US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:57 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
PetePierson wrote:
You have me at a loss (which is not difficult to do) but are you implying that everyone should have the same amount of everything?

Not at all. I just see many right leaning people claim that the problem is people with lower incomes buying luxuries, but they don't seem to realize they are effectively advocating for taking a ton of money out of the economy. I have a hard time believing that would be a good thing given the fact that small fluctuations to the consumer confidence index has big impacts on the markets.

Who is saying that "people with lower incomes buying luxuries is the problem?" I've gone out of my way several times to state that there are definitely people my comments do NOT apply to. I certainly never identified it as "the problem" of anything. What I said is that the self-identification that many Americans make about "struggling" is in conflict with certain facts and statistics. Again, let me say this another time... there are people living paycheck to paycheck only operating on necessities. There are also people who outspend their means and are therefore at least partly responsible for there perceived struggle through their choice of lifestyle. It's not even a moral judgment. People are free to live the way that they want.

As to the other part of your post, I think that the net result of people being better stewards of their money would be positive. It may slow down certain industries in the short term, but over the long term, I think we'd see the accrual of wealth by a wider group of people (higher rates of home ownership vs renters). Those many small transactions would be replaced by less frequent but larger ones (instead of many repairs on an older car, people would purchase a newer car that requires less maintenance). In sales and marketing, there is the idea that you can pull ahead some sales and get some more money up front, but what you want to avoid doing is pulling ahead too many sales so that when you get to the next quarter there aren't enough to cover operating expenses. Because then you get into a place where you need to again offer something to pull ahead future sales. Eventually, you can run out of future sales. I think that Americans getting better with money would function similarly. We'd see fewer balloons, fewer recessions, and yes, fewer booms. Overall, I think that it is better for individual families to be better off individually than the bottom line economy, which is only temporary anyway. If we address the issues preventing families from building a strong foundation for the future, the economy in the long run would improve, at least IMO.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:21 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:The median disposable income by household in the US was $34.5K in 2015). That same year, the UK was at $22.6K. Note that is before the economy picked up even more and taxes were cut.

Except the UK median income is actually in pounds, not dollars. At an average 2015 exchange rate of $1.60 to the pound in 2015, that equates to roughly $36.16K median income.

Pip pip

LOL!!
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 7055
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 300 times
Been thanked: 413 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby DreadNaught » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:32 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
PetePierson wrote:
You have me at a loss (which is not difficult to do) but are you implying that everyone should have the same amount of everything?

Not at all. I just see many right leaning people claim that the problem is people with lower incomes buying luxuries, but they don't seem to realize they are effectively advocating for taking a ton of money out of the economy. I have a hard time believing that would be a good thing given the fact that small fluctuations to the consumer confidence index has big impacts on the markets.


I don't think advocating for people to live within their means is a partisan viewpoint. Imo a big issue is the huge increase of how accessible it is purchase these 'luxuries' along with how we as consumers are targeted in the retail space in the digital information age. Basically it's easier than ever to rack up debt and live beyond your means.

But while the impulses and convinces to buy things for the from the consumer perspective continue to increase, so does the available knowledge around financial literacy.

I get not everyone starts at the same point in life, but I don't think people understand the ramifications of empowering the government to make that happen. Nor do I believe it's possible or desirable.

Upward financial mobility is what separates western culture based on free market principles from the rest of human history, where your individual decisions/behaviors can rapidly change your outcome in life and the life you leave for your children. In my view that is something we should all strive to maintain.
Image
User avatar
DreadNaught
 
Posts: 18252
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 9:18 am
Has thanked: 832 times
Been thanked: 1099 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:32 pm

deltbucs wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:Except the UK median income is actually in pounds, not dollars. At an average 2015 exchange rate of $1.60 to the pound in 2015, that equates to roughly $36.16K median income.

Pip pip

LOL!!


Thank God you're here, Delt. We almost continued having the conversation without you.

