Paul Krugman slams Art Laffer & Ayn Rand-type economics

[OohPooPahDoo]

What the hell is a "social distribution" ?

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...

According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.


To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



In NYC, it is possible for a married couple, both police officers, to make that amount.

Sure it is, if they're on the take.

Police Patrol Officer Salaries in New York, NY | Salary.com

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

I can tell math isn't your strong suit.

You can tell by your inability to differentiate between an income threshold and a social group? Okay...

No, I can tell from your inability to comprehend what percentages mean.

We can all be in the top 1%, right? LOL!

Considering that who comprises the Top 1% changes overtime, sure. Are you a homeowner?

LOL! Sure, we'll all take our turn in the top 1%. We can all spend a little under a year in the top 1%. Its easy! Musical chairs children!

My **** you're dumb.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Apparently what you are trying to describe. That someone makes it into the Top 1% by effectively bringing someone else who use to belong into that income group down into the bottom 99%. It doesn't work that way, at all.

Now to my initial point, surprisingly no one wants to know how they can be in the Top 1% as well. I would figure that the clowns who are always going off about income disparity would be all over this. It's really that easy...

According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.


To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



In NYC, it is possible for a married couple, both police officers, to make that amount.

Don't explain that to Oopapoo. He still thinks the Top 1% refers to a social group...

So far, between you and I, the only one who has even mentioned social groups in this context is yourself. You seem to have a severe inability to comprehend what other people are telling you.

 

[AmazonTania]

I can tell math isn't your strong suit.

You can tell by your inability to differentiate between an income threshold and a social group? Okay...

No, I can tell from your inability to comprehend what percentages mean.

I understand percentages. For whatever reason, you still cannot grasp the simple concept of income threshold, or income quintiles.

There are the first five quintiles: Lowest, Second Lowest, Middle Class, Fourth, and Highest. Then above them, you have the upper quintlies: The Top 10%, Top 5% and Top 1%. These are purely based on income, not population. Perhaps you missed this subject on this economics class you never took, but all you really have to do is just Google it.

LOL! Sure, we'll all take our turn in the top 1%. We can all spend a little under a year in the top 1%. Its easy! Musical chairs children!

My **** you're dumb.

Ad homienems doesn't convince me you are knowledgeable. Since you are obviously not a homeowner, my example doesn't apply to you. But even someone as ignorant as you are in economics can be in the Top 1%.

 

[AmazonTania]

According to Nicole Lapin of CNN, financial services professionals make up just 14 percent of that top 1 percent of wage earners. Their average salary of $311,000 per year, while quite gaudy, falls just below the threshold needed to break into the highest-earning subset.


To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income. Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!



In NYC, it is possible for a married couple, both police officers, to make that amount.

Don't explain that to Oopapoo. He still thinks the Top 1% refers to a social group...

So far, between you and I, the only one who has even mentioned social groups in this context is yourself. You seem to have a severe inability to comprehend what other people are telling you.

You erroneously explained what being in the Top 1% would entail. I merely described it. It's really not my fault that you cannot think your points through before you post here.

Think before you post. And if you deem it necessary, think twice.

That is all...

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You can tell by your inability to differentiate between an income threshold and a social group? Okay...

No, I can tell from your inability to comprehend what percentages mean.

I understand percentages. For whatever reason, you still cannot grasp the simple concept of income threshold, or income quintiles.

There are the first five quintiles: Lowest, Second Lowest, Middle Class, Fourth, and Highest. Then above them, you have the upper quintlies: The Top 10%, Top 5% and Top 1%. These are purely based on income, not population. Perhaps you missed this subject on this economics class you never took, but all you really have to do is just Google it.

Great. Now you can divide by 5. I'm very happy for you.

LOL! Sure, we'll all take our turn in the top 1%. We can all spend a little under a year in the top 1%. Its easy! Musical chairs children!

My **** you're dumb.

Ad homienems doesn't convince me you are knowledgeable. Since you are obviously not a homeowner, my example doesn't apply to you. But even someone as ignorant as you are in economics can be in the Top 1%.

Your example is stupid.

I've owned a home for 2 years now.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Don't explain that to Oopapoo. He still thinks the Top 1% refers to a social group...

