cthulu23

So are you hostile towards each of the Constitutional amendments that were added after the drafting, or is it only the 16th that you disagree with?

Regardless of your opinion on later amendments, the fact that congress and the states are allowed to levy taxes renders their collection Constitutional.

onetime2

I stand by my statements about bankruptcies. Nowhere did I ever say that bankruptcies were not rising and the fact that they are doesn't impact my analysis as it was already accounted for.

Your web searched article fails to account for the substantial growth in the stock and housing markets over the last 5+ years. And, to put the percentages in context, changes in small numbers often result in large percentages. In this case, that 76% drop amounts to a dollar figure drop of ~$800. Far less impressive of a number than that 76% implies. Responding to every article that, on the surface, appears to rebut my arguments is exactly what I was trying to avoid. We could go on like this for a long, long time and we will get nowhere. You're convinced of your stance and I doubt anything I say will change your mind.

As far as consumer debt, I am absolutely concerned with it. Just as I am concerned with interest rates, inflation, productivity, the stock market, home prices, another terrorist attack on US soil, and countless other factors which interact in both simple and complex ways to form current (and future) economic conditions.

Is it the single biggest concern in the economy right now? Nope.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

You did say that if bankruptcies could be an indicator of troubled economics....posting there rise is a legitimate response.

How am I supposed to respond if I cannot site evidence that I believe contradicts you?

You have exhibited the same level of flexibility in your opinions as I have.

I wold think that what constitutes the "single biggest concern in the economy" is a matter of opinion. As you have so vociferously pointed out, you don't agree with the analyses of economic journalists from both sides of the political spectrum. Perhaps your beliefs are not the only ones out there?

wonderwench

The 16th Amendment was a mistake, afaic - despite the intellectual gymnastics used to justify it.

wonderwench

Bancruptcies do to excessive consumer debt are a minor problem compared to our ongoing dependency upon foreign sourced oil, the ongoing threat of terrorist attacks, and the spending binge of Big Government which could suppress the growth necessary to create jobs.

roachboy

the fact of france's unemployment rate has nothng to do with the existence of its health system-i'd be really interested to see how you night make that linkage....from your viewpoint, wonder, i expect that it is intuitive---but is there any data to back that up?

i should say up front that i am a bit wobbly ater a night at a wine bar...there are french innovations in the cultural sphere the virues of which simply cannot be denied.....there are few things finer in this world than a good red wine and a heavy chocolate cake. i imagine this is off topic, but at this moment, it is prominent in my mind, as fact, and as an ontological (not ontic) linkage...hi ho....

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

Finally some common ground, RB. I love a good red wine with a bit of chocolate decadence.

Now, to enlighten you about some economic realities. France's high unemployment rate is directly impacted by the high cost of social programs. Germany is having the same problem. This is part of the reason why they are advocating that the taxes of the new EU members from Eastern Europe be jacked up so that they do not lose even more jobs to more competitive countries.

cthulu23

As I stated to onetime2, I only brought up bankruptcies in response to his reference to them. Sheesh, do I have to argue that point with both of you?

wonderwench

C'mon, admit it. You love the abuse.

I must confess, I do not remember everything everybody says.

roachboy

well, as delightful as it is to have a shred of common ground with you, wonder, i still would like you to produce some evidence for your claim.
i could--were it not for the red wine---think of lots of other explanations for french unemployment rates, and go on at some length about them.
the situation in france is as complex as it is in any other country---there are no simple explanations..
so show your evidence--and please be explicit about the politics of the source. i will reciprocate--though probably not tonight, as the wine and cake buzz is pulling me to more ethereal zones.

btw, off topic again--might i suggest that you--and whoever else migth read this---track down a cd? polwechsel/fennesz--wrapped islands--the perfect microtonal accompaniment to this or (frankly) most other situations. listen to it and maybe we could understand each other. even if you hate it, you'll get a glimpse of my inner world.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

Here's a bit of reading for you after the wine wears off. It does require a prerequisite of understanding that higher taxes slow economic growth. If we cannot agree on that simple principle, then nothing will convince you.

Bloomberg.com

roachboy

i read it, and the analysis is ridiculous.
do you read freanch?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

Yes, I do. Too bad you do not understand economics. I fear we are at an impasse.

roachboy

maybe not----i would say that the tax rates/"bidness climate" argument assumes but does not account for a major shift in the political framework within which firms understand their economic activity---until the 1970s, that frame was the nation-state, and what was instituted within the nation state as a function of the internal political relations (more social democratic, less social democratic for the most part, in western europe) was simply the price of doing business. within that context, fims were forced (differentially, inperfectly) to take some account of the consequences of their business acitivity at the social level. mechanisms for redistrubutiong wealth were one means for doing that.
so you cannot separate taxes etc from bigger contexts if you want to understand what they are about.

