The S&P 500 grew at 12% per year under Trump

td75

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Aug 16, 2003
12,502
12,537
113
The OP is a good example of a typical Trumper. There’s no economic anxiety. He says he’s doing quite well financially. But then he gives the tell when he picks Biden’s aid to minority owned small businesses as the bee in his bonnet. What Trumpers are most pissed about is that the rest of us don’t get rip shit about cultural grievances. They simply can’t process the lack of anger and hatred.
Your last two sentences are poorly constructed, not even sure what you mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
You're sort of hinting at the uncomfortable truth here. The truth is that it isn't unsustainable. It only looks that way because we dress it up as "borrowing from the future." But the truth is, it's just minimal redistribution that we can pretty well shrug off without much effort. We'll eventually shrug off even more redistribution. If we want to live in a society and not a post-apocalyptic movie film, we'll continue to give money to people and pay for it with production elsewhere, and we'll probably continue to call it "debt" or "obligations" or something to dress it up in a veneer comfortable to what we are used to, but it is what it is. We produce enough now to make sure everyone has at least a very minimum level of comfort, and we're going to find a way to make that happen, no matter what fictions we have to create to make it more palatable.
Regarding your last sentence, have you ever stopped to consider how we came to produce so much?

Keep up the 'redistribution' and see what happens.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,907
29,037
113
Margaritaville
I understand you'd rather insult me than answer the question.

It's your MO when you can't answer a question without admitting your argument is false.
The answer to your question is that you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. "Simple minded" wasn't an insult. It was a description of your thought process.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
The answer to your question is that you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. "Simple minded" wasn't an insult. It was a description of your thought process.
I was looking forward to a thoughtful response from you.

Disappointed, once again.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,907
29,037
113
Margaritaville
Regarding your last sentence, have you ever stopped to consider how we came to produce so much?

Keep up the 'redistribution' and see what happens.
Okay, DANC, here's a more detailed response.

Your question is itself insulting. I am no economist, but do you really think I would even bother broaching this topic if I didn't at least have an everyman's understanding of economic history? Hell, how many people are there even who have never at least thought about the wonders of production since the industrial revolution? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet very few if any of them bother spending time on a message board like The Water Cooler.

Regarding your warning, redistribution has been happening throughout history, since long before Adam Smith invented modern capitalism. Mercantilism redistributed wealth from colonies to colonial empires. Urbanization and guilds redistributed wealth from the country to the city. Industrialization redistributed wealth to a combination of the newly valuable and suddenly larger labor class and the owners of the means of production, be they capitalists or states.

Ever since the Romans started importing grain from Egypt, one of the ever-present forms of redistribution has been collecting some level of wealth and handing it out to the masses. It's an integral part of our economic structure. So I'm not really sure what you think is different now, or what you think is suddenly going to happen because of this difference.

Better?

Edit: Just to make my original point clear, what I was saying was that, so long as we can afford to manage our national debt, it is largely illusory, and is just how much of our modern wealth distribution shows up on the ledger. It's a book-keeping trick, nothing more.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
Okay, DANC, here's a more detailed response.

Your question is itself insulting. I am no economist, but do you really think I would even bother broaching this topic if I didn't at least have an everyman's understanding of economic history? Hell, how many people are there even who have never at least thought about the wonders of production since the industrial revolution? I don't know, but I'm willing to bet very few if any of them bother spending time on a message board like The Water Cooler.

Regarding your warning, redistribution has been happening throughout history, since long before Adam Smith invented modern capitalism. Mercantilism redistributed wealth from colonies to colonial empires. Urbanization and guilds redistributed wealth from the country to the city. Industrialization redistributed wealth to a combination of the newly valuable and suddenly larger labor class and the owners of the means of production, be they capitalists or states.

Ever since the Romans started importing grain from Egypt, one of the ever-present forms of redistribution has been collecting some level of wealth and handing it out to the masses. It's an integral part of our economic structure. So I'm not really sure what you think is different now, or what you think is suddenly going to happen because of this difference.

Better?

