For Tiny, why Friedman was misguided

Your heart's in the right place. Sincerely, I'm not being sarcastic. Originally Posted by Tiny

I don't give up that easy. Sir!

I don't give up that easy. Sir! Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Well, I've got to go to work. No time to debate today

I can't debate you on this. It is half a statement thread, and half a troll's thread. All I know is that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Good day, sir.

This is all so obvious. I don't understand why many on the left don't understand it. Originally Posted by Tiny

many on the left are in fantasy land when it comes to real economics. they just refuse to deal with real world realities.

Top News Stories from 1962

https://www.infoplease.com/year/1962

US GDP (1998 dollars): $585.2 billion
Federal spending: $106.82 billion
Federal debt $302.9 billion
Consumer Price Index: $30.2
Unemployment: 6.7%
Cost of a first-class stamp: $0.04

PARTIAL defense. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

shouldn't the GDP be in 2020 dollars instead of 1998 dollars?

you'll need to clarify.. partial defense?

The progressive of today believe that government in the hands of self appointed elite can somehow advance mankind to societal utopia ( idiots at best)

All I know is that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Good day, sir. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

We hashed it out in this thread:

https://www.eccie.net/showthread.php...hlight=posters

I was making the point that the Ryan/Trump tax cuts on corporations and pass through businesses that employ lots of people played a large part in a huge increase in median household income in 2019 and improvement in the condition of the poor. Other posters highlighted the education system. Politicians and school board members in poorly performing school districts, who are largely Democrats, need to step up to the plate and make things better.

You don't have to fuck the rich to improve the condition of the poor. In fact, it's counterproductive.

shouldn't the GDP be in 2020 dollars instead of 1998 dollars?

you'll need to clarify.. partial defense? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Yes, growth in real (inflation adjusted) GDP per capita would be a better number to look at. I believe eccieuser's point is that the economy has grown a lot despite increasing government expenditures.

I'd attribute the growth largely to technology. And I'd look at this among countries. Look at the most prosperous in the world. Kick out the petrostates and the small places like Luxembourg and the leaders in GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power are Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, Switzerland, and the United States. And all of these countries have lower government expenditures as % of GDP than other developed countries.

many on the left are in fantasy land when it comes to real economics. they just refuse to deal with real world realities.



shouldn't the GDP be in 2020 dollars instead of 1998 dollars?

you'll need to clarify.. partial defense? Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

The article is from 1998. Yes, the GDP should be adjusted for today's worth.

The harsh reality is that greed is still a big part of our economy. That is what is hard to deal with.

As for the partial defense of Friedman, he was a Libertarian. So some of the aocial acceptance issues I agree with. Like gay and lesbian, Jew or Muslim, black or white money is all green. It spends the same.

"All I know is that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer."
Yup thanks to the elite dim-wits remember bigger guberment will fix ( not ) everything
PS gotta go to work and feed the welfare state now.

"All I know is that the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer."
Yup thanks to the elite dim-wits remember bigger guberment will fix ( not ) everything
PS gotta go to work and feed the welfare state now. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Which one is that, Rex?

This one, sir. The corporate states of America.


American Airlines cuts 46% - or 86,000 - flights from its November schedule while United is forced to reduce its plan by 52% - days after the top US carriers furloughed a combined 32,000 employees


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-schedule.html

The news comes just days after both United and American announced plans to furlough a combined 32,000 employees after lawmakers failed to agree on a broad pandemic relief package that includes more federal aid for the industry.

American Airlines CEO Doug Parker said 19,000 workers would be furloughed beginning last Thursday in a letter to staff after money from the CARES Act provided to airlines in the spring expired last Wednesday.

But farmers still get welfare checks. Needed. Because we need food. And he needs the votes.

HOW HIGH COULD FARM SUBSIDIES GO? $40 BILLION THIS YEAR.


https://www.agriculture.com/news/bus...lion-this-year

The financial flood is forecast to buoy net farm income — a USDA gauge of profitability — to $102.7 billion this year, the highest total since the end of the commodity boom in 2013. Subsidies are expected to equal 36% of farm income, the most since 41% in 2001, another era of stress. Most commodity prices tumbled with the outbreak of the pandemic, and the accompanying economic recession has throttled sales.

This one, sir. The corporate states of America.


American Airlines cuts 46% - or 86,000 - flights from its November schedule while United is forced to reduce its plan by 52% - days after the top US carriers furloughed a combined 32,000 employees


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-schedule.html





But farmers still get welfare checks. Needed. Because we need food. And he needs the votes.

HOW HIGH COULD FARM SUBSIDIES GO? $40 BILLION THIS YEAR.


https://www.agriculture.com/news/bus...lion-this-year Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I believe at one time we were receiving less from tariffs on Chinese imports than we were spending on subsidies to compensate farmers for their losses from Chinese retaliation for those tariffs. And the tariffs weren't being paid by the Chinese, but rather by American importers, Walmart, and the like, and ultimately by the American consumer. The trade war on China was (is) a complete shit show.

In general, I don't like corporate welfare, whether it's being paid to airlines or agribusinesses or anybody else. I criticized Bush's and Obama's corporate and financial bailouts around the time of the 2008/2009 recession. But looking back, maybe it was worth it. The government got most, maybe all, of its investment back. And we saved businesses and jobs.

As to what to do about the airlines, if anything, that's above my paygrade. Airlines should be good businesses, as they may have no competition or just two or three companies competing on particular routes. When one raises its price the rest do too. But they go bankrupt all the time. Are United and American supposed to keep paying 80,000 workers and go bankrupt? That's not going to do anyone any good. Should the U.S. government step in and if so how? In 2008/2009 I thought I knew the answer and I didn't. So this time I'm not even going to venture a guess.

I believe at one time we were receiving less from tariffs on Chinese imports than we were spending on subsidies to compensate farmers for their losses from Chinese retaliation for those tariffs. And the tariffs weren't being paid by the Chinese, but rather by American importers, Walmart, and the like, and ultimately by the American consumer. The trade war on China was (is) a complete shit show.

In general, I don't like corporate welfare, whether it's being paid to airlines or agribusinesses or anybody else. I criticized Bush's and Obama's corporate and financial bailouts around the time of the 2008/2009 recession. But looking back, maybe it was worth it. The government got most, maybe all, of its investment back. And we saved businesses and jobs.

As to what to do about the airlines, if anything, that's above my paygrade. Airlines should be good businesses, as they may have no competition or just two or three companies competing on particular routes. When one raises its price the rest do too. But they go bankrupt all the time. Are United and American supposed to keep paying 80,000 workers and go bankrupt? That's not going to do anyone any good. Should the U.S. government step in and if so how? In 2008/2009 I thought I knew the answer and I didn't. So this time I'm not even going to venture a guess. Originally Posted by Tiny

Thank you for your great post. Maybe their boards should cash out and all the other employees should apply at Spirit and JetBlue. Fire sale! I want a seven forty-seven before they go out of business.

Thank you for your great post. Maybe their boards should cash out and all the other employees should apply at Spirit and JetBlue. Fire sale! I want a seven forty-seven before they go out of business. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

No you don't. 747's are antiquated gas guzzlers.

You could have picked up a Boeing 787 Dreamliner from Mexico cheap if you'd been on the ball:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-wants-to-buy

No you don't. 747's are antiquated gas guzzlers.

You could have picked up a Boeing 787 Dreamliner from Mexico cheap if you'd been on the ball:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...y-wants-to-buy Originally Posted by Tiny

I'm not going to fly it! I'm going to live in it. In my new venture. A trailer park for plains.