Reply With Quote
How are they sitting on the money?
Are you suggesting they have cash money, sitting in a vault someplace so it's useless, until they take it out?
Maybe that's why they can't get ahead...
How are they sitting on the money?
Are you suggesting they have cash money, sitting in a vault someplace so it's useless, until they take it out?
I spend less than 80% of my money.
Am I in the 1%?
No because service technicians do not rake in enough to be considered the top 1% of income earners in the US. People that do have that kind of wealth do not change parts off a checklist for a living.
What you do has no bearing on the US at large and that is a very good thing. You are just one of 300,000,000 of us.
Idiot.
I was pointing out a flaw in ShazBot's words that imply the 99% of us spend all their earnings.
Will you stop biting my ankle every chance you get? you are just annoying.
"imply the 99% of us spend all their earnings"
no flaw, except in your statement, a few years ago household debt was 113% of household income, so the aggregate spent more than all their earnings. Almost all of the 99% have NO SAVINGS, which I think is record among industrial countries, because they spend it all, and more.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-14-2012 at 10:22 AM.
And who's fault is that?
He said most. You are one person amongst 300,000,000. You are not a trend setter. Your just a partschanger with a keyboard.
Thats not a flaw. You are not like most people. That much should be obvious even to your dumb ass.
What do majority mean?
And I said "are you suggesting." I asked if he was "implying."
What the is wrong with you, tearing apart everything someone says and spinning it.
Did I claim to be any type of a trend setter? Your assumptions and responses to assumed meaning is really something.
you.
That's what you said, dumbass. And no not everyone, just you. Quit inserting supposition for fact and being generally glib about your stupidity and I will stop.
I just don't know what to say about your utterly stupid assumptions.
Yes, I said that.
I was asking that stupid question in response to his stupid statement to make him think about his words. I addressed that, and you come back with it again?
Are you so stupid you thought it was a serious question... OMG.... How ing dumb...
Why are you so focused of attacking me any way you think you can?
Just how evil are you?
Don't you have anything better to do?
I wasn't serious
And no I don't just attack you anyway I think that I can. I just go after your stupidity and ignorance. Not everything you say falls under that but sometimes it certainly feels that way.
No, i just can't believe your stupidity.
The article isn't about China. Are you on bath salts?
So you ARE suggesting that our money supply has increased 450%?
What exactly is your argument? You seem to be falling into the trap of equating fiscal policy with monetary policy, when the two are not necessarily related.
Credit Card Debt Cut: The Reason May Surprise You
A Federal Reserve study showing that Americans lost wealth in the Great Recession turned up another, perhaps more surprising, result: Credit card debt fell sharply.
"The percentage of families using credit cards for borrowing dropped over the period; the median balance on their accounts fell 16.1 percent" between 2007 and 2010, the report concluded.
The data appeared Monday in the Survey of Consumer Finances, a widely followed source of information about the financial condition of American families.
The Fed study turned up two particularly dismal measures of financial health:
1) Median family income fell 7.7 percent, to $45,800 in 2010 from $49,600 in 2007.
2) Median family net worth fell 38.8 percent, to $77,300 in 2010 from $126,400 in 2007.
So if income and net worth were tumbling, wouldn't people have been borrowing more to put food on the table and shoes on the kids?
To the contrary, "the decreased prevalence of credit card debt outstanding was widespread and noticeable across most of the demographic groups," the Fed study found.
Translating from Fed-speak to English, that means just about everyone owed less on their credit cards.
Back in 2007, 46.1 percent of families had credit card debt, with a median balance of $3,100. In 2010, after the Great Recession had flattened families' finances, only 39.4 percent had credit card balances, with a median balance of $2,600.
While it's encouraging to see families carrying less debt, economists say the improvements don't reflect good news, such as a surge of income for paying off bills. Rather, the decline shows lots of people filed for bankruptcy to clear out their old debts.
"People took on too much debt," says Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist for IHS Global Insight. Then when they lost jobs in the recession, many of them headed to bankruptcy court. "They defaulted and the debt just got wiped out," he says.
Seeing all of those bankruptcy filings, lenders became much less willing to dish out credit cards. "Lenders are being much more careful now," Gault says.
