Welcome to the updated Slickdeals redesign beta. Learn more and give us feedback. Or, return to the classic view.

Search in
Frontpage Deal
DiscountMags Discounts, Deals and Coupon Codes

1-Year The Economist Magazine Subscription (51 Issues) EXPIRED

hypoh 5,906 November 2, 2012 at 12:15 PM in Other (3) More DiscountMags Deals
Deal
Score
+30
35,493 Views
See Deal
$50

Deal Details

Promoted 11-03-2012 at 12:00 AM View Original Post
Discount Mags has The Economist Magazine 1-Year Subscription (51 Issues) for $50 or student rate (school name required) of $45 when you apply coupon code SLICKDEALS at checkout. Thanks hypoh

Original Post

DiscountMags.com is offering 1 Year Subscription for $49.99 or $44.99 with a valid school name (there is no difference between the two subscriptions).

The Economist [discountmags.com] $49.99 with coupon code SLICKDEALS
The Economist (Student) [discountmags.com] $44.99 with coupon code SLICKDEALS

Economist print subscriptions include free digital/online access. You'll just need to wait for your first issue to arrive in order to activate.

Works for New or Renewal subscriptions.

157 Comments

2 3 4 5 6

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#46
Quote from mchouse View Post :
those considering themselves centrists today would probably consider JFK a right wing lunatic. That's the problem with a sliding scale - gravity rules so things slide downhill.
It actually only takes a very small parentage to sway the masses, such as the media today. Most people weren't nazi communists, but look what Hitler was able to achieve. I've seen it at my kids 2nd grade Halloween party. There was a certain food that one kid didn't like the look of, and before you knew it, anyone that even thought about trying it was an outcast, they were pizza rolls!

I like you do find it intriguing how liberals don't usually consider themselves as such, and their views (and media outlets) are always "center" or "slightly right of". Conservatives find it a compliment to be labeled conservatives.

I apologize for being so off topic... Embarrassment I've never actaully read the mag, But I am sure there are a lot of good things in it, and if it's FP, you know it's a good deal!
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#47
Have you guys ever checked out the freebie section
on slickdeals?
right now for example there is
a free sub to wall street journal available from rewardsgold
i ordered tons of mags from them they always come and there are never any strings attached


http://www.rewardsgold.com/mags/w...pg4-26.htm

i have also seen the economist on that site
you can sign up for email alerts and it will tell you whats available now

downside
you have to fill in a survey(about 10 min)
but it saves a ton of money


Quote from spackard View Post :
I'm having mixed results with the seller.
I bought a WSJ renewal and a The Economist renewal. *Renewals*.
The WSJ ended up being a new sub, and, was a paper-only sub, so I had to change sub numbers and had to pay a lot of additional money to get digital added to the paper sub.
The Economist I haven't received yet; I've been going back and forth for a month, the seller says it'll take another month to straighten things out.

The WSJ, when I phoned, said some people auction their digital-only frequent-flyer mile subscriptions. She strongly suggested I never give out my sub number to a seller. Also, I think the WSJ is stratifying their digital sub into separate "online" and "tablet", so if you see a cheap sub that says paper+online it may not include tablet access.


TL;DR: The OP's seller is a reputable subscription seller.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#48
Quote from SiloSmashers View Post :
They never met a government program they didn't like. What they consider "austerity" is a joke designed to fool fools. Even if you're a lamestream economist and you get off on hearing all the wrong things you like repeated back to you- the consistent stream of inaccuracies destroys any credibility they may have. None of that really matters though...

Before subscribing ask yourself these questions:

"Did The Economist predict the painfully obvious housing bubble years before it was on CNN?"

more importantly:

"Did The Economist accurate explain the cause of the housing bubble BEFORE (or even after...) it happened?"

If the magazine's editors don't have a firm grasp on the obvious then subtle will always escape them.

Where do you get these claims from? Cite your sources please. I've seen the Economist criticize government along with praising government, depending on circumstances, which is why I consider them moderate.

