Propagandhi711 wrote:atleast the ones in S&P. Look at the top right quadrant and the persistent increase in profitability margins of S&P500 companies from mid 1980s onwards...except for the sharp dropoff during the credit crisis and other recessions, it keeps going higher and higher. nothing new revealed here, but overlaid against the status quo from 65-85, it's amazing to me that profitability expansion in a mature developed country can happen for 30 yrs straight. those that say america will decline soon (and are storing champagne for such an occasion) need to take note:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:atleast the ones in S&P. Look at the top right quadrant and the persistent increase in profitability margins of S&P500 companies from mid 1980s onwards...except for the sharp dropoff during the credit crisis and other recessions, it keeps going higher and higher. nothing new revealed here, but overlaid against the status quo from 65-85, it's amazing to me that profitability expansion in a mature developed country can happen for 30 yrs straight. those that say america will decline soon (and are storing champagne for such an occasion) need to take note:

What exactly is the orange line labeled "Operating EPS% of SPS"?

Corp Profit as % GDP is higher post-GFC probably because the denominator i.e. GDP has been limping along. Also, corporations are not investing in capex, so there's much less depreciation getting charged.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I think technology has a big role in this too. Automation and Machine intelligence are taking away more and more jobs, faster than in any prior period.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I think technology has a big role in this too. Automation and Machine intelligence are taking away more and more jobs, faster than in any prior period.

confuzzled dude wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:I think technology has a big role in this too. Automation and Machine intelligence are taking away more and more jobs, faster than in any prior period.

Then what was the need for outsourcing for cheap labor?

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:atleast the ones in S&P. Look at the top right quadrant and the persistent increase in profitability margins of S&P500 companies from mid 1980s onwards...except for the sharp dropoff during the credit crisis and other recessions, it keeps going higher and higher. nothing new revealed here, but overlaid against the status quo from 65-85, it's amazing to me that profitability expansion in a mature developed country can happen for 30 yrs straight. those that say america will decline soon (and are storing champagne for such an occasion) need to take note:

What exactly is the orange line labeled "Operating EPS% of SPS"?

Corp Profit as % GDP is higher post-GFC probably because the denominator i.e. GDP has been limping along. Also, corporations are not investing in capex, so there's much less depreciation getting charged.

I think this is better understood in context of the full report which is amazingly detailed. the quality of ivy league education (assuming) comes thru:

http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgans-q2-complete-guide-to-markets-2014-4?op=1

Propagandhi711 wrote:your 'prolabor policies' are what led to depressed economy in the late 60s to mid 80s so you'd probably like a return to that state

Propagandhi711 wrote:[
I think this is better understood in context of the full report which is amazingly detailed. the quality of ivy league education (assuming) comes thru:

http://www.businessinsider.com/jpmorgans-q2-complete-guide-to-markets-2014-4?op=1

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:your 'prolabor policies' are what led to depressed economy in the late 60s to mid 80s so you'd probably like a return to that state

Depressed economy in the US in the late 60s, you say?

US GDP CAGR was 4.21% between 1960 and 1970. Between 1970 and 1980, it was 3.17%. Between 2000 and 2010: 1.64%.

So, yes, I would like a return to the pro-labor policies that led to the healthy 3%+ growth of the '60s and '70s compared to what we got in the last decade.

Source: Real GDP growth between the years indicated at http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/

PS: You should try getting some facts before forming opinions about them.

Propagandhi711 wrote:if you think late 60s and 70s were the healthy economically, we can stop arguing.

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:if you think late 60s and 70s were the healthy economically, we can stop arguing.

Why? Is it because "bad late 60s and 70s" is part of some dogma that cannot be tested with facts?

Real GDP growth rate for 1965-'75 averaged over 3.0%. Growth rate since 2000 averaged 1.7%. Despite recessions, the economy grew on a more robust long-term trend in the '60s and '70s than it has done lately. You thought pro-labor policies produced the outcomes of the '60s and '70s -- so you should admit that pro-labor produce stronger GDP growth than anti-labor policies.

Propagandhi711 wrote:PS: google misery index, stagflation and inflation numbers for 68-84 and then cherry pick some data to suit your narrative

Propagandhi711 wrote:numbers for 68-84 and then cherry pick some data to suit your narrative

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:numbers for 68-84 and then cherry pick some data to suit your narrative

Thanks for cherry-picking the specific years 1968 and 1984 instead of your earlier claim about "late 60s and 70s" being bad. Let us now check how this specific period compares to our own times. Real GDP grew at an average rate (CAGR) of 2.96% between 1968 and 1984. That is still significantly better than the growth rate between 2000 and 2013. The economy on the whole grew faster in the specific period you cherry-picked than in the last few years.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:numbers for 68-84 and then cherry pick some data to suit your narrative

Thanks for cherry-picking the specific years 1968 and 1984 instead of your earlier claim about "late 60s and 70s" being bad. Let us now check how this specific period compares to our own times. Real GDP grew at an average rate (CAGR) of 2.96% between 1968 and 1984. That is still significantly better than the growth rate between 2000 and 2013. The economy on the whole grew faster in the specific period you cherry-picked than in the last few years.

I'll keep saying the same thing, regardless of which trick you use to tell us it's rain and not piss: in late 60s and 70s, leading upto 1982 US economy performed horribly with high unemployment, stagflation coupled with high inflation. no amount of cherry picking data points, metrics etc in isolation of everything else will change facts.

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:numbers for 68-84 and then cherry pick some data to suit your narrative

Thanks for cherry-picking the specific years 1968 and 1984 instead of your earlier claim about "late 60s and 70s" being bad. Let us now check how this specific period compares to our own times. Real GDP grew at an average rate (CAGR) of 2.96% between 1968 and 1984. That is still significantly better than the growth rate between 2000 and 2013. The economy on the whole grew faster in the specific period you cherry-picked than in the last few years.

I'll keep saying the same thing, regardless of which trick you use to tell us it's rain and not piss: in late 60s and 70s, leading upto 1982 US economy performed horribly with high unemployment, stagflation coupled with high inflation. no amount of cherry picking data points, metrics etc in isolation of everything else will change facts.

Nice, we now have a new reference year, 1982! Good, let's look up the real GDP CAGR between 1965 and 1982, now. The answer: 2.92%. Still substantially better than we have had since 2000.

Let me remind you; you have been picking the periods and I have simply been supplying the GDP growth rates for each period you pick. Regardless of your shifting dates, we are ending with the same result. That result: real GDP growth was stronger back then than it has been. Now if we circle back to the original point: you thought the "depressed economy" of the 1960s and 1970s was due to pro-labor policies. So if you truly believe what you said, you should admit that pro-labor policies helped generate stronger growth than anti-labor policies.

Idéfix wrote:BTW, you should read the article you posted. It says:

Mainstream (“neoclassical”) economists often act as if capitalist economies operate according to unchanging universal laws, and that any violation of these “laws of the market” (such as government macroeconomic intervention, industrial regulation, social welfare spending, unions, etc.) inevitably spells disaster. The performance of the U.S. economy during the so-called “Golden Age,” from the late 1940s to the early 1970s, belies this view.

Our first key lesson: Capitalist economies can operate under a wide variety of institutional frameworks that foster capital accumulation and economic growth.

By most conventional measures, the U.S. economy performed better during the “Golden Age” than during comparable periods in U.S. history, combining high rates of economic growth along with low rates of unemployment and inflation. From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the U.S. economy grew at an average annual rate of nearly 4%. The annual unemployment rate only exceeded 6% twice in the 25 years between 1949 and 1973. The annual inflation rate, too, only topped 6% twice, and was actually under 2% for 14 of the 25 years in this period. The real average hourly earnings of production workers increased at an average rate of over 2% per year.

During this period, the U.S. economy was less characterized by the “free market” policies favored by today’s mainstream economists than during the periods before or since. A much broader consensus existed among economists and policymakers of the need for government intervention to stabilize the overall economy, prevent recessions, and maintain full employment. Government spending on consumption and investment (which excludes transfers) was somewhat higher (generally 21-23% of GDP) from the late 1950s to the early 1970s than it has been since (generally less than 21%, and less than 19% between the early 1990s and the current recession). Several major business sectors, including transportation, communications, utilities, and, most importantly, banking and insurance, were highly regulated. The regulation of the financial sector, in particular, was a response to the Depression and an attempt to reduce the financial instability that had helped precipitate it. Unions had a much larger and more secure place in the U.S. economy. The unionization rate peaked at over one-fourth of the labor force in the mid 1950s, and remained over 20% into the mid 1970s (for nonagricultural workers, it peaked at nearly 35% and remained over 25% into the mid 1970s).

I hope you understand what this article means for your conclusions.

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Propagandhi711 wrote:numbers for 68-84 and then cherry pick some data to suit your narrative

Thanks for cherry-picking the specific years 1968 and 1984 instead of your earlier claim about "late 60s and 70s" being bad. Let us now check how this specific period compares to our own times. Real GDP grew at an average rate (CAGR) of 2.96% between 1968 and 1984. That is still significantly better than the growth rate between 2000 and 2013. The economy on the whole grew faster in the specific period you cherry-picked than in the last few years.

I'll keep saying the same thing, regardless of which trick you use to tell us it's rain and not piss: in late 60s and 70s, leading upto 1982 US economy performed horribly with high unemployment, stagflation coupled with high inflation. no amount of cherry picking data points, metrics etc in isolation of everything else will change facts.

Nice, we now have a new reference year, 1982! Good, let's look up the real GDP CAGR between 1965 and 1982, now. The answer: 2.92%. Still substantially better than we have had since 2000.

Let me remind you; you have been picking the periods and I have simply been supplying the GDP growth rates for each period you pick. Regardless of your shifting dates, we are ending with the same result. That result: real GDP growth was stronger back then than it has been. Now if we circle back to the original point: you thought the "depressed economy" of the 1960s and 1970s was due to pro-labor policies. So if you truly believe what you said, you should admit that pro-labor policies helped generate stronger growth than anti-labor policies.

are you dense or wilfully pretending to be? I keep saying late 60s, 70s and upto 1982. THAT MEANS 1968-69 UPTO 1982. how hard is that to understand? rest of your spin ignored.