CSNbbs

(01-14-2018 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]I think the people I would characterize as pro-business have some or all of the following attitudes:

1. A rising tide floats all boats.
2. Wealth can be created, it is not a zero-sum game.
3. Business is not an enemy of the people, it is an ally

I think that attitudes 1 and 2 are shared by many of those you would call "anti-business."
[/quote]

Definitely not "many". I'm not sure I've ever met any economic leftist who evinced a genuine appreciation that wealth is NOT a zero-sum game, and certainly none who would say so publicly. The zero-sum fallacy seems to be an article of faith, almost baked into the DNA of leftism. Unfortunately, subscribing to that fallacy is not merely being anti-business; it is being stupid.

(01-14-2018 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 05:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Better idea. why don't you just define the terms for me.

Capital class

Working class.

I would generally define them (with some exceptions):

Capital class: owner/operators of nature businesses with significant revenues and good margins (so not small-time startups) and people who make the majority of their annual income from investments.

Working class: people who do not fit then above description ignore business owners and could not afford to not work (e.g. couldn’t live off of investment income)

If I understand your definitions, you consider Capital class and working class to be mutually exclusive?

(01-14-2018 07:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 05:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Better idea. why don't you just define the terms for me.

Capital class

Working class.

I would generally define them (with some exceptions):

Capital class: owner/operators of nature businesses with significant revenues and good margins (so not small-time startups) and people who make the majority of their annual income from investments.

Working class: people who do not fit then above description ignore business owners and could not afford to not work (e.g. couldn’t live off of investment income)

If I understand your definitions, you consider Capital class and working class to be mutually exclusive?

And ignores small business owners, who are neither capital nor working class.

By Lad's definition if you own 2 rental houses outright you are capital class. Interesting.

But if you own 20 and have *horrendously* small margins after expenses you are not. Seems not to be a good definition with those examples.

(01-14-2018 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 07:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 05:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Better idea. why don't you just define the terms for me.

Capital class

Working class.

I would generally define them (with some exceptions):

Capital class: owner/operators of nature businesses with significant revenues and good margins (so not small-time startups) and people who make the majority of their annual income from investments.

Working class: people who do not fit then above description ignore business owners and could not afford to not work (e.g. couldn’t live off of investment income)

If I understand your definitions, you consider Capital class and working class to be mutually exclusive?

And ignores small business owners, who are neither capital nor working class.

By Lad's definition if you own 2 rental houses outright you are capital class. Interesting.

But if you own 20 and have *horrendously* small margins after expenses you are not. Seems not to be a good definition with those examples.

Try to poke as many holes as you want in the definitions - this literally means 0 to me. I was asked to try and explain terms I used (terms that I doubt many would find controversial) where I felt fiscal policy on the US should focus more at the moment. I was trying to provide a less triggering phrase than the 1% and 99%, but boy did that fail. I honestly have no idea what an appropriate term would be then to describe which portion/class/contributor to the US economy I think we should be focusing on assisting directly - y'all tell me now.

But to address your pedantic comments. I said, there were exceptions, as there always are when you are making generalizations. I obviously did not ignore small business owners since I called out small-time startups, explicitly. If I had to, I would put small businesses owners that generally have large revenues into the working class category.

I also wouldn't consider owning 2 rental houses outright as capital class, unless you are deriving all (or a majority) of your income from those. In that case, you used your existing capital to produce enough income to live off of via a capital investment. And owning the 20 rental properties would put you in the same category as the other, depending on how much income you are deriving from these rental properties.

I threw in the comment about margins to make an exception of new businesses, or small businesses that don't really deliver enough income to the owner to allow them to check out and exist off of capital investments.

(01-14-2018 07:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 05:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Better idea. why don't you just define the terms for me.

Capital class

Working class.

I would generally define them (with some exceptions):

Capital class: owner/operators of nature businesses with significant revenues and good margins (so not small-time startups) and people who make the majority of their annual income from investments.

Working class: people who do not fit then above description ignore business owners and could not afford to not work (e.g. couldn’t live off of investment income)

If I understand your definitions, you consider Capital class and working class to be mutually exclusive?

I think that any overlap would be relatively minimal. I mean, from a tax and regulatory perspective, there would be none, right? You would either receive direct benefits from "pro-business" policy or "anti-business" policy.

This isn't suggesting those in the capital class don't work, just another way to frame how people earn their income and fit into the economy and who would benefit from the policies we were discussing.

(01-14-2018 08:27 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 07:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 05:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Better idea. why don't you just define the terms for me.

Capital class

Working class.

I would generally define them (with some exceptions):

Capital class: owner/operators of nature businesses with significant revenues and good margins (so not small-time startups) and people who make the majority of their annual income from investments.

Working class: people who do not fit then above description ignore business owners and could not afford to not work (e.g. couldn’t live off of investment income)

If I understand your definitions, you consider Capital class and working class to be mutually exclusive?

I think that any overlap would be relatively minimal. I mean, from a tax and regulatory perspective, there would be none, right? You would either receive direct benefits from "pro-business" policy or "anti-business" policy.