Oh... wait...
Ken Carson wrote:The data set I was looking converted everything to US dollars. For some reason the site currently only has the mean, which unfairly weights the US, but the write up online also provided the median.

https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-dis ... income.htm

Cheerio!

Next time, feel free to read past where the script has you posting "LOL!!" to something Clwy wrote. Unfortunately, like many news outlets, he prints the correction on page 12, if he prints it at all.
Last edited by Ken Carson on Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Deuce » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:35 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:
Deuce wrote:
Yeah because that rent number isn't skewed at all.

If you want to rent a 3/2 house in Crestview, FL, that's right in the ballpark.

BTW, if you add all that up plus the $1,729 in discretionary income it comes to $47,916. Median Household income for 2018 is $63,179 leaving $1,271 a month for Cars, car insurance, health insurance, student loan debt, and an internet connection.


My bad, I thought the rent was for one person. But I'm still struggling with your post.

16860 (rent number) + 1340 (electric bill) + 1248 (water bill) + 7729 (food bill) = 27,177. Then you say "leaving the average household with a whopping $7,322.96 to cover health insurance, cars, insurance, gas, trash, Netflix. 27,177 + 7323 = 34,500.

Are the rent/electric/water numbers not in terms of a household/family? Where does the $34,500 come from? That's not the median household income.

Also, shouldn't you match up median to median instead of using the average for one number and the median for another?
User avatar
Deuce
 
Posts: 2858
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2015 7:23 pm
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:43 pm

Ken Carson wrote:Who is saying that "people with lower incomes buying luxuries is the problem?" I've gone out of my way several times to state that there are definitely people my comments do NOT apply to. I certainly never identified it as "the problem" of anything. What I said is that the self-identification that many Americans make about "struggling" is in conflict with certain facts and statistics. Again, let me say this another time... there are people living paycheck to paycheck only operating on necessities. There are also people who outspend their means and are therefore at least partly responsible for there perceived struggle through their choice of lifestyle. It's not even a moral judgment. People are free to live the way that they want.


Not even 24 hours ago...

Ken Carson wrote: Our version of “struggling financially” is the rest of the world’s “wealthiest 1%.”
....
As in what are you struggling against? Paying for heat, groceries and gas? OK. Paying for your second car, HBO and your 5th dinner out in a week? Let’s be real.




And then you said it again in the exact same paragraph where you deny anyone saying it. I put in in italics for you.

You may now resume redefining the word "struggling".












dipshit.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 20503
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:55 pm

Deuce wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:If you want to rent a 3/2 house in Crestview, FL, that's right in the ballpark.

BTW, if you add all that up plus the $1,729 in discretionary income it comes to $47,916. Median Household income for 2018 is $63,179 leaving $1,271 a month for Cars, car insurance, health insurance, student loan debt, and an internet connection.


My bad, I thought the rent was for one person. But I'm still struggling with your post.

16860 (rent number) + 1340 (electric bill) + 1248 (water bill) + 7729 (food bill) = 27,177. Then you say "leaving the average household with a whopping $7,322.96 to cover health insurance, cars, insurance, gas, trash, Netflix. 27,177 + 7323 = 34,500.

Are the rent/electric/water numbers not in terms of a household/family? Where does the $34,500 come from? That's not the median household income.

Also, shouldn't you match up median to median instead of using the average for one number and the median for another?

I am going to have to take a mea culpa on this one. I was looking at the wrong data and posted a wholly inaccurate number for both the US and the UK.

For 2015, the median household disposable income for the US was $47.5K. The most recent data has it as $50.3K for 2017 (latest date available for US data). In 2015, the UK was $31.5K (in USD). In 2017, they were $32.7K (again, in USD).

Sorry for the bad data everyone. Please go back to your calculations and feel free to check my numbers here: https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-dis ... ator-chart

In the equation above, the median US household has about $23K (about $2K per month) of income they can put towards car, health insurance, gas, trash and Netflix. And again, that is the MEDIAN, meaning half the country is better, and half is worse.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:59 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
deltbucs wrote:LOL!!


