The Truth About the Economy

[iamdrgonzo]

Enjoy:

YouTube - ‪The Truth About the Economy‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTzMqm2TwgE&feature=player_embedded)

[joeninety]

The truth is the oil and gas takeover plan hasn't gone as smoothly as predicted and lots of us have built up a massive credit debt with China, but no worries we are in talks with the Tali and Iraq is settling down nicely, so its onwards and upwards to finish off Libya and do away with Syria then back round to Iran unless they get nukes in which case we'll have to do the subtle attack and hey ho we'll have carved up that middle east good and proper

[Faldur]

Thank you George Sorros for that amazing pile of steaming crap.. The sad part is there actually people who will believe it.

http://mdpaschall.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/shovel-manure.jpg%3Fw%3D259%26h%3D194

[trish]

The sad part is, it's true...and certain stuck-in-the mud, conservtive idiot-logues don't believe it. Nice clip 'gonzo.

[joeninety]

Thank you George Sorros for that amazing pile of steaming crap.. The sad part is there actually people who will believe it.

http://mdpaschall.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/shovel-manure.jpg%3Fw%3D259%26h%3D194

What is sad is the majority probably think as you do, or just plain don't care,
allowing the ruling elite to carry on monopolising ignore at your peril, because the good days are fast disappearing, if the ignorant don't start to wake up then we are all screwed.......................

[Faldur]

What is sad is the majority probably think as you do, or just plain don't care,
allowing the ruling elite to carry on monopolising ignore at your peril, because the good days are fast disappearing, if the ignorant don't start to wake up then we are all screwed.......................

What is sad is anyone who would believe anything they read or hear without fact checking it. Take this guys points one by one and you see its distorted, disingenuous, or factually inaccurate.

The National average wage index for the last 10 years has increased by 50%. Thats barely increasing? Thats 26% growth in 10 years after inflationary adjustments.

Capitol gains is only taxed at 15%? Maybe he should have included the fact that that is ONLY long-term CGT. The current rate on short-term CGT is 33%. Small fact to leave out.

[joeninety]

What is sad is anyone who would believe anything they read or hear without fact checking it. Take this guys points one by one and you see its distorted, disingenuous, or factually inaccurate.

The National average wage index for the last 10 years has increased by 50%. Thats barely increasing? Thats 26% growth in 10 years after inflationary adjustments.

Capitol gains is only taxed at 15%? Maybe he should have included the fact that that is ONLY long-term CGT. The current rate on short-term CGT is 33%. Small fact to leave out.


Big Errrmm my post was not actually in reference to the video, and if everything is as great as you claim, then what about the massive credit debt owed to China, and where did you get your figures as i am not American so i would like to check???????

[trish]

Hey Faldur, in what year did you get your Nobel Prize in economics?

[Faldur]

Hey Faldur, in what year did you get your Nobel Prize in economics?

Lol, I got a good chuckle out of that one. But am I not qualified considering the recipient of the current Peace Prize?

[Faldur]

Big Errrmm my post was not actually in reference to the video, and if everything is as great as you claim, then what about the massive credit debt owed to China, and where did you get your figures as i am not American so i would like to check???????

Well if you would like to see my opinion of spending and debt look up the thread on "60 minutes = $188 million in new debt", there should be no doubt of my opinion on that.

If you want to see the "National wage average index", google that exact phrase and include "by year". It will get you to the government page that has all the statistics. If you want "Capitol Gains Tax Rate 2011", google it and you will see the charts. Try googling "Education spending by federal, state and local by year" to see the absurd amount of money that is increased in education spending each year. We don't have a spending problem when it comes to education, we have a union problem. For fun google "Tax Revenues by year" and look how revenues have gone up every year except for 2009 even though we extended the Obama tax cuts.

I stand on my original statement, the man's video is a heaping pile of shit.

Faldur A. Alderberry Nobel Economist 2011

[trish]

But am I not qualified considering the recipient of the current Peace Prize? http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/images/ca_serenity/buttons/report.gif (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/report.php?p=955655)No. You aren't.

[Faldur]

No. You aren't.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0901/gw_bush_disappoint_0112.jpg

[iamdrgonzo]

Capitol gains is only taxed at 15%? Maybe he should have included the fact that that is ONLY long-term CGT. The current rate on short-term CGT is 33%. Small fact to leave out.

Short-term capital gains are taxed at the investor's ordinary tax rate, and are defined as investments held for a year or less before being sold. Long-term capital gains, which apply to assets held for more than one year, are taxed at a lower rate than short-term gains.


Maybe you should have read about what the definitions of Short-term/Long-term capital gains were before typing about them.

Any society that taxes the earnings of it's working class at 25% while taxing it's investment class at 15% (on assests held greater than a year) is practising economic cannabalism.

Capital gains tax in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Obverse side of the Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/100px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States)

[Faldur]

Maybe you should have read about what the definitions of Short-term/Long-term capital gains were before typing about them.

Any society that taxes the earnings of it's working class at 25% while taxing it's investment class at 15% (on assests held greater than a year) is practising economic cannabalism.