This isn't suggesting those in the capital class don't work, just another way to frame how people earn their income and fit into the economy and who would benefit from the policies we were discussing.

I think you have succeeded in demonstrating attitude #1 if those who are anti-business:

"1. If it is good for business, it is bad for people. It is a zero-sum game."

My turn. I don't see people and their economic interest as a binary 1 or 0, but as a spectrum.

I am pro-business. At age 21, I regarded my future and decided I could not be a businessman, since that would make me an exploiter of the working people. I instead set my sights on becoming a professor, so I could help shape young minds. That might explain in some small way why our campi are bastions of liberalism and our youth are primarily liberal - they are taught bey people with no real world experience. It was Obama that talked of what he learned from his Marxist professors. Except for a twist of fate, I could have been one of them. Had I been, I am sure that I would still be anti-business.

Instead, real world pressures made me seek employment instead of grad school. I went to work. As time went by, I started investing. I took chances, with my own money and time, and I made enough right decisions that today I don't work, I live off the fruits of my previous labors, and I don't need any marxist telling me I didn't do that.

So my personal journey has taken me from the far left to the mid right. Jimmy Carter was my last major foray into anti-business. Even that was influenced by the press coverage showing Ford was clumsy fool who fell down steps.

I firmly believe that that, in general, what is good for American business is good for the American people. I don't see it as a zero sum game.

You ask a lot of good questions, lad, and you are willing to explore topics rather merely take a side. I have a lot of hope for you - twenty years from now.

We have strayed rather far fro Owl#'s question. But the gist of the question is, why is one party more consistently anti-business than the other? I see no sense in it, nor any gain to them unless it is in votes from the ignorant.

This is why so many of us call ourselves socially liberal/fiscally conservative. I can agree with many of the goals that Democrats promote socially. But I cannot support the Democratic party because the anti-business stuff is part and parcel of their agenda, and a sound fiscal and tax policy is more important to the country than whether or not we bring in immigrants from Somalia rather than Norway.

You worry over over how much leave a new mother gets. I did, too. But I didn't let it dominate my thinking to point I let the business go broke. My employees who had kids always had a job to return to.

(01-14-2018 09:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]So my personal journey has taken me from the far left to the mid right. Jimmy Carter was my last major foray into anti-business. Even that was influenced by the press coverage showing Ford was clumsy fool who fell down steps.

That was infuriating. In fact, Gerald Ford was one of the most athletically gifted presidents we've ever had.

Then again, so was George H.W. Bush -- about whom the press had similarly few qualms when it came to making up faults.

(01-14-2018 03:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 01:04 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Basically, Dayton realized they needed to increase revenues to get back to a balanced budget, so he raised the state income tax from 7.85% to 9.85% on people earning >$150k (couples earning >$250k). That helped turn a deficit into a surplus and restore confidence in the state government (this was after a tax cut that helped create the deficit). He also increased school funding, which has apparently led to positive results.

That one thing was all he did? They must have already had a lot of people making $150K, who didn't mind paying the extra $3K. I know that $14,775 in state taxes might not make me quit my job, pull the kids out of school, and drag my complaining wife to Texas, but it damn sure would keep me from leaving Texas for Minnesota.
so what else did he do?

Quote:I think that attitudes 1 and 2 are shared by many of those you would call "anti-business." It's just that those people believe that raising the tide is easier to do via the middle class and not capitalists, and that if policies can directly build their wealth, that everyone else will benefit. Similar to Henry Ford, whose decision to significantly overpay his employees at the time led to a surge in worker productivity and an increase in the size of the market for his automobile. If the primary focus of fiscal policy is increasing the amount of money the capital class gets, it has to inefficiently work its way down to the middle class, who will then eventually drive consumer demand up. If you can focus on increasing the income of the consumer class, demand will immediately be driven up, and then incomes will slowly rise for the capital class.

Well, Henry could not have afforded to pay his people extra without some cash in his pocket.
The capital class and the working class - classic class warfare.
There is a new shopping center close to me. Let's say it was built by a capital class guy, using money from 15-20 other capital class investors. If it cost $50M, then he got about 2.5M from each investor. Now if instead of 20 men with $2.5M each to invest, would we be better off if the $50M was distributed to 5,000 middle class people instead? Would they have each made the $10K investment with their found money? A few might, but if we depended on middle class investors, the shopping center would never have been built. It provided about $40M of income to people like carpenters and plumbers and pavers and architects and surveyors to build, and it currently provides employment for about 350-400 people. Good thing those capital class people had, er, capital. Give those capitalists capital and they will invest it.
Your approach depends on spending. Those 5,000 middle class people would spend their money on something, but they would build very little and very small. No lasting effect.
It is a mantra that trickle down doesn't work. Well, if not, where does the money go?

Describing people based on their wealth is class warfare? Would you have preferred 1% vs 99%? Not sure of a better way to describe the classes of people that are differentiated by their ability to invest capital vs those that don’t. Investor class and working class?

So, if "trickle down" doesn't work, where does the money go?

