How Money Works

[Seth]

Easier to just kill all the Marxists who are attempting to overthrow our government.

Mass murder as a political tool.

Er, no, it's called "war," and it's what free people wage against those who would enslave them.

[Schneibster]

Easier to just kill all the Marxists who are attempting to overthrow our government.

Mass murder as a political tool.

Er, no, it's called "war,"

Good luck with the black helicopters.

[Seth]

Easier to just kill all the Marxists who are attempting to overthrow our government.

Mass murder as a political tool.

Er, no, it's called "war,"

Good luck with the black helicopters.

I'll take my chances, thanks. APIT is really cool, and specifically designed to take down "black helicopters." Particularly the cheap ones Marxists use.

[Schneibster]

Meanwhile, two new articles on how money works. First, how fiscal policy works:

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Wr ... Policy.pdf

By the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President.

When I was in the White House, I used to bristle when people would say I was a Keynesian economist. They acted as if I believed that fiscal stimulus mattered because of some theoretical book written in 1936, or because of what I was taught in graduate school. I used to say that I am not a Keynesian economist, I am an empirical economist. I believe what I do because of the empirical evidence.

[Schneibster]

Easier to just kill all the Marxists who are attempting to overthrow our government.

Mass murder as a political tool.

Er, no, it's called "war,"

Good luck with the black helicopters.

I'll take my chances, thanks.

[Schneibster]

Second, an article on income equality since 1979 (when Reagan won). The chart pretty much says it all; Seth thinks it means everything's OK. Snicker.



The article is very much worth a read, as well.

[Seth]

Second, an article on income equality since 1979 (when Reagan won). The chart pretty much says it all; Seth thinks it means everything's OK. Snicker.



The article is very much worth a read, as well.

Notice in this graph how the greater the income inequality, the faster the bottom 99 percent improve their after tax income?

Trickle-down economics vindicated and the Marxist canard "the poor are getting poorer" debunked in one single graph. Nicely done!

[Schneibster]

Notice in this graph how the greater the income inequality, the faster the bottom 99 percent improve their after tax income?

Inflation is not included.

Oops.

You're funny, Seth. You pretend to know about economics but every time you open your mouth about it you stick your foot in.

[Seth]

Notice in this graph how the greater the income inequality, the faster the bottom 99 percent improve their after tax income?

Inflation is not included.

Oops.

You're funny, Seth. You pretend to know about economics but every time you open your mouth about it you stick your foot in.

You are a bald-faced liar. From your own source, note the large, red text I've highlighted proving you lie. Also note the blue highlighted text at the bottom, which proves that inflation-adjusted income of the lowest 20 percent improved by 18 percent since 1979:

From 1979 to 2007, real (inflation-adjusted) average household income, measured after government transfers and federal taxes, grew by 62 percent. During that period, the evolution of the nation’s economy and the tax and spending policies of the federal government and state and local governments had varying effects on households at different points in the income distribution: Income after transfers and federal taxes (denoted as after-tax income in this study) for households at the higher end of the income scale rose much more rapidly than income for households in the middle and at the lower end of the income scale.1 In particular:

For the 1 percent of the population with the highest
income, average real after-tax household income grew
by 275 percent between 1979 and 2007 (see Summary
Figure 1).

For others in the 20 percent of the population with
the highest income (those in the 81st through 99th
percentiles), average real after-tax household income
grew by 65 percent over that period, much faster than
it did for the remaining 80 percent of the population,
but not nearly as fast as for the top 1 percent.

For the 60 percent of the population in the middle of
the income scale (the 21st through 80th percentiles),
the growth in average real after-tax household income
was just under 40 percent.

For the 20 percent of the population with the lowest
income, average real after-tax household income was
about 18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in
1979.

[Schneibster]

Lie.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/ce ... .html?_r=1

[Seth]

Lie.

You certainly do, and then you stupidly post citations that prove you're lying. D'oh!

[Schneibster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/ce ... .html?_r=1

When the Census Bureau this month released a new measure of poverty, meant to better count disposable income, it began altering the portrait of national need. Perhaps the most startling differences between the old measure and the new involves data the government has not yet published, showing 51 million people with incomes less than 50 percent above the poverty line. That number of Americans is 76 percent higher than the official account, published in September. All told, that places 100 million people — one in three Americans — either in poverty or in the fretful zone just above it.

[Tero]

I found it! Been wondering where the money goes. I know where it comes from.

I'm at the shopping mall. People buy useless crap here!

[Schneibster]

Help them. Buy some yourself. It'll fix the economy.

[apophenia]

Would you boys like us to get you a room? Pack of condoms, some bubbly, quarters for the bed?