?? Your first statement was exactly what I said, stcgt at 33% ltcgt at 15%, I am at a loss what I should have read? Look at it this way, if Reich made the statement in the video that our richest tax payers were paying mostly capitol gains taxes and that rate is 33%. The statement would have been partially true, but disingenuous. Had he pointed out that the capitol tax was on a variable scale with X% being taxed at the stcgt rate I would have bought it as well presented. Like so many on both sides he twists the facts.

Ok, this is laughable. Tax the "working class" at 25%? Do you mean the 48% of working America that pays a whopping 0% in taxes? How the heck do you get 25% out of that? And do not give me that sad song about un-employment, SSI, Medicare, Sales tax.. were talking INCOME tax.

[joeninety]

Well if you would like to see my opinion of spending and debt look up the thread on "60 minutes = $188 million in new debt", there should be no doubt of my opinion on that.

If you want to see the "National wage average index", google that exact phrase and include "by year". It will get you to the government page that has all the statistics. If you want "Capitol Gains Tax Rate 2011", google it and you will see the charts. Try googling "Education spending by federal, state and local by year" to see the absurd amount of money that is increased in education spending each year. We don't have a spending problem when it comes to education, we have a union problem. For fun google "Tax Revenues by year" and look how revenues have gone up every year except for 2009 even though we extended the Obama tax cuts.

I stand on my original statement, the man's video is a heaping pile of shit.

Faldur A. Alderberry Nobel Economist 2011


I will check your thread and google the tax stuff, although not sure how conclusive it will be as goverments are forever siphoning money into lets just say black projects and god knows what else.

I can remember reading an article in a uk paper called the guardian some 12 years ago which said how the uk treasury could not account for where 9billion pounds worth of money had gone they did the books and it supposedly was not there and they supposedly could not say where this money was yeah ok.

These books and figures are so large that things can easily be cooked one way or the other so when its convenient (candidate trying to get into the whitehouse attacking the president) hey presto he knows the figures and when its not convenient (president under attack) he will say he has got his figures wrong thats not true blah blah, at the end of the day if they conclusively knew all there figures then there could conclusively be no arguing as the facts would be there in black and white.

The figures are constantly changing and some will not even be showing up, its too big to know, i think in reality they can't possible know all the figures so where they don't they guesstimate to help create whatever picture suits but its not conclusive it just what suits whose agenda who is in charge at given time

[iamdrgonzo]

?? Your first statement was exactly what I said, stcgt at 33% ltcgt at 15%, I am at a loss what I should have read?



Example 1 -A person in the top tax-bracket owns an asset and sells it within 364 days after purchasing it the sale will incur 35% short-term capital gains hit.

Example 2 - A person in the top tax-bracket owns an asset and sells it 366 days after purchasing it the sale will incur a 15% Long-term capital gains hit.

The difference is two days and the reduction in capital gains tax is 20% at 2008-2012 rates.




Ok, this is laughable. Tax the "working class" at 25%? Do you mean the 48% of working America that pays a whopping 0% in taxes? How the heck do you get 25% out of that? And do not give me that sad song about un-employment, SSI, Medicare, Sales tax.. were talking INCOME tax.



Federal income tax brackets for 2011

Single Filing Status (http://taxes.about.com/od/filingstatus/qt/single.htm)




[Tax Rate Schedule X, Internal Revenue Code section 1(c)]

10% on taxable income from $0 to $8,500, plus
15% on taxable income over $8,500 to $34,500, plus
25% on taxable income over $34,500 to $83,600, plus
28% on taxable income over $83,600 to $174,400, plus
33% on taxable income over $174,400 to $379,150, plus
35% on taxable income over $379,150.
Perhaps you could provide some attributions to back your claims in the future.
http://taxes.about.com/od/Federal-Income-Taxes/qt/Tax-Rates-For-The-2011-Tax-Year.htm

[yodajazz]

What is sad is anyone who would believe anything they read or hear without fact checking it. Take this guys points one by one and you see its distorted, disingenuous, or factually inaccurate.

The National average wage index for the last 10 years has increased by 50%. Thats barely increasing? Thats 26% growth in 10 years after inflationary adjustments.

Capitol gains is only taxed at 15%? Maybe he should have included the fact that that is ONLY long-term CGT. The current rate on short-term CGT is 33%. Small fact to leave out.

Something tells me the national average wage index, is not accurate. An average fast food employee is not making $41,000 a year. Most sources say that higher end manufactoring jobs are being replaced by lower paying service jobs.

Also, short term capitol gains are those under one year. Someone with income over the 25% could easily hold their investment over one year to qualify for the lower rate.

One more question Faldur, since you believe all the points in video are wrong, then do you also disagree with his conclusion that a healthy middle class makes an economy strong?

[Faldur]

Perhaps you could provide some attributions to back your claims in the future.

