Boudreaux on Piketty

[Rshermr]

Math isn't his strongest area. Or thinking.

So I shouldn't start throwing in the geometric mean or harmonic mean?

Look, Pinqy, if you read carefully, and read all I said, you would see my failure was to post the word median instead of mean. I fully understand that. And what mean and median are and what they indicate.
What the toddster was trying to do was conflate the two words. Looking at what most people believe to be the "average". As you are fully aware, and as the toddster is fully aware, it is quite possible for the mean to remain unchanged as the median changes due to income distribution. Simple as that.

 

[Rshermr]

Math isn't his strongest area. Or thinking.

So I shouldn't start throwing in the geometric mean or harmonic mean?

Knock yourself out.

 

[pinqy]

To know exactly, yes. But the fact that tne median is lower indicates that the distribution is likely to the more wealthy, away from the middle class and lower.

Only if the total amount of income was unchanged or higher And even then the individuals might not be affected if the shift was due to a population increase in the lower end (Median income in Germany dropped a lot in 1990, for example, though most West Germans saw no change in income).

A large number of wealthy going bankrupt or leaving the country would also cause a downward shift in median income.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In other words, again, income is being redistributed to the wealthy from the lower 89%.

not from the lower 89%. That implies they had the wealth to begin with. What actually happened is liberals have destroyed the family and schools making many unfit to hold good jobs and lmaking other millions poor single mothers.

On top of that liberals have driven millions of good jobs away with unions and the highest taxes in the world.

Now you know why the wealthy have relatively more than the poor compared to before the liberal takeover.

 

[Rshermr]

To know exactly, yes. But the fact that tne median is lower indicates that the distribution is likely to the more wealthy, away from the middle class and lower.

Only if the total amount of income was unchanged or higher And even then the individuals might not be affected if the shift was due to a population increase in the lower end (Median income in Germany dropped a lot in 1990, for example, though most West Germans saw no change in income).

A large number of wealthy going bankrupt or leaving the country would also cause a downward shift in median income.

OK. But other information is important. Forget for a bit taking median or mean graphs as the end all of telling us what is going on, and take a look at studies over a time period and you get something with meat.
There are a ton of analysis pieces out there done to understand the distribution of income and changes in it over time. They almost all come to the same conclusion. Here is one of many, fairly representative:

From 1993 to 2012, the top 1 percent has enjoyed an increase of 86.1 percent in annual income, with the rest of us getting 6.6 percent. That means the top 1 percent received 68 percent of total income growth over the period -- a high figure, but much lower than the whopping 95 percent from 2009 to 2012.

Extreme as that figure is, it can be seen as consistent with the broader pattern of continuing increases in economic inequality since the early 1970s, when the top 10 percent received about 33 percent of total annual income (a figure that had remained pretty much constant since the 1940s). Over the next decades, the share of the top decile grew fairly steadily until 2007, when it ended up with about 50 percent of the whole.
How Did the 1 Percent Get Ahead So Fast? - Bloomberg View

This thread is about the findings of an economist. Problem for many is that they do not like his findings. But most economists seem to think his work is solid. So, we end up, on this board, with a food fight. The fact is that the right does not like to believe there is a major change in the distribution of wealth and income, or if they can not avoid that truth, that it matters at all.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The fact is that the right does not like to believe there is a major change in the distribution of wealth and income, or if they can not avoid that truth, that it matters at all.

if you destroy the poor and middle class with liberal policies so they cant acquire weath, of course the distribution of wealth changes. Is that really over your head?

 

[Rshermr]

Did someone post something? No? Must be an echo from the local mental hospital.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Did someone post something? No? Must be an echo from the local mental hospital.

violent ad hominem from typical lib without IQ for substance

 

[Rshermr]

Another echo. Perhaps from that empty creative economics class in that elementary school.

 

[Kimura]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.


we got from the stone age to here as people figured out how to invent or supply stuff. Demand is always constant so plays no role.

LOL. Please elaborate, I can't wait.

 

[Kimura]

The fact people continue to spout supply-side nonsense given the available macroeconomic data over the last three decades is beyond delusional. We've entered the realm of political cargo cult.

I'd counter that the last 80 years have proven Keynes right, generally, and supply side has been proven wrong again, as a badly gone experiment of the last thirty years.

You appear quite the ignorant fellow.

