Interesting article on economy

[Secretariat]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer

The Great Wealth Transfer
It's the biggest untold economic story of our time: more of the nation's bounty held in fewer and fewer hands. And Bush's tax cuts are only making the problem worse
PAUL KRUGMAN

Why doesn't Bush get credit for the strong economy?" That question has been asked over and over again in recent months by political pundits. After all, they point out, the gross domestic product is up; unemployment, at least according to official figures, is low by historical standards; and stocks have recovered much of the ground they lost in the early years of the decade, with the Dow surpassing 12,000 for the first time. Yet the public remains deeply unhappy with the state of the economy. In a recent poll, only a minority of Americans rated the economy as "excellent" or "good," while most consider it no better than "fair" or "poor."

Are people just ungrateful? Is the administration failing to get its message out? Are the news media, as conservatives darkly suggest, deliberately failing to report the good news?

None of the above. The reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor. Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

[bigmack]

PAUL KRUGMAN
We have to deal with Krugman in the Times and now you want us to read his demented views published in Rolling Stone? I don't know if "interesting" is the right word. I was thinking more like: drivel.

[Snag]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12699486/paul_krugman_on_the_great_wealth_transfer

The Great Wealth Transfer
It's the biggest untold economic story of our time: more of the nation's bounty held in fewer and fewer hands. And Bush's tax cuts are only making the problem worse
PAUL KRUGMAN

All opinion and no facts makes be wonder is someone is jealous.

[kenwoodallpromos]

(1) The Capitolistic/Credit economy depends upon the interest rate. Expect the interest rate to fall during the Pres. elections to help the Repubs.

[Bala]

Sec,

Along this ride on the information superhighway, fact checking is becoming a full time job. One has to always check the source and integrity of the data.

The primary source of “Gini coefficient (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient)” comes from the Federal Reserve Bank (http://www.federalreserve.gov/otherfrb.htm). To a lesser extent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Not from the left wing filters of the old gray lady. {NT Times}

Get your facts straight, then you can butcher them any way you please.

Besides, why should hard working people, some who work 60-70 hours per week, have to share with those that only look for hand out?


____________________________
Pull the wool over your own eyes.

[Dave Schwartz]

I hate the phrase "tax cut."

How about "refund of overcharged taxes" instead?

[Secretariat]

interesting no one dealt with the substance of the article.

I find it interesting that CEO bonuses are at an all time high when poverty has increased every year while GW has sat on his throne.

....

"Greed ... is good."

-Gordon Geko

[Snag]

interesting no one dealt with the substance of the article.

I find it interesting that CEO bonuses are at an all time high when poverty has increased every year while GW has sat on his throne.

....

"Greed ... is good."

-Gordon Geko

What "substance" are you talking about? Why are you worried about CEO's bonuses? The boards and stockholders are the ones that set this up. Sorry, but President Bush has nothing to do with that.

Trying to tie the two things togather is yet more spin. Try again.

[Secretariat]

Snag,

Hate to burst your bubble, but the corporate welfare policies of this administration go directly to back to King George.

btw...old GW has set yet another record according to his own Commerce Department today. If you choose to beleive that GW is not reponsible for looking the other way relating to unfair trade practices (in fact niow embracing commie North Vietnam and always a commie China favorite), then you are living in a cocoon. His failure to even acknoweldge the disaster emerging in Nigeria shows a continued lack of leadership.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061218/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy

Trade deficit soars to record
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - America's trade deficit shot up to an all-time high in the summer, reflecting a huge jump in the bill for foreign oil.

The Commerce Department reported Monday that the current account trade deficit increased 3.9 percent to a record $225.6 billion in the July-September quarter. That represented 6.8 percent of the total economy, up from 6.6 percent of the gross domestic product in the spring quarter.

The current account is the broadest measure of trade because it tracks not only the flow of goods and services across borders but also investment flows. The figure is closely watched by economists because it represents the amount of money that must be borrowed from foreigners to make up the difference between what America imports and what it sells overseas.

The current account deficit is expected to hit a new record for the full year, far surpassing last year's $791.5 billion imbalance even though the shortfall for the fourth quarter is likely to show an improvement, reflecting the drop in oil prices after hitting records this summer.

"Lower oil prices, robust export growth and some cooling in import growth should bring the deficit down, beginning in the fourth quarter," said Nigel Gault, an economist with Global Insight, a private forecasting firm.

He predicted the deficit would average around $866 billion this year but shrink to $816 billion next year.

Democrats, who took over control of the House and Senate in the November elections, attacked President Bush's trade policies, charging that the administration has run up record deficits for five straight years by failing to protect U.S. workers from unfair foreign trade practices.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.militants18dec18,0,3254164.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Let's get back to the substance of the article.

[Lefty]

I can't teach my card a dog trick and i don't think you can teach economics to liberals. All they know is: Rich people bad and we must take their money away to help poor people. We must punish anyone that got educated and worked hard to get somewhere to help those who chose not to do those things. We must especially help those who choose a life in the streets instead of honest work.

Dave, I love your alternative to the phrase tax cuts. BRILLIANT...

[The Judge]

Is like saying the fox is guarding the chicken coop. Don't worry its legal . Its legalize stealing is what it is .Tell me what does a CEO of a publicly traded company do to earn 100 million dollars a year, 30 million dollars a year and the stock holders are taking a bath.

Let the stock holders set his salary I know they do "indirectly" yeah that type of indirect and you are rice before anyone wakes up.

[richrosa]

Is like saying the fox is guarding the chicken coop. Don't worry its legal . Its legalize stealing is what it is .Tell me what does a CEO of a publicly traded company do to earn 100 million dollars a year, 30 million dollars a year and the stock holders are taking a bath.

FYI, shareholders in major companies vote for a board of directors, who in turn create a compensation commitee who approve the compensation of CEO's. These contracts are geneally performance driven and kick in when financial metrics are met. They are negotiated in good faith and are always disclosed in public filings for public companies and are not illegal in any way shape or form.

[The Judge]

Sure its as fair system. Are you "nuts" tell what do they do to deserve this type of money. Tell what they do what risk are they taking. What happens when the performance is "we are losing money" or "we are heading toward bankruptcy" where is my bonus and golden parachute.

I don't need a lecture just tell me is it a scam or not. Tell they earn it and its fair or is it just an out of date method of compensation that the CEO and board conspire to keep in place.

Just say its not a scam and you feel great about a person making 100 million dollars a year taking no risk. Then tell me what they do to earn that much money.

I want to also know what the person who only makes 50 million is doing wrong. So may be we can offer this poor slob some advice.

[skate]

Snag,

Hate to burst your bubble, but the corporate welfare policies of this administration go directly to back to King George.

btw...old GW has set yet another record according to his own Commerce Department today. If you choose to beleive that GW is not reponsible for looking the other way relating to unfair trade practices (in fact niow embracing commie North Vietnam and always a commie China favorite), then you are living in a cocoon. His failure to even acknoweldge the disaster emerging in Nigeria shows a continued lack of leadership.


Trade deficit soars to record
By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - America's trade deficit shot up to an all-time high in the summer, reflecting a huge jump in the bill for foreign oil.

The Commerce Department reported Monday that the current account trade deficit increased 3.9 percent to a record $225.6 billion in the July-September quarter. That represented 6.8 percent of the total economy, up from 6.6 percent of the gross domestic product in the spring quarter.

The current account is the broadest measure of trade because it tracks not only the flow of goods and services across borders but also investment flows. The figure is closely watched by economists because it represents the amount of money that must be borrowed from foreigners to make up the difference between what America imports and what it sells overseas.

The current account deficit is expected to hit a new record for the full year, far surpassing last year's $791.5 billion imbalance even though the shortfall for the fourth quarter is likely to show an improvement, reflecting the drop in oil prices after hitting records this summer.

"Lower oil prices, robust export growth and some cooling in import growth should bring the deficit down, beginning in the fourth quarter," said Nigel Gault, an economist with Global Insight, a private forecasting firm.

He predicted the deficit would average around $866 billion this year but shrink to $816 billion next year.

Democrats, who took over control of the House and Senate in the November elections, attacked President Bush's trade policies, charging that the administration has run up record deficits for five straight years by failing to protect U.S. workers from unfair foreign trade practices.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.militants18dec18,0,3254164.story?coll=bal-home-headlines

Let's get back to the substance of the article.


Why do you feel that you must address a half dozon points (topics) all at one time and then you expect me (others) to answer with exactness? man!

i guess you figure, i'll lose patience with trying to figure out " if what you say has any relative relation to anything".

you've got :
welfare
trade
Nigeria
deficit
imports
exports
oil prices
and whatever else is posted in your attachments (?).

it seems, you want the USA into Nigerias affairs, but you do not want us spending any More Money, yo!

you mention Deficit, but you fail to talk about the increase in GDP, again YO!

here is my answer, simple.
"deficit spending will increase GDP (when done right) by a greater amount and in relative terms, debt will decrease. very simple.

tell me about %. it is all about %.

here in the USA, we make twice the GDP as does UK. that is our worth.

the feds control interest rates and the printing press for the stuff.

[richrosa]

Risk.

Yes, they take risk. A well thought of CEO is passing up opportunities to be paid by a competing business, or by a business they start themselves. Sure, there is in most cases no direct capital risk, but certainly, they might be leaving money on the table by not creating a competitive bid for services.

CEO's deserve the money when they meet the metrics of success for a company that execute such bonuses. In many ways they share in the success of the corporation that they helped create. Its sorta like Todd Pletcher getting 10% of the winnings of the finest horses in the country. Should we tell Todd that he should get a cut similar to Dale Baird's 10% on Mountaineer purses to keep things in line?

These CEO's get paid well for the job they do and for protecting the capital of ths institutions that they head. This is private industry, why should anyone care but the company's own shareholders? Even if those shareholders care, they could sell the stock, or vote the board down in a proxy. There are isolated cases of shareholders doing this.

One has to ask, is it anyone's business in a free economy what sports figures, entertainment people, or CEO's make? We vote with our dollar. If the residual price of a product gets too high versus its value we can choose not to buy the product. I'm not sure if anyone is advocating differently, and I'm really not sure why CEO's are the most attacked. Tiger Woods is worth over $1B dollars, but I never hear anyone moan that he doesn't deserve it.

[skate]

Sure its as fair system. Are you "nuts" tell what do they do to deserve this type of money. Tell what they do what risk are they taking. What happens when the performance is "we are losing money" or "we are heading toward bankruptcy" where is my bonus and golden parachute.

I don't need a lecture just tell me is it a scam or not. Tell they earn it and its fair or is it just an out of date method of compensation that the CEO and board conspire to keep in place.

Just say its not a scam and you feel great about a person making 100 million dollars a year taking no risk. Then tell me what they do to earn that much money.

I want to also know what the person who only makes 50 million is doing wrong. So may be we can offer this poor slob some advice.


Judgemenot;

does not mater how much anyone else makes. a guy makes 400 million (your figures are low) and what happens with his/her 400 million?
right, he spends, cause its no good otherwise. and when he spends, what does he do, give it back to himself?, coarse not.
na, what he does is give that 400 million to somebody else, like me for example. he does that when he buys a 15 billion dollar house, for example.

so , it does not mater how much anyone makes, rather it is important (only if you want it so) that you keep up with him (if ya wanna).

a ball player gets $72 trillion for a year and you (a player ) complain, but why? you are next in line for the 72, not only that but he spends the 72 trillion, which you receive. it is a nice increase the feds receive (bout 30trillion) that you do not (yet) have to pay.

