Are the liberal states screwing the common man?

[eohrnberger]

Yes, that would be more persuasive if:

a) Mobility was not also declining

b) The wealthy stockpiling more wealth did not result in giving them an outsized influence over politics, culture, research etc

c) The wealthy were not increasingly walling themselves off from the rest of society, and are ready to hop on a Gulfstream for their New Zealand estates at the first sign of unrest

d) The policies I briefly listed had no effect on mobility -- in fact they should help improve mobility



Ya know what? Y'all have had your way for decades, especially in the US. After 50 years of conservatives and libertarians paying lip service to "less government" and "less regulation" and "freer markets," while constantly slashing their own taxes, capturing regulators, and making everyone else pay for their losses: F*** THAT NOISE.

The fundamental truth of markets is that they are utterly and completely amoral, and do not produce outcomes that actually benefit society at large. Homo economicus and "trickle down" and "supply side economics" are flat-out lies that shield the wealthy. That's why sometimes we need to sacrifice a bit of efficiency in the name of fairness. This does not mean that every form of interference works, but it does mean it is well past time that we use the mechanisms of the state to tamp down income inequality, and make society fairer.

So preferring a resumption of Obama's 'New Normal' tepid economy? Unbelievable.

Confiscatory tax rates are theft and demand for more government control and government power, their attempting to control markets has a demonstrated track record of failing miserably with many undesirable 'unintended' consequences, all of which outweigh marginal benefits that you are purporting.

Thanks, but no thanks, hard pass.

 

[Sand Castle]

Once you start pulling on a loose thread, there's just no telling where it might lead. Or we could look at the map of the last presidential election. Or we could examine the response of a few states to the elimination of certain federal tax deductions. In any case, they all point to a very real divide in the country that can easily be described as the difference between urban and rural living, regardless of where state lines are drawn.

Once again below is the title of OP

Are the liberal states screwing the common man?

 

[AlphaOmega]

Here I thought leftist hated stereotypes and bigotry.

its the same as when they shout racist but are the first ones to toss the n word around when they think they are in safe company or get a few shots in em.

 

[Taxman]

2019 Cost of Living Calculator: compare Huntsville, Alabama to New York, New York


According to this source, it costs about 117% more to live in NYC than Huntsville Alabama (home of Huntsville space and rocket center).

Yet, the median income difference is only about 25% higher in NYC, meaning the average person is way way way better off living in Huntsville.

I wonder if there are millions of liberals in these mega metro areas of NY aand Cali, living like fish in a barrel, not realizing how bad off they have it, believing in fake stereotypes of other areas.

You can have your huntsville as I will not go there let alone live there. California is how it is spelled.

 

[humbolt]

Once again below is the title of OP

Are the liberal states screwing the common man?

Take it up with poster #5.

 

[Visbek]

So preferring a resumption of Obama's 'New Normal' tepid economy? Unbelievable.

:roll:

The Obama administration did not have the ability to do a fraction of what needs to be done, even if it wanted to.

As to the "tepid" Obama economy, hello? McFly? He assumed office during the worst economic downturn in over 70 years, and did a good enough job to result in the longest recovery since WWII. Plus, I've got a little tip for you: Presidents don't have a huge impact on the economy, other than not screwing up massively when a recession hits. For example, the two main factors in the slowing of growth is not government policy, it's a slowdown in productivity and an aging population. Presidents can't do much about the latter, and the only possible counter to the former is to encourage immigration -- which Republicans shut down.

We should note that we have yet another "free market" liar in office, and guess what? After artificially juicing the economy for two quarters with a terribly timed tax-break-for-the-wealthy stimulus, we are back to those "tepid New Normal" GDP growth numbers. Go figure.

Oh, silly me. I forgot, there's a 3rd factor which harms GDP growth. What is it? It's on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, it's increased income inequality.
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
The Economist explains - How inequality affects growth | The Economist explains | The Economist

Confiscatory tax rates are theft...

Give it a rest. The wealthy did just fine in the 50s and 60s with higher progressive tax rates.

and demand for more government control and government power, their attempting to control markets has a demonstrated track record of failing miserably with many undesirable 'unintended' consequences....

Get a clue. No one in power actually pushes for a weaker central government or laissez-faire economy. We've had decades of people proclaiming they would shrink the federal government and cut spending, and then doing the exact opposite once they get into office.

