News Do republicans intentionally sabotage stability?

[WheelsRCool]

How about between 1970 and 2007? Your choice of starting point is arbitrary, and is the sole deterministic criterion for this measurement.

From my understanding, in 1985, there were about thirteen American billionaires, and that number has now ballooned to over 1000; it seems the major wealth creation started in the 1980s. In particular because most of the new wealth seems to be from technology companies, hedge-fund managers, and so forth, rather than from things like oil, steel, manufacturing, etc...and it was technology and finance that really took off in the 1980s (Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs, Michael Milken, etc...).

That's just bad math. Growth is an exponential function. The GDP more than doubled in the 70s but only doubled during the 80s. So the 70s actually saw a faster GDP growth rate than the 80s.

Is it...? I would think a large percentage increase of a small number isn't necessarily as large a growth as a smaller percentage increase of a larger number. And I may be wrong, but like with businesses, isn't there a limit to how much exponential growth an economy can experience, before it levels off and just continues to grow steadily? For example, when growing a Big Business, the founder might find that at the current growth rate, the business will exceed the gross domestic product of their own country, this obviously signalling that growth will level off soon, albeit the company can still keep growing; would economies be the same way? For example, I believe the Irish and Chinese economies have experienced significantly higher growth rates in recent years than the U.S. economy, but I would think this will level off at some point. Also, remember, the 1970s were also a period of recessions, high inflation, rising interest rates, and high unemployment.

This is a really terrible way to measure growth, as the same statement can be made about essentially any time in history. There were likely many more millionaires during the early 30s - in the midsts of the Great Depression - than there were twenty years before that. This measure is fundamentally flawed because it is effectively using an unchained measure (doesn't account for inflation), and is as reflective of the variance in the income distributions as it is of the mean (or median).

Well, I wasn't trying to actually use the number of wealthy people or standard of living to "measure growth," but usually when the standard of living increases significantly (GDP per capita increases) and the number of wealthy people (hence wealth creation) increases significantly, usually this is during a time of great economic growth.

For example, at the start of the Great Depression, the 1920s economic bubble had just burst, which had been a time of great wealth creation and economic growth (albeit the bubble burst took a large chunk of wealth with it).

You are correct to point out about inflation, however, now there is an entire industry devoted to servicing the huge amount of new wealthy people that back in the 1980s and beforehand did not exist. The number of private jets, yachts, etc...has ballooned significantly. I would think even adjusted for inflation, that there being over 1000 billionaires today is still a much larger amount of wealth than when there were 13 in 1985.

 

[Gokul43201]

From my understanding, in 1985, there were about thirteen American billionaires, and that number has now ballooned to over 1000; it seems the major wealth creation started in the 1980s.

How many were there in 1975, and how many in 1995? And I know there aren't a 1000 billionaires in the World so there definitely can't be over a 1000 in the US.

But in any case, this has nothing to do with tax cuts increasing revenues. I think we've reached an impasse on that front.

 

[WheelsRCool]

How many were there in 1975, and how many in 1995? And I know there aren't a 1000 billionaires in the World so there definitely can't be over a 1000 in the US.

Yes, that statement is a little misleading; CNBC here claims that there are over 1000 billionaires in the world now: http://www.cnbc.com/id/24791078/

This article by CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/09/news/newsmakers/billionaires_forbes/index.htm was written in 2006, talking about how the total number of billionaires in the world increased to 793, up by 102 from 2005; so as of 2008, there could be about 1000 billionaires in the world I suppose.

But in any case, this has nothing to do with tax cuts increasing revenues. I think we've reached an impasse on that front.

Yes, that one article I linked in a previous post, which defends Ronald Reagan's policies, states that the Reagan Administration itself acknowledged that his tax cuts were not meant to increase tax revenues and that the Administration even published a report predicting a $700 billion-some loss in revenue. They say this is a common misconception amongst people about Ronald Reagan, that he intended to increase tax revenues by decreasing taxes.

However, I would believe that if you tax people at too high a rate, you will kill incentive to work hard and start businesses and so forth, for example we have seen multiple other nations around the world, such as Ireland and Iceland, lower their taxes to stimulate their economies (Ireland especially!). I believe Switzerland also is having some words with the EU because a lot of businesses have fled to Switzerland for their more favorable tax rates: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6313671.stm

This is a confusing subject that I will have to do a lot more reading about. Good debate though :)

 

[mathwonk]

russ, my source is a program on npr citing an article currently in the new yorker by seymour hersch.

