Is the economic Pie FIXED in size..Democrats believe so...

healthmyths

Platinum Member
Sep 19, 2011
28,421
10,007
900
"It's this belief that the economy is some fixed pie," said Ryan.
"That there's only so much money in America, it's fixed and that the job of the government is to redistribute the slices of the pie.
That's not true.

The job of government is to set the conditions for economic growth so we can grow the pie and everybody can get a bigger slice of the American pie."

Paul Ryan resurrects Obama¿s greatest hits (the Republican version) - Los Angeles Times


But is that TRUE? Let's look at the history of the USA and the gross domestic product. GDP as just ONE illustration of the "FIXED PIE FALLACY".
First the source of these FACTS.. Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage

Consider what the gross domestic product for this illustration the "PIE" of the USA was in 1790 $187 million.
The GDP (or PIE) in 2011 $15.94 TRILLION.

The PIE grew over 221 years by $15.093 TRILLION - an increase of 80,715% over 221 years!


So the next point of comparison is what does this relate to per person/ (capita)?

In 1790 there were 3.929 million people. The GDP per person was $1,024 (in 2005 dollars - inflation)

In 2011 there were 312.041 million people. The GDP per person was $42,671 (adjusted for inflation 2005 dollars)

This increase from 1790 to 2011 in per person GDP was over 221 years of 87,473% (adjusted for inflation).

So IF the PIE is FIXED and ONLY the government can re-distribute... HOW do we explain the growth of the PIE???

OK so you anti-growth, anti-capitalists say "YEA but all that is owned by as our current Prez says.."millionaires and billionaires"!!!

How many millionaires in 1790 in the USA? Don't know but in 1892 there were 4,047 Millionaires.
GDP in 1892 was $16.352 billion and per person adjusted for inflation was $5,147.
Again 2011 GDP $15,940 billion and per person $42,671.

Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.

More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

In 2010 the U.S. had 3,100,000 millionaires in 2010
In 1892 total millionaires - 4,047
Growth of 3,098,108 millionaires or an increase over the 118 years from 1892 of 648%.

So regardless.. the GDP as a "PIE" doesn't look fixed from the perspective of the individual person.
Granted there are fewer agrarians (farmers- today ) then in 1790 so self sufficiency is not the case.
But when liberals/progressives/anti-capitalists talked about the "FIXED PIE".... there is NOT one at least compared to the GDP!
 
Is this too complicated folks?

The PIE has grown as relates to USA gross domestic product and I haven't evidently got anyone to refute it?
So why the efforts by the government to as in Obama's words "re-distribute the wealth"?
 
Democrats have always labored under the false assumption that wealth is finite. That is why they beleiev that if I have money, it's because I took it from someone else. That is why they call poor people "less fortunate" because it isn't there fault that a rich person took all the money.
 
it matters not whether wealth is finite. It could be infinite, but if only certain people have access to it....it's still fucked up.
Let's set aside the what? 5% of the population that "lives off of tax dollars for doing nothing"....let's talk about people who work and work very hard to survive. Loyal, employees who bust their balls every goddamned day to help someone else to become wealthy. Market or not, those people deserve better than what they do.

There's no reason why a man or woman who works their asses of should not be able to live a decent.life in this country. But as long as the false "profits"....yes,I speller it wrong on purpose....of worshiping the rich continues....more and more of those hard working Americans will slipped further and further towards poverty.

Seems to me that this is the GOP's vision of the American Dream.....a dream for the rich, a fucking nightmare for every one else.
 
it matters not whether wealth is finite. It could be infinite, but if only certain people have access to it....it's still fucked up.
Let's set aside the what? 5% of the population that "lives off of tax dollars for doing nothing"....let's talk about people who work and work very hard to survive. Loyal, employees who bust their balls every goddamned day to help someone else to become wealthy. Market or not, those people deserve better than what they do.

There's no reason why a man or woman who works their asses of should not be able to live a decent.life in this country. But as long as the false "profits"....yes,I speller it wrong on purpose....of worshiping the rich continues....more and more of those hard working Americans will slipped further and further towards poverty.

Seems to me that this is the GOP's vision of the American Dream.....a dream for the rich, a fucking nightmare for every one else.

Garbage.

Need a tissue?
 
.

What is stopping people from starting their won business?