[The Judge]

Just watch "Closing Bell" on CNBC seems that a Mr. Ralph V. Whitworth is a little peeve with some executive over at Home Depot for paying himself $360,000 for the year. This was more then all the money paid to all the stock holders combined.

This was after a miserable year where the company was up 1% or maybe it was down -1%. Ralph Whitworth is head of 2.2 Billion Dollar Ralational Investorts and seems more then a little put off by this brazen snatch of wealth from the share holders of which his company is a major holder.

Whitworth seems to be a hard nose capitalist and saw nothing wrong with the head of Lowes getting 60 million dollars in compensation but Lowes was up 21%.

Unlike you and I Mr. Whitworth is tired and he ain't going to put up with it anymore he has enought clout to demand 2 seats on the board which he is sure he will get at a "minimum" according to Mr. Whitworth.

[Bala]

The American capitalist financial markets are true democracies. One man one vote. One owns 10shares = ten votes. Pure democracy in action.

Like any other democracy, only a handful of owner/voter participates in the process. If the owners of Home Depot or any other business abdicate their right to the process – that is not our problem. The shareholders can and in some cases do fire the board of directors. Unfortunately, many people are just plain lazy.




______________________
Eli Manning (http://www.nfl.com/draft/profiles/eli_manning)Sucks!!!!

[The Judge]

You have alot of faith, more power to you.

[Lefty]

When Repubs get in we learn that the same barometers used to measure an economy no longer valid until the dems take office. If the dems win the pres in 08 all the barometers will become valid again. Weird how that works. Hmmmm...

[delayjf]

Since Mr. Krugman's article is simular to the Webb article. I think George Wills disection of Webbs article is appropriate here.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will113006.php3

[Secretariat]

Since Mr. Krugman's article is simular to the Webb article. I think George Wills disection of Webbs article is appropriate here.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will113006.php3

DJ,

I read Will's article. Thanks for posting it. However, he doesn't dissect anything. He basically just name calls Webb. I don't know Webb's article. However, Krugman's is very extensive. i was hoping someone would actually address Krugman's points here, but thus far no points have really been addressed.

[Tom]

Why don't YOU address some?

[delayjf]

Here is a quote from the Will article with regard to the distribution of wealth in the country today.

"And never mind the cavalier historical judgments — although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?"

[Secretariat]

Here is a quote from the Will article with regard to the distribution of wealth in the country today.

"And never mind the cavalier historical judgments — although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?"

What does this have to do with Krugman's quote that pvoerty has increased over the last six years, the median wage cannot keep up with inflation at the same time that CEO's get obscene multi-million dollar bonuses.

Saying that people have more college degrees with less overall medical coverage and less take home dollars adjusted for inflation is either an attack on the devaluation of a college degree but it certainly doesn't address the wealth disparity that is increasing. Lefty, contends that it is earned, and not inherited wealth. Well, unfortunately that is not the case with guys like GW and many others.

[Secretariat]

Why don't YOU address some?

OK, I will. I agree with Krugman's contentions below. Tell me why and where he is wrong.

"The reason most Americans think the economy is fair to poor is simple: For most Americans, it really is fair to poor. Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000.

But how is this possible? The economic pie is getting bigger -- how can it be true that most Americans are getting smaller slices? The answer, of course, is that a few people are getting much, much bigger slices. Although wages have stagnated since Bush took office, corporate profits have doubled. The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts. In the Bush era, economic inequality is on the rise."

[Secretariat]

Here is a quote from the Will article with regard to the distribution of wealth in the country today.

"And never mind the cavalier historical judgments — although is he sure that America is less egalitarian today than it was, say, 50 years ago, when only about 7 percent of American adults had college degrees? (Twenty-eight percent do today.) Or 80 years ago, when more than 80 percent of American adults did not have high school diplomas (85 percent have them today), and only about 46 percent owned their own homes, compared with 69 percent today?"

Here is Krugman's reply in the article to this:

"MYTH #2: INEQUALITY IS MAINLY A PROBLEM OF EDUCATION.
This view -- which I think of as the eighty-twenty fallacy -- is expressed by none other than Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve. Last year, Greenspan testified that wage gains were going primarily to skilled professionals with college educations -- "essentially," he said, "the top twenty percent." The other eighty percent -- those with less education -- are stuck in routine jobs being replaced by computers or lost to imports. Inequality, Greenspan concluded, is ultimately "an education problem."

It's a good story with a comforting conclusion: Education is the answer. But it's all wrong. A closer look at our line of Americans reveals why. The richest twenty percent are those standing between 800 and 1,000. But even those standing between 800 and 950 -- Americans who earn between $80,000 and $120,000 a year -- have done only slightly better than everyone to their left. Almost all of the gains over the past thirty years have gone to the fifty people at the very end of the line. Being highly educated won't make you into a winner in today's U.S. economy. At best, it makes you somewhat less of a loser."

Read page 2 of Krugman's article on the myths.

[delayjf]

Well, if Klugman is right, why do more people own homes today then ever in American History? I wonder how sckewed his "facts" are with regards to the imigration issue?

Inflation is less today then when Clinton came into office.

What a company pays it's CEOs doesn't take one dime out from the pockets of a minimum wage earner. Perhaps one should consider the effects of an unqualified CEO at the helm - Bankrupsy with all those workers out of work. His success (the businesses success) means jobs. The top 1% pay 1/3 of the bills in this country.

And finally, what is your solution? I'm sure Klugman makes a decent salery, I wonder how much extra he donated to Uncle Sam.

[Lefty]

sec whines: "Lefty contends it is earned wealth and not inherited. Unfortunely that is not the case with GW and many others."

So what? Someone earned it.
Fact is there will always be inequalities among the classes. That's the way capitalism works. If ya want socialism, I suggest ya run off to some other country and quit trying to foster your socialism on this country. I'm talking to all you socialists.

[PlanB]

Lefty is back, in full swing, with his Bush bathrobe on, listening to Laura's CD on how a Stepford woman supports her husband. Isn't life tidy? Now, what a wonderful world it would be if only Laura's CD would sell big in Harlem?

[The Judge]

Just re-read that Home Depot salart its 360,000,000 not 360,000 I'm sure you all knew what I meant. Thanks for allowing me time to correct it.

[Snag]

Snag,

Hate to burst your bubble, but the corporate welfare policies of this administration go directly to back to King George.



Just what "policies" do you referr to? You are great at making statements that have no basis in reality.

[Tom]

:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping: He does help me get more sleep these days, though.

Not to worry Sec, I'm sure Nancy Pelosi will fix things.:rolleyes:

[dylbert]

Mr. Krugman is journalist... but, he sure ain't no economist.

Capitalism 101 lesson: Individuals earn income. Then, convert their income to wealth through saving. In other words, through accumulation of income, each individual creates wealth.

Income redistribution is accomplished by Federal tax system. How else does one receive tax rebate -- better known as Earned Income Credit? Earn less than prescribed Federal limit. Progressive tax structure takes proportionally (or marginally) more tax from each dollar earned. Again, this system works. No tax system that must work for 300 million individuals will ever be perfect.

However, when subject becomes capital redistribution words such as communism and socialism will emerge. 20th century communism experiment (actually totalitarian form of socialism) that began in 1917 redistributed millions of units of wealth from individuals to state. Then, state redistributed capital as directed by its corrupt leadership. This leadership became wealthiest segment of its society. Political power and military control dominated this economy for nearly 80 years. Also, millions of people died at hands of this long-running regime. Yes, this was USSR.

In same time period, the continuing experiment is capitalism founded in 1600s in North America flourished. It overcame two World Wars, an economic depression of sort that had collapsed all previous economies, and aided globe in expansion of freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This occured because individuals accumulate wealth and redistribute it based on their individual value systems. Church donations, United Way, American Cancer Society, Boy Scouts, and an endless list of other organizations that people contribute time, talents and money to promote their cause receive this redistribution. If money goes predominately to government as it did until 1980s, it is get redistributed less fairly than "invisible hand" of capitalistic market.

America, what a country! And, from 1917 until today, America has not murder millions of it citizens.

[luv_america]

very well said!!

[Secretariat]

Just what "policies" do you referr to? You are great at making statements that have no basis in reality.

Do you read the news? How about no bid defense contracts for one involving billions?

Or the massive subsidies and tax breaks to gas and oil companies?

Here's just a fw from 2004 earlier. The list has grown quite extensive since then.

http://elandslide.org/preview.cfm?term=Corporate%20Welfare

And this doesn't even get into the post election tax prizes he pushed for the energy industry:

The man's not a conservative, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Secretariat]

Mr. Krugman is journalist... but, he sure ain't no economist.

Capitalism 101 lesson: Individuals earn income. Then, convert their income to wealth through saving. In other words, through accumulation of income, each individual creates wealth.

Income redistribution is accomplished by Federal tax system. How else does one receive tax rebate -- better known as Earned Income Credit? Earn less than prescribed Federal limit. Progressive tax structure takes proportionally (or marginally) more tax from each dollar earned. Again, this system works. No tax system that must work for 300 million individuals will ever be perfect.

However, when subject becomes capital redistribution words such as communism and socialism will emerge. 20th century communism experiment (actually totalitarian form of socialism) that began in 1917 redistributed millions of units of wealth from individuals to state. Then, state redistributed capital as directed by its corrupt leadership. This leadership became wealthiest segment of its society. Political power and military control dominated this economy for nearly 80 years. Also, millions of people died at hands of this long-running regime. Yes, this was USSR.

In same time period, the continuing experiment is capitalism founded in 1600s in North America flourished. It overcame two World Wars, an economic depression of sort that had collapsed all previous economies, and aided globe in expansion of freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This occured because individuals accumulate wealth and redistribute it based on their individual value systems. Church donations, United Way, American Cancer Society, Boy Scouts, and an endless list of other organizations that people contribute time, talents and money to promote their cause receive this redistribution. If money goes predominately to government as it did until 1980s, it is get redistributed less fairly than "invisible hand" of capitalistic market.

America, what a country! And, from 1917 until today, America has not murder millions of it citizens.

Very inaccurately said.

You state: “Capitalism 101 lesson: Individuals earn income”

Error one – Many individuals inherit rather than earn income creating a disparity from the get go.

Error two – Those with wealth already “earn” income in a non-labor intensive way. For example, wealth generates wealth without requiring intensive physical effort. How does one measure this with someone who works laboriously and generates a product or service for his labor as a benefit to the society?

You state: “Income redistribution is accomplished by Federal tax system”

It is one way to address income redistribution, but the Federal tax system was established as a progressive system that has undergone massive changes over it’s 100 year history. From large corporate and higher individual tax rates to one that (due to large lobbying efforts) has primarily benefitted the top 5%. I defer to Krugman’s article on the changes in redistribution since the 70’s.

Your statement that this tax system works assumes it has remained a constant. Nothing is further from the truth, I would suggest that it has changed dramatically over the years and has become more and more beneficial to the upper 5% of income. Krugman cites this example nicely in the differences between 1970 and today. Read the section on the line again.

We already have corrupt leadership without communism or socialism. If you look at the Republican President Eisenhower tax rates for individuals and corporations, a man who certainly is a patriot and fought communism tooth and nail, you’d see that he certainly beleived in much larger rates for the upper 5%. Anytime the wealthy are asked to pay more they cry communism. It’s a tired and old refrain. A better refrain is Gordon Geko’s – Greed is good.