 

[ray b]

intentionally no most likely not BUT
they BELIEVE things that just are not true
like less taxes will magically produce more income for the gov
that is was and will be VOODOO as daddy bush said
and that mind set will always come back to bite you
you cannot run a nation on ideas that are not true
no matter how hard you want them to work

 

[russ_watters]

russ, my source is a program on npr citing an article currently in the new yorker by seymour hersch.

Since I don't have access, that doesn't help much. The words were yours: you did not post direct quotes. Heck, the first few words of the post were "it seemed to me". Much of what you said that was clearly your opinion/perception was clearly wrong and logically flawed.

You indirectly reference a news story in the middle paragraph, but it is impossible for us to really judge what you said. Quite obviously, we have intelligence agents in Iran right now. That should not come as a surprise to anyone. The specifics of what they are doing is highly secret and I'm very skeptical about what you are implying, even if what you are implying is what was intended to be implied by the article. Could you at least type-in a few relevant quotes?

In any case, time will tell: we have 7 months.

 

[russ_watters]

Is this the article? (dated April 17): http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

A few quotes:

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.

Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups.

The unnamed sources seem pretty thin to me and Hersch has received a fair amount of criticism for his reporting style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

He doesn't appear to me to be someone to trust with this type of story. The fact that he's extremely liberal doesn't help his credibility any either.

Responding to the book [about Kennedy], historian and former Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called Hersh "the most gullible investigative reporter I've ever encountered."

 

[turbo]

A few quotes: The unnamed sources seem pretty thin to me and Hersch has received a fair amount of criticism for his reporting style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

Hersch has opened subjects that few others would dare to touch, and he has rarely been refuted.

He doesn't appear to me to be someone to trust with this type of story. The fact that he's extremely liberal doesn't help his credibility any either.

You like to throw around terms like "liberal" and call people "hippies" with absolutely no justification, and no quantification. If you are going to label people and slam them after you have labeled them, you should define the labels that you are using to denigrate them, and defend your definitions of those labels.

You seem to define anybody to the left of Limbaugh as a radical, and your status on this board seems to let you throw your weight around and kill dissent. Please grow up.

 

[russ_watters]

Hersch has opened subjects that few others would dare to touch, and he has rarely been refuted.

It is utterly impossible to refute an anonymous source. That's like saying religion hasn't been refuted! And you can say exactly the same thing about any supermarket tabloid.

You like to throw around terms like "liberal" and call people "hippies" with absolutely no justification, and no quantification. If you are going to label people and slam them after you have labeled them, you should define the labels that you are using to denigrate them, and defend your definitions of those labels.

turbo, "liberal" is a pretty well-defined position on the political spectrum and I use the typical definitions. If you don't know what the typical definition is, look it up.

You seem to define anybody to the left of Limbaugh as a radical, and your status on this board seems to let you throw your weight around and kill dissent. Please grow up.

You are quite wrong about how I come to those definitions. And my "status" doesn't do anything in the politics forum. I can't remember the last time I did any moderation in here. Perhaps it is you who sees anyone to the right of Al Frankin as a "neocon". I'v said explicitly and repeatedly that I dislike Rush Lumbaugh. My actualy political position is only slightly to the right of center. Maybe you should grow up - and get yourself a better mirror!

As this forum is dominated by academics, it is extremely liberal. It's like the Michael Moore/Al Fankin hour in here and the only reason I come in here at all is to point out the idiocy in the bizarre left wing BS that gets thrown around in here.

 

[Gokul43201]

Is this the article? (dated April 17): http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/04/17/060417fa_fact

A few quotes: The unnamed sources seem pretty thin to me and Hersch has received a fair amount of criticism for his reporting style: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh

He was also criticized when he wrote about the My Lai massacre, the Korean Air incident (where he and Reagan said essentially opposite things, but the CIA now admits that Hersh was essentially right on both major claims and that Reagan was just bullsh***ing, like any good President occasionally needs to), the lead up to the Iraq war, the Abu Ghraib story and the CIA domestic spying program.