So far, between you and I, the only one who has even mentioned social groups in this context is yourself. You seem to have a severe inability to comprehend what other people are telling you.

You erroneously explained what being in the Top 1% would entail. I merely described it. It's really not my fault that you cannot think your points through before you post here.

Think before you post. And if you deem it necessary, think twice.

That is all...

I erroneously described nothing.

 

[Dot Com]

we desperately need tax reform after Rubio & co pass the amnesty bill.

 

[AmazonTania]

No, I can tell from your inability to comprehend what percentages mean.

I understand percentages. For whatever reason, you still cannot grasp the simple concept of income threshold, or income quintiles.

There are the first five quintiles: Lowest, Second Lowest, Middle Class, Fourth, and Highest. Then above them, you have the upper quintlies: The Top 10%, Top 5% and Top 1%. These are purely based on income, not population. Perhaps you missed this subject on this economics class you never took, but all you really have to do is just Google it.

Great. Now you can divide by 5. I'm very happy for you.

LOL! Sure, we'll all take our turn in the top 1%. We can all spend a little under a year in the top 1%. Its easy! Musical chairs children!

My **** you're dumb.

Ad homienems doesn't convince me you are knowledgeable. Since you are obviously not a homeowner, my example doesn't apply to you. But even someone as ignorant as you are in economics can be in the Top 1%.

Your example is stupid.

I've owned a home for 2 years now.

Awesome. Sell your home. You'll be in the Top 1% instantly...

 

[Dot Com]

AmazonTania!!! Just to get on the same page, are you a Rand disciple like Ryan (R-WS)?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I understand percentages. For whatever reason, you still cannot grasp the simple concept of income threshold, or income quintiles.

There are the first five quintiles: Lowest, Second Lowest, Middle Class, Fourth, and Highest. Then above them, you have the upper quintlies: The Top 10%, Top 5% and Top 1%. These are purely based on income, not population. Perhaps you missed this subject on this economics class you never took, but all you really have to do is just Google it.

Great. Now you can divide by 5. I'm very happy for you.

Ad homienems doesn't convince me you are knowledgeable. Since you are obviously not a homeowner, my example doesn't apply to you. But even someone as ignorant as you are in economics can be in the Top 1%.

Your example is stupid.

I've owned a home for 2 years now.

Awesome. Sell your home. You'll be in the Top 1% instantly...

Even if I owed the bank nothing that wouldn't be true.

 

[AmazonTania]

AmazonTania!!! Just to get on the same page, are you a Rand disciple like Ryan (R-WS)?

Well enjoy literature from the same author and have the same taste in music.

That is about all we share.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Haha.

I have both a background in finance and economics, unlike some of our resident PhD Keyboard Commandos. I'm not a "leftist", nor do I frequent MoveON.

ROFL

You're like the guy who doesn't know what a "variable" is, telling us all that he is a professional programmer. Your ignorance is self-evident. Perhaps you had a job as an AP clerk or accountants helper, but you certainly do not have a background in economics.

I'm talking about the Laffer Curve. It's pretty basic: you cut taxes, government revenue increases, thus improving the economy. Tax cuts are the fiscal equivalent of spending increases. This is textbook Keynes, Art Laffer knows this for sure.

Again you demonstrate that you have no grasp of Keynes. You don't know anything about turns or multipliers and think that Keynes merely promoted redistribution of wealth - which is not at all what Keynes proposed.

Yes, Laffer advocates freeing capital as a means of initiating market activity. Keynes advocated deficit spending to put capital in the market as a means of initiating market activity. Same thing, right?

No, not even close.

Let me put this in really simply terms so that you might grasp it.

A field is on fire, two men, Mr. K and Mr. A both claim they can put the fire out. Mr. K says he needs to put water on the fire. Mr. A says he needs to put water on the fire. AHA you say, both advocate the same thing..

Well no, Mr. K says he should dump buckets of water in the center of the fire. Mr. A says he want to use a hose and spray the base of the fire inward. In fact, the two have vastly different approaches.

And? I understand purchasing power has increased 230% over the last hundred or so years. I'm actually going to bookmark this page, that's usable data.

