Maccagirl83 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Survey taken! Hope that helps! I know the struggle of not getting enough folks to take a survey for a class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 INFLATION There is a horrible amount of absolutely nonsensical talk about inflation here. The claim being that some pay hikes at the low end is going to lead to some immediate inflation that swamps the purpose of the pay hike. Why is this rubbish? First, no one, not especially me, is asking for "new money" to be added to the system. Without changing the money supply by even $1, wages can be raised without inflation because what is proposed is a SHIFT of money away from profits and into wages. Second, because this is a debt system, even adding lots of new money doesn't cause inflation. We just proved this in the 2008 banking crisis. For three years, the Federal Reserve added over ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the money supply through Quantatative Easing programs, and the inflation rate remained so low, that it was almost zero. Money is being pumped into the system through bailouts too. no inflation detected. Interest rates, which the FED uses to battle inflation have been at a nominal 0% now for many years. Just now, they are considering a quarter point hike! people don't understand inflation because they don't even the faintest clue how a "debt based" monetary system operates. Its the same reason they panic over the "national debt." A complete lack of fundamental understanding. However, I also understand that business propagandists constantly use the scare of inflation to get people to accept ever falling wages as they reap in the difference as windfall profits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CECAA850 Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I wonder when Craig checked this thread last? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Labor's share of income That chart makes the problem about as clear as it can be made, statistically. If labor's share is falling, who's share is rising? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth. Essentially, “If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.” - Simon Black, international investor, entrepreneur That's one reason I'm real proud of my daughter, her savings has her in the top 12% of her age group, but she has zero debt. She does this on $8 an hour with no help from me anymore. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06?dist=countdown As long as we're doubling everybody's salary and getting them off government support by introducing taxes and taking away subsidies, where does financial education fit into all this? Home finance and budgeting is a very value-laden topic. Some are debt averse. Some are partiers on credit. I'm not so sure we should have Big Brother trying to get into moralizing individuals' budgetary considerations. I'd leave it to parents, friends, peer pressure and hard knocks. Especially since Big Brother has $18 trillion in debt and another $42 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Shown in this graph from the Credit Suisse report you can see that 10% and 20% of the world's poorest are in North America and Europe. Note that this is not income and Credit Suisse is defining poor as lacking in "wealth" taking into account the assets and liabilities like cash and debt. The report estimates that half of the world has a net worth less than $3,210 and a significant portion of the U.S. and Europe do not even make the cut because their net worth is negative. . Edited November 12, 2015 by Fjd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) INFLATION There is a horrible amount of absolutely nonsensical talk about inflation here. The claim being that some pay hikes at the low end is going to lead to some immediate inflation that swamps the purpose of the pay hike. Why is this rubbish? First, no one, not especially me, is asking for "new money" to be added to the system. Without changing the money supply by even $1, wages can be raised without inflation because what is proposed is a SHIFT of money away from profits and into wages. Second, because this is a debt system, even adding lots of new money doesn't cause inflation. We just proved this in the 2008 banking crisis. For three years, the Federal Reserve added over ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the money supply through Quantatative Easing programs, and the inflation rate remained so low, that it was almost zero. Money is being pumped into the system through bailouts too. no inflation detected. Interest rates, which the FED uses to battle inflation have been at a nominal 0% now for many years. Just now, they are considering a quarter point hike! people don't understand inflation because they don't even the faintest clue how a "debt based" monetary system operates. Its the same reason they panic over the "national debt." A complete lack of fundamental understanding. However, I also understand that business propagandists constantly use the scare of inflation to get people to accept ever falling wages as they reap in the difference as windfall profits. You are so wrong.... at least I think. My understanding is that the money pumped into American companies is being invested in emerging markets. That would be the reason why inflation hasn't been so bad over here. Inflation comes from a bigger supply of money in circulation. Money that is not here, or that sits idle and remains idle, ought not to be considered as contributing to inflation. Take idle money and give it to 50 