In fact, it is the laissez-faire approach which helped decimate the economy in 2007. The Fed and other central banks deliberately decided not to interfere in the real estate markets, not even to stop mortgage issuers who signed anyone with a pulse, even though they knew (or should have known) that it was a bubble. They refused to regulate derivatives, CDOs, CDSs and other complex financial instruments, which hid the massive risks that the investment banks spread around the globe; when it popped, governments *COUGH* had no choice but to interfere in the markets -- unless you wanted the US to have 30% unemployment for a decade, because "governments shouldn't interfere!" << spit in disgust >>

Plus, if you bothered to look at my list, there isn't any real growth of "government control," and very little "controlling the economy." In fact, we can establish safety nets that involve less government control, by wiping out the ridiculous array of benefits with all sorts of controls and strings attached (e.g. you can use food stamps to buy X and Y, but never Z! And you have to work 20 hours a week to qualify!); just do a cash benefit and let people figure it out. But no, we don't do that, because the same people who proclaim they want less government interference in individual lives then insist on the government interfering in the individual lives of people who temporarily need help.

Similarly, I did not suggest that HUD nationalize every residential building in the US and cut rates, or that the federal government should fix prices on every rent in the US. Rather, we need to maximize methods to get more affordable housing built. One example is giving developers tax abatements for affordable units; another is enhancing or building regional transit so people who work in urban cores can build up outlying areas.

And again, a point that you failed to counter: Markets are not moral. There is nothing moral about how they work, and nothing immoral about government stepping in to fix its failures -- preferably before they melt down and take the entire economy with them.

So, spare us the self-righteous ignorance and lies. The hands-off approach Does Not Work. All it does is make the rich even richer, and hands everyone else the bill when it all blows up. That is why, get again, I say: **** That Noise.

 

[eohrnberger]

:roll:

The Obama administration did not have the ability to do a fraction of what needs to be done, even if it wanted to.

Obama smothered the economy with his tidal wave of ideological regulations from his politicized and used as political weapons federal agencies in the middle of a financial collapse and recovery. That's a matter of fact, as its a matter of legitimate argument that his economic policies lengthened and thwarted the recovery.

As to the "tepid" Obama economy, hello? McFly? He assumed office during the worst economic downturn in over 70 years, and did a good enough job to result in the longest recovery since WWII. Plus, I've got a little tip for you: Presidents don't have a huge impact on the economy, other than not screwing up massively when a recession hits. For example, the two main factors in the slowing of growth is not government policy, it's a slowdown in productivity and an aging population. Presidents can't do much about the latter, and the only possible counter to the former is to encourage immigration -- which Republicans shut down.

Except that same 'aging population', a few years older, now have a rather positive economy, don't they?

We should note that we have yet another "free market" liar in office, and guess what? After artificially juicing the economy for two quarters with a terribly timed tax-break-for-the-wealthy stimulus, we are back to those "tepid New Normal" GDP growth numbers. Go figure.

Not surprising a statement from someone who appears to be against free markets, and would prefer government controlled and thwarted markets. :roll:
What's the matter with historic low unemployment that we have now?
What's the matter with historic high labor participation rate that we have now?
What's the matter with the prosperity that we have now?
The public policies from this administration seem to have helped these things along.
Why are you rooting and supporting public policies that are antithetical to these positive things?

Oh, silly me. I forgot, there's a 3rd factor which harms GDP growth. What is it? It's on the tip of my tongue. Oh yeah, it's increased income inequality.
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
The Economist explains - How inequality affects growth | The Economist explains | The Economist

Give it a rest. The wealthy did just fine in the 50s and 60s with higher progressive tax rates.

I think maybe you need to give it a rest.

[qoute]Get a clue. No one in power actually pushes for a weaker central government or laissez-faire economy. We've had decades of people proclaiming they would shrink the federal government and cut spending, and then doing the exact opposite once they get into office.

In fact, it is the laissez-faire approach which helped decimate the economy in 2007. The Fed and other central banks deliberately decided not to interfere in the real estate markets, not even to stop mortgage issuers who signed anyone with a pulse, even though they knew (or should have known) that it was a bubble. They refused to regulate derivatives, CDOs, CDSs and other complex financial instruments, which hid the massive risks that the investment banks spread around the globe; when it popped, governments *COUGH* had no choice but to interfere in the markets -- unless you wanted the US to have 30% unemployment for a decade, because "governments shouldn't interfere!" << spit in disgust >>[/quote]

No, I did not want 'the US to have 30% unemployment for a decade'. The housing bubble was far more complex than the rather simplistic view you are presenting. Sure, there were government oversight failures, one of which was not reigning in Fanny, Freddie and ACORN at the time.

 

[eohrnberger]

. . .

Continue.

Plus, if you bothered to look at my list, there isn't any real growth of "government control," and very little "controlling the economy." In fact, we can establish safety nets that involve less government control, by wiping out the ridiculous array of benefits with all sorts of controls and strings attached (e.g. you can use food stamps to buy X and Y, but never Z! And you have to work 20 hours a week to qualify!); just do a cash benefit and let people figure it out. But no, we don't do that, because the same people who proclaim they want less government interference in individual lives then insist on the government interfering in the individual lives of people who temporarily need help.

Helping encourage the able-bodied to work rather than receive government benefits is a common sense public policy.

