Economy

[Anonymous No.12312504]

as Biden is likely to win and the bragging of socialist postulates will begin, I would like to quote the statement by economist Gregory Benedyk from the Mises Institute about the false plot of the difference between wages and productivity. it is a hideous manipulation that I have encountered many times here.

"There are some problems with these statistics. For example, only the cash portion of the wage is assessed, and the non-cash portion of the salary, such as medical insurance or any other perks, is not included. If we take that into account, the crossover that is on the graph decreases In addition, someone wise noticed that these are data from 40 years and they still have to be divided by inflation somehow, and it was noticed that some data are divided by the GDP refactor, and the other by CPI inflation. These are two different indicators. inflation indicators, more relevant to the GDP refactor, are from 90 or 100% of the crossover, which allegedly happened over 40 years in the United States, this crossover is reduced to 9%. In addition, the productivity statistics are slightly stretched, giving GDP divided into the number of hours worked in the economy, while the theory is that wages do not depend on average productivity, but marginal productivity. The employer pays the employer you but, how much income is he able to get from his work minus the interest rate and possibly some risk premium.

Never believe blindly socialist bigots. Educate yourselves and do not be tricked.

(in polish)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNMmfuG6_A8&feature=emb_title

[Anonymous No.12312781]

Economics aren't real. Economists are con artists. The economy could be solved with simple mathematical models.

The truth is that rich people are bad for every economic system. All economies work better when wealth is more evenly distributed as it results in more spending across the board. Spending and the velocity of money are the single most important factors for a healthy economy.

The concept of "economics" and the job of "economist" was invented to convince you that this isn't true.

[Anonymous No.12312961]

if you think biden is a socialist you are an unambiguous fucking retard and there's literally no saving you

[Anonymous No.12313478]

>>12312504
This graph also does not account for the increase of part time workers. Part time workers generally get paid less by the hour.

[Anonymous No.12313548]

>>12312961
Biden isn't anything, his brain is mush. He'll sign whatever's put in front of him.

[Anonymous No.12314351]

Yeah, this graph is bad, but what it is trying to show (pic related) is still real

[Anonymous No.12314438]

>>12312781
Facts.
The most telling thing supporting this is if you get an economics degree they don't teach you about any economic system other than your nations current one.

[Anonymous No.12314455]

>>12314351
Rich people generally are more skilled in things that result in the accumulation of wealth (enterpreneurship, investing, management) than the general population, which results in increasing wealth disparity. There's nothing really wrong with that.

[Anonymous No.12314459]

Based and econpilled.

Yes, economics is a science.

[Anonymous No.12314462]

>>12312781

>The truth is that rich people are bad for every economic system.

Bullshit. Rich people are necessary for large investments. Investing creates innovation. Why do you think most innovation comes from the US and not Scandinavia? Why is Silicon Valley, Tesla or SpaceX in the US and not in Norway?

[Anonymous No.12314464]

>>12313548
his handlers arent socialists either, just your average neoliberals

[Anonymous No.12314465]

>>12314455
The problem is that these days where Bezos can make $50,000,000,000 in a single year you either need to print a fuckload of money to keep some in circulation devaluing everyones savings and risking hyperinflation or you just accept that there will be a point where the 2 economic classes are the destitute and the extremely wealthy.
Look at the history of economic systems and you will see they all either redistribute wealth every ~century or they collapse. The last time the US went hard on socialist economic policy was in the 50's so it's getting close to time again.

[Anonymous No.12314483]

>>12314465

>The last time the US went hard on socialist economic policy was in the 50's so it's getting close to time again.

US was definitely not socialist in the 50s.

[Anonymous No.12314490]

>>12314483
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States

[Anonymous No.12314637]

>>12314462
There are more dollar millionaires in Scandinavia than there is in the US ( i think Sweden is the #1 in the world, apart from micronations).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires

I suppose you could argue that it is billionaires per capita that drive innovation, in which case Scandinavia is still on pair with the US.