And speaking of unnamed sources, the sources Hersh mentioned in the Abu Ghraib story are a "senior CIA official," a "former high-level intelligence official," a "military analyst," a "government consultant" and a "Pentagon consultant."

He doesn't appear to me to be someone to trust with this type of story. The fact that he's extremely liberal doesn't help his credibility any either.

How exactly is he "extremely liberal"? Oh wait, let me guess: he's extremely liberal because he exposed lies told by the Reagan and Bush administrations and because he has revealed abuses by the Military.

Never mind that he wrote the most slime filled book slamming the most beloved family of the left: the Kennedys. And nevermind that he blasted Clinton for the Sudan bombing and blamed Albright and Sandy Berger for failures leading up to 9/11.

 

[Gokul43201]

It is utterly impossible to refute an anonymous source.

But definitely possible to refute the content of a story. All you have to do is produce evidence to the contrary. And that's how we refute assertions that say, the Earth is 6000 years old - not by talking to Adam or Eve.

 

[Gokul43201]

As this forum is dominated by academics, it is extremely liberal. It's like the Michael Moore/Al Fankin hour in here and the only reason I come in here at all is to point out the idiocy in the bizarre left wing BS that gets thrown around in here.

That's why, over in the gun rights thread, we have about 8 people arguing for the right to bear arms and about 4 arguing against. And that's despite the fact that you, seycyrus and mhelsep (three of our most consistently conservative posters) are absent from it.

Yeah, we're a bizarre, left wing comedy show, alright!

 

[russ_watters]

How exactly is he "extremely liberal"? Oh wait, let me guess: he's extremely liberal because he exposed lies told by the Reagan and Bush administrations and because he has revealed abuses by the Military.

He is extremely liberal because the opinions he espouses in his reporting are extremely liberal.

Never mind that he wrote the most slime filled book slamming the most beloved family of the left: the Kennedys.

Interesting to note, as one of the key pieces of information he used in that book was a forgery, and the forger is now in jail. So we know that Hersh sometimes uses bad sources. He's lucky that that was only a book - if he'd used that source in one of his articles, he'd probably be unemployed right now. (see: Dan Rather)

And nevermind that he blasted Clinton for the Sudan bombing and blamed Albright and Sandy Berger for failures leading up to 9/11.

In short, though, like Rush Limbaugh, he's so far to the extreme that he can attack just about anyone.

But definitely possible to refute the content of a story. All you have to do is produce evidence to the contrary.

How is one supposed to produce evidence of something that hasn't happened or doesn't exist?

And that's how we refute assertions that say, the Earth is 6000 years old - not by talking to Adam or Eve.

Not true. A person who believes the Earth is 6000 years old believes the evidence was planted by God and doesn't actually say what scientists say it says. It is an utterly irrefutable position.

C'mon - you have to know that a story like this about a scientific subject would not be accepted by a scientific journal. Science articles are held to a higher standard than "investigative journalism" articles. They require proof, and openness - "investigative journalism" requires neither.

His speeches are what really gives him away, though. He's acknowledged that he plays it loose with the truth and his coworkers try to help explain it away, saying:

New York Magazine writer Chis Suelentrop wrote the follow: "On the podium, Sy[mour] is willing to tell a story that's not quite right, in order to convey a Larger Truth. “Sometimes I change events, dates, and places in a certain way to protect people,” Hersh told me. “I can’t fudge what I write. But I can certainly fudge what I say.”

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/7883

That's a hallmark of a dagerous radical. In fact, isn't that the type of thing people so despise Bush for when he got us into Iraq?

 

[russ_watters]

In any case, this doesn't really have much to do with the OP. Like I said, I'm sure we are doing covert operations in Iran right now. And Bush is probably drawing up battle plans in the hopes that he can use them. But:

-That doesn't mean we are going to go after Iran.
-That doesn't provide a good argument for the title of the OP.

 

[Gokul43201]

He is extremely liberal because the opinions he espouses in his reporting are extremely liberal.

Completely unsupported claim.

Interesting to note, as one of the key pieces of information he used in that book was a forgery, and the forger is now in jail. So we know that Hersh sometimes uses bad sources. He's lucky that that was only a book - if he'd used that source in one of his articles, he'd probably be unemployed right now. (see: Dan Rather)

And since this is just false, I take it that you don't care for about the truth of your claims. So there's really no point continuing this sham.