Well, I'm sorry that Iowa went red. But the truth is, we're really quite purple. Ya wanna pick on some state dumb enough to support Bush, pick on Nevada or Alabama . .
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 27, 2006 04:47 AMCalling it the "White Lie House" is way too mild. How about White "Lying-Its-Ass-Off" House? Or maybe, White "Lying.Fucking.Bastards" House?
Posted by Analytical Liberal at February 27, 2006 06:26 AMDear Pessimist:
How dare you point these things out! Just because France and the U.S. have similar economic outputs does not mean we are comparable! Obviously they are mediocre and we are good. More importantly, you used examples from real life to illustrate your points about the economy. No. No. No. When speaking of the economy, you must learn to sound more scholarly and abstract. Please, this is a widely read blog and you should know this and not treat your audience like children.
Seriously: good post. We are so trained to look at our country and its economy through the lens of pro-globalism and abstract numbers that our country's very reality gets lost. The problem, as you imply, is that this in some way represents a model of indoctrination in which our economy is always more or less good and, if not, it is headed in the right direction. We are trained to leave economic "understanding" to "specialists," called "economists," whose understanding and predictions are oftentimes feeble. We are like farmers waiting on the Weather Channel to tell us there is a drought while our crops are out in the field withering. We are trained not to notice those withering plants. Our news media is encouraged not to show these pictures of empty factories and minimum-wage jobs because this type of reporting is "depressing." Depressing is for what is happening in other countries--in America, only individuals do bad things--infrastructures, systems, economies, businesses never do. This is why a similarity that any grade-school child could point out France and the U.S. grew at the same rate--cannot be seen by adults.
But, yes, we still have prisons: "[There was] a curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said." [Source: alternet.org]
I wrote quite a bit about this last week and don't want to repeat it inappropriately here.
Anyway, a few words. Good post. Everybody should read Orcinus' blog, for he sees it all so clearly when it comes to fascism, prisons, racism, white-supremacism, etc.
Thanks for your prescient irony.
Andy
Heard on the radio this morning that foreclosures in Michigan are 2 and a half times the national average. Any new cars being bought aren't much made in Michigan.
Posted by Sharon at February 27, 2006 07:12 AMThere's an Article in the International Herald Tribune today (from the NYT) that speaks to these issues. Inspired by pessimist, I thought I would bloggerize on it for a while...
What's the difference between Communism and Capitalism? Less than most people think.
Sure, North Korea is by anybody's economic and civil definition a complete and total failure. Starvation, quasi-slave labor, totalitarianism, repression... The picture is ugly. However, they are obviously catching on. The "management" elite of North Korea are beginning to understand that they can have their cake and eat it too--i.e., they can still be a managing elite and unfairly exploit labor under capitalism too!!! (How exciting for them!)
Sorry for the self-promotion, but the illusions we hold about our economies are scary. It has pictures too!!!
Andy
Posted by AndyW at February 27, 2006 08:03 AMHeard on the radio this morning that foreclosures in Michigan are 2 and a half times the national average. Any new cars being bought aren't much made in Michigan.
The unfortunate thing is that GM management will make out like a bandit. They now have an excuse to export labor and exploit it, something workers here had to fight for will be lost and will take decades to rebuild.
Posted by AndyW at February 27, 2006 08:06 AMWrong.
Posted by muckdog at February 27, 2006 08:27 AMright (pdf)
right (pdf)
right (pdf)
more charts and graphs to prove the rightness and truthiness of what Pess sez
Muck, I am so happy for you and your massive denial. It is serving you well. I hope that it serves you when all is lost and everyone you know is jumping from the top of buildings after the crash. May you stay in your denial so that you do not jump.
Or perhaps you can take your change from your pockets and drop it at the local foodbank, today.
Posted by Anjha at February 27, 2006 09:38 AMPess, my post was interned for too many links. Was only trying to rebute Muck - it takes a lot of proof. Even though I am certain he reads none of it.
Will you please free my post?
Posted by Anjha at February 27, 2006 09:43 AMPmist's post contains a lot of wall of worry stuff. We bulls need that sort of thinking to keep pushing the market higher. Which, as you may know, is now at 5-yr highs (SP500)! The only thing the bears can do at this point is cover their shorts or go long. They're probably feeling frustrated that they've missed the rally or are underinvested. The market is telling us the economy is fine.
Tsk tsk.
You know, the negative savings rate doesn't include two important asset classes, home equity and stocks. More than 70% of Americans own their homes and around that many have money in the markets via 401(k) plans and IRAs. That's why folks' net worth is up. The stats say nobody is saving money, but the stats also say that Americans are wealthier than ever.
Pick and choose which stat you want to believe. I just know I had to stand in line for 50 minutes at Best Buy over the weekend. Also, it took me about 40 minutes to find a parking space at the mall.