If you think you need to be "rich" to do so, you're badly mistaken.

Of course, Obama will tell you that you aren't as smart as you think you are, and that you don't work as hard as you think you do, but don't listen to him.
.
 
it matters not whether wealth is finite. It could be infinite, but if only certain people have access to it....it's still fucked up.
Let's set aside the what? 5% of the population that "lives off of tax dollars for doing nothing"....let's talk about people who work and work very hard to survive. Loyal, employees who bust their balls every goddamned day to help someone else to become wealthy. Market or not, those people deserve better than what they do.

There's no reason why a man or woman who works their asses of should not be able to live a decent.life in this country. But as long as the false "profits"....yes,I speller it wrong on purpose....of worshiping the rich continues....more and more of those hard working Americans will slipped further and further towards poverty.

Seems to me that this is the GOP's vision of the American Dream.....a dream for the rich, a fucking nightmare for every one else.

working hard does not always equate to working smart....you can bust your balls every day digging ditches or pushing paper and it will not bring you wealth....unless you apply yourself to getting rich....

there are poor people who come to this country with absolutely nothing and in a few years they become wealthy.....

this is the difference.....one will work smart for his coin while another will cry about it...expecting riches to appear magically....
 
Last edited:
Neither being rich nor wanting to be rich is exclusive of either Democrats or Republicans.

If Democrats were as good about charitable giving as are the Republicans, there would be less need for government funded welfare programs.
 
Neither being rich nor wanting to be rich is exclusive of either Democrats or Republicans.

If Democrats were as good about charitable giving as are the Republicans, there would be less need for government funded welfare programs.

true.....there are rich people among both parties who earned their wealth....

progressives/socialists have invaded both parties.....they just have more influence with the Democrats....in any case philosophically they do not care for the American way but believe in top-down solutions....
 
You dupes have absolutely NO CLUE what liberals think or anything else. Of course the GDP is not finite. BUT the richest have tripled their wealth under voodoo while the nonrich and the country have gone to hell. MORONS.
 
Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring."

Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time.

Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans.

"This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery.

"There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy."

Click HERE to download a PDF of the report.
 
Neither being rich nor wanting to be rich is exclusive of either Democrats or Republicans.

If Democrats were as good about charitable giving as are the Republicans, there would be less need for government funded welfare programs.

BS. Pubs givegive to their churches- check the Mormons who feather their own nests, charities have way too much overhead and run out in hard times. Duped AGAIN...D'OH!!
 
You dupes have absolutely NO CLUE what liberals think or anything else. Of course the GDP is not finite. BUT the richest have tripled their wealth under voodoo while the nonrich and the country have gone to hell. MORONS.

and none of those rich who have increased their wealth are liberals.........? :eusa_hand:
 
The Rich Dems vote for higher taxes on themselves and aren't for screwing working families and the environment, dupe. STUPID QUESTION.
 
Last edited:
"It's this belief that the economy is some fixed pie," said Ryan.
"That there's only so much money in America, it's fixed and that the job of the government is to redistribute the slices of the pie.
That's not true.

The job of government is to set the conditions for economic growth so we can grow the pie and everybody can get a bigger slice of the American pie."

Paul Ryan resurrects Obama¿s greatest hits (the Republican version) - Los Angeles Times


But is that TRUE? Let's look at the history of the USA and the gross domestic product. GDP as just ONE illustration of the "FIXED PIE FALLACY".
First the source of these FACTS.. Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage

Consider what the gross domestic product for this illustration the "PIE" of the USA was in 1790 $187 million.
The GDP (or PIE) in 2011 $15.94 TRILLION.

The PIE grew over 221 years by $15.093 TRILLION - an increase of 80,715% over 221 years!


So the next point of comparison is what does this relate to per person/ (capita)?

In 1790 there were 3.929 million people. The GDP per person was $1,024 (in 2005 dollars - inflation)

In 2011 there were 312.041 million people. The GDP per person was $42,671 (adjusted for inflation 2005 dollars)

This increase from 1790 to 2011 in per person GDP was over 221 years of 87,473% (adjusted for inflation).

So IF the PIE is FIXED and ONLY the government can re-distribute... HOW do we explain the growth of the PIE???

OK so you anti-growth, anti-capitalists say "YEA but all that is owned by as our current Prez says.."millionaires and billionaires"!!!