The future is today, I would be happy to. You can post all the tax schedules you wish but reality is reality.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/30/pf/taxes/who_pays_taxes/index.htm

[trish]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html

[trish]

There are 100 households in the imaginary land of Zephina. The minimum yearly cost of maintaining a household is about 100 Zephcheks. A recent census shows that 50 households in Zephina have an income of exactly 100 Zs. Another 25 households have an income of 400 Zs; another 20 have an income of 1000 Zs and the remaining 5 households have an income of 10000 Zs. So the upper 5% rake in nearly 60% of the wealth (not unlike the U.S.). However, the tax rate in Zephina is 10% across the board. So 50 households pay 10 Zs each, 25 households pay 40 Zs each, 20 pay 100 Zs each and 5 pay 1000 Zz each. That’s a total tax revenue of 8500 Zs. The upper 5% of households paid 60% of the taxes, whereas the lower 50% paid just under 6% of the taxes. Is that fair? Of course not, because the lower 6% are now unable to maintain their households. One reasonably fair solution is to exempt the lower 50% from paying taxes and increase the taxes on the wealthier Zephinians (from 10% to 11%) just enough to cover the mere 500Zs which are currently being contributed by the poorest households. Another would be to spread that burden over the top 25% households.

[onmyknees]

What is sad is anyone who would believe anything they read or hear without fact checking it. Take this guys points one by one and you see its distorted, disingenuous, or factually inaccurate.

The National average wage index for the last 10 years has increased by 50%. Thats barely increasing? Thats 26% growth in 10 years after inflationary adjustments.

Capitol gains is only taxed at 15%? Maybe he should have included the fact that that is ONLY long-term CGT. The current rate on short-term CGT is 33%. Small fact to leave out.

As Ronaldo Maximus famously said...."There you go again" Stop with the facts already Faldur...will ya? This isn't about facts....it's about hope and change.

[BluegrassCat]

What is sad is anyone who would believe anything they read or hear without fact checking it. Take this guys points one by one and you see its distorted, disingenuous, or factually inaccurate.

The National average wage index for the last 10 years has increased by 50%. Thats barely increasing? Thats 26% growth in 10 years after inflationary adjustments.


I know it shouldn't surprise me anymore to see a conservative take some factual presentation, accuse the presenter of being disingenuous and then proceed to make his own grossly inaccurate and misleading statements but it still irks me.
So this big 50% growth over the past 10 years "after inflation" you're slamming Reich for failing to mention would be quite damning...if it was true. But in fact, these numbers have NOT been adjusted for inflation. This increase IS the inflation adjustment! You're looking at inflation adjustments and calling them wage gains.
And median wages (the much more useful measure if you care about how most Americans are doing) actually dropped (after inflation) from 1998 to 2008, the first decade we've failed to see wage growth since the 1930's.

[trish]

As Ronaldo Maximus famously said...."There you go again" Stop with the facts already Faldur...will ya? This isn't about facts....it's about hope and change. Funny picture. You and Faldur don't deal in facts. You two are always and forever being takin' in and attempting to take others in with cartoons and buffoonery. To any one new here your latest woul be very informative. It informs us that you're an extremely biased clown whose claim to the "facts" can't be taken at his word. But we already knew that.

[joeninety]

Got to say i had a look at some of those figures and they are not really conclusive as they may say what is taxable and who is taxed at what rate but lets not kid ourselves here the super rich individuals and companies who hold the majority of the wealth are very good at tax avoidance no sorry tax break schemes.

So in essence most of the figures are not a true representation, and you tell me who really knows the whole picture anyway, its impossible to know, the indicator of societies wealth and well being is to look in its streets, not some hotch potched books with some crappy figures that do not reflect/mirror what is going on in the real world, if there is all this growth how does that tally with people struggling and not spending:confused:

[Faldur]

proceed to make his own grossly inaccurate and misleading statements but it still irks me.
So this big 50% growth over the past 10 years "after inflation" you're slamming Reich for failing to mention would be quite damning...if it was true. But in fact, these numbers have NOT been adjusted for inflation. This increase IS the inflation adjustment! You're looking at inflation adjustments and calling them wage gains.

Are you people unable to fact check, or do you know the facts and avoid them like the plague?

Total inflation for the period of 1998 - 2008 was 23.11%. That leaves a wage increase for the 10 year period of 26.89%, after inflationary adjustments. If you cannot understand that I am sorry. But thats wage growth of 2.69% per year above inflation, I do not consider that "barely increased" as mr. reichhhhhhhhhhhhh so stated.

Facts people, they are your friend!
Inflation data by year (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=1 )

[joeninety]

Are you people unable to fact check, or do you know the facts and avoid them like the plague?

Total inflation for the period of 1998 - 2008 was 23.11%. That leaves a waged increase for the 10 year period of 26.89%, after inflationary adjustments. If you cannot understand that I am sorry. But thats wage growth of 2.69% above inflation, I do not consider that "barely increased" as mr. reichhhhhhhhhhhhh so stated.

Facts people, they are your friend!
Inflation data by year (http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx?dsInflation_currentPage=1 )

Maybe it is you that fails to understand, you say these are facts but how do you know that???? You simply cannot calculate the whole picture, They come up with these supposed facts of growth in our country but look around and people and busineses are still failing and growth is non existent where as cutbacks are king.

Yes they say unemployment has fallen but that is another fallacy all they have done is moved people onto schemes that won't even get them employment when they have finished, again another way of cooking the figures, and if you are foolish enough to take those figures at face value then in your world everything would be dandy but in reality it is not.

Simply put things are fucked but to say its so would spread panic and worsen what is already a bad situation, so they inflate the figures, but like i say societies streets and businesses tell a very different story, figures can be manipulated and are worthless when they do not match the reality of the situation, there are fairly obvious answers as to why this is done something you fail to note..............

