up again, at least as it appears on that chart.
Trent
In economics, there’s a concept called Pareto Optimum. It’s defined as the point at which you cannot make one thing better without making something else worse. Until you reach Pareto Optimum, you can move to a better position without losing anything.
That concept has always stuck with me. The idea of looking for ways to improve one aspect of a situation without adversely affecting another.
The problem with the Bush economy is that it improves one aspect of the economy while being extremely detrimental to another. We’re seeing the proof it all around us. The expansion is not shared. It is not pervasive. It is confined to certain elements of the economy, be they industry or class or location. The growth of certain parts of the economy has come at the expense at others, and that just doesn’t strike me as a terrible successful economy.
Economics is not zero-sum game, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t, at times, resemble one. And this economy certainly seems to.
Narvy
I am nicer than DecidedFenceSitter, as I did not accuse Buckaroo of deliberate misinterpretation. I have my suspicions, but I won’t shoot from the hip at a buckaroo. I want him to defend his assertions.
slide
Here are the actual numbers and poverty rates
Narvy
KC is as graph-reading-impaired as I am. Maybe we should both go back to school to gain the valuable skill of reading economic graphs.
pmm
I don’t think anybody is arguing some Panglossian view that this is the best economy possible, but it’s hardly the worst in recent history. Isn’t the discussion one of degree, here?
slide
For those that can’t read graphs. Poverty rates since 1990:
2004…… 12.7
2003…… 12.5
2002…… 12.1
2001…… 11.7
2000…… 11.3 Bush sworn in
1999 ….. 11.9
1998…… 12.7
1997…… 13.3
1996…… 13.7
1995…… 13.8
1994…… 14.5
1993…… 15.1
1992…… 14.8 Clinton Sworn in
1991…… 14.2
1990…… 13.5
Narvy
Buckaroo has left the building.
Buckaroo
What a bunch of toads!
I NEVER said anything about rates rising/falling or trends, I just stated SIMPLE FACTS!
It’s you morons that jump right in and put your spin on the data.
TallDave
I said:It’s not that they’re not working hard enough, it’s that they’re not acting in ways that most benefit themselves economically, or to put it another way, they’re not making themselves valuable to the market. Less skilled labor gets less valuable every day. Highly skilled positions get more valuable. That’s inevitable in a technologically advancing society.
Trent said:So people deserve what they get, right?… And it’s too simplistic to have the attitude of, “Too bad, your fault.”
“Deserve” is a moral judgments; the market makes no moral judgments. People get what they earn; what they may or may not deserve is simply not relevant. More rational economic actors reap more economic benefits; less rational economic actors reap fewer benefits. It’s not anyone’s “fault,” it’s simply a fact. You might as well try to blame someone for the fact E = mc squared.
Narvy said:Sure. Lack of valuable skills. That’s why all those degreed software engineers are looking for work.
I’m one of those, and I have a six-figure income. My phone rings off the hook with headhunters. If you’re a degreed software engineer and you can’t find work, you’re not learning the skills the market wants: in other words, you’re not being a sufficiently rational economic actor.
I won’t get into the Bush vs. Clinton debate, as it’s sort of childish imo, and I thought both were pretty good presidents economically.
Mac Buckets
Slide,
That doesn’t mean what you say it means. It doesn’t mean that the economy grew at a 4% annualized growth rate every quarter in those hardware/software/internet boom years, just that the economy grew 4% every year. There must’ve been a quarter or two that underperformed a 3% annualized mark during that streak.
So the post’s point about the current 3% annualized growth every quarter for the last nine quarters seems accurate.
Trent
I think it’s a decent economy that’s expanding by eating away at the foundation that existed previously.
People are mired in debt. The government is mired in debt. Americans are producing fewer scientists, engineers and IT workers. The rest of the world is passing us by educationally. And the world is becoming more economically adversarial.
Now is not the time to be content and marvel at our corporate profits. Now is the time to buckle down and invest in our country.
Otherwise, the US is going to be viewed as that worker who didn’t keep up his skills and found himself working at WalMart. I guess we’ll have deserved it, right?
slide
bucky continues to dig himeself in deeper with this absurdity:
Oh…. so Clinton INHERITS THE HIGHEST poverty rate from BUSH… and brings it down EVERY SINGLE YEAR….. and gives BUSH II the LOWEST POVERTY RATE who then runs it UP every single year. Got it.
Kinda the same with the DEFICIT. Clinton inherits RECORD DEFICITS from BUSH I and after eight years has a RECORD SURPLUS…. only to see that squandered away under BUSH II who, once again reaches record DEFICITS….
Got it Bucky…. thanks for the clarification. Lol
Narvy
No need to shout. None of us seems to be able to find in the graph the evidence to support your simple facts. Perhaps if you explained how the graph should be read instead of stamping your foot and holding your breath, we all might learn something.
Narvy
C’mon slide, get off his case. If he can make state the simple facts, surely he can explain how he came upon them.
Trent
You’re reading from economic flash cards. The market is hardly rational.
TallDave
I do think people should realize, though, that poverty dd actually decline in both the Clinton and Bush years, because the poverty line is adjusted upward every year and ignores PPP considerations, which are affected by rising productivity.
1993 poverty for one individual: $7,363
2004 poverty for one individual: $9,645
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/threshld/thresh04.html
By 1950s poverty PPP standards, poverty is virtually nonexistent today.
slide
mac buckets in his inabilty to read says:
Yes, and that is EXACTLY what I said:
.
Narvy
“make state”. I’m famous for my valuable typing skill.
Maybe Buckaroo can seize on that to prove I don’t know what I’m talking about.
slide
TallDave never disappoints us does he:
TallDave
Trent,
Pay attention, I did not say the market was rational. I said a rational actor reaps more benefits than an irrational actor. A rational actor can benefit from an irrational market by adapting to its irrationalities.
For instance, the classic example of irrational markets was the tulip bubble market in Holland. A rational actor could grow tulips and reap economic benefits even while realizing the tulip market itself was irrational.
TallDave
slide,
Again, simple economics. Compare the PPP of the poverty line of the 1950s to the poverty line today.
People just don’t realize how much the world has changed.
Mike S
I’m not an economist, but on it’s face this seems like good new. But I have a question.
What effect does the non budgeted debt have on us? Like the over $200bn and growing Iraq war debt.
I’m not being snarky, I don’t know anything about this stuff. Econ in college went so far over my head it wasn’t funny.
slide
Well… Bucky is right in this respect… the POVERTY RATE was highest under CLINTON. In his first year which would have to be attributed to the previous administration won’t it? And Bush had the lowest poverty rate in his first year… which would have to be attributed to the prior administration right?
The point is what effect did the policies of those two adminstrations have on the poverty rate during their term. Clinton’s poverty rate went down every year he was in office and Bush’s went up every year he was in office.