You use 1980 as your signpost when capitalism took off. It is interesting that from that period onward, America has amassed more debt than at any time in it’s entire history, created massive deficits, created a lower minimum wage than since 1950, and created more and more disparity between worker and CEO than has ever existed since pre-30’s.

My friend the Boy Scouts were around long before the 1980’s without large post 1980’s debt doing very good things. They didn’t need deficts and debt to do positive things.

If we all started out equal Capitalism 101 may have a chance. Reality is - we don't. THe most laughable part of your post is that "capitalism" overcame two world wars and the Great Depression. It was the government programs of Roosevelt that aided in getting us out of the Depression caused by unchecked capitalism in the markets. It was the incredbile self sacrifice of our citizenry that answered the call that helped win WW 2. To state capitlaism is reponsible belies the sacrifice of men who gave up their comfortable lives and risked them to take on a threat to America.

You really need to re-read Krugman's article if you read it in the first place.

[Suff]

.

[QUOTE]Capitalism 101 lesson: Individuals earn income. Then, convert their income to wealth through saving. In other words, through accumulation of income, each individual creates wealth

The absolute sure fire way to have negative net worth growth is to use savings accounts.

It
.

However, when subject becomes capital redistribution words such as communism and socialism will emerge. 20th century communism experiment (actually totalitarian form of socialism) that began in 1917 redistributed millions of units of wealth from individuals to state. Then, state redistributed capital as directed by its corrupt leadership. This leadership became wealthiest segment of its society. Political power and military control dominated this economy for nearly 80 years. Also, millions of people died at hands of this long-running regime. Yes, this was USSR.

The scenario you describe is the one being payed out right in front of your eye's. Wealth is being consolidated at unprecedented levels. I'll go get you the facts.....but in the interest of keeping the post short. Take me word for it, or research it yourself. The numbers are jaw dropping in the dimishing economic power and opportnuty being stripped from the middle class.

Reference your point of the dangers of a Miltary based socio-economic society....I'll give you a quote from General Tom Franks in an interview recently. You remember Franks? He lead the Iraq war invasion.

On America's reaction to September 11th.
– that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important



In same time period, the continuing experiment is capitalism founded in 1600s in North America flourished. It overcame two World Wars, an economic depression of sort that had collapsed all previous economies, and aided globe in expansion of freedom, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

You have'nt heard? America is not the freeest contry on earth. You did'nt hear that news? Sad isn't it.

Just for the record, the top 1% did'nt win those world wars, the bottom 99% did.










If money goes predominately to government as it did until 1980s, it is get redistributed less fairly than "invisible hand" of capitalistic market.



Until the 1980's? You mean when it started. Show me where Ronald Reagan, Bush 1,,or Bush 2, downsized Government?


I subscribe to http://www.grants.gov/. I'm following some things I'm interested in. I'd encourage you to subscribe. When you see the amount of money our Governments gives to coporations......You'll faint.


While I'm on the subject of giving my money away, to who and for what...

Riddle me this.



Departemnt of Commerce giving money away based on one believing in God?
http://www.osec.doc.gov/fbci/

Faith-based and community organizations reveal the heart and soul of America every day. We must recognize and encourage the vital role they play in strengthening communities and improving the lives of people they touch.

- Carlos Gutierrez
Secretary of Commerce




The small business adminstration giving away money if you believe in God?

http://www.sba.gov/fbci/
In recent years, faith-based and community organizations have increasingly emphasized economic and community development. SBA and its resource partners offer a wide range of financial and technical assistance programs that may help faith-based and community organizations better serve their communities. Working with these grassroots organizations, SBA can help bring jobs and hope to economically distressed communities all across our Nation.” Steven C. Preston, Administrator U.S.Small Business Administration




The Veterans Adminstration giving away money based on God?
http://www1.va.gov/opa/fbci/
Welcome to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (CFBCI). President George W. Bush established the Center by executive order on June 1, 2004, to help faith-based and community groups compete for funding on a level playing field with other organizations.



Everything you seem to fear. The Militarization of our Government and society, The consolidation of wealth and power into a few hands. Its all happening,,,and to a large degree has happened already. The only thing that has'nt happened yet is the murder of millions. But that's coming.....

[OTM Al]

By the way, Krugman is an economist, not a journalist. He is currently on the faculty at Princeton.

[Snag]

Do you read the news? How about no bid defense contracts for one involving billions?

Or the massive subsidies and tax breaks to gas and oil companies?

Here's just a fw from 2004 earlier. The list has grown quite extensive since then.

http://elandslide.org/preview.cfm?term=Corporate%20Welfare

And this doesn't even get into the post election tax prizes he pushed for the energy industry:

The man's not a conservative, by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh, I read the news. I also know that President Bush did not vote for item you seem to think are his "policies" and are so bad for the country. Don't you realize that it's Congress that votes and passes these things? Before you let your hate take over your whole thought process, you might want to reconsider your statements. Also, as has been pointed out here many times, some of your dim buddies also voted for these "policies". You always seem to over look that point.

[Lefty]

By the way, Krugman is an economist, not a journalist. He is currently on the faculty at Princeton.
Doesn't seem to be very good at either.

[skate]

Secism istic;

gees, what the heck you saying here. wadda you think the dems are going to do, "go liberal on the economy"?

"the Rubins" are the ones that went CONSERVATIVE on the economy.

how the hell is one suppose to answer, when you aint walking any (let alone straight) line at all?????

i note, your pretending not to notice, when you get yourself stuck!

[skate]

You have alot of faith, more power to you.

ok judge me;

but look, i get a little tired of hearing people cry (not saying you are) about their situation, low wages etc.

teachers took the "bull by the horns" and they got what they wanted by joining (union in their case), they are very high on the salary scale now.

truckers took the opposite road and they are now on the bottom of the pay scale.

people get what they deserve, in the end.

not a thing to do with faith, just look around towards reality. simply put "that's how things work". nothing to do with me.

[PlanB]

Is that what passes for Economics in Arizona? Maybe it's the heat? Nothing to do with anything remotely remote. Your post takes even behavioral economics back to Adam & Eve.

[skate]

are you having trouble with your weather forcasting?


25 degrees last nite.

i have no idea when you ask me "passes for economics". do you mean "reality" or what.?

why is it that you know so little about AZ. yet you tell me you know everything about Adam and Eva?

[Secretariat]

Oh, I read the news. I also know that President Bush did not vote for item you seem to think are his "policies" and are so bad for the country. Don't you realize that it's Congress that votes and passes these things? Before you let your hate take over your whole thought process, you might want to reconsider your statements. Also, as has been pointed out here many times, some of your dim buddies also voted for these "policies". You always seem to over look that point.

And don't let your love take over your thought process.

The no-bid contracts were given by the Pentagon which is under the purview of the executive branch. GW had no problems with them. The energy welfare subsidies were endorsed BY GW and the legislation was signed by GW.

By the way if you did read the news you'd realize that Republicans controlled both members of Congress and rubber stamped GW's wishes down the line.

Now that it has been stated by OTM Al that Krugman is an economist can we get back to the articel rather than avoidance of it. You've not addressed one thing Krugman has written but attempt to make it about me as usual.

Try addressing the Substance of what Krugman wrote. Take something he wrote in the article and refute his facts rather than obfuscate or attempt to attack me.

[skate]

Hey hey hey, please, somebody, anybody, please;

give me a specific, just one, on whatever i say or someone says, just one specific. ill pay for a specific:lol: :bang: :cool:

[skate]

oh yeh, just give me your weathwer forcast for Az(wrongly) and your economics for adam and eva, sounds like others in the Dem. party.

[PaceAdvantage]

The only thing that has'nt happened yet is the murder of millions. But that's coming.....

Please, elaborate....if you've already done so on another thread, please point the way....

[skate]

And don't let your love take over your thought process.

The no-bid contracts were given by the Pentagon which is under the purview of the executive branch. GW had no problems with them. The energy welfare subsidies were endorsed BY GW and the legislation was signed by GW.

By the way if you did read the news you'd realize that Republicans controlled both members of Congress and rubber stamped GW's wishes down the line.

Now that it has been stated by OTM Al that Krugman is an economist can we get back to the articel rather than avoidance of it. You've not addressed one thing Krugman has written but attempt to make it about me as usual.

Try addressing the Substance of what Krugman wrote. Take something he wrote in the article and refute his facts rather than obfuscate or attempt to attack me.

Sec; yah, here goes;

just who the hell was you counting on to option the bidding?

tant nobody else out there cept Schlumberger:D


oh, and thank you very much for the specific, i think

[PlanB]

25 degs, yikes, brings me back when I was a kid & my dad & I would camp oudoors, of course, in Flagstaff. How about Scottsdale? YET, you must be joking when you reduce our Global economy back to the individual. Outsourcing alone has ruined many; and what President is better than 43 in OutSourcing? It's a lazy unknowedgable approach to (a) Increasing corp profits; (b) Not dealing with the responsibility of getting a job done. OutSource Katrina victims;
Iraq rebuilding to Haliburton; Navy & Coast Guard ships. Anyways, I do believe in the individual, but it's asking too much when the gov't has conspired against YOU. This is NOT a gov't that motivates the best in peeps, and maybe the Dems won't motivate them either.

[skate]

25 degs, yikes, brings me back when I was a kid & my dad & I would camp oudoors, of course, in Flagstaff. How about Scottsdale? YET, you must be joking when you reduce our Global economy back to the individual. Outsourcing alone has ruined many; and what President is better than 43 in OutSourcing? It's a lazy unknowedgable approach to (a) Increasing corp profits; (b) Not dealing with the responsibility of getting a job done. OutSource Katrina victims;
Iraq rebuilding to Haliburton; Navy & Coast Guard ships. Anyways, I do believe in the individual, but it's asking too much when the gov't has conspired against YOU. This is NOT a gov't that motivates the best in peeps, and maybe the Dems won't motivate them either.

yep, flag, 25* last nite. but its a differring 25* than on the east coast. aaaa some people are also differring. and your now saying, that you are not a kid anymore, hey just asking.

outsourcing, ok fine, would you give me the fact that outsourcing is somewhat do to globilizing and treatys and freedom, thats seems to be the WAY. started way before elbushey.

oh yeh i can agree with "conspirring against you", but can you see (as i've posted over and over) this "conspireed issue" is not due to uncle george,b but rather, its been going on without intteruption for bout 30 plus years.
and if the people do not join in union, conspired approach will continue, always/

and the dems will continue with Rubins economics and Carters treatys.

[delayjf]

We already have corrupt leadership without communism or socialism. But we haven't had to systematically kill millions of our citizens to maintain the system. .

Many individuals inherit rather than earn income creating a disparity from the get go.
How do you know this? Even if it were true, would you allow Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Michael Dell, Warren Buffet and Tiger Woods to keep their money. I wonder what Kennedy's and Rockerfeller's opinions would be on this subject.

It was the government programs of Roosevelt that aided in getting us out of the Depression caused by unchecked capitalism in the markets. Those same entitlement programs are now the reason for our Federal debt.

It was the incredbile self sacrifice of our citizenry that answered the call that helped win WW 2. To state capitlaism is reponsible belies the sacrifice of men who gave up their comfortable lives and risked them to take on a threat to America.
No argument here, but it is fact that capitolism killed the USSR.

