America's greatness is its working classes not "wealth" creators

[EconChick]

Once again, liberals have been completely trounced in this thread.

Any objective person could see one side clearly won the argument already. Further posts will just be refinement of earlier points.

And it wasn't the guy that started the thread.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And socialism restricts the ability to produce those "creators, inventors, producers, and manufacturers."

Do you understand that socialism means the government owing the production and distribution of services and goods as well as managing the hiring, retention, remuneration, and benefits for employees?

Want to give us some examples? But you are confused with the concept of social democracy obviously.

No, you don't get to redefine and revise terminology and narrative without being corrected.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Thanks, AA: I have been waiting for the sensible comment.

Management and labor in America need to work far better than we have in the last thirty odd years.

Our business succeeded because we took care of our employees and they worked their butts off for the success of the company.

 

[JakeStarkey]

EconChick once again pipes up without anything of merit.

There have been some good comments from both sides.

 

[EconChick]

It's whining when you both want to eat the cake and have it uncut and sitting pretty on the table.

You want to lower income inequality and you also want to flood the labor market with peasants who vote Democrat. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.

Nope. I just want lower income inequality.

Then move to North Korea, darlin.

This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard about economics coming from the left. I could care less how much other people make as CEOs. Their salaries and benefits are basically decided by the market. And I don't have envy issues like Libs have.

I'd like to see a political candidate propose teaching Capitalist principles like this in our schools. Then we wouldn't have so many dumbass libs revealing so much ignorance about how money and economies work.

What is valid is to complain about opportunity for people to have a better life. That debate is valid. But this one is stupid. The only way to have equality is Communism. Where everyone is equally poor. Except for some privileged bureaucrats.

And that little experiment already failed, which is why it's so annoying to see the uninformed resurrect it.

 

[EconChick]

Thanks, AA: I have been waiting for the sensible comment.

Management and labor in America need to work far better than we have in the last thirty odd years.

Our business succeeded because we took care of our employees and they worked their butts off for the success of the company.

Once again you just stepped all over your dick and contradicted your OP.

 

[EconChick]

EconChick once again pipes up without anything of merit.

There have been some good comments from both sides.

You wouldn't recognize merit if someone held a gun to your head. There's no one more ignorant about this topic then you. You keep showing it in your posts. Your just a stupid socialist. Admit it.

 

[Bush92]

It's whining when you both want to eat the cake and have it uncut and sitting pretty on the table.

You want to lower income inequality and you also want to flood the labor market with peasants who vote Democrat. YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH.

Nope. I just want lower income inequality.

Then move to North Korea, darlin.

This has got to be one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard about economics coming from the left. I could care less how much other people make as CEOs. Their salaries and benefits are basically decided by the market. And I don't have envy issues like Libs have.

I'd like to see a political candidate propose teaching Capitalist principles like this in our schools. Then we wouldn't have so many dumbass libs revealing so much ignorance about how money and economies work.

What is valid is to complain about opportunity for people to have a better life. That debate is valid. But this one is stupid. The only way to have equality is Communism. Where everyone is equally poor. Except for some privileged bureaucrats.

And that little experiment already failed, which is why it's so annoying to see the uninformed resurrect it.

When teacher do kids love it . See second half of this video clip and meet a teacher that motivated his kids with capitalism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And EC ran into the trap: what a boob.

No contradiction, honey, management can't be wealth creators without labor.

Lincoln's comment about "labor antecedent to capital" is 100% accurate.

Your comments lead the deliberate thinker to conclude you have not even had an economics class much less that you are in graduate school.

 

[EconChick]

Actually, that's an entirely legitimate argument. The nation which welcomes immigrants has no obligation to change to suit the tastes of immigrants. The obligation to change falls entirely on the immigrant for it is the immigrant who is choosing to settle in a new culture.

Citizens have every right to be upset when change is forced upon them, change that they didn't ask for and don't want.

Sorry, being afraid of change (that comes with an accent) is not a valid argument. Not when I see people who come here, who obey the law, beyond the initial entry, work hard and try to better themselves.

22 million illegals are obeying the law? Where do they get you libs from?

 

[JakeStarkey]

what 22mm illegals? mind collapse from the far right!

 

[Rikurzhen]

Actually, that's an entirely legitimate argument. The nation which welcomes immigrants has no obligation to change to suit the tastes of immigrants. The obligation to change falls entirely on the immigrant for it is the immigrant who is choosing to settle in a new culture.

Citizens have every right to be upset when change is forced upon them, change that they didn't ask for and don't want.

Sorry, being afraid of change (that comes with an accent) is not a valid argument. Not when I see people who come here, who obey the law, beyond the initial entry, work hard and try to better themselves.

22 million illegals are obeying the law? Where do they get you libs from?

Yeah, I didn't even want to open that can of worms. It's the Lowest Common Denominator argument. They obey the law (except for that part about breaking the law) and so should be cheered. I don't cheer people for following the law, I actually expect more from people.

