Trade deficits are ALWAYS detrimental to their nations’ GDPs.

[Widdekind]

a (free) trade deficit implies, that the importer can get things cheaper, from abroad, than from at home. Why would "buying low" be bad? Basic economics teaches "buy low, sell high". "Buying low" is always economically good.

Now, imports of goods & services can only be funded, by exports; or by selling off capital assets (land, stocks, bonds). So, a trade deficit does imply, that "the other guy" is buying up domestic capital assets. Yes, you could put a "spite tax" (tariff) on the other guy's cheap products; or, you could work harder, for less, your own self (economic competitiveness).

Libertarian economics does not advocate penalizing economically competitive producers, with "spite taxes", to force & coerce everybody to pay for their own (comparatively) un-competitive un-productive "Sloth". Invoking Government Force (Laws, Taxes) to support "Sloth" is not Libertarian, and would not be predicted to benefit any humans on earth, in any way (any more than "Sloth" is ever, actually, really, a "benefit", deceived perceptions to the contrary not-with-standing).

 

[Supposn]

Widdekind, the logic of your position is similar to the logic of those who oppose free public education; that it’s less expensive for the state and its taxpayers not to provide free public schools.

Years ago a common opinion among the middle class was teaching your children a trade or farming them out as apprentices. Not being wealthy you could not (as a parent or as a taxpayer) afford to provide children with an education.

This opinion was contradicted by Thomas Jefferson who questioned if a democratic Republic could be sustained and survive if its citizens were ignorant and indifferent.

One of our granddaughters had to stay with us for a couple of weeks. We, (mostly my wife devoted a great deal of effort to the child’s toilet training. It would have been easier for us not to do so but it would not serve the best interest of my son, my daughter-in-law, the child or our family.

Principle parties voluntarily enter into agreements with each other because they perceive net benefits if they do so. Regardless of the gains they may expect, our governments recognizes and identifies certain contracts as being contrary to our societies best interests. In these cases there’s a divergence between the best interests of the commercial principles and the public society.

You cannot erect a structure that’s contrary to local code, regardless of the monetary gain you might realize by doing so. You cannot risk my family’s safety by erecting a firetrap. Regardless of the profits that may be realized, my neighbors cannot convert their property to be used as pig pens. The land is zoned for residential use.

Regardless of the potential profits to commercial entities, a trade deficit is ALWAYS detrimental to the nation’s GDP and thus is also somewhat of a net detriment to the nation’s median wage.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Widdekind]

Widdekind, the logic of your position is similar to the logic of those who oppose free public education

no -- basic economic doctrine advocates "buy low", and cheap imports allow domestic consumers to "buy low". That's profitable for them. Which is why they voluntarily buy the imports, in the first place

Imports may displace domestic jobs, reducing overall wages (W); but they also reduce prices (P); so "real wages" (W/P) remain about the same. Nobody's purchasing power can be reduced, by "buying low".

(If the other guy is selling low, he's working for less; any downward pressure on domestic wages, from cheap imports, is a valuable economic signal, to "pick up the pace", because the other guy is working harder, for less, i.e. being more competitive. No economic system can long sustain "Sloth".)

 

[Rshermr]

Widdekind, the logic of your position is similar to the logic of those who oppose free public education

no -- basic economic doctrine advocates "buy low", and cheap imports allow domestic consumers to "buy low". That's profitable for them. Which is why they voluntarily buy the imports, in the first place

Imports may displace domestic jobs, reducing overall wages (W); but they also reduce prices (P); so "real wages" (W/P) remain about the same. Nobody's purchasing power can be reduced, by "buying low".

(If the other guy is selling low, he's working for less; any downward pressure on domestic wages, from cheap imports, is a valuable economic signal, to "pick up the pace", because the other guy is working harder, for less, i.e. being more competitive. No economic system can long sustain "Sloth".)

Interesting perspective.
So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing. And the upper 1% has huge increases in real income.
And we outsource jobs to countries with the lowest possible wages, and the lowest possible standard of living. And, according to you, we should be ok with this as it is natural until incomes are equal.
Great idea. We can soon be like china or india.

Great plan.

So, you also believe that the upper classes should continue to see incredible income growth while the working class sees its wages continue to stagnate?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Widdekind, the logic of your position is similar to the logic of those who oppose free public education

no -- basic economic doctrine advocates "buy low", and cheap imports allow domestic consumers to "buy low". That's profitable for them. Which is why they voluntarily buy the imports, in the first place

Imports may displace domestic jobs, reducing overall wages (W); but they also reduce prices (P); so "real wages" (W/P) remain about the same. Nobody's purchasing power can be reduced, by "buying low".

