Worse than 1929...

[sammy the sage]

the unbalance of wealth...yes this article explains it world wide....but in the states it's EVEN worse...yes...this does not show the thread title anywhere...but THE many "CHARTS" people who reside here on BOTH sides of political spectrum can post/pull that up for ya...

http://news.yahoo.com/oxfam-says-richest-one-percent-own-more-rest-001746708.html

""Wealth accumulated by the richest one percent will exceed that of the other 99 percent in 2016, the Oxfam charity said Monday, ahead of the annual meeting of the world's most powerful at Davos, Switzerland.

"The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast," Oxfam executive director Winnie Byanyima said.

does NOT bode well for LONG term financial health anywhere...

so how much IS enough for anyone???

let me predict the answers amongst our IDEAOLOGY challenged here...

1st...pugs...if you got it...keep it...no limit...there is NO too much...

2nd...crats...well you should take from those greedy people and spread it around...unless of course...I'm one of the ONES in power...then not only should I get mine...but BE PAID to take from others as well...

3rd...shoot the OP/messenger for causing 30 secs of thought...before spewing personal insults/cuts at said messenger and THEN...posting one the options already mentioned...

[classhandicapper]

Part of the reason this is happening is Monetary Policy.

Going all the way back to early Greenspan, each and every time the "free market" tried to correct economic excesses with a recession that would wipe out bad investments and bad debt to balance the economy again, it was met by fear at the Fed and extremely easy money to try to prop things back up.

The biggest impact of that easy money was not to improve jobs, incomes, etc.. for the middle class and poor. It was to inflate asset prices (stocks, bonds, paintings, gold, etc..). That in turn helped support overall economic activity because the rich continued to spend, there was a lot of deal making on Wall St. etc.. but it didn't help everyone equally. The secondary impact was that savers and people on fixed incomes were (and still are) getting negative real interest rates on their savings. So they are getting poorer all the time.

So the gap between rich and poor (and middle class) has widened.

It has gotten to the point where some members of the the Fed (the almost decent ones) admit they are trying to inflate asset prices to prop up economic activity and understand how savers are getting screwed.

Of course this is is not the only reason. Bad free trade deals and other factors have contributed. But people should understand the role of the Fed in this mess. Our monetary system SUCKS and IMO the Fed should be dismantled for a more honest, fair, and sound system. It's an intrinsically immoral and economically unsound institution. It's reverse Robin Hood! That's why Wall St loves it. They use it to rob everyone else and keep themselves whole.

[ArlJim78]

the unbalance of wealth...yes this article explains it world wide....but in the states it's EVEN worse...yes...this does not show the thread title anywhere...but THE many "CHARTS" people who reside here on BOTH sides of political spectrum can post/pull that up for ya...

http://news.yahoo.com/oxfam-says-richest-one-percent-own-more-rest-001746708.html

""Wealth accumulated by the richest one percent will exceed that of the other 99 percent in 2016, the Oxfam charity said Monday, ahead of the annual meeting of the world's most powerful at Davos, Switzerland.

"The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast," Oxfam executive director Winnie Byanyima said.

does NOT bode well for LONG term financial health anywhere...

so how much IS enough for anyone???

let me predict the answers amongst our IDEAOLOGY challenged here...

1st...pugs...if you got it...keep it...no limit...there is NO too much...

2nd...crats...well you should take from those greedy people and spread it around...unless of course...I'm one of the ONES in power...then not only should I get mine...but BE PAID to take from others as well...

3rd...shoot the OP/messenger for causing 30 secs of thought...before spewing personal insults/cuts at said messenger and THEN...posting one the options already mentioned...
You've taken a preemptive strike against everyone who you think will be answering your question. Odd that option three is about spewing personal insults at the messenger which is exactly what you've done by calling everyone ideologically challenged.

So, how about giving us YOUR answer? I mean since you're not ideologically challenged, let us learn from your wisdom.

Or are you just about stirring the pot and then standing on the sidelines?

So what is the answer, so how much IS enough for anyone???

[acorn54]

well generally speaking the united states is an affluent society. i think the discontent among americans who focus on the warts of the american system is the ignorance and/or lack of gratitude. most of the world is in dire straits, either politically unstable, and the general populace struggles for basic resources.
jack bogel supposedly was at a get together on shelter island and spoke with kurt vonnegut the book writer. mr bogel said all the people in the room made more money in a day than mr vonnegut made on a book, to which mr vonnegut replied: "yes, but i have what they don't have, enough."

[sammy the sage]

You've taken a preemptive strike against everyone who you think will be answering your question. Odd that option three is about spewing personal insults at the messenger which is exactly what you've done by calling everyone ideologically challenged.

So, how about giving us YOUR answer? I mean since you're not ideologically challenged, let us learn from your wisdom.

Or are you just about stirring the pot and then standing on the sidelines?

So what is the answer, so how much IS enough for anyone???


Fair enough question...hopefully you'll answer as well...

personally....think there should be no inheritance...or perhaps a modest one at best...definition of modest would of course be a VERY tough topic as well..