I can help, if you can learn:


1. The benefits from Reaganomics:

a. The economy grew at a 3.4% average rate…compared with 2.9% for the previous eight years, and 2.7% for the next eight.(Table B-4)
b. Inflation rate dropped from 12.5% to 4.4%. (Table B-63)
c. Unemployment fell to 5.5% from 7.1% (Table B-35)
d. Prime interest rate fell by one-third.(Table B-73)
e. The S & P 500 jumped 124% (Table B-95) FDsys - Browse ERP
f. Charitable contributions rose 57% faster than inflation. Dinesh D’Souza, “Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary May Became an Extraordinary Leader,” p. 116


b. and c. Kiva - Kiva Lending Team: Team Ron Paul, Hulk Hogan, Jesus of Nazareth, Chuck Norris, Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Thomas Jefferson, Alex Jones, Peyton Manning, The Tuskegee Airmen, Schiff, REAL Americans, and George W. Bush


2. The Reagan recovery:
"During this seven-year recovery, the economy grew by almost one-third, the equivalent of adding the entire economy of West Germany, the third-largest in the world at the time, to the U.S. economy. In 1984 alone real economic growth boomed by 6.8%, the highest in 50 years. Nearly 20 million new jobs were created during the recovery, increasing U.S. civilian employment by almost 20%. Unemployment fell to 5.3% by 1989.

Real per-capita disposable income increased by 18% from 1982 to 1989, meaning the American standard of living increased by almost 20% in just seven years. The poverty rate declined every year from 1984 to 1989, dropping by one-sixth from its peak. The stock market more than tripled in value from 1980 to 1990, a larger increase than in any previous decade."
Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes









That's reality.

Reaganomics was a failure by every metric. If we look at total business during the 1980s, it was roughly 10% of GDP, which included the Reagan tax cuts. Total business investments went from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP in the 1970s, which is a 100% increase. These investments occurred even with unions, Satan incarnate for conservatives and reactionaries. Even this administration, as horrible and nauseating as I find it, has business investments at roughly 15% of GDP, even after QE and stimulus spending. Supply-side is a massive failure.

By the way, does anyone know how Art Laffer came up with idea for the Laffer Curve? Allegedly, the story goes that he drew a graph on a napkin and showed that if you cut taxes it will increase revenues. I know, it sounds so Keynesian because that's exactly who he borrowed the idea from. It seems reactionaries are solely interested in increasing income for corporations, high earners and the owners of capital.

If we look at the data, the ENTIRE supply-side era was a disaster and total failure. The effects were distributed in an uneven manner in the economy. Wage earners suffered during this time period. If we look at numbers, real income for wage earners decreased in the 1980s and they continue to decline due to our shoddy macroeconomic policies. If supply-side was such a great and effective policy, why didn't it increase real income for wage earners? We had huge gains in productivity, but paltry gains in family income.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If supply-side was such a great and effective policy, why didn't it increase real income for wage earners? We had huge gains in productivity, but paltry gains in family income.

this is because liberals destroyed our schools and families and then shipped 40 million jobs off shore with unions and the world's highest taxes.

Also, there was no supply side era given how much govt has grown. Supply side means marshalling resources toward people who supply things not toward people leeching off the system!

 

[Rshermr]

If supply-side was such a great and effective policy, why didn't it increase real income for wage earners? We had huge gains in productivity, but paltry gains in family income.

this is because liberals destroyed our schools and families and then shipped 40 million jobs off shore with unions and the world's highest taxes.

Also, there was no supply side era given how much govt has grown. Supply side means marshalling resources toward people who supply things not toward people leeching off the system!

Well, indeed, reagan increased the size of government greatly. And it did indeed make the economy work. Rather obvious Keynsian implications, increasing taxes to provide revenue for stimulative spending. Which worked. On the other hand the 1981 tax decrease and the resultant decrease in spending was a complete failure, unless you, like ed. love unemployment at record levels.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If supply-side was such a great and effective policy, why didn't it increase real income for wage earners? We had huge gains in productivity, but paltry gains in family income.

this is because liberals destroyed our schools and families and then shipped 40 million jobs off shore with unions and the world's highest taxes.

Also, there was no supply side era given how much govt has grown. Supply side means marshalling resources toward people who supply things not toward people leeching off the system!