And just to be clear, I'm not a believer in "trickle down." The term is a really unfortunate Keynesian mischaracterization of supply-side economics and tax policy. "Trickle down" says that if you give the "rich" more money, they will spend it on consumption and create economic growth. The "rich" never spend as much of their income on consumption as do the poor and middle classes. Just doesn't happen. But the part they don't spend on consumption is the part they invest, and that is what is critical to sustain growth. I can create a bubble by handing out a bunch of free money, and the recipients will go to Walmart and buy a new TV made in China. But if we are going to create sustained growth, those people need to be going to Walmart and spending money that they got as pay for good jobs, and those good jobs have to be making those TVs, or better yet the precision equipment used to manufacture those TVs.

Let Cambodia and Thailand sew up our Nikes. Those aren't the jobs we want. We want to be making precision top-end equipment, the kind of stuff Germany makes. We just got to be more than competitive with Germany on taxes for the first time in about 20 years. Let's see how many other areas--education, infrastructure--we can get to be better than Germany, and see what that does for our economy.

(01-14-2018 08:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 07:50 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 07:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 06:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-14-2018 05:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Better idea. why don't you just define the terms for me.

Capital class

Working class.

I would generally define them (with some exceptions):

Capital class: owner/operators of nature businesses with significant revenues and good margins (so not small-time startups) and people who make the majority of their annual income from investments.

Working class: people who do not fit then above description ignore business owners and could not afford to not work (e.g. couldn’t live off of investment income)

If I understand your definitions, you consider Capital class and working class to be mutually exclusive?

And ignores small business owners, who are neither capital nor working class.

By Lad's definition if you own 2 rental houses outright you are capital class. Interesting.

But if you own 20 and have *horrendously* small margins after expenses you are not. Seems not to be a good definition with those examples.

Try to poke as many holes as you want in the definitions - this literally means 0 to me. I was asked to try and explain terms I used (terms that I doubt many would find controversial) where I felt fiscal policy on the US should focus more at the moment. I was trying to provide a less triggering phrase than the 1% and 99%, but boy did that fail. I honestly have no idea what an appropriate term would be then to describe which portion/class/contributor to the US economy I think we should be focusing on assisting directly - y'all tell me now.

But to address your pedantic comments. I said, there were exceptions, as there always are when you are making generalizations. I obviously did not ignore small business owners since I called out small-time startups, explicitly. If I had to, I would put small businesses owners that generally have large revenues into the working class category.

I also wouldn't consider owning 2 rental houses outright as capital class, unless you are deriving all (or a majority) of your income from those. In that case, you used your existing capital to produce enough income to live off of via a capital investment. And owning the 20 rental properties would put you in the same category as the other, depending on how much income you are deriving from these rental properties.

I threw in the comment about margins to make an exception of new businesses, or small businesses that don't really deliver enough income to the owner to allow them to check out and exist off of capital investments.

Depends on the ROI, to be pendantic. I know plenty of people with 2 or 3 million 'working' for them that their return is either amazingly small (1 per cent or so) or negative.

I also know people with 400k in working capital that make through that nest 'enough to live on' (60 - 70k with amazingly low overhead), to be pendantic.

As for my previous two examples in this post, I would hazard a guess that most if not all would classify the former with 2-3 mill working capital as part of the capital class, even if they suck at it *and* point out the fact that the 'capital class' really doesnt just sit back and watch money roll in --- with the exception of municipal and other government bonds, most on the liberal side immediately discount the risk-factor of *any* capital side investment. (Heh, 'discount' being used as a term of art here.... funny one would employ the actions of that verb when being in the class that is somewhat anti-investment.....)

And I would hazard a guess that most if not all would classify the latter example as not necessarily 'Capital class'.

I am just explicitly pointing out that the cliches about "capital class" and the "1 per cent" are pretty much so vague and overbroad as to be utterly useless. But one who has their nose to the grindstone in the business side of things will readily realize that. And, I suspect that OO posed that question just to point this out to some. But I guess I'll just be pendantic....

Interesting topic, and so I have continued to mull over it.

I think the capital class/working class divide is more apropos to 1958 than to 2018. Yet the Democrats continue to use it, I guess because they can do it successfully.

Then: Blue collar workers depended on company funded pensions for retirement, and the unions made sure the companies took care of that. Union membership was at an all time high.

Now: Workers fund their own retirement through IRAs and 401K, and can direct how their money is invested. Union membership declining.

Back then, the "working" class had to depend on the "capital" clas to invest their money for them. Now, most workers oversee how the money is invested, and so more are knowlegeable in the market.

I think the capital class and the worker class is largely the same. Only at the extremes are they different.

I think the idea that the capital class does nothing more than eat bonbons and count the money coming in is *way* more 1958 than 2018. There are far more gradations existing now than at that point.

But the progressive anti-ideal I think is far more rooted in the 1958 view. Especially with the inroads into making it to the so-called 'capital class' --- far easier to leverage specialized knowledge and education into healthy payoffs these days than in 1958 when the vast majority of the 'capital class' was of the trust fund or inheritance type. The ability to bridge into the arena where money works for you is infinitely an easier road than then.

