OT: Goodbye to the American Dream

Hmm, we have over 3,600 (plus over 2,000 unfinished) for two people. Thirty years ago we had 1,200 for the three of us. I guess that is some inflation (though we paid about the same per square foot with very different dollars).

That's not all that bad. Before he was in Congress, he was mayor of Burlington. Before that, he was on welfare. He did pretty well for a socialist who has never worked a day in his life.

t

net

e

ither.

f-time/

s

living

rade

ey

l,

m

ds

's

nts.

ur

n

the

to take

tax,

+

Curious idea of what might constitute work. Being a mayor is reputed to be a time-consuming job - particularly if you do it well enough to go from the re to be elected as a congressman - and being a congressman isn't exactly e ffort-free if you plan to be there for more than one term.

Krw won't have done either, but will still have fixed and inflexible ideas about the level of effort required, and claim that anybody who doesn't shar e them is lying.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

a

ISTM

s

amount of liquidity out of the economy, and the Federal Reserve and simila r institutions in other countries have been compensating for that ever sinc e.

of support will cease to be necessary.

Yep, that's what pulled Japan right back from their crash a few decades ago . And it's bound to start working any day now.

of deflation - ever so healthy - and 25% unemployment.

hook

t they could hang onto saw it increase in value by 30%.

nment

h

de for

ns

s,

174K + a

came a Congressman - getting rich isn't part of the process of representing all your constituents, though many US congressmen have done very well by v igorously representing the more well-off of their constituents.

A rather poor defense of a populist defender of the poor being unable to sa ve on $250+k a year equivalent income.

ly),

argaret

n

rate of economic growth during her reign.

is showing no sign of running out of other people's money, whereas the UK economy under Thatcher went downhill in part because of inadequate spending on public services, and some fairly enthusiastic transferring of public as sets into private pockets.

n richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from some body who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

No, that's the Socialist's blunder. People get rich by 1. earning and then

1. not spending it. Socialists are genetically incapable of doing either, hence Sanders.

Cheers, James Arthur

I'd think a socialist man-of-the-people should be able to squeeze by on $100k--twice the median household income--and save the other $75K/year. That for 24 years = $1.8M saved, without even investing. So, he's an extravagant #$%@ with his People's Salary.

Apparently the big, mean rich people wouldn't let him. They didn't pay enough tax. Extra. For him to spend. Or .

A Moustachian would manage on $35K and save $135k, plus have 24 years of investment returns.

One manages resources wisely, the other doesn't (and complains).

Cheers, James Arthur

DC is an expensive place to live! There's a lot of money competing for real estate. ;-)

3% a ,

many

t's

us amount of liquidity out of the economy, and the Federal Reserve and simi lar institutions in other countries have been compensating for that ever si nce.

nd of support will cease to be necessary.

go.

The Japanese had a different kind of problem - predicated on the propositio n that property in down-town Tokyo was worth as much as the rest of the uni verse put together - which they never got around to confronting. Granting J ames Arthur's deep commitment to flat-earth economics, it's unsurprising th at he conflates their problem with that of the US banks, despite the fact t hat the US banks were perfectly happy to admit that the property that they had lent money on was worthless, since they had sold off the debts to the rest of the world.

ys of deflation - ever so healthy - and 25% unemployment.

y

hat they could hang onto saw it increase in value by 30%.

eans

ers,

me.)

became a Congressman - getting rich isn't part of the process of representi ng all your constituents, though many US congressmen have done very well by vigorously representing the more well-off of their constituents.

save

He chose not to save. That's a choice, not a vice.

.

ally

w rate of economic growth during her reign.

y, is showing no sign of running out of other people's money, whereas the U K economy under Thatcher went downhill in part because of inadequate spendi ng on public services, and some fairly enthusiastic transferring of public assets into private pockets.

ven richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from so mebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't seem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

en

,

Socialism may have a genetic basis - we were mutually supportive hunter-gat herers a lot longer than we've been relying on agriculture, and hogging our own private stores of grain - but James Arthur seems to have social Darwin ism in mind here, which wasn't one of Herbert Spencer's better ideas.

Getting rich is a little more complicated than James Arthur likes to think, but James Arthur is happy to rely on people - like Bastiac and Margaret Th atcher - who were content with a simpler and more rapacious outlook than is profitable for the economy as a whole.