(If the other guy is selling low, he's working for less; any downward pressure on domestic wages, from cheap imports, is a valuable economic signal, to "pick up the pace", because the other guy is working harder, for less, i.e. being more competitive. No economic system can long sustain "Sloth".)

Interesting perspective.
So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing. And the upper 1% has huge increases in real income.
And we outsource jobs to countries with the lowest possible wages, and the lowest possible standard of living. And, according to you, we should be ok with this as it is natural until incomes are equal.
Great idea. We can soon be like china or india.

Great plan.

So, you also believe that the upper classes should continue to see incredible income growth while the working class sees its wages continue to stagnate?

So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years.

Prove it. Don't skip any steps.

 

[expat_panama]

...the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing...

So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. Prove it. Don't skip any steps.

It's true: The Connection Between Obesity and Poverty - Real Time Economics - WSJ

 

[Rshermr]

no -- basic economic doctrine advocates "buy low", and cheap imports allow domestic consumers to "buy low". That's profitable for them. Which is why they voluntarily buy the imports, in the first place

Imports may displace domestic jobs, reducing overall wages (W); but they also reduce prices (P); so "real wages" (W/P) remain about the same. Nobody's purchasing power can be reduced, by "buying low".

(If the other guy is selling low, he's working for less; any downward pressure on domestic wages, from cheap imports, is a valuable economic signal, to "pick up the pace", because the other guy is working harder, for less, i.e. being more competitive. No economic system can long sustain "Sloth".)

Interesting perspective.
So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing. And the upper 1% has huge increases in real income.
And we outsource jobs to countries with the lowest possible wages, and the lowest possible standard of living. And, according to you, we should be ok with this as it is natural until incomes are equal.
Great idea. We can soon be like china or india.

Great plan.

So, you also believe that the upper classes should continue to see incredible income growth while the working class sees its wages continue to stagnate?

So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years.

Prove it. Don't skip any steps.

That is too easy, though you could look for yourself easily enough. But, to save you the trouble:

Middle class squeeze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 Reasons Why America's Middle Class May Soon Be Extinct - Seeking Alpha

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/07/middle_class_squeeze.html

White House: The American middle class is shrinking | David Rohde

Magazine - Can the Middle Class Be Saved? - The Atlantic

The information is very easy to find. Next time, please take 5 minutes and you will be amazed at what you may find.

 

[Rshermr]

no -- basic economic doctrine advocates "buy low", and cheap imports allow domestic consumers to "buy low". That's profitable for them. Which is why they voluntarily buy the imports, in the first place

Imports may displace domestic jobs, reducing overall wages (W); but they also reduce prices (P); so "real wages" (W/P) remain about the same. Nobody's purchasing power can be reduced, by "buying low".

(If the other guy is selling low, he's working for less; any downward pressure on domestic wages, from cheap imports, is a valuable economic signal, to "pick up the pace", because the other guy is working harder, for less, i.e. being more competitive. No economic system can long sustain "Sloth".)

Interesting perspective.
So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing. And the upper 1% has huge increases in real income.
And we outsource jobs to countries with the lowest possible wages, and the lowest possible standard of living. And, according to you, we should be ok with this as it is natural until incomes are equal.
Great idea. We can soon be like china or india.

Great plan.

So, you also believe that the upper classes should continue to see incredible income growth while the working class sees its wages continue to stagnate?

So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years.

Prove it. Don't skip any steps.

That is too easy, though you could look for yourself easily enough. But, to save you the trouble:

Middle class squeeze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 Reasons Why America's Middle Class May Soon Be Extinct - Seeking Alpha

America's Middle Class Still Losing Ground

White House: The American middle class is shrinking | David Rohde

Magazine - Can the Middle Class Be Saved? - The Atlantic

The information is very easy to find. Next time, please take 5 minutes and you will be amazed at what you may find.

 

[Widdekind]

So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing. And the upper 1% has huge increases in real income.
And we outsource jobs to countries with the lowest possible wages, and the lowest possible standard of living. And, according to you, we should be ok with this as it is natural until incomes are equal....