But, to be an ass (which apparently I am very good at), it is far easier to project the middle class with fingers in the pie of both the working class and the capital class to the ghettos and barrios as 'life in fat cat land where money rolls in like vanilla syrup'. But that message creates a result in certain demographics that run absolutely to the progressive's advantage -- kind of like saying to an NRA convention five years ago that Obama and the Democrats will stop at nothing to ban all firearms. But fear and envy are typically a politician's best advantage at riling up votes (notice I did not use the term 'earn votes', because this form is much better described as 'riling up' votes, imo --- and to be honest the Republicans have their 'rile 'em up' messages as well....)

Further, most 'capital class' people I know are in the business startup and running mode -- accordingly they reinvest the far majority of their 'vanilla syrup' gains into either furthering their existing business, or starting up new ventures.

To be blunt I get kind of torqued listening to them pilloried explicitly as the one percent, or implicitly as the 'capital class'. *If* the 'capital class' were the type that were the norm of 1958, I might be more inclined to accept the progressive notion on it. And, *if* the ability to to break into the class had the same obstacles as of 1958 I would be far more inclined to accept that same progressive view and message on it.

But the class that is the object of the progressive message simply is a far more mobile economic ilk and a far more involved than what the message is aimed at.

Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

(01-16-2018 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

Only 52% of Americans are invested in the market, in some form or fashion, as of 2016. That's 48% of the population that is missing out on the market's steady and continued rise.

Where has higher pay been seen? Almost all the articles/news stories I've heard have discussed how economists are struggling to figure out why wages have been been growing faster with the continued decrease in unemployment. Hopefully that trend reverses itself as unemployment continues to either drop or stay low.

Frankly, you'll probably see a majority of people not care about how their 401(k) is doing because, unless you're nearing retirement or well into middle age, it isn't real money to you, and after 2008, I think a lot of us are expecting a crash in the market at some point that will do some damage to our 401(k)s. That's one reason why Trump's approval ratings stay in the toilet, despite the fact that the economy has kept up its steady increase - take home pay has not increased, so unless you're heavily invested in the market with non-retirement funds, you aren't really realizing any of the gains that this article touts.

If the pressure of continued low unemployment starts having an effect on wages, however, I could easily see that changing.

(01-16-2018 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

Only 52% of Americans are invested in the market, in some form or fashion, as of 2016. That's 48% of the population that is missing out on the market's steady and continued rise.

Where has higher pay been seen? Almost all the articles/news stories I've heard have discussed how economists are struggling to figure out why wages have been been growing faster with the continued decrease in unemployment. Hopefully that trend reverses itself as unemployment continues to either drop or stay low.

Frankly, you'll probably see a majority of people not care about how their 401(k) is doing because, unless you're nearing retirement or well into middle age, it isn't real money to you, and after 2008, I think a lot of us are expecting a crash in the market at some point that will do some damage to our 401(k)s. That's one reason why Trump's approval ratings stay in the toilet, despite the fact that the economy has kept up its steady increase - take home pay has not increased, so unless you're heavily invested in the market with non-retirement funds, you aren't really realizing any of the gains that this article touts.

If the pressure of continued low unemployment starts having an effect on wages, however, I could easily see that changing.

The main reason we havent seen serious wage increases is that the participation rate has been in the shitter for 9 years. That is, there are a *lot* of people that are not counted in the employment figures, and while Obama saw gains in the employment rate the participation rate grew enormous as people literally dropped out of the workforce. Call it the 'hidden' workforce supply that was literally 'off the books' with respect to the unemployment rate.

We need to boil off some of the excess supply evidenced in the participation rates before we see serious wage increases. I fail to see why this is such a fing mystery to economists.....

(01-16-2018 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

Only 52% of Americans are invested in the market, in some form or fashion, as of 2016. That's 48% of the population that is missing out on the market's steady and continued rise.

Where has higher pay been seen? Almost all the articles/news stories I've heard have discussed how economists are struggling to figure out why wages have been been growing faster with the continued decrease in unemployment. Hopefully that trend reverses itself as unemployment continues to either drop or stay low.

Frankly, you'll probably see a majority of people not care about how their 401(k) is doing because, unless you're nearing retirement or well into middle age, it isn't real money to you, and after 2008, I think a lot of us are expecting a crash in the market at some point that will do some damage to our 401(k)s. That's one reason why Trump's approval ratings stay in the toilet, despite the fact that the economy has kept up its steady increase - take home pay has not increased, so unless you're heavily invested in the market with non-retirement funds, you aren't really realizing any of the gains that this article touts.

If the pressure of continued low unemployment starts having an effect on wages, however, I could easily see that changing.

Well, my 47 year old son is damn proud of how his 401K is doing. He lacks about 15-20 years of retiring, I would guess. But most people I know check their 401K quite often to see how it is doing and confer with their financial advisors to see how it could do better. Are you one of the rare ones who never checks on it, or even rarer, does not have one?

Still 52% is a lot of people to be in both the capital class and the middle class. Maybe a lot more people use IRAs and other tax deferred plans, not just 401Ks. But there is a widespread awareness of how business is doing.