[Anonymous No.12314811]

>>12314637
What

[Anonymous No.12315000]

>>12312504
Don't care still voted for Biden

[Anonymous No.12315005]

>>12312504
>Biden
>socialist
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.12315100]

>>12314637
Millionaires aren't the problem. Doctor's and lawyers can reach that level. It's a class problem because that is what drives the inequality in society.

[Anonymous No.12315506]

>>12314464
just because reddit told you that it doesn't make it true. the green new deal for example was one of the most radical left wing policy agendas in history, and the people who proposed it will be running the democrat party from the background for the foreseeable future

[Anonymous No.12315638]

>>12312504
>WE NEED A SYSTEM THAT HELPS ME CONSUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUME, YOU BIGOTS!!!

[Anonymous No.12315641]

>>12314462
>NOM NOM NOM NOOOM NOMERS

[Anonymous No.12315646]

Why are there so many ESL fags on /sci/ right now?

[Anonymous No.12315647]

>>12312504
>Mises Institute
Out of all the BS in economics, why would anyone still listen to these guys?

[Anonymous No.12315653]

>>12312781
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

I think your comment is worth exploring.
I'm not "against the rich" in the sense of offering more energy and resource to COMPETENT people that serve our values relative to the times and what we expect.
But if we aren't first given resource to then personally offer, then direct is largely guided by those whom own mass resource.

It's easy to look at both the top and the bottom as lag on our expansion.
We've tried the former for so long, though, and we're still facing the same issues.
I think it's worth experimenting with the latter and see what rises to the top.

[Anonymous No.12315656]

>>12312504
Economics is a religion that sells a primitive form of social darwinism to a technologically advanced species.

Behaving like animals while using up non-renewable resources is a recipe for extinction.

[Anonymous No.12315666]

>>12314462
If individuals and groups willfully offer their resources, that's one thing.
If they are conned, manipulated, or are forced into a system designed for harvestation, that's another thing.

We need some type of "recycling"
Whereby we choose goals collectively, start to allocate our energy (money) towards it, and once its achieved to sufficient breadth, we begin to redistribute that energy (money), and choose new hierarchies of objectives.

[Anonymous No.12315710]

>>12315656
True.

[Anonymous No.12315714]

If you could just get energy that requires initial investition and no futher spending, that would be utopy. Oil sucks.

[Anonymous No.12315754]

>>12315506
>green new deal
>radical left wing policy
you need to stop getting your news from breitbart

[Anonymous No.12315779]

>>12315656
how does she shit? does she follow some probing protocol or just approximate somehow and hope for the best?

[Anonymous No.12316030]

>>12312781
>Economics aren't real
>yet I still believe that spending is the most important factor, or even a factor with mostly positive impact on the economy
you've been conned

[Anonymous No.12316046]

>>12314455
Yes there is. They produce little tangible product and yet still consume endlessly, often relying on hordes of immigrants and chinese children to make it all for them. They, along with the majority of the country, become completely unable to produce basic survival needs.

[Anonymous No.12316049]

>>12315779
Fat people smell bad. The inability to clean feces out of their butt crack where it becomes a thick cake is just one of the reasons. At a certain level of obesity, they have a special stick they can use to attach toilet paper in order to reach their butthole. Past that level, the start crapping in the shower. Eventually when they get to the point where they're bedridden, they simply crap themselves. Whoever is enabling their behavior cleans up whatever squeezes out from under them.

[Anonymous No.12316066]

>>12312504
Cope.
You lost.
Your containment board failed.
This board will be better without you fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.12316149]

>>12316046
This is the biggest joke out there.
>They produce little tangible product
As opposed to Becky from HR or Stan who punches little numbers into excel for meaningless reports?
>Consume endlessly
What? A significant argument against wealth acumulation is that rich people cannot actually consume enough with this money so GDP goes down. Also, speak to the average American about "consuming endlessly".

[Anonymous No.12316514]

>>12314455
That is true, and there is a problem with that. If you just consider economics, capitalism is doing its goal of maximizing profit every year, but you do have to realize that's not going to work when people start not participating in the system that they view is shafting them.
>>12314465
Is right in the sense that 50's USA is much more socialist than it is now. Just look at the top tax rates. They were very high until Reagan ushered in his tax cuts which remained in place until then. Also there were a ton of veterans receiving GI bill. America just elected the most economically right wing democrat ever.