So, you also believe that the upper classes should continue to see incredible income growth while the working class sees its wages continue to stagnate?

no -- if China & Mexico work harder, for less pay, then US workers should pick up their pace; US workers should not be "ok" with being uncompetitive economically

Now, statistics do show that overall median income per household; and median wages of workers; have "stagnated" since the 1970s. Average US households & workers still earn $30-40K per year, in real terms (adjusted for inflation). How much "should" US workers be earning per year, according to you ?

i want a favor from you. you are you; and i'm me. So, if we are talking money & politics; then let you & me talk about you and me... not Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, Bill Gates, or Lee Iacocca. Since we aren't them, why would we be "gossiping" about them, "behind their backs"? They have their lives & their issues, that they get to deal with themselves. Let us worry about our own selves ?

 

[Widdekind]

The Connection Between Obesity and Poverty - Real Time Economics - WSJ

stereotypically, poorer Americans eat cheaper "junk" food, and get fat -- but what do poorer people have to do, with the "middle class", who earn twice or thrice as much ?

Now, (other) statistics do show, that median incomes have stagnated, in the US, since the 1970s, in real (inflation adjusted) terms. And, those incomes have stagnated, at the highest per capita levels, on this world. On average, no known life-forms, within light-years of our star system, earn as much, as the US "middle class".

So, i yield the floor -- who has gripes ?

 

[expat_panama]

...the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. The poverty class has been increasing...

So, the middle class has been shrinking for the past 30+ years. Prove it. Don't skip any steps.

It's true: The Connection Between Obesity and Poverty - Real Time Economics - WSJ

stereotypically, poorer Americans eat cheaper "junk" food, and get fat -- but what do poorer people have to do, with the "middle class", who earn twice or thrice as much? Now, (other) statistics do show, that median incomes have stagnated, in the US, since the 1970s, in real (inflation adjusted) terms...

lol! Hey, everyone needs to understand that it's real easy to say "the middle class has been shrinking" --and even to get paid well saying it, but so far nobody's doing the heavy lifting of actually thinking about it.

...easy, though you could look for yourself easily enough. But, to save you the trouble:

Middle class squeeze - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

5 Reasons Why America's Middle Class May Soon Be Extinct - Seeking Alpha

America's Middle Class Still Losing Ground

White House: The American middle class is shrinking | David Rohde

Magazine - Can the Middle Class Be Saved? - The Atlantic...

Those are nice links to what paid pundits are saying, and if that 'proves' the middle class shrank then I can 'unprove' it by posting paid pundits saying the opposite.

Even easier is posting that--

...statistics do show that overall median income per household; and median wages of workers; have "stagnated" since the 1970s...

--and not even bothering with links to which pundit's been paid to rant. Income distribution is important, and we need to nail down what we're talking about. Here's study done on China's incomes showing that in 2000 the mid income quintile population fell relative to the other four:

While this may at show what we're talking about, it fails to show data sources and methodology. Anyone spouting about the unbelievable shrinking US mid class will have to show numbers, sources, and methodolgy, or admit that it is in fact "unbelievable".

 

[Supposn]

a (free) trade deficit implies, that the importer can get things cheaper, from abroad, than from at home. Why would "buying low" be bad? Basic economics teaches "buy low, sell high". "Buying low" is always economically good.

Now, imports of goods & services can only be funded, by exports; or by selling off capital assets (land, stocks, bonds). So, a trade deficit does imply, that "the other guy" is buying up domestic capital assets. Yes, you could put a "spite tax" (tariff) on the other guy's cheap products; or, you could work harder, for less, your own self (economic competitiveness).

Libertarian economics does not advocate penalizing economically competitive producers, with "spite taxes", to force & coerce everybody to pay for their own (comparatively) un-competitive un-productive "Sloth". Invoking Government Force (Laws, Taxes) to support "Sloth" is not Libertarian, and would not be predicted to benefit any humans on earth, in any way (any more than "Sloth" is ever, actually, really, a "benefit", deceived perceptions to the contrary not-with-standing).

Widdekind, when Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr.
A 750% difference of labor costs was not a factor that Maytag could ignore but sacrificing USA’s median wage exacerbates rather than remedies our problems.

If Maytag had been granted immunity from all unreasonable and/or reasonable government regulations, taxes and fees, Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA. Mexico does not produce superior refrigerators and they do not produce them faster.

I would suppose that in cases where the condition of the production was good and had not become obsolete, Maytag relocated their machinery to Mexico and thus reduced the costs of relocating to Mexico. USA’s official policy has always been to be of assistance and seeks to grant every conceivable tax benefit that further enables and encourages the relocation of USA production facilities and the outsourcing of jobs from our nation.

Capital is portable and unlike labor which is bond by national borders. USA‘s policies supports practices that are to the best immediate interests of commercial entities and are detrimental to own GDP.