I one takes risk or sacrifices....one should be rewarded...to a point...if we were to go back to were the top 10% owned 50-60%...ok...right now they own 80% plus...

yes they pay the most in tax...BUT...shouldn't they...if you OWN 80% plus...you should pay 80% of the tax's...right now PERCENTAGE wise they pay far less...

the BIGGEST problem all the way around...is WHAT TO do w/said tax...

certainly not for politicians TO increase their dole...or gov't employees....or the freeloaders not trying...something for the greater good...

if I was actually smarter...I would be more concise/clear...I have a gift for seeing things coming...but what TO DO about it...well that's my downfall/weakness...

[sammy the sage]

well generally speaking the united states is an affluent society. i think the discontent among americans who focus on the warts of the american system is the ignorance and/or lack of gratitude. most of the world is in dire straits, either politically unstable, and the general populace struggles for basic resources.
jack bogel supposedly was at a get together on shelter island and spoke with kurt vonnegut the book writer. mr bogel said all the people in the room made more money in a day than mr vonnegut made on a book, to which mr vonnegut replied: "yes, but i have what they don't have, enough."

we have it VERY good for NOW...the rest of the world is OUR economic SLAVES...it won't last for-ever...hopefully will be in a better place when that happens...

[Clocker]

personally....think there should be no inheritance...or perhaps a modest one at best...definition of modest would of course be a VERY tough topic as well..


If I work all my life and acquire property and savings, I don't have the right to do what I want with it?

If someone starts a family business and his children work in the business and help build it, the children have no claim on the business when the parents die? The classic case of this today is the family farm.

[PaceAdvantage]

Fair enough question...hopefully you'll answer as well...

personally....think there should be no inheritance...or perhaps a modest one at best...definition of modest would of course be a VERY tough topic as well..

I one takes risk or sacrifices....one should be rewarded...to a point...if we were to go back to were the top 10% owned 50-60%...ok...right now they own 80% plus...

yes they pay the most in tax...BUT...shouldn't they...if you OWN 80% plus...you should pay 80% of the tax's...right now PERCENTAGE wise they pay far less...

the BIGGEST problem all the way around...is WHAT TO do w/said tax...

certainly not for politicians TO increase their dole...or gov't employees....or the freeloaders not trying...something for the greater good...

if I was actually smarter...I would be more concise/clear...I have a gift for seeing things coming...but what TO DO about it...well that's my downfall/weakness...No inheritance... :lol:

You officially lost me there...off your rocker you are.

Who should get the money then? The state? The poor? Who deserves the money more than the person who is chosen by the person who made the money in the first place?

It's not THEIR right to do with THEIR money what they wish? They don't have to leave it to a family member. They can donate it all to charity if they wish, or leave it to the fellow living down the street.

What nonsense.

[PaceAdvantage]

we have it VERY good for NOW...the rest of the world is OUR economic SLAVES...it won't last for-ever...hopefully will be in a better place when that happens...We as a country give more money away to "the rest of the world" then any other country in existence...EVER...

Economic slaves are only economic slaves because they are severely lacking in ability to be anything but.

[Clocker]

yes they pay the most in tax...BUT...shouldn't they...if you OWN 80% plus...you should pay 80% of the tax's...right now PERCENTAGE wise they pay far less...



The top 10% of income earners currently pay 70% of all income taxes. Some people pay more than 50% of their income in total taxes. How much more "should" they pay? And who gets to decide what they "should" pay? What is the standard for "should"?

Also, your statement above doesn't talk about income, it talks about wealth. If I have wealth, I already paid taxes on the income. Taxing wealth is taxing it again. It is confiscation of property.

[boxcar]

This an old topic that has bandied around often. Once upon a time, I posted links that showed there isn't enough wealth in the world to raise people above all that much above the poverty line. Taking from the rich only accomplishes making the rich a lot poorer than they were, but it does not and cannot make the poor wealthy. The poor cannot become wealthy by merely "leveling the proverbial playing field".

[AndyC]

the unbalance of wealth...yes this article explains it world wide....but in the states it's EVEN worse...yes...this does not show the thread title anywhere...but THE many "CHARTS" people who reside here on BOTH sides of political spectrum can post/pull that up for ya...

http://news.yahoo.com/oxfam-says-richest-one-percent-own-more-rest-001746708.html

""Wealth accumulated by the richest one percent will exceed that of the other 99 percent in 2016, the Oxfam charity said Monday, ahead of the annual meeting of the world's most powerful at Davos, Switzerland.

"The scale of global inequality is quite simply staggering and despite the issues shooting up the global agenda, the gap between the richest and the rest is widening fast," Oxfam executive director Winnie Byanyima said.

does NOT bode well for LONG term financial health anywhere...

so how much IS enough for anyone???

let me predict the answers amongst our IDEAOLOGY challenged here...

1st...pugs...if you got it...keep it...no limit...there is NO too much...

2nd...crats...well you should take from those greedy people and spread it around...unless of course...I'm one of the ONES in power...then not only should I get mine...but BE PAID to take from others as well...

3rd...shoot the OP/messenger for causing 30 secs of thought...before spewing personal insults/cuts at said messenger and THEN...posting one the options already mentioned...