[Faldur]

Maybe it is you that fails to understand, you say these are facts but how do you know that???? You simply cannot calculate the whole picture, They come up with these supposed facts of growth in our country but look around and people and busineses are still failing and growth is non existent where as cutbacks are king.

Yes they say unemployment has fallen but that is another fallacy all they have done is moved people onto schemes that won't even get them employment when they have finished, again another way of cooking the figures, and if you are foolish enough to take those figures at face value then in your world everything would be dandy but in reality it is not.

Simply put things are fucked but to say its so would spread panic and worsen what is already a bad situation, so they inflate the figures, but like i say societies streets and businesses tell a very different story, figures can be manipulated and are worthless when they do not match the reality of the situation, there are fairly obvious answers as to why this is done something you fail to note..............

Ok you seem to have a couple issues going here. I was taking on mr. reich's point that wages have "barely increased" in the last 10 years. I believe I have proven him wrong on that.

Your points about our current economic situation are spot on, "things are fucked". I think that pretty well sums up today's economic situation. There are endless threads here that discuss why that is, I won't begin to start that here. This thread began with his video on the truth about the economy, I am just pointing out his points are inaccurate. Wages have grown at a strong rate over the last 10 years, just as his statement about education is disingenuous. If we have a education issue it is not from spending cuts, the expenditures on education have grown at 3x the inflationary rate. Our problem in education is not the amount of money we are spending, in my opinion it is we are not means testing what we are spending. You cannot just throw money at a problem and think it will go away, hello war on poverty.

[trish]

I know it shouldn't surprise me anymore to see a conservative take some factual presentation, accuse the presenter of being disingenuous and then proceed to make his own grossly inaccurate and misleading statements but it still irks me.
So this big 50% growth over the past 10 years "after inflation" you're slamming Reich for failing to mention would be quite damning...if it was true. But in fact, these numbers have NOT been adjusted for inflation. This increase IS the inflation adjustment! You're looking at inflation adjustments and calling them wage gains.
And median wages (the much more useful measure if you care about how most Americans are doing) actually dropped (after inflation) from 1998 to 2008, the first decade we've failed to see wage growth since the 1930's.says it like it is:claps:claps:claps

[Faldur]

Its just amazing, when confronted with facts you resort either to name calling or cheering each others made up figures.

US Inflation Stats (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/)

Misery Index (http://www.miseryindex.us/irbyyear.asp)

Inflation Calculator (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/)

So Bluegrass please enlighten me to your methods, how does an accumulated 26% inflation, (and I'm using the highest figures I could find to get you another 2.5%), over a 10 year period become greater than a 50% increase in wage? It doesn't does it? 2.6% wage increase average per year after inflationary adjustments is pretty robust growth. Hardly "barely increased" as was indicated by mr. reiccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

So go ahead let the name calling begin... your out of bullets.

[BluegrassCat]

Its just amazing, when confronted with facts you resort either to name calling or cheering each others made up figures.
accumulated 26% inflation, (and I'm using the highest figures I could find to get you another 2.5%), over a 10 year period become greater than a 50% increase in wage? It doesn't does it? 2.6% wage increase average per year after inflationary adjustments is pretty robust growth. Hardly "barely increased" as was indicated by mr. reiccccchhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

So go ahead let the name calling begin... your out of bullets.

The numbers I'm using come from ssa.gov, the people who calculate and publish the national wage index or AWI.* They provide a nice chart of the averages by year and we can see that in 1998 the AWI was 28,861.44 and in 2008 the AWI was 41,334.97.* Obviously these numbers have NOT been adjusted for inflation unless you think the average wage in 1998 was 28K in today's dollars, which, of course, you might if you had an ideological axe to grind and nothing but contempt for the facts.* But let's adjust the 1998 AWI for inflation provided by the by Consumer Price Index or CPI (which tracks purchasing power) into 2008 dollars. So now the adjusted AWI for 1998 is 38,122.42 compared to 41,334.97.* This is an increase of 8.4%, not 50% and not 24%...8.4%.* So much for the Bush boom.
But wait, remember how median wages actually DECREASED over this same decade? How could median wages drop but average wages increase?* As anyone who has taken statistics could tell you, this is the sign of a skewed distribution, meaning the very wealthy have seen increases in their incomes while the vast majority of Americans' incomes stagnated or deteriorated.* And wasn't that exactly what Reich said in his quite-accurate presentation? Yes, I believe it was.

[hippifried]

Anybody who thinks wages cause inflation is full of shit. It's a spiral, & wages always lag. Since it hasn't stopped in 40 years, the gap just keeps getting wider. You can date the current spiral to August 15, 1971. If you don't look back to that point, you're missing the point. This isn't natural. Compared to the day before the shock, the dollar now buys about 8 cents worth. For wages to keep up with that, the average trade would be paying from $45 to $50 an hour right now. You can't get an accurate picture by looking back a decade or 2.

[joeninety]

Very well put across Bluegrass, Faldur take note, I thought you would of got it by now with my references to the super rich and how you can skew figures, its a case of the minority rich are doing very nicely with the majority of the wealth, whilst the majority workers are doing quite badly with the a minority share of the wealth.