Similarly, I did not suggest that HUD nationalize every residential building in the US and cut rates, or that the federal government should fix prices on every rent in the US. Rather, we need to maximize methods to get more affordable housing built. One example is giving developers tax abatements for affordable units; another is enhancing or building regional transit so people who work in urban cores can build up outlying areas.

Well, it would appear that we agree on this, primary in this public policy would be the removal of barriers for developers to build affordable housing, which, typically Democrat, led local governments raise barriers to developers to build affordable housing. Just have to look how Seattle, LA, etc. are thwarting public housing with their public policies, and what do you see as a result? Homeless tent cities. Policies to discourage that? Not at all, in fact the reverse, public policies that encourage Homeless tent cities, public urination, public deification, and theft from the small business sector. It's completely idiotic and counter productive. Well, they've made their beds, and they are going to have to sleep in them.

And again, a point that you failed to counter: Markets are not moral. There is nothing moral about how they work, and nothing immoral about government stepping in to fix its failures -- preferably before they melt down and take the entire economy with them.

So, spare us the self-righteous ignorance and lies. The hands-off approach Does Not Work. All it does is make the rich even richer, and hands everyone else the bill when it all blows up. That is why, get again, I say: **** That Noise.

Seems you are full of 'self-righteous ignorance and lies'. Yeah, yeah, little more than hyper-partisan talking points.
Exactly as expected.

The bottom line is that there is more optimism about the economy than there has been in a long, long while, including the time that Obama was smothering the economy with his tidal wave of ideological regulations from his politicized and used as political weapons federal agencies.

Economy | Gallup Historical Trends

The economy your public policies are allegedly meant to fix, isn't perceived as a problem by the electorate.
Good luck trying to sell those fundamentally flawed policies to the electorate as a means to for candidates to be elected to office to implement them.

 

[Visbek]

Obama smothered the economy with his tidal wave of ideological regulations from his politicized and used as political weapons federal agencies in the middle of a financial collapse and recovery. That's a matter of fact....

Please, spare us.

The only industry that really got socked with regulations was the health sector. Most of that was health insurers -- and the regulations were mostly devised to keep the health insurers in business, by guaranteeing them customers. They also used regulations to make sure that insurers did not sell crappy useless policies to ratepayers -- oh, the horror!

Or perhaps you were perfectly fine with Wells Fargo fraudulently slamming its customers with fake fees, and think the CPFB was wrong to "interfere in the markets" by investigating and fining WF's illegal behavior?

And again, I see little indication that Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump have significantly reduced regulation. They certainly didn't shrink the size of the government.

Except that same 'aging population', a few years older, now have a rather positive economy, don't they?

Uh, hello? Annual GDP growth rates have been in the same "tepid" range since 2010. Please, make up your mind about your assessment, kthx.

What's the matter with historic low unemployment that we have now?

For starters, U3 is only one measure of the health of the job market. That's why Janet Yellen had an entire dashboard which included LFPR, quits rate, wages, job openings rate, long-term unemployment, and so on. (Some of those do well, others do not.)

To continue, U3 is not designed to tell us how income for the 99% have been stagnant since the early 1980s, while almost all of the income gains have been captured by the top 1% (or less).

U3 doesn't tell us how or why, for years, kids cannot expect to have a better standard of living than their parents.

Oh, and let's not forget that U3 started to fall in January 2010.

What's the matter with historic high labor participation rate that we have now?

Is that a joke? LFPR is not at historic highs. It peaked in the late 90s around 67%, started falling in 2001, and has been flat at 62% since late 2015.

What's the matter with the prosperity that we have now?

Holy crap. I could be here all day with that one. Just for starters:

• Income inequality is rising, which tilts power and future prosperity towards the already wealthy
• Wages are stagnant for everyone else
• Inequality doesn't just apply to individuals; parts of the US (mostly rural areas) are falling further and further behind, while cities are continuing to improve and gain most of the growth and advantages
• There are still nearly 40 million people in poverty -- and there would be millions more if it wasn't for government programs, notably Social Security and Medicare
• Racial disparities in income and wealth and opportunity are still rife
• Mobility is nowhere near where it should be
• We still have millions who can't afford health insurance
• Automation is already dislocating millions of jobs, and news flash! the free markets don't offer free job retraining, or magically allocate jobs to areas of low unemployment
• Labor rights and protections are weak, and workers don't feel secure
• Sectors like retail are collapsing

The public policies from this administration seem to have helped these things along.
Why are you rooting and supporting public policies that are antithetical to these positive things?

Are you referring to the Trump administration? They haven't done JACK **** to help the economy. Trump came into office with a massive economic tailwind, and has enacted few policies. One was the tax cut, whose largest beneficiaries were corporations, the already-wealthy, and people who *COUGH* use the same corporate structures as the Trump Organization. The other is these inept tariffs, which have hurt average Americans (especially farmers), outraged our allies who see through the transparent excuses for levying the tariffs, trashed America's reputation abroad, and didn't even accomplish Trump's own deeply mistaken goal of reducing trade deficits.