Thank God you're here, Delt. We almost continued having the conversation without you.

Oh... wait...
Ken Carson wrote:The data set I was looking converted everything to US dollars. For some reason the site currently only has the mean, which unfairly weights the US, but the write up online also provided the median.

https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-dis ... income.htm

Cheerio!

Next time, feel free to read past where the script has you posting "LOL!!" to something Clwy wrote. Unfortunately, like many news outlets, he prints the correction on page 12, if he prints it at all.

My mistake. I was looking at median incomes instead of realizing you were referencing a subjective "disposable income" chart that puts it all in US dollars. You are clearly a better man than I.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:12 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:
Thank God you're here, Delt. We almost continued having the conversation without you.

Oh... wait...

Next time, feel free to read past where the script has you posting "LOL!!" to something Clwy wrote. Unfortunately, like many news outlets, he prints the correction on page 12, if he prints it at all.

My mistake. I was looking at median incomes instead of realizing you were referencing a subjective "disposable income" chart that puts it all in US dollars. You are clearly a better man than I.

I'm not saying I'm a better man. But I clearly stated what I was referring to in the post you quoted (despite my already acknowledged complete and utter idiocy for posting the wrong numbers: see correction above).

Additionally, there is nothing subjective about "annual median disposable income." I provided the link for you and everyone else to review. It's a statistic that looks at median income and tax burdens for countries to determine how much take home pay that the median household in that country has to spend on necessities and luxuries. That you would refer to this objective data set as "subjective" is alarming. What do you find subjective about it?
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Buc2 » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:15 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:My mistake. I was looking at median incomes instead of realizing you were referencing a subjective "disposable income" chart that puts it all in US dollars. You are clearly a better man than I.

I'm not saying I'm a better man. But I clearly stated what I was referring to in the post you quoted (despite my already acknowledged complete and utter idiocy for posting the wrong numbers: see correction above).

Additionally, there is nothing subjective about "annual median disposable income." I provided the link for you and everyone else to review. It's a statistic that looks at median income and tax burdens for countries to determine how much take home pay that the median household in that country has to spend on necessities and luxuries. That you would refer to this objective data set as "subjective" is alarming. What do you find subjective about it?

Apparently the fact that you posted it.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 16571
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 1854 times
Been thanked: 951 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:25 pm

Buc2 wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I'm not saying I'm a better man. But I clearly stated what I was referring to in the post you quoted (despite my already acknowledged complete and utter idiocy for posting the wrong numbers: see correction above).

Additionally, there is nothing subjective about "annual median disposable income." I provided the link for you and everyone else to review. It's a statistic that looks at median income and tax burdens for countries to determine how much take home pay that the median household in that country has to spend on necessities and luxuries. That you would refer to this objective data set as "subjective" is alarming. What do you find subjective about it?

Apparently the fact that you posted it.


While there is some degree of subjectivity to how to measure disposable income (particularly when exchange rates are involved), IMO it is the best way to compare across countries as the tax rate across country varies so much. The study Ken originally mentioned details how they measure disposable income. It seems like a reasonable way to me. It's certainly not the only way to measure it, but it's a decent enough one IMO. I'd be more than happy to see other definitions of it.

Median gross income is a decent enough measure to use when making some comparisons....if I was comparing wages/standards of living from Dallas to Austin, median gross income would be good enough to use.
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 1270 times
Been thanked: 950 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:28 pm

Ken Carson wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:My mistake. I was looking at median incomes instead of realizing you were referencing a subjective "disposable income" chart that puts it all in US dollars. You are clearly a better man than I.

I'm not saying I'm a better man. But I clearly stated what I was referring to in the post you quoted (despite my already acknowledged complete and utter idiocy for posting the wrong numbers: see correction above).

Additionally, there is nothing subjective about "annual median disposable income." I provided the link for you and everyone else to review. It's a statistic that looks at median income and tax burdens for countries to determine how much take home pay that the median household in that country has to spend on necessities and luxuries. That you would refer to this objective data set as "subjective" is alarming. What do you find subjective about it?

