On 12/16/2012 12:55 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Sunday, December 16, 2012 12:43:42 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

    On 12/15/2012 5:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
    > If you have a group of people getting rich while other people
    are in
    > bondage to them and stay poor, that presents a problem for social
    > mobility - which is being realized now as the US has fallen beneath
    > several other countries in social mobility.

    Hi,

         OK, we need a theory of social mobility that makes accurate
    predictions. Got one? Could we say that the fact that the US has
    fallen
    in its measure of social mobility tell us something about the
    failure of
    some current policies or combination as having some causal effect of
    that fall in ranking?


The failure to recognize Supply-Side economics as the transparent fraud that it was is to blame in my opinion.

How exactly did S-S economics fail to achieve exactly what they where proposed to be able to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics

"Supply-side economics is a school of macroeconomic thought that argues that economic growth can be most effectively created by lowering barriers for people to produce (supply) goods and services, such as lowering income tax and capital gains tax rates, and by allowing greater flexibility by reducing regulation. According to supply-side economics, consumers will then benefit from a greater supply of goods and services at lower prices. Typical policy recommendations of supply-side economists are lower marginal tax rates and less regulation. The Laffer curve embodies a tenet of supply side economics: that government tax revenues are the same at 100% tax rates as at 0% tax rates. The tax rate that achieves highest government revenues is somewhere in between. Whether it is worth the corresponding decrease in economic growth that is often assumed by supply-side economists to accompany such a rate increase is a policy question."


They don't make that case here, but you can see from the graph that the new, lower post-war pattern begins in the mid 80s.

No. I see a pattern that begins in the 1960's. The Korean and Vietnam wars had trivial economic consequences compared to WWII, so "post war" starts mid 1940's. There is a big slump 1940 -> 1960, then it levels off and the Upward and Downward P.o.M. numbers get real close and start converging 1985'ish. I was in the US navy round that time.


http://www.businessinsider.com/the-american-dream-is-now-a-myth-2012-6


"One of the most distressing aspects of the state of the US economy is the decrease in social mobility. It is much, much harder now than it used to be for Americans to improve their circumstances. In other words, if Americans are born poor, they're overwhelmingly likely to stay poor. Similarly, if Americans are born rich, they have a much better chance of staying rich than someone born poor or middle class. No one minds inequality as long as one's station in life is a function of one's own decisions and effort. When inequality becomes the luck of the draw, however, if becomes much more profoundly unfair. America's social mobility is now not only one of the lowest in the country's history--it's one of the lowest in the first world."

What changed in the US that might have been a main contributing cause to the decrease? Check a side by side with a chart of the US GDP percentage spent by the government on non-Constitutionally mandated activity since 1940 to 2000. Interesting!

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to