For Tiny, why Friedman was misguided

[eccieuser9500]

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

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

I don't give up that easy. Sir!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I don't give up that easy. Sir!

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

[eccieuser9500]

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.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Tiny

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

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

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Top News Stories from 1962

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

PARTIAL defense.

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

you'll need to clarify.. partial defense?

[rexdutchman]

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

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

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

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.

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

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

you'll need to clarify.. partial defense?

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.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

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?

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.

[rexdutchman]

"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.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

"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.

Which one is that, Rex?

[eccieuser9500]

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.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

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

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.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

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.

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.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

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.

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

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by Tiny

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

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