As for the wages, they were mentioned in the oil article. Plus, the companies that have paid worker bonuses based on the tax cut.

I agree that at some point, the bubble will burst and the Dow will drop precipitously. What goes up, also goes down. In the 13+ months since the election, the Dow has gained nearly as much as it did under 8 years of Obama, and Obama had the advantage of starting at a low point, while the current market increase took off from a high point. I think that bubble will burst when they think Trump and his policies cannot deliver growth and profitability, a belief the Democrats are working assiduously to foster. IT CAN'T WORK. IT'S JUST TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaay, Democrats!!!!
It's just not important to help millions of AmericanS preserve their wealth or their jobs. Much more important to win elections, and unhappy people vote for regime change. Remember 2016? Make them unhappy, get their vote. That's why I say good economic news is bad news for Democrats.

It's a short time to the mid term elections. Maybe short enough for the Dem strategy to work, and if they get control of Congress, they will do all they can to make things worse. After, there is an even bigger election in 2020.

(01-16-2018 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I think that bubble will burst when they think Trump and his policies cannot deliver growth and profitability, a belief the Democrats are working assiduously to foster. IT CAN'T WORK. IT'S JUST TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaay, Democrats!!!!

"It's as if the opponents want him to fail" -- remember that much-used line from 2009?

(01-16-2018 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

Only 52% of Americans are invested in the market, in some form or fashion, as of 2016. That's 48% of the population that is missing out on the market's steady and continued rise.

Where has higher pay been seen? Almost all the articles/news stories I've heard have discussed how economists are struggling to figure out why wages have been been growing faster with the continued decrease in unemployment. Hopefully that trend reverses itself as unemployment continues to either drop or stay low.

Frankly, you'll probably see a majority of people not care about how their 401(k) is doing because, unless you're nearing retirement or well into middle age, it isn't real money to you, and after 2008, I think a lot of us are expecting a crash in the market at some point that will do some damage to our 401(k)s. That's one reason why Trump's approval ratings stay in the toilet, despite the fact that the economy has kept up its steady increase - take home pay has not increased, so unless you're heavily invested in the market with non-retirement funds, you aren't really realizing any of the gains that this article touts.

If the pressure of continued low unemployment starts having an effect on wages, however, I could easily see that changing.

Well, my 47 year old son is damn proud of how his 401K is doing. He lacks about 15-20 years of retiring, I would guess. But most people I know check their 401K quite often to see how it is doing and confer with their financial advisors to see how it could do better. Are you one of the rare ones who never checks on it, or even rarer, does not have one?

Still 52% is a lot of people to be in both the capital class and the middle class. Maybe a lot more people use IRAs and other tax deferred plans, not just 401Ks. But there is a widespread awareness of how business is doing.

As for the wages, they were mentioned in the oil article. Plus, the companies that have paid worker bonuses based on the tax cut.

I agree that at some point, the bubble will burst and the Dow will drop precipitously. What goes up, also goes down. In the 13+ months since the election, the Dow has gained nearly as much as it did under 8 years of Obama, and Obama had the advantage of starting at a low point, while the current market increase took off from a high point. I think that bubble will burst when they think Trump and his policies cannot deliver growth and profitability, a belief the Democrats are working assiduously to foster. IT CAN'T WORK. IT'S JUST TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaay, Democrats!!!!
It's just not important to help millions of AmericanS preserve their wealth or their jobs. Much more important to win elections, and unhappy people vote for regime change. Remember 2016? Make them unhappy, get their vote. That's why I say good economic news is bad news for Democrats.

It's a short time to the mid term elections. Maybe short enough for the Dem strategy to work, and if they get control of Congress, they will do all they can to make things worse. After, there is an even bigger election in 2020.

There are definitely some companies who have actually been pushing the savings from the tax cut directly down to their employees - but don't forget that there are also examples of companies saying that, and then at the same time, laying off countless other employees, which is basically recovering the bonuses that they're paying off (see: Wal-Mart).

Ironic that you chose your 47 year old son as someone who pays attention to their 401(k) to refute my assertion that people well into middle age or nearing retirement are the ones who actually pay attention. If you had asked me to pick an age, I would have said anyone 45 and older...

I certainly watch my 401(k), but because it is not really a liquid asset, it means very little to me at the moment. I can't really do anything with it, so when I say, want to put a down payment on a house, it is pretty much moot. But also, I don't know why you think it is so rare to not have a 401(k) - as I mentioned, 48% of the country have no investment accounts. Not having a 401(k) or another retirement account is not rare at all.

And to the comparison of gains under Obama and Trump, it would be odd to compare total value increase - a percent increase would be better. Using Google, the Dow went from around 6,626 to 19,963 under Obama (+201%). It's now around 25,803 (+29%) Looking the S&P500, Obama started near 683 and ended near 2,276 (+233%). It's currently sitting near 2,786 (+22%).

There's no doubt that a combination of Trump being a Republican and business oriented made the markets go wild to start his term, and that the subsequent tax bill has made the markets even happier, but it's a bit misleading to try and state that the Trump admin has already overseen a market gain greater than what was seen from 2009 to 2017. Heck, Trump's policies have really only just started to actually take affect.

