Fixing Inequality

[Jarhead]

How much does his parents make?

My income is not relevant. I did well. I mean, heck, I am retired at the age of 55. However, my son went to a state school and I do not know his employer or anyone affiliated with his employer.

He worked through school because I told him I would only pay for his education if he did so....seeing as I believe one of my greatest moments was when MY PARENTS told me I had to work through college and PAY FOR COLLEGE....

He was taught well by my wife and I....but our success had nothing to do with it......but what GOT US SUCCESSFUL played a major role.

So the son of rich parents is doing well and that's upward mobility for you? He's come up from the bottom right? Haha. You really don't get it.

Thus why I call you child.

"haha you really don't get it"

That is childish.

Anyway, how did my wealth help him?

He worked all through college......got his own apartment after he graduated.....and I have not given him a dime since he was 18 years old.

And Sorry bro....I consider anyone who starts off as the lowest in a company as working from the bottom.

Me? Dam....I was penniless at one point. I mean it. No bank account. No job at the time. Fixed that problem by taking a job with a local grocer pricing cans of peas.

I consider that bottom too.

Anyway.....we are done here. You don't answer questions. You answer by asking.

Im done.

 

[Brain357]

yet your solution is BIGGER government.

after all, other than motivating those on the bottom to strive to be on top, the only other solution is government regulating salaries at the top.

I am convinced you are no longer worthy of my time. You say things that directly contradict what you claim to be....

Bombur is noticeably an intelligent poster and whereas he/she and I disagree, I respect his position for it is consistent and based on valid theory.

You? All over the map and coming across as a child.

Oh right the guy living in the fairy tale world is calling me a child again. Sorry but I'm pretty sure your the child, or at least completely out of touch with the real world. Where did I say big government is the answer? You seem to stupidly assume a lot of things. Well 67% agree with me, they are all children too right?

Reading comprehension issues again?

Read my post.

I explain why YOUR only solution can only be BIGGER government...for you disagree with the only other solution...which is teach the people how to get ahead so they don't care about the income of others.

As for 67%......shit man.....100% should agree that there is an income inequality situation.....there is. No doubt.

The debate is about what caused it and how to make it a non issue.....

Me? I say "don't worry about what they make. Worry about what YOU need to do to make a great living and not care about those that make more than you do"

Curious...what is your solution?

Your solution is what the republicans have been saying for over 30 years. It sure is working great for the rich.

I have posted my solution already. Why don't you go back and read it so I don't have to repeat myself.

 

[Brain357]

My income is not relevant. I did well. I mean, heck, I am retired at the age of 55. However, my son went to a state school and I do not know his employer or anyone affiliated with his employer.

He worked through school because I told him I would only pay for his education if he did so....seeing as I believe one of my greatest moments was when MY PARENTS told me I had to work through college and PAY FOR COLLEGE....

He was taught well by my wife and I....but our success had nothing to do with it......but what GOT US SUCCESSFUL played a major role.

So the son of rich parents is doing well and that's upward mobility for you? He's come up from the bottom right? Haha. You really don't get it.

Thus why I call you child.

"haha you really don't get it"

That is childish.

Anyway, how did my wealth help him?

He worked all through college......got his own apartment after he graduated.....and I have not given him a dime since he was 18 years old.

And Sorry bro....I consider anyone who starts off as the lowest in a company as working from the bottom.

Me? Dam....I was penniless at one point. I mean it. No bank account. No job at the time. Fixed that problem by taking a job with a local grocer pricing cans of peas.

I consider that bottom too.

Anyway.....we are done here. You don't answer questions. You answer by asking.

Im done.

Sorry but your fairy tale land is funny to me. How about you look up a definition of upward mobility. Because a rich kid staying rich isn't showing it.

 

[Jarhead]

Oh right the guy living in the fairy tale world is calling me a child again. Sorry but I'm pretty sure your the child, or at least completely out of touch with the real world. Where did I say big government is the answer? You seem to stupidly assume a lot of things. Well 67% agree with me, they are all children too right?

Reading comprehension issues again?

Read my post.

I explain why YOUR only solution can only be BIGGER government...for you disagree with the only other solution...which is teach the people how to get ahead so they don't care about the income of others.

As for 67%......shit man.....100% should agree that there is an income inequality situation.....there is. No doubt.

The debate is about what caused it and how to make it a non issue.....

Me? I say "don't worry about what they make. Worry about what YOU need to do to make a great living and not care about those that make more than you do"

Curious...what is your solution?