As for the housing bubble, which publication accurately predicted it and can explain the causes of it before (or after) it happened? I'd love to start reading that one.

If people could have accurately predicted the full scope of the housing mess, they should have put some money behind their claims. So, who profited handsomely from those events?

IMO, pretty much everyone lost in the housing bubble, although some of the wealthy have bounced back by riding the DOW back up to 13000.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#49
Quote from jays_on View Post :
I like you do find it intriguing how liberals don't usually consider themselves as such, and their views (and media outlets) are always "center" or "slightly right of". Conservatives find it a compliment to be labeled conservatives.
Liberals in America can compare themselves to what is truly far left in the world, ie communism in China and the heavy-handed government style of Singapore. Most liberals in America don't want either of those, but are still more left-leaning than the many conservatives in America today.

Hence, the self-label of "center" or "slightly left of center" for them.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#50
Quote from mchouse View Post :
I am not interested in eating a little crap even in the best of meals.

And yet, you remain conservative. Wink
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#51
Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
IMO, pretty much everyone lost in the housing bubble, although some of the wealthy have bounced back by riding the DOW back up to 13000.
Yeah, everyone knows the stock market is only open to the wealthy.

The twisting of logic and basic economics that's involved in the modern liberal rhetoric is truly amazing to me as a registered Independent. No matter who wins this next election, we're headed straight into the ground folks. wave
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#52
Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
Where do you get these claims from? Cite your sources please. I've seen the Economist criticize government along with praising government, depending on circumstances, which is why I consider them moderate.

As for the housing bubble, which publication accurately predicted it and can explain the causes of it before (or after) it happened? I'd love to start reading that one.

If people could have accurately predicted the full scope of the housing mess, they should have put some money behind their claims. So, who profited handsomely from those events?

IMO, pretty much everyone lost in the housing bubble, although some of the wealthy have bounced back by riding the DOW back up to 13000.
My most important source is myself. To your point: The Economist is a statist publication. It's made up of many different contributors so I can't say the magazine takes x position on every single occasion. The magazine does, in fact, get things right sometimes. I'm sure that's just an accident on their part.


Who profited from the housing collapse? I did. Some other people might have as well, but mostly I care about myself. Anyone who put off buying a house in the inflated market profited. Anyone who made "contrarian" investments profited. On the whole America is poorer from the misallocation of capital the government/banks caused. That doesn't mean individuals can't profit/not lose as much though.


Anyone who paid the suckers price for a house lost. As did anyone who invested in housing stock. There's a reason it's called the "suckers price." The uniformed, or in the case of Economist Readers, misinformed readers lose their hats. While the sandwich heavy investor profits. It's a real burden being right all the time.


As to what to read, the answer is simple: mises.org. If you're not an Austrian Economist you're a voodoo economist. Peter Schiff has some very funny videos about this and he accurately predicted the crash.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw - Peter Schiff was right (2006-2007)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k - Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers speech. Good explanation of the housing run up. (2006)
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#53
Quote from othersteve View Post :
Yeah, everyone knows the stock market is only open to the wealthy.

The twisting of logic and basic economics that's involved in the modern liberal rhetoric is truly amazing to me as a registered Independent. No matter who wins this next election, we're headed straight into the ground folks. wave
Registered independent or not, you'll be voting for the Republicans with your views. Fine with me.
The stock market is open to those who have disposable income. My family and I are among those, thankfully, and we certainly took advantage of the rally. But I can see how families who were decimated by the financial crisis, who lost their jobs, lost their homes and struggle to put food on the table, wouldn't have had the extra cash on hand to put it in the stock market.

So, yes, even though the stock market is technically open to everyone, not everyone has the financial means to take advantage of it.

Quote from SiloSmashers View Post :
My most important source is myself. To your point: The Economist is a statist publication. It's made up of many different contributors so I can't say the magazine takes x position on every single occasion. The magazine does, in fact, get things right sometimes. I'm sure that's just an accident on their part.