What am I missing in this article? In the first paragraph it says that the wealth accumulated by the richest 1% will exceed that of the other 99% by 2016. Then in paragraph 3 it says that the amount would only equal 50%.

[Red Knave]

What am I missing in this article? In the first paragraph it says that the wealth accumulated by the richest 1% will exceed that of the other 99% by 2016. Then in paragraph 3 it says that the amount would only equal 50%.
1% of the population will own 50% of all wealth.
The remaining 50% of the wealth is distributed to the other 99% of the population.
So the 1% will own more wealth than the other 99%.

[AndyC]

Looking at the Forbes list of wealthiest people in the US you will see a common theme. Most of them got wealthy by starting businesses. I would say that most on the list were not motivated by the prospects of becoming obscenely wealthy. Many of them have done great things by virtue of their charitable endeavors.

It seems that technology has enhanced one's ability to become wealthy. Couple that with a securities market that is far easier to access than ever before it is no wonder that we have seen more ultra wealthy people. It use to take quite awhile to build a billion dollar business. Now it seems like it happens overnight.

[AndyC]

1% of the population will own 50% of all wealth.
The remaining 50% of the wealth is distributed to the other 99% of the population.
So the 1% will own more wealth than the other 99%.

Thanks. I know what I am now missing, my brain!

[Clocker]

Looking at the Forbes list of wealthiest people in the US you will see a common theme. Most of them got wealthy by starting businesses.

One reason for a growing gap is that it is getting harder to start a business. Part of that is due to an ever increasing regulatory burden. And despite the Fed pumping money into the system, banks don't want to lend to small businesses because of perceived higher risk than in the past.

Another reason for the growing gap in wealth is that people across the income spectrum are saving less. Some of this is due to economic necessity, but a lot of it is due to people living beyond their means, as in the housing bubble.

[AndyC]

One reason for a growing gap is that it is getting harder to start a business. Part of that is due to an ever increasing regulatory burden. And despite the Fed pumping money into the system, banks don't want to lend to small businesses because of perceived higher risk than in the past.

Another reason for the growing gap in wealth is that people across the income spectrum are saving less. Some of this is due to economic necessity, but a lot of it is due to people living beyond their means, as in the housing bubble.

All true. But I believe the gap is increasing because there are people like Zuckerberg who can become multi-billionaires with something as simple as Facebook. The upside for a successful technology venture is much higher today than ever before.

[Clocker]

"Middle class decline looms over final years of Obama presidency"

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/middle-class-decline-looms-over-final-years-obama-130212665--business.html

[dartman51]

No inheritance... :lol:

You officially lost me there...off your rocker you are.

Who should get the money then? The state? The poor? Who deserves the money more than the person who is chosen by the person who made the money in the first place?

It's not THEIR right to do with THEIR money what they wish? They don't have to leave it to a family member. They can donate it all to charity if they wish, or leave it to the fellow living down the street.

What nonsense.

But, remember PA, "YOU DIDN'T BUILD THAT." :rolleyes: :D

[badcompany]

It doesn't matter.

Life is essentially the same for everyone.

A spark of light in between two eternities of darkness.

Have a great day, everybody :)

[delayjf]

Also, your statement above doesn't talk about income, it talks about wealth. If I have wealth, I already paid taxes on the income. Taxing wealth is taxing it again. It is confiscation of property.

I believe some countries in Europe actually have a wealth tax.

[Stillriledup]

People used to get interest on bank accounts and money markets. Now, nobody gets a cent.

[JustRalph]

People used to get interest on bank accounts and money markets. Now, nobody gets a cent.

Been exploring this problem a little lately......... it's amazing how much dead money is sitting out there.

[Robert Goren]

The several things that the Obama administration and the Fed have proved are:

1) Trickle down economics does not work.
2) Tax policy does not do much for the working poor and the lower middle class.
3) Free Trade Agreements do not work for countries that keep their currency strong.
4) Falling energy prices are over rated.

A lot of things Obama and the Fed tried did not worked the way they had planned. It seems that every dollar that was freed up for jobs or investment into new products went straight into the stock markets. R&D has become M&A.

[Robert Goren]

A quick observation from looking at today's new self-made super rich show a lot of them if not all came from middle class parents. They usually started a business, but not always. There are a few made a lot by running a company started by somebody else. They all are self promoting geniuses.

[sammy the sage]

Part of the reason this is happening is Monetary Policy.

Going all the way back to early Greenspan, each and every time the "free market" tried to correct economic excesses with a recession that would wipe out bad investments and bad debt to balance the economy again, it was met by fear at the Fed and extremely easy money to try to prop things back up.

The biggest impact of that easy money was not to improve jobs, incomes, etc.. for the middle class and poor. It was to inflate asset prices (stocks, bonds, paintings, gold, etc..). That in turn helped support overall economic activity because the rich continued to spend, there was a lot of deal making on Wall St. etc.. but it didn't help everyone equally. The secondary impact was that savers and people on fixed incomes were (and still are) getting negative real interest rates on their savings. So they are getting poorer all the time.

So the gap between rich and poor (and middle class) has widened.