The policies you support restrain increases, (if not actually inducing the reduction) of USA’s median wage's purchasing power due to its reducing the monetary adjusted value of our GDP.
This policy is unstated but popular among those of wealth and power. The best interests of USA wage earners are ignored because this policy hastens reduction of middle income earners' portion of our population.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Maytag would still have eventually been driven to leaving the USA.

of course thats nuts or idiotic or perfectly liberal. Our share of world manufactruring is still 22% just a little lower than our post war average while world wages are higher than ever.

We obviously are still very very competitive and this is in spite of all the things liberals do to drive miliions and millions of jobs offshore.

here's a partial list:


1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[expat_panama]

...when Maytag moved their refrigerator manufacturing from Illinois to Mexico, they reduced their labor costs from $15/Hr. to $2/Hr. A 750% difference of labor costs...

In the first place, Maytag does not have any factories in Mexico. Maytag doesn't exist, it was bought out by Whirlpool six years ago. Whirlpool is hiring people all over the world--

--so anyone who wants a job can call them and apply, and anyone who thinks Whirlpool's not hiring enough workers in the US has the right to go out and hire US workers themselves. It's a free country.

In the second place, the usual reason that some labor costs $2/hr is because that's what it's worth. Supply and Demand.

 

[Supposn]

...........................While this may at show what we're talking about, it fails to show data sources and methodology. Anyone spouting about the unbelievable shrinking US mid class will have to show numbers, sources, and methodolgy, or admit that it is in fact "unbelievable".

ExPat Panama, I do not “have to prove” anything to my own satisfaction.

My conclusions are based upon my own experiences, observations and conversations with my extended families, my neighbors and other acquaintances.I doubt the world you live within differs so much from my own.

The alternative consideration is that you close your eyes and ears due to your refusal to acknowledge realities that are not to your preference or convenience. No evidence will ever sway you from what you wish to believe or refuse to acknowledge. To some extent this is similarly true with regard to all of us.

Respectfully, Supposn
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Transcript of message #198 within the topic of “Warren Buffett's concept to significantly reduce USA's trade deficit “:

You all, we all prefer to believe that we are very logical.

Unfortunately most of us do not reach conclusions after extensive study. Based upon our nurture, our life experiences, our environment, and definitely what we perceive is to our own best interests, we decide upon conclusions and search for logical reasons that support the conclusions we’ve already chosen.

Romney is not the evil greedy devil and I would not without very good cause accuse anyone of being unpatriotic. Based upon his entire life experiences Romney has every reason to reconcile his own and the nation’s best interests as being one and the same. He’s unable to believe that trade deficits are detrimental to our nation’s economy.

 

[itfitzme]

Since 1969, all real income has increased. More disconcerting, since 2000, all real income has fallen.

This is the real dollar (2010) income distribution since 1969.

Over all, the second quintile has seen the lowest gains in reall income since 1969.

In the most general terms, what has happened is that during periods of expansion, the upper quintile and upper 5% sees greater gains than the the lower quintiles. During periods of recession, the upper quintile and upper 5% sees lower losses than the lower quintiles.

In general, the third quintile has gained 0.30% more per year than the second. The fourth has gained 0.30% more per year than the third. And the upper 5% has gained 0.30% more than the fourth.

Since 2000, through to 2010, the third quintile has seen the greatest losses, with the bottom three quintiles losing more than the fourth quintile. The upper 5% has seen the least losses. Since 2000, the lower limit of the top 5% has fallen by $88.28 per day. The upper limit of the third quintile has fallen by $288.49 per day.

Relative to each other, with the second quintile seeing the least gains and the third quintile seeing the greatest losses, the middle class has lost ground. Relatively speaking, the income distribution has become more skewed.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the middle class has lost ground.

so the liberals say over and over!!!!!


You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class got by looking at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 15 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

 

[Widdekind]

Mexico does not produce superior refrigerators and they do not produce them faster.

Evidently, Mexico produces comparable quality, comparably quickly... for allot less. Ergo, they win. If US workers want those jobs building refrigerators; then US workers will have to earn them, by building refrigerators better, faster, and/or more cheaply than elsewhere. Libertarian economics advocates competition, which drives down prices (P), as well as wages (W) paid by those prices. US workers demand world-record wages, which makes US products much pricier than foreign products. Ultimately, lower wages means lower prices, and steady jobs. Conversely, higher wages inflate prices, pricing US products out of every market, foreign & domestic; and attracts cheaper foreign products, onto US markets, from every corner of the globe ("have you heard what those Americans pay for toothpaste? we could make a fortune").