Krugman cites this example nicely in the differences between 1970 and today. Read the section on the line again. The 1970's was an economic disaster, interest rates at about 19%, unemployment, gas prices higher than what we are experiencing today (adjusted for inflation). If Krugman wants to use the 1970's as his economic poster child.... :lol:

[PlanB]

yep, flag, 25* last nite. but its a differring 25* than on the east coast. aaaa some people are also differring. and your now saying, that you are not a kid anymore, hey just asking.

outsourcing, ok fine, would you give me the fact that outsourcing is somewhat do to globilizing and treatys and freedom, thats seems to be the WAY. started way before elbushey.

oh yeh i can agree with "conspirring against you", but can you see (as i've posted over and over) this "conspireed issue" is not due to uncle george,b but rather, its been going on without intteruption for bout 30 plus years.
and if the people do not join in union, conspired approach will continue, always/

and the dems will continue with Rubins economics and Carters treatys.

ummm, I'll need some time here. You drew a Royal Flush, one thought you expressed -- ONLY 1 -- has me re-thinking.

[Tom]

That article was a bunch of unsubrantiated bullshit. No wonder Sec liked it - no evidence, no proofs of ridculous statments, many viatal facts totally ignored, and generally libersih whining.
While he gets off drooling about the stron GM union, he neglects to mention that those same union wages and bennies are what is killing Gm and the Amerivan auto industry. FACT.

Sec, go buy a comic book - you will get as much truth, but in color.

[PlanB]

bennies? What a curious word, does it stand for BENEFITS?

[Tom]

Yes -benefits.

[dylbert]

Sec is your only economics text, "Das Kapital"?

Individuals earn income. You state that "individuals inherit... income" Individuals inherit wealth which is accumulation of income.

Income and wealth are two separate things. Again, Economics 101 -- there is no distinction for income earned by working 9-to-5 at desk or working graveyard shift at Krispy Kreme.

Wealth does not generate income. Wealth generates interest and dividends.

Fact: Income redistribution is accomplished by Federal tax system. Yes, it is progressive system which taxes higher incomes at higher marginal rates.

The income tax as we know it today was established in 1913 with ratification of 16th Amendment to U.S. Constitution. (It has not existed for 100 years as you suggested).

I did not state that "that this tax system works assumes it has remained a constant." I asserted that no perfect system exists. Krugman surgically selected his facts to support his argument that today's system does not work.

Capitalism provides checks and balances against corruption in government in the long run. Checks and balances did not exist in communist and socialist regimes that I cited.

1980s were reversal from stagflation induced by 1973 and 1977 global oil shortages. Government debt is always subject to debate. Too much -- and groups will yell that "politicians are bankrupting country." Too little -- and these same groups lament that "government is not doing enough for 'little man'. '

Boy Scouts were cited as example of individuals redistributing their personal income and wealth for betterment of society. This is accomplished without government (Federal, state or local) collecting taxes and redistributing these to selected groups.

No where does U.S. Constitution suggest that "we all started out equal" in terms of economic condition.

THe most laughable part of your post is that "capitalism" overcame two world wars and the Great Depression. It was the government programs of Roosevelt that aided in getting us out of the Depression caused by unchecked capitalism in the markets. It was the incredbile self sacrifice of our citizenry that answered the call that helped win WW 2. To state capitlaism is reponsible belies the sacrifice of men who gave up their comfortable lives and risked them to take on a threat to America.Capitalism is superior system for fighting war -- specifically, against imperialist (Japan), socialist (Nazi Germany), facist (Italy) economic systems in World War II. Self-sacrifice of citizens is strength of capitalist system because individual is defending his right to earn income and create wealth. Other systems do not have this incentive. I did not, will not, and would not suggest, state or assert that capitalism solely lead to victory in any war effort!

My father and father-in-law were career officers in US Air Force and US Army, respectively. Collectively, they served in WWII, Korean and Vietnam Wars. Both, if still alive, would support my argument and remind you that their efforts are why knuckleheads like you can make tilted statements freely and without threat of retribution here in USA. You can attack me here, but you cannot effectively refute my original post and this response.

One possible solution for you and Krugman is that if you feel so guilty about today's state of affairs -- you should get out 1970 tax code, figure your taxes using those tax tables and send your money into Federal government.

[Snag]

And don't let your love take over your thought process.

The no-bid contracts were given by the Pentagon which is under the purview of the executive branch. GW had no problems with them. The energy welfare subsidies were endorsed BY GW and the legislation was signed by GW.

By the way if you did read the news you'd realize that Republicans controlled both members of Congress and rubber stamped GW's wishes down the line.

Now that it has been stated by OTM Al that Krugman is an economist can we get back to the articel rather than avoidance of it. You've not addressed one thing Krugman has written but attempt to make it about me as usual.

Try addressing the Substance of what Krugman wrote. Take something he wrote in the article and refute his facts rather than obfuscate or attempt to attack me.


Sec, come on man. The point of my first post was that there was no fact or substance to the Krugman article. He had no hard facts. He did what he always does. He makes connections to unrelated points (much the same as you do) and tries to make it sound if as the sky is falling. I did not address anything Krugman wrote only because he didn't use any facts. You just picked up where he left off.

[The Judge]

Is $360,000,000 to much to be paid to a CEO when the stock is down and this one man receives more then all the stock holders combined? I,m not aksing is it legal. I'm asking how do you feel about it.

If you don't think its right why is it that the board of directors are O.K with it? You know a scam when you see it I'm sure. What do you think. Just say you are happy with this type of compensation. Then tell me why one person is so deserving of such wealth and another CEO at a large or larger company isn't. What do that board of directors know that the other board doesn't.

You know there is something inherently wrong with one person getting $360,000,000 a year. never mind legal. Tell me you love it because one day you may be up for that $360,000,000 gig.

[Snag]

Is $360,000,000 to much to be paid to a CEO when the stock is down and this one man receives more then all the stock holders combined? I,m not aksing is it legal. I'm asking how do you feel about it.

If you don't think its right why is it that the board of directors are O.K with it? You know a scam when you see it I'm sure. What do you think. Just say you are happy with this type of compensation. Then tell me why one person is so deserving of such wealth and another CEO at a large or larger company isn't. What do that board of directors know that the other board doesn't.

You know there is something inherently wrong with one person getting $360,000,000 a year. never mind legal. Tell me you love it because one day you may be up for that $360,000,000 gig.

I would love to be on the receiving end of that gig. However, the question is not about right or wrong but where do you draw the line. Is $1 million to much? Basketball teams are made up of alot of CEO's these days. Are their pay checks to much? In the end, I guess I don't feel it is "inherently wrong".

[Secretariat]

Sec, come on man. The point of my first post was that there was no fact or substance to the Krugman article. He had no hard facts. He did what he always does. He makes connections to unrelated points (much the same as you do) and tries to make it sound if as the sky is falling. I did not address anything Krugman wrote only because he didn't use any facts. You just picked up where he left off.

Well, it is obvious that you did not read the article to make such an assertion. To help you along, I've quoted some of the facts. Mr. Krugman does use.

"Wages have failed to keep up with rising prices. Even in 2005, a year in which the economy grew quite fast, the income of most non-elderly families lagged behind inflation. The number of Americans in poverty has risen even in the face of an official economic recovery, as has the number of Americans without health insurance. Most Americans are little, if any, better off than they were last year and definitely worse off than they were in 2000."

I suppose these “facts” readily available from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics don’t matter to you.

I suppose the trade deficit at an all time high is a “fact” that does not matter to you.

I suppose the federal debt at an all time igh is a “fact” that does not matter to you.

As Krugman states:

“The gap between the nation's CEOs and average workers is now ten times greater than it was a generation ago. And while Bush's tax cuts shaved only a few hundred dollars off the tax bills of most Americans, they saved the richest one percent more than $44,000 on average. In fact, once all of Bush's tax cuts take effect, it is estimated that those with incomes of more than $200,000 a year -- the richest five percent of the population -- will pocket almost half of the money. Those who make less than $75,000 a year -- eighty percent of America -- will receive barely a quarter of the cuts.”

“According to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the hourly wage of the average American non-supervisory worker is actually lower, adjusted for inflation, than it was in 1970. Meanwhile, CEO pay has soared -- from less than thirty times the average wage to almost 300 times the typical worker's pay. “

“Between 1981 and 1989, the minimum wage remained the same in dollar terms -- but inflation shrank its purchasing power by twenty-five percent, reducing it to the lowest level since the 1950s. “

“Pay for CEOs, meanwhile, has soared -- from 185 times that of average workers in 2003 to 279 times in 2005. And after-tax corporate profits have also skyrocketed, more than doubling since Bush took office. Those profits will eventually be reflected in dividends and capital gains, which accrue mainly to the very well-off: More than three-quarters of all stocks are owned by the richest ten percent of the population.”

“Like Reagan, Bush has stood firmly against any increase in the minimum wage, even as inflation erodes the value of a dollar. The minimum wage was last raised in 1997; since then, inflation has cut the purchasing power of a minimum-wage worker's paycheck by twenty percent”

“Today, we're completely out of line with other advanced countries. The share of income received by the top 0.1 percent of Americans is twice the share received by the corresponding group in Britain, and three times the share in France. These days, to find societies as unequal as the United States you have to look beyond the advanced world, to Latin America. And if that comparison doesn't frighten you, it should.”

You must be using Bush math.

[PlanB]

Krugman mixes economics & social-psychological forces to see what MIGHT happen if the economic have-nots SEE themselves as NEVER going to attain middle class. He uses economics to support his conclusions, so I see nothing wrong with his answers. Maybe he's wrong & other stabilizing forces KEEP these lower classes from anarchy: religion, fear, love of family, etc. BUT, our economy has changed for the "worse" & corps hold too much clout, economic & political, and honestly, their cheating is worse under Bush. OTOH, this economy is incredibly strong (yes, with some worry) & the amount of capital is immense. That's all the more reason why Krugman is sounding an alarm.

[skate]

Is $360,000,000 to much to be paid to a CEO when the stock is down and this one man receives more then all the stock holders combined? I,m not aksing is it legal. I'm asking how do you feel about it.

If you don't think its right why is it that the board of directors are O.K with it? You know a scam when you see it I'm sure. What do you think. Just say you are happy with this type of compensation. Then tell me why one person is so deserving of such wealth and another CEO at a large or larger company isn't. What do that board of directors know that the other board doesn't.

You know there is something inherently wrong with one person getting $360,000,000 a year. never mind legal. Tell me you love it because one day you may be up for that $360,000,000 gig.


judgemenot;

might be justified pay. i can't recall when this 36 million guy got in control, but i do recall that a lots-of-people made lots-of-36s along the way.
home depot did real good Under Whom ? not sure. but the crying guy makes a buck also. whats he have in his wallet? Cap one? probably not.

hey, the guy gets what he can, thats not me but i can't argue with the 36million he gets for himself.
what i would argue with is the guy who expects to receive an increase just because he shows up and does a job, aint gonna get poop. fact is , he's going down hill and that aint anyones fault except the guy who lets people walk all over him

[Secretariat]

Sec is your only economics text, "Das Kapital"?

Well, since you were wrong about Krugman being an economist you are wrong here as well.

Individuals earn income. You state that "individuals inherit... income" Individuals inherit wealth which is accumulation of income.

I said many indivudals inherit their income which lead FDR to say:

“In the last analysis such accumulations [of inherited wealth] amount to the perpetuation of great and undesirable concentration of control in a relatively few individuals . . . Such inherited economic power is as inconsistent with the ideals of this generation as inherited political power was inconsistent with the ideals of the generation which established our Government.” – FDR

and Warren Buffet to say:

“Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.” - Warren Buffet

and Andrew Carnegie to say:

“Why should men leave great fortunes to their children?” If it is from affection, then it is a misguided affection because “great sums bequeathed often work more for the injury than the good of the recipients . . . It is not the welfare of the children, but family pride, which inspires these legacies.”