How many millionaires in 1790 in the USA? Don't know but in 1892 there were 4,047 Millionaires.
GDP in 1892 was $16.352 billion and per person adjusted for inflation was $5,147.
Again 2011 GDP $15,940 billion and per person $42,671.

Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:

* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.

* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.

* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.

* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.

* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.

* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.

* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.

America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.

More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html

In 2010 the U.S. had 3,100,000 millionaires in 2010
In 1892 total millionaires - 4,047
Growth of 3,098,108 millionaires or an increase over the 118 years from 1892 of 648%.

So regardless.. the GDP as a "PIE" doesn't look fixed from the perspective of the individual person.
Granted there are fewer agrarians (farmers- today ) then in 1790 so self sufficiency is not the case.
But when liberals/progressives/anti-capitalists talked about the "FIXED PIE".... there is NOT one at least compared to the GDP!
The role of the government is to assure individual rights and a sound dollar. After that it generally if fucking shit up.
 
Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke

300 Economists Warn Congress: Don't Kill Growth And Jobs In The Name Of Deficit Reduction

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.

"History suggests that a tenuous recovery is no time to practice austerity," says a statement signed by more than 300 economists and policy experts. "In the Great Depression, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal generated growth and reduced the unemployment rate from 25 percent in 1932 to less than 10 percent in 1937. However, the deficit hawks of that era persuaded President Roosevelt to reverse course prematurely and move toward budget balance. The result was a severe recession that caused the economy to contract sharply and sent the unemployment rate soaring."

Democrats in Congress have had 1937 in mind since March 2009. "We're not going to let it happen again," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) at the time.

Nevertheless, deficit hawks dominated the debate in Congress this summer as Democratic leaders struggled to reauthorize a series of programs created by the 2009 stimulus bill. Pelosi and her counterparts in the Senate have had seemingly little choice other than to sacrifice things like COBRA health insurance subsidies and enhanced unemployment benefits to win the support of deficit-hawkish Democrats and moderate Republicans.

"This is about a high road to recovery versus a low road to fiscal balance," said Bob Kuttner of the American Prospect and co-author of the statement, along with the Center for Economic and Policy Research's Dean Baker and the Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey from the Institute for America's Future. "The proper sequencing is: You get the recovery first, that requires increased public investment. And then the road to fiscal balance is much less arduous because people are working, businesses are investing, and tax revenues go up because you're back in recovery.

"There is also a low road to fiscal balance, where you have austerity and you get the budget balanced at the cost of whacking the real economy."

Click HERE to download a PDF of the report.

A small army of economists warned Congress on Thursday not to focus on deficit reduction instead of job creation or else risk a 1937-style double-dip recession.


Job growth? What job growth? We have fewer jobs today than the day he walked into the Oval Office.
And the debt is $5.3 trillion higher. Maybe if we focused more on the deficit, instead of Obama's crazy spending to boost jobs, we'd have less debt and more jobs?
 
I used the GDP growth from 1790 of $187 million to 2011 where after inflation adjustment it is $15 trillion.
Is that a FIXED pie?

And yes it is true the rich get richer no doubt.

Yet tell me when and what countries or civilization in history did the following for the "POOR"

In 2008, the fund that foots the bill for this program contributed $819 million to subsidize low-income telephone services.
The fund is projected to grow to over $1 billion this year.
That’s $1 billion of over $800 billion the United States will spend on welfare in 2010.
Welfare recipients now eligible to receive cell phones

a) Free Cell phone and service (my cell phone I PAY is about $100/month) WHEN did the RICH in history have such a service?
if the poor person receives just one of the below:
Food stamps * Medicaid * Section 8 * Supplemental Security Income * National School Lunch Program

b) 40 million Americans on food stamps get $200/month in free food.
When did any civilization give FREE food?

c) about 2.1 million households (6 million) use Section 8 the Housing Choice Voucher program, pays a large
portion of the rents and utilities of or the Housing Choice Voucher Program up to $1,000 /month in FREE housing...

Tell me what civilization or country gives FREE housing?

MY point is the VERY poorest in this country have goods and services that the WEALTHIEST in the world in the past.. why even King Tut didn't
have cell service, FREE TV !

Tell me again about the poor oppressed middle class, lower class and all their deficiencies!
 

Forum List

Back
Top