We know exactly what people are paying for healthcare in the UK, based even just on this board healthcare fluctuates wildly from person to person here. Who decides what that median expense is? Does it even count against the disposable income number in their "credits"? What if I have to spend a lot more on gas because I have a job that requires a truck? Are they just assuming we all pay the same? Expenses do not track directly with income, so I can't see a median disposable income statistic as anything other than subjective because there's a lot of assumptions that have to take place.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:31 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Apparently the fact that you posted it.


While there is some degree of subjectivity to how to measure disposable income (particularly when exchange rates are involved), IMO it is the best way to compare across countries as the tax rate across country varies so much. The study Ken originally mentioned details how they measure disposable income. It seems like a reasonable way to me. It's certainly not the only way to measure it, but it's a decent enough one IMO. I'd be more than happy to see other definitions of it.

Median gross income is a decent enough measure to use when making some comparisons....if I was comparing wages/standards of living from Dallas to Austin, median gross income would be good enough to use.

No, no, Zarni. Clearly I "alarmed" Ken by saying the median disposable income number was subjective. And since we all know how much better of a man he is than me, clearly I'm wrong and that number is not subjective. It is a number after all, and numbers are perfect.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:38 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:
While there is some degree of subjectivity to how to measure disposable income (particularly when exchange rates are involved), IMO it is the best way to compare across countries as the tax rate across country varies so much. The study Ken originally mentioned details how they measure disposable income. It seems like a reasonable way to me. It's certainly not the only way to measure it, but it's a decent enough one IMO. I'd be more than happy to see other definitions of it.

Median gross income is a decent enough measure to use when making some comparisons....if I was comparing wages/standards of living from Dallas to Austin, median gross income would be good enough to use.

No, no, Zarni. Clearly I "alarmed" Ken by saying the median disposable income number was subjective. And since we all know how much better of a man he is than me, clearly I'm wrong and that number is not subjective. It is a number after all, and numbers are perfect.



I'm happy to say when i disagree with Ken (as I did here) as well as when I disagree with you (as I did earlier).

I do think Ken's #'s are the best we have for the discussion at hand....which to be honest, I'm not even sure what it is about anymore -- it started as a simple statement that we in the US are better off than most people - that seems fairly straighforward to me. Same with his clarification on how we define people who "struggle" -- he said people who can't pay the necessities are people who are truly struggling....people who are going out 5 times a week for dinner aren't struggling. Those to me seem like very simple truths. Just as your point about potential subjectivity in calculations about disposable income. 10 of us could have access to the same data set and all legitimately try to calculate the median disposable income and we would get 10 different answers. I think most would be in the same ballpark, but they wouldn't be identical.
User avatar
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 1270 times
Been thanked: 950 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:11 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
bucfanclw wrote:No, no, Zarni. Clearly I "alarmed" Ken by saying the median disposable income number was subjective. And since we all know how much better of a man he is than me, clearly I'm wrong and that number is not subjective. It is a number after all, and numbers are perfect.



I'm happy to say when i disagree with Ken (as I did here) as well as when I disagree with you (as I did earlier).

I do think Ken's #'s are the best we have for the discussion at hand....which to be honest, I'm not even sure what it is about anymore -- it started as a simple statement that we in the US are better off than most people - that seems fairly straighforward to me. Same with his clarification on how we define people who "struggle" -- he said people who can't pay the necessities are people who are truly struggling....people who are going out 5 times a week for dinner aren't struggling. Those to me seem like very simple truths. Just as your point about potential subjectivity in calculations about disposable income. 10 of us could have access to the same data set and all legitimately try to calculate the median disposable income and we would get 10 different answers. I think most would be in the same ballpark, but they wouldn't be identical.

