Limbaugh: Pope is a Marxist

what? the whole argument here was about the economy. not the happiness of the middle class.

 

No they don't.

 

Correct me if I am wrong but the economist who you linked essentially say that a wage/wealth gap can cause some people to feel that they don't have an equal chance and thus they may not try to increase their wages/wealth.

Is that your/their argument?

 

So, why the changes in wealth distribution in the 1980s, if this is the case? That chart isn't necessarily reflective of upper tax rates changing.

 

from 1982 onward the stock market averaged a 12% return. the greatest bull market in us history by far was from 1982 to 2000. rich people have a far higher percentage of their assets in investments than the middle class. and that was even more so true in the 80s before the advent of 401k plans. this is the same reason why from 2008 to today the gap has widened. there is also the factor of global competition for labor increasing dramatically from the mid 80s onward. Upper class jobs tend to not be outsourcable.

 

I may have poorly expressed myself. Let me put it the terms how I present it to students, forget the term "cause":

The US economy was sitting on multiple powder kegs economically- heavy foreign trade imbalance (largely due to retaliatory actions toward Hawley-Smoot), too much credit, too much high risk speculation in the stock market, and an uneven distribution of income (the result of which was tons of unsold goods which was made more damaging due to very soft foreign trade- see above). When the market crashed 29 October 1929, the necessary spark to ignite the powder kegs was provided. The roof was blown off the US economy as a result.


Make any sense to you?

 

you had me until the uneven distribution of income. that would suggest some sort of overnight change in income distribution which was not the case (also once again suggests a zero sum game situation). manufacturers don't create inventory based on 10 year trends. the us market crashed. companies and rich individuals lost their shirts. many because they bought stocks on margin (or borrowed). when these companies and rich people had far less money they started firing their workers. said workers then had no money to buy goods. I don't know if inventories where too high for 1929 demand before the crash, but it's not atypical for people to inflate their inventories higher than demand during bubble economies which the 1920s certainly was.

 

So, if the 1% was enjoying the benefits of a bull market, wouldn't that be more reflective of the lack of a drop in tax receipts than a raise in tax rates for the top percent?

 

It's included to explain soft sales (that were bought without using credit) that exacerbated the Hawley-Smoot situation.

 

the bull market started after Reagan's tax reforms so there wasn't much in the way of capital gains in those years, but you are correct in one manner. the large increase in tax receipts we see in the chart after the Reagan tax reforms is due to the economy and job growth and the bull stock market during Reagan's presidency. but you'd still expect a rather sizable one year drop if the 1% actually got a massive tax break. like we saw after the bush tax cuts.

 

but why were the soft sales due to wage inequality? according to this wage inequality actually dropped in 1928. and once again this suggests a zero sum game. did middle class wages drop during the late 1920s? that would be the only way soft sales is due to lack of buying power of the middle class. but even that wouldn't suggest that wage inequality was the problem.

 

His data found that real per capita income of the bottom 93 percent of nonfarm households actually increased in the 1920s.

Virtually everyone can agree that the single most important economic factor in the life of workers, middle- or lower-class, is a job. And here the 1920s delivered enviably: after the early recession, unemployment dropped below 5 percent and stayed below that marker much of the time. Wages rose, especially for skilled workers.

The quality of work life improved as well. Historically, Americans had worked on Saturday. But now, because of productivity gains from machines, weeks of 50 or even 45 hours were possible. In 1920, scholars surveyed companies and found that only 32 had cut back to five-day workweeks. By 1927, 262 large companies instituted five-day workweeks. Henry Ford solidified the trend when the automaker moved to five days in 1926.

In 1920, a quarter of families had cars. By 1930, more than half did

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/01/the-myth-of-gatsbys-suffering-middle-class/?_r=0

 

Or, it just reflects a more dramatic tax reduction under Bush.

 

Reagan unquestionably lowered marginal tax rates by a far higher amount than bush (25% compared to what 5%?). you are proving my point.

 

Plus, it's my understanding that the tax shelters were not really addressed until 1986 and, of course, new ones sprang up. I do know there is a report saying the tax code changes by Reagan cost 13% in revenue.

 

What would it matter if the rates were more if you are arguing that it was really about the elimination of tax shelters?

 

other tax shelters sprung up, but you no longer could get multiples of your investment. I know a guy who was making millions in tax shelters in the 70s and that income went to zero in the 1980s after the tax reforms and oil collapse.

 

i'm saying the elimination of tax shelters offset reducing the marginal tax rate for the 1%. the middle class and upper middle class (those without the disposable income to take advantage of the tax law at the time) absolutely got a tax cut, but the 1% did not.

 

Interesting read:

(CNN) Pope Francis responded to critics who call his stance on capitalism Marxist, saying in a new interview that the political and economic philosophy is flat "wrong."

"Marxist ideology is wrong," the Pope told the Italian newspaper La Stampa in an interview published on Saturday. "But I have met many Marxists in my life who are good people, so I don’t feel offended.”

Earlier this month, the conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh blasted the pontiff, calling his latest major writing, an apostolic exhortation called Evangelii Gaudium, "pure Marxism."

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/14/pope-im-not-a-marxist/

 

Stupid economists: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/

Don't they know they can't be real if they say such things?