(01-16-2018 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]There's no doubt that a combination of Trump being a Republican and business oriented made the markets go wild to start his term, and that the subsequent tax bill has made the markets even happier, but it's a bit misleading to try and state that the Trump admin has already overseen a market gain greater than what was seen from 2009 to 2017. Heck, Trump's policies have really only just started to actually take affect.

It's also misleading to assert that Obama took over in the middle of "the worst recession since the 1930s" to cite one common sound byte, and then to tout the market recovery over 8 years as being due to Obama. Recessions don't perpetuate themselves. They usually arise because of misallocation of assets (the housing bubble in 2008, the dot.com bubble in 2000), as a couple of examples, and there are strong forces pushing a recessionary economy toward rapid growth once those misallocated assets have been eliminated. I would actually say that just about all of the increase under Obama was due to natural factors regardless of who was president, and in fact I would express the opinion that Obama's "stimulus" delayed and weakened the recovery rather than strengthening it.

We've had two recessions that lingered instead of rebounding rapidly--the 1930s and 2008. We've had two recessions where massive "stimulus" was tried as a solution--the 1930s and 2008. I do not think those are purely coincidental relationships.

(01-16-2018 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

Only 52% of Americans are invested in the market, in some form or fashion, as of 2016. That's 48% of the population that is missing out on the market's steady and continued rise.

Where has higher pay been seen? Almost all the articles/news stories I've heard have discussed how economists are struggling to figure out why wages have been been growing faster with the continued decrease in unemployment. Hopefully that trend reverses itself as unemployment continues to either drop or stay low.

Frankly, you'll probably see a majority of people not care about how their 401(k) is doing because, unless you're nearing retirement or well into middle age, it isn't real money to you, and after 2008, I think a lot of us are expecting a crash in the market at some point that will do some damage to our 401(k)s. That's one reason why Trump's approval ratings stay in the toilet, despite the fact that the economy has kept up its steady increase - take home pay has not increased, so unless you're heavily invested in the market with non-retirement funds, you aren't really realizing any of the gains that this article touts.

If the pressure of continued low unemployment starts having an effect on wages, however, I could easily see that changing.

Well, my 47 year old son is damn proud of how his 401K is doing. He lacks about 15-20 years of retiring, I would guess. But most people I know check their 401K quite often to see how it is doing and confer with their financial advisors to see how it could do better. Are you one of the rare ones who never checks on it, or even rarer, does not have one?

Still 52% is a lot of people to be in both the capital class and the middle class. Maybe a lot more people use IRAs and other tax deferred plans, not just 401Ks. But there is a widespread awareness of how business is doing.

As for the wages, they were mentioned in the oil article. Plus, the companies that have paid worker bonuses based on the tax cut.

I agree that at some point, the bubble will burst and the Dow will drop precipitously. What goes up, also goes down. In the 13+ months since the election, the Dow has gained nearly as much as it did under 8 years of Obama, and Obama had the advantage of starting at a low point, while the current market increase took off from a high point. I think that bubble will burst when they think Trump and his policies cannot deliver growth and profitability, a belief the Democrats are working assiduously to foster. IT CAN'T WORK. IT'S JUST TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaay, Democrats!!!!
It's just not important to help millions of AmericanS preserve their wealth or their jobs. Much more important to win elections, and unhappy people vote for regime change. Remember 2016? Make them unhappy, get their vote. That's why I say good economic news is bad news for Democrats.

It's a short time to the mid term elections. Maybe short enough for the Dem strategy to work, and if they get control of Congress, they will do all they can to make things worse. After, there is an even bigger election in 2020.

There are definitely some companies who have actually been pushing the savings from the tax cut directly down to their employees - but don't forget that there are also examples of companies saying that, and then at the same time, laying off countless other employees, which is basically recovering the bonuses that they're paying off (see: Wal-Mart).

Ironic that you chose your 47 year old son as someone who pays attention to their 401(k) to refute my assertion that people well into middle age or nearing retirement are the ones who actually pay attention. If you had asked me to pick an age, I would have said anyone 45 and older...

I certainly watch my 401(k), but because it is not really a liquid asset, it means very little to me at the moment. I can't really do anything with it, so when I say, want to put a down payment on a house, it is pretty much moot. But also, I don't know why you think it is so rare to not have a 401(k) - as I mentioned, 48% of the country have no investment accounts. Not having a 401(k) or another retirement account is not rare at all.

And to the comparison of gains under Obama and Trump, it would be odd to compare total value increase - a percent increase would be better. Using Google, the Dow went from around 6,626 to 19,963 under Obama (+201%). It's now around 25,803 (+29%) Looking the S&P500, Obama started near 683 and ended near 2,276 (+233%). It's currently sitting near 2,786 (+22%).

There's no doubt that a combination of Trump being a Republican and business oriented made the markets go wild to start his term, and that the subsequent tax bill has made the markets even happier, but it's a bit misleading to try and state that the Trump admin has already overseen a market gain greater than what was seen from 2009 to 2017. Heck, Trump's policies have really only just started to actually take affect.