Edit: Just to make my original point clear, what I was saying was that, so long as we can afford to manage our national debt, it is largely illusory, and is just how much of our modern wealth distribution shows up on the ledger. It's a book-keeping trick, nothing more.
It's better, but you haven't recognized the fact that societies that do massive 'redistrubution' - aka welfare (and I don't use that word as a prejorative - it's just what it is) - eventually self-destruct.

What you described above is trade. Trade isn't established to redistribute to those who give nothing to society.

Until LBJ's Great Society came along, black families were stabalized and growing economically. I'm not denying some programs didn't help minorities gain economically and educationally. But when the government becomes a substitute for daddy and provides for the family economically, society breaks down, which it surely has. And, of course, this has affected white families just as much, so now we have a crazy number of births out of wedlock, with absentee fathers, drug problems, and increased crime (and before you start to quote crime statistics showing it's down, take a walk through urban areas of any major American city and tell me you feel safe).

Trillions of dollars spend on anti-poverty efforts, and what do we have to show for it?

My point was, you can only get by with 'redistrubtion' until you're giving out more than you produce. We're not far from that point, in my opinion. I'm not sure why you think we are managing our national debt. The only thing we're doing is making interest payments on it. It's rising at an incredible rate. When/if interest rates rise, the interest will be astronomical and force us into either cutting the budget (haha!) or devaluing the currency by printing even more money. Guess what happens when your dollar is worthless? Plenty of historical examples out there and, like IU basketball isn't special because "It's Indiana", we're not immune from the laws of economics.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: td75

larsIU

Sophomore
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2010
752
873
93
Until LBJ's Great Society came along, black families were stabalized and growing economically. I'm not denying some programs didn't help minorities gain economically and educationally. But when the government become a substitute for daddy and provides for the family economically, society breaks down, which it surely has. And, of course, this has affected white families just as much, so now we have a crazy number of births out of wedlock, with absentee fathers, drug problems, and increased crime (and before you start to quote crime statistics showing it's down, take a walk through urban areas of any major American city and tell me you feel safe).
Certainly a debate/discussion to have at some point, and probably outside this thread. But I would urge you to take a look at the below info. Births to unwed mothers were increasing as both a number and % every year from 1940 to 1994 when they began to plateau and even decline (the report follows 1940 to 1999 but the numbers continued declining in the 2000's).

What's interesting is the decline (or at least dip/departure from the trendline) in the late 60's and early 70's (could that have been due to those Great Society programs, i don't have time to really look at it today) and then the increase in the mid to late 70's until the mid 90's. Wild theory - that increase coincides with the War on Drugs which greatly increased ordinary street drug prices. Guess what came into provide the service of selling those drugs....gangs. Increased gang activity followed throughout the 80's and into the 90's. Again, more info is needed, just wild theories.

I do wish I had more time. Interesting subject though.

 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
10,566
3,049
113
Regarding your last sentence, have you ever stopped to consider how we came to produce so much?

Keep up the 'redistribution' and see what happens.
keep up the initial "distribution", and see what happens.



one cannot have an honest discussion on "redistribution", without a parallel discussion on "distribution".

and lets look at the economics of things post the original "distribution".

say XYZ company nets $1 bil for the yr.

the owner who decides who gets what keeps $600 million for himself, and the other $400 mil gets split $40,000 each for the 10,000 employees.

since your subject regarding "redistribution" is about "fairness, we could also argue the fairness of the original distribution.

does having the power to decide the original distribution, by default, equate to said distribution being "fair"?

one could argue both sides of that, but there is a much bigger dynamic to this.

being the owner already owns his house and cars already, and the company picks up all his health insurance, nearly all the $600 mil he took gets either put into the financial markets or used to purchase investment real estate.

this drives up the price of stocks and bonds, and of real estate.

what it doesn't do, is get circulated in the regular economy anymore.

so you just removed $600 mil from the regular economy. (but in reality many many times that).

meanwhile that $40,000 per employee is $400 mil that gets circulated over and over and over to the plumber and pizza places and bowling alleys and landscapers and auto dealers and merchants etc and generates billions and billions into the regular economy, whereas the $600 mil the owner kept generates virtually zip for the regular economy.

