[QUOTE=450slcguy;1308106]I'm talking about current and past economic indicators, which are in large part positive. I'm sure somehting bad could happen that would crash it all - who knows, that's the nature of life.

With regard to the debt assumed by other countries, I'm not too worried about that. I don't see them asserting any wild and crazy rules on us that we would choose to follow. Short answer and not complete, but essentially I'm not too worried about that. More concerned with what "we" think in this country.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

This may provide an interesting insight. Any essay that starts by quoting Mencken can't be a total waste.

B

----------

Out of position: Against the politics
of relative standing

Will Wilkinson
Click here for PDF version

Zero-sum positional conflict is avoidable in a liberal market society, argues Will Wilkinson

HL Mencken once quipped that, ‘a wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife’s sister’s husband.’ Writing last April on the definition of poverty in The New Yorker, journalist John Cassidy takes the logic of Mencken’s satire of low-grade ressentiment fully seriously and plumps for its liberal application to public policy. Cassidy argues that it is indeed a hardship to make less than your wife’s sister’s husband—or your co-worker, your next door neighbour, or anyone within the same national boundaries—and proposes that for the purposes of government ‘poverty’ be defined in terms of relative rather than absolute deprivation. In particular, he suggests that the poverty line be set at half the value of the median income. ‘If poverty is a relative phenomenon,’ Cassidy writes, ‘what needs monitoring is how poor families make out compared with everybody else, not their absolute living standards.’ [1]

While capitalism does in fact produce absolutely egalitarian results—enabling the poor to own high-quality mobile phones, microwaves, and cars functionally equivalent to those of the wealthy—it cannot, critics say, manufacture more and better ‘positional goods’, to use economist Fred Hirsch’s term, because, basically, it is impossible to fit more than ten percent in the top ten percent.[2] No matter how trusty, safe, comfortable, and efficient your new Hyundai Accent may be, the fact that is within the grasp of so many will keep it from signaling that you inhabit the commanding heights of society. And that’s what you really want, isn’t it? To be king of the mountain?

Policy arguments like Cassidy’s that pivot on the alleged importance of relative position rather than absolute opportunity and wealth, are now much in vogue—on the left, at least. The politics of relative position is the egalitarian welfare statist’s new favorite game. Richard Layard, head of the London School of Economics Centre for Economic Performance and member of the British House of Lords, argues that considerations of relative position justify regulating and even censoring advertising, for it makes us feel bad to see people who own things we cannot afford, and even if we can afford them, having them wouldn’t make us happy.[3] British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson claims that low relative income is a direct cause of illness, and that equalising income redistribution ought to be reconceived as a ‘public health’ measure.[4] Cornell University economist Robert Frank argues in rigorous detail for a steep consumption tax designed to dampen the alleged enthusiasm for zero-sum status races through the display of opulence.[5] ‘Every time [some people] raise their relative income (which they like),’ Layard writes, following Frank, ‘they lower the relative income of other people (which those people dislike). This is an “external disbenefit” imposed on others, a form of physical pollution.’[6] The solution? Slap a tax on ‘the polluting activity’—you and me working hard to get a raise—in order to get us to play more and produce less.

Are these arguments any good? Does our taste for relative position help vindicate egalitarian social democracy? The answer is no. A more benign and scientifically adequate picture of human nature, together with a more up-to-date notion of ‘externalities,’ show the politics of relative position to be a non-starter.

more: http://www.cis.org.au/policy/spring_06/polspring06_wilkinson.htm

Nice cut and paste Bot, seriously. Ever see that in your extended family? Where power resides in the ability to have more? Kinda funny, playing the large penis game.

For the poor, expensive (three dollar) microwave popcorn is a luxury. For a farm boy, Waterloo Iowa is the big city.

__________________
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows - Robert A. Zimmerman

Oh yeah. Even when we know we're caught-up in the game we can't help but play it. Back when I was a goat-raising back-to-the-lander I had the reverse-snobbery thing going. In which one says, "my bio-digester is better than your bio-digester." The trick is to channel it productively and also to maintain a sense of humor about it.

I still wish I had an S Class.

B

Anyone remember the stock market in 1999 when the tech boom was pushing the market to places it had never been before? I remember a lot of stories about how great the economy was and how that economic boom was never seen before. That was a story that was saturated by "the news guys".