Fact: Income redistribution is accomplished by Federal tax system. Yes, it is progressive system which taxes higher incomes at higher marginal rates.

Yes, I approximated 100 years. OK, I'll give you that - 93 years. Your post did not address the change in tax rates during those 93 years and Eisenhower rates when the economy was growing debt free.

The premise that Krugman is making is not an attack on capitalism or a plea for communism or socialism, but is pointing up the inequities of a super rich or corporate elite that can influience policy that benfits them primarily via tax code and lobbying efforts.


Capitalism is superior system for fighting war -- specifically, against imperialist (Japan), socialist (Nazi Germany), facist (Italy) economic systems in World War II.

Ain't doing too well in Iraq despite spending a half a trillion.


My father and father-in-law were career officers in US Air Force and US Army, respectively. Collectively, they served in WWII, Korean and Vietnam Wars. Both, if still alive, would support my argument and remind you that their efforts are why knuckleheads like you can make tilted statements freely and without threat of retribution here in USA. You can attack me here, but you cannot effectively refute my original post and this response.

I respect your father and father-in-law for their service. I also repect my father and father-in-law who fought in Okinawa and Anzio who would disagee with you. They fought to preserve democracy, not capitalism. and becasue we were attacked by a foreign power.

As to effectively refuting your post. You did yourself when you did not even acknowledge Krugman as an economist. Here's a link to better understand him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

[Secretariat]

judgemenot;

might be justified pay.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_bi_ge/goldman_sachs_bonuses

Goldman CEO's $53.4M bonus breaks record
By VINNEE TONG, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - John Mack's record for the biggest bonus ever paid to a Wall Street CEO didn't last even a week. It was smashed by the $53.4 million that Goldman Sachs gave its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein.

...

"The trend in compensating executives has been to keep salaries level while increasing bonuses. The highest-paid executives in the country earned 48.2 percent more in bonuses and 31.2 percent more in cash, according to the Executive Compensation Index done by ERI Economic Research Institute and CareerJournal.com as of last month. It compared year-over-year numbers, and in the same period, salaries fell by 0.31 percent."

[skate]

That article was a bunch of unsubrantiated bullshit. No wonder Sec liked it - no evidence, no proofs of ridculous statments, many viatal facts totally ignored, and generally libersih whining.
While he gets off drooling about the stron GM union, he neglects to mention that those same union wages and bennies are what is killing Gm and the Amerivan auto industry. FACT.

Sec, go buy a comic book - you will get as much truth, but in color.

pretty funny, ill say.

you start out, and i'm thinking this guy should be in office.

then you blow it, and now you"re out.

it could be said that the unions are at fault, but what if the other auto makers were also union, as in asian ununions.

you see, we do not have that problem until we (the business) leave the country and the new country does not YET have a union.

the School Teachers went union (they are doing great now) while the long haul truckers do not have a union and they are hurting to the Big Time Extent. so say the Fed, list on wages.

[PlanB]

And is there any better union than the one that employs the IRS & the entire Treasury Dept & every other government worker, State & Federal? Their goodies exceed the teacher's union.

[skate]

gov. workers are right up there withthe teachers, with all the time off, shows ya how strong the economy really is with all that money and very little getting done.


cept by the skate.

[skate]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061220/ap_on_bi_ge/goldman_sachs_bonuses

Goldman CEO's $53.4M bonus breaks record
By VINNEE TONG, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - John Mack's record for the biggest bonus ever paid to a Wall Street CEO didn't last even a week. It was smashed by the $53.4 million that Goldman Sachs gave its chief executive, Lloyd Blankfein.

...

"The trend in compensating executives has been to keep salaries level while increasing bonuses. The highest-paid executives in the country earned 48.2 percent more in bonuses and 31.2 percent more in cash, according to the Executive Compensation Index done by ERI Economic Research Institute and CareerJournal.com as of last month. It compared year-over-year numbers, and in the same period, salaries fell by 0.31 percent."


Secism;

look, you got so so much going on, you're spinning and i'm gettin dizzy.

gees, hey since your on "Goldy" i'm sure it was them, did you see whom the BIGGEST beneficent of money was from them?
HC, yep, got the biggest share.
not that i should care, but be fare.,

also also , Americans with 1 million gross (or more) paid 178 BILLION taxes in 04, up 1/3 from 02. so do not forget to thank uncle george.
the average paid tax was $740,000 in 04, for those over 1milliom gross.

also, chainsawcheney made about 4million and gave 3 million to charities.

[Tom]

pretty funny, ill say.

you start out, and i'm thinking this guy should be in office.

then you blow it, and now you"re out.

it could be said that the unions are at fault, but what if the other auto makers were also union, as in asian ununions.

you see, we do not have that problem until we (the business) leave the country and the new country does not YET have a union.

the School Teachers went union (they are doing great now) while the long haul truckers do not have a union and they are hurting to the Big Time Extent. so say the Fed, list on wages.

Exactly - teachers do great with thier unions, but look at the miserable job they do teaching. And what can I say about the treamsters? The UAW done more to kill our economy than Bush ever did.
Bottom line, unions raise prices, cut quality and service. They don't benefit the country - just a select few.

[delayjf]

I will admit, I don't understand his 360,000,000 dollar salary either. And yes if I had my way that most of that money would have gone to the share holders. If I owned shares, I’d be pissed. Perhaps somebody could explain how the CEO got away with that. But whether or not the money went to the CEO or the shareholders, this would not affect the “transfer of wealth” that Krugman is addressing in his article. Personally, I don’t see how someone can “transfer” wealth from someone who has no wealth to begin with. In reality it’s a matter of someone earned it and somebody else didn’t. Krugman’s use of exorbitant unjustifiable salaries of a few CEO is an indictment on those companies, not capitalism.

At one point in his article he states that it’s easier for someone in Finland to make it from the bottom to the top than it is in the US. How does he know this? To my knowledge there aren’t a lot of billionaires in Finland, so perhaps the climb to the top is not all that high. Sec has also lamented that too many at the top all inherited their money. Yet other than the Waltons, the entire current top ten got their money the old fashioned way – they earned it. Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffet, Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Sheldon Adelson, and Larry Ellison, all created their wealth and took a lot of people with them.
the School Teachers went union (they are doing great now)
Teachers don't have to worry about a bottom line either.

[dylbert]

Sec... I hope you live in Vermont, the most socialist state in America. Based on your continued disdain for capitalism, I can't believe you are horse player. Don't you feel horrible that you are redistributing income from these less-fortunate individuals.

Since source of article is Rolling Stone magazine, I don't think I would deem Krugman, or his work, as Nobel worthy. If you seek more socialist society, try Canada, Sweden or France.

Merry Christmas to all especially Comrade Secretariat...

[Secretariat]

Dylbert,

You've made Krugman's article about deriding capitalism and championing socialism and communism. Yet nowhere does Krugman advocate that. THis is mroe evidence you failed to actually read the article. Britain is a capitlsitc society yet has socialized medicine. They co-exist, and the majority of the people (a democracy) are NOT petititoning their government to get rid of that socialized medicine despite what soem here might call socialism.

What Krugman is writing about is the increasing division between super rich and poor, and the widening gaps between classes. That the super rich are gaining by the policies of the GW admin which are not "trickling" down to the lower 95%. He is not esposuing an end to capitalsim as you so dramatically allege. This is another reason I realize you could not have actually read Krugman's article. At least read the first two pages.

...

“Without the estate tax, you in effect will have an aristocracy of wealth, which means you pass down the ability to command the resources of the nation based on heredity rather than merit.” - Warren Buffet

“the man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.” – Teddy Roosevelt

“..ever since I heard that somebody was trying to repeal the estate tax, I have been angry.” – Bill Gates

“hereditary rule is “as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet.” – Thomas Paine

"In recent years the salaries and, especially, the potential wealth through stock options, has greatly increased for the corporate elite. Inherited wealth leading to idleness is held in low regard and people who have it usually have prestigious occupations. [12]

Yet another important feature of the upper class is that of inherited privilege. While most Americans, including those in the upper-middle class need to actively maintain their status, upper class persons do not need to work in order to maintain their status. Status tends to be passed on from generation to generation without each generation having to re-certify its status.[13] Overall, the upper class is the financially best compensated and one of the most influential socio-economic classes in American society."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_structure_of_the_United_States#_note-0

[Show Me the Wire]

Warren and Bill do not need the government to redistribute their wealth, they can do it by themselves.

If Warren and Bill really believe their wealth should be redistributed through estate taxes, then they should leave all their wealth to charities, at least the portion that would have been taxable under an estate type tax.


Not being privy to their esatate plans, they possibly have and if they did kudo's to them. If not then their actions do not match their words.

[Show Me the Wire]

Dylbert,

“hereditary rule is “as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet.” – Thomas Paine

Obviously, Paine's quote came before Darwin's theory of evolution and the discovery of how genetics influence our physical and mental abilities.

[Tom]

So Sec, when do you reveal your 5 year plan? :lol:

You see, this is why you are the only one ( except ljb - who now posts horse racing stuff) of the horsemen not on Iggy - your stuff is too funny. The rest post out of hatred. You actually BELIEVE this stuff! :D It's like getting Mad Magazine everyday.

[Show Me the Wire]

So Sec, when do you reveal your 5 year plan? :lol:

You see, this is why you are the only one ( except ljb - who now posts horse racing stuff) of the horsemen not on Iggy - your stuff is too funny. The rest post out of hatred. You actually BELIEVE this stuff! :D It's like getting Mad Magazine everyday.




Tom:

Me thinks you are spot on.

[Snag]

Sec, do you really feel Krugman is factual in all the unrelated statements he makes? Be real careful before you answer. You have quoted, restated, and used unrealted facts to support what you feel are facts in the Krugman article. I have already showed you that one statement of his is bogus. A full page replay is a waste of everyones time. Other posts here have also put points of Krugmans article in question. Do you really want to put us all though that exercise? I will be happy to do so if you insist. Just becareful of what you ask for.

[Lefty]

These guys, Gates and Buffet think the govt so great, that taxes so great, yet they create their own charities and push their wealth through it and prob leave bulk of it to these charities so thereby they escape the very same taxes they advocate. Now charity is great, but if they think taxes great for rest of us and govt does great job then why not let the govt tax and spend their money? They are hypocrites in that regard.

And sec, yor article writer says most of us only get a few hundred from the Bush tax cuts. Pretty smug ain't he? That couple hundred to us poor folks much needed and much more than the dems gave us. Meely mouth Clinton never did give us that middle class tax cut he promised. GW did. There ya go.

[PlanB]

BUFFET & GATES are two HUGELY wealthy guys, not just very wealthy. I think Buffet has said, and Rudolph Murdoch as well, that it's obscene to leave a son or daughter say, $15 Billion to play with. IMO, most guys that rich want to know that their huge holdings won't be pissed away. For them, their kids can tinker with say ~10 million or so, but not the really serious money. These charities do great good and I wish one day I'm wealthy enough to plan that way.

[JPinMaryland]

If this country was founded on judao-christian principles how come it is so obsessed with money?

I dont recall Jesus being too fond of rich people; but perhaps others recall him differently.

[Lefty]

planb, these guys can think anyway they want, but it's not their place to say others can't leave their money to whomever they want. If they really blvd the tax system was so great and the govt spends money so wisely, they'd let their money get taxed in the system. But they plan differently for their own money.