The gap is widening at an alarming rate, with people having to put in more man hours on less pay and being as the rich control the system they have major infuence and vested interests in keeping it so, hopefully now you will understand, figures are nothing if they don't show the physical reality, yours clearly do not, whereas Bluegrasses show more of a true representation of the picture its not a dig its a case of look at things carefully, make sure the theoritical ties to the reality of the situation.............

[Faldur]

The numbers I'm using come from ssa.gov, the people who calculate and publish the national wage index or AWI.* They provide a nice chart of the averages by year and we can see that in 1998 the AWI was 28,861.44 and in 2008 the AWI was 41,334.97.* Obviously these numbers have NOT been adjusted for inflation unless you think the average wage in 1998 was 28K in today's dollars, which, of course, you might if you had an ideological axe to grind and nothing but contempt for the facts.* But let's adjust the 1998 AWI for inflation provided by the by Consumer Price Index or CPI (which tracks purchasing power) into 2008 dollars. So now the adjusted AWI for 1998 is 38,122.42 compared to 41,334.97.* This is an increase of 8.4%, not 50% and not 24%...8.4%.* So much for the Bush boom.
But wait, remember how median wages actually DECREASED over this same decade? How could median wages drop but average wages increase?* As anyone who has taken statistics could tell you, this is the sign of a skewed distribution, meaning the very wealthy have seen increases in their incomes while the vast majority of Americans' incomes stagnated or deteriorated.* And wasn't that exactly what Reich said in his quite-accurate presentation? Yes, I believe it was.

SSI cost of living adjustments periods of 1997 - 2008, (totaling 27.9%)
SSI COLA (http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/colaseries.html)
National average wage indexing series from SSI site, (40% increase, 12.1% increase even using SSI statistics. Thats 1.21 percent above the rate of inflation, still can not be considered "barely increased".
National average wage indexing series, 1951-2009

[Faldur]

Anybody who thinks wages cause inflation

Who claimed that?

[trish]

The numbers I'm using come from ssa.gov, the people who calculate and publish the national wage index or AWI.* They provide a nice chart of the averages by year and we can see that in 1998 the AWI was 28,861.44 and in 2008 the AWI was 41,334.97.* Obviously these numbers have NOT been adjusted for inflation unless you think the average wage in 1998 was 28K in today's dollars, which, of course, you might if you had an ideological axe to grind and nothing but contempt for the facts.* But let's adjust the 1998 AWI for inflation provided by the by Consumer Price Index or CPI (which tracks purchasing power) into 2008 dollars. So now the adjusted AWI for 1998 is 38,122.42 compared to 41,334.97.* This is an increase of 8.4%, not 50% and not 24%...8.4%.* So much for the Bush boom.
But wait, remember how median wages actually DECREASED over this same decade? How could median wages drop but average wages increase?* As anyone who has taken statistics could tell you, this is the sign of a skewed distribution, meaning the very wealthy have seen increases in their incomes while the vast majority of Americans' incomes stagnated or deteriorated.* And wasn't that exactly what Reich said in his quite-accurate presentation? Yes, I believe it was.Once again, right on the mark.:claps:claps:claps

[BluegrassCat]

Once again, right on the mark.:claps:claps:claps
Thanks, Trish. You're one of the dependably informed voices of reason on this forum. The more you post the better this place is.

[hippifried]

Who claimed that?
Since the Reagan administration; the Republican position has been that if wages stay down, it can be claimed that inflation rates are low because half the equasion isn't moving. Supply side theory can't work unless you buy into the idea that money is a finite commodity that can be traded on the market.

Personally, I'm thinking that Adam Smith was every bit as big a crackpot as Karl Marx, & all this shit needs a total rethink. There's no limit to the money supply. Ergo, all this nonsense about inflation is just that, & you'll never know "the truth about the economy" unless you toss out all the lame theories & stop paying attention to the professional liars.

[NYBURBS]

Since the Reagan administration; the Republican position has been that if wages stay down, it can be claimed that inflation rates are low because half the equasion isn't moving. Supply side theory can't work unless you buy into the idea that money is a finite commodity that can be traded on the market.

Personally, I'm thinking that Adam Smith was every bit as big a crackpot as Karl Marx, & all this shit needs a total rethink. There's no limit to the money supply. Ergo, all this nonsense about inflation is just that, & you'll never know "the truth about the economy" unless you toss out all the lame theories & stop paying attention to the professional liars.

Wanna explain the bolded part, por favor?

[hippifried]

Wanna explain the bolded part, por favor?
It's pretty self explanitory. Money's not a commodity. It's just numbers in a ledger. It's how we keep track of real trades of goods & services, & the differences in valuations. There's no limit to the supply because it's not tangible in the first place, & it's created by debt. There's no supply & demand pressures on money itself. It's all bullshit & the currency exchange is a fraud. This current inflation spiral is artificial, & coincides with the demise of Bretton Woods by the Nixon shock. Speculative slight of hand has been devaluing money for the last 40 years. It's all short selling because the only way to make profit on the FOREX is by betting on the rate of decline.