Well, indeed, reagan increased the size of government greatly. And it did indeed make the economy work. Rather obvious Keynsian implications, increasing taxes to provide revenue for stimulative spending. Which worked. On the other hand the 1981 tax decrease and the resultant decrease in spending was a complete failure, unless you, like ed. love unemployment at record levels.

Ive asked the perfect idiot liberal 10 times to name one economist who thinks, as he does, that the Reagan administration was a scientific test that proved Keynesianism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Math isn't his strongest area. Or thinking.

So I shouldn't start throwing in the geometric mean or harmonic mean?

Look, Pinqy, if you read carefully, and read all I said, you would see my failure was to post the word median instead of mean. I fully understand that. And what mean and median are and what they indicate.
What the toddster was trying to do was conflate the two words. Looking at what most people believe to be the "average". As you are fully aware, and as the toddster is fully aware, it is quite possible for the mean to remain unchanged as the median changes due to income distribution. Simple as that.

What the toddster was trying to do was conflate the two words.

My post said median, didn't mention average.

So you're an idiot and a weasel. Good to know.

 

[Rshermr]

this is because liberals destroyed our schools and families and then shipped 40 million jobs off shore with unions and the world's highest taxes.

Also, there was no supply side era given how much govt has grown. Supply side means marshalling resources toward people who supply things not toward people leeching off the system!

Well, indeed, reagan increased the size of government greatly. And it did indeed make the economy work. Rather obvious Keynsian implications, increasing taxes to provide revenue for stimulative spending. Which worked. On the other hand the 1981 tax decrease and the resultant decrease in spending was a complete failure, unless you, like ed. love unemployment at record levels.

Ive asked the perfect idiot liberal 10 times to name one economist who thinks, as he does, that the Reagan administration was a scientific test that proved Keynesianism.

Me poor ignorant con tool, this is the problem. Economics is not a science. So there is no way that keynsianixm "can be proven scientifically, dipshit. What was said and what is true is that certain Keynesian concepts proved true in the reagan administration, and NO supply side concepts proved to be true.
Not that you will either read or understand this, me poor ignorant tool, but you have stated in the past great love for austrian school, which said the following about Reagan's policies.
The budget for the Department of Education, which candidate Reagan promised to abolish along with the Department of Energy, has more than doubled to $22.7 billion, Social Security spending has risen from $179 billion in 1981 to $269 billion in 1986. The price of farm programs went from $21.4 billion in 1981 to $51.4 billion in 1987, a 140% increase. And this doesn't count the recently signed $4 billion "drought-relief" measure. Medicare spending in 1981 was $43.5 billion; in 1987 it hit $80 billion. Federal entitlements cost $197.1 billion in 1981—and $477 billion in 1987.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488
Now, the austrians have had a hard time understanding why the reagan policies after the mess in 1981 worked so well. But, the economy certainly did not improve as a result of supply side economics.

 

[Kimura]

If supply-side was such a great and effective policy, why didn't it increase real income for wage earners? We had huge gains in productivity, but paltry gains in family income.

this is because liberals destroyed our schools and families and then shipped 40 million jobs off shore with unions and the world's highest taxes.

Also, there was no supply side era given how much govt has grown. Supply side means marshalling resources toward people who supply things not toward people leeching off the system!

I was going to respond with a detailed post with some FRED data. However, it dawned on me you literally have no idea what you're talking about. So real income for wage earners is down because "liberals" destroyed our schools and families? Okie dokie.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So real income for wage earners is down because "liberals" destroyed our schools and families? Okie dokie.

yes dear, people from broken homes and broken schools are not in a position to earn real wages. Catching on now?? And, when liberals drive out 40 miillion jobs with their unions and taxes it becomes even harder. Got it now?

 

[Kimura]

So real income for wage earners is down because "liberals" destroyed our schools and families? Okie dokie.

yes dear, people from broken homes and broken schools are not in a position to earn real wages. Catching on now?? And, when liberals drive out 40 miillion jobs with their unions and taxes it becomes even harder. Got it now?

Dude, real wages have been stagnant for the better part of three decades. Notice that we've had huge gains in productivity.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Dude, real wages have been stagnant for the better part of three decades. Notice that we've had huge gains in productivity.

and?? you clean forgot to say what your point is? Liberals have been destroying schools and familys for 5 decades!! Catching on now?