State of the Union

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
... (probably something meaningless said down here)

I love when people use graphs use two different scales for a single axis. Makes it easier to figure out which posts I don't need to read further on.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I love when people use graphs use two different scales for a single axis. Makes it easier to figure out which posts I don't need to read further on.

That's a valid complaint about the graphs--the first one is particularly misleading-- but it doesn't warrant ignoring the truth of the situation. It's oriented that way because employee compensation is naturally a much larger % of GDP... the profit axis nearly doubled itself, which wouldn't have otherwise been adequately portrayed.

Basically what you can take away is that compensation/GDP dropped roughly 10%, while corporate profits/GDP increased roughly 5%. This is a well known trend and you don't need to rely on a shitty graph to recognize it.

But none of it really matters anyway because you're a libertarian and won't be happy until the State of the Union is sponsored by Coca Cola

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's a valid complaint about the graphs--the first one is particularly misleading-- but it doesn't warrant ignoring the truth of the situation. It's oriented that way because employee compensation is naturally a much larger % of GDP... the profit axis nearly doubled itself, which wouldn't have otherwise been adequately portrayed.

Basically what you can take away is that compensation/GDP dropped roughly 10%, while corporate profits/GDP increased roughly 5%. This is a well known trend and you don't need to rely on a shitty graph to recognize it.

But none of it really matters anyway because you're a libertarian and won't be happy until the State of the Union is sponsored by Coca Cola

Yes, because as everyone knows, there's nothing a libertarian loves more than when government and corporations are in bed together. Oh wait. No. That's the domain of the two major parties. So are you part of team corporate fascism or team corporate socialism?

[Orruar]

And to address the point that those two graphs are attempting (poorly) to make:
Corporate profits go back to the shareholders of those corporations. Ask yourself these questions: What happens when the stock holdings of the average American increases? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What factors might increase our holdings of stocks? What actions are being taken by our government that contribute to these factors?

I'm sure you can't answer any of these questions right now, as you weren't smart enough to even consider them. But just think about them for a few days. Or post a quick emotional response that shows little ability for analytic thought.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, because as everyone knows, there's nothing a libertarian loves more than when government and corporations are in bed together. Oh wait. No. That's the domain of the two major parties. So are you part of team corporate fascism or team corporate socialism?

Interesting tangent but no, the implication was simply that the government was tied face down on the bed and the corporation is shoving pineapples in its asshole, which would be the proper libertarian paradise.

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And to address the point that those two graphs are attempting (poorly) to make:
Corporate profits go back to the shareholders of those corporations. Ask yourself these questions: What happens when the stock holdings of the average American increases? Is this a good thing or a bad thing? What factors might increase our holdings of stocks? What actions are being taken by our government that contribute to these factors?

If this idealistic, naive horseshit were accurate, the "average American" wouldn't have spent the last decade being buttfucked, now, would they? Obviously those profits aren't making it into the "stock holdings of the average American". Even if your typical middle class porker is investing wisely, that's often nothing more than minor, supplemental income that isn't going to offset their wages and benefits being pillaged.

Blame the government as much as you want, but note that this economic catastrophe followed the most rampant deregulation since the beginning of the last century. Or in the words of Alan Greenspan, "OOPS I WAS WRONG LOL". Yes, the government and politicians played a huge role in the whole thing too, but I'm willing to bet you blame them wholly.

Libertarian Holds Reins of US Economy for 20 Years; It Turns to Shit - More at 11

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If this idealistic, naive horseshit were accurate, the "average American" wouldn't have spent the last decade being buttfucked, now, would they? Obviously those profits aren't making it into the "stock holdings of the average American". Even if your typical middle class porker is investing wisely, that's often nothing more than minor, supplemental income that isn't going to offset their wages and benefits being pillaged.

I gave you a big hint when I said you should think about the questions for a couple days, or make a quick emotional response devoid of any intellectual thought. You went with going full retard, so good job on that.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Blame the government as much as you want, but note that this economic catastrophe followed the most rampant deregulation since the beginning of the last century. Or in the words of Alan Greenspan, "OOPS I WAS WRONG LOL". Yes, the government and politicians played a huge role in the whole thing too, but I'm willing to bet you blame them wholly.

Pretty awesome deregulation on display here:

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pretty awesome deregulation on display here:

Total volume of new regulations ≠ volume of new financial regulations, which is the barely relevant figure.

Also, look at your fucking source: Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market advocacy group that opposes environmental regulation, green energy, and the widely accepted scientific position on climate change, among other abominable views. Not saying that discredits the data in any way, but it's worth noting.

Also, I'm pretty sure the technological revolution, the radical reformation of the American way of life, and the tripling of our population that has occurred since 1930 accounts for at least some of the increased rate of regulation additions.

Further, any law that has the net effect of deregulation, may still produce a sizable regulatory volume because it is still a written legislative document. For example, all of these laws which served to deregulate the financial industry were probably quite long:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit...ry_Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2...stitutions_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E...0%93Bliley_Act

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deposit...ry_Control_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn%E2...stitutions_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E...0%93Bliley_Act

Are those really the greatest 3 cases of financial deregulation you could find? Because an act from 1980 that forced all banks in the country to abide by the Fed's policies, which can be created without consent of Congress, hardly sounds like massive deregulation. One or two bones thrown to the way of these banks is more than offset by the reams of rules imposed by the Fed.