I quite clearly stated "in the 13+ months since the election". I also said "nearly as much". heck, you even quoted me. So before you call me a liar, read it carefully.

The markets started going crazy the day after the election, which was my benchmark. You want to give Obama credit for all the gains from 11-9-16 to 1-20-17 when it clearly should go to Trump. so go refigure your numbers from election day 2008 to election day 2016 for Obama, and from election day 2016 to date for Trump, and tell me if they are nearly as much. As for doing it as a percentage, fine, but as I said the lower base that Obama "inherited" will help him more, since Trump is starting from a much higher base., Rearrange the apples and oranges to your biggest advantage, but it still remains, Americans are optimistic about their economic futures under Trump, and the Democrats job is to make Trump fail so they lose faith in him. If it hurts some Americans, so be it. Collateral damage.

I guess forty-seven is technically middle-aged, but I have no idea how you came to the knowledge that he just now started paying attention to it. It was a major topic of contention in his divorce 7 years ago. When he took that job in 1995, my advice to him was to at least contribute enough to get the full company match. He has paid attention to it ever since.

Lad, pay more attention to your 401K. You could be missing out on a lot of growth by taking it for granted and it is growth that you cannot get back by starting to care when you are 45.

My point was that a lot of people will see and are seeing economic gains. Some will see them in the form of new or better jobs, or in the form of more pay for their current job, or in the gains in their retirement account or investments, or just in the general awareness that businesses are opening up in their community and hiring and selling and doing what businesses do. And it is this feeling that things are getting better that is the enemy of the Democrats. You cannot base your whole campaign off of indignation. People with full pockets and lots of confidence are not as likely to be swayed by Trump dissing Somalia. If the Dems can throw a monkey wrench in the economy, it will help their chances immensely. I guess you can say 52% of the country is unconscious - just about matches the percentage of the vote the dems got - but that reflects pretty badly on the Dems, if they rely on the people who are not thinking of their future and preparing for it, to elect people to do it for them.

(01-16-2018 04:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 03:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 01:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2018 11:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Bad news for Democrats

More bad news for Democrats

If the 1958 model held, it would just be the top 1% gaining from the stock market rise, but what I see is that lots of dividends will be flowing into lots of 401Ks.

Likewise, the oil boom is providing more jobs at higher pay to a lot of people below the 1% (and most of them have 401Ks too).

I wonder if all these middle class people will ignore their better jobs, higher pay, and growing 401Ks in order to vote against Republicans to show their displeasure at Somalia being labeled a shithole?

November will be interesting.

Only 52% of Americans are invested in the market, in some form or fashion, as of 2016. That's 48% of the population that is missing out on the market's steady and continued rise.

Where has higher pay been seen? Almost all the articles/news stories I've heard have discussed how economists are struggling to figure out why wages have been been growing faster with the continued decrease in unemployment. Hopefully that trend reverses itself as unemployment continues to either drop or stay low.

Frankly, you'll probably see a majority of people not care about how their 401(k) is doing because, unless you're nearing retirement or well into middle age, it isn't real money to you, and after 2008, I think a lot of us are expecting a crash in the market at some point that will do some damage to our 401(k)s. That's one reason why Trump's approval ratings stay in the toilet, despite the fact that the economy has kept up its steady increase - take home pay has not increased, so unless you're heavily invested in the market with non-retirement funds, you aren't really realizing any of the gains that this article touts.

If the pressure of continued low unemployment starts having an effect on wages, however, I could easily see that changing.

Well, my 47 year old son is damn proud of how his 401K is doing. He lacks about 15-20 years of retiring, I would guess. But most people I know check their 401K quite often to see how it is doing and confer with their financial advisors to see how it could do better. Are you one of the rare ones who never checks on it, or even rarer, does not have one?

Still 52% is a lot of people to be in both the capital class and the middle class. Maybe a lot more people use IRAs and other tax deferred plans, not just 401Ks. But there is a widespread awareness of how business is doing.

As for the wages, they were mentioned in the oil article. Plus, the companies that have paid worker bonuses based on the tax cut.

I agree that at some point, the bubble will burst and the Dow will drop precipitously. What goes up, also goes down. In the 13+ months since the election, the Dow has gained nearly as much as it did under 8 years of Obama, and Obama had the advantage of starting at a low point, while the current market increase took off from a high point. I think that bubble will burst when they think Trump and his policies cannot deliver growth and profitability, a belief the Democrats are working assiduously to foster. IT CAN'T WORK. IT'S JUST TAX BREAKS FOR THE RICH!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaay, Democrats!!!!
It's just not important to help millions of AmericanS preserve their wealth or their jobs. Much more important to win elections, and unhappy people vote for regime change. Remember 2016? Make them unhappy, get their vote. That's why I say good economic news is bad news for Democrats.

It's a short time to the mid term elections. Maybe short enough for the Dem strategy to work, and if they get control of Congress, they will do all they can to make things worse. After, there is an even bigger election in 2020.

