Trump Ends Free Market Capitalism That Enriched America

From #12:

"That's extraordinary progress over the past 40 years ' largely thanks to capitalism and global trade."

So why is Trump against Capitalism and Global Trade?

"when he was making $90k a year, he had a VA mortgage loan approved for $675k."

No wealth, no assets, no other income?
I don't believe you.

"US household income, after being adjusted for inflation, has increased by 74%."

Now do it by quintiles.

"In 1985, the percentage of people on earth experiencing poverty was 43%. Today it is 9%."

So, was Capitalism also the cause of 43% of people on earth living in poverty in 1985?

"And there is absolutely nothing that CA can do to its wealthiest residents that will increase the economic value of its poorest."

Really?

Tell us how California can increase the economic value of its poorest residents, then.

"So why is Trump against Capitalism and Global Trade?"

"Because economically, Trump is perhaps the most
left-wing president in this nation's history."

So why are Republicans supporting left wing economics? Do you support Trump's economy too?

And there is absolutely nothing that CA can do to its wealthiest residents that will increase the economic value of its poorest.
#25 | Posted by madbomber

So then, Government, writ large, played no role in this either?

"In 1985, the percentage of people on earth experiencing poverty was 43%. Today it is 9%."

And there is absolutely nothing that CA can do to its wealthiest residents that will increase the economic value of its poorest.
#25 | Posted by madbomber

Then what's this?

How Has Poverty in California Changed over Time?
www.ppic.org

PPIC has been measuring poverty in California since we first opened our doors in 1994. We knew that to make effective and efficient policy, decisionmakers needed a reliable baseline of economic well-being across the state. With experience, we realized that our initial measures of poverty"which couldn't account for state specifics"could be improved. Over a decade ago"and following the lead of the US Census"we substantially revised how we measure poverty to more accurately capture basic needs in our high-cost state.

The result was the California Poverty Measure (CPM), a collaboration between PPIC and the Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality. Unlike the official poverty metric, the CPM factors in benefits from large-scale cash, food, and housing safety net programs, low-income tax credits, and county-level differences in the state's high cost of living. Two key takeaways from that effort? First, poverty in California is much higher than official poverty statistics would lead us to believe. In 2011, the CPM shows poverty to have been 21.7%, while the state's official poverty rate was 5 percentage points lower. Second, the state has seen substantial improvements over the long term.
...
During the pandemic years something unusual happened. Poverty typically rises when the economy turns down, but the COVID-19 recession was an exception: in spite of severe economic disruptions, poverty declined dramatically because of major government interventions, particularly for children. While the official poverty rate"which does not count tax credits and food assistance"rose, CPM poverty declined from 16.4% in 2019 to 11.7% in fall 2021. We estimate that regular and expanded safety net benefits cut poverty nearly in half (88%) in fall 2021 and by more than 60% in early 2023.

That appears to be a defense for what's happening in an individual state while condemning it for the entire country
If I misunderstood you then, please tell me
#32 | Posted by eberly

It's not even a political statement.

It's just how math works.

If the highest paid people are in California, it follows that California will exhibit the highest income inequality. Since the lowest paid people are found in every state and earn $0.

-Now do just America. Because many poor countries have done much better recently which dramatically skews the numbers
And that's not a good thing?
#33 | Posted by eberly

Is it a good thing for America if they're doing better because American jobs moved there?