had said owner kept even just $200 mil for himself, then the employees would have gotten $80,000 each instead of $40,000 each, and most of the added $40,000 would also have circulated many times in the regular economy for billions and billions more to the regular economy..

with this scenario being cycled over and over, the regular economy is constantly being drained, while the market economy is constantly being inflated at the expense of the regular economy.

regardless of the "fairness" of that, it's long term effect on the economy isn't debatable, but rather inevitable.

therefore, while the "fairness" of the original "distribution" will always be open for debate on what's fair vs what's legal or what's deserved", what isn't up for debate is the down line effect on the regular economy, which will eventually translate to all of the economy sooner or later.

and the real "redistribution" going on here becomes a spiraling redistribution of the nation's money supply from the regular economy which touches everyone, to the market economy that only effectively touches the rich, with a corresponding spiraling of the division of wealth..

and as Margaret Thacher no doubt wishes she had said, eventually the rich will run out of regular economy money, as money only flows up, it NEVER flows or even trickles down, without a gun to the head of the rich, held by either the govt or the anarchist.

held by the govt, works out better even for the rich.
 
Last edited:

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,391
2,032
113
It's better, but you haven't recognized the fact that societies that do massive 'redistrubution' - aka welfare (and I don't use that word as a prejorative - it's just what it is) - eventually self-destruct.

What you described above is trade. Trade isn't established to redistribute to those who give nothing to society.

Until LBJ's Great Society came along, black families were stabalized and growing economically. I'm not denying some programs didn't help minorities gain economically and educationally. But when the government become a substitute for daddy and provides for the family economically, society breaks down, which it surely has. And, of course, this has affected white families just as much, so now we have a crazy number of births out of wedlock, with absentee fathers, drug problems, and increased crime (and before you start to quote crime statistics showing it's down, take a walk through urban areas of any major American city and tell me you feel safe).

Trillions of dollars spend on anti-poverty efforts, and what do we have to show for it?

My point was, you can only get by with 'redistrubtion' until you're giving out more than you produce. We're not far from that point, in my opinion. I'm not sure why you think we are managing our national debt. The only thing we're doing is making interest payments on it. It's rising at an incredible rate. When/if interest rates rise, the interest will be astronomical and force us into either cutting the budget (haha!) or devaluing the currency by printing even more money. Guess what happens when your dollar is worthless? Plenty of historical examples out there and, like IU basketball isn't special because "It's Indiana, we're not immune from the laws of economics.
DANC, much of your post is like reading from Charles A. Murray's "Losing Ground" where he argues Blacks and others on welfare have been hurt by these programs more than being helped. Before Murray, even many, if not most, Pubs supported the notion of welfare, So Murray has changed the political landscape regarding welfare for over three decades.

Consistent with his past influence on how we look at welfare, I expect Murray's latest book "Our Hands" to be an important contribution to the discussion on welfare reform. Actually Murray goes beyond reform and suggests the whole apparatus of the welfare state to be dismantled—not pruned or reformed No more Social Security, no more Medicare or Medicaid, no more unemployment benefits.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
DANC, much of your post is like reading from Charles A. Murray's "Losing Ground" where he argues Blacks and others on welfare have been hurt by these programs more than being helped. Before Murray, even many, if not most, Pubs supported the notion of welfare, So Murray has changed the political landscape regarding welfare for over three decades.

Consistent with his past influence on how we look at welfare, I expect Murray's latest book "Our Hands" to be an important contribution to the discussion on welfare reform. Actually Murray goes beyond reform and suggests the whole apparatus of the welfare state to be dismantled—not pruned or reformed No more Social Security, no more Medicare or Medicaid, no more unemployment benefits.
I'm not sure why you include Medicare and Medicaid, since they are self-funded. Granted, they are going bankrupt at the current rate, but no one is receiving them unless they've paid into it. And the return on SS sucks. Most would do better just having a private account.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
Certainly a debate/discussion to have at some point, and probably outside this thread. But I would urge you to take a look at the below info. Births to unwed mothers were increasing as both a number and % every year from 1940 to 1994 when they began to plateau and even decline (the report follows 1940 to 1999 but the numbers continued declining in the 2000's).