It has gotten to the point where some members of the the Fed (the almost decent ones) admit they are trying to inflate asset prices to prop up economic activity and understand how savers are getting screwed.

Of course this is is not the only reason. Bad free trade deals and other factors have contributed. But people should understand the role of the Fed in this mess. Our monetary system SUCKS and IMO the Fed should be dismantled for a more honest, fair, and sound system. It's an intrinsically immoral and economically unsound institution. It's reverse Robin Hood! That's why Wall St loves it. They use it to rob everyone else and keep themselves whole.

been preaching this for decade plus...so what does one do?

[sammy the sage]

No inheritance... :lol:

You officially lost me there...off your rocker you are.

Who should get the money then? The state? The poor? Who deserves the money more than the person who is chosen by the person who made the money in the first place?

It's not THEIR right to do with THEIR money what they wish? They don't have to leave it to a family member. They can donate it all to charity if they wish, or leave it to the fellow living down the street.

What nonsense.

ah yes answer #3 AS PREDICTED...if you disagree...fine...so what's YOUR answer to the BIG problem besides just inheritance???

[sammy the sage]

We as a country give more money away to "the rest of the world" then any other country in existence...EVER...

Economic slaves are only economic slaves because they are severely lacking in ability to be anything but.

I'll disagree with this WITHOUT insulting...

1st...nothing is EVER free...including money...unless of course for humanitarian reasons...but many times...strings attached

2nd..""Economic slaves are only economic slaves because they are severely lacking in ability to be anything but""

that would apply here stateside as well for THE EVER growing 80-90% of population...AND so...what's THE answer....I think there's plenty of ability...just NOT opportunity worldwide...

[sammy the sage]

This an old topic that has bandied around often. Once upon a time, I posted links that showed there isn't enough wealth in the world to raise people above all that much above the poverty line. Taking from the rich only accomplishes making the rich a lot poorer than they were, but it does not and cannot make the poor wealthy. The poor cannot become wealthy by merely "leveling the proverbial playing field".

not trying to make the poor wealthy BY GIVING...they need incentive...

you can't save & scrap your whole life and then have it wiped OUT by very poor or deliberately crushing fiscal policy...and THAT's what happening RIGHT now...

[AndyC]

The several things that the Obama administration and the Fed have proved are:

1) Trickle down economics does not work.
2) Tax policy does not do much for the working poor and the lower middle class.
3) Free Trade Agreements do not work for countries that keep their currency strong.
4) Falling energy prices are over rated.

A lot of things Obama and the Fed tried did not worked the way they had planned. It seems that every dollar that was freed up for jobs or investment into new products went straight into the stock markets. R&D has become M&A.

1. Trickle down works because money is left in the hands of people who know how to maximize its use.

2. The working poor and lower middle class don't pay taxes in most cases and often are the recipients of negative income tax rates via the EIC. Not sure what more could be done to the tax system to help people who don't pay in the first place.

3. The problem is that free-trade often doesn't work because of regulations imposed by the individual trading partners on their own manufacturing and production.

4. Clearly you don't drive or have energy costs as a part of your budget.

[badcompany]

not trying to make the poor wealthy BY GIVING...they need incentive...

you can't save & scrap your whole life and then have it wiped OUT by very poor or deliberately crushing fiscal policy...and THAT's what happening RIGHT now...

It's just the financial/government establishment acting in its own best interest.

These people aren't sitting around talking about wiping out the poor.

It's more along the lines of, "We need to re-capitalize the banks, and, at the same time finance government deficits. What's the best way to do this?"

The answer is abnormally low interest rates, indefinitely.

You see, moral considerations don't enter into the decision making process.

[Clocker]

The several things that the Obama administration and the Fed have proved are:

1) Trickle down economics does not work.
2) Tax policy does not do much for the working poor and the lower middle class.



Trickle down economics is a disparaging term used by the left for a policy that they don't understand and that doesn't support the religion of tax and spend. The left believes, contrary to all evidence, that the government can micromanage the economy.

Conservatives generally believe that the private sector makes better decisions and is more efficient than the government. The proper role of government is to provide a business environment that promotes economic growth and job creation in the private sector. The failure to do so by big government in general, and this administration in particular, is why this has been the slowest recovery from a recession in modern times. And it is a reason for the shrinking middle class and an increase in income inequality. The current business regulatory environment is hostile to the formation of new businesses and to the creation of new jobs, particularly by small businesses.

And Obama is going on TV this evening to promote more tax policies that would make things worse. He knows that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting what he will propose, but he is going through the motions so he can point to the Republicans who won't give him want he wants as evil, greedy big-business bastages.

[Robert Goren]

Part of the reason this is happening is Monetary Policy.

Going all the way back to early Greenspan, each and every time the "free market" tried to correct economic excesses with a recession that would wipe out bad investments and bad debt to balance the economy again, it was met by fear at the Fed and extremely easy money to try to prop things back up.

The biggest impact of that easy money was not to improve jobs, incomes, etc.. for the middle class and poor. It was to inflate asset prices (stocks, bonds, paintings, gold, etc..). That in turn helped support overall economic activity because the rich continued to spend, there was a lot of deal making on Wall St. etc.. but it didn't help everyone equally. The secondary impact was that savers and people on fixed incomes were (and still are) getting negative real interest rates on their savings. So they are getting poorer all the time.