 

[EconChick]

And EC ran into the trap: what a boob.

No contradiction, honey, management can't be wealth creators without labor.

Lincoln's comment about "labor antecedent to capital" is 100% accurate.

Your comments lead the deliberate thinker to conclude you have not even had an economics class much less that you are in graduate school.

Boob? LMAO. I thought you were going to try to convince people Jakey Fakey is now new and improved and is going to clean up the personal attacks. Guess you lied again.

But more importantly, LOL, if you're going to attack, don't do it in a half assed way.

Do it like I do. Point out what a total fucking whack job Jakey Fakey is.

Now to the topic of economics. Dumbshit, how much money is that fat CEO ass of yours willing to put on a bet of a graduate degree in economics? You willing to do $1000? It can go to USMB's kitty.

How about $10,000. You willing to back your fat mouth up with some money, idiot?

I'm sure you're not so STFU.

As for you stepping all over your dick AGAIN, this little quote of yours: "management can't be wealth creators without labor" is not what you said in your title, idiot.

 

[Shrimpbox]

T
The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 60 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg image
2 – Congratulations to Emmanuel Saez The White House
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis BEA
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB Z.1 Release--Financial Accounts of the United States--June 5 2014
5/6 = Wealth And Inequality In America - Business Insider

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts


Tax the richest and giant corps their fair share, and invest in Americans. Under Voodoo, the richest pay less than anyone in all taxes and fees...hater dupes believe a giant pile of bs from the greedy idiot megarich.

These are so bogus. Improper grammar and incorrect spelling and you want us to take this as legit? Please! Comparing the worst and best years instead of the averages and using the depths of the Great Recession as a metric? Please!

 

[Bush92]

And EC ran into the trap: what a boob.

No contradiction, honey, management can't be wealth creators without labor.

Lincoln's comment about "labor antecedent to capital" is 100% accurate.

Your comments lead the deliberate thinker to conclude you have not even had an economics class much less that you are in graduate school.

I find Econs post informative and intelligent. What school did you go to? The Frankfort school, or one in Moscow circa 1960?

 

[Bush92]

And EC ran into the trap: what a boob.

No contradiction, honey, management can't be wealth creators without labor.

Lincoln's comment about "labor antecedent to capital" is 100% accurate.

Your comments lead the deliberate thinker to conclude you have not even had an economics class much less that you are in graduate school.

Boob? LMAO. I thought you were going to try to convince people Jakey Fakey is now new and improved and is going to clean up the personal attacks. Guess you lied again.

But more importantly, LOL, if you're going to attack, don't do it in a half assed way.

Do it like I do. Point out what a total fucking whack job Jakey Fakey is.

Now to the topic of economics. Dumbshit, how much money is that fat CEO ass of yours willing to put on a bet of a graduate degree in economics? You willing to do $1000? It can go to USMB's kitty.

How about $10,000. You willing to back your fat mouth up with some money, idiot?

I'm sure you're not so STFU.

As for you stepping all over your dick AGAIN, this little quote of yours: "management can't be wealth creators without labor" is not what you said in your title, idiot.

How can he step on something that does not grow...kind of like a socialist economy.

 

[EconChick]

Actually, that's an entirely legitimate argument. The nation which welcomes immigrants has no obligation to change to suit the tastes of immigrants. The obligation to change falls entirely on the immigrant for it is the immigrant who is choosing to settle in a new culture.

Citizens have every right to be upset when change is forced upon them, change that they didn't ask for and don't want.

Sorry, being afraid of change (that comes with an accent) is not a valid argument. Not when I see people who come here, who obey the law, beyond the initial entry, work hard and try to better themselves.

22 million illegals are obeying the law? Where do they get you libs from?

Yeah, I didn't even want to open that can of worms. It's the Lowest Common Denominator argument. They obey the law (except for that part about breaking the law) and so should be cheered. I don't cheer people for following the law, I actually expect more from people.

These liberal liars keep being caught red handed in flat out lies. Fakey gets caught all the time. Rice Chickie's quote was, "Not when I see people who come here, who obey the law." Pick whatever number one wants to pick. A good portion are illegal.

 

[EconChick]

And EC ran into the trap: what a boob.

No contradiction, honey, management can't be wealth creators without labor.

Lincoln's comment about "labor antecedent to capital" is 100% accurate.

Your comments lead the deliberate thinker to conclude you have not even had an economics class much less that you are in graduate school.

I find Econs post informative and intelligent. What school did you go to? The Frankfort school, or one in Moscow circa 1960?

LMAO, 92, that is such a hilarious visual.

 

[JakeStarkey]

EC, a boob who has no grasp for economics, and Bush, who can't even tell us what is socialism and believes in a free market, are worth the price of admission tonight. Priceless!

 

[Nyvin]

I could care less how much other people make as CEOs. Their salaries and benefits are basically decided by the market.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Oh sorry...you're serious? No. There is no relation to a CEO's pay and a company's stock returns. Proven by multiple studies.