No, I did not want 'the US to have 30% unemployment for a decade'. The housing bubble was far more complex than the rather simplistic view you are presenting. Sure, there were government oversight failures, one of which was not reigning in Fanny, Freddie and ACORN at the time.

lol

It's only "simplistic" because there's a 5000 character limit. But speaking of simplistic failures, blaming FNMA/FNMC and ACORN (?!?) has got to take the cake. That is the kind of conservative/libertarian bull**** which makes it obvious you don't have a clue what happened.

 

[Visbek]

Helping encourage the able-bodied to work rather than receive government benefits is a common sense public policy.

News flash! Cutting benefits and making it harder to collect benefits doesn't encourage work. (That's why we didn't see a huge drop in unemployment, or unusual rise in LFPR, after the 1996 welfare reforms.) In fact, the vast majority of working-age people who collect benefits only stay on them for a few years. Plus, Republicans have not done jack to help anyone retrain or find better work.

We also have to note that short of a massive Keynesian jobs program, we can't send jobs to areas with high unemployment. Again, free markets do not give a crap about giving workers jobs. All that matters is being as efficient as possible, even if that means automating everything and/or outsourcing.

Well, it would appear that we agree on this, primary in this public policy would be the removal of barriers for developers to build affordable housing, which, typically Democrat, led local governments raise barriers to developers to build affordable housing. Just have to look how Seattle, LA, etc. are thwarting public housing with their public policies, and what do you see as a result? Homeless tent cities.

We also see Democrats encouraging or forcing affordable housing (such as De Blasio in NYC) and again willing to spend on public transportation (which makes it easier to live in more affordable areas). We also see Democrats trying to make HUD somewhat effective, whereas the Trump administration wants to slash it.

There are also few regulatory barriers to building affordable housing. The only real barrier is minimum apartment sizes, which are typically around 400 square feet. You can build lots of 425 square foot affordable apartments, but developers don't want to do that, because they prefer to appeal to more affluent buyers and renters. Surely you realize it is easier and more lucrative to rent out one 2500 square foot unit for $9000/month than to rent out five 500 square foot units for $1500/month.

The bottom line is that there is more optimism about the economy than there has been in a long, long while, including the time that Obama was smothering the economy with his tidal wave of ideological regulations from his politicized and used as political weapons federal agencies.

News flash! Optimism always falls after a recession, and it is no surprise that it fell after the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is also no surprise that it started to rise in 2011.

I also prefer "ideological" regulations over the cronyism, corruption and incompetence that we're seeing from the Trump administration.

The economy your public policies are allegedly meant to fix, isn't perceived as a problem by the electorate.
Good luck trying to sell those fundamentally flawed policies to the electorate as a means to for candidates to be elected to office to implement them.

News flash! Huge swaths of the electorate want those policies.

When tainted meat hits the market, do the majority want to close the FDA and let the free market sort it out? Nope.

When Wells Fargo defrauds its own depositors, do the majority want the free market to punish the bank? Nope.

Were most Americans happy when major banks acted irresponsibly, and leveraged themselves so much that they either went bankrupt, or had to get bailed out by the federal government? Nope.

When unemployment soars, does the public want the government to shrug and say "let the markets sort it out?" Nope.

When people believe that their jobs are moving to Mexico, do they want the President to say "that's just how the free markets work, enjoy!" They should, because trade benefits everyone, but nope, that's not what people want to hear, so they don't say it.

Do the majority of Americans think the country is moving in the right direction? Nope. That's been underwater for a long, long time.

Do the majority of Americans want to get fleeced by for-profit colleges that offer no real education to their students? Nope.

Were Americans thrilled when their states refused to take the ACA Medicare expansion? Definitely not.

And what do Republicans really do all that much different than Democrats? Not much, except cut safety nets, and rewrite regulations to benefit their donors.

As Pew tells us every few years, there is little public support for reducing federal spending. There is not a single category where spending cuts even reach a plurality.



I see little indication that the majority of Americans really want the government to shrink down to the courts and Department of Defense.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing believes a work ethic from the Age of Iron is more important for the Poor than equal protection of the law for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

 

[eohrnberger]

News flash! Cutting benefits and making it harder to collect benefits doesn't encourage work. (That's why we didn't see a huge drop in unemployment, or unusual rise in LFPR, after the 1996 welfare reforms.)

New Flash! Increasing benefits or just leaving them alone is sure to not encourage work either.

In fact, the vast majority of working-age people who collect benefits only stay on them for a few years. Plus, Republicans have not done jack to help anyone retrain or find better work.

It would seem that the tight labor market has been doing that all on it's own. Wage rates are increasing.