So the gap between rich and poor (and middle class) has widened.

It has gotten to the point where some members of the the Fed (the almost decent ones) admit they are trying to inflate asset prices to prop up economic activity and understand how savers are getting screwed.

Of course this is is not the only reason. Bad free trade deals and other factors have contributed. But people should understand the role of the Fed in this mess. Our monetary system SUCKS and IMO the Fed should be dismantled for a more honest, fair, and sound system. It's an intrinsically immoral and economically unsound institution. It's reverse Robin Hood! That's why Wall St loves it. They use it to rob everyone else and keep themselves whole.That is not true. Despite claims to contrary by conservatives we did try an "easy money policy" in the recession of 2008. What they did do is lower interest rates. Which is a long way from "easy money". Despite some feeble attempts to ease money, money actually tighten considerable. Money was a lot more available in 2007 than it has been anytime since. What sucks is that half of our manufacturers have one tied behind their back by the so called "pro business" people. The strong currency policy that the conservatives love so much makes it impossible for our exporters to compete with companies outside the US. Heaven forbid that our government actually do something to help exporters instead making easy for importers.

[Clocker]

That is not true. Despite claims to contrary by conservatives we did try an "easy money policy" in the recession of 2008. What they did do is lower interest rates. Which is a long way from "easy money".

Standard Keynesian theory is that insufficient demand (and therefore unemployment) is primarily a function of insufficient investment spending. The fix for this, according to Keynes, is to lower the interest rate to encourage business investment spending. If there was ever any doubt, the 2008 recession proved that this doesn't work.

Despite some feeble attempts to ease money, money actually tighten considerable.

QE is hardly a feeble attempt. Money in the banking system did not tighten. Banks had money, but did not want to lend it, particularly to small businesses, because of uncertainty and risk, much of that because of policies of the Obama administration.

So banks and large corporations were sitting on big piles of cash. Banks borrowed money from the Fed (virtually free money) and bought Treasury bonds. Instant profits at no cost and no risk. Large corporations used their cash to buy back their own stock, helping to drive up the price and making their balance sheet look good without the risks and costs of expanding.

[Robert Goren]

Trickle down economics is a disparaging term used by the left for a policy that they don't understand and that doesn't support the religion of tax and spend. The left believes, contrary to all evidence, that the government can micromanage the economy.

Conservatives generally believe that the private sector makes better decisions and is more efficient than the government. The proper role of government is to provide a business environment that promotes economic growth and job creation in the private sector. The failure to do so by big government in general, and this administration in particular, is why this has been the slowest recovery from a recession in modern times. And it is a reason for the shrinking middle class and an increase in income inequality. The current business regulatory environment is hostile to the formation of new businesses and to the creation of new jobs, particularly by small businesses.

And Obama is going on TV this evening to promote more tax policies that would make things worse. He knows that he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting what he will propose, but he is going through the motions so he can point to the Republicans who won't give him want he wants as evil, greedy big-business bastages. It was bad decisions by the private sector that caused EVERY recession my lifetime. In the few that government failed to act quickly like in the 1970s, things continued to get worse.
As for income disparity, there was an interesting discussion CNBC this morning about it. It is not all of the 1% that is getting richer compared to the middle class. It is the top 0.001% that it is happening too. And that is a result of an equity stake of new companies. The gap between the rest of top 1% and the middle class is about same as it was pre recession. That is what one of the guests said. He did not show any numbers, but I tend to believe him. Certainly since the 1985s, it has become the age of inventor/businessman as oppose to the time after WWII until 1970 when most new products that came on the market was the result of established businesses.

[AndyC]

It was bad decisions by the private sector that caused EVERY recession my lifetime. In the few that government failed to act quickly like in the 1970s, things continued to get worse.
As for income disparity, there was an interesting discussion CNBC this morning about it. It is not all of the 1% that is getting richer compared to the middle class. It is the top 0.001% that it is happening too. And that is a result of an equity stake of new companies. The gap between the rest of top 1% and the middle class is about same as it was pre recession. That is what one of the guests said. He did not show any numbers, but I tend to believe him. Certainly since the 1985s, it has become the age of inventor/businessman as oppose to the time after WWII until 1970 when most new products that came on the market was the result of established businesses.

So essentially the wealth gap has widened due to the success of some people with new companies established to market new technologies. So is this a bad thing? The wealthy aren't stealing their wealth they are creating their wealth.

[ReplayRandall]

The wealthy aren't stealing their wealth they are creating their wealth.

Who are they creating their wealth from?

[Robert Goren]

So essentially the wealth gap has widened due to the success of some people with new companies established to market new technologies. So is this a bad thing? The wealthy aren't stealing their wealth they are creating their wealth.Never said it was. Although there needs to be a gap between the 1%, except the very rich, the middle class, I believe the country would be better served if that gap was smaller. There are a lot of wealthy people who are not creating any more value to the country than the middle class. They, for whatever reason, are paid more. The on-the-air talent at MSNBC is a prime example of that.

