Lastly, we have to be reasonable about our investments. Buying the equity market while it is at valuations similar to the current level has never produced a significant gain over a decade. In fact, the common gain per calendar year is about 2% when valuations have been close to this high in the past.

Another issue to notice, this is the highest Shiller CAPE we have seen beyond the tech bubble and just before black Tuesday. Let’s look at the monthly graph below. We’ve an obvious support level should we enter a bear market. We believe the existing risk/reward ratio will not justify any long-term investments in the collateral market currently. Please, read our post on TLT here to see where someone may park their money until we are at a good valuation.

If you can’t take into account 8.5 trillion dollars over a period of less than two decades…you are by definition incompetent. If you did that in an exclusive entity, they might put you in prison. I did show the statistics. The important thing is your models are flawed. You’re presuming that of those receiving benefits would not have the ability to sustain themselves got they not been receiving something free of charge. This has never been shown to be accurate Yet. As the old saying goes…give a guy a fish and you fed him for the day. I am eliminating social security and Federal pensions from the category of entitlement spending in the info I am citing.

50% today. Increasingly more govt dependence. You indicate like Europe. In case you haven’t observed…their obsession with a welfare entitlement state has put them in such a calamity, that the rest of the world learned to lend them money anymore. The exception being some of the Nordic nations that began reversing their welfare-state model some right time ago. In 1970, Sweden was the fourth richest country in the world.

But by 1993, they have fallen to 17th. Came various reforms Then, including cuts in public areas spending. In terms of the US, the low quintile that halted participating is trapped in institutionalized don’t dependence. It appears like you’re the one not reading the quantity behind the amounts. The Federal budget is dominated by entitlement spending.

This was not the case 50 years back. It had been but a portion of the total Federal Budget. Literally 1/3rd of Federal spending is attributable to programs that didn’t exist before Johnson’s “War on Poverty”. So, if there is a problem…that would be that we are spending dramatically more income on programs that have not changed the effect. In 1950 the total for entitlements was just shy of 6% of Federal Spending. By 1960 it was to about 5 down.5% of Federal spending. By 1970 it was nearly 11% of total spending. Fast forward to 2010 plus they total an impressive 38% of Federal spending.

If there is a development…it’s that govt is perpetually spending increasingly more on these programs…and getting less and less of a result. This isn’t a picture…but rather budget data…easily reached. Landmark, that is the problem, you are just looking at the chart and not the numbers behind it. Regarding the Poverty issue. The problem with your comment is that I took into consideration the best drop from 1948 on, and the War and lagged Recession “were” significant variables. To me, they both seem sensible because during war, the year after a tough economy has ended a lot more people get employed at generally higher wages and, poverty should decrease.

  • Stamford, Connecticut – $105,000 to $150,000
  • 8 years back from South Africa
  • Convertible debentures
  • Nutrition security
  • I will do a complete post on Angel Soft soon with an increase of details

You will work from your gut, seeking to rationalize your preconceived notion, while I am working from empirical evidence and allowing the answer fall where it could. 400B of increased personal income due to the tax change policy. 4,440B. So, what we should be discussing is a maximum of 7% of total personal income consisting of this newly moved wealth.

Further, this is a one-time good deal in terms of impact on prosperity inequality. So, using this as a reason to refute Piketty doesn’t actually work. Worse, if you begin keeping track of at 1988; the inequality continues to grow. Throughout that same period, the economy grew 85% over the 25-year period or 2.5% per year. Now, if there was no income inequality, what other explanation are you experiencing 4/5ths of the working people declining in their share of total income while 1/5 sees a substantial increase. How is that not income inequality? If income were distributed absolutely evenly, then your stocks would stay roughly the same; they are not clearly.

If, as many in your camp say, the lower 1/5 are sluggish bums with no incentive and contribute nothing to the economic development and really should lose a share, then why is a similar thing true for the next three-fifths. I have a hard time believing they didn’t contribute to growth either.