It's been an interesting distraction from what appears to be slowing economy that is one holiday shopping season away from shrinking GDP in the 4th quarter.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 20503
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby PetePierson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:15 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:It's been an interesting distraction from what appears to be slowing economy that is one holiday shopping season away from shrinking GDP in the 4th quarter.


Holiday shopping / revenue has been on decline for a decade. Both the stock and housing markets are still pretty strong. Claim a recession / drastic downturn is coming long enough and you (in general) are bound to be right.
Image
User avatar
PetePierson
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:03 pm
Location: Yucks Fan in Kitty Country.
Has thanked: 386 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:18 pm

if we get the same drop we did last year from q3 to q4 that might actually happen (negative growth)




partly explained by the trade policy coming home to roost sadly -- i've read estimates that is contributing up to a 1% reduction in GDP

it's tough to survive an extended trade war unscathed
User avatar
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 1270 times
Been thanked: 950 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:30 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I think we're about 18 months out from being due for another recession. I'd love to be wrong, and there's nothing to suggest this event is the catalyst for one, but it does concern me.

I said this in February of 2018 on page 1 of this thread.

That was 21 months ago. We are due.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 20503
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby TheChefO » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:31 pm

The recession is long overdue and nowhere in sight. But it is also time to admit that many people are struggling. To the extent that economic distress is a sign of a nation's overall wellbeing, the United States, and its neighbors, are in a bad place.

The United States has seen its stock market rise and unemployment decline, in the midst of a worldwide recession that many economists say could last for years. Still, the recession is far from over. More than 5 million people remain unemployed, about one in 10 workers.
TheChefO
 
Posts: 6000
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:46 am
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby bucfanclw » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:32 pm

Rumors right now is that Trump is threatening to raise China tariffs even higher if he doesn't get a deal he doesn't like. If true, we will likely see another big drop in the markets.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 6600
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 360 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby TheChefO » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:33 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:if we get the same drop we did last year from q3 to q4 that might actually happen (negative growth)




partly explained by the trade policy coming home to roost sadly -- i've read estimates that is contributing up to a 1% reduction in GDP

it's tough to survive an extended trade war unscathed



The trade war has been great. It's been a great day. It's been a great week. There's so many positive stories. And the trade war with Mexico has been so bad, so nasty, that it's helped America's standing around the world. So it is really an act of love in the end.
We are the first nation in history that has taken on Mexico, and we've done a good job. And we are also, by the way, a very small part of the economy. So, a lot of good it's done for us.
But in a sense, I feel as though it's also been a great betrayal for many people. We are sending our jobs, we are sending our money. We are not taking care of our people. We are a debtor nation. We're going to be a debtor nation, because the Mexicans will not pay for the wall.
And the point is, they're making a fortune.
TheChefO
 
Posts: 6000
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:46 am
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:34 pm

TheChefO wrote:about one in 10 workers.



can you clarify this?

are you talking u6 #'s?
User avatar
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 1270 times
Been thanked: 950 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby TheChefO » Tue Nov 19, 2019 3:35 pm

bucfanclw wrote:Rumors right now is that Trump is threatening to raise China tariffs even higher if he doesn't get a deal he doesn't like. If true, we will likely see another big drop in the markets.


That doesn't make sense, the stock market just hit a record high. How can it go down like this? Why didn't they know about this? And who was the President when this happened? The guy who created the greatest job creation record in American history, who is now in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

When you think of what happened, the stock market is up 5, 7, 8, 10 times from its low. And I say this with the greatest respect, the greatest respect. I mean, 5, 7, 8, 10 times from its low, and you can't explain it. And you say, well, maybe this is temporary, or it could be temporary, and maybe the market will come back. Well, you know, it's hard for me to understand how this man would have had that information. I mean, I don't understand it.

When you look at this situation, and then you talk to people on Wall Street.
TheChefO
 
Posts: 6000
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:46 am
Has thanked: 1615 times
Been thanked: 330 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Ken Carson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:57 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Ken Carson wrote:I'm not saying I'm a better man. But I clearly stated what I was referring to in the post you quoted (despite my already acknowledged complete and utter idiocy for posting the wrong numbers: see correction above).