[Robert Goren]

Who are they creating their wealth from?They are pulling it out of thin air by creating new products like Steve Jobs did with the iphone.

[AndyC]

Who are they creating their wealth from?

Wealth creation is not a zero sum game. Take Facebook for example. A product was created that enhanced people's social lives and people got to use it for FREE. It makes money by being a great advertising platform. Wealth in many instances is just a perception of value.

[AndyC]

Never said it was. Although there needs to be a gap between the 1%, except the very rich, the middle class, I believe the country would be better served if that gap was smaller. There are a lot of wealthy people who are not creating any more value to the country than the middle class. They, for whatever reason, are paid more. The on-the-air talent at MSNBC is a prime example of that.

I don't know too many people who sit around thinking that their is a need to narrow the gap wealthwise between themselves and Bill Gates. I think people are far more interested in how they can increase their incomes.

How would the country be better served if the wealth gap was smaller? How does a country go about narrowing the gap? Do you propose that wealth be taken and redistributed?

[thaskalos]

So essentially the wealth gap has widened due to the success of some people with new companies established to market new technologies. So is this a bad thing? The wealthy aren't stealing their wealth they are creating their wealth.
Fine. But, who took away the wealth of the once-thriving "middle class"?

[Tom]

Who says anyone took it away?
Maybe they let if get away.

You can moan about Wal Mart killing off small business, but you will also rejoice at the savings they bring you. You moan that GM needs to be saved, but how many jobs have they moved out of the country in the last 50 years?

You celebrate the great new computer capabilities, but moan the jobs that they have eliminated.

We need a bigger pie, not more pieces.
Billions of dollars sitting off shore, waiting to come home and get invested, but with Obama and the 40 thieves chopping at the bit to ta the hell of
them when they get here are keeping them out of our economy.

Just listen to the idiot speak tonight you will see where the wealth went.
And where the rest of it is heading.

(Thank GOD there's a Law & Order marathon on WE tonight!)

[badcompany]

Fine. But, who took away the wealth of the once-thriving "middle class"?

Why do you assume it was taken away?

These Golden Years to which Liberals continually harken back was a temporary aberration as a result of the rest of the industrial world being bombed out as a result of WWII, and the fact that India and China had yet to go online.

Unless you propose to bomb India and China back to the stone age, the "Golden Years" aren't coming back no matter how much you tax the rich.

Moreover, the U.S is not an entity completely divorced from the rest of the world, and by world standards the average Joe in the U.S lives like a king.

[Tom]

To the rest of the world, those here who plot to take every penny from the rich are considered the 1%.

The starving kids in Africa and India want the liberals to pay their fair share.
Whatever that is.

[thaskalos]

Why do you assume it was taken away?

These Golden Years to which Liberals continually harken back was a temporary aberration as a result of the rest of the industrial world being bombed out as a result of WWII, and the fact that India and China had yet to go online.

Unless you propose to bomb India and China back to the stone age, the "Golden Years" aren't coming back no matter how much you tax the rich.

Moreover, the U.S is not an entity completely divorced from the rest of the world, and by world standards the average Joe in the U.S lives like a king.
I am not going to debate you on economics, because I insulted you once long ago, and I've been regretting it ever since. I will only say that I was never for over-taxing the rich...nor am I a fan of the government handouts that have the conservatives all riled up.

I came to this country 41 years ago...during what were prosperous times in this country. Both my parents worked, at menial, low-paying jobs...but they worked hard, and they were able to properly provide for 4 kids. It was the true "land of opportunity". But things now are not the same. We live at a time now when parents are unsure if they will be able to provide for their kids what THEIR parents were able to provide for them.

It is normal for lazy people to suffer in life...but, when the HARD-WORKING people are suffering right beside them...then we have a problem.

[Tom]

The only thing hard work guarantees you is a bad back.

[thaskalos]

The only thing hard work guarantees you is a bad back.
True. And when you decide to take it easy, and lie on the couch while collecting a government check...they call you a "free-loading liberal".

Sometimes you just can't win...

[Robert Goren]

Who says anyone took it away?
Maybe they let if get away.

You can moan about Wal Mart killing off small business, but you will also rejoice at the savings they bring you. You moan that GM needs to be saved, but how many jobs have they moved out of the country in the last 50 years?

You celebrate the great new computer capabilities, but moan the jobs that they have eliminated.

We need a bigger pie, not more pieces.
Billions of dollars sitting off shore, waiting to come home and get invested, but with Obama and the 40 thieves chopping at the bit to ta the hell of
them when they get here are keeping them out of our economy.

Just listen to the idiot speak tonight you will see where the wealth went.
And where the rest of it is heading.

(Thank GOD there's a Law & Order marathon on WE tonight!)We can easily change the laws to bring that money home, but getting the companies to invest it in this country is another story. Reagan tried doing just what you suggest and almost no money came home because even back then, our strong currency stops exports. They just made what they could have made for export overseas. But you never find a conservative that is willing to talk this Reagan failure because they don't want anyone to know they are still pushing the same idea because they have nothing better to offer. There are changes to our tax law that might promote business activity in then US, but this is not one of them.