If we look at the data between 1970 and 2007, real hourly wages in the United States increased by roughly 4% over a thirty-six year time period. During the same time period, productivity has increased - or doubled - by like 99%. The average American worker's productivity increased twenty-five times more than his/her pay. As productivity increases, it doesn't necessarily benefit everyone. The pie gets larger, but not everyone is a beneficiary of these gains. I'm simply pointing out that we've had increased productivity and stagnant wages for the better part of thirty years.

As I pointed out before - your complaint is that while you got more, others got even more than you - so NO FAIR.

And your graphs - even slanted as they are by including the 08' crash and the Obama depression of 9-10 shows that all saw at least modest gains.

I was simply pointing out how supply-side was a total failure.

You're not "pointing it out," you making an erroneous claim based on your partisan bias in direct contradiction of established fact.

(I) Investment is a component of how we calculate GDP. It could be because I had a type-o and forgot the word "investments".

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a fan of this Administration. I didn't vote for the guy on both occasions.

Thank god for Wiki, huh?

For fun, here is the top ten economic performers - in inflation adjusted, 2005 dollars;


1. Clinton, 1993-2001, $2.7 trillion.
2. George W. Bush, 2001-2009, $1.7 trillion.
3. Reagan, 1981-1989, $1.6 trillion.
4. Johnson, 1963-1969, $741 billion.
5. Nixon, 1969-1974, $628 billion.
6. Eisenhower, 1953-1961, $484 billion.
7. Carter, 1977-1981, $461 billion.
8. George H.W. Bush, 1989-1993, $401 billion.
9. Obama, 2009-2012, $325 billion.
10. Kennedy, 1961-1963, $310 billion.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/...ine-says-bill-clinton-presided-over-biggest-/

Funny thing, the top three all used Supply Side theories...

FDR sits at 31 - yeah, he was a ******* disaster.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Clinton raised taxes. The economy boomed.

And it had nothing to do with the dot com bubble.....

 

[AmazonTania]

Great. Now you can divide by 5. I'm very happy for you.



Your example is stupid.

I've owned a home for 2 years now.

Awesome. Sell your home. You'll be in the Top 1% instantly...

Not after I pay off the bank you flippin' idiot.

Then you've just described more about your finances and the value of your home than you care to admit.

But for anyone who lives in the West Cost, Arizona, Eastern Seaboard and New York, that is generally all it takes. This is especially all it took during the Housing Bubble from 2003 - 2007. It's no coincidence why the incomes of the Top 1% peaked during this time period.

Among other factors, selling your home, especially in an area where home values are appreciating can put anyone in among the Top 1%

 

[AmazonTania]

Even if I owed the bank nothing that wouldn't be true.

So you are saying that the value of your home is worth nothing?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I do agree that compensation has not kept up with productivity, and much of that gain has been captured by the owners of capital.

However, wages are only a portion of total compensation and shouldn't be used in isolation as a comparison. Total compensation has risen faster if you include all compensation, such as healthcare insurance, which has grown faster than the economy.

There is a good reason for the gains of the owners of capital, to wit, they aren't real.

Red line is debt, blue line GDP

Debt in this nation is a ticking timebomb that will make the housing bubble seem like a walk in the park.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Awesome. Sell your home. You'll be in the Top 1% instantly...

Not after I pay off the bank you flippin' idiot.

Then you've just described more about your finances and the value of your home than you care to admit.

I've just admitted more about my finances than I care to admit? Wow, such a witty observation!

But for anyone who lives in the West Cost, Arizona, Eastern Seaboard and New York, that is generally all it takes. This is especially all it took during the Housing Bubble from 2003 - 2007. It's no coincidence why the incomes of the Top 1% peaked during this time period.

Among other factors, selling your home, especially in an area where home values are appreciating can put anyone in among the Top 1%

In my case it would not. Am I "anyone" ?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Even if I owed the bank nothing that wouldn't be true.

So you are saying that the value of your home is worth nothing?

No, I'm saying that selling it would not put me in the top 1% like you claimed. My **** you have difficulty following a conservation.


BTW dumby **** - it only counts as INCOME if its above what was paid for the house.

 

[Uncensored2008]

pos-repped & friends request sent

Ignorance loves company; you two are perfect for each other....