Posted by muckdog at February 27, 2006 10:17 AMThe stats say nobody is saving money, but the stats also say that Americans are wealthier than ever.
Very few people are saving money, the stats prove that. We're talking about cash, not property. Real estate and stock are far too volatile to consider. As for wealth being up, that's because the rich are getting so much richer that the average is skewed.
I just know I had to stand in line for 50 minutes at Best Buy over the weekend. Also, it took me about 40 minutes to find a parking space at the mall.
Buying on credit....the American Way! What's the savings to debt ratio these days?
Posted by ann at February 27, 2006 10:33 AMPss, vry nc wrk; gnd s, f rcll, th nly sb-Shr cntry prtng wtht tsd hlp d t l nd dmnd dscvrs sm yrs g. m nt sr bt MF r Wrld Bnk cllrs; t vry wll my b tht thy r fr f ths slvrs.
lthgh dn’t hv tm t g nt shllw dpth nlyss, wld lk t pnt t tht yr ‘Dmcrtc’ prty nswr cnsstntly cntrs yr wrnss f cntns scl prblms tht flw nbtd rgrdlss f th pltcl cbl n pwr. Hw d y lgtmt ths pprnt blndnss? Th pltcls smply s n ltrntv t crprt slvry; ths s tr vn n th fc f bzrr rvltns f fcts n mttr f xprssd by cnsrvtvs r lbrls. Frrll’s fn pc pt tgthr vrs bsrvtns f crrnt pltcl vnts rngng th ntr pltcl ln nd vn gng bck t WW. lthgh sh fls t fllw th mny t th crprtns, hr brf tln s ndd vlbl fr th rcrd, (thnks fr lnkng th st).
gn, nlss w cm p wth vbl thrd prty, th dmcrts mst vw th slf mpsd lbl, ‘prgrssv,’ s ltsts. ‘Prgrssv’ n wht? Pvrty? nbrn nfntcd? Dvrc s prpr? Hmsxl/pdphl sympthzrs? Mthrs bndnng thr fmls? Th lst s ndlss. Hwvr, t nclds th ttl lv f th ‘Dmcrtc’ crprt gd, whch s th sm gd f th Rpblcns. D y spps tht r crprt gds nttd vrs scl Trjn Hrss t prlyz th Dmcrtc Prty? f nt prlyz, prhps cs plrztn f dvnt scl vls.
Th Dmcrtc Ntnl pltfrm s th prblm. Snc t prdcs crp, t ttrcts ll typs f prvrtd fls. Mnwhl, r Rpblcn frnds cntn t cm t lkng gfy, bt wy lss gfy thn th Rpblcns. Hw mch gfr cn w gt wth Bsh nd ll f hs ft frnds? Yt, th Dmcrts cntn dng th mpssbl, f nly bcs thy r n bd wth nt n whr, bt n ntr brthl f scl whrs tht wld mk ny S r rpn cty’s ys lght p n lstfl gl.
Th Bblcl rl s t frst lk n th mrrr bfr lkng fr vl. Why lk t th Rpblcn’s mt fltng n thr flthy ys whn w hv msrbl swmll f lgs stckng t f nt nly r vry ys, bt vry wrtchd pr n r Dmcrtc bdy?
More than 70% of Americans own their homes
Did you write that with a straight face? You are saying that there are about 210 milllion individuals that own homes? Next define "own". Now what is the average equity level for people with household incomes at
around that many have money in the markets via 401(k) plans and IRAs.
What is the average amount in these account for people with at or below median income (around $65k/household)? What is the ratio of debt to these accounts?
I just know I had to stand in line for 50 minutes at Best Buy over the weekend. Also, it took me about 40 minutes to find a parking space at the mall.
What is the average savings to debt ratio for those at or below median incomes?
Most of your beloved wonderful economy is built on credit. One word: Unsustainable. Or how about quit throwing out your meaningless "evidence" and BS anecdotal evidence.
from ThinkProgress:
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. In 2004, “the net worth at the 90th percentile was $831,600 — or 62 times the net worth of the 10th percentile, which was $13,300.” In 2001, the top ten percent had 57 times as much as the bottom ten percent.
Posted by ann at February 27, 2006 10:53 AMAnn and Simp, you must be stand up comedians! So, since Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have most of their money in stocks/real estate, I suppose you think they're "broke?" Just using Ann's own words, that "stocks and real estate are too volatile" to be counted as assets.
And how are the rich getting richer if they own stocks and real estate? That's the way most of them got rich, you know.
My savings rate is probably extremely negative, because I have zero money in a traditional passbook savings account. According to the way the savings rate is measured, I'm broke! Me, Gates, and Buffet! Strugglin' to make it! Where do we instruct the Limo driver to take us to sign up for government benefits?