Socialism notes that an economy gets rich when individual producers produce more. This depends on factors - like a skilled and healthy work force, and efficient infra-structure - that cost the community money, generally raise d by highish taxes. Once you've got that basis, brilliant entrepreneurs in advanced industrial countries can produce innovative and attractive product s more efficiently than they could (if at all) in third world countries.

The USA, having become an advanced industrial country by a process of trial and error, seems to be emphasising the error part of the process as it rev erts back to being a third world country. It's certainly got the kind of po litical system that's designed to get it back where it came from, and James Arthur is dedicated to keeping the political system as backward as possibl e. After all a backward (positively reactionary) system seems to be the on ly kind of system that he can understand.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

K +

James Arthur isn't a socialist man of the people, and he doesn't seem to sp end any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of how they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed. His own ideas about s pending - nothing on heating the house - are strange, and probably explain why he lives on his own.

Another scrimps on his duties and gets rich, and pontificates about the ina dequacies of people who don't behave the same way. At the moment all the co mplaints are coming from the goof who doesn't seem to have been spending en ough.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

It really is a vice. It is depending on others to provide for you.

Dan

even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect from somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't see m to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

Best I can tell , James's conviction is that anyone should be allowed to sa ve money and invest it . Which is not at any ones expense.

k,

Getting rich is pretty simple. You work and earn money , and save and inve st part of it. Worked for me.

ce more. This depends on factors - like a skilled and healthy work force, a nd efficient infra-structure - that cost the community money, generally rai sed by highish taxes. Once you've got that basis, brilliant entrepreneurs i n advanced industrial countries can produce innovative and attractive produ cts more efficiently than they could (if at all) in third world countries.

al and error, seems to be emphasising the error part of the process as it r everts back to being a third world country. It's certainly got the kind of political system that's designed to get it back where it came from, and Jam es Arthur is dedicated to keeping the political system as backward as possi ble. After all a backward (positively reactionary) system seems to be the only kind of system that he can understand.

Compared to Europe , the U.S. is foung, yet it has managed to be much more economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but eno ugh things did work.

Dan

500k in assets isn't destitute. He's certainly not depending on others to p rovide for himself.

et even richer at everybody else's expense is roughly what you'd expect fro m somebody who managed to get rich enough to retire at 34, but it doesn't s eem to be a good way to generate persistent economic growth.

save money and invest it . Which is not at any one's expense.

His problem is that he doesn't see community investment - in universal educ ation and health care etc - as a legitimate investment, and he seriously re sents the taxes that are collected to pay for it.

The modern socialists countries - basically Scandinavia and Germany - seem to do well under this regime, and the short-tailed income distribution that goes with their approach does seem to work well.

Japan does as well - in many respects - by getting the same short-tailed in come distribution by not paying expensive professionals and senior executiv es extravagantly high salaries.

most_Always_Do_Better

but this is more a matter of sociological hygiene than simple economics.

ink,

vest part of it. Worked for me.

It's a whole lot easier in an advanced industrial country, where you can hi re skilled and trained people to work for you as employees or sub-contracto rs,and exploit an existing distribution system to assemble any components y ou may want to put tegether, and to ship the assembled product to your cust omers.

Having to breed your own camel fleet puts a crimp in the business plan.

duce more. This depends on factors - like a skilled and healthy work force, and efficient infra-structure - that cost the community money, generally r aised by highish taxes. Once you've got that basis, brilliant entrepreneurs in advanced industrial countries can produce innovative and attractive pro ducts more efficiently than they could (if at all) in third world countries .

rial and error, seems to be emphasising the error part of the process as it reverts back to being a third world country. It's certainly got the kind o f political system that's designed to get it back where it came from, and J ames Arthur is dedicated to keeping the political system as backward as pos sible. After all a backward (positively reactionary) system seems to be th e only kind of system that he can understand.

e economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but e nough things did work.

Sure. America copied Europe's industrial revolution, and improved on it eno ugh - and exploited it's huge internal market - to great effect.

Now Europe has created an even larger internal market, and built on the po litical innovations that got trialed - in a rather primitive beta version - in the US and it's now economically rather more successful that the US. Th e Germans aren't exporting quite as much as the US is at the moment, but th ey do have a positive balance of trade, and they are merely part of the Eur opean Union.

The US has an interesting history, but past success is no guarantee of futu re dividends. Organisations that get complacent on the basis of past glorie s are particularly prone to go into embarrassing decline, and the Tea Party is just that kind of embarrassment.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

IOW, a person who actually did the thing in question--started off independent at 17 with two full-time minimum-wage jobs (and saved 3/4 of his pay for university)--is in no position to comment on minimum wage, working men, jobs, or budgeting.