[Anonymous No.12317140]

>>12312781
>The truth is that rich people are bad for every economic system
See, I thought people being poor was the problem, but it was people being too rich all along!

[Anonymous No.12317149]

>>12315646
die anglo

[Anonymous No.12317175]

>>12316049
>they have a special stick they can use to attach toilet paper in order to reach their butthole
both the length of the arm and the location of the butthole remains the same no matter how fat you get, the challenge is to reach around the fat to get to the butthole

[Anonymous No.12317179]

>>12314465
Bezos doesn't have 50 trillion dollar bills that he took from everybody's savings, most of his wealth comes from stock ownership

[Anonymous No.12317194]

>>12316514
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_d9s2pqrk

[Anonymous No.12317206]

>>12317179
this, also the 50 trillion dollars are mostly added onto the wealth of the nation, not carved out of the economy like a piece of pie

[Anonymous No.12317462]

>>12316149
>A significant argument against wealth acumulation is that rich people cannot actually consume enough
That's a significant argument FOR wealth accumulation because they cannot consume endlessly thereby driving up the price of commodities endlessly.

[Anonymous No.12317494]

>>12317179
>Bezos doesn't have 50 trillion dollar bills that he took from everybody's savings, most of his wealth comes from stock ownership

His wealth is still value derived from the labor of employees.

[Anonymous No.12317529]

>>12312961
he is fully on board with the green new deal and kamala harris is literally tweeting communist economics videos on equity and is the daughter of a known communist for the 60's. You are the typical fucking moron on this board that always thinks your hot shit but never has any idea wtf you are talking about

[Anonymous No.12317535]

>>12312961
fucking clown
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8906505/Kamala-Harris-accused-peddling-communist-propaganda-tweeting-video-equality.html

https://rairfoundation.com/meet-don-harris-kamala-harris-communist-father/

they are just stooges for the jews like all the rest

[Anonymous No.12317634]

>>12317194
Good video, it did actually disprove what I was saying. I knew tax rates generally don't correlate with tax revenue, but now I understand part of the reason.

[Anonymous No.12317667]

>>12317535
>>12317529
That dailymail link is barely about economics; it is some lib culture war nonsense. Kamala tries to pose as very economically left, but if you look at her version of M4A, for example, still includes lots of room for private insurance companies to gouge people. Her and Joe have backtracked on most progressive policies, possibly to get more mainstream appeal, but you have to realize their interests are the same as any rich person in America. Kamala even refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin's obvious felonies at OneWest Bank. They are both shameless opportunists, ready to prostitute themselves out for whoever pays the most.

Furthermore on Judeo-Bolshevism, Jews only made up 5% of Russian Bolsheviks in 1922, and 6% of Bolshevik leadership. Stalin later got rid of most of them in purges. Jews are prominent in many left-wing social causes in America, but I can find you an equal number that are very right wing economically. If anything, Jews have proved much more successful capitalists than communists.

[Anonymous No.12317973]

>>12312781
>Spending and the velocity of money are the single most important factors for a healthy economy.
this is a Jewish lie which they tell in order to justify their central bank usury. healthy economies emerge when people can trust that planning for the future won't fuck them over. the Jewish central bank policy of money-printing (((to encourage spending))) makes that impossible

[Anonymous No.12319369]

>>12312781
>The economy could be solved with simple mathematical models
explain how please

[Anonymous No.12319376]

>>12317973
>the Jewish central bank policy of money-printing (((to encourage spending))) makes that impossible
it makes it possible
I can ask for a loan at low interests

[Anonymous No.12319383]

>>12312504
War is good for the economy, anon

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

[Anonymous No.12319402]

>>12312504
>as biden is likely to win
he already did

[The pepe slayer No.12321319]

>>12312504
bump this must investigated
God save the republic!