And you say i’m guilty of spin? lol
Narvy
I must be missing something here, too. I always thought poverty was measured by what people couldn’t afford to buy. If, in 2005, people can’t afford to buy food for their kids any more than they could in the 1950s, I would think that poverty is still existent.
Trent
You’re right. i’ve already agreed to the darwinian aspect to the market.
I just think that’s it’s lazy to throw up one’s arms and say, “That’s the best it can be.” It’s not. There are a lot of smart, pro-market, pro-capitalism things that can be done to affect and expand the economy and help more people share in the prosperity.
TallDave
Narvy,
Exactly. Thanks to productivity improvements, we can produce food far more efficiently than we used to be able to.
Today our poor have an obesity problem.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
“Clinton did this quite well. He encouraged entrepreneruship and everyone got rich under him.”
Funniest thing I read in a year. You mean like when Billy BJ said he could give the surplus (which never really existed) back to us reg’lar folks, but was afraid we wouldn’t spend it wisely.
So can we see what the 1990s economic data would look like ACCOUNTING for all the accounting scandals that started under Clinton’s (cough) leadership?
Looking at the poverty rate alone is complete cluelessness on the part of some posters here, but I expect nothing more from the left. The real numbers are to find out what happens to those in poverty decades later. You might find that the poverty rate rises as more go into college or the military.
TallDave
That’s the best it can be.” It’s not. There are a lot of smart, pro-market, pro-capitalism things that can be done to affect and expand the economy and help more people share in the prosperity.
I agree. For instance, I support higher minimum wages and cradle-to-grave means-tested education vouchers.
Trent
If this turns into a discussion of how 12K a year should not be considered poverty, my head is going to explode.
Narvy
slide and/or TallDave –
What does PPP stand for? My brain is hurting from thinking of snarky phrases, and I’d really like to know.
slide
TallDave whatever METHOD they use to determine the line where one is considered in poverty it still doesn’t change the fact that under Clinton the percentage of Americans below that line decreased every year under his term while it increased every year under Bush.
And if we dont’ want to factor in inflation into the poverty rate then we can say that Bush’s gasoline prices are triple what they were under Carter right?
Trent
[jaw drops]
jcricket
I think Trent hits the nail on the head here:
Corporations have clearly been able to recover economically by slashing payrolls & benefits and outsourcing significant work to lower-cost economies. This raises corporate profits and increases the wealth for shareholders, but does little for anyone not in the shareholder class (or in top management).
In the short run, this is better than the alternative (shedding even more jobs). But I fail to see how this is a sustainable economy for all but the top 10% in the long run. Building a recovery “on the backs” of the working-class is no recipe for continued success. Yes, we could be in a national depression (really bad) or a national recession (pretty bad). Instead we’re in a period of national corporate recovery (OK). However, we could be in a period of national corporate and individual economic recovery (very good).
Here’s an example:
Company A receives large local tax breaks to build a new store in town. They hire people as cheaply as possible (minimum wage) and don’t pay benefits. Company A’s shareholders are rewarded with increased stock prices. We consider this corporation a huge success.
Company B receives no local tax breaks. They build a new store, hire a smaller number of people at a living wage and pay good benefits. Their stock goes up only slightly, and this company doesn’t employ as many people. People rail at this corporation for not delivering better stock market returns, even though they are profitable.
Isn’t it obvious that Company A, while delivering in the short-tern, is merely sloughing off all their long-term costs (i.e. healthcare, improvements to the local roads, etc.) onto someone else? How is that sustainable in the long run? How will the “masses” continue to enjoy the benefits of the economic growth provided by a company if they’re not passed on to them (through increased wages, improved living conditions, better benefits, etc.)?
TallDave
PPP = Purchasing Power Parity; typically it’s used in a geographic sense, but it can also be applied chronologically.
Trent said If this turns into a discussion of how 12K a year should not be considered poverty
By 1950s standards, a person at that income level is not poor. Whether we consider that “poverty” today is a different question. I just think the historical context is interesting.
Mike S
I think you could use a BJ. You sure seem obsessed with it.
I’m very curious about my question above. TellDave seems to have a handle on econ. Is there or is there not going to be an effect by off budget debt?
slide
No, you have it ass backwards, GDP is a useless number to look at when discussing the economy. I look at the economy as PEOPLE. Those poverty rates represent PEOPLE. REAL PEOPLE. Not some corporate balance sheet.
Why do you think, with all the good news that there supposedly is in the economy that so few Americans give high marks to bush on the economy? Less that 40% approve of his handling the economy. Those polls are of PEOPLE that is why, not corporate CEO’s.
Narvy
How does obesity correlate with wealth and poverty? I’ve read that the poor have so much obesity because they can’t afford to buy much properly nourishing food and have to eat cheap high-calorie processed food, in relatively large quantities to try to compensate for the deficit in nutrients.
jcricket
TallDave writes:
This is only partially true. Technology has greatly improved farming, not just in the US.
But we also pay certain segments of farmers huge subsidies to produce too much food (e.g. corn growers). This artificially lowers the price for certain goods (e.g. things made with corn syrup), which are then put on the market at lower prices than other (read: healthier) items.
It’s somewhat over-simplified, but for many poor people, corn subsidies make it cheaper to buy a super-sized coke and big-mac at McDonalds than to buy healthy food from a grocery store. The “free market” also works against poor people because grocery stores are often not located near where poor people live, or they jack up the prices of goods in those stores.
And yes, I’d rather have people be obese than die of hunger, like they did the first half of this century. But that’s a false dichotomy. We can keep food inexpensive, taking advantage of increased in productivity and encourage healthier diets by: One, eliminating the subsidies that prevent foreign farmers from competing in the US; Two, providing some economic incentives for grocery stores to locate in poorer neighborhoods (with regular market prices).
Just pragmatically speaking, if it costs us less to provide economic incentives to encourage healthier eating than it does to treat obesity-related conditions, wouldn’t that be the smart investment? A healthy workforce is a productive workforce.
Trent
Conservatives are so myopicly obsessed with the short term, running on the faith that they philosophy will work out in the long run. We saw this with Katrina. We’re seeing this with the economy. It’s only a matter of time til the whole perspective is rendered bunk.
Not belief in the free market. Not belief in capitalism. But this assinine fixation on short term profits, the loathing of government investment, the disdain for national savings, the childlike refusal use the surplus for anything but a tax refund.
The economic attitude of the conservatives in power is that of the prototypically lazy worker unwilling to work hard, save and invest in oneself, but blows all their time and money to drink, party and indulge oneself, tomorrow be damned.