Who profited from the housing collapse? I did. Some other people might have as well, but mostly I care about myself. Anyone who put off buying a house in the inflated market profited. Anyone who made "contrarian" investments profited. On the whole America is poorer from the misallocation of capital the government/banks caused. That doesn't mean individuals can't profit/not lose as much though.


Anyone who paid the suckers price for a house lost. As did anyone who invested in housing stock. There's a reason it's called the "suckers price." The uniformed, or in the case of Economist Readers, misinformed readers lose their hats. While the sandwich heavy investor profits. It's a real burden being right all the time.


As to what to read, the answer is simple: mises.org. If you're not an Austrian Economist you're a voodoo economist. Peter Schiff has some very funny videos about this and he accurately predicted the crash.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw - Peter Schiff was right (2006-2007)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj8rMwdQf6k - Peter Schiff Mortgage Bankers speech. Good explanation of the housing run up. (2006)
cool, thanks.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#54
Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
The stock market is open to those who have disposable income. My family and I are among those, thankfully, and we certainly took advantage of the rally. But I can see how families who were decimated by the financial crisis, who lost their jobs, lost their homes and struggle to put food on the table, wouldn't have had the extra cash on hand to put it in the stock market.
As business investment takes place, so are jobs created as businesses grow to be more competitive. The only way we will see the economy improve is if the stock market continues to rise and business investment remains healthy.

As for direct monetary gains from the stock market, fine, so not everyone has extra money to invest in risky assets in hopes of reaping a worthwhile return. So what would you propose we do about that? Give every American family some arbitrary sum of money for their investment purposes just to be "fair"?

By the way, since we're on the subject of the housing boom and bust, you are aware of the initial factors which led to this outcome, right? The most tragically inflated markets were those in which land costs were astronomically high, due often to such government policies as land use restrictions. An amalgamation of policies led many in these markets to buy up as much additional land as possible as well in hopes of turning a quick profit as prices skyrocketed year after year. Later policies requiring mortgage lenders to provide a certain percentage of loans to "low and moderate income" (abbreviated/termed "LMI" in mortgage industry language)--meeting quotas or being penalized and possibly critically injured in the market by a resulting inability to qualify for government loan purchases--encouraged just the ridiculously haphazard lending practices which we all witnessed near the brink of the crash. The language used was, and I quote, "creative" lending practices to help these underprivileged people to own a home.

And wouldn't you know it, those very same politicians turned around 180 degrees directly thereafter and pointed the finger at the "greedy banks" who cared not enough for their clients to follow responsible lending practices. As if it is profitable for lenders to provide knowingly bad loans that will eventually be foreclosed upon, a process which invariably leaves banks with a massive loss on their hands.

This was not a simple problem as was portrayed by those politicians. But it's easy for them to find incentive to do so, as it deflects any such attention from their ridiculously destructive policies from decades past that led to the catastrophe that eventually robbed millions of Americans of their falsely-promised home values.

This topic has been obfuscated and avoided with great tact by the intelligentsia and those politicians with careers depending on their ability to creatively assign blame. We are living in a world of misinformation and class warfare, and that technique has worked and I believe will continue to work on an American public increasingly out of touch with the basics of macroeconomics.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#55
Quote from othersteve View Post :
As for direct monetary gains from the stock market, fine, so not everyone has extra money to invest in risky assets in hopes of reaping a worthwhile return. So what would you propose we do about that? Give every American family some arbitrary sum of money for their investment purposes just to be "fair"?
The stock market will never be a valid vehicle for equality of opportunity, which is why I stated that it was primarily the wealthy who benefited the most from its rally up to 13000. But you criticized me for "twisting logic and denying basic economics" and implying that the stock market is outright closed to the poor. I'm glad to see you backtrack a bit.