[Anonymous No.12321423]

>>12317194
This video is dishonest, it lies by omission. It makes the case that the 50s weren't perfect and that its laws and systems had some loopholes, but what it neglects to do is compare the figures between then and now. If they did that then we'd see, as everyone knows, that back then employment WAS more available, wages (relative to the price of housing at the very least) WERE higher, and the share of national wealth that the 99% had WAS much higher than today. They just cherrypick the bad points and completely leave out the good points, while offering zero comparison to the world we live in today, which would reveal a far worse situation than anything going on back then.

[Anonymous No.12321519]

>>12312504
Surely automation must play a factor too? The rise of the computer and internet surely adds to productivity while also making human's work easier. For example, you no longer need people to peel potatoes, you just need a single person operating a peeling machine. Likewise, you no longer need a pool of secretaries or tellers filling in forms, customers can fill it in quickly and automatically online.

[Anonymous No.12321538]

>>12312781
There should still definitely be a slight hierarchy, 30k, 40k, 50k, 70k, 100k rare 200k. If everyone get the same amount a lot of intelligent people will just pick an easy part time job and work on whatever they want in their free time instead of something beneficial to the super organism. There will also be little risk taken by many because it wouldn't be worth it.
But billionaires are almost always bad for the country because they don't have any stake in the super organism itself so poison like soda and candy gets sold to kids as they watch brain numbing cartoons.

[Anonymous No.12321634]

>>12312781
>The truth is that rich people are bad for every economic system.
Wrong.
>Spending and the velocity of money are ... important factors for a healthy economy.
Correct.

The problem is not the rich having money, it's the rich hoarding money. We need spending at every level of the economy, not just giving the poor more money so they can go on holiday. How does that benefit anyone long-term? Some projects need massive amount of money that only the rich can provide, whether it's the pyramids of Egypt, or a patron paying DaVinci or Mozart, or now with Musk and Bezo funding the push into space. Governments cannot and should not be the sole provider of such projects.

[Anonymous No.12321996]

>>12312504
>For example, only the cash portion of the wage is assessed, and the non-cash portion of the salary, such as medical insurance or any other perks, is not included.
We don't include benefits in compensation because benefits are not compensation; they aren't liquid and you aren't able to borrow against accumulated equity.
>These are two different indicators. inflation indicators, more relevant to the GDP refactor, are from 90 or 100% of the crossover, which allegedly happened over 40 years in the United States, this crossover is reduced to 9%.
Thanks Shadowstats
>>12314455
If that was true, pre-covid unemployment figures should have been much higher, at around 7-9%, not the 3-4% that we actually saw.
https://www.bostonfed.org/publications/research-department-working-paper/2014/upskilling-do-employers-demand-greater-skill-when-skilled-workers-are-plentiful.aspx
>>12321519
If that was true, we should see soaring labor productivity among the surviving workers, but if anything productivity growth is bellow trend.
https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-6/below-trend-the-us-productivity-slowdown-since-the-great-recession.htm

[Anonymous No.12322586]

>>12314455
Also these days with increased tech and trade, one person can provide a ton more value since they can provide to greater numbers of consumers. i.e., Robert Downey Jr got >$75 million on "Avengers: Endgame," but us consumers had to pay merely $.15 or so per movie ticket towards him.

[Anonymous No.12322600]

>>12321634
>problem is ... rich hoarding money
What do you suppose happens to the money that they "hoard"? They aren't stuffing it under their beds.

[Anonymous No.12322870]

>>12322600
>They aren't stuffing it under their beds.
well....
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/straub/files/mss_richsavingglut.pdf

[Anonymous No.12322959]

>>12322870
This thing is saying that their savings goes into buying the debt of the lower 90% people and the government, i.e., paying for their spending.

[Anonymous No.12323267]

>>12321634
Ya just ignore >>12317462...
Holy fuck the the level of NOM NOM NOM NOM in this post is off the charts - literally the human manifestation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
>whether it's the pyramids of Egypt, or a patron paying DaVinci or Mozart, or now with Musk and Bezo
All essentially useless vanity projects that permanently deplete non-renewable resources and degrade the biosphere upon which we all depend for survival.

You're just another devout money worshipper spouting the bloated CONSUUUUUUMER toxic economics doctrine.