[NYBURBS]

It's pretty self explanitory. Money's not a commodity. It's just numbers in a ledger. It's how we keep track of real trades of goods & services, & the differences in valuations. There's no limit to the supply because it's not tangible in the first place, & it's created by debt. There's no supply & demand pressures on money itself. It's all bullshit & the currency exchange is a fraud. This current inflation spiral is artificial, & coincides with the demise of Bretton Woods by the Nixon shock. Speculative slight of hand has been devaluing money for the last 40 years. It's all short selling because the only way to make profit on the FOREX is by betting on the rate of decline.

I know it's not a commodity, but it is a standard of valuation, and while I realize some of the issues with pegging it to any one thing (such as gold), it seems to me that it is not quite limitless, otherwise it really couldn't accurately reflect value. Tbh, I'm not sure that was your point anyway, and this isn't an area I'm entirely clear about, but the earlier statement struck me as strange (hence the request).

[yodajazz]

I know it's not a commodity, but it is a standard of valuation, and while I realize some of the issues with pegging it to any one thing (such as gold), it seems to me that it is not quite limitless, otherwise it really couldn't accurately reflect value. Tbh, I'm not sure that was your point anyway, and this isn't an area I'm entirely clear about, but the earlier statement struck me as strange (hence the request).

There is a way of thinking that says money and any material thing are limited, vs. the 'unlimited' philosophy. The most common way it is expressed is to look at your occupation. If you think that someone else's success is taking away from your own, that's the limitation viewpoint. The other viewpoint, is that things expand, such as success and money.

A current strain of thinking is that poor people, who often receive government financial support are a drain on society. It has been expressed here. But take an example, that you are wealthy, and have stock in a company that runs a cell phone network. The expansion view, see financial support to the poor, as increasing the total population who can afford cell phones. Even if those poor cannot afford the phones themselves, their available funds would help employ those who could, thus expanding your own profits. So the bottom line is the ability to see that your taxes, come back to you, through an economy that is capable of expanding whatever you occupation may be.

While the limitation philosophy also has truth, the inability to see that life, including money expands, leads people to false realities. Thus we have today, a nation with major crisises, yet many people dont believe that giving, is part of the solution. An example, is that financial support for education is shrinking in general, yet many dont care,that more education produces people who have skills to prosper in a global economy, thus is good for the nation as a whole.

[Stavros]

It's pretty self explanitory. Money's not a commodity. It's just numbers in a ledger.

I am surprised at you Hippifried, money is precisely a commodity -Karl Marx opens his famous (and largely unread) book Capital, Vol 1 with the sentence: The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an "immense collection of commodities"; the individual commodity appears as its elementary form.

Marx was forced back to the drawing board following the failure of the 1848 'Revolutions' in Europe to introduce communism -he spent the rest of his life examining how capitalism worked, in effect doing for the last quarter of the 19thc what Adam Smith had done a century before. The moral tone was different -there used to be an exam question on my Political Philosophy course when I was an undergraduate: 'Consider the view that Marx's philosophy is a form of moral indignation'.

The point is commodities are crucial to capitalism, money most of all: in fact the abolition of private property in a Marxian sense must mean the abolition of money even though most people think it means their houses and cars. I once asked a Trotskyist to explain why he didn't campaign on the abolition of money and he hummed and hahed and gave the usual Trotskyist response -'that's for later after we have completed the transition...'. That's the 'transition' that begins with a revolution by the way....Nevertheless, its another facet of Communism that doesn't often get discussed. A stalwart of the Communist Party of Great Britain once explained to me that when they took control of Britain, they would immediately re-introduce rationing, and this was in the 1980s! The phrase 'out of touch' came to mind, but then if he had been 'in touch' with his times he wouldn't have been in the Party.

I saw an advert once, a well-known escort who said that for her services she wanted '300 Roses'. I did actually wonder if 300 roses cost more than £300 or even $300, and also wondered what would happen if a client actually did take the roses and refused to hand over any money -so you see, money does exist, it is a commodity -just like an escort....

[joeninety]

It's pretty self explanitory. Money's not a commodity. It's just numbers in a ledger.

I am surprised at you Hippifried, money is precisely a commodity -Karl Marx opens his famous (and largely unread) book Capital, Vol 1 with the sentence: The wealth of societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails appears as an "immense collection of commodities"; the individual commodity appears as its elementary form.

Marx was forced back to the drawing board following the failure of the 1848 'Revolutions' in Europe to introduce communism -he spent the rest of his life examining how capitalism worked, in effect doing for the last quarter of the 19thc what Adam Smith had done a century before. The moral tone was different -there used to be an exam question on my Political Philosophy course when I was an undergraduate: 'Consider the view that Marx's philosophy is a form of moral indignation'.

The point is commodities are crucial to capitalism, money most of all: in fact the abolition of private property in a Marxian sense must mean the abolition of money even though most people think it means their houses and cars. I once asked a Trotskyist to explain why he didn't campaign on the abolition of money and he hummed and hahed and gave the usual Trotskyist response -'that's for later after we have completed the transition...'. That's the 'transition' that begins with a revolution by the way....Nevertheless, its another facet of Communism that doesn't often get discussed. A stalwart of the Communist Party of Great Britain once explained to me that when they took control of Britain, they would immediately re-introduce rationing, and this was in the 1980s! The phrase 'out of touch' came to mind, but then if he had been 'in touch' with his times he wouldn't have been in the Party.