LOL.
Posted by muckdog at February 27, 2006 10:57 AMSo, since Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have most of their money in stocks/real estate, I suppose you think they're "broke?" Just using Ann's own words, that "stocks and real estate are too volatile" to be counted as assets.
Once again, ignoring the meaning of YOUR original post. We were discussing the savings rate which is down because people, well, don't have enough extra money to save. You got it confused with the wealth index. Two different things, try to keep it straight.
Posted by ann at February 27, 2006 11:10 AMAnn, most of those gains came in the late 90's. Didn't you read the article?
In 1995, the net worth of families at the 90th percentile (those wealthier than 90% of families) had was $469,000, 38 times the net worth of the 10th percentile (those less wealthy than 90% of all families), which was $12,300, measured in 2004 dollars to remove the impact of inflation.
In 2001, families at the top had 57 times as much ($780,900 vs. 13,500).
So, under Clinton the rich went from 38 times as much in 1995 to 57 times as much by 2001.
Under Bush, the rich have gone from 57 times as much in 2001 to 62 times as much by 2004.
So, under Clinton the rich went from 38 times as much in 1995 to 57 times as much by 2001.
In your own words, muck: tech bubble.
Besides, where in that post did I mention Bush at all?
Posted by ann at February 27, 2006 11:22 AMMuckdog:
Invest in a Colt .45, stick it in your mouth, and pull the trigger. The world would be a better place.
Posted by tempus at February 27, 2006 11:26 AMWhat did scout say?
Posted by bbtb at February 27, 2006 11:29 AMAccording to the Wall Street Journal article Ann linked to:
NET WORTH
90%ile vs. 10%ile
1995 $469,000 $12,300 (in 2004 $$s)
1998 $572,100 $11,500
2001 $780,900 $13,500
2004 $831,600 $13,300
Uh, I think it's time for some of that trickle down stuff. You know, like raising the minimum wage at the very least. And remember that health care costs have gone up astronomically in those years. Where's that good economy you speak of, Muck?
I answered my own question: The top 90 percent are having a good economy.
Posted by Sharon at February 27, 2006 11:32 AMOops 90 PERCENTILE that is.
Posted by Sharon at February 27, 2006 11:33 AMThe hungry included 9 million children (aged under 18)
Oh puhleeze, it's all their fault! How can they be hungry? We have 800,000 hispanic kids under age 11 in the fields picking produce everyday! If these children want food they can get a job. It'll lower the cost of education too! There are always those positive unintended consequences.
Where do we instruct the Limo driver to take us to sign up for government benefits?
Tell him to get off the freeway and drive through East St. Louis. Nice numbers are a cold reality if you're not part of those numbers. Who's fault is it? Cut another jobs program and I can tell you.
Posted by phidipides at February 27, 2006 11:57 AMI see my work is done here for today. Tempus is advocating violence. Ann is contradicting herself. Sharon is jumping in trying to help, and making your arguments weaker. Pdip is chiming in with the nonsensical.
Thanks for the softball today, folks. LOL.
Posted by muckdog at February 27, 2006 12:33 PMFrom the CS Monitor:
America's younger workers losing ground on income
Very frustrating, and readily apparent to those unfortunate younger ones of us. Though I'd like to see what has happened to the real median income of women, too, not just men and families.
The inflation-adjusted, average hourly earnings [as in constant 1982 dollars] of a production or nonsupervisory worker (which is pretty much all of us) for January, 2006, came in at....
$8.17.
Which is one whole cent more than it was in October, 2001.
So don't any of you ingrates go spend it all in one place, either.
Muckpuppy:
You are far too much of an idiot for me to consider your fate. Perhaps you should email some of the religious right who post here occasionally, and ask their opinion.
I see my work is done here for today. Tempus is advocating violence. Ann is contradicting herself. Sharon is jumping in trying to help, and making your arguments weaker. Pdip is chiming in with the nonsensical.
Shorter muck: I still think the economy rocks because I'm doing well, and I just can't refute anything said here today.
Posted by ann at February 27, 2006 01:09 PMApologies for the previous non-proofed post above. Got distracted with the twins.
Posted by Simp at February 27, 2006 01:12 PMFor anyone who cares, "personal savings" is defined by the BEA (as in the Departement of Labor's Bureau of Economic Analysis).
It (generally) includes retirement accounts, so it ain't just passbook savings down at the Bedford Falls Building and Loan.
It does not include capital appreciation or capital losses.
Posted by knobboy at February 27, 2006 01:17 PMThis country was built by slaves. Interesting that some people (muck) have no problem with slave wages in America. If a fulltime worker can't afford a decent home, health care, and food, it's slavery.
Posted by Sharon at February 27, 2006 04:35 PM