As far as being obsessed with money, don't leave home without it. Some of our earlier communities tried socialism and gave so much land to everyone and everyone contributed to the public foodstores. Didn't take long for a bunch of layabouts to emerge and capitalism was born out of the failed try at socialism

[Show Me the Wire]

If this country was founded on judao-christian principles how come it is so obsessed with money?

I dont recall Jesus being too fond of rich people; but perhaps others recall him differently.

JPinMaryland:

Sigh, In the Jewish culture wealth is looked upon as a great blessing from the Lord showing the Lord favors you.

I really do not recall any scripture which states Jesus was not fond of rich people. Can you cite chapter and verse to refresh my memory. BTW I am still waiting for the chapter and verse regarding Jesus advocating terrorism against innocent civilians.


Remember to those who are given much, much is expected of them.

[delayjf]

I believe it's human nature to want to succeed. What you do with your success is another matter.

I have a much bigger problem with TV "christians" using God's word to get rich. than I do with CEO salaries.

[JPinMaryland]

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get to heaven."

Ring any bells? :confused:

[JPinMaryland]

Didn't take long for a bunch of layabouts to emerge and capitalism was born out of the failed try at socialism

Didnt capitalism emerge out of feudalism? I thought you were familar w/ Marx?

[Secretariat]

Whew...as I stated before:

"What Krugman is writing about is the increasing division between super rich and poor, and the widening gaps between classes. That the super rich are gaining by the policies of the GW admin which are not "trickling" down to the lower 95%. He is not esposuing an end to capitalsim .."

In reading the division between the wage of the average worker and the large CEO's it is astounding. Anyone who cannot see this in Krugman's article is just deciving themselves.

I didn't really there wre so many "super-rich" in the upper 5% on this board benefitting so nicely.

[Show Me the Wire]

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to get to heaven."

Ring any bells? :confused:



Well grasshopper, I am aware of the saying. That saying has nothing to do with Jesus' lack of fondness for rich people. Jesus was fond of Mary, her sister Martha and their brother Lazarus who comprised a wealthy family. It was Mary who anointed Jesus with the expensive perfume. Additionally, a wealthy follower Joseph of Arimathea persuaded Pontious Pilot to release Jesus' body o Joseph of Arimathea for burial in Joseph's new tomb.

Quick lesson. Wealth in the Jewish community was looked on as a blessing and one received wealth as a favored one of the Lord. Remember, Jesus taught a different interpretation of scripture than the priestly class.

In fact Jesus' teaching about the "eye of the needle" was in direct contradiction of the Jewish belief in the relationship between the blessing of wealth, material items and salvation.

Additionally, Jesus extended to this particular rich man a personal invitation to follow him, just like he did with his other disciples. For Jesus looking at him, loved him and then asked the rich man to sell everything, distribute it to the poor, and follow me. Mark 10, 21.

Jesus would not have asked the man to become a follower if he had disdain for the rich. Jesus asked the 12 disciples to give up everything and follow him, which they did. The rich man, unlike the 12, turned down following Jesus because of the attachment to worldly goods.

The lesson is about choices, and trusting in God not in the false security of wealth and material possessions and certainly not about disdain for the rich.

[JPinMaryland]

Remember, Jesus taught a different interpretation of scripture than the priestly class.

.

Where do you come out on this one? Aesthene? Sadducee? Something else??

[JPinMaryland]

I confess I only knew one quote, but he actually figures in quite a few of them. Here are a few from google:

"lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth..."

In Luke's Gospel Chapter 6 we read "...Blessed be ye poor; for your's is the kingdom of god."

"blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"but woe unto you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation."

[Show Me the Wire]

JPinMaryland:

I have no idea what you are asking about the priestly class.

[Show Me the Wire]

I confess I only knew one quote, but he actually figures in quite a few of them. Here are a few from google:

"lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth..."

In Luke's Gospel Chapter 6 we read "...Blessed be ye poor; for your's is the kingdom of god."

"blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

"but woe unto you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation."

What good are quotes without context of the entire thought expressed or the perspective of the time the quote was made?

It is a good you admit you do not know any other quotes and that you found these on google. My suggestion is read the entire text relevant to the qoute.

My responses regarding each above-mentioned passages would take way too much time and this thread is not the appropriate place for this discussion.

[Lefty]

Didnt capitalism emerge out of feudalism? I thought you were familar w/ Marx?
I was talkinfg about what happened in this country in the early yrs. Pig Simple.

[Lefty]

JP, you would be considered rich in most 3rd world countries. Guess you ain't gettin to Heaven either, bub.

It might be easier for a Horse to cross the finish line without legs than to teach liberals economics.
Lefty

[skate]

Whew...as I stated before:

"What Krugman is writing about is the increasing division between super rich and poor, and the widening gaps between classes. That the super rich are gaining by the policies of the GW admin which are not "trickling" down to the lower 95%. He is not esposuing an end to capitalsim .."

In reading the division between the wage of the average worker and the large CEO's it is astounding. Anyone who cannot see this in Krugman's article is just deciving themselves.

I didn't really there wre so many "super-rich" in the upper 5% on this board benefitting so nicely.

yah sure, if you and he want to make that point about the widening gap.

just don't ever try telling me "its the Uncle George/ rep. "ONLY" route that's being taken. thank you;)


Cause thats where you guys screw up, big time

[JPinMaryland]

I am just waiting for them to put: "Money is the root of all evil" on US coins.

[Snag]

Whew...as I stated before:

"What Krugman is writing about is the increasing division between super rich and poor, and the widening gaps between classes. That the super rich are gaining by the policies of the GW admin which are not "trickling" down to the lower 95%. He is not esposuing an end to capitalsim .."

In reading the division between the wage of the average worker and the large CEO's it is astounding. Anyone who cannot see this in Krugman's article is just deciving themselves.

I didn't really there wre so many "super-rich" in the upper 5% on this board benefitting so nicely.

Sec, in case you didn't know it, there has always been a division. Your measurement and mine are different. At the point you or Krugman want to start setting limits, that is where we have a big problem. Just pointing fingers only makes you look child like.

[Lefty]

I am just waiting for them to put: "Money is the root of all evil" on US coins.
Another misquote.
"The love of money is the root of all evil" is the actual quote

[JPinMaryland]

Look closer at the coins. Your quote won't fit.

[Secretariat]

Sec, in case you didn't know it, there has always been a division. Your measurement and mine are different. At the point you or Krugman want to start setting limits, that is where we have a big problem. Just pointing fingers only makes you look child like.

Of course there's always been a division, it's just got to an obscene division currently and NOt beneficial to the American worker. Did you read the article in the disparity between the top 5% and the lower level in the article? The difference between average worker and CEO pay in 1970 and today?

Krugman is not deriding capitalism as some here want to assert. He is pointing up WHY the economy under GW's watch did not reflect favorably with the middle and lower class. In other words he is pointing up why the economy did not help the Republican party during the last election.

What is your limit? One CEO with everything and everyone else with nothing?
Adjusting for inflation the average worker was doing much better in 1970 than today. Now it takes generally two workers from the same household to keep things going. Repubs like to blame unions for everything but their membership has been cut in half since 70.

The difference is simple. You favor corporations bigwigs getting most of the money and using the cheapest labor abroad even if it is slave labor if it cuts the cost. The south used slaves pre-Civil War because it kept costs down. But I guess you have no limits when it comes to getting as much as possible for your CEO?

The American worker is not benefitting from this economy. Those with big wealth already are.

[Snag]

Of course there's always been a division, it's just got to an obscene division currently and NOt beneficial to the American worker. Did you read the article in the disparity between the top 5% and the lower level in the article? The difference between average worker and CEO pay in 1970 and today?

Krugman is not deriding capitalism as some here want to assert. He is pointing up WHY the economy under GW's watch did not reflect favorably with the middle and lower class. In other words he is pointing up why the economy did not help the Republican party during the last election.

What is your limit? One CEO with everything and everyone else with nothing?
Adjusting for inflation the average worker was doing much better in 1970 than today. Now it takes generally two workers from the same household to keep things going. Repubs like to blame unions for everything but their membership has been cut in half since 70.

The difference is simple. You favor corporations bigwigs getting most of the money and using the cheapest labor abroad even if it is slave labor if it cuts the cost. The south used slaves pre-Civil War because it kept costs down. But I guess you have no limits when it comes to getting as much as possible for your CEO?

The American worker is not benefitting from this economy. Those with big wealth already are.

Sec, I hate to break it to you, but President Bush was not in office in the 70's nor in the pre-Civil War days. This is why folks here to not take your or Krugman's comments with any degree of acceptance. Using unrelated facts to make a point does not work.

So, help me here. How much is to much? What level of "difference" is ok with you and Krugman? Care to tell us?

[The Judge]

Either he is correct or he is incorrect. Are the rich becoming super rich at the expense of workers or is all right in the world.

Do you think a $360,000,000 per year salary is acceptable or not. Do you think this amount of money should be earned or not. If it is to be earned what work do you do to deserve a $360,000,000 pay day and why do you think you should be the one justifying a one year payday such as this.

I think some of you see Sec's name and just immediately say I'm against it. Why is 60 million a year o.k for the head of Lowes and $360,000,000 seems about right for the head on Home Depot. $300,000,000 more! Its not even close. Why do you defend something that you must know is inherently wrong.

Are you for compensation reform of obsene CEO pay? If you even think maybe, then you must be able to see $360,000,000 is obcsene.

"Fire is hot if you touch it it will burn you". "No its not, if you are in an asbestos suit its not hot and it won't burn you." Some of you keep dancing and dodging just to be right ,and care little for what is being conveyed.

Common sense tells you this is wrong never mind Kurgman or anyone else forn that matter. You know this is crazy. Yet to be contrary some of you set up strawmen and knock them over then say see there I was right.

[Snag]

Either he is correct or he is incorrect. Are the rich becoming super rich at the expense of workers or is all right in the world.

Do you think a $360,000,000 per year salary is acceptable or not. Do you think this amount of money should be earned or not. If it is to be earned what work do you do to deserve a $360,000,000 pay day and why do you think you should be the one justifying a one year payday such as this.

I think some of you see Sec's name and just immediately say I'm against it. Why is 60 million a year o.k for the head of Lowes and $360,000,000 seems about right for the head on Home Depot. $300,000,000 more! Its not even close. Why do you defend something that you must know is inherently wrong.

Are you for compensation reform of obsene CEO pay? If you even think maybe, then you must be able to see $360,000,000 is obcsene.

"Fire is hot if you touch it it will burn you". "No its not, if you are in an asbestos suit its not hot and it won't burn you." Some of you keep dancing and dodging just to be right ,and care little for what is being conveyed.

Common sense tells you this is wrong never mind Kurgman or anyone else forn that matter. You know this is crazy. Yet to be contrary some of you set up strawmen and knock them over then say see there I was right.

I'm not against any form or amount of compensation. If the rules were followed and no laws were broken, let it happen.

[Lefty]

Look closer at the coins. Your quote won't fit.
So what? I like in God WE Trust
Why are you so obsessed with someone else having money? Classic liberal envy.

[Secretariat]

I'm not against any form or amount of compensation. If the rules were followed and no laws were broken, let it happen.

Thank you Ebenezer.

The slaveowners felt the same way pre-Civil War.

