Forbes (and Data): Art Laffer is wrong... consistantly.

Yeah. I tried to wade through the rest of this horseshit, but after yet another factual error and two more typos in the same sentence, I concluded his bloviation wasn't worth the electrons displaying it.

To recap, the article is badly written, poorly thought out and full of logical and spelling errors. It is overlong without saying anything. If it were written for a freshmen English course I might give it a C- if I were feeling generous.

 

That's why you don't just look at QB rating. Especially considering the rules changes over the years which have affected it, the differences in systems that players play under, the talent each player plays with, and the flaws in the QB rating itself, which is a highly suspect system that rewards dink passing because it looks at completion percentage so highly. In fact, there's a fair amount of backing to get rid of it and replace it with QBR.

Marino may have been the best pure passer ever from the pocket, playing for a team perenially without a run attack to make defenses play honest, and at a time when passers weren't nearly as protected as they are now. He had the quickest release in history, was deadly accurate, could throw long, and had a masterful understanding of the passing game.

Favre at his best was close to Marino as a passer plus had athleticism and escapability. Both of these guys play for ever, and while their numbers fell off some in their late 30s, they were still feared QBs at that point that could win a game for you by themselves. Favre threw a lot more picks at the end, and could lose one, but by that time he was pushing 40.

Warner belongs in the same conversation as those guys, but wasn't as great nearly as long. Culpepper had a couple of great seasons, then was out of the league. Part of that was injury, part of that was he played with a great offense and after the injury couldn't do it without that offense. Garcia was very good for a good length of time, but never great. Flacco is young, and doesn't belong in this conversation yet, and even if he wins a Super Bowl or two with that great defense in the Ravens certainly isn't in the league of Marino or Favre as a QB - he'd have to have major breakout years, multiple, before he worked into that group.

The guys before Marino played with even more restrictive rules - guys like Bradshaw and Staubach you could see the change in 78 when the rules were altered to stop downfield contact, their numbers exploded. It would have been fun to see them before that.

If you played with the same rules and same talent, the best two pure passers might have been old timers - Sammy Baugh was absolutely incredible football player, a great passer who could run. Back then he also played DB and P, and one year lead the league in passing, passing TDs, interceptions as a defensive player, and punting - and his punting record still stands.

Sonny Jurgensen was another guy who would have been great in any era, but mostly played for god awful teams. Lombardi once famously said of Jurgensen that if he had him on Green Bay (instead of Hall of Fame QB Bart Starr) they would have never have lost a game.

 

Ahh, the old "You can't say socialism/Keynsian policies/etc failed because you have no reference point" gambit, flipped on end.

But hey, I suppose if the Real World consistently proves your ideology wrong and the ideology you hate right, I guess it's all you have.

 

Re: Forbes (and Data): Art Laffer is wrong... consistently.

"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion."

 

Yes, there are uber right wing douchebags that get time on the Wall Street Journal. That in no way means its main stream.

And there's no surprise something like this gets play - after all, every executive stands to gain by allowing themselves unethical behavior. Of course they will publish that - they probably paid him to write it.

We would know - but they won't allow transparency in that process, now do they?

It's inherently unethical and an awful idea - no big surprise you follow the reasoning.

 

Sigh. Wages did stagnate. You are talking about purchasing power, and that's different because we employ the rest of the world in damn near slave labor to provide us with our toys. Technology increases also


The rest of this:

Is predicated that you don't know the difference between the two things. Yes, technology is better, and some prices have gone down.

Even with that, we all know that real inflation has skyrocketed, because the official government figures don't include 'volatiles' such as energy, food, and health care in those figures - the things we actually need as opposed to the toys we buy.

And of course, those jobs that Anc is talking about disappearing with the higher education levels to keep them means that the average person accrues less wealth over his life time and is less secure in his retirement.

Starting your argument against stagnating wages with 'yeah, but it can buy more shit' pretty much guarantees your argument is lost - imagine if wages didn't stagnate how wealthy the middle class would be. LOL.

But that would require the money not go to the top 1%, and we can't have that.

 

Because where "the" money goes is something "we" decide. As easy and righteous as flipping a switch.

 

So wait, your economic weasel can manipulate the numbers and use strawmen to "prove" his point, but no one else can? My, my, my...isn't that conVEENient?

 

Ah but do families both work because they need to or do they do it by choice?

On more than one occasion, I've seen some reporter on a news magazine program sit down with a family, go over their finances, and show them how they'd actually be much better off if one of them stayed home with the kids.

No daycare. No dropping off clothes at the cleaners. No maid service. Healthy meals prepared from scratch instead of the pizza and 2 liters of soda picked up on the way home from work. Add to that the intangibles like better adjusted, better raised kids and it makes a lot of sense for the mom (or dad) to quit her job and stay home to be a housewife.

But somehow that isn't as glamorous as going out and getting a paycheck.

 

Stupid person who compares apples to oranges is stupid. Productivity has outstripped wages because of technology. Don't believe me? Look at supermarkets.