Krista
Tall Dave:
Fair enough…highly skilled positions get paid more. What I’m wondering is how some people are supposed to act in ways that most benefit themselves economically? Not everybody can afford the kind of post-secondary education required in order to achieve these ends. So what would you suggest that in order to improve the economy…subsidized post-secondary education, in order to give everybody a fighting chance? Otherwise, with the rising costs of education, less and less people are able to afford it. And you wind up with a small percentage of people who are highly skilled and paid accordingly, and the rest of the populace who are being paid less and less, because the skills that they HAVE been able to scrape up are becoming worthless. I’m definitely no economist, by any stretch of the imagination, but I just can’t see it being good for the economy to have the majority of its population living near the poverty line. So I’m just curious as to what your take is on this: in a society where work skills are needing to become more and more advanced, does it behoove said society’s government to subsidize education for its citizens, and do you think it would help or hurt the economy?
Narvy
Dude, you are SO out of step with the new Gilded Age.
The problem is that the economic policy makers and corporate managers misheard the Tale of Robin Hood when they were kids. It’s steal from the rich and give to the poor. They didn’t get that.
Narvy
The most valuable skills seem to be to live in a developing country and work cheap. You seem to think it’s easy for a middle class middle-aged person to stop doing what they’ve been relying on for income for twenty-odd years, put their families and mortgage lenders on hold, and pay to go back to school in some more valuable field. To say that people who guessed wrong early in their adult lives about the course of their chosen professions are not rational actors is insulting.
Stormy70
Please, you cannot tell people what to eat. They will not do it, no matter how much incentive there is. A Big Mac will taste better than the $1 yogurt fruit parfait. The $1.40 fries taste better than the $1 side salad available at McDonalds. There is healthy low cost foods, but some people will never change their eating habits, period. And our poor people are fat because they choose to eat in an unhealthy manner. They are not babies, they are grown people who can change their habits accordingly, but choose not to. If they cut the portions in half, they will lose weight, and save money.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Because most people are economic illiterates. Because if Bush were a Democrat, the press would be falling all over themselves to say how marvelous the economy was.
The 90s economic boom was based on pure BS, thanks to many of the accounting scandals and overinflated tech company stocks.
A person who makes 12K a year can be far from poverty. More than just current income is used to determine wealth.
Unlike the left’s childish love of big govt. Why do you expect the govt. to spend the money better than those who initially earned it? There was a (cough, cough) surplus when Clinton left office, yet weren’t there a few failing levees something deep in the heart of somewhere.
Mac Buckets
Parenthetically, posting that economic events happened “under Bush,” “under Carter,” or “under Clinton” is a sure sign that a person is not to be taken terribly seriously. Who’s sitting in the Big Chair at that particular time is a mere footnote to most economies.
Narvy
Trent, jcricket, and my buddy Krista are doing a much better job on this thread than I am. I’m going to shut up. [Cue wild applause.] Unless, of course, one of the short-term-profit-and-shareholder-profit-are-the-only-values crowd says something that triggers my snark reflex.
TallDave
Krista,
What I’m wondering is how some people are supposed to act in ways that most benefit themselves economically? Not everybody can afford the kind of post-secondary education required in order to achieve these ends.
As I said, cradle-to-grave means-tested education vouchers just make sense. I oppose most socialism on principle, but financing free-choice education actually creates a positive net return on gov’t investment — a rare thing, indeed.
Re cheaper food:
Again, the poor are suffering from obesity. No matter what they’re actually eating, that’s a qualitiative difference from literally not having enough to eat because you’re poor.
My gf visited China a couple months ago. She said she was surprised how skinny everyone was and how small the portions in restaurants were. For many Chinese, getting enough calories to stay alive is a serious concern; obesity is usually a sign of relative prosperity if not wealth. They are consistently amazed at how fat our poor are.
TallDave
You seem to think it’s easy for a middle class middle-aged person to stop doing what they’ve been relying on for income for twenty-odd years, put their families and mortgage lenders on hold, and pay to go back to school in some more valuable field.
I didn’t say it was easy or even the right thing to do, just that it was economically rational, and the more rational economic actors will earn more.
Anyway, who says you necessarily have to quit your job, sell your house, disown your family, and go back to school? You can learn new skills in online classes or on your own. I learned all the skills and certifications I currently use after I graduated.
Narvy
Reflex triggered: Yeah, like having good friends, a loving family, insert maudlin cliche of your choice here. If the 12K is an annuity payout on top of a couple of mil worth of stocks, I would agree. If it’s the total income of the head of a family, then that’s a really silly thing to say.
Krista
And that’s those who actually chose the course of their careers. There are probably an awful lot of people out there like me, who took a general undergrad degree, had a hard time finding work, and wound up just falling into a certain type of job due to sheer serendipity.
Frankly, I think a major problem is that with a few sterling exceptions, most 19-year olds don’t have a sweet clue what job options are actually out there, and what they’d want to do. So they just kind of drift aimlessly towards some generic job. I think that high schools and parents need to work together to show their kids how many options there are out there, and the long-term viability of those options. AND, I really don’t think that kids should be pursuing post-secondary education until they’ve had a job or two, and have a fairly solid idea of what type of field they want to work in, even if they don’t know the exact nature of the job they want. Slightly off-topic in terms of the economy, I know. But part of me can’t help but think that the economy certainly wouldn’t suffer for having people work with more of a purpose, and less like they’re stuck in a dead-end job.
Trent
As an IT professional myself, I think you need to appreciate the unique position you and i are in to be able to reap the benefits of incremental increases in our skills.
HR or finance professionals do not have the same options as you and i do. We can hunker down for a month or two and bone up on a language or a technology, take a test and put it on our resume and voila! Other people need to take courses for years to earn a degree that’s going to have some clout. (No one gives half credit for courses taken. They want the degree.) This takes time and that takes money, neither of which should be assumed as readily available.
It’s even worse for non-professionals who may not have had that great an education to begin with.
So i agree with the need to improve oneself, but don’t oversimplify it. And let’s not look down with disdain at people without the same luck or opportunity as we have.
Personally, i want an economy where an honest, hard-working person can find the kind of employment that enables then to support a family give their children a better life. Thsi country has had it before. There’s no reason why this cannot be a reality again.
Buckaroo
There you go again, throwing in the spin!
My point with this exercize is to show how both sides cannot resist spinning data to show one point or another. Was the poverty rate the lowest in recorded history under Dubya? YES.
Plain and simple reading of a data point. It’s you fellas (gals?) that place the context around the data to fit your agendas (for better or worse).
Think of how the media has historically placed the poverty rate data. Statements like “poverty rate under Bush has risen for the fourth consecutive year” whereas for Clinton it’s “poverty rate has fallen again”, both are truths, but why no statement like “poverty rate under Bush has risen for the fourth consecutive year, but is still lower than Clintons”
Data is data, state it without the spin and let others read in what they will to make them feel good.
Trent
Go away Darrell, we’re having a good conversation here. Go find some other thread to haunt.
Narvy
Another straightline, but I refuse to demean either of us by making any of the obvious school jokes.
I don’t believe those were my actual words. People get laid off, have to cut way back on food, clothing, transportation expenses, and try to work deals with their creditors that will cost them more in the long run. (The mortgage reference was shorthand for creditors, in case you thought I was limiting the field.) They might not be able to afford necessary schooling. They might want to be rational actors but be constrained by irrational reality.
I don’t dispute the theoretical underpinnings of what you say, but economists tend to see economics as some kind of abstract exercise independent of what is actually happening on the ground. Everything works on paper, and would work in the real world if only it weren’t so messy. Kind of like software engineering and programming.
TallDave
I agree, reality is messy.
But I think anyone who looks at what the market wants and consistently spends 5-10 hrs a week trying to acquire those skills will do reasonably well.
Krista
Agreed…but no system is going to be perfect, of course. Do you not agree that there should be some sort of cushion to land on, for those people, as an example, whose parents are capable of (but unwilling to) pay for their child’s post-secondary education?
And in regards to the obesity thing. I agree that choices are each person’s individual responsibility. HOWEVER, the choices that one makes are affected by the mindset of the person making them, no? When you are confident, and happy, and have healthy self-esteem, you tend to make choices that are healthier for your mind and body, and have more energy to implement these choices. When you are NOT happy, and have poor self-esteem, it does tend to cloud your judgment and make you lethargic, and you find yourself making poor choices. So in a way, it’s not all that surprising that there is a lot of obesity amongst the very poor. If you don’t see a lot of hope in your future, and are not content with your life, it does interfere with your desire and capability to implement a healthy lifestyle.
docG
TallDave says:
Kind of an economic version of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, then? In times of crisis, looting would be the more rational economic act, as you would reap more economic benefit than non-looters (less rational economic actors)? For the good of social order, it is sometimes required to look beyond individual self-interest and make decisions for group interest. If I have no education or capital, stealing is a rational economic behavior, but is too destructive to society to have that society sanction my choice. Morality, justice, and social order demand that the “invisible hand” be tempered on a societal level. How much and to benefit whom is the definition of politics today.
TallDave
most 19-year olds don’t have a sweet clue what job options are actually out there
That’s a good point. I certainly didn’t, even into my junior year of college. Eventually, I just went to our Career Resource Center and checked out what salaries grads in different fields were reporting back, and took the major with the highest reported income and job placement percentage.
Really, that’s the most essential part of being a rational economic actor in the labor market: figuring out what the market wants. If you don’t do that research, it’s hard to succeed.
Narvy
This is dangerously close to “If you don’t apply yourself, whatever happens to you is your own fault.”
I have a full-time job supported by the requisite degrees and special skills, no family I have to give some time to, and I’m taking a course that requires only an hour and a half of classroom work and maybe eight to ten hours of homework per week, and I find that finding time to do everything properly is non-trivial. I think that someone in a less-privileged position than mine would have a very hard time consistently spending 5-10 hours a week acquiring new training, especially in an unfamiliar field. It’s not just applying oneself, and it’s not as easy as you make it sound.
Krista
TallDave – here’s the question, though: do you LIKE what you do? I agree that when choosing a career path, people should have an idea of from where their money will come. However, there has to be a modicum of interest in the work as well, or else all of that money just winds up on therapy, blow, or booze. But I suppose it’s all in how one defines success, isn’t it? I tend to look at monetary compensation as being just one part of success.
Oh,Boy.Stupidity!
Awww. No answer for that, huh?
If you made 100K in 2004 and then 5K in 2005, do you get put on the poverty list for 2005? If so, then these stats are meaningless.
TallDave
Kind of an economic version of Darwinism, survival of the fittest, then?
Well, the “fittest” get more money anyway. I’m describing the reality, not saying that it’s a good thing or bad thing.
In times of crisis, looting would be the more rational economic act, as you would reap more economic benefit than non-looters (less rational economic actors)?
Looting generally has a low economic benefit, since it’s limited to what you can cart away and it may get you shot or arrested. Crime is rarely an economically rational choice.
For the good of social order, it is sometimes required to look beyond individual self-interest and make decisions for group interest. Morality, justice, and social order demand that the “invisible hand” be tempered on a societal level.
I don’t think anyone but hard-core Randroids would argue that.
Narvy
I couldn’t agree more. The problem arises when identifying which group and what interest.
Narvy
You mean those fittest at acquiring money. I can think of other things survivors might be fit to do.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Buckaroo, you have become so accustomed to having to swallow right-wing spin, it seems to have led you to conclude that all analysis of data is likewise just a bunch of PR.
Really funny how the “conservatives” have become nihilistic relativists.
While it is literally correct that the poverty rate was higher under Clinton (at the beginning of his term) than it is, even now, under Bush, it is not “spin” to point out that the rate declined every year under Clinton and increased every year under Bush. It’s an important observation anyone with an ounce of quantitative literacy would draw from the graph.
Narvy
OK, I amend my statement to
Is that more meaningful?
Trent
That’s a really naive stance to take.
Narvy
Give it up, Andrew. Buckaroo isn’t responding to critiques or questions about his interpretation of the graph or the table of specific numbers it represents.
Steven D
While the growth piece of the article is indeed good news, it seems to me the real focus should be on the continued investment in US debt by overseas investors and the correlation between that growth and the growth in the economy. Reading on in the article John links to, one finds the following:
If US domestic growth is dependent on continued overseas investment, and that investment is contingent on higher US interest rates, it seems to me that at some point we have a problem.
Narvy
Trent –
Naive is a good word for it. So are willfully blind and disingenuous.
Did you read my liberal poor-me bleeding-heart sob story upthread, where I talk about how he makes it seem so easy?
TallDave seems to be of the school that says “I did it, so anyone can do it if he wants to, regardless of heredity, culture, finances, prior education, or any other potential excuse for not doing as well as I have.”
Trent
Yep. And IT is one of those careers that doesn’t correlate with anything else. I don’t think any other industry uses the same rules. For instance, prior experience is equivalent to a computer degree. I actually don’t know many IT people who have a computer degree.
No other profession is like that.
Narvy
You obviously don’t work where I do. You’re right in general, but my employer’s requirements are somewhat non-mainstream. But that’s a topic for another day/thread.
DougJ
Repeat after me: we lack the metrics to measure the quality of the economy. The economy is messy because freedom is messy. Poverty is in its last throes. This is an example of the good news about the economy that the librul MSM refuses to report. Bush said he would only run a deficit in the event of a recession, a war, or a disaster. Lucky him, he hit the trifecta. This economic growth rate is further truth the tax cuts are working. This is an ongoing victory. The government is running at very close to peak efficiency.
Buckaroo
It’s what any liberal with an agenda would draw from the graph.
If I were to say “the graph clearly shows that Nixon had a firm grasp on poverty, wrestling it down to 11%. This work was all for naught however as the Clinton economic policy pushed the rate up past 15%, rivaling the failed socialist policies of Johnson.”
How is this any different from what you say? both are SPIN on the data. Neither can be shown to be correct beyond the stated logical assertions, yet people still infer what they want to hear without any proof.