Industries using close to slave labor or indentured servants as was done by Delay's close friend in the Marianas are all justifiable as long as no rules or laws or broke. Who sets these laws and rules, and who has the most lobbying for changing these rules or laws? But I'm digressing. Back to topic...

You continue to miss Krugman's and Judge's point. A point you kind of agree on. As you state there has always been a division between the poorest and the wealthiest. Krugman's article illustrates via his data that the gap is widening between worker pay and CEO pay to an exoribitant comparision between today and the 70's. I don't think you even deny that. You simply don't care. You beleive that there should be no limit on the gap between the rich and poor. Yet as the gap grows the wealthy have more and more capital to invest enlarging this gap.

Ebenezer felt the same way as you. I understand what you're saying. I simply don't agree with it. I feel it is obscene, and agree with Warren Buffet.

Even census financial data on the super-rich is protected, but that is not the case with the poorest. Interesting.

Anyway, Snag or Ebenezer, enjoy your Christmas - Bah Humbug or not. At least put a nickel in the Salvation Army cup and feel better about yourself.

btw... GW was around in the 70's passing out leaflets for a senate campaign in Alabama while on Natl Guard while some of us were fighting overseas. My point on GW was not that he began the problem ,but that udner his regime it has grown far, far worse.

[delayjf]

The slaveowners felt the same way pre-Civil War.
I fail to see the moral equivalence of slavery and making millions. If your issue is NAFTA and the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas that’s another issue. And keep in mind that this CEO will be paying taxes on that 360,000,000. And how do you know he won’t be donating to charity? How much money do the top 10 billionaires in the USA donate? Rockefeller is considered the richest man ever and he donated billions. I assume the same for Gates, and Buffet. The underlying assumption the Kruger implies is that if the CEO didn’t get that money that it would go to company employees is ridiculous, it would go to the shareholders. The secret is to become a shareholder. Look at the bright side, the tax rate for income ( to the CEO) will be higher than long term capitol gains tax rate on the shareholders. :jump:

indentured servants as was done by Delay's close friend in the Marianas are all justifiable as long as no rules or laws or broke
Not sure if you're refering to me or not. :confused:

that the gap is widening between worker pay and CEO pay to an exoribitant comparision between today and the 70's.
No I don't, but Krugman cannot deny that PROFITS have gone up as well. Which means jobs. Keep in mind the difference between unemployment in the 70's and now.

GW was around in the 70's passing out leaflets for a senate campaign in Alabama while on Natl Guard while some of us were fighting overseas.
And where was that NAFTA signing Clinton? Overseas, dodging the draft, smoking dope and bad mouthing his country. W took a chance everytime he strapped on a Jet. Bill boy only risked lung cancer - Oh yeah, I forgot - he didn't inhale. :cool:

[Secretariat]

I fail to see the moral equivalence of slavery and making millions. If your issue is NAFTA and the movement of manufacturing jobs overseas that’s another issue.

My issue was what I said. If there are no limits then slaves would still be used if it generated the largest profit as in pre-Civil War. As to NAFTA have posted numerous times I am totally against it and GW's CAFTA. Ws agaisnt NAFTA when Clinton signed it and GW embraced it as well.



And keep in mind that this CEO will be paying taxes on that 360,000,000. And how do you know he won’t be donating to charity?

Really. Wow. CEO's have been doing that for generations. Of course charity is a very nice write off, and it's nice to give to the charities of one's choice. If you can't donate enough though you can't really deduct like a CEO. Look the issue isn't charity. It's the growing and expandign division between worker wage and CEO pay. If workers were given as much as CEO's they could donate too. It's an irrelevant point to what Krugman is saying.



The underlying assumption the Kruger implies is that if the CEO didn’t get that money that it would go to company employees is ridiculous, it would go to the shareholders. The secret is to become a shareholder.

Money should go to the shareholders, AND to the workers. Why do you want to exclude workers all the time, and embrace this widening gap? It's like you want an elite aristocracy.


Not sure if you're refering to me or not. :confused:

I was referring to Snag as Ebenezer, not you.

But in my reference I was referring to the TAN family in particular which Delay embraced and which "on US soil" were using indentured servants from China (some being required to get forced abortions) and were paid peanuts while funds gained there went into GOP poltical coffers. It repesents the worst in how "workers" can be used. This is not what I'm talking about with Krugman's aritcle however.


No I don't, but Krugman cannot deny that PROFITS have gone up as well. Which means jobs. Keep in mind the difference between unemployment in the 70's and now.


Exactly the point. IF PROFITS have gone up for the super rich, yet the median income for workers has NOT, then where have these profits gone? They've gone to creating an expanding division between worker and CEO, precisely what Krugman and I are saying, and exactly why the Bush economy is not looked on favorably by the lower and middle class.

Now, the biggie - JOBS? Excuse me? If the median income is down, AND it now takes two people in a house hold to make ends meet whereas in the 70's it took on average one then something is amiss. If the median income adjusted for inflation is lower than it was in the 70's then you've got a problem. Especially when the CEO pay has expanded to obscene amounts. And jobs - well we've lost the bulk of our big paying worker jobs in manufacturing, and now thanks to the embracing of globalization we've lost a good part of our information technology jobs to India. You use unemployment as your guideline, yet there are factors at work in this as well. It is much harder to qualfiy for unemployment today then in the 70's and the number of alllowed weeks on unemployment is lower. Also many jobs today are self-employed, seasonal jobs that don't even qualfiy for unemployment. The creation of jobs, the creation of good paying jobs we both agree are a priority. However, good paying manufacturing jobs are not being created, they're being outsourced.


And where was that NAFTA signing Clinton? Overseas, dodging the draft, smoking dope and bad mouthing his country. W took a chance everytime he strapped on a Jet. Bill boy only risked lung cancer - Oh yeah, I forgot - he didn't inhale. :cool:

Finally, we agree on something. I voted for Dole in 96. I voted for Clinton in 92 and was dissapointed in his inability to get national Healthcare threw and NAFTA was enough for me. However, "W" got an "elite" tour of duty (Krugman would say wealth does have it's inherited privileges). Passing out leaflets in Alabama while playing tennis and getting drunk while me and a lot of my buddies were elsewhere doing our duty. W took his chance everytime he drove drunk.

But again the issue is the growing division of the super rich from the middle class and poor. I assume like Snag you are do not like hearing Krugman and vote in favor of a new aristocracy.

btw.. why in June of this year did the Republicans fail to support the Human Dignity Act - H.R. 5550?

[NoDayJob]

Mebee the Taxes on un-earned income will go back to 91%, like they were before John Kennedy successfully lowered them to 70%. I remember those wonderful days. Let's bring them back again so that people like Sec. will be happy with redistribution of wealth. Yep, redistribution of wealth is the only way to retain power by buying the votes with subsidies for everyone. Believe it or not, the Rips. are just as bad. I say, put 'em all to the sword. Cicero had it right, "When the public is allowed to vote its own largess, the treasury will soon be empty.", just like ours is now. Soon gold will rule and fiat and credit will die as it has in the past. Gotta luv it!:lol:

[Suff]

Distribution of income is not socialist or communist.

Quickie defintions:

Facism is when the Governent takes your property and gives it to the corporations.

Socialism/Communism is when the Goverment takes your property and keeps it.


The fact is that the tax rate in the old USSR was 3%.


The government in the role charged by the Constitution is required to:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


That's the preamble. Its not socialism to provide for the general welfare. Its investment. Its entirley capitialistic to invest money for a greater return.

People get bogged down in arguing over marginal tax rates, and argue that by taxing and investing.....The government is punishing ambitous people, or its socialism. That's not the debate. Socialism, and facism deal with the assets and equity a society develops. Who owns the factory? You or the Govt? Thats free enterprise.

Comingling our money for the betterment of us all, is not socialist. Its Prudent. Its Democracy, and its our duty.


Someone mentioned Vermont as the most Socialist State in America? Vermont scores higher than most states in Forbes recently released report of TOP States for business. Not because its a highly regulatory environment, or a heavily taxed climate... , But because its people are among the most educated in the country, and because it invests heavily in its infrastructure and its overall quality of life manifests itself into a pro-business environment.

Work with facts.

[Tom]

Thank you Ebenezer.

The slaveowners felt the same way pre-Civil War.




And they fixed that problem how?
Hmmmmm.

They invented and elected REPUBLICANS.

Ended slavery, saved the union.

Now why can't your dems do that for YOU? :lol::lol::lol:

[skate]

Exactly - teachers do great with thier unions, but look at the miserable job they do teaching. And what can I say about the treamsters? The UAW done more to kill our economy than Bush ever did.
Bottom line, unions raise prices, cut quality and service. They don't benefit the country - just a select few.

first off, the teamsters/vs/ long haul truckers are at least two seperate issues.

third, i thought we were talking, pay scales. workers pay vs exec. pay. and that would be the reason for uniting together, thats the Only way to receive more for your service(work). only way.

as for the teachers being poor, its another subject but let me say, schooling is most likely the bigggest export that we (USA) have going for us.

i'll guess it is in the top 10 anyhow.
people are paying more and more each year to go to our schools. man what a business, along with hugh profit margins. they get what ever they want and they still keep crying, just because they really do NOT know the proper definition for "work".

its very true that they do not receive much credit, but One teacher is very different from another, it very much depends on the area AND regulations Control what teachers can do!
they can teach, but not control, due to the liberal thought process.

i know of schools that do not allow students to bring books home, this has been going on for over 30 years. not the teachers fault , Here!

[Snag]

You continue to miss Krugman's and Judge's point. A point you kind of agree on.

I'm not missing any point.

I don't want you or your kind setting any limits on any amount of wages, earnings, income, etc. however "obscene" you feel they have become. That is my point. Get it?

[The Judge]

Let it be known I can't set any limits and I nor anyone else on this side of the disscussion ever mentioned "wages",earnings or income I assume "income " is a throw in. We are against obsecene give aways of money that is not "earned" nor deserved to corporate CEO"a. What's wrong with that? .

I've yet to hear what a person does to earn$360,000,000 a year! Let me know.

When is the last time you heard anyone With a name defend this position in public? They would be to ashamed. What they say is "it is too much money" but its the shareholders fault for not stopping it. The old blame the victems once again.


But it you want to be the water carrier for the "super rich" don't let me stop you. Go ahead defend them some more.

[Suff]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/26/opinion/l26blodget.html

To the Editor:

Henry Blodget defends the multimillion-dollar bonuses at Goldman Sachs by falling back on the argument that capitalism “is surely the worst economic system on the planet except for all the others.”

But the issue is how to improve the workings of capitalism, not whether it should be replaced by another economic system.

Peter Rutland

[Tom]

How come you guys have such a problem with CEO pay, yet you give a pass to other filfthy rich people, who, btw, did not earn it thmeselves, but have thanks to the inheritence tax whcih you are so against - namely, Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi......or don't those rich bastards count.
Teddy got it from his daddy's bootlegging, Kerry married it, yet you guys never mention them.
Just CEOs, who get it on the free market. Obviously they earned it, they get it from boards of directors.

Duplicity....the hallmark of liberalism.

[JustRalph]

Duplicity....the hallmark of liberalism.

I have heard that somewhere Before?

[Snag]

Let it be known I can't set any limits and I nor anyone else on this side of the disscussion ever mentioned "wages",earnings or income I assume "income " is a throw in. We are against obsecene give aways of money that is not "earned" nor deserved to corporate CEO"a. What's wrong with that? .

I've yet to hear what a person does to earn$360,000,000 a year! Let me know.