Additionally, there is nothing subjective about "annual median disposable income." I provided the link for you and everyone else to review. It's a statistic that looks at median income and tax burdens for countries to determine how much take home pay that the median household in that country has to spend on necessities and luxuries. That you would refer to this objective data set as "subjective" is alarming. What do you find subjective about it?

We know exactly what people are paying for healthcare in the UK, based even just on this board healthcare fluctuates wildly from person to person here. Who decides what that median expense is? Does it even count against the disposable income number in their "credits"? What if I have to spend a lot more on gas because I have a job that requires a truck? Are they just assuming we all pay the same? Expenses do not track directly with income, so I can't see a median disposable income statistic as anything other than subjective because there's a lot of assumptions that have to take place.

Just so we're working from the same definition, here is what organization I am using has:
Household disposable income measures the income of households (wages and salaries, self-employed income, income from unincorporated enterprises, social benefits, etc.), after taking into account net interest and dividends received and the payment of taxes and social contributions.
It's all forms of income, minus taxes and social contributions, which are (IIRC) a fancier way of saying "tax." So it does not include costs like healthcare or gas. It's literally the money the median household is taking home after taxes from all sources of income. The remainder of that can be spent on necessities and luxuries.

We can certainly have a discussion on the relative costs of goods, services, necessities and luxuries across countries (definitely a variable in the whole "are you struggling" question), but objectively, the US has by far the wealthiest median households in the world, beating second place Luxembourg by $5K per year (and the UK by $16.5K). This means our homes have the most money to spend after taxes, partially because of our generally lower income taxes/tax deductions and partially because of our world-leading GDP.
Ken Carson
 
Posts: 5718
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:33 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 386 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby deltbucs » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:04 pm

https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/07/f ... -ron-paul/

Federal Reserve’s latest bailouts more proof bad times ahead: Ron Paul

This is from last month and they're still pumping more in to this day. Over 100 Billion now the fed is printed and given to banks to bail them out in the last couple months. The economy is being falsely propped up.
Image
deltbucs
 
Posts: 7055
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:28 pm
Has thanked: 300 times
Been thanked: 413 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby PetePierson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:07 pm

deltbucs wrote:https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/07/federal-reserves-latest-bailouts-more-proof-bad-times-ahead-ron-paul/

Federal Reserve’s latest bailouts more proof bad times ahead: Ron Paul

This is from last month and they're still pumping more in to this day. Over 100 Billion now the fed is printed and given to banks to bail them out in the last couple months. The economy is being falsely propped up.


Must have learned from Obama's "Too Big to Fail" strategy.

At least DC learns their lesson!
Image
User avatar
PetePierson
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:03 pm
Location: Yucks Fan in Kitty Country.
Has thanked: 386 times
Been thanked: 366 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:16 pm

deltbucs wrote:https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/07/federal-reserves-latest-bailouts-more-proof-bad-times-ahead-ron-paul/

Federal Reserve’s latest bailouts more proof bad times ahead: Ron Paul

This is from last month and they're still pumping more in to this day. Over 100 Billion now the fed is printed and given to banks to bail them out in the last couple months. The economy is being falsely propped up.

We'll all be accused of being happy about it.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 20503
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:16 pm

The Fed sucks. Paul is right, it needs to go
User avatar
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 12759
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 1270 times
Been thanked: 950 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:17 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:The Fed sucks. Paul is right, it needs to go

Don't ever call me radical. Ever.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 20503
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 219 times
Been thanked: 985 times

Re: US ECONOMY News and Discussion Thread

Postby PetePierson » Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:19 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:The Fed sucks. Paul is right, it needs to go


100%
Image
User avatar
PetePierson
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:03 pm
Location: Yucks Fan in Kitty Country.
Has thanked: 386 times
Been thanked: 366 times

PreviousNext

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ken Carson, uscbucsfan and 14 guests