View Story | 28 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
inflation in the 1970s/80s. The mass erosion of wages did not begin apace until the late 70s. Furthermore, the high interest rates on insured deposits and other safe investments during this period of stagflation allowed savers to preserve the value of their money or even stay a little ahead.
Nowadays, with inflation in necessities (food, fuel, housing, health care) well north of 10%/year for the past 5 years, and stagnant to declining wages and net worth (minus debts) for the bottom 90 percent of the wealth/income distribution, we also have crappy investments that justify the low savings rate. Interest rates on savings accounts, low risk bonds, and certificates of deposit are all below 5%, not keeping up with inflation. Even the stock market has been flat over the past 8 years as a whole.
The cheap interest rates at below inflation rates were a Bush regime bait and switch technique to prop up the economy without increasing wages of average Americans. You can see how well that "worked" over the long term.
"Without our playstations, we are a third world nation"-Ani DiFranco
by NoMoreLies on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
days from the 70's when the world was largely undeveloped. I agree with you that massive globalization has put severe strain on the wages of the uneducated middle class.
as for the "long term." the american dollar couldn't take our current account deficits regardless of what bush did. not that he did anything particularly smart. but as a matter of inevitability the account deficit would eventually trigger a fall in the dollar. and since we undergo some kind of credit crisis periodically in a capitalist economy it looks like this is it.
by bobisbob on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:51:43 PM PDT
I agree with you that massive globalization has put severe strain on the wages of the uneducated middle class
And the educated middle class. Wages for scientists and college professors has remained largely stagnant over the past 10 years. The only workers who have seen appreciable gains are the finance elite and upper corporate management.
A grotesquely regressive tax policy focusing on breaks for passive income, derivatives, and hedge funds, a culture of greed, and overpriced necessities have driven a redistribution of income and wealth to the upper 5% of the income distribution, and especially to the upper 1%. US CEO pay was less than 40 times the average worker pay in the 1970s, it is closer to 400 percent now. Distribution of income and wealth is as unequal as it was in the 1920s, and I doubt poor worker pay and maldistribution of resources was a result of "globalization" then.
Bush's policies of borrow and squander, and for the first time, waging a war with tax cuts to the rich, was like pouring gasoline on a fire. Remember that this buffoon doubled our federal debt in 8 short years, a debt that took over 200 to accumulate.
I am all for a Jubilee by increasing the top marginal tax rate to 75%, pulling out of Iraq, cutting the military budget in half, reinvesting some of our proceeds in engaging in a crash renewable energy and infrastructure program to provide well paying jobs to the average American, and clean up our environment, and reduce the annual deficit to pay off our debt, which is another hidden tax on Americans.
by NoMoreLies on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:20:17 PM PDT
a larger tax on consumption instead of keep piling on income taxes would encourage savings.
and america has some of the largest corporate tax rates on the planet. its a very bad system where millions of dollars need to be spent by corporations to bribe politicials for loophole laws to get around our corporate taxes. the problem with going after capital is capital is the most free and international economic weapon on the planet. if its bad to invest in america because of grotesque taxes on corporations or investment people just won't. there is no international boundary for capital investment, even lowly sacks like you and me can put our money almost anywhere in the world.
by bobisbob on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:41:51 PM PDT
during the Bush Tax Cuts to a negative rate? Could it be that people below the top 5% have less money to save? Our federal taxes, including corporate,are regressive and lower than nearly any country, and when you consider how the taxes have been spent lately, a supreme waste. Corporate income tax receipts are lower than at any time in the last 75 years. And consumption taxes are regressive, unless we rebate the bottom of the income distribution, exempt necessities, or base the consumption tax on waste, CO2 or disposable packaging through a national tipping fee, with a simultaneous reduction in payroll taxes.
The so-called "investment in America through Bush's tax cuts has occurred overseas, in cheap labor, and domestically in derivatives, hedge funds, and other gambling investments that have produced little in the way of productive benefit for average Americans except cheap Chinese-made goods.
Your fact-freetalking points are unvarnished Grover Norquist/Rush Limbaugh tripe, and deserve to be troll rated unless you can cite links and facts.
by NoMoreLies on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:25:08 AM PDT
the income tax is progressive not regressive, and its heavily progressive at that. and your contempt for capital investment is a recipe for disaster.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/...
america has one of the highest and most punitive corporate taxes. but who cares about that when populist rants work fine?
by bobisbob on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM PDT
or spell "horeshit lies" (sic) correctly? Graphs from this page I linked to, taken from U.S. Govt. data, indicate that corporate income taxes, as of the year 2000 have decreased as a share of tax receipts from 6% in the early 1950s to less than 1% in 2000, and that is before the bush tax cuts. Furthermore 3/4 of the 29 OECD countries collect more corporate taxes as a percentage of tax reciepts than the US as of the year 2000. Don't let facts get in the way of your assertions about US corporate taxes, or are you still living in the 1950s when they were much higher than today.
Also, with your personal attacks ("populist rants", horeshit(sic)lies) you are outing yourself as a Republican, and really should find some other forum to debate in. From the Daily Kos FAQ page:
This site is primarily a Democratic site, with a heavy emphasis on progressive politics. It is not intended for Republicans, or conservatives.
May i suggest a mixed board such as perspectives.com to take your "debate" to? Your unsubstantiated assertions contribute little to the debate here. No more replies.
by NoMoreLies on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 05:04:54 PM PDT
there is no international boundary for capital investment, even lowly sacks like you and me can put our money almost anywhere in the world.
And, with what surplus do us lowly sacks invest after necessities are paid for? The whole Bush economy was propped up on all levels by borrow and spend, and nearly everyone is tapped out.
Haven't you heard that huge numbers of people are paying for necessities on credit? When these conditions begin to occur there is obviously something wrong with the system, and it is time to repudiate it.
by NoMoreLies on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 06:57:53 AM PDT
of american households own equities. and you're right people are idiots, they get used to a certain economic level and will go into deep debt to continue it. such is life.
your entire economic ideas are based upon revenge and not even an ounce of sound thinking. you might as well makeup a five year plan for us already.
by bobisbob on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 11:17:00 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 28 comments