Let's take a supermarket of today, where the bar codes of all the products are entered into a database that manages prices and inventory. Goods are checked out by swiping that code over a laser scanner. When this happens, sales data and reordering points are automatically updated. The bill is likely paid with a credit or debit card.

Conversely, your beloved 1975 supermarket has a stock boy with a price gun, laboriously putting price stickers on each can of corn and box of cereal. They know how their inventory is by doing an inventory. Sales are made by looking at the pricetag and then keying that price into the register. Likely a check is then written that needs to be taken to the bank and deposited by hand to a teller.

So we've got your two supermarkets. Now lets take ten shoppers, load their carts up, and see how long it takes for a clerk to check them out. How much would you like to bet that it is faster and easier for the clerk in today's supermarket to process those ten shoppers than the one who has to punch in each product by hand on the cash register?

The fact remains that productivity has outstripped wages because technology and automation have taken off in that time frame.

 

You're wrong.

Because it takes far less engineers to build a bar code scanner than. Cash register engineers do not map 1:1 to checkout girls. And for that matter, someone was already employed to design cash registers in Olden Dayes.

But now that they have computers to do the design, and handle the processing and you have laser scanners so you don't need price tags and ten keys, you get rid of a bunch of clerks and stock boys. You also provide better, faster service.

 

Only a 30 year old would describe the past 30 years as "stagnation." In that time frame we went from a 64K RAM Apple ][ with dual 256K floppy disks for files that cost $5,000 to a $100 smart phone that can surf the Web, take pictures, check e-mails, and even make phone calls.

The "stagnation" from 1981 to today pales to the stagnation from 1951-1981--to say nothing of 1925-1955--or 1789-1819 or pretty much any other generation.

 

Nope. I was home in Wisconsin for Christmas and somehow the conversation turned to Brett Favre. My brother, with a straight face, told me what a terrible quarterback he was and how he'd never, in his entire career, been a particularly good quarterback. He then rattled off a bunch of facts and statistics that he claimed supported his position.

This is about what the original commentator is doing--saying Keynes doesn't know what he's talking about and then trotting out some other "expert" to "prove" his point.

Now, I suppose I could've gotten online, done a bunch of research and checked up on Favre's statistics and then turned around and showed my brother how and why he was wrong. Or it might've even turned out that my brother was, in fact, right. It doesn't matter. Even if Favre WAS a terrible quarterback on paper, the fact remains that the Packers had an unprecedented era of prosperity when he was quarterback and if you've ever seen him play in his prime, you'd know he was an amazing quarterback.

So no. I'm not going to read Anc's entire article and then fact-check it. I know it is fundamentally flawed and the economic theories posited by Laffer had a big hand in the unprecedented era of prosperity we've had in the past 30 years--the era that our 30 year old poster boy calls "stagnation".

 

So they naturally take it one step forward, and put in the self-service isles, which proves it isn't about better, faster service, but lowering costs. Indeed, I'd always rather have a trained person doing that work for me as the customer, I just often don't have the choice.

The business model is often not about service - indeed, it's about removing the human element as much as possible these days, so there's less need to pay them. It's the antithesis of service.

Press one if you speak English, press two if you speak....

 

Human interaction in retail is highly overrated.

Then again, I'm not the sort of person who needs help figuring out what the fuck he wants to buy, and have no use for the insincere bullshit sessions people pass off as "casual conversation."

 

Actually there is an trend to dispense with self-service checkouts in select markets. It turns out they just aren't working out.

And now that I'm caught up, I shall try to stop Nova-ing this thread.

 

What ideology was proven right? Are we talking about the one in which taxes were lowered for 3 decades while debt piled up because your generation just didn't feel like paying for things like education and bridges?

 

Hey, I can apply that shitty logic to anything, including Hitler!

 

Hey, if you don't like what someone says, dismiss it! awesome!

 

Facts (especially if they don't conform to his ideology) are not needed or wanted. Apparently.

 

Not if you can do math it doesn't. US gdp per capita growth as a percentage in 1951 to 1981 was 185%. From 1981 to 2010 it was 162%. And of course in the last decade, its 106%

http://www.measuringworth.com/usgdp/.

Now account for the fact that inflation figures (just like unemployment) are bald faced lies since the early 90s, and if you take the actual cost per living into account the last decade is truly a lost decade for the US - the average person actually lost money, despite massive increases in technologies and efficiencies.

And we aren't getting the money back we lost while the economy recovers.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011...rkers-not-benefiting-from-productivity-gains/

In the 9 recessions since 1949, this ranks second worse in recovery gains by workers - only 1982 was worse, with the other seven being better by large margins.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011...rkers-not-benefiting-from-productivity-gains/

 

According to some charts, productivity is up. According to the government, costs are stagnant. Therefore, wages DON'T have to increase to the few entry-level jobs left because of any benefits those specific workers have added. (They didn't really add anything, they're just pushing buttons someone else designed and implemented.) That may seem harsh, but it's reality.

On the other hand, some will say there's an argument here for the view that government is in the pocket of corporate interests. The numbers are being cooked at the direction of some vast business conspiracy. If that's true, though, it also argues the point that we can't trust government to tell us how to manage the economy.