Your solution is what the republicans have been saying for over 30 years. It sure is working great for the rich.

I have posted my solution already. Why don't you go back and read it so I don't have to repeat myself.

save me the trouble of going through pages of posts....

As for the 30 years of the GOP saying it...

it was offset of 30 years of activists and such telling the people they are victims of the rich man....

So please....your solution?

 

[Jarhead]

So the son of rich parents is doing well and that's upward mobility for you? He's come up from the bottom right? Haha. You really don't get it.

Thus why I call you child.

"haha you really don't get it"

That is childish.

Anyway, how did my wealth help him?

He worked all through college......got his own apartment after he graduated.....and I have not given him a dime since he was 18 years old.

And Sorry bro....I consider anyone who starts off as the lowest in a company as working from the bottom.

Me? Dam....I was penniless at one point. I mean it. No bank account. No job at the time. Fixed that problem by taking a job with a local grocer pricing cans of peas.

I consider that bottom too.

Anyway.....we are done here. You don't answer questions. You answer by asking.

Im done.

Sorry but your fairy tale land is funny to me. How about you look up a definition of upward mobility. Because a rich kid staying rich isn't showing it.

Child...

The rich kid went from living in a paid for 5 bedroom house on one acre of land with access to his fathers BMW to a living in a studio apartment at his own cost with no car and having to cover his own expenses (by choice...he had the right to live at home if he wished. lol.....thank God he opted not to!).

So the "rich kid" dropped down to living a modest life while he started off on his own.

He did not stay rich.....he was piss poor for his first few years out of school....and he lived that way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How much does his parents make?

My income is not relevant. I did well. I mean, heck, I am retired at the age of 55. However, my son went to a state school and I do not know his employer or anyone affiliated with his employer.

He worked through school because I told him I would only pay for his education if he did so....seeing as I believe one of my greatest moments was when MY PARENTS told me I had to work through college and PAY FOR COLLEGE....

He was taught well by my wife and I....but our success had nothing to do with it......but what GOT US SUCCESSFUL played a major role.

So the son of rich parents is doing well and that's upward mobility for you? He's come up from the bottom right? Haha. You really don't get it.

Ah, the simplistic, coloring-book world of the leftist. "You have money, and your son is successful, so he's successful because you have money!" Yeah, and Obama is President, and the sky is blue, so the sky must be blue because Obama is President.

God forbid you should read the part where he told you he made his kid work for things instead of just handing them to him.

 

[Jarhead]

My income is not relevant. I did well. I mean, heck, I am retired at the age of 55. However, my son went to a state school and I do not know his employer or anyone affiliated with his employer.

He worked through school because I told him I would only pay for his education if he did so....seeing as I believe one of my greatest moments was when MY PARENTS told me I had to work through college and PAY FOR COLLEGE....

He was taught well by my wife and I....but our success had nothing to do with it......but what GOT US SUCCESSFUL played a major role.

So the son of rich parents is doing well and that's upward mobility for you? He's come up from the bottom right? Haha. You really don't get it.

Ah, the simplistic, coloring-book world of the leftist. "You have money, and your son is successful, so he's successful because you have money!" Yeah, and Obama is President, and the sky is blue, so the sky must be blue because Obama is President.

God forbid you should read the part where he told you he made his kid work for things instead of just handing them to him.

My mom gave me 1 year to move out. I hated her for it. She said she hoped I did the same with my kid.

My kid opted to move out right away.....but he had a year to stay if he wished.

Dam, he was poor. Studio apartment in Brooklyn NY with roaches, no elevator and windows stuck closed with paint. No car and no place to keep it if he had one.

Sure, he started out comfortable while growing up....but as an adult?

He started somewhat poor.

Now he is comfortable and moving ahead.

And if you ask him?

Moving out was the best thing he ever did. It motivated him to strive for the better things in life.

 

[Bombur]

I am sorry...but I can not continue this debate if you keep diverting from the questions and instead stating theory.

For example...

You said:

"markets determine what things are worth"..

Yes, I know. But the debate at hand has to do with income inequality...and how Americans believe that hard work will not allow them to achieve financial security..

The whole thing about income equality is a farce. Yes, it exists....that is obvious. But how much a billionaire makes has absolutely no affect on how much I can make.

How much a billionaire has absolutely no affect on how much I can have.

The spending power of a billionaire has absolutely no affect on my spending power.