We also have to note that short of a massive Keynesian jobs program, we can't send jobs to areas with high unemployment. Again, free markets do not give a crap about giving workers jobs. All that matters is being as efficient as possible, even if that means automating everything and/or outsourcing.

The tight labor market makes each business complete for each employee, and the employees that the business can retain, rather than lose, cost them far less than going and competing for a replacement.

We also see Democrats encouraging or forcing affordable housing (such as De Blasio in NYC) and again willing to spend on public transportation (which makes it easier to live in more affordable areas). We also see Democrats trying to make HUD somewhat effective, whereas the Trump administration wants to slash it.

The rent control programs damage and distort the market, public policies making the development of affordable housing more expensive than it needs to be both contribute to creating a shortage of affordable housing.

Everyone, family (more time together), workers (less commute stressed), and companies (happier employees), they would all benefit from a shorter commute. No argument from me.

There are also few regulatory barriers to building affordable housing. The only real barrier is minimum apartment sizes, which are typically around 400 square feet. You can build lots of 425 square foot affordable apartments, but developers don't want to do that, because they prefer to appeal to more affluent buyers and renters. Surely you realize it is easier and more lucrative to rent out one 2500 square foot unit for $9000/month than to rent out five 500 square foot units for $1500/month.

Quantity vs. price per unit. If the developer would go broke building smaller affordable apartments it drives them to build larger more expensive ones where they can make profit. A well known economic principal is that the more quantity that you have the less risk each sale is, should it fall through, yet the developers appear to be going to the high cost, high risk rather than the lower cost lower risk. Something's moving them to that market segment. My suspicion is the regulatory environment, the higher priced units can afford to pay for them.

It would also be most reasonable to acknowledge that in cities, where there is very little land left to develop, the demand for housing simply can't be met with available resources, hence another pressure raising housing market costs. How about making development less expensive and see if the housing market improves and becomes more buyer friendly?

 

[eohrnberger]

. . .
News flash! Optimism always falls after a recession, and it is no surprise that it fell after the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is also no surprise that it started to rise in 2011.

Take a look at the optimism chart.
Why was it that optimism didn't cross the 20% line until 2013-2014, some 6 years after Obama was in office.
Take a look at the chart again. Around 2016 it was around 40%, and since then climbed to high 60's / 70's in less than 3 years.

Something here isn't like the other, and that'd be the distinct lack of economic optimism during Obama's term.

I also prefer "ideological" regulations over the cronyism, corruption and incompetence that we're seeing from the Trump administration.

'"ideological" regulations' ? As in anyone not Democrat needs to be punished? Seriously?

News flash! Huge swaths of the electorate want those policies.

When tainted meat hits the market, do the majority want to close the FDA and let the free market sort it out? Nope.

An outbreak of this recently?

When Wells Fargo defrauds its own depositors, do the majority want the free market to punish the bank? Nope.

Nor should they. This is the responsibility of regulations, laws, and law enforcement. I'm not of the position supporting government abandoning these responsibilities, giving rise to capitalistic anarchy, however, the regulatory environment can't be punitive such that it drives legitimate competitors out of the market either. One of the things that Dodd-Frank was mean to address was the 'too big to fail' banks, and one of the worst 'unforeseen' consequences from Dodd-Frank was the destruction of the small local bank forcing consolidation and creation of even bigger 'too big to fail' banks - antithetical to reducing systemic risk int he banking sector. This from the expense of complying with the punitive regulatory environment. In this case, clearly antithetical to the best interests of the consumers and the financial system. It is this crap regulation herd that needs to be thinned.

Were most Americans happy when major banks acted irresponsibly, and leveraged themselves so much that they either went bankrupt, or had to get bailed out by the federal government? Nope.

When unemployment soars, does the public want the government to shrug and say "let the markets sort it out?" Nope.

When people believe that their jobs are moving to Mexico, do they want the President to say "that's just how the free markets work, enjoy!" They should, because trade benefits everyone, but nope, that's not what people want to hear, so they don't say it.

Do the majority of Americans think the country is moving in the right direction? Nope. That's been underwater for a long, long time.

Do the majority of Americans want to get fleeced by for-profit colleges that offer no real education to their students? Nope.

Were Americans thrilled when their states refused to take the ACA Medicare expansion? Definitely not.

And what do Republicans really do all that much different than Democrats? Not much, except cut safety nets, and rewrite regulations to benefit their donors.

As Pew tells us every few years, there is little public support for reducing federal spending. There is not a single category where spending cuts even reach a plurality.

Nearly every government program which hands out benefits to people suffers greatly from the 3rd party payer problem.

I see little indication that the majority of Americans really want the government to shrink down to the courts and Department of Defense.