I saw an advert once, a well-known escort who said that for her services she wanted '300 Roses'. I did actually wonder if 300 roses cost more than £300 or even $300, and also wondered what would happen if a client actually did take the roses and refused to hand over any money -so you see, money does exist, it is a commodity -just like an escort....


Hippifried is actually correct money in most senses is not a commodity, bar commodity money whose value comes from the commodity from which it is made from, therein it has value in itself, as well as a use for money.

You can have representative money which is essentially commodity backed, there is also what is called Fiat money which is money that has value only because of government regulation or law.

Then you have legal tender which is the type of money i think you and hippifried refer to "which is a medium of payment allowed by law or recognized by a legal system to be valid for meeting a financial obligation". Paper currency and coins are common forms of legal tender.

Money in the sense as you know it is not a commodity it is merely a valid medium of exchange for meeting a financial obligation, money is just the intermediate stage, its just a shorthand for whatever people want.

[joeninety]

There is a way of thinking that says money and any material thing are limited, vs. the 'unlimited' philosophy. The most common way it is expressed is to look at your occupation. If you think that someone else's success is taking away from your own, that's the limitation viewpoint. The other viewpoint, is that things expand, such as success and money.

A current strain of thinking is that poor people, who often receive government financial support are a drain on society. It has been expressed here. But take an example, that you are wealthy, and have stock in a company that runs a cell phone network. The expansion view, see financial support to the poor, as increasing the total population who can afford cell phones. Even if those poor cannot afford the phones themselves, their available funds would help employ those who could, thus expanding your own profits. So the bottom line is the ability to see that your taxes, come back to you, through an economy that is capable of expanding whatever you occupation may be.

While the limitation philosophy also has truth, the inability to see that life, including money expands, leads people to false realities. Thus we have today, a nation with major crisises, yet many people dont believe that giving, is part of the solution. An example, is that financial support for education is shrinking in general, yet many dont care,that more education produces people who have skills to prosper in a global economy, thus is good for the nation as a whole.

Sounds like you are referring to the pie fallacy Article enclosed below:


The Pie Fallacy

A surprising number of people retain from childhood the idea that there is a fixed amount of wealth in the world. There is, in any normal family, a fixed amount of money at any moment. But that's not the same thing.

When wealth is talked about in this context, it is often described as a pie. "You can't make the pie larger," say politicians. When you're talking about the amount of money in one family's bank account, or the amount available to a government from one year's tax revenue, this is true. If one person gets more, someone else has to get less.

I can remember believing, as a child, that if a few rich people had all the money, it left less for everyone else. Many people seem to continue to believe something like this well into adulthood. This fallacy is usually there in the background when you hear someone talking about how x percent of the population have y percent of the wealth. If you plan to start a startup, then whether you realize it or not, you're planning to disprove the Pie Fallacy.

What leads people astray here is the abstraction of money. Money is not wealth. It's just something we use to move wealth around. So although there may be, in certain specific moments (like your family, this month) a fixed amount of money available to trade with other people for things you want, there is not a fixed amount of wealth in the world. You can make more wealth. Wealth has been getting created and destroyed (but on balance, created) for all of human history.

Suppose you own a beat-up old car. Instead of sitting on your butt next summer, you could spend the time restoring your car to pristine condition. In doing so you create wealth. The world is-- and you specifically are-- one pristine old car the richer. And not just in some metaphorical way. If you sell your car, you'll get more for it.

In restoring your old car you have made yourself richer. You haven't made anyone else poorer. So there is obviously not a fixed pie. And in fact, when you look at it this way, you wonder why anyone would think there was. [5]

Kids know, without knowing they know, that they can create wealth. If you need to give someone a present and don't have any money, you make one. But kids are so bad at making things that they consider home-made presents to be a distinct, inferior, sort of thing to store-bought ones-- a mere expression of the proverbial thought that counts. And indeed, the lumpy ashtrays we made for our parents did not have much of a resale market.

[joeninety]

It's pretty self explanitory. Money's not a commodity. It's just numbers in a ledger. It's how we keep track of real trades of goods & services, & the differences in valuations. There's no limit to the supply because it's not tangible in the first place, & it's created by debt. There's no supply & demand pressures on money itself. It's all bullshit & the currency exchange is a fraud. This current inflation spiral is artificial, & coincides with the demise of Bretton Woods by the Nixon shock. Speculative slight of hand has been devaluing money for the last 40 years. It's all short selling because the only way to make profit on the FOREX is by betting on the rate of decline.


Well said its all bs, that is why our Goverment even decided to print up x amount extra more pounds to put into circulation, that is why the American dollar was so easy to counterfeit up until recently, all underhand and devious tactics its monkey business.

[Stavros]

Money in the sense as you know it is not a commodity it is merely a valid medium of exchange for meeting a financial obligation, money is just the intermediate stage, its just a shorthand for whatever people want.