[Robert Goren]

Standard Keynesian theory is that insufficient demand (and therefore unemployment) is primarily a function of insufficient investment spending. The fix for this, according to Keynes, is to lower the interest rate to encourage business investment spending. If there was ever any doubt, the 2008 recession proved that this doesn't work.



QE is hardly a feeble attempt. Money in the banking system did not tighten. Banks had money, but did not want to lend it, particularly to small businesses, because of uncertainty and risk, much of that because of policies of the Obama administration.

So banks and large corporations were sitting on big piles of cash. Banks borrowed money from the Fed (virtually free money) and bought Treasury bonds. Instant profits at no cost and no risk. Large corporations used their cash to buy back their own stock, helping to drive up the price and making their balance sheet look good without the risks and costs of expanding. No American company including banks is buying Treasuries with the rates we have today to any extent. The margin just too thin. . You are right they are buying back their own stock and they are acquiring other companies( although that has cooled in the 4th Quarter) . There is almost no R&D into new products in a lot of large companies because they are devoid of ideas. (drug companies are the exception)The idea people are starting their own companies. This is major shift from what was happening a few years. Somebody had to be invested heavily in oil drilling and oil stocks and that has not worked it way through the system. It will be interesting to see which banks, hedge funds, etc is left standing.

[badcompany]

I am not going to debate you on economics, because I insulted you once long ago, and I've been regretting it ever since. I will only say that I was never for over-taxing the rich...nor am I a fan of the government handouts that have the conservatives all riled up.

I came to this country 41 years ago...during what were prosperous times in this country. Both my parents worked, at menial, low-paying jobs...but they worked hard, and they were able to properly provide for 4 kids. It was the true "land of opportunity". But things now are not the same. We live at a time now when parents are unsure if they will be able to provide for their kids what THEIR parents were able to provide for them.

It is normal for lazy people to suffer in life...but, when the HARD-WORKING people are suffering right beside them...then we have a problem.

I don't buy your argument simply because I regularly see immigrants come here from poor countries such as Albania, Columbia, Ecuador, Russia etc. and do quite well for themselves simply because they don't see themselves as being above getting their hands dirty, as opposed to a spoiled American with a useless liberal arts degree. An Albanian guy who has been turning wrenches and screwdrivers since 8th grade has no trouble finding work and making a decent living around these parts.


Btw,

If you've been regretting an interaction with for that long you're taking this stuff too seriously. It's just guys bs-ing on the internet. ;)

[Clocker]

Fine. But, who took away the wealth of the once-thriving "middle class"?

The middle class now is not necessarily the same people as the once-thriving middle class. Despite complaints about lack of mobility, lots of people still move up and down the income ladder all the time.

A lot of the higher income earners classified as middle class are small business owners. Some of those businesses got wiped out the the recession, and that sector is not making the kind of come-back it normally does. A lot of those people had to get jobs, and are making less than they did. And working people are finding it harder to start a small business.

A lot of historic upward mobility into the middle class is not happening like it used to. There was a study done on this recently, which I will look for. It found that a major impediment to upward mobility into the middle class is single parent families. It is just too hard for single parents to improve their status. The single parents that are doing well are generally divorced professionals who were doing well before the divorce.

[Tom]

True. And when you decide to take it easy, and lie on the couch while collecting a government check...they call you a "free-loading liberal".

Sometimes you just can't win...

I prefer to think of myself as a "reserve asset."

[Robert Goren]

I don't buy your argument simply because I regularly see immigrants come here from poor countries such as Albania, Columbia, Ecuador, Russia etc. and do quite well for themselves simply because they don't see themselves as being above getting their hands dirty, as opposed to a spoiled American with a useless liberal arts degree. An Albanian guy who has been turning wrenches and screwdrivers since 8th grade has no trouble finding work and making a decent living around these parts.Where is an American kid going to learn about turning wrenches and screwdrivers?

[thaskalos]

I don't buy your argument simply because I regularly see immigrants come here from poor countries such as Albania, Columbia, Ecuador, Russia etc. and do quite well for themselves simply because they don't see themselves as being above getting their hands dirty, as opposed to a spoiled American with a useless liberal arts degree. An Albanian guy who has been turning wrenches and screwdrivers since 8th grade has no trouble finding work and making a decent living around these parts.
The foreigners will be the last to starve in this country. I worry more about the natives...

[badcompany]

The foreigners will be the last to starve in this country. I worry more about the natives...

I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. :lol:

http://i95.photobucket.com/albums/l142/thinlizzy21/0345370E-D84F-4FCE-B405-A5D9976813CF_zpsddtnphnm.png (http://s95.photobucket.com/user/thinlizzy21/media/0345370E-D84F-4FCE-B405-A5D9976813CF_zpsddtnphnm.png.html)

[Tom]

Where is an American kid going to learn about turning wrenches and screwdrivers?

Shop class.
Like I did.

[Clocker]

No American company including banks is buying Treasuries with the rates we have today to any extent.