True. But those expenses aren't the problem. The exploding mandatory benefit programs, last I looked, was eating up some 65% of the federal budget. I'll bet it's even higher now. They are already squeezing out other important spending. It is going to come to a rather ugly head sometime in the future. It is inevitable. The solution isn't the government taxing everyone at 100% of income and doling out what it thinks each shall need. It's going to be reduction of mandatory benefit program spending.

 

[eohrnberger]

Please, spare us.

The only industry that really got socked with regulations was the health sector.

Now there you are simply uninformed.

Obama breaks the record on imposing regulations, $2,496 per person hit

In his latest report, provided to Secrets, Batkins reveals that the Obama administration has imposed 101 unfunded mandates on states, local governments and businesses, nearly double the number under former President Bush. Those alone cost $1,842 per person in added expenses and paperwork.

Obama's Operation Choke Point finally unmasked
by Ken Blackwell, October 17, 2018
Obama's Operation Choke Point finally unmasked
Operation Choke Point was a plot by President Obama’s Department of Justice, the Federal Deposit Insurance Commission, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and other government agencies to cut off banking and financial services for small businesses and industries that they deemed to be political enemies or otherwise undesirable.

Most of that was health insurers -- and the regulations were mostly devised to keep the health insurers in business, by guaranteeing them customers. They also used regulations to make sure that insurers did not sell crappy useless policies to ratepayers -- oh, the horror!

Or perhaps you were perfectly fine with Wells Fargo fraudulently slamming its customers with fake fees, and think the CPFB was wrong to "interfere in the markets" by investigating and fining WF's illegal behavior?

No, and you are taking me out of context, as I replied above.

And again, I see little indication that Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump have significantly reduced regulation. They certainly didn't shrink the size of the government.

That's going to come to an ugly head, as posted above.

 

[eohrnberger]

Please, spare us.

The only industry that really got socked with regulations was the health sector. Most of that was health insurers -- and the regulations were mostly devised to keep the health insurers in business, by guaranteeing them customers. They also used regulations to make sure that insurers did not sell crappy useless policies to ratepayers -- oh, the horror!

Or perhaps you were perfectly fine with Wells Fargo fraudulently slamming its customers with fake fees, and think the CPFB was wrong to "interfere in the markets" by investigating and fining WF's illegal behavior?

And again, I see little indication that Reagan, Bush 41, Bush 43, Trump have significantly reduced regulation. They certainly didn't shrink the size of the government.



Uh, hello? Annual GDP growth rates have been in the same "tepid" range since 2010. Please, make up your mind about your assessment, kthx.



For starters, U3 is only one measure of the health of the job market. That's why Janet Yellen had an entire dashboard which included LFPR, quits rate, wages, job openings rate, long-term unemployment, and so on. (Some of those do well, others do not.)

To continue, U3 is not designed to tell us how income for the 99% have been stagnant since the early 1980s, while almost all of the income gains have been captured by the top 1% (or less).

U3 doesn't tell us how or why, for years, kids cannot expect to have a better standard of living than their parents.

Oh, and let's not forget that U3 started to fall in January 2010.



Is that a joke? LFPR is not at historic highs. It peaked in the late 90s around 67%, started falling in 2001, and has been flat at 62% since late 2015.



Holy crap. I could be here all day with that one. Just for starters:

• Income inequality is rising, which tilts power and future prosperity towards the already wealthy
• Wages are stagnant for everyone else
• Inequality doesn't just apply to individuals; parts of the US (mostly rural areas) are falling further and further behind, while cities are continuing to improve and gain most of the growth and advantages
• There are still nearly 40 million people in poverty -- and there would be millions more if it wasn't for government programs, notably Social Security and Medicare
• Racial disparities in income and wealth and opportunity are still rife
• Mobility is nowhere near where it should be
• We still have millions who can't afford health insurance
• Automation is already dislocating millions of jobs, and news flash! the free markets don't offer free job retraining, or magically allocate jobs to areas of low unemployment
• Labor rights and protections are weak, and workers don't feel secure
• Sectors like retail are collapsing



Are you referring to the Trump administration? They haven't done JACK **** to help the economy.

Actually, all that's really happened is that Trump hasn't done what you wanted.
And, yes, I understand that this angers you greatly.

Trump came into office with a massive economic tailwind, and has enacted few policies.

And that's a load.

Here’s How Much Red Tape Trump Has Cut

• Trump has pledged to “massively” reduce regulation, and he has so far significantly slowed regulatory output.
• According to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs data, the administration has achieved $33 billion in net regulatory savings since taking office.
• Regulation is a political spoils system by which various special interests impose their will on the public and profit from government favor.

The Trump administration on Wednesday reported $23 billion in savings from 176 deregulatory actions in fiscal year 2018. Even more consequential, the administration has issued 65 percent fewer “significant” rules—those with costs that exceed $100 million a year—than the Obama administration, and 51 percent fewer than the Bush administration, after 22 months in office.