Joe, you don't have to agree with Marx, who was wrong about a lot of things, but his analysis of Capitalism centres on precisely how the historical development of something abstract -money- came to replace tangible items as the principal medium of exchange: instead of exchanging corn or leather for cotton and carrots, money became the most flexible commodity in exchange relations, and in doing so initiated what Marx calls a process of reification in which all relationships in capitalist society are 'materialised' into commodities: to accept money as a commodity on an eqal par with love is precisely the moral element in Marx that so many find uncomfortable: take it or leave it. For Marx, the arrival of money as the medium of exchange also grew with market societies and the bourgeoisies, the merchants and capitalists who were able to take control of -for example- agriculture by purchasing the land, turning the farmers into wage slaves, and then selling produce at a 'market' price rather than at its 'natural' price: but of course, exploitation in Marx is also that moral element you either accept or reject. We tend now to accept that markets are the most efficient way of organising and distributing goods -if markets are not fair then we can subject them to regulation: but money became the critical tool in all market relations.

Thus, money, and all forms of money, are commodities, because in a capitalist economy, everything is a commodity.

[joeninety]

Money in the sense as you know it is not a commodity it is merely a valid medium of exchange for meeting a financial obligation, money is just the intermediate stage, its just a shorthand for whatever people want.

Joe, you don't have to agree with Marx, who was wrong about a lot of things, but his analysis of Capitalism centres on precisely how the historical development of something abstract -money- came to replace tangible items as the principal medium of exchange: instead of exchanging corn or leather for cotton and carrots, money became the most flexible commodity in exchange relations, and in doing so initiated what Marx calls a process of reification in which all relationships in capitalist society are 'materialised' into commodities: to accept money as a commodity on an eqal par with love is precisely the moral element in Marx that so many find uncomfortable: take it or leave it. For Marx, the arrival of money as the medium of exchange also grew with market societies and the bourgeoisies, the merchants and capitalists who were able to take control of -for example- agriculture by purchasing the land, turning the farmers into wage slaves, and then selling produce at a 'market' price rather than at its 'natural' price: but of course, exploitation in Marx is also that moral element you either accept or reject. We tend now to accept that markets are the most efficient way of organising and distributing goods -if markets are not fair then we can subject them to regulation: but money became the critical tool in all market relations.

Thus, money, and all forms of money, are commodities, because in a capitalist economy, everything is a commodity.

Ok i will put it another way take a stack of notes say a million pounds worth but there is nothing available to buy ever, what then becomes the value of said notes, you can't eat them, you cannot build a decent shelter with them or drink them so why would anyone want them because as a stand alone item they are worthless.

Money is worthless without commodities to trade with, whereas if there is no money commodities will always be of great value regardless, its just that trading will be a lot more long winded.

Your example of those that purchased land has missed a point in that the land purchasers would of had considerably wealth assets commodities behind them that would of enabled them to gain more power and purchasing power, thus enabling more access to money, but it is not the money that makes them wealthy rather it is the asset/assets commodities accumulated that guarantees your wealth, that is why the wage slaves exist because of lack of knowledge wealth, and lack of commodity wealth, and the poorer you are the harder you can be enslaved.

Its going on right now and its time for a revolution, real power could lie in the united masses by way of force, but these crafty fucks up top have got us all segregated, disenfranchised and too fucking dumbed down to fight and actually see what is going on, so divided we 85%-95% are falling and falling hard yet we still won't do anything and are getting slaughtered bloody sheep.

[hippifried]

Money is an exchange medium. It's how we make comparative trade valuations between dissimilar things like say, livestock to iron ore, or wheat to wages. It's a simplification of barter. It loses the intermediate steps so that you don't have to make a half dozen trades to swap a chicken for some cloth. We use currency because that's what we're used to. The Inca built a civilization that spanned the length of the Andes, complete with trails & bridges to facilitate trade & communications. They had an elaborate accounting system of debts & payments recorded with strings & knots that we're still trying to de3cipher, but they had no hard currency. They had l9ots of gold, but it never occured to them to use it as money. Same with the Maya & the mound builders who built roads tying together the entire central United States, & didn't even have a beast of burdon. There's really no telling how gold became synonymous with money & wealth in the Afro-Eurasian landmass. My personal theory is that it was easy to work with & had no other function. Even today. It's a terrific conductor, but nobody knew that then. Its insanely inflated monetary value is nothing but mystique & wishful thinking by those who hoard it. The flaw in Bretton Woods was the peg to gold.

The problem with treating money as a commodity is that there's no money. Really, think about it. When you're swapping currencies, what's the exchange medium? Where's the constant that allows comparative valuations? Compared to what? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! At least when you're evaluating goods & services, you have money as a constant. Or it used to be. Since money really isn't a commodity, & there's no constant exchange medium, The only way to make money off trading it is to short sell & hope your accumulation can outpace the inflationary loss. Without inflation, there's no profit in trading currencies, or going into long term debt. The current spiral is artificial, & controlled by speculation in derivative currency futures. It's just betting on the rate of decline, & allowing continuous decline just so someone can make a bet is insane. There's no way to regulate a market that has no borders or national loyalties. Claiming that inflation is manageable by keeping it under a specific percentage is a lie because it compounds. This isn't investment. It's just gambling, & the consumers & wage earners lose because they can't keep up. Wanna stop all this insanity? Peg the currencies while everybody figures out how to structure the world currency that's inevitable. Shut down the money exchange.