The data does show a decline in the poverty rate under Clinton (logical assertion), is Clinton responsible or did the productivity gains brought about through cheaper computing lead to the reduction? Which is true, what is the proof???
Another Jeff
Wow, a post that’s still on-topic after 111 comments.
Trent
John, where is our “Ignore” button?
Narvy
Broaden your view, Dude. Think acting, writing fiction, popular music, selling ads for one’s blog…
Slartibartfast
I’m a little disappointed that Kimmitt hasn’t commented on this. Not that I’m Kimmitt’s bud or anything, but at least his opinion in this area tends to be better informed than mine…or, probably, any of yours.
Trent
You forgot professional poker players.
DougJ
You would be lying. The graph says what it says: poverty went down under Nixon and went down under Clinton.
Personally, I don’t think any of the presidents we’ve had have had anything to with the poverty rate. I think the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been controlling poverty for years. If begin with they hypothesis that the Flying Spaghetti Monster liked Clinton (because of their shared affinity for interns) and hates Bush (because he’s a tee-totaler), the whole picture comes into sharp focus.
Narvy
Buckaroo has got to be perpetrating one terrific practical joke or he is a self-proclaimed-but-not-really conservative with an agenda. I’m still waitng for him to explain how the graph supports his simple statements, made so-o-o long ago in this thread.
Or hideously expensive but well-sold computing and technological “solutions”? Or technology companies that created jobs based on nothing but airy promises? Or the trickle-down effect from Enron and Tyco? Well, this may be a bit unfair, but he deserves it.
Narvy
Damn! Why didn’t I think of that. You’re right. My excuse is that I’m too eager to post to think about what I’m posting. Or I’m not as clever as I think I am. Or something else.
It does look like professional TV poker is going to drive the next big boom in the econmy. That and reality TV, which we both failed to catch.
slide
Bucky continues to be as dense as a slab of lead. His latest:
Huh? you get that from the data? Clinton was sworn in in January 1993, so obviously there were no Clinton policies in place to “push the rate up past” 15% (the rate in 1993) were there? But when Clinton’s polices were in place (Clinton’s 1993 tax plan which no Republican voted for) the rate went down. And down. And down. And down. And down and down. And down.
Bush then comes into office… and the first year after his policies were in place the rate went up. And up. And up. And up.
If you don’t think that is relevant, fine, but thats not SPIN, thats just hard facts.
Trent
Lesson for today: Stay in school! Or work in IT, become a professional poker player or become a reality TV star.
Buckaroo
Nope. The graph says poverty went up to over 15% during Clinton’s term.
This is a prime example of where’s the beef? What is the logical proof to back this statement up?
11% under Bush, 15% under Clinton
Ahso Grasshopper!
Exactly! ;)
DougJ
I don’t need logical proof. I believe in a faith-based approach to economics. The economy is too complex to have developed at random. There must have been a guiding force, the FSM I referred to earlier. The FSM likes tax cuts and when we do ’em he ups the growth rate. But he thinks Bush vacations too much, so he decided to punish him by pushing the poverty rate up.
Krista
Or own an insurance company. I heard somewhere that there’s good money in that.
Narvy
Thanks, I’ve got it now. Two data points from which to draw whatever inference strikes your fancy. Aren’t you glad you acquired that valuable inferential skill?
slide
More evidence of this booming economy:
.
Buckaroo
Ahso GrasshopperII. You see that there is lack of logical proof to the assumed implication that Clintons policies led to the 15% poverty rate ;)
You then state:
implying that Bush policies caused the rate to go up. Proof?
Eariler you said:
Your first statement is correct, the article is using the data to post a well filtered result, your last statement posts your agenda, without any proof….
DougJ
Slide, that’s really just more evidence of the continuing anger of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Narvy
Cheap shots, $1.00. Clever insults, $10.00. DougJ’s posts… Priceless!
Krista
Buckaroo –
At what points during their terms, however? That’s what inquiring minds want to know. Economic conditions during the first year of a president’s term can usually be attributed to the policies of the president who just left. After that first year, it’s generally accepted that the economic conditions are owned by whoever’s sitting in the White House.
Narvy
Consumers??? C’mon, Dude, what the fuck do they know?
Another Jeff
For those that can’t read a calender, Clinton was sworn in in 1993, not 1992. Bush was sworn in in 2001, not 2000.
Trent
Hey, in the effort to reinvigorate this thread (and still keep it on topic!) what do the conservatives think about Bush rescinding the prevailing wage in the Gulf coast?
Personally, I think it’s appalling. I don’t want to hear about companies needing to be able to afford workers to do x, y and z. They’re going to be handed buckets of subsidies, cheap loans and government contracts. The money should flow to the employees, who sure as hell should be locals, and not stop in the profit column of their year end statement.
But i’m sure that there’s some wise economic justification for paying less than $5.15 an hour.
Narvy
Mah Daddy useta say: “Figures lie, and liars figure.” You can see where I get my valuable cliché skills from.
Two data points may be enough to prove anything you want. More data points tend to limit your horizon.
Defense Guy
DougJ
Your faith-based claim is probably closer than many realize. Economics really is more art than science, and watching people argue that the KNOW why something happened is certainly amusing.
All other things being equal of course.
Narvy
I think I said something like this in another thread, but even if I didn’t I thought of it.
The shameless Bush administration is spinning this one so that underpaid workers will think it’s a good idea, even patriotic, to be underpaid. If there is Justice in Heaven… the Bush people won’t be there to see it.
Narvy
Yes, but professional economists don’t seem to get that.
Krista
So, if we look at the actual trending, then – unemployment trended DOWN during Clinton’s presidency. It has trended UP during Bush’s presidency.
Buckaroo
That is only allowed as long as it’s agnostic faith based, all other faiths are not-allowed….
Kimmitt
The economy is very weird right now; GDP growth numbers are strong, but wages are still stagnant, job growth is anemic, and Federal borrowing is through the roof.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Even in my wildest dreams, I would never have equated “liberal” with “educated”, like Buckaroo.
Buckaroo, it’s a fact that the poverty rate declined under Clinton (every observation) and has risen (every observation) under Bush 43. It’s a fact that this statistic is significant for measuring the economic health of the country. The only place that liberals and conservatives might well disagree is the extent, if any, the President’s policies influence the poverty rate, as opposed to economic forces that are out of his control. One could indeed argue that Clinton had lucky timing, but a quantitative illiterate such as yourself doesn’t know how to do so. Instead, you are reduced to arguing ridiculous “gotchas” in an attempt to obscure statistical reality.
Ever since the United States public discovered that the weather reports those scientists write have real world validity, there has been a resumption in interest in having a reality-based government (and a parallel decrease in the popularity of the Bloat President). Get with the new program , Buckaroo. You might start with any of the For Dummies books.