One was the tax cut, whose largest beneficiaries were corporations, the already-wealthy, and people who *COUGH* use the same corporate structures as the Trump Organization. The other is these inept tariffs, which have hurt average Americans (especially farmers), outraged our allies who see through the transparent excuses for levying the tariffs, trashed America's reputation abroad, and didn't even accomplish Trump's own deeply mistaken goal of reducing trade deficits.



lol

It's only "simplistic" because there's a 5000 character limit. But speaking of simplistic failures, blaming FNMA/FNMC and ACORN (?!?) has got to take the cake. That is the kind of conservative/libertarian bull**** which makes it obvious you don't have a clue what happened.

You making the claims that you have the same could be applied. :shrug:

 

[Mortician]

Yep those who make a lower salary are better off living in a Republican state, costs less due to the Republicans spending tax payers money more wisely. In Michigan you can rent an apartment for $300-500/ month if you talk to the right people, try paying that for a studio in New York or California. Where I am at you can live off of $25,000 a year if you spend your money wisely.

 

[Visbek]

New Flash! Increasing benefits or just leaving them alone is sure to not encourage work either.

Actually, it can -- because the vast majority of safety nets for working-age people are only utilized for a few years.

Plus, unemployment and poverty result in massive cognitive burdens, which makes it harder to make good decisions, including about employment. A better safety net gives those individuals the ability to make better decisions. E.g. Instead of leaping at the first job they can find, no matter how ill-suited it is to their skills or current situation, they can take a little more time and find something that is a better fit. That's better for everyone.

It would seem that the tight labor market has been doing that all on it's own. Wage rates are increasing.

Wages are increasing for the top earners. The other 99% are seeing almost no improvement, and almost all of the improvement on the lower end of the wage scales are... wait for it... due to laws increasing minimum wages.

The tight labor market makes each business complete for each employee, and the employees that the business can retain, rather than lose, cost them far less than going and competing for a replacement.

Since you missed it: That tight labor market also encourages business to automate more and to outsource more. It also didn't cause wages to rise for years (a fact that has mystified many economists), and hasn't encouraged businesses to relocate to areas with high unemployment.

In fact, there is an NBER paper just published this week which points out that areas with lower unemployment and less desirable workforces need to produce significantly higher subsidies to attract businesses -- which often just go with the richer areas anyway (Company tax incentives don'''t spur economic growth - Axios).

The rent control programs damage and distort the market, public policies making the development of affordable housing more expensive than it needs to be both contribute to creating a shortage of affordable housing.

lol

NYC isn't adding rent control. Tax breaks for building affordable housing don't magically make those units more expensive. Allowing the construction of smaller units (microapartments) doesn't make them more expensive. Subsidizing units doesn't make those units more expensive. Protecting tenants from abusive landlords doesn't make units more expensive. Changing zoning laws to build affordable units doesn't make them more expensive. Because of these policies and more, NYC built a record number of affordable housing units in FY2018.

....Something's moving them to that market segment. My suspicion is the regulatory environment, the higher priced units can afford to pay for them.

Your "suspicion" is merely a statement of your own bias. This is rather obvious since you can't even bother to list any such regulations.

As to why? The answer is right in front of you, in your own free market principles: Developers are responding to economic incentives. They know they can sell larger units at a higher margin and with less effort. They often don't want to build affordable units even when it means better tax breaks.

It would also be most reasonable to acknowledge that in cities, where there is very little land left to develop, the demand for housing simply can't be met with available resources, hence another pressure raising housing market costs. How about making development less expensive and see if the housing market improves and becomes more buyer friendly?

You mean, by... offering tax breaks for affordable units? Yes, cities are already doing that.

How about affordable housing loans? Yep, cities are doing that too.

How about changing zoning to allow for affordable units? Yep.

Guess what? All of these things are government meddling with the markets.

Even if cities let developers build as vertical as they wanted, they still wouldn't put in any affordable units without government intervention.

Free markets are the cause of the problem, not the solution. The only fix is for governments to intervene and change the incentives for developers.

 

[Visbek]

Take a look at the optimism chart.
Why was it that optimism didn't cross the 20% line until 2013-2014, some 6 years after Obama was in office.

Because the US was still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. Unemployment and confidence recover slowly after recessions. And again! Optimism started rising in 2011, and has been rising at the same rate since then. That makes it clear that there wasn't some magical change in 2016.

'"ideological" regulations' ? As in anyone not Democrat needs to be punished? Seriously?

One of the things that Dodd-Frank was mean to address was the 'too big to fail' banks, and one of the worst 'unforeseen' consequences from Dodd-Frank was the destruction of the small local bank forcing consolidation and creation of even bigger 'too big to fail' banks....