Again, US workers are only sustaining their "trade deficit" (in goods & services) with a "capital surplus" (in land, buildings, businesses). US workers are swapping cheap foreign imports, for land, stocks, and bonds. That is not long-term sustainable. But isolationist "protectionism" is not competitive. And so is not long-term sustainable, either. If the "workers of the world" are willing to work harder for less; then US workers are "slacking" by comparison.

 

[itfitzme]

the middle class has lost ground.

so the liberals say over and over!!!!!


You don't need to be an economist to see how rich the middle class got by looking at all the new inventions they could suddenly afford in the last 15 years: suddenly we had plasma TV's, LCD TV's, DLP-TV's, iPods, iphones, CD's and CD players, DVDs and DVD players, Blue Ray and Blue Ray players, PCs, desk top PCs, DVRs, color printers, satellite radio, Advantium ovens, HD-TV, Playstations, X-Boxes, X-box live, X-box Konnect, broadband, satellite TV, cell/camera/video phones, digital cameras, OnStar, palm corders, Blackberries, smart phones, home theaters, SUVs, big houses, more houses per capita, TiVo, 3D movies and TV's, built in wine coolers, granite counter tops, $200 sneakers, color matched front loader washing machines, matching washer dryer combinations, McMansions, 6 burner commercial ranges, Sub Zero refridgerators, more cars than drivers, a $1 billion ring tone industry, a pet industry that just doubled to $34 billion, 10's of millions lining up to buy Apple's I-tablet, Wii, Netflix boxes, jet skis, low profile tires, aluminum/titanium rims, Harley Davidson and Japanese motorcycles. $700 Billion spent Christmas 2010, $10.5 billion movies 2010, 10 million ocean crusies, 44 million taking plane flights over 2012 holiday, $500 billion spent on Christmas 2012.

The list goes on and on. I hope that helps you realize you can't just parrot the communist press and expect to make sense? They have other objectives and are merely using you to promote their point of view.

Since 1969, all real income has increased. More disconcerting, since 2000, all real income has fallen.

This is the real dollar (2010) income distribution since 1969.

Over all, the second quintile has seen the lowest gains in reall income since 1969.

In the most general terms, what has happened is that during periods of expansion, the upper quintile and upper 5% sees greater gains than the the lower quintiles. During periods of recession, the upper quintile and upper 5% sees lower losses than the lower quintiles.

In general, the third quintile has gained 0.30% more per year than the second. The fourth has gained 0.30% more per year than the third. And the upper 5% has gained 0.30% more than the fourth.

Since 2000, through to 2010, the third quintile has seen the greatest losses, with the bottom three quintiles losing more than the fourth quintile. The upper 5% has seen the least losses. Since 2000, the lower limit of the top 5% has fallen by $88.28 per day. The upper limit of the third quintile has fallen by $288.49 per day.

Relative to each other, with the second quintile seeing the least gains and the third quintile seeing the greatest losses, the middle class has lost ground. Relatively speaking, the income distribution has become more skewed.

You are an idiot. You are an embarrassment to humanity, Republican and Democrat alike. You are neither an economist or very bright.

I simply present the data and described it.

It says,

Since 1969, all real income has increased. All income brackets saw gains, the lowest at 0.37% per year, the highest at 1.22% per year. The second quitile went up by 0.31%.

Your list of stuff adds no additional information.

More disconcerting, since 2000, all real income has fallen. Since 2000, the lower limit of the top 5% has fallen by $88.28 per day. The upper limit of the third quintile has fallen by $288.49 per day.

Even the upper 5% has lost income since 2000.

None of this is liberal or conservative, it's simply statements of the data.

The middle class lost ground relative to the lowest quitile. Or the lowest quitile gained ground relative to the middle class. The middle class lost ground relative to the upper quitiles and the lowest quitile. Oh, I know what it was, the middle class was taking home a disproportionate percentage of the total income. Now, they are more inline with what it should be, closer to the lowest quintile. And, of course, everyone was making too much in 2000. No one should have been able to purchase that many Blue-rays, Harley-Davidson, etc.

Oh wait, since 2000, the past 10 years the middle class and everyone else has not gotten rich because they could purchase less of all the new inventions.

You are obviously incapable of recognizing the different between the reality and your own bullshit.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

US workers are swapping cheap foreign imports, for land, stocks, and bonds.

this is not really true since American dollars are declining in value whether you buy goods and services or capital. But, with the Euro declining in value faster it is probably sustainable for a long time.

Nevertheless, there is always just one solution to economic problems: restore capitalist discipline to economic activity.