The market broke 12000 yesterday. Barely a mention. My businesses are doing well. My customer's businesses are doing well. Everyone in my area is working their butts off trying to keep up with this economy.

Either it's an election year, or Texas just kicks ass, or both.

Seat of the pants feel? This economy kicks butt.

__________________
- Brian


1989 500SEL Euro
1966 250SE Cabriolet
1958 BMW Isetta 600

I was referring to the way both political parties can "cherry-pick" the same set of data, and/or present it in a way that supports their own agenda. That's why you have one side saying the economy is great, the other side saying it sucks, and both quoting data from the same source to support their argument.

It was like the debate a few years back concerning upper end tax cuts. One side argued that the upper income brackets paid in far more in actual dollar amounts than the bottom 80 or 90 percent combined (true), and therefore was carrying an unfair burden and deserved tax relief. The other side argued that once you factored in tax shelters, the federal tax rate, etc, that as far as a percentage of their income the upper brackets were actually paying less percentage-wise than the bottom 80 to 90 percent (also true), and therefore didn't deserve squat.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

Again, it's the same adolescent/high school game. "I gotta have the same clothes as _______". The trick you describe has more a flavor of growing up than trickery. Indeed, the more I read, the more I see that the progressive platform in many areas is more juvenile than mature. Once again Churchill is right on, in many levels.

I wouldn't mind having a newer S class either, except I don't want to pay for it and it better ride nicer than my SDL, which rides pretty damn good despite it's need for new shocks. In short, I don't want it because X has it, I want it because I like to be pampered...

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

The cherry picking is easily remedied by looking at the actual reports from the agencies responsible for the reports, GAO, SEC, Treasury, etc... All those sources have been supporting the positive direction of the economy for several years now.

With regard to taxes, isn't the goal to collect the greatest tax revenue? In which case we seem to have found a way to do that and give a tax break to middle and upper class citizens - the folks who actually do pay taxes. Sounds win/win to me. Where's the problem in that?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Good example, I remember the late 90's boom or the Dot com bust as it later became called. I think it's an interesting example. You're right, the reporting of that "boom" was very positive. The reporting of this boom is not. I also remember that there were several reports and economists in the 90's that were pointing out that the "boom" wasn't actually based on anything real; just cyberspace earnings which could cease at any given time, which they did. I would point out that the current boom is based on more real earnings such as housing and manufacturing than a dot com, thus I think has more staying power and is more deserving of being described as actual boom-period.

As for the disparity in reporting... I think it's a symptom of the conservative/progressive difference. In other words; it was our guy at the helm during the dot com boom thus "everything's great!". Now that it's not our guy, despite a stronger economy than the late 90's, there is pessimism.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Wasn't offering an opinion on the tax cuts. Just using that as an example of "cherry-picking", both sides finding points in the same set of data to support opposite opinions.

__________________
Just say "NO" to Ethanol - Drive Diesel

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville, NC
'87 300D 212K miles
'87 300D 151K miles - R.I.P. 12/08
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD 67K miles
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club

I understand.

I wasn't offering an opinion either, although my opinion is in favor of them.

I just thought that a change in taxation should be viewed as to what goals you have and the effects that may occur when you change them - i.e. a conservative approach.

In the case of the tax cuts it appears that if the goal(s) were to reduce tax burden on those who pay and bring in more tax revenue then the tax cuts were a resounding success and should be made permanent as evidenced by the success they achieved.

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone

Wall Street is jumping in part because wages and benefits, as a world wide component of doing business, are down. A company that lays off 20% of its employees and liquidates 40% of its capital can look more profitable for a time at least, but I don't think that sort of thing is always going to be a positve for our society.

If Bill Gates walks into a bar with 20 guys in it, suddenly everybody's average wealth is in the billionaire range.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

The third graph is BLS:
Series Id: CES0500000006
Seasonally Adjusted
Super Sector: Total private
Industry: Total private
NAICS Code: N/A
Data Type: AVERAGE HOURLY EARNINGS OF PRODUCTION WORKERS

Attached Thumbnails

     

BLS:

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonal Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent
Age: 16 years and over

Attached Thumbnails

 

Interesting Bot, where'd you find those?

__________________
-livin' in the terminally flippant zone