Buckaroo
Yep, it also helps to prove discrete facts. More data can help if one is careful but all to often the data is used to form a base for spin. The spin is so often disconneted from the support of the data that both become meaningless.
DougJ
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for much of the great art of Western Civilization as well. He first appeared during the Renaissance (he’s Italian after all), but this century he wrote “My Funny Valentine”, painted Monet’s Waterlillies, and for years now has been performing under the name “Al Green”.
Defense Guy
Yes, DougJ, but my G-d will eat yours with a small green salad, a side of garlic bread and perhaps a nice Merlot. Nothing to expensive, probably something northern Californian, circa 2000.
DougJ
With all due respect, I think that God would prefer a Pomerol.
DougJ
Though really a sangiovese-based wine would go better with spaghetti.
Buckaroo
Fine, but I said _nothing_ about trends. I simply stated two data points so I could watch all the liberals get in a huff and twist the data every which way they could to fit their agenda.
It worked!
DougJ
I’m no liberal, but twist this, Buckaroo.
Kimmitt
Sorry to disappoint, Slarti, but that’s what I’ve got. The numbers don’t talk to one another well. A lot of very smart people are scratching their heads.
The thing is, if there’s that much money wandering around, and labor isn’t getting any of it, capital should be — and we aren’t seeing very strong stock market returns, either. Is all of our current growth getting poured into the housing bubble? That’s a horriyfing thought.
Defense Guy
Respect noted, but know that in another age you would burn for such blasphemy.
Good call on the wine though.
slide
Bucky you are so full of it you know… How did this how thing start? Well I just posted some FACTS which have NOT been refuted. I said:
And then you attacked what I said with this:
Slather the Bull shit? What bull shit? What did I say that was wrong or could even be remotely described as SPIN? No Bucky old boy, what YOU said was MAJOR LEAGUE spin. Exactly what you accuse others of doing you did with this complete idiotic statement:
.Twisting the data? No twist. Clinton DECREASED the poverty rate every year he was in office and BUSH INCREASED the poverty rate every year he was in office. Spin that buckkky.
Narvy
You agree with me and do it anyway? I will never cease to be amazed at the ability to think two conflicting thoughts at once without a trace of irony or a hint of cognitive dissonance.
Narvy
You forgot the complete works of Stephen Sondheim.
DougJ
The Spaghtetti Monster doesn’t swing that way, Narvy. He’s no Sponge Bob.
Buckaroo
Ok, so I make a simple statement on poverty data.
You see it doesn’t fit your picture so you _spin_ it by reading extra into the data, _beyond what I had stated_.
Did i twist the data? No, I simply made a statement. You twisted my statement by looking at trends. I never said anything about rise/fall increase/decrease, whatever.
Maybe you’ll see it better this way?
I say green is a color, you say green is a mix of blue and yellow. I never asked what green is, I simply stated something and you try to explain it away for whatever reason.
I restate that green is a color and you seem to get very upset that I don’t acknowledge green is blue+yellow.
I could say Bush is a Republican and you would go off on a tirade about the economy.
Narvy
Yeah, like this liberal’s agenda of “State your case.” It’s really vicious and dishonest to twist an assertion into a question asking for an explanation.
DougJ
Accuse my reminiscing, but Spongebob reminds me of my favorite prank on the wingnuts, the time I posted that “squarepants is gay slang for a, uh, well-endowed gay man” and got one of those nuts to agree that he had heard that, too. How gullible can these people be?
Narvy
C’mon, Dude. The music is great and the lyrics are greater. One doesn’t have to make out with starfish to appreciate it.
I’m really biting my tongue on this one. Moving on to another subject.
DougJ
Buckaroo, you’re not smart enough to pull this off. You’re not helping your cause at all. There’s some pretty smart Bushies here — Defense Guy especially — and they don’t need you to come in and blather on about data points and get the liberals “in a twist.” You’re a moron who knows nothing about statistics or basic logical reasoning. I think that, quite frankly, my posts about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, made more sense than this
Buckaroo
I made a very simple statement. Is it beyond your capacity to understand a very simple statement. Where is the statement wrong?
Narvy
Is there anything that isn’t gay slang for something?
DougJ
The existence of my own very strong opinions on this subject may call my own orientation into question — not that there’s anything wrong with that — but Sondheim can’t hold a candle to Rodgers and Hart. Half of his songs don’t even really have tunes. They’ve got that talk-singing thing that drives me nuts.
Slartibartfast
Sorry I didn’t see your post before this; I’ve been in a fever-induced exhaustion most of the day. Thanks for the response. I know we’ve frequently been less than pleasant to each other, but I do value your opinion, even when I think you’re dead wrong.
And of course, the tendency to take any random bit of encouraging/discouraging data and present it as if it’s the whole story, well, I like to get the bigger picture.
Anyway, back to bed. I stay at home with the sick kid, and I wind up sicker than she. Drat.
DougJ
Maybe “metrics”? How about “blame game”?
Buckaroo
Like I said. I make a simple statement and _everyone_ puts their spin on it.
Consider that the _average_ poverty rate under Clinton is higher than the average rate under Bush.
Slid’s _spin_ puts the data to make Clinton look good. I say BS, I read the data to say poverty is lower under Bush. Both statements are _spin_
Narvy
Not wrong, Dude, cognitively dissonant.
You make an assertion of purported fact, IMPLYING a position (yes, yes, I know you didn’t actually state it) to start an argument, knowing that your opponents would speak to the implication, whence you could then self-righteously complain about how your simple, neutral, unpositioned words were being twisted and spun, thus proving for the world to see how intellectually dishonest the opposition is.
Unless, of course, I am giving you credit for being cleverer than you really are, or you were just funnin’.
By the way, if you retort that my supposition about your realization of the implication is not true, it will only make you look dumber than you do already. I would advise against it.
DougJ
No matter how you spin it, Buckaroo, you’re a jack ass. I’ve got enough data points in this thread to say that with complete certainty.
Narvy
“metrics”? C’mon. You may have a point about “blame game” though. I’ll ask around.
Buckaroo
Yep, as I stated, this was basically a troll to see who would bite. Some bit, tasted it for what it was worth, and spit it out knowing they had been tempted. Others ate it whole and even after being dragged into the boat and clubbed on the head, still spasm and quiver, trying to swallow it. Whenever some data disagrees with the Left, even only on the surface, they do what ever they can to spin it around.
DougJ
Buckaroo, I thought you might be a troll. You’re an annoying troll, though. You’ve got to engage a little more and say a few more just idiotic things. I know from trolling. I think you’ve got a lot of potential, but you need to ease off the pseudo-technical language.
DougJ
You’re right, what was I thinking?
DougJ
One more thing, Buckaroo. You haven’t really made it as a troll until someone’s done a Daily Kos diary on your trolling.
And that’s not gonna happen unless you stick with the character for longer than a day. Come back with a new name and a more varied routine. We need a good troll around here.
buckaroo
I was trolling (a verb)
I simply stated some facts and you reply with spin, woohoo!