The other side of the automation benefit equation is that it's supposed to also benefit the low-wage worker by providing better/faster service and overall cheaper goods to them as well. In that way, they aren't as badly hurt by supposedly stagnant wages.

I say "supposedly" because I still don't quite buy the chart. Whether it's by business interest cooking the books or politicians cooking the books to score political points, it seems there's too much credibility being placed in too little data. In fact, I'm left wondering just how valid claims of broad-based increased productivity really are.

This is one reason why we look at the government's CPI numbers and compare them to our real-world experiences and wonder who's playing with the numbers. It's practically alchemy. It may be an interesting reference point but without knowing the meaning behind the numbers, we have to be very careful basing policy on them.

 

Without getting corporations out of running the government, which means effective rules to stop the manipulation.

You keep positing that the only two options are to let the corporations do what they want, or keep it the same way which also lets them basically do what they want.

That's a false choice, and it doesn't take an ounce of understanding to come to that conclusion.

As far as your take on productivity, less workers doing even the same amount of work is an increase in productivity. It can even be greater productivity if the decrease in productivity isn't greater than the decrease in the work force. 50% of the people doing 75% of the work is an increase in productivity.

There isn't an analyst out there that says we are a less productive workforce, on any side of the fence.

Wishing so your ideology works doesn't make it so.

 

But you can't eliminate some influence of corporations (or trade unions, or individuals for that matter) on the government without restricting free speech. That's been the subject of endless debate and court rulings already. Sure, there's influence there. The trick is to use your brain to balance those competing interests to produce the most good.

Just saying "corporations/business" influence on government is bad is simplistic and denies the power that other sectors of American society have over the political process.

There is no single corporate overlord or even oligarchy that's dictating government policy anyway. If there were, there'd certainly be some pattern of coherent thought in government policy and I certainly can't perceive one.

So I'll have to ask you for the source for the given graph and further justification.

I understand the basic concepts of replacing workers with automation. I also understand somone not answering my questions but answering their own, preferred, questions.

Who comes up with the productivity curve as shown? Do they represent the same workers doing the same jobs? Obviously, over a long period of time, this probably is a "no". If not, how are the differences accounted for when arriving at what is obviously a summary graph? How is the fact that very rarely is the same job being done anymore being taken into account? Sure, one person can push the button for an automated assembly line that used to take 25 people to run but, really, is that person 25x more efficient? Is he, really, worth 25x more money? If the answer is yes to either of those then it doesn't seem right to me.

This isn't about ideology working or not but it's about having someone who's ostensibly trying to prove their point back it up with a decent explanation.

 

I don't waste any time on literature from Flat Earth, Crationist, 911 Conspiracy theorist, or other crackpot sites. If I can get a couple paragraphs into something and realize that it is badly written, based on incorrect assumptions, and generally not worth my time, I don't feel obligated to read on, let alone go find evidence to refute it. I don't need evidence because I can already see the flaws.

 

I doubt if anything attacking your basic world view, no matter who wrote it or how well would clear that hurdle.

 

Only if you define corporations as an entity having the right to speech, and speech equating money - both of which I think are ethically incorrect.

Citizens United won't be the last word on the subject, there will be ongoing challenges and we'll see a different ideological makeup for the Court in future years because people are so pissed off about what is going on.

Corporate donations exploded last election cycle. There's no way to balance that inherently, because even if they are split between D and R, they still are all going to act to increase corporate interests - that's the entire point.

Disproportionate influence is the problem - it alleviates checks and balances.

That might say more about your relative level of insight than what is actually going on.

Data mining shows what is going on - and we've talked about that ad nauseum. Corporations are showing more and more power at an unheard of rate since Teddy Roosevelt destroyed the trust system, and the lower class and middle class are showing less benefit from the system that is sending the vast majority of the money to a small group of people that have learned to manipulate the rules. Attempting to change those rules? Then they will use their wealth to 'influence' officials to stop it.

Certainly they've used their PR to indoctrinate an entire generation on what they consider 'fair.'

Which graph? Do some basic research - productivity is up, wages are stagnant, corporations profits are up, executive pay is up. If you think these are in question, go educate yourself and get back to me. But choosing to be ignorant isn't a defense.

Anc already addressed this - no, it isn't the same worker, it's a far more educated worker, who should be paid proportionately to that education level and until recent years most likely was.

Again, ignorance isn't a defense. Anc stated it explicitly and he is correct. Feel free to educate yourself if you refuse to believe it. But if you don't go in simply to reinforce your own flawed ideology, it will quickly be clear to you that the numbers and reality backs him up.

 

On the graph, you're dodging the questions in the same way Anc was. Try again.

 

There are plenty of charts like this one available. But since what they are saying threatens your world view, I'm sure you'll dismiss them out of hand.

 

Are you referring to your statement that you are incredulous that productivity is up as shown in one of the graphs Anc posted, or something else?

I'm incredulous that anyone could not believe that that did even two seconds of research on the matter. So I hope it's something else, because that's just fucking retarded. Only a conspiracy theorist of the worse order would believe that productivity isn't up at this point - process, technology, education, all these things are up across the board.