I didn't say private companies were buying, I said banks were. Here is commercial bank holdings of US Treasuries from the St. Louis Fed:

http://www.financialsense.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/desktop/users/u607/images/2014/bond-holdings-2009-2014.PNG

http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/marc-chandler/ultimate-carry-trade-u-s-banks-buying-treasuries

[Clocker]

Shop class.
Like I did.

Shop class is sexist and politically incorrect, as is Home Economics.

Probably just as well. Can you imagine the Common Core process for learning how to use a screw driver? :eek:

[Tom]

I use them to open cans of food.
I combined the two classes.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'll disagree with this WITHOUT insulting...

1st...nothing is EVER free...including money...unless of course for humanitarian reasons...but many times...strings attached

2nd..""Economic slaves are only economic slaves because they are severely lacking in ability to be anything but""

that would apply here stateside as well for THE EVER growing 80-90% of population...AND so...what's THE answer....I think there's plenty of ability...just NOT opportunity worldwide...Insulting? Guys who live in glass houses (HAVE YOU READ YOUR AVATAR???) shouldn't be throwing stones.

And forget your avatar, you insulted with your words in your very first post in this thread...assuming what the replies to you will be...like I told someone else, you reap what you sow around here.

And trust me, you've insulted plenty of people around here with your "I know the big bad secret of the world and you don't, you rube" attitude.

Guys like you are a dime a dozen. Predict the world is going to end long enough, and eventually, you'll be right one day. Impressive...

But, back to your "points":

1) Not worth debating...it's the way of the world since day one...

2) See #1...when will there ever be opportunity for all? Overpopulation will guarantee this is never the case.

[PaceAdvantage]

not trying to make the poor wealthy BY GIVING...they need incentive...

you can't save & scrap your whole life and then have it wiped OUT by very poor or deliberately crushing fiscal policy...and THAT's what happening RIGHT now...Who's had their savings wiped out by crushing fiscal policy? Are you sure it wasn't piss-poor financial planning instead?

Like the couple that bought "too much house?"

Or the guy who put all of their retirement funds into a single stock?

Or are you talking about non-existent interest rates when it comes to savings accounts and whatnot? Was everyone really that much better off in the late 70s and early 80s when interest rates were sky high?

[sammy the sage]

Insulting? Guys who live in glass houses (HAVE YOU READ YOUR AVATAR???) shouldn't be throwing stones.

And forget your avatar, you insulted with your words in your very first post in this thread...assuming what the replies to you will be...like I told someone else, you reap what you sow around here.

And trust me, you've insulted plenty of people around here with your "I know the big bad secret of the world and you don't, you rube" attitude.

Guys like you are a dime a dozen. Predict the world is going to end long enough, and eventually, you'll be right one day. Impressive...

But, back to your "points":

1) Not worth debating...it's the way of the world since day one...

2) See #1...when will there ever be opportunity for all? Overpopulation will guarantee this is never the case.

after thinking about it a bit...you're pretty much spot on...on ALL accounts...

[PaceAdvantage]

And so are you...now what?

[classhandicapper]

It was bad decisions by the private sector that caused EVERY recession my lifetime.

This is the great economic fallacy of all time.

Unquestionably, there is greed and economic miscalculation in the private sector that leads to excesses that have to be corrected in recessions.

But some (actually a LOT) of that miscalculation is a direct result of a fundamentally flawed banking and credit creation system, monetary policy errors at the Fed, and policy from Washington that encourages behavior that is taken to an excess.

I'll give you an example.

Assume the Fed sets real interest rates negative to encourage borrowing. At the margin, anyone that understands money realizes that his savings are going to get wiped out a couple of percent per year by inflation if he sits there in cash doing nothing. He is being incentivized by the Fed to take on more risk to earn enough of a return to break even or profit. So the smart people do it.

Instead of keeping cash they buy dot.com stocks or finance junk bonds in telecom or speculate in real estate, etc... Once that momentum builds in some market, other people see prices appreciating and they start coming in. As it builds further people that have no idea what they are doing come in and you eventually get a bubble. Yes, it was the private sector that screwed up. But the CORE of the miscalculation was the Fed setting real interest rates too low and keeping them there no matter how much credit was flowing into assets, junk, speculation etc...

It's a rinse and repeat credit cycle that at it's core is Fed error and easy money (meaning interest rates are to low and/ or money is being printed).

Prior to the Fed, we had miscalculation, but that was related to similar problems with banks themselves.

[Clocker]

Unquestionably, there is greed and economic miscalculation in the private sector that leads to excesses that have to be corrected in recessions.

The system is based on miscalculations and failures. Lots of people try to come up with ways to make money. The good ones are successful, the bad ones go away, and the people that came up with bad ideas pay the price. The system is less effective, and the miscalculations have larger consequences, when the government steps in and prevents those responsible for bad decisions from paying the consequences.

Alan Greenspan warned against this "moral hazard" even as he encouraged it in his policies. If you take risks, lose, and are bailed out, you don't learn to not take those risks again.

The government itself is the ultimate embodiment of this. When is the last time in living memory that a government program was eliminated because it was ineffective? Quite the contrary. If the program is a failure, it gets more money so more people can do more of the same thing.