No one, ever, will seriously suggest "giving every American family some arbitrary sum of money for investment purposes." I'm a fan of capitalism- really I am. It's a great system for generating wealth, but it's rather terrible at creating equality. So, the stock market is not the vehicle to deliver equality of opportunity for all Americans; it must come from somewhere else.

Education was once that vehicle, as seen by the boom from post-WWII until about the 80s-90s. But now it's ineffective. Social mobility is at very low levels; today, how wealthy one's parents are better determines what class one will be, rather than merit.

I'm not saying all wealth should be distributed equally among everyone (before you try to put that point on me), but I will argue that inequality has been growing for decades in America and is now at a point where inequality is actually hurting the entire system.


Quote from othersteve View Post :
By the way, since we're on the subject of the housing boom and bust, you are aware of the initial factors which led to this outcome, right? The most tragically inflated markets were those in which land costs were astronomically high, due often to such government policies as land use restrictions. An amalgamation of policies led many in these markets to buy up as much additional land as possible as well in hopes of turning a quick profit as prices skyrocketed year after year. Later policies requiring mortgage lenders to provide a certain percentage of loans to "low and moderate income" (abbreviated/termed "LMI" in mortgage industry language)--meeting quotas or being penalized and possibly critically injured in the market by a resulting inability to qualify for government loan purchases--encouraged just the ridiculously haphazard lending practices which we all witnessed near the brink of the crash. The language used was, and I quote, "creative" lending practices to help these underprivileged people to own a home.

And wouldn't you know it, those very same politicians turned around 180 degrees directly thereafter and pointed the finger at the "greedy banks" who cared not enough for their clients to follow responsible lending practices. As if it is profitable for lenders to provide knowingly bad loans that will eventually be foreclosed upon, a process which invariably leaves banks with a massive loss on their hands.

This was not a simple problem as was portrayed by those politicians. But it's easy for them to find incentive to do so, as it deflects any such attention from their ridiculously destructive policies from decades past that led to the catastrophe that eventually robbed millions of Americans of their falsely-promised home values.

This topic has been obfuscated and avoided with great tact by the intelligentsia and those politicians with careers depending on their ability to creatively assign blame. We are living in a world of misinformation and class warfare, and that technique has worked and I believe will continue to work on an American public increasingly out of touch with the basics of macroeconomics.

I agree that the government had a huge role in the inflated housing prices. Shame on those programs for duping the low income families in believing they could afford a house when they couldn't, and shame on politicians for not taking their cut of the responsibility.

However I still think there are some good things that can come from government. Personally, I'd like to see more infrastructure building- roads, bridges, dams, etc, but also I'd like to see a national high-speed internet grid build throughout the nation (kind of like a National Highway Project, but with high speed internet instead). Other countries (namely Korea) have blazing fast internet connections that I drool over; I think it's time we caught up. EVERYONE would benefit from it- schools, libraries, businesses, hospitals...

As for class warfare, I think Warren Buffett put it quite nicely as "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

You can see the evidence all around of money and distorting the political system- SCOTUS & the Citizens United decision, campaign super-PACs (on both sides).
Those with exorbitant amounts of money are able to pay and influence the masses into voting along with them. IMO economics is undermining the American political system.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#56
1.21gigawatts,

First of all, I want to say thank you for a well thought-out and intelligent reply.


Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
The stock market will never be a valid vehicle for equality of opportunity
Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
I'm a fan of capitalism- really I am. It's a great system for generating wealth, but it's rather terrible at creating equality. So, the stock market is not the vehicle to deliver equality of opportunity for all Americans; it must come from somewhere else.
Economics is not a zero-sum game. When one man gains, someone else does not necessarily have to pay for that gain, as much as this is often erroneously assumed by those in the intelligentsia and especially those making a case for liberalism. In fact, it is the creation of wealth by healthy economies which is to thank for most of the rise in standard of living across all economies globally.

Let me ask you something: what's so wrong with inequality? What is it about life that makes you feel we can or should intervene with the natural motion of markets and the creation of wealth in order to attempt to promote equality among the participants in these markets?


Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
Those with exorbitant amounts of money are able to pay and influence the masses into voting along with them. IMO economics is undermining the American political system.
I happen to think it is precisely the other way around. While obviously money has "corrupted" the political system to the extent that a medium (money being the measurement of a person's accumulated wealth via success in the market) can be blamed for the use or misuse of itself, I don't feel that economics itself can possibly be blamed here. Economics simply provides the basic rules and logic that define a structured market; the "study of the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses," in specific. Economics--as an accepted set of principles and rules used to describe, explain, and predict those phenomena which are governing the exchange of products and services in our modern world--cannot be blamed for the inequality inherent in the aftermath of circumstantial "luck" or "wealth" any more than math can be blamed, as both play essentially the same role.


Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
I'm not saying all wealth should be distributed equally among everyone (before you try to put that point on me), but I will argue that inequality has been growing for decades in America and is now at a point where inequality is actually hurting the entire system.
I submit to you that the statistics you are basing this on are very likely flawed. Would you like to explore that next?
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#57
Quote from othersteve View Post :
Let me ask you something: what's so wrong with inequality? What is it about life that makes you feel we can or should intervene with the natural motion of markets and the creation of wealth in order to attempt to promote equality among the participants in these markets?
Too much inequality is bad because it negatively impacts social mobility. I believe there is an "optimal" level of inequality, one that justly rewards the hardest workers and the risk takers in business, yet still provides the widest opportunity for everyone to succeed (ie taxation to promote systems that keep opportunities open, like education) and still provides some social safety net for the poorest. The level of this "optimal" inequality is, of course, debated by economists routinely.

As much of a fan of the "natural motion of markets" as I am, there are times where intervening is justified and good for the system. What happens when a monopoly emerges from the "natural motion of markets"? This can be an example of inequality, where the monopolistic company performs anti-competitive behavior, which is ultimately bad for the entire system. Intervening, in this case, would be good for the system. As an example, I cite Teddy Roosevelt, a progressive Republican (!) rated by historians as one of history's greatest presidents, and is noted for trust busting.

I am pro-market. I think in today's rhetoric, "pro-market" gets confused too easily with "pro-business", to the extent that any government intervention in the market is vilified as "anti-market", when in reality it is only "anti-business". Now, there are times where government is intervening in the free market as well, and that is effecting the market negatively. See the huge agricultural subsidies that distort the food market. It is an attempt at lowering food prices so everyone can afford food, but I think it has been taken a bit too far, and prices should be corrected towards market values.

Quote from othersteve View Post :
I submit to you that the statistics you are basing this on are very likely flawed. Would you like to explore that next?
There are plenty of sources that point to increasing income inequality over the past ~40 years:
- Congressional Budget Office (nonpartisan) - http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42729
- BusinessInsider (partisan?) - http://www.businessinsider.com/ne...11-11?op=1
- and as dubious a source as Wikipedia is, I'll cite it anyway since it's a nice aggregation of many, many sources:
-- Income inequality in the United States - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco...ted_States
-- Great Divergence (inequality) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grea...inequality)
-- Gini coefficient data, comparing inequality between countries over decades - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_index

Based on all of those statistics and data, inequality (specifically, income inequality) is growing. If you'd like to try to prove that all of that data is incorrect, go for it.

I stand by my belief that our current level of inequality in the United States is negatively effecting the system as a whole and is negatively impacting social mobility. Social mobility is the defining attribute of the American Dream.

(There are a few sources that highlight the lack of social mobility in today's society: http://www.businessinsider.com/th...yth-2012-6, http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/da...38674.html)

Try a thought experiment...compare the prospects of a child from a poor family who struggles and gets all B's in school versus a child from a very wealthy family and who struggles equally as hard and get's all B's in school. Even though both performed at a similar level in school, in all likelyhood in today's society, the child from the wealthy family will enjoy high levels of income, due to the benefits that his/her parents were able to bestow on the child, and the child from the poor family will have lower income due to the lack of such benefits. Does this seem fair, that the socioeconomic status of the family that you are born into greatly determines the socioeconomic status of your future? Is this in congruence with the American Dream?


