Team Obama admits it's a matter of race

I read these studies. When they break out groups... The studies show that that the the underclass is now trapped while the other 80 to 90 percent of U.S. is fluid.

This is consistent with the failure of great society giveaway and democrat programs... right here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States

Some studies have found that not only is the degree of social mobility in the US not large but it has either remained unchanged or decreased since the 1970s.[10][16][17][18]



Quote from Ricter:

"Socio-economic mobility in the United States refers to the movement of Americans from one social class or economic level to another,[1] often by changing jobs or marrying. This "vertical" mobility can be the change in socioeconomic status between parents and children ("inter-generational"); or over the course of a lifetime ("intra-generational").[2] It typically refers to "relative mobility" — the chance that an American's income/status will rise or fall compared to others in a another income/status group[3] -- but can also be "absolute" -- whether (and by how much) living standards in America have increased.

Belief in strong social and economic mobility -- that Americans can and do rise from humble origins to riches -- has been called a "civil religion",[4] "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored",[5] and part of the American identity (the American Dream[6]), celebrated in the lives of famous Americans such as Benjamin Franklin and Henry Ford,[4] and in popular culture (from the books of Horatio Alger and Norman Vincent Peale to the song "Movin' on Up"[7]). Opinion polls show this belief to be both stronger now in America than in years past, and stronger than in other developed countries.[8] However, in recent years several large studies have found that vertical inter-generational mobility is lower, not higher, in America than in those countries.[4]"

From: Socio-economic mobility in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States
More...
 
Also from your article...
By the way I do not believe anything Krugman says... so don't post his bullshit.

According to Thomas Sowell, fluctuations in income and social mobility is robust and make complaints about income inequality trivial.
An absolute majority of the people who were in the bottom 20 percent [of income] in 1975 have also been in the top 20 percent at some time since then. Most Americans don't stay put in any income bracket. At different times, they are both "rich" and "poor" -- as these terms are recklessly thrown around in the media. [...] There are of course some people who remain permanently in the bottom 20 percent. But such people constitute less than one percent of the American population, according to data published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas in its 1995 annual report. Perhaps the intelligentsia and the politicians have been too busy waxing indignant to be bothered by anything so mundane as facts.[21]
 
Quote from Ricter:

Lol, I don't believe anything you say.
More...

Paul Krugman: Think about World War II, right? That was actually negative social product spending, and yet it brought us out.

I mean, probably because you want to put these things together, if we say, "Look, we could use some inflation." Ken and I are both saying that, which is, of course, anathema to a lot of people in Washington but is, in fact, what basic logic says.

It's very hard to get inflation in a depressed economy. But if you had a program of government spending plus an expansionary policy by the Fed, you could get that. So, if you think about using all of these things together, you could accomplish a great deal.

If we discovered that space aliens were planning to attack and we needed a massive buildup to counter the space alien threat and really inflation and budget deficits took secondary place to that, this slump would be over in 18 months. And then if we discovered, oops, we made a mistake, there aren't any aliens, we'd be better –

Ken Rogoff: And we need Orson Welles, is what you're saying.

Paul Krugman: No, there was a Twilight Zone episode like this in which scientists fake an alien threat in order to achieve world peace. Well, this time...we need it in order to get some fiscal stimulus.
More...

Is there a more dishonest, reprehensible "economist" around?

So Krugman endorses whatever level of fraud is necessary so that the g'ment recklessly spends trillions of dollars for an event that won't happen.

Do you not sense the level of desperation in the above comments? No amount of spending is ever enough....because unless they spend in ever greater amounts the house of cards comes crashing down.
 
Quote from Ricter:

The One Percenters, and the Point One Percenters might ask you the same, why aren't you keeping up with their gains?
More...

I don't know if anyone else has noticed but there is a real disconnect between you and your idealogy.

At every turn, you seem to display a level of smugness about how much you love the deficit spending, the dollar weakness (while it was occuring), etc, etc...

But then you rail on about this 1%-er stuff, while you are trying to convey that you are a part of the 1%.
 
Quote from denner:

Is there a more dishonest, reprehensible "economist" around?

So Krugman endorses whatever level of fraud is necessary so that the g'ment recklessly spends trillions of dollars for an event that won't happen.

Do you not sense the level of desperation in the above comments? No amount of spending is ever enough....because unless they spend in ever greater amounts the house of cards comes crashing down.
More...

I think you may be taking that specific exchange out of context... not that I agree with or endorse Krugman, but, what he's saying is that, as a society, someone or some entity has to fabricate (or create) incentive.

Incentive can be purely fictional, or, it can be the Nazis or Stalin or the Terrorists. In either case, only the government can organize a massive effort on the scale of WWII or space aliens.

Money is just a tool. Whether or not it is spent recklessly is purely subjective. Money, in general has been a "house of cards" since the very first day someone wrote an IOU...
 
Quote from denner:

I don't know if anyone else has noticed but there is a real disconnect between you and your idealogy.

At every turn, you seem to display a level of smugness about how much you love the deficit spending, the dollar weakness (while it was occuring), etc, etc...

But then you rail on about this 1%-er stuff, while you are trying to convey that you are a part of the 1%.
More...
Did I say I was part of the 1%? I recall asking what the threshold was...
 
Quote from Ricter:

Did I say I was part of the 1%? I recall asking what the threshold was...
More...

Regardless, as a small business owner, do you think you can more effectively allocate the tax "savings" or the g'ment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top