A nice, easy experiment.
Narvy
Aha! So my keen analysis upthread was correct. Except being inexperienced in the field of troll-spotting, I took you seriously. I’ll file this away as a learning experience, although I want credit for thinking of the possibility that you might not be serious.
Narvy
Who is/are “you”? All of us I guess, spin being defined as not ignoring the troll.
DougJ
Either you’re still trolling or you’re a moron.
buckaroo
Narvy,
Spin in my case wasthe twisting my basic statement to read as supporting Liberal ideals.
My premis would tend to support Bush. The spinners tried to change it to support Clinton. Facts are it supports neither.
DougJ
Buckaroo, a few typos are useful when trolling because it supports the idea that you really are as stupid as you’re pretending to be. But you need to get a spell checker.
slide
bucky keeps saying:
You keep saying you simply stated some facts. Wrong. You didn’t JUST state some facts. You initially said to my very correct and undisputed facts:
I assume the bs stands for bull shit right? Bull shit slang for lie right? So you weren’t just stating some facts asshole you were saying I was lying, spinning, or otherwise misrepreseting the truth. Right bucky? And that wasn’t the case now was it? And now you feel all superior because some of us demonstrated what an asswipe you were twisting facts?.
I know you fancy yourself as being the cats meow don’t you bucky? So smart you are. Lol. Yeah, I think all of us that were following this may have a slightly different opinion of your brilliance. Sorry to dissppoint you bucky.
Krista
Sorry, I’ve been away, but I figured out Buckaroo was trolling, because in one post, he could barely spell, and yet in another, he used the word “discrete” correctly…that’s a word that sometimes messes up even copy editors.
Well played, my friend!!!
buckaroo
Slide,
You were spinning!
The Spin:
The fabrication:
The poverty rate is lower overall (average) under Bush than under Clinton
(US Census report)
buckaroo
So Slide, were you twisting facts?
Kimmitt
Ain’t that always the way.
slide
bucaroo do you understand the meaning of spin? My saying that
is not spin? Its fact. Not spin. Fact. You see SPIN is a subjective interpretation of an event not the recitation of factual information. I know these are tough concepts bucky but try and pay attention. Lets examine my statement.
FACT: poverty rate has increased for four years. Is there any disputing this? According to the census bureau the poverty rate as increased the last four years. 11.7 to 12.7 over those four years. FACT
FACT: after having been reduced during the Clinton years. FACT. According to the census bureau the poverty rate was reduced during the clinton years starting at around 15% when he came into office and ending at 11.3% in his final year. That is a reduction. FACT
No spin bunky… FACT
Defense Guy
I have nothing against data points. Bigots.
Also, I used to like to spin when I was younger, but now it mostly makes me sick.
And dizzy.
Defense Guy
I seem to recall the poverty level figure (the income dollar amount at which poverty is attained) actually being raised during the last 5 years or so. Please add that in to your calculus, and then let me know if I win anything. Thanks.
Then again, maybe I saw that on the West Wing or something. I really like that Toby.
tBone
I’m voting for the latter.
buckaroo
Spin moron….
I state the poverty rate is overall lower under Bush than Clinton. Fact buckwheat!
Still spin, still fact!
slide
the buckmeister babbles incoherently:
ok bucky if you say so. Lol
Oh, and tBone, I agree with you, moron is the operative word here.
buckaroo
Sorry if they don’t let you have books at the asylum
Political Spin: twist and turn so as to give an intended interpretation; “The President’s spokesmen had to spin the story to make it less embarrasing”
slide
You know this fruitless (and quite tiresome) dialogue with bucky reminds me of what I find most infuriating about so many on the right. It is their inability to separate fact from spin – the Faith Based world as it has often been called. As anyone that has followed this thread has observed, Bucky seems to think that a FACT can also be SPIN, in and of itself, if it puts a favorable (or unfavorable) light on one particular political viewpoint. This is a very useful argument when the majority of facts seem to go against your political persuasion if you can just dismiss them as spin.
So in Bucky’s world the fact that the poverty rate has gone up the last four years is just spin. The fact that Bush came into office with budget surpluses and we now have budget deficits is just spin. The fact that 1900 Americans have died in Iraq is spin. The fact that there were no WMD in Iraq, more spin.
Now, had I said that Bush’s policies hurt the poor or if I said that Bush lied about WMD in Iraq or that Bush doesn’t care about deficits THAT would be spin. Spin being someone’s interpretation of the FACTS to make their political point. Oh, and btw, just because something is interpreted doesn’t necessarily make it incorrect. Spin sometimes gets a bad reputation undeservedly. But Bucky wasn’t debating anyone’s interpretation, he wasn’t confronting the reasons behind the stated facts, no he was just labeling those objective statements as SPIN apparently because he doesn’t like what a rational and objective person may conclude from those facts.
How convenient to be a Republican in the Faith Based world they live in.
DougJ
I don’t like the faith-based people either, but I hesitate to lump them all in with bucky. More data = more spin is an unusually stupid position. The only other person I’ve ever heard say that is the old me.
Kimmitt
the income dollar amount at which poverty is attained
Of course it is; the dollar amount is regularly adjusted for inflation.
Com Con
I like your style, Buck. Just quote some simple statistics and the leftos run for cover.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that does mean that the level at which poverty began went way up under Clinton. We had some real doozies of years for inflation in the 90s as I recall.
Defense Guy
No Kimmitt. I mean a non-inflation specific adjustment. The government was talking about it up through 1999, but as far as I know had not done it at that point. The stupid guidelines on the HHS site are not available right now. I will keep looking.
Defense Guy
It doesn’t look like they have. It appears the government is still using the threshold guidelines established in 1963, adjusted for inflation every year.
slide
com com:
You recall incorrectly. The inflation rate for 1991-1999 averaged 2.58% with only one year over 3% (1996 – 3.379).
buckaroo
Slide, I’m sorry your mommy never brest fed you and you can’t get the cap off of your Prozac (hint: if it is “child proof”, push down and twist).
I’m also sorry you don’t understand “correlation”, you get to that subject in high school.
Now for some good news! Slide, in your last post you do seem to grasp the idea I’ve been trying to tell you for quite some time.
You begin with your
facts
Good facts, obtained from a source that is at least “official”
You make your
spin
This is also good. You take some facts and without actually saying anything that disagrees with the data (facts), you make a comment that reflects your political view. As with the definition I posted, this is political spin, but still based on facts.
Then you trigger my BS alarm when you go off and make something up
You claim that a decreasing rate during Clinton’s term followed by an increasing rate during Bush’s term is “OBVIOUSLY” (sic) an indication that “folks” are not doing as well. During the other prominant down trend (1961-1969) the rate fell faster, so as you deduce (apply your correlation), times were even better.