What's interesting is the decline (or at least dip/departure from the trendline) in the late 60's and early 70's (could that have been due to those Great Society programs, i don't have time to really look at it today) and then the increase in the mid to late 70's until the mid 90's. Wild theory - that increase coincides with the War on Drugs which greatly increased ordinary street drug prices. Guess what came into provide the service of selling those drugs....gangs. Increased gang activity followed throughout the 80's and into the 90's. Again, more info is needed, just wild theories.

I do wish I had more time. Interesting subject though.

Your chart isn't very convincing, since the real increase for unwed mothers increase much greater after the mid-60s.

What's curious about the increase in unwed births is the fact that 'the pill' didn't come along until the early 60s, I believe. You would think that, with better birth control, those numbers would decrease.
 

hoot1

Hall of Famer
Aug 29, 2001
15,391
2,032
113
I'm not sure why you include Medicare and Medicaid, since they are self-funded. Granted, they are going bankrupt at the current rate, but no one is receiving them unless they've paid into it. And the return on SS sucks. Most would do better just having a private account.
DANC It is Charles A. Murray who is including Medicare and Medicaid according to this review of his book "Our Hands". Brought up Murray as your post earlier sounded as if came off the pages of "Losing Ground".

Personally, I am not a big fan of Murray.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
DANC It is Charles A. Murray who is including Medicare and Medicaid according to this review of his book "Our Hands". Brought up Murray as your post earlier sounded as if came off the pages of "Losing Ground".

Personally, I am not a big fan of Murray.
Don't know him and haven't read him. If he's including those as welfare programs, he sounds like a Libertarian who doesn't believe in any government programs. I'm not a subscriber to that philosophy, although I prefer limited government involvemnt.
 

larsIU

Sophomore
Gold Member
Apr 17, 2010
752
873
93
Your chart isn't very convincing, since the real increase for unwed mothers increase much greater after the mid-60s.

What's curious about the increase in unwed births is the fact that 'the pill' didn't come along until the early 60s, I believe. You would think that, with better birth control, those numbers would decrease.
The pill and greater access to contraception probably helps explain the decrease in the birth rate for unwed mothers (the likelihood an unmarried woman will birth a child) during the mid 60's. However, the birth rate for unwed mothers has increased over time but so has the total population of unwed women in the range of years in which most children are born. Unwed women didn't just start having more kids, there were just more unwed women.

Why is that? Perhaps social programs made it easier for a woman to be single and provide for herself, with or without a child. I still hold firm that the War on Drugs has caused more problems (especially in the African American community) than the increased social program availability.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
The pill and greater access to contraception probably helps explain the decrease in the birth rate for unwed mothers (the likelihood an unmarried woman will birth a child) during the mid 60's. However, the birth rate for unwed mothers has increased over time but so has the total population of unwed women in the range of years in which most children are born. Unwed women didn't just start having more kids, there were just more unwed women.

Why is that? Perhaps social programs made it easier for a woman to be single and provide for herself, with or without a child. I still hold firm that the War on Drugs has caused more problems (especially in the African American community) than the increased social program availability.
The destruction of the family unit helped create an increase in the use of drugs. This is why the war on drugs started. It wasn't like there was a war on drugs before there was a drug problem.

Of course, social accpeptance of drug usage is also a main driver. That doesn't have anything to do with unwed mothers. But a strong family unit can help combat drug usage more than any police action or drug slogans.
 

JamieDimonsBalls

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
6,793
3,914
113
The destruction of the family unit helped create an increase in the use of drugs. This is why the war on drugs started. It wasn't like there was a war on drugs before there was a drug problem.

Of course, social accpeptance of drug usage is also a main driver. That doesn't have anything to do with unwed mothers. But a strong family unit can help combat drug usage more than any police action or drug slogans.
There's probably a bit of a circular iteration going on between drug use and the destruction of the family unit. I'm not sure that drug use is more the cause or the effect. Drug use can create divorce or be a symptom of divorcee and other family unit issues (e.g., single parent household, etc.)
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
20,336
17,975
113
There's probably a bit of a circular iteration going on between drug use and the destruction of the family unit. I'm not sure that drug use is more the cause or the effect. Drug use can create divorce or be a symptom of divorcee and other family unit issues (e.g., single parent household, etc.)
The War on Drugs got a lot of young black fathers locked up.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
55,907
29,037
113
Margaritaville
It's better, but you haven't recognized the fact that societies that do massive 'redistrubution' - aka welfare (and I don't use that word as a prejorative - it's just what it is) - eventually self-destruct.
Fact? WTF are you talking about?