since the 1970s--and accelerating as the spaces that manuel castells talks about as "the space of capital flows" particular to globalizing capitalism have been established---this has changed---firms now can operate without (more or less) regard to nation-states--by which i mean that it is now possible for firms to operate without regard for the social consequences of their actions in any particular setting--because the political terms that shape action have shifted in that direction. (this does not mean that all firms choose to do so, but that the option obviously exists and is just another business strategy)

if you are looking to justify this elimination of social consequences from thinking about capitalism, you might take your own set of economic assumptions as a test case:

the politics that enables firms to act without regard to social consequences is just that, a politics---but for you that level of politics is eliminated entirely from consideration---

first because you somehow internalize the neoclassical separation of the economic from all other forms of social activity. i do not think that seperation is defensable on any level. it is the lingua france of economics departments, but only hold up because it enables people in those departments to advance the illusion of scientific status by developing mathematically based ways of describing the economy as they understand it. if you think about it, the split is both absurd logically and catastrophic politically.
if you position this ideology in the context outlined above, what you are doing is a functioning as a direct mirror of the situation in that now you cannot talk about social consequences either.

second, by fetishizing the individual and remaining suspicions of organization, you argue for total self-disempowerment in the name of a moralized nonunderstanding of the world around you. but i think this follows directly from the previous step. you seem to eliminate history from thinking about history as well.....what i think you are arguing for, wonder, is that social inequalities are the result of nature or god, not people--and that taxes (for example) function as a way for human beings to mess with the divine order of life under capitalism. i have seen quite a number of your posts, and do not think this is a bad distillation of your position---but it is not pretty to look at it as such.

i see the ideological position you outline, wonder and others, as a kind of sustained self-immolation---the effects of your arguments seem to me to be about total political auto-disempowerment--this comments refers not so much to the content of what you say--because your language indicates that you obviously have a different conception of what personal and/or political power would consist in--what it looks to me is happening is that you conflate political power and consumer choice and reduce both your analytic understanding and political thinking to the domain of what is in front of you, to bourgeois "common sense"--which has nothing to do with analysis from the viewpoint i outlined above.

i want to be clear about this: this is not a personal attack on you or anyone else--what it is is an attempt to sketch an analysis of an entire right ideological position from a viewpoint that is outside that position.

this is a series of reason that might explain not only why i saw the bloomberg article about france ridiculous, but also why we find ourselves talking by each other so often.

what do you think?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

I think you use a great many words to accuse me of being shallow and self-absorbed and which reveal your own Akademik arrogance.

I respect the concept of individual liberty conjoined with individual responsibility. My statements are consistent with this belief.

Common sense, btw, is an often underrated but highly useful attribute. Without it, the human race would never have survived.

roachboy

wonder--no. reread the post--i was careful to say nothing personal about you.
and i reiterate that here.

i was making an argument about why i think your position is untenable, what it leaves out.....and because that position is part of a bigger formation in the states, i directed what i said at that formation, not you. i was also making an argument about the ways in which i see your position as self-defeating.

if you want to talk about it, take on the arguments--no need to be defensive in the way you are above.

the writing is not particularly dense.

and please stop using the empty word "akademik" to swat away an argument that i do not think you can answer. the term is irritating. it doesnt do anything.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

wonderwench

Then I suggest you refrain from the term "bourgeois common sense". It is equally offensive to me.

There is no way to address your argument in that we cannot agree on fundamental economic principles.

roachboy

first, bourgeois common sense----a residuum of my past engagements--nothing perjorative about it, really--and i could define exactly what it refers to and why i use it. if you like.

as for agreement about basic economic principles, what i am asking is that you try to open up what you take as given to examination--because--my argument is--that those starting points are either arbitrary or undefenable or both---ay posts have beena criotique of the assumptions that your position sits on--i do not understand why you wont engage at this level--how can you be sure what you think is coherent if you cannot examine what shapes that coherence?.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

onetime2

As stated for like the third time now, I never said that they weren't rising and pointing that out does not dispute anything I said.

Citing evidence that contradicts me is great. Unfortunately you haven't. You've attempted to point to things that are marginally related and use them as "evidence" that my statements are wrong. You will never find an article that directly addresses the specific points I am making and using snippets of articles only serves to make me have to point out why they don't apply.

When presented with applicable facts I am absolutely flexible in my opinion. You have exhibited no such trait. Despite pointing out the flaws in the "real wage" data you continue to maintain that it's significant.

As far as your last point, I've never claimed that there aren't opposing viewpoints and that fact doesn't have anything to do with mine. You tried to make the claim that my beliefs run counter to the beliefs of those who fear the rise in consumer debt and that my relative lack of concern means that I think they are "Chicken Littles". Every economist puts differing levels of likelihood and impact on the trends occuring in the economy today, those that have occurred in the past, and those likely to occur in the future. Citing articles that put different stress on certain trends is not a rebuttal of my position it only serves to muddy the water and force me to respond to every inapplicable use of data.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cthulu23

To be accurate, the last stats that I linked to dealt with total wealth and not just wage data, which I think is closer to the indicators that you were talking about.

Whatever the case, I've helped prolong this debate beyond usefulness. I think that I'll stop now.

onetime2

And, like your other postings, it didn't address my statements because that data didn't account for the rising stock market and home prices over the last 5+ years.

My point about your clinging to the wage data goes back several posts when you claimed:

Since real wages, as pointed out in the definition you posted, is simply wages adjusted for inflation and the flaw with these wages is the failure of the indicator to include overtime pay, unadjusted wages are equally ill suited to support your claims.

But there is something we can agree on. We are getting nowhere and it's time for it to end.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.