Quote from othersteve View Post :
I happen to think it is precisely the other way around. While obviously money has "corrupted" the political system to the extent that a medium (money being the measurement of a person's accumulated wealth via success in the market) can be blamed for the use or misuse of itself, I don't feel that economics itself can possibly be blamed here. Economics simply provides the basic rules and logic that define a structured market; the "study of the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses," in specific. Economics--as an accepted set of principles and rules used to describe, explain, and predict those phenomena which are governing the exchange of products and services in our modern world--cannot be blamed for the inequality inherent in the aftermath of circumstantial "luck" or "wealth" any more than math can be blamed, as both play essentially the same role.
Ok, money (and the power it grants those with great amounts of it) is undermining our political system. This is the argument in it's most purest form.

Now, look at how people acquire money, and how that is trending over decades. Inequality (income) is widening greatly (see sources above) and with that increased concentration of wealth among the few, they are able to skew politics in their favor.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#58
Well, there is a common theme in this post now that we've distilled the entire argument down to the subject of inequality and income disparity, so let's tackle it.

I actually have a pretty major issue with much of the income statistics cited in such studies by politicians. The problem is actually quite simple, but nearly always ignored/overlooked:

The data cited always references the differences between statistical categories (in this case, quintiles) as viewed over time. While this may seem to be indicative of the actual economic patterns facing our society, there is one massive problem with it: it completely fails to take into account the movement of actual individuals across the different income classifications over time.

Census Bureau and CBO data is always subject to such massive shortcomings as it does not take into account the individual during data collection. On the other hand, US Treasury Data *does*, and it tracks those individuals using their SSN. Perhaps most shockingly, according to the US Treasury Data following actual real individuals over time, the incomes of those individuals in the bottom 20% (quintile) in 1996 rose *91%* by 2005. Comparatively, the incomes of those individuals in the *top* 20% rose *only 10%*. And those in the top 5% and 1% actually saw their incomes *decline*.

This is hardly surprising when you take into account the normal pattern of incomes throughout the average person's life. Those in the bottom 20% while young nearly always migrate to the middle or upper-middle class before age 45. Meanwhile, many in the top 1% see their classification fall to the adjacent lower category as their income naturally falls or levels out over time.

So, in summation, judging income patterns based on classifications is misleading, and in this case, it actually tells the exact opposite story of what data based on individual income growth shows. But it is helpful to those politicians wishing to create patterns for betterment of their own careers that suggest the need for "solutions". And it's precisely what the left have been obsessed with over the past 4+ years in their completely ridiculous and short-sighted "class warfare" strategy. In fact, it's hardly a misnomer. It IS class warfare--but what it ISN'T is individual income growth warfare, which is something that they'd like us all to misinterpret it as.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
#59
Quote from othersteve View Post :
Well, there is a common theme in this post now that we've distilled the entire argument down to the subject of inequality and income disparity, so let's tackle it.

I actually have a pretty major issue with much of the income statistics cited in such studies by politicians. The problem is actually quite simple, but nearly always ignored/overlooked:

The data cited always references the differences between statistical categories (in this case, quintiles) as viewed over time. While this may seem to be indicative of the actual economic patterns facing our society, there is one massive problem with it: it completely fails to take into account the movement of actual individuals across the different income classifications over time.

Census Bureau and CBO data is always subject to such massive shortcomings as it does not take into account the individual during data collection. On the other hand, US Treasury Data *does*, and it tracks those individuals using their SSN. Perhaps most shockingly, according to the US Treasury Data following actual real individuals over time, the incomes of those individuals in the bottom 20% (quintile) in 1996 rose *91%* by 2005. Comparatively, the incomes of those individuals in the *top* 20% rose *only 10%*. And those in the top 5% and 1% actually saw their incomes *decline*.