And so are consumers. So many people lost their jobs in the recession — or saw family members and neighbors lose paychecks — that they have become less willing to run up their credit cards, he said. "Everyone has become less willing to take on debt," Gault says.
There's a hint of a silver lining. Now that credit card debt has been reduced, many consumers may be in better shape to bounce back in coming years. Wiping out old debts "was just something that had to be done before we could move forward," Gault says.
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/12/154868...u?sc=17&f=1006
WC, tell us again how the 99% don't in the majority spend 100% of the income. They actaully spend overall more the 100%
No I did not suggest the money supply increased 450%.
I'm saying the fed is funding our current deficits by (simplistically) printing money.
The money supply is obviously larger than 1.668 trillion (the amount of deficits the Fed has essentially funded by buying treasuries)
And the article explicitly compared monetary expansion between the US and China and placed the bulk of the blame for higher commodity prices (which feels like inflation) on China for expanding it's money supply much faster than the US...of course, China's population and GDP is expanding much faster than the US as well...which he ignored...
Scott, I understand that you are formally trained in economics and I'm not (my degree was in architecture/engineering) so we may be approaching this from a different position.
You really don't find it a little alarming that the Fed is having to purchase that much debt to keep interest rates artificially low while we will continue to run trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see? How far down the road can we realistically kick that can?
Thanks for clarifying.
I'd heavily dispute this assertion (and if I weren't about to go on vacation, I'd provide data to help back it up). It is one component, but not nearly the largest one. If it were, we'd have significant inflation, which we don't.
Ceteris paribus, the Fed can't simultaneously stabilize our currency and finance massive budget deficits with an expansionary monetary policy.
I'm in agreement, I just disagree with the notion that the Fed is doing anything in this instance that should alarm us. What is alarming is our fiscal policy (run by Congress and the President), IMHO, not our monetary policy (run by the Fed).
Edit: Meant to say I'm in agreement as far the "kicking the can down the road" goes. It's time to stop playing the "pass the hat to future generations" game. But it's not exactly a new one. Since 1934, the United States government has managed a Budget Surplus a meager 12 times.
"It's time to stop playing the "pass the hat to future generations" "
Bull . Heavy govt spending now to get people back to work (and paying taxes and buying ) is what is needed.
More austerity now in a deep depression (for the 99%) will deepen and prolong the Banksters' Great Depression, esp disastrous for the "future" generation now leaving HS and college with extremely poor job prospects.
As Krugman pointed out last week, we now have a Repug economy (taxes cut heavily, govt spending way down vs past decades) and it sucks (for the 99%). Gecko and a Repug Congress would be a financial, human disaster for USA since they have announced that they will enforce more of the Repug austerity economy.
"Stop passing the hat" != Austerity
You = the liberal Wild Cobra. Go play on your Jump to Conclusions Mat.
GFY
Since I'm leaving now, I'll add this tidbit.
I have little interest in cheerleading for the Red Team or the Blue Team.
There are times when increase spending is called for, there are times when less spending is called for. There are times when higher taxes are called for, there are times when lower taxes are called for.
We have a situation now where we not only need a balanced budget, but we need a budget with a prolonged, sustainable surplus. Time for the United States Government to pay off all the Credit Cards is racked up in it's 20's. Insert whatever belt-tightening cliche you prefer here.
Quite simply, spending needs to be reeled in across the board and effective tax rates (taxes paid / total income) need to be increased, across the board.
A solution so simple that every American can do it in their personal lives.
"spending needs to be reeled in across the board and effective tax rates (taxes paid / total income) need to be increased, across the board"
Spending (consumerism) accounts for 70% of the US economy. try again.
govt spending is at a historic low, but being dominated by greedy health care and MIC corps, both untouchable.
taxes simply can't be raised due to 100% obstructionism by the Repugs, esp in the ty Senate.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-13-2012 at 01:28 PM.
A conversation about Government Budget Deficits isn't talking about consumer spending, congrats on failing to have a grasp on context.
Government spending needs to be reeled it. Taxes need to be higher. Your dogmatic beliefs otherwise are the Ying to the Republican Obstructionism Yang on taxes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