Cool story bro

Back in the real world, banks were not only consolidating long before Dodd-Frank, many of the biggest banks consolidated because of the financial crisis that they helped to create. The biggest factors facing small banks are not regulations, but low interest rates, lower demand for bank services (do you want to give up ATMs?), and a weak economy. Unsurprisingly, Fed researchers found that new regulations were only responsible for, at most, 25% of the decline in new charters. (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/2014113pap.pdf)

And what are those onerous regulations? Mostly higher liquidity requirements, more restrictions on mortgage lending, and stricter FDIC rules. Sounds good to me. I have some sympathy for additional paperwork, but that's about it.

Nearly every government program which hands out benefits to people suffers greatly from the 3rd party payer problem.

Or... Not. Social Security, TANF, AFDC, housing subsidies etc don't have that issue. Private health insurance has a worse 3rd party payer problem than Medicare or Medicaid or VA health care.

True. But those expenses aren't the problem. The exploding mandatory benefit programs, last I looked, was eating up some 65% of the federal budget. I'll bet it's even higher now. They are already squeezing out other important spending. It is going to come to a rather ugly head sometime in the future. It is inevitable. The solution isn't the government taxing everyone at 100% of income and doling out what it thinks each shall need. It's going to be reduction of mandatory benefit program spending.

Uh, hello? Look at the Pew list. Almost every major type of spending is on it.

Don't forget to look at both sides of the equation. It isn't just a spending problem, it's also a revenue problem. The US has slashed taxes repeatedly in the past 50 years, with almost all of the benefits going to the wealthy and corporations. What do we get for it? More debt and a decline in growth rates. Hmmmm.

 

[eohrnberger]

Because the US was still recovering from the worst economic crisis since the 1930s. Unemployment and confidence recover slowly after recessions. And again! Optimism started rising in 2011, and has been rising at the same rate since then. That makes it clear that there wasn't some magical change in 2016.



View attachment 67271443



Cool story bro

Just to show how full of ideological **** you are, I post this.

Small Banks by the Numbers, 2000–2014
Since the financial crisis, US banking assets and deposits have continued a long trend of consolidation in a handful of large banks. The number of small banks (which we define as banks with $10 billion or less in assets) has declined 27 percent, from 8,263 in Q1 2000 to 5,961 in Q4 2014. Simultaneously, the ranks of large banks have increased 32 percent, from 76 in Q1 2000 to 101 in Q4 2014.

. . .
Another factor, the financial crisis, is less benign. One study published by the Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS) found that more than 5 percent of small banks failed in the wake of the crisis. Bank failures during periods of economic stress are not surprising, but the regulatory response to the crisis also has been a source of stress for banks. A subsequent CSBS study found that “ankers who plan to exit or substantially reduce their product offerings cite regulation and compliance costs most often.”

but the regulatory response to the crisis also has been a source of stress for banks = Dodd-Frank and it's increased compliance costs.

So what I said was spot on. Factual. And you have the ideologically driven dishonesty to call it 'cool story bro'.

</end conversation> I've had about enough of your posts. We are done here.

Back in the real world, banks were not only consolidating long before Dodd-Frank, many of the biggest banks consolidated because of the financial crisis that they helped to create. The biggest factors facing small banks are not regulations, but low interest rates, lower demand for bank services (do you want to give up ATMs?), and a weak economy. Unsurprisingly, Fed researchers found that new regulations were only responsible for, at most, 25% of the decline in new charters. (https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2014/files/2014113pap.pdf)

And what are those onerous regulations? Mostly higher liquidity requirements, more restrictions on mortgage lending, and stricter FDIC rules. Sounds good to me. I have some sympathy for additional paperwork, but that's about it.



Or... Not. Social Security, TANF, AFDC, housing subsidies etc don't have that issue. Private health insurance has a worse 3rd party payer problem than Medicare or Medicaid or VA health care.



Uh, hello? Look at the Pew list. Almost every major type of spending is on it.

Don't forget to look at both sides of the equation. It isn't just a spending problem, it's also a revenue problem. The US has slashed taxes repeatedly in the past 50 years, with almost all of the benefits going to the wealthy and corporations. What do we get for it? More debt and a decline in growth rates. Hmmmm.

View attachment 67271442

 

[Glitch]

Only the right wing believes a work ethic from the Age of Iron is more important for the Poor than equal protection of the law for simply being unemployed in our at-will employment States.

You obviously need to be reminded that it was Republicans, and only Republicans, who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment that requires the equal protection of the laws. Every Democrat voted against the Amendment, just like every Democrat voted against the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. Proving that you are an habitual liar.

 

[danielpalos]

You obviously need to be reminded that it was Republicans, and only Republicans, who enacted the Fourteenth Amendment that requires the equal protection of the laws. Every Democrat voted against the Amendment, just like every Democrat voted against the Thirteenth Amendment that abolished slavery. Proving that you are an habitual liar.

lol. Too bad the right wing appeals to ignorance instead of sublime Truth (value). The right wing is on the right, not the left, regardless of party affiliation.