This is hardly surprising when you take into account the normal pattern of incomes throughout the average person's life. Those in the bottom 20% while young nearly always migrate to the middle or upper-middle class before age 45. Meanwhile, many in the top 1% see their classification fall to the adjacent lower category as their income naturally falls or levels out over time.

So, in summation, judging income patterns based on classifications is misleading, and in this case, it actually tells the exact opposite story of what data based on individual income growth shows. But it is helpful to those politicians wishing to create patterns for betterment of their own careers that suggest the need for "solutions". And it's precisely what the left have been obsessed with over the past 4+ years in their completely ridiculous and short-sighted "class warfare" strategy. In fact, it's hardly a misnomer. It IS class warfare--but what it ISN'T is individual income growth warfare, which is something that they'd like us all to misinterpret it as.
Can you cite the US Treasury data? I'd like to see it. Plus it stops at 2005, pre-crisis levels.

As for tracking at the individual level, yes there are always individuals who "make it", or embody the American Dream of rags to riches. But I would argue that these cases are becoming more rare, and will become more rare in today's economy/moving forward.

Aggregating all of the progress of ALL individuals as a whole points to stagnating social mobility. As I asserted before, for today's society and moving forward, the socio-economic status of the family that you are born into is the best determinant of the socio-economic status that you will experience throughout your life.

I, myself, have benefited greatly from being born into an upper-middle class family, and I can see many of the opportunities that I have benefited from that others would not have. It is a system that I would not consider "fair", nor ideal.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0

Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.

#60
Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
Can you cite the US Treasury data? I'd like to see it. Plus it stops at 2005, pre-crisis levels.
Source:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-...revise.pdf

The data stops in 2005 because that is the last time a study on the data was compiled by the Treasury Department, not because of some sort of intention to mislead the public due to catastrophic differences during the recent housing crisis. Nevertheless, data taken from a period including a serious crash would need to be qualified anyhow as such events are not commonplace and are generally the result of extraneous circumstances (as noted in my previous post).



Quote from 1.21gigawatts View Post :
As for tracking at the individual level, yes there are always individuals who "make it", or embody the American Dream of rags to riches. But I would argue that these cases are becoming more rare, and will become more rare in today's economy/moving forward.
I really don't know what to tell you. Whether or not it's actually true or even empirically verifiable that such "rags to riches" stories are fading into the past, the fact remains that, as demonstrated here, you are basing these assumptions on misinterpreted statistics. Don't worry; you aren't the only one. Nearly everyone arguing in favor of government interference in the name of equality and "giving every American a fair shake" (sound familiar?) are skewing this data in just the same way, only usually knowingly, in order to make their case for office.

Just think about how many times you've heard this argument--and this is probably the very first time you've ever heard any sort of hard data refuting it. There are countless misconceptions just like this one that have become the very foundation for the actions of the liberal ideologues in modern America--Sowell calls them, more accurately, the "anointed"--and it is successfully fooling the public, who think not even to question such robust claims for government expansion due to the fact that the victimization claims resonate with them. It is basic predatorial exploitation of the modern entitlement mentality gene, cleverly obfuscated and dressed up into an argument that makes it look like we're making it "fair for every American."

This is precisely why I said above that we are headed straight into the ground no matter who wins. Because no matter who wins, these misconceptions continue to thrive, class warfare has taken flight as a seriously powerful political tool, and people aren't getting any smarter about macroeconomics.
Reply Helpful Comment? 0 0
Page 4 of 11
2 3 4 5 6
Join the Conversation
Add a Comment
 
Slickdeals Price Tracker
Saving money just got easier.
Start Tracking Today
Copyright 1999 - 2015. Slickdeals, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Copyright / DMCA Notice  •  Privacy Policy  •  Terms of Service  •  Acceptable Use Policy (Rules)