million consumers and yes, you will see inflation. Edited November 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I wonder when Craig checked this thread last? I heard is son is busy writing his wage thesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 The first number just seems staggering to me I have 2 daughters that fit into that category. My youngest goes to high school and works part time at a grocery store. My oldest is married to a marine. All the jobs in the area are taken by other marine spouses so she'll pick up a part time job on occasion. She volunteers a lot as well. Neither live in poverty but fall under the first category. They both are workers that make less than 20k a year. Before my parents died they would have fit into that category also as they'd do some part time things, more for something to do than for the income. They did not live in poverty either unless you put them in that category on paper. Note that the definition of poverty is based on income and not wealth, nor living expenses. If you inherit a lot of money and property, but don't make $20,000, you are poor. If you make less than $20k but live at home and your parents pay for everything, you are poor. Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth. Essentially, “If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.” - Simon Black, international investor, entrepreneur I guess we should be thankful we are not in that 25% that will inherit debt. I must admire that while others shoot from the hip with wild guesses, you have actual data. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 (edited) Shown in this graph from the Credit Suisse report you can see that 10% and 20% of the world's poorest are in North America and Europe. Note that this is not income and Credit Suisse is defining poor as lacking in "wealth" taking into account the assets and liabilities like cash and debt. The report estimates that half of the world has a net worth less than $3,210 and a significant portion of the U.S. and Europe do not even make the cut because their net worth is negative. Not mentioned is whether the data also counts government benefits and safety nets in determining what it means to be "poor." I bet if those things are considered, then North America and Europe would constitute tiny, tiny slivers on the left side of that chart. Edited November 12, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 INFLATION There is a horrible amount of absolutely nonsensical talk about inflation here. The claim being that some pay hikes at the low end is going to lead to some immediate inflation that swamps the purpose of the pay hike. Why is this rubbish? First, no one, not especially me, is asking for "new money" to be added to the system. Without changing the money supply by even $1, wages can be raised without inflation because what is proposed is a SHIFT of money away from profits and into wages. Second, because this is a debt system, even adding lots of new money doesn't cause inflation. We just proved this in the 2008 banking crisis. For three years, the Federal Reserve added over ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the money supply through Quantatative Easing programs, and the inflation rate remained so low, that it was almost zero. Money is being pumped into the system through bailouts too. no inflation detected. Interest rates, which the FED uses to battle inflation have been at a nominal 0% now for many years. Just now, they are considering a quarter point hike! people don't understand inflation because they don't even the faintest clue how a "debt based" monetary system operates. Its the same reason they panic over the "national debt." A complete lack of fundamental understanding. However, I also understand that business propagandists constantly use the scare of inflation to get people to accept ever falling wages as they reap in the difference as windfall profits. You are so wrong.... at least I think. My understanding is that the money pumped into American companies is being invested in emerging markets. That would be the reason why inflation hasn't been so bad over here. Inflation comes from a bigger supply of money in circulation. Money that is not here, or that sits idle and remains idle, ought not to be considered as contributing to inflation. Take idle money and give it to 50 million consumers and yes, you will see inflation. No sir. It is being given to banks to invest as they wish, and most of what they are investing in is M&A, Derivatives and bankrolling takeovers. e.g. they are using it to invest in their own growth. Dollars added are dollars added. The reason it is not inflation, is because fiat money has NO FIXED BASIS OF VALUE. What counts in our debt based economy is only ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: Growth. In order to sustain a debt economy the "debts" must be rolled over with interest each year as an approximation. So when you borrow a million, you must pay back $1.1M, as an example. Well, were does the 0.1M come from, if not new sales? If the debts can't be rolled over, DEFLATION occurs followed by an immediate depression. So each year, all the debt in the world must be figuratively "rolled over" into new debt. And the requirement is an ever growing growth pattern to cover the interest on the debt. So, how to grow? BORROW MORE MONEY! That's our economic system, like it or not. The easiest way to learn how our economy works in gory detail is to watch CNBC each morning from 5am to 7am. About 3 months of that, and you will be an expert on the debt economy, inflation, profits, offshoring