An off the cuff estimate puts the poverty rate during this period at about 18%
A side statement by your claim then supports that a higher poverty rate 18% (60’s) , 13.3% (Clinton, avg), people are better off than during a lower poverty rate 12.3% (Bush avg).
I say BS! Higher poverty should indicate tougher times for “folks”. You pulled your final “OBVIOUS”(sic) claim out of your ass.
Good news though if what you say is true! By the end of the Bush term. poverty rates should be plenty high to even produce happier times for “folks” than under Clinton! WhooHoo!
I know that Liberals have a God given right (oops! non-secular right) to base statistical deduction on “feelings”, so maybe I should cede.
As another poster stated, general economic conditions for “folks” needs to be based on much more than poverty rates.
Spin is fine if actual facts are preserved. Intelligent people can make up their own minds. Pulling out turds and calling them gold makes you the symbol of your party (i.e. jackass).
Now go away unless you can actually back up your BS or I’ll have to taunt you a second time…
W.B. Reeves
Well this is the kind of thread that got me to be a Balloon Juice regular in the first place. People of widely varying perspectives debating with energy yet apparently listening to what is being said by their opponents. Trolls excepted of course. I’m no economics maven but I’ve found this exchange stimulating and informative, the above exception remaining in force.
One observation. Speaking as a lay person, I think it is a mistatement to call markets rational. It imbues the market with an anthropomorphic nature that it does not possess. Markets are logical in that they operate by cause and effect. Markets do not make decisions or choices, they respond in mechanistic fashion to economic stimuli.
Individuals and combines that comprise the market may make choices and these subjective judgements will produce responses in the market but those responses may or may not be grounded in anything beyond the psychology of the choice makers. That is why you have phenomena such as panics, crashes and exuberantly irrational bubbles.
Some folks see nothing wrong in this. They think that “rational economic actors” will be able to surf the tides of market irrationality to their own personal blue lagoon of security. They usually believe this right up to the moment that a particularly nasty curl flips their board out from under them.
I have no problem with people who want to hotdog it. I have no problem with fishing them out of the water or bandaging their heads where they got cracked by their boards. I do have a problem when they try to say that non-hotdoggers don’t deserve the same consideration. I have a serious problem when they claim that society should be organized around hotdogging and that everyone, young and old, fit and infirm, should get out there on a board and surf. Particularly when they seem to think that drowning is a form of natural selection.
Someone pointed out above that market forces are neither good nor bad, they are amoral. Agreed. Which is another way of saying that all market values are provisional and relative. What strikes me as bizarre is that, knowing this, so many are willing to cede responsibility for social values to the market. I suppose it has something to do with the conviction that they are, or will be, one of the Big Kahunas.
buckaroo
Oops, hate it when that happens, The sics from above are from someting else I was thinking of, my bad. The real BS link is
here
slide
W.B.Reeves great post. Makes me want to go out and “hang ten”.
Kimmitt
Defense Guy — I can confirm your research; there have been no changes since 1963.
Kimmitt
Um, increased holding of US assets is the DEFINITION of a current-account deficit. When someone’s as confused as this about how the system works (or knows how it works and says things like this), their analysis is no longer helpful.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Bucky, your latest comparison of average poverty rate between Bush and Clinton is yet another nonce number: as an exercise in calculator buttons it’s correct, but it really doesn’t have any intellectual value.
People salute Clinton for (1) the monotonic decrease in the poverty rate and (2) for the low rate at the end of his terms. The average is, of course, dependent on the situation at the beginning of his term, which was beyond his control. Similarly, people criticize Bush for the monotonic increase in the poverty rate, and not for the average, which benefits from the excellent situation he inherited from Clinton. (By the way, it makes no sense to average the 8 Clinton years with the 5 Bush years, since if current trends continue your claim will no longer by true in any sense at the end of the Bush nightmare—did you realize this?) The average doesn’t seem like the correct statistic to use here.
I think, Bucky, you’re out of your depth on this thread, as most people here have the ability to read a graph and interpret it. I learned in sixth grade, but I was at the top of the class back then. You seem incapable of presenting anything more than innumerate garbage.
Com Con
I’m sorry but only a liberal would brag about that. It was all peaches and cream when it was books and testing. I bet the real world has been a little less kind to you.
buckaroo
Andrew, you failed to grasp a single thing I said.
slide
Bucky you remind me of a drowning man grasping for air and flailing about – rhetorically speaking. I feel no need to embarass you further by pointing out your failures of logic and reading comprehenison as I think most of the readers here have a clear picture of where you are coming from. Sorry bucky.
slide
Com con:
You gotta love this line or reasoning by the right wing moron parade. You see, liberals only live in a world of theory and books and dont’ know anything about the real world like Bush and his neocon advisors. You see, they know about the real world when they thought Iraq would greet us with flowers and chocolates… they KNEW about the real world when they thought they didn’t need as many troops as Gen Shenseki had advised. they just KNEW that there won’t be sectarian violence in Iraq like the State Department told them there would be.
I think the concept that conservatives do better in the “real world” has been proven to be totally ridiculous if one looks at this adminstration’s performance on Iraq, on the economy and on the response to Katrina. This has to be considered one of the most incompetent adminstrations EVER. Real world? yeah, you guys really understand it. Lol.
Com Con
Relax, I was just yanking your chain a little.
A lot of the neocons are pretty well-educated, too. Look at Paul Wolfowitz.
My point is that that books and learning only take you so far. In the end, in politics at least, it’s something else, your mettle or resolve that matters the most. That’s why despite what you say, I think Bush will be remembered as one of our greatest presidents.
In 25 years, when Iraq is a free democracy, trading with us, and, yes, with Israel and the Gulf Coast is bigger and better than ever, people aren’t going to carping about how Bush had big budget deficits. They’re going to be saying “Thanks heavens Bush took care of this, so now we don’t have to.” President Bush takes a lot of crap from you guys, because he’s willing to make the tough calls. That’s what leadership is about. And you can’t learn it out of a book.
slide
Lol. No comment.
Kimmitt
I’m sorry, but only a conservative would miss that he was mocking you, not bragging.
Defense Guy
Kimmit
Re: no change in the calculations since ’63.
This is one of the reasons why I cannot see putting the government in charge of, well pretty much anything. When you read the reports of why it should change, and then figure out that the only reason the politicos won’t do it is becaue it would hurt their ‘numbers’, then you come to realize that they really could give 2 shits about those they wish to ‘lead’. It’s effing pathetic.
Kimmitt
Unfortunately, there is nothing even vaguely resembling a consensus within the Economic community as to a better way to handle this issue, so it’s not like the politicos are ignoring an obviously better result in favor of an obviously worse result. Even if someone wanted to change, the question of what to change to would be contentiously debated. That’s the sort of result that causes inertia to kick in pretty hard.
W.B. Reeves
Word.
Com Con
Is there a way to privatize this kind of thing? Maybe farm it out to one of the think tanks? I have a feeling they’d to a better job and be way less political.