There are definitely some companies who have actually been pushing the savings from the tax cut directly down to their employees - but don't forget that there are also examples of companies saying that, and then at the same time, laying off countless other employees, which is basically recovering the bonuses that they're paying off (see: Wal-Mart).

Ironic that you chose your 47 year old son as someone who pays attention to their 401(k) to refute my assertion that people well into middle age or nearing retirement are the ones who actually pay attention. If you had asked me to pick an age, I would have said anyone 45 and older...

I certainly watch my 401(k), but because it is not really a liquid asset, it means very little to me at the moment. I can't really do anything with it, so when I say, want to put a down payment on a house, it is pretty much moot. But also, I don't know why you think it is so rare to not have a 401(k) - as I mentioned, 48% of the country have no investment accounts. Not having a 401(k) or another retirement account is not rare at all.

And to the comparison of gains under Obama and Trump, it would be odd to compare total value increase - a percent increase would be better. Using Google, the Dow went from around 6,626 to 19,963 under Obama (+201%). It's now around 25,803 (+29%) Looking the S&P500, Obama started near 683 and ended near 2,276 (+233%). It's currently sitting near 2,786 (+22%).

There's no doubt that a combination of Trump being a Republican and business oriented made the markets go wild to start his term, and that the subsequent tax bill has made the markets even happier, but it's a bit misleading to try and state that the Trump admin has already overseen a market gain greater than what was seen from 2009 to 2017. Heck, Trump's policies have really only just started to actually take affect.

I quite clearly stated "in the 13+ months since the election". I also said "nearly as much". heck, you even quoted me. So before you call me a liar, read it carefully.

The markets started going crazy the day after the election, which was my benchmark. You want to give Obama credit for all the gains from 11-9-16 to 1-20-17 when it clearly should go to Trump. so go refigure your numbers from election day 2008 to election day 2016 for Obama, and from election day 2016 to date for Trump, and tell me if they are nearly as much. As for doing it as a percentage, fine, but as I said the lower base that Obama "inherited" will help him more, since Trump is starting from a much higher base., Rearrange the apples and oranges to your biggest advantage, but it still remains, Americans are optimistic about their economic futures under Trump, and the Democrats job is to make Trump fail so they lose faith in him. If it hurts some Americans, so be it. Collateral damage.

I guess forty-seven is technically middle-aged, but I have no idea how you came to the knowledge that he just now started paying attention to it. It was a major topic of contention in his divorce 7 years ago. When he took that job in 1995, my advice to him was to at least contribute enough to get the full company match. He has paid attention to it ever since.

Lad, pay more attention to your 401K. You could be missing out on a lot of growth by taking it for granted and it is growth that you cannot get back by starting to care when you are 45.

My point was that a lot of people will see and are seeing economic gains. Some will see them in the form of new or better jobs, or in the form of more pay for their current job, or in the gains in their retirement account or investments, or just in the general awareness that businesses are opening up in their community and hiring and selling and doing what businesses do. And it is this feeling that things are getting better that is the enemy of the Democrats. You cannot base your whole campaign off of indignation. People with full pockets and lots of confidence are not as likely to be swayed by Trump dissing Somalia. If the Dems can throw a monkey wrench in the economy, it will help their chances immensely. I guess you can say 52% of the country is unconscious - just about matches the percentage of the vote the dems got - but that reflects pretty badly on the Dems, if they rely on the people who are not thinking of their future and preparing for it, to elect people to do it for them.

Almost no change in totals from Jan 2017 to Nov 2016. Dow down to 18,847 and S&P down to 2,164. So Trump now gets a 37% and 29% bump, as opposed to 29% and 22%. I wasn't calling you a liar, by the way, I was suggesting that looking at percent changes is a better metric than total growth.

And to your point about a lot of will see and are seeing economic gains - if your metric about stock market gains were true, then that would have been true for the past few years, since we basically got out of the Great Recession. The problem was, and still is, that those gains are not being realized by the average American. And the do-nothing Congress for the past few years did not help that, and I am hesitant that the current do-slightly-more Congress will help much. If you look at how incomes have adjusted since the Great Recession, the gains have been generally concentrated at the top of the income ladder, while those at the middle and bottom have generally been left out of the recovery. And that's because stock market gains affect those people so insignificantly. If the stock market rising was directly correlated to wealth creation across the board, as I said, people would have been happy with the economy since the markets had recovered above 2009 levels.

Once wages start rising, either through market forces or wage laws (like minimum wage increases or overtime designations), then you will see people across the board be happy because their pockets are actually filling. People are continuing to feel more confident about the economy, polls bear that out. But I think even if the market continues to trend in the direction it is, without actual increases in salaries, people will not be satisfied with the economy. But you can take the cynical approach and think Dems want to torpedo the entire economy to win elections - that's your prerogative. But I have no idea how a party that doesn't hold a majority in Congress can throw said monkeywrench into the economy.

Also, if people really thought Trump was so connected to the economy, and if his abhorrent actions really didn't matter, then why aren't his approval ratings ticking up with the confidence in the economy?