and the quarterly golden quest for growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 INFLATION There is a horrible amount of absolutely nonsensical talk about inflation here. The claim being that some pay hikes at the low end is going to lead to some immediate inflation that swamps the purpose of the pay hike. Why is this rubbish? First, no one, not especially me, is asking for "new money" to be added to the system. Without changing the money supply by even $1, wages can be raised without inflation because what is proposed is a SHIFT of money away from profits and into wages. Second, because this is a debt system, even adding lots of new money doesn't cause inflation. We just proved this in the 2008 banking crisis. For three years, the Federal Reserve added over ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the money supply through Quantatative Easing programs, and the inflation rate remained so low, that it was almost zero. Money is being pumped into the system through bailouts too. no inflation detected. Interest rates, which the FED uses to battle inflation have been at a nominal 0% now for many years. Just now, they are considering a quarter point hike! people don't understand inflation because they don't even the faintest clue how a "debt based" monetary system operates. Its the same reason they panic over the "national debt." A complete lack of fundamental understanding. However, I also understand that business propagandists constantly use the scare of inflation to get people to accept ever falling wages as they reap in the difference as windfall profits. You are so wrong.... at least I think. My understanding is that the money pumped into American companies is being invested in emerging markets. That would be the reason why inflation hasn't been so bad over here. Inflation comes from a bigger supply of money in circulation. Money that is not here, or that sits idle and remains idle, ought not to be considered as contributing to inflation. Take idle money and give it to 50 million consumers and yes, you will see inflation. No sir. It is being given to banks to invest as they wish, and most of what they are investing in is M&A, Derivatives and bankrolling takeovers. e.g. they are using it to invest in their own growth. Dollars added are dollars added. The reason it is not inflation, is because fiat money has NO FIXED BASIS OF VALUE. What counts in our debt based economy is only ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: Growth. In order to sustain a debt economy the "debts" must be rolled over with interest each year as an approximation. So when you borrow a million, you must pay back $1.1M, as an example. Well, were does the 0.1M come from, if not new sales? If the debts can't be rolled over, DEFLATION occurs followed by an immediate depression. So each year, all the debt in the world must be figuratively "rolled over" into new debt. And the requirement is an ever growing growth pattern to cover the interest on the debt. So, how to grow? BORROW MORE MONEY! That's our economic system, like it or not. The easiest way to learn how our economy works in gory detail is to watch CNBC each morning from 5am to 7am. About 3 months of that, and you will be an expert on the debt economy, inflation, profits, offshoring and the quarterly golden quest for growth. I don't disagree that debt is money. But you have gone off-point with that. You suggested that adding more money does not cause inflation. This is wrong. Just as adding more debt causes inflation, so does adding more money. Why do you think we had a housing bubble? Lax lending. More debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 I don't disagree that debt is money. But you have gone off-point with that. You suggested that adding more money does not cause inflation. This is wrong. Just as adding more debt causes inflation, so does adding more money. Why do you think we had a housing bubble? Lax lending. More debt. Would accept the inflation stats for the last 10 years as evidence you are wrong, or will you continue on? Here's the chart: http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table And since 2008, we've added some $11T in dollars just through QE and bailouts. That doesn't even include new debt. So, please, where is the inflation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 If you inherit a lot of money and property, but don't make $20,000, you are poor. If you make less than $20k but live at home and your parents pay for everything, you are poor And at least in the first case, you don't qualify for federal/state benefits either. So what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T2K Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Whatever you get, buy the extended warranty. None of them last like they used to. We bought a Maytag washer dryer set a few years ago and have had zero problems... The problem with todays appliances is that they are only as good as their circuit boards. Which are probably all made in the same place. I just found out today I need two dishwashers. One is a couple of years old. The other lasted 31 years. This is Jeff's happy world of globalization. I bought a washer today. After asking around I learned of a guy that actually builds them locally by himself. An entrepreneur of sorts. He touts his machine as an appliance of the future, an item that will be in every working persons home in the near future. A machine that will compete head-to-head with anything imported from other countries. There are no electronics involved which will improve reliability and negate the extra cost of extended warranties. I included a picture so that y'all can see you're future. If anyone is interested in obtaining one of these futuristic devices just let me know. The guy has no contact information, he lives off the grid in a van down by the river. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 The first number just seems staggering to me I have 2 daughters that fit into that category. My youngest goes to high school and works part time at a grocery store. My oldest is married to a marine. All the jobs in the area are taken by other marine spouses so she'll pick up a part time job on occasion. She volunteers a lot as well. Neither live in poverty but fall under the first category. They both are workers that make less than 20k a year. Before my parents died they would have fit into that category also as they'd do some part time things, more for something to do than for the income. They did not live in poverty either unless you put them in that category on paper. Note that the definition of poverty is based on income and not wealth, nor living expenses. If you inherit a lot of money and property, but don't make $20,000, you are poor. If you make less than $20k but live at home and your parents pay for everything, you are poor. Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth. Essentially, “If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.” - Simon Black, international investor, entrepreneur I guess we should be thankful we are not in that 25% that will inherit debt. I must admire that while others shoot from the hip with wild guesses, you have actual data. Thanks. For the most part I've only been trying to check facts to see if I could substantiate various information presented in the thread through public information that can be verified as credible. It sure is an interesting picture being created when placing all of these pieces together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Inflation - why it didn't happen after adding trillions of dollars. QUOTE Many feared that QE would spell hyperinflation for the U.S. economy following the economic crisis of 2008. The crisis, however, was largely a deflationary phenomenon and the money being injected into the system by QE, as seen by spike in the M0 monetary base, was by and large retained by the financial sector, with the more important M2 money supply remained fairly stable. Hyperinflation is an exponential rise in prices and tends to occur not when countries print too much money, but is instead associated with a collapse in the real underlying economy. The printing of money is a desperate effort to maintain stability and prevent production from coming to a halt. Weimar Germany was ruined by the production standstill following WWI in the Ruhr valley, and Zimbabwe’s Mugabe destroyed the country's agricultural production capacity and infrastructure. On the other hand, the U.S. economy remained productive during the period of the Great Recession and only saw very modest increases in inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Those that are paid a low enough wage then turn to government programs to help with the rest. It is already a wash. The question becomes why should some businesses who employ mainly low paid workers get subsidized by all tax payers when other businesses are not. I am not stuck on a number such as 15 and am not stuck on overnight. Don't confuse me for someone who is. Please explain how you think somebody supporting a family could make less than $15 an hour, and be off all forms of government assistance, and still have a higher standard of living. Unless they have major benefits on top of that as well as a working spouse or second job, that's not going to happen. Regardless of anythign else, the average premium for a family of four in the private sector is around $17,500 right now I believe. At that rate, even if you did make $15 an hour, if you're limited to 32 hours a week, you'd clear $7,500 all year. Even without taxes, you're literally bringing home $4.50 an hour. That's $144 a week. If you go to the doctor at all even without anything major, your deductible can wipe out 1/3 to 1/2 of what's left. Even if you did make a full $15 an hour, if you're limited to 32 hours and no benefits, apparently somehow you're going to pay rent, provide clothes, transportation, feed four people, and everything else, for like 5 grand a year. And that's with us literally more than doubling the minimum wage and given the workers everything they are asking for. There is not going to be any hand wringing from our government where workers are suddenly self sufficient after an increase. Not going to happen, and even if it did, workers would be much worse off. You can't both make them self sufficient and increase their standard of living at this amount of pay. First of all, I don't think nor have I stated as much the premise of your first paragraph. Once again Ii commend you for bringing up the 32 hours a week loophole, it is a huge part of your standard of living issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Thanks. For the most part I've only been trying to check facts to see if I could substantiate various information presented in the thread through public information that can be verified as credible. It sure is an interesting picture being created when placing all of these pieces together. Right. It's a picture of the collapsing middle class. It's ironic beyond belief that so many people complain about the loss of the middle class, but when you show them how it happened they deny the evidence and claim the opposite! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 INFLATION There is a horrible amount of absolutely nonsensical talk about inflation here. The claim being that some pay hikes at the low end is going to lead to some immediate inflation that swamps the purpose of the pay hike. Why is this rubbish? First, no one, not especially me, is asking for "new money" to be added to the system. Without changing the money supply by even $1, wages can be raised without inflation because what is proposed is a SHIFT of money away from profits and into wages. Second, because this is a debt system, even adding lots of new money doesn't cause inflation. We just proved this in the 2008 banking crisis. For three years, the Federal Reserve added over ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the money supply through Quantatative Easing programs, and the inflation rate remained so low, that it was almost zero. Money is being pumped into the system through bailouts too. no inflation detected. Interest rates, which the FED uses to battle inflation have been at a nominal 0% now for many years. Just now, they are considering a quarter point hike! people don't understand inflation because they don't even the faintest clue how a "debt based" monetary system operates. Its the same reason they panic over the "national debt." A complete lack of fundamental understanding. However, I also understand that business propagandists constantly use the scare of inflation to get people to accept ever falling wages as they reap in the difference as windfall profits. You are so wrong.... at least I think. My understanding is that the money pumped into American companies is being invested in emerging markets. That would be the reason why inflation hasn't been so bad over here. Inflation comes from a bigger supply of money in circulation. Money that is not here, or that sits idle and remains idle, ought not to be considered as contributing to inflation. Take idle money and give it to 50 million consumers and yes, you will see inflation. No sir. It is being given to banks to invest as they wish, and most of what they are investing in is M&A, Derivatives and bankrolling takeovers. e.g. they are using it to invest in their own growth. Dollars added are dollars added. The reason it is not inflation, is because fiat money has NO FIXED BASIS OF VALUE. What counts in our debt based economy is only ONE THING and ONE THING ONLY: Growth. In order to sustain a debt economy the "debts" must be rolled over with interest each year as an approximation. So when you borrow a million, you must pay back $1.1M, as an example. Well, were does the 0.1M come from, if not new sales? If the debts can't be rolled over, DEFLATION occurs followed by an immediate depression. So each year, all the debt in the world must be figuratively "rolled over" into new debt. And the requirement is an ever growing growth pattern to cover the interest on the debt. So, how to grow? BORROW MORE MONEY! That's our economic system, like it or not. The easiest way to learn how our economy works in gory detail is to watch CNBC each morning from 5am to 7am. About 3 months of that, and you will be an expert on the debt economy, inflation, profits, offshoring and the quarterly golden quest for growth. I don't disagree that debt is money. But you have gone off-point with that. You suggested that adding more money does not cause inflation. This is wrong. Just as adding more debt causes inflation, so does adding more money. Why do you think we had a housing bubble? Lax lending. More debt. I see something in your comment which has a special explanation. I can see you are identifying "rising house prices" as "inflation." And that is throwing you off. Houses are assets like stocks and bonds and diamonds. The rise in asset prices is not inflation. Otherwise, we would claim that the 90 year rise of the DOW was just inflation. Assets generally rise because money moves from one to the other. Let's say, out of stocks and gold and into houses, for example. Assets are investments and held for investment gain. Whatever amount of money exists that can be applied to assets is done, but it's a zero sum game. Houses go up, something else, some other asset went down. INFLATION is the unchecked rising of the price of GOODS AND SERVICES, not assets. When milk and bread and gas and electricity and cars and boots and tires are rising unchecked, together as a whole, you have inflation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 12, 2015 Share Posted November 12, 2015 Credit Suisse estimates that 25% of Americans are in this situation of having a negative net-worth. Essentially, “If you’ve no debts and have $10 in your pocket you have more wealth than 25% of Americans. More than 25% of Americans have collectively that is.” - Simon Black, international investor, entrepreneur That's one reason I'm real proud of my daughter, her savings has her in the top 12% of her age group, but she has zero debt. She does this on $8 an hour with no help from me anymore. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/most-americans-have-less-than-1000-in-savings-2015-10-06?dist=countdown As long as we're doubling everybody's salary and getting them off government support by introducing taxes and taking away subsidies, where does financial education fit into all this? It's something I always felt I would like to do, especially in high school before they have a chance to get on the wrong track. A little more advanced class in college wouldn't hurt them either for their futures. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.