But it you want to be the water carrier for the "super rich" don't let me stop you. Go ahead defend them some more.

I'm here to defend some more!

Ok, now you want to use the term "give aways". That's fine with me but that's a new one. I really don't care what you call it. If it was approved and does not break any laws, who are you or Sec or anyone to call it obsecene or unfair. You have not heard anyone state what is done to "earn" the money because that is not your decision to make.

Let me ask my questions once more and see if you will answer them this time.

How much is to much and who should set that limit?

[Tom]

I have heard that somewhere Before?

A great man told me that once. :rolleyes:

[The Judge]

Make the CEO justify his pay to the shareholders at each meeting. Let them vote to approve or disapprove before its paid out. Look to others in the industry that have responsible broad of directors what are they being paid.

This can be done easliy if the will power was there.

Now what do you do to earn $360,000,000 in one year which is more then was paid out to the shareholders? Any chance the shareholders would stand-up and say "great year Mr. CEO you certainly deserved the money see you next year", we'll have even more money for you then?

[Tom]

Make the CEO justify his pay to the shareholders at each meeting. Let them vote to approve or disapprove before its paid out. Look to others in the industry that have responsible broad of directors what are they being paid.

This can be done easliy if the will power was there.

Now what do you do to earn $360,000,000 in one year which is more then was paid out to the shareholders? Any chance the shareholders would stand-up and say "great year Mr. CEO you certainly deserved the money see you next year", we'll have even more money for you then?

Who makes them justify? The "power" is alteady there - your objection is that the stockholders do not use it to your standards. Hey, when I get my proxies, and see my stock has given me a profit, I have no problem with whatever the guy at the top is making. THAT is what he is paid to do.
You guys crying about this just have no dog in the fight. Or a small one.;)

[Snag]

Make the CEO justify his pay to the shareholders at each meeting. Let them vote to approve or disapprove before its paid out. Look to others in the industry that have responsible broad of directors what are they being paid.

This can be done easliy if the will power was there.

Now what do you do to earn $360,000,000 in one year which is more then was paid out to the shareholders? Any chance the shareholders would stand-up and say "great year Mr. CEO you certainly deserved the money see you next year", we'll have even more money for you then?

Now that's what I'm talking about. You want a new set of rules and I love the terms you use. Make, justify, use others in the industry, etc. That's not the way it works. A stockholders meeting does allow for the vote you want.

Come on, tell us what you really want. My first guess is goverment oversite of CEO's salary.

[JustRalph]

Make the CEO justify his pay to the shareholders at each meeting. Let them vote to approve or disapprove before its paid out.

that is already done. Controlling interests have all the leverage and they are usually institutional investors who care about nothing but profits. Controlling interests can be "controlled" also board members gang up on them with voting blocks etc.

The main reason these types of payments happen is because they are controlled by a free market for execs. Start squashing payments to a CEO or such watch the executives move to other companies faster than you can say "what happen" These execs are being (at least the good ones) recruited away constantly and the companies are constantly fighting to keep them. It is the market that sets these payments. Nothing more than that.

[The Judge]

It's hard to believe that you all actually swallow such non-sense but I guess there is nothing like a true believer. If there is such competition for these "gifted" CEO's and its the market that is driving a $360,000,000 salary tell how it works.

What do you do to earn $360,000,000 tell me? Not "see Judge" everything is the way it should be, there is something with you for thinking $360,000,000 is too much money for one man to make in a year. Even thou this is more then the dividend that was paid out to all the stock holders combined. The guy with a few 100 shares of stock should keep quite and be happy he is allowed to participate after all "its legal".

I know how this system works and its broken it needs a fix. It needs a fix and if it takes a warning shot for Congress fine with me.

[skate]

It's hard to believe that you all actually swallow such non-sense but I guess there is nothing like a true believer. If there is such competition for these "gifted" CEO's and its the market that is driving a $360,000,000 salary tell how it works.

What do you do to earn $360,000,000 tell me? Not "see Judge" everything is the way it should be, there is something with you for thinking $360,000,000 is too much money for one man to make in a year. Even thou this is more then the dividend that was paid out to all the stock holders combined. The guy with a few 100 shares of stock should keep quite and be happy he is allowed to participate after all "its legal".

I know how this system works and its broken it needs a fix. It needs a fix and if it takes a warning shot for Congress fine with me.

judgement;

i feel like i answered before, but to make that much, one way would be to make, at least, that much for others, that's what he did. you see he went off and made millions and millions for other and now the bastardy wants his.
imagine! the nerve!

[Snag]

I know how this system works and its broken it needs a fix. It needs a fix and if it takes a warning shot for Congress fine with me.

I knew your true nature would come out. "Congress", warning shot, fix are the words for goverment oversite. Come on, say it. You know you want to but you don't have the guts to say it out loud. We already have a minimum wage. Now you seem to want the Congress to look into a Maximum Wage.

[Tom]

Yeah, Judge, great idea - let Government get involved in things. Real bright move. that should solve everything. What's next, what uf we start whinning that YOU are overcharging for oyur products, should gov tell you what to charge?

[The Judge]

Why become a corporation at all. Just to let everyone else in on the fun? Its called Public Corportation which I guess is fine so long as the public doesn't try to interfer with greed. Stay private if you don't want the public involved but of course then you have to give up all those benefits that the public allows corporations.

Oh by the way two words "Steve Jobs".

Seems that the ever vigilent board of directors who protect the stockholders and the public were asleep at the wheel once again. Hey! when are they ever awake? Oh, thats right once a year at the stock holders meeting. There they all get together and say the same thing, everything is O.K trust us, its called the "corporate line."

[Snag]

Why become a corporation at all. Just to let everyone else in on the fun? Its called Public Corportation which I guess is fine so long as the public doesn't try to interfer with greed. Stay private if you don't want the public involved but of course then you have to give up all those benefits that the public allows corporations.

Believe me, if it were not for big corporations, you would not have the ability to pound your keyboard and post such small ideas!

[delayjf]

That's the preamble. Its not socialism to provide for the general welfare.

But the preamble does not say to "provide for" the general welfare, rather it says to "promote" general welfare. It "provides" for the common defense - hense our armed forces. IMHO, the act of "promoting" does not guarantee anyone a comfortable standard of living.

[JPinMaryland]

I know people making $8 an hour who have trouble justifying their pay.

[Suff]

But the preamble does not say to "provide for" the general welfare, rather it says to "promote" general welfare. It "provides" for the common defense - hense our armed forces. IMHO, the act of "promoting" does not guarantee anyone a comfortable standard of living.

I read peoples intepretation of others views and it can frustrating.

I read after the democratice takeover of the house's, a Pace Advantage Member typed something to the effect of " The liberals can play thier acoustic guitars while ...something something... blah blah blah blah...

No one wants to give anyone anything, or entitle anyone to anything.

The fact is... That if you take away someone's Public Housing, and deny them the basic needs to survive......,/ Do you know what happens on my way home from work on Tuesday night?

They stick me up.


So what favor are you doing me? You want me to lock that guy up at a cost of 25 grand a month or supply him the basic needs for 3 grand? Meanwhile no one is in the hospital or the jail.

Your promoting whose general welfare when you take away funding for programs that make my life much better??. Education programs, after school programs, neo -natal programs, rehabilitation programs.....

I suppose in never never land where everbody acts like Jimmy Bob Walton its a good idea in theory.... But that does'nt change reality.

Reality is that in Urban Environments, The Human Condition is on full display. That is part of the reason Urban dwellers tend to be liberal.

Just on the Mayors Summer Jobs program....., when they have it... Petty Crime is way down, B & E's way down, Car Theft is way down...,, But when they Cut the mayors summer jobs program its a godamn free for all in the streets with these 15 & 16 year old hooligans.

Believe me. its a lot cheaper to pay a kid a few bucks, than have cops, ambulances, hospitals, and juvenile hall sending me bills. Summer Jobs program saves me money and promotes my general welfare.


No acoustic guitars......just smart policy.

[Suff]

I knew your true nature would come out. "Congress", warning shot, fix are the words for goverment oversite. Come on, say it. You know you want to but you don't have the guts to say it out loud. We already have a minimum wage. Now you seem to want the Congress to look into a Maximum Wage.

Capping wages is wrong?

Ok.. Here you go. Fix this.

Wal-Mart Caps Salary and Wages for hourly employees

Washington DC – Less than a week after WakeUpWalMart.com exposed Wal-Mart’s plan to eliminate health care benefits for its new hires, today, WakeUpWalMart.com revealed new, internal Wal-Mart documents that provide a disturbing insight into the company’s ongoing war on its full-time workers’ wages and benefits. As reported by the New York Times, the internal documents highlight the extent to which Wal-Mart’s wage and salary changes, first announced in August 2006, raised substantial concern among Wal-Mart’s management. Most striking, according to Wal-Mart’s own talking points, the company promised its employees in 2004 that Wal-Mart would not impose salary caps, but then broke its promise in August 2006 by introducing wage and pay caps for all 1.39 million Wal-Mart employees.



http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/press/20061002.html

[delayjf]

Suff

I have no problem with the Government programs you mention. I have no problem with student loans, government aid or even a welfare program that is not perpetual. My objections were as they related to the topic of direct redistribution of Corporation profits to its workers as a matter of public policy. IMHO, corporations do not exist to provide for the general welfare of its workers; not that profit making and employee compensation are mutually exclusive. Worker salaries and benefits are their compensation. If they want to get in on Company profits they need to buy stock.

[Tom]

Wow!
Kerry and Kennedy running a state with crime in it?:eek:
How can that be? I thought the synergy between those two would have created utopia in Mass.
Guess you have to settle for gay grooms and stick ups.:lol::lol::lol:

[delayjf]

gay grooms and stick ups.

The thought of both those terms in one sentence scares the hell out of me.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. ;)

[Tom]

:eek::lol:

[delayjf]

After reading some tax history, I saw that the highest tax brackets back in the "good old days" that Krugman refers to - was up to 91% starting at 400,000. :eek:

No wonder worker / CEO pay gap was so small, the IRS insured it.

gay grooms and stick ups
I'm sure that's what it must have felt like. :D

[Secretariat]

Capping wages is wrong?

Ok.. Here you go. Fix this.

Wal-Mart Caps Salary and Wages for hourly employees

Washington DC – Less than a week after WakeUpWalMart.com exposed Wal-Mart’s plan to eliminate health care benefits for its new hires, today, WakeUpWalMart.com revealed new, internal Wal-Mart documents that provide a disturbing insight into the company’s ongoing war on its full-time workers’ wages and benefits. As reported by the New York Times, the internal documents highlight the extent to which Wal-Mart’s wage and salary changes, first announced in August 2006, raised substantial concern among Wal-Mart’s management. Most striking, according to Wal-Mart’s own talking points, the company promised its employees in 2004 that Wal-Mart would not impose salary caps, but then broke its promise in August 2006 by introducing wage and pay caps for all 1.39 million Wal-Mart employees.



http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/press/20061002.html

Aww..Suff, it's different when a corp caps wages. You know. Good for the investors, the bottom line, and all that. Capping wages only applies to govt. capping wages. If corps do it, that's fine because it is important to their profit line. Gotta make sure the Waltons get a little more. Good night John Boy.

[skate]

yep, i agree, long ago i said,"just let the people choose watever wage they like", and the same goes for spelling, it's up the the dividuals

[delayjf]

Aww..Suff, it's different when a corp caps wages. You know. Good for the investors, the bottom line, and all that.

I wonder if all those laid off Ford employees would agree with you.