What you described above is trade. Trade isn't established to redistribute to those who give nothing to society.
It's becoming clear that your only interest in the movement of wealth is whether or not any of the recipients are lazy, shiftless nogoodniks.

My point was, you can only get by with 'redistrubtion' until you're giving out more than you produce. We're not far from that point, in my opinion. I'm not sure why you think we are managing our national debt. The only thing we're doing is making interest payments on it. It's rising at an incredible rate. When/if interest rates rise, the interest will be astronomical and force us into either cutting the budget (haha!) or devaluing the currency by printing even more money. Guess what happens when your dollar is worthless? Plenty of historical examples out there and, like IU basketball isn't special because "It's Indiana", we're not immune from the laws of economics.
Buy gold!

I'm sorry, but it's clear to me that my original judgment of you was correct. You're simple-minded. You see this discussion as nothing but an argument over whether or not it's virtuous to give something free to someone who needs it. That isn't at all what we were discussing, but you fail to comprehend anything outside your comfort zone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Circlejoe

BCCHoosier

Senior
Sep 5, 2001
2,538
1,677
113
Fact? WTF are you talking about?


It's becoming clear that your only interest in the movement of wealth is whether or not any of the recipients are lazy, shiftless nogoodniks.


Buy gold!

I'm sorry, but it's clear to me that my original judgment of you was correct. You're simple-minded. You see this discussion as nothing but an argument over whether or not it's virtuous to give something free to someone who needs it. That isn't at all what we were discussing, but you fail to comprehend anything outside your comfort zone.
I gave up on Dan weeks ago when he was so confident in his understanding of tariffs, until it became obvious he lacked even basic knowledge. I'm out - he's not worth the effort.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
20,336
17,975
113
I gave up on Dan weeks ago when he was so confident in his understanding of tariffs, until it became obvious he lacked even basic knowledge. I'm out - he's not worth the effort.
The invoices for the tariffs on my company's imports came across my desk. I never could figure out how to get China to pay them. Maybe my successor will have better luck.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BCCHoosier

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
Fact? WTF are you talking about?


It's becoming clear that your only interest in the movement of wealth is whether or not any of the recipients are lazy, shiftless nogoodniks.


Buy gold!

I'm sorry, but it's clear to me that my original judgment of you was correct. You're simple-minded. You see this discussion as nothing but an argument over whether or not it's virtuous to give something free to someone who needs it. That isn't at all what we were discussing, but you fail to comprehend anything outside your comfort zone.
Convincing counter-argument. 🤣

The only true thing you wrote above is that you're no economist.
 

Morrison

All-Big Ten
Aug 28, 2001
3,102
3,045
113
Northern California
Now you tell me. I could have gotten some major attaboys had I known to do that before I retired.

I'll tell my replacement to try that on their next big invoice from the freight forwarder.
No need. If your company does a lot of business in China, you’re replacement is most likely from the Biden crime family. They’re everywhere ya know?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
20,336
17,975
113
No need. If your company does a lot of business in China, you’re replacement is most likely from the Biden crime family. They’re everywhere ya know?
Could be. I don't know the guy well, but he strikes me as someone who might know his way around hookers and blow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morrison

Cortez88

All-Big Ten
Jan 7, 2017
3,202
3,733
113
So...Trump pardons Bannon. Bannon has a billionaire Chinese sugar daddy. What are the chances that Trump starts getting some of that cheese to pay for his debts? Especially considering his creditor options.
 

DANC

All-American
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
9,135
13,383
113
So...Trump pardons Bannon. Bannon has a billionaire Chinese sugar daddy. What are the chances that Trump starts getting some of that cheese to pay for his debts? Especially considering his creditor options.
Hey, why not? Everybody's cashing in on China! Doesn't seem to bother anyone.