Hidden Agenda Perpetrated by Congress and the Fed in One Chart

I like to say policy objectives are invisible ink and policy results are the coloured glasses that expose them.  You see, policy makers always tell us how they design and implement policies targeted at middle class America.  However, time after time after time, the only segment of society that fails to realize any benefit from any policy is middle class America.  Yet for some mind boggling reason we continue to allow these policy makers to carry on with this skullduggery.  The following chart really tells you everything you need to know about economic policy objectives for the past three decades.

Screen Shot 2016-08-25 at 9.56.24 PM

The above chart depicts Wall Street real profits (black line), non-financial corporate real profits (red line) and real median weekly wages and salaries (blue line) all indexed back to 1982 (this is an important period where antitrust policies broke down under the Reagan admin).

What we find is that while median wages and salaries have increased by a paltry 9% over the past 35 years, corporate income is up 250% and Wall Street income is up almost 800%.   And so over the decades this story line about policies targeting the middle class is absolutely, in every way, a total and complete fabrication.  This chart doesn’t happen by accident nor could it be the result of honest mistakes.

The above results expose the hidden agenda perpetrated by Congress and the Fed.  The American middle class is a patsy in a system designed to do exactly what it has done.  International trade agreements and excessive money printing do help Wall Street and Corporate America but do not help the middle class.  This is made absolutely clear in the above chart.  And if you are one of those typically shallow regurgitators of the theories you’ve been told, well tell it to the facts above.

 

16 thoughts on “Hidden Agenda Perpetrated by Congress and the Fed in One Chart

  1. Y’all seem like smart folks and intelligent enough to understand it when I tell y’all that the problem with robots and technology reducing nominal wages is that everyone forgets that real purchasing power is not the same as apparent nominal rates. The natural state of a growing economy with a stable money supply will be lower and lower prices. Carnegie made all of society rich by getting the cost of steel down from $10/pound to .10 cents/ton. Ford made society rich by getting the cost of his cars down from $1500/each to $250/each. Rich people get richer by means of high income and asset appreciation, but poor people get richer by means of higher productivity and lower prices for the goods they want and need. I’m wondering why people are sofa king stupid nowadays that we forgot this great economic truth?

  2. The horrible beauty of their wicked plan is that the socialistic cures they recommend are worse than the disease. Oh, the wages of the poor aren’t keeping up with the cost of living? Well, then, the solution is to raise the minimum wage! The cure for low productivity is the living wage! It’s all about fairness! All those who say economics doesn’t work that way just hate the poor and want them to starve!!!

    1. Actually not at all. Raising min wage does far more harm than good. But improving income distribution naturally through efficient resource allocation does provide massive benefits. To both labour and profit. Don’t get caught up on false dichotomies. Think through the issue and don’t get emotional.

      1. My emotions follow my rational understanding, not the other way around. I think, and understand, and what I come to understand fills me with intense rage. The truth shall make us mad. And check out my other later comment above. Making life better for the poor and average involves the cost of living, not increasing nominal levels of income. In terms of minimum wage, raising it hurts the poor not just through causing their unemployment but also because it makes everything throughout the economy cost more. Who can least afford to pay the higher wages? The poor, of course. And the fact that the ruling class scum sell the ignorant on the minimum wage is just another thing that fills me with rage and makes me hate the ruling class with every nanofibre of my being, with the white hot intensity of a zillion supernovae.

        1. This is too simple. One has to consider were the wage is relative to the true cost of minimum wage labor. When the wage is far below the true cost, as it is now, it means some other entity, i.e., the taxpayer, the parent, the partner, is covering the difference. Does doing that make sense? I would think not. Under those circumstances the best solution available may be to force the wage up. On the other hand when the wage is already commensurate with labor’s true cost, a significant further rise ill be damaging to the economy and will lead to inflation, which is the way that unjustified higher wages appear in the economy . If an unjustified wage increase does not appear as inflation, then it will appear as higher unemployment. But it will make an appearance in one way or the other..

          1. I’m all for “forcing wages up” using indirect means. I happen to be what I call a Neo-Protectionist. I’d use tariffs and customs duties on the importation of foreign luxury goods to increase the wages of workers at the expense of the consumers of a bunch of crap they don’t really need all that much. I’d reform the rest of the tax and legal system in such a way as to increase wages, which is the opposite of what the bankster gangster globalist criminals are doing at present. But just making a proclamation that wages will be higher without doing anything else to change the economic environment is pure BS and can only serve the purpose of fooling the ignorant that something is being done to help them when in truth what has been done only hurts them more than they are already being hurt. Only a stupid idiot who believes there is no such effing thing as “economics” could possibly be fooled into believing that arbitrary minimum wage laws help the low paid low skilled workers have a better life and a better future. Notice I did not say “mistaken” about economics; I said, “believes affirmatively that economics does not exist in the universe but only politics and propaganda exist.”

      2. I’m willing to accept this might be true. But can you expound a bit. What are the concrete measures needed to achieve ‘efficient resource allocation’. You know, of course, that efficient resource allocation is a necessary condition for economic axioms to hold true. But what do you do if resources are not allocated efficiently and the axioms don’t hold.

        1. Replying to Thad. I’m willing to accept this might be true. But can you expound a bit. What are the concrete measures needed to achieve ‘efficient resource allocation’. You know, of course, that efficient resource allocation is a necessary condition for economic axioms to hold true. But what do you do if resources are not allocated efficiently and the axioms don’t hold.

Comments are closed.