I suppose a free PhD ride on parents and public would've equipped me better to comment on the working man, but we all have to make do.

Cheers, James Arthur

I did exactly that. One job paid 85 cents per hour, and the other evolved after a while to $400 per month. That got me an apartment and an MG Midget and through college, and I saved a bit too. That sort of thing probably isn't possible any more, what with a decent private college costing $65K in tuition alone.

Colleges didn't used to be run like businesses. Now they are. Even the state schools are ravenous for money.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 
lunatic fringe electronics 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com 
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

That explains why you don't understand the plight of the working man either. If we'd had free PhD rides like Bill we'd empathize better.

Funny how when we spent a fraction and Republicans ran California, students could pay their own way. Now that we have federal loans and subsidies to make it affordable, it isn't.

Cheers, James Arthur

provide for himself.

Maybe you think $500k is not destitute, but it is mighty close. Sounds lik e he owns a house with a mortgage and that is all he has. Fortunately he w ill get a government pension. If the $500 k includes the value of his pens ion , then he is in deep trouble.

invest part of it. Worked for me.

ore economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , but enough things did work.

nough - and exploited it's huge internal market - to great effect.

political innovations that got trialed - in a rather primitive beta version - in the US and it's now economically rather more successful that the US. The Germans aren't exporting quite as much as the US is at the moment, but they do have a positive balance of trade, and they are merely part of the E uropean Union.

Well Germany may be doing almost as well as the U.S., but isn't Greek part of Europe? If you are talking about a even larger internal market , you c an not pick one small country to show how sucessful Europe is.

Dan

There is a fair number of colleges that do not charge any tuition and other fees if the parents income is below something like $70,000 a year. Princeton , Harvard, Yale. Resonable decent private colleges. Of course you do have to get accepted.

Dan

Creat a problem and then raise taxes to fix it!

The UCs are taking increasing numbers of out-of-state (and Chinese) undergrads, because they pay private college sorts of tuition. Less room for California natives, too bad.

to provide for himself.

ike he owns a house with a mortgage and that is all he has. Fortunately he will get a government pension. If the $500 k includes the value of his pe nsion , then he is in deep trouble.

In Australia, if you have been an elected member of parliament for 24 years you get a fairly generous pension.

d invest part of it. Worked for me.

more economically successful than Europe. Not every thing has worked , b ut enough things did work.

enough - and exploited it's huge internal market - to great effect.

e political innovations that got trialed - in a rather primitive beta versi on - in the US and it's now economically rather more successful that the US . The Germans aren't exporting quite as much as the US is at the moment, bu t they do have a positive balance of trade, and they are merely part of the European Union.

rt of Europe? If you are talking about a even larger internal market , you can not pick one small country to show how successful Europe is.

Germany, with 80 million people, isn't small.

Greece, with 11 million people, is.

The European Union, with a total population of 508 million people, is quite a lot larger than the US. Some of the new member states are economically m ore backward even than Greece, if less addicted to economic self-destructio n (the Greeks outdo even the USA for that)

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

Nobody is stopping you commenting, but your point of view isn't exactly representative. Nobody goes to an Olympic athlete for advice on how to cope with difficulties in walking.

If you'd had the education that came with the Ph.D., rather than burying your head in the business of making money, you might now be able to produce more useful comment.

Someone whose insights in economics come down to "Bastiac was right and Keynes was wrong" has to have skipped a few lectures somewhere along the way.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

te:

ote:

nders,

ly $174K +

what a

r of

for a

by on

year.

's an

m to spend any time with people who might look like that, so his idea of ho w they might be able to budget their income is ill-informed.

pendent

or

, jobs,

er.

The Ph.D. wasn't free. If I'd gone out to work as soon as I'd have got my u ndergraduate degree, I'd have earned twice as much as I got as a graduate s tudent grant - this point was actually enshrined in Australian economic thi nking of the period, where the greatest cost of higher education was seen a s deferred income.

ts

most_Always_Do_Better

Since about 1980 - when Reagan came to power - the US income distribution h as been shifting income from everybody except the rich (about 90% of the po pulation)to the rich (the remaining 10%, and more of it is going to the top 1%).

It's not surprising that most people can't afford college any more.

James Arthur remembers this time as when Republicans held power - but back then they weren't his make the rich-even-richer Tea Party Republicans.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney