Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Alan Klein]

You made your point quite well. Women are servants of their husbands and can be "made" to work when the hub demands it. And daughters are helpless maidens who need a man to support them. Again, shame.

Oh Peter, you're being too sensitive.  I was making a point.   Women have to work because the financial needs of the family require it.  Most men back when didn't want the wives to work rather wanting them to take care of the family at home, a traditional act. Men were embarrassed to have to admit their wives had to work. Women favored that as well, for the most part.  When men could no longer support their families, they had to turn to their wives, often in shame, and have them work too. The government destroyed the middle class culture forcing both parents to go to work, leaving children at home by themselves. 

As far as daughters marrying rich guys, most parents would want that for them. What does that have to do with "helpless maidens who need a man to support them"?  If the guy is rich, she could stay home to take care of the kids which makes for healthier families.  What's wrong with marrying "well"?  You've been listening to a lot of modernity nonsense.    This reminds me of a couple of sections from the song "If I Were A Rich Man" from Fiddler on the Roof:

If I were a rich man
Ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum
All day long, I'd biddy biddy bum
If I were a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work hard
Ya ba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dibba dum
If I were a biddy biddy rich yidle-diddle-didle-didle man

I see my wife, my Goldie, looking like a rich man's wife
With a proper double-chin
Supervising meals to her heart's delight
I see her putting on airs and strutting like a peacock
Oy, what a happy mood she's in
Screaming at the servants, day and night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBHZFYpQ6nc

[digitaldog]

Women have to work because the financial needs of the family require it.

He's a male chauvinist too. 
What a putz.

[Robert Roaldi]

There you go again trying to shut down people whose views you disagree with.  If you disagree with my economic views, then state your own and let the readers decide what they want to believe.  If you don't think inflation, higher taxes, and deficit spending reduces spendable income, then what does?

No one is trying to shut you down. We're just telling you that it is tiresome reading the same things day after day. Change the record. Homilies from Econ 101 don't explain anything.

Middle class wealth has nose-dived beginning with Reagan. That's when you started needed two incomes to maintain a household. That's when work started to become insecure and it hasn't stopped. That's when the 1% threw everyone else under the bus and laws were changed to ensure that the trend would not correct itself. I suggest you listen to that talk by Thomas Frank mentioned above, you will enjoy it, I guarantee it.

[Alan Klein]

Robert, I think i am the one who brings up new topics a lot of the time.  Rich husbands, working wives, Canadian sedition etc.. The main inflation problem started not with Reagan but with Nixon who took its off the gold standard.   

[Peter McLennan]

Why are you always so rude?  You attack me rather than my ideas.  Don't you have any ideas of your own?

I'm steadfastly opposed to misinformation. 

There.  That's an idea of my own.  Not original, but I share it.

Your interminable, endlessly repeated lectures in high school economics are stultifyingly boring. 

If we can convince you to stop, maybe there can be productive discussion.

[digitaldog]

If we can convince you to stop, ...

Impossible.
“No matter how smart you are, you can never convince someone stupid that they are stupid.”- Anonymous.

[Peter McLennan]

As far as daughters marrying rich guys, most parents would want that for them.

What an appalling, disgusting comment. I dare you to ask your wife what she thinks of what you said.

If you don't understand why I'd say that, Alan, then that truly reinforces your ignorant, old, conservative white guy substance.

[Peter McLennan]

The main inflation problem started not with Reagan but with Nixon who took its off the gold standard.

Wrong.  The problem started with Reagan, who mandated wholesale deregulation.

[Robert Roaldi]

Robert, I think i am the one who brings up new topics a lot of the time.  Rich husbands, working wives, Canadian sedition etc.. The main inflation problem started not with Reagan but with Nixon who took its off the gold standard.

Oh no, not the gold standard again.

So tell me. After 40 years of deregulation and union bashing and tax cuts and shrinking of government resources and systematic destruction of the public school system and wild increases in the costs of post-secondary education and the unregulated gig economy and unprecedented wealth disparity, is it working?

[Alan Klein]

What an appalling, disgusting comment. I dare you to ask your wife what she thinks of what you said.

If you don't understand why I'd say that, Alan, then that truly reinforces your ignorant, old, conservative white guy substance.

So you would want your daughter to marry a deadbeat, a guy who can't hold down a job?  Wouldn't you rather have them be able to pay for your grandchildren's college educations rather than you having to use the money you saved for you and your wife's retirement?  I guess that makes me an old, conservative white guy, but not ignorant.

[Alan Klein]

Oh no, not the gold standard again.

So tell me. After 40 years of deregulation and union bashing and tax cuts and shrinking of government resources and systematic destruction of the public school system and wild increases in the costs of post-secondary education and the unregulated gig economy and unprecedented wealth disparity, is it working?

The government caused most of it, maybe all of it.  Inflation is always caused by an increase in the money supply.  It's the definition of it. If it's not matched by an increase in productivity, the value of each dollar decreases raising prices on goods, labor and services in general. 

Regarding some of the individual points you made are the following:

Deregulation decreases the cost of goods and services.  Regulation increases them as it adds additional burdens on producing the product which raises costs.

Union bashing:  Union do not cause inflation or higher prices.   When the currency is devalued because of printing, labor demands higher salaries.  We are seeing that now in unions and non-unions as well.  Blaming unions for higher prices is just as wrong as blaming corporations.  It's printing, deficit spending, and lower interest rates that drives higher prices and costs for labor, as we are seeing now. OF course, the government doesn't;t want o take the blame.  So it claims unions and corporations are causing it.  Well, their higher costs and prices due to government printing are the result, not the cause.

The public school system is suffering because of lack of competition.  Also, the failure of families due to divorce and other social problems lowers children's ability to do better. 

High tuition is caused by the government giving huge loans to children, many of who should not be going to college.  It pushes the price of tuition up because there's so much money chasing getting into these schools.  So colleges naturally raise their prices.  It's like what's happening to film cameras today.  With more people interested in film photography, the price of this old stuff has gone up impressively recently because more people are chasing the same goods.  There's only so much supply of cameras and colleges. The government should stop giving loans if they want to lower tuition.

The wealth disparity is caused by government deficit spending and inflation.  More money raises the price of assets, most of which are already owned by rich people.  Again, the government's fault. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing.  Both parties print and spend and are adding to the problems.

[digitaldog]

So you would want your daughter to marry a deadbeat, a guy who can't hold down a job?  Wouldn't you rather have them be able to pay for your grandchildren's college educations rather than you having to use the money you saved for you and your wife's retirement?

You have this odd repetitive habit of asking questions of others, when your posting history and agenda show/prove, you have no desire or ability to accept any answer. No need to ask.

I guess that makes me an old, conservative white guy, but not ignorant.

You guess a lot so you need some help here. The correct sentence is:  I guess that makes me an old, conservative white guy, and ignorant. Not in dispute among your peers here sir!

[Robert Roaldi]

The government caused most of it, maybe all of it.  Inflation is always caused by an increase in the money supply.  It's the definition of it. If it's not matched by an increase in productivity, the value of each dollar decreases raising prices on goods, labor and services in general. 

Regarding some of the individual points you made are the following:

Deregulation decreases the cost of goods and services.  Regulation increases them as it adds additional burdens on producing the product which raises costs.

Union bashing:  Union do not cause inflation or higher prices.   When the currency is devalued because of printing, labor demands higher salaries.  We are seeing that now in unions and non-unions as well.  Blaming unions for higher prices is just as wrong as blaming corporations.  It's printing, deficit spending, and lower interest rates that drives higher prices and costs for labor, as we are seeing now. OF course, the government doesn't;t want o take the blame.  So it claims unions and corporations are causing it.  Well, their higher costs and prices due to government printing are the result, not the cause.

The public school system is suffering because of lack of competition.  Also, the failure of families due to divorce and other social problems lowers children's ability to do better. 

High tuition is caused by the government giving huge loans to children, many of who should not be going to college.  It pushes the price of tuition up because there's so much money chasing getting into these schools.  So colleges naturally raise their prices.  It's like what's happening to film cameras today.  With more people interested in film photography, the price of this old stuff has gone up impressively recently because more people are chasing the same goods.  There's only so much supply of cameras and colleges. The government should stop giving loans if they want to lower tuition.

The wealth disparity is caused by government deficit spending and inflation.  More money raises the price of assets, most of which are already owned by rich people.  Again, the government's fault. This is not a Republican or Democrat thing.  Both parties print and spend and are adding to the problems.

Ok, that's nice, but is it working?

[Robert Roaldi]

So you would want your daughter to marry a deadbeat, a guy who can't hold down a job?  ...

When did you stop beating your wife? 

[PeterAit]

Oh Peter, you're being too sensitive.  I was making a point.   Women have to work because the financial needs of the family require it.  Most men back when didn't want the wives to work rather wanting them to take care of the family at home, a traditional act. Men were embarrassed to have to admit their wives had to work. Women favored that as well, for the most part.  When men could no longer support their families, they had to turn to their wives, often in shame, and have them work too. The government destroyed the middle class culture forcing both parents to go to work, leaving children at home by themselves. 

As far as daughters marrying rich guys, most parents would want that for them. What does that have to do with "helpless maidens who need a man to support them"?  If the guy is rich, she could stay home to take care of the kids which makes for healthier families.  What's wrong with marrying "well"?  You've been listening to a lot of modernity nonsense.

I understood your point perfectly well, but I object to the chauvinistic, pre-1960 manner you express it. Why assume that, when inflation makes things tough, it's the wife who must go to work? And why assume the husband can "make" her go to work? And assume that the husband will be ashamed that his wife has to work? Isn't that just silly macho crapola? I expect it was true in the past, but not now. In my 30 years of marriage, I have always felt proud that my wife is an educated, skilled, and hard-working person who enjoyed her work and brought in a good income--more than me some years.

There is no consensus that stay-at-home moms lead to healthier families. I did some research on this topic and there is no agreement but the message I get is that good parents have healthy families and bad parents do not, regardless of who works and who stays home.

And as for daughters marrying rich guys? Seriously? Alan, that is really dumb. It assumes that daughters must be dependent on their husbands for material support, again chauvinistic crapola.

[Peter McLennan]

So you would want your daughter to marry a deadbeat, a guy who can't hold down a job?  .

More despicable (and irrational) commentary from our dispicablist-in-chief.

You always insist on venturing to the extreme (and usually simple-minded) side of anything.  You are the very definition of the cause of polarization in America.

[Peter McLennan]

And as for daughters marrying rich guys? Seriously? Alan, that is really dumb. It assumes that daughters must be dependent on their husbands for material support, again chauvinistic crapola.

And if you don't understand that comment, Alan, it's absolute proof that you're an ignorant, old, chauvinist white guy.

Did you ask your wife what she thought about your statement?

[PeterAit]

...but with Nixon who took its off the gold standard.

It was FDR in 1933 who ended the gold standard to help the government deal with the depression. The last few technical details were done away with by Nixon, that's all.

[digitaldog]

It was FDR in 1933 who ended the gold standard to help the government deal with the depression. The last few technical details were done away with by Nixon, that's all.

Indeed: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12715/why-did-us-abandon-gold-standard

So in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt cut the dollar’s ties with gold, allowing the government to pump money into the economy and lower interest rates. “Most economists now agree 90 percent of the reason why the U.S. got out of the Great Depression was the break with gold,” said Liaquat Ahamed, author of the book Lords of Finance.

And now onto more stupidity:

The main inflation problem started not with Reagan but with Nixon who took its off the gold standard.

So often wrong, but never in doubt again.
 
"took its off the gold standard"
Cleary facts and writing are not his strong suit. 

[Robert Roaldi]

GOP internecine strife, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/senate-gop-backlash-smacks-rnc-after-cheney-kinzinger-censure-00006456, where loyalty is more important that law and order.