And I continually cited examples of how and why what I say is true.

And I also explained WITH EXAMPLES how the real problem Americans have is that they are not aware of what "hard work" is. Hard work is NOT doing what you need to do to get a paycheck. That is work. And it will get you nothing more than a paycheck....because you do not stand out and have a differential.

Anyway, continue to cite theory. Go for it.

But....


That is not debating.

I agree that we are not really debating but that is because we have spent most of the time talking about completely different topics. You want to talk about hard work and I want to talk about changes in income inequality and the reasons and consequences thereof.

If you really want examples that is fine.

When China buys billions of USD this hurts US labor as it opens up US labor to Chinese competition while also limiting their capacity to sell to China. It also helps some high end US labor who can benefit from the supply of capital, the lower prices, and the downward pressure on wages. Overtime you will see capital owners benefit from this relationship and lower end wage earners be harmed by this relationship. You claim that the PP of a billionaire has no impact on your spending power might be true but it is irrelevant. What is relevant is how certain groups of people will have a harder time finding work and demanding wages and others will see their wages increase.

The causation is based on the underlying change that leads to the income inequality in this instance.

As for direct causation between the PP of a billionaire and someone who isn't you can look at land ownership and prices for land. Increases in property values most certainly impact those who are making less.
As long as you keep arguing about hard work you are just missing the point.

in bold...

Yes, it allows the value of their own property increase as well.

Dude that is all you got from that?

Rising land values still do exactly what I said they did even if there are cases where people make money on rising home values. Many, especially the poor, are renters and higher land values impact the cost of everything. Including the next home you buy.

 

[Redfish]

I agree that we are not really debating but that is because we have spent most of the time talking about completely different topics. You want to talk about hard work and I want to talk about changes in income inequality and the reasons and consequences thereof.

If you really want examples that is fine.

When China buys billions of USD this hurts US labor as it opens up US labor to Chinese competition while also limiting their capacity to sell to China. It also helps some high end US labor who can benefit from the supply of capital, the lower prices, and the downward pressure on wages. Overtime you will see capital owners benefit from this relationship and lower end wage earners be harmed by this relationship. You claim that the PP of a billionaire has no impact on your spending power might be true but it is irrelevant. What is relevant is how certain groups of people will have a harder time finding work and demanding wages and others will see their wages increase.

The causation is based on the underlying change that leads to the income inequality in this instance.

As for direct causation between the PP of a billionaire and someone who isn't you can look at land ownership and prices for land. Increases in property values most certainly impact those who are making less.
As long as you keep arguing about hard work you are just missing the point.

in bold...

Yes, it allows the value of their own property increase as well.

Dude that is all you got from that?

Rising land values still do exactly what I said they did even if there are cases where people make money on rising home values. Many, especially the poor, are renters and higher land values impact the cost of everything. Including the next home you buy.

so what? the price of everything is going up. priced a car lately?

are prices going up because the evil rich are making huge profits? NO. prices are going up due to inflation and artificial money created by the FED.

 

[saveliberty]

Fixing inequality?

How about work your ass off and be more equal?

Its equality in opportunity for folks that equal in ability.

 

[Jarhead]

I agree that we are not really debating but that is because we have spent most of the time talking about completely different topics. You want to talk about hard work and I want to talk about changes in income inequality and the reasons and consequences thereof.

If you really want examples that is fine.

When China buys billions of USD this hurts US labor as it opens up US labor to Chinese competition while also limiting their capacity to sell to China. It also helps some high end US labor who can benefit from the supply of capital, the lower prices, and the downward pressure on wages. Overtime you will see capital owners benefit from this relationship and lower end wage earners be harmed by this relationship. You claim that the PP of a billionaire has no impact on your spending power might be true but it is irrelevant. What is relevant is how certain groups of people will have a harder time finding work and demanding wages and others will see their wages increase.

The causation is based on the underlying change that leads to the income inequality in this instance.

As for direct causation between the PP of a billionaire and someone who isn't you can look at land ownership and prices for land. Increases in property values most certainly impact those who are making less.
As long as you keep arguing about hard work you are just missing the point.

in bold...

Yes, it allows the value of their own property increase as well.

Dude that is all you got from that?

Rising land values still do exactly what I said they did even if there are cases where people make money on rising home values. Many, especially the poor, are renters and higher land values impact the cost of everything. Including the next home you buy.

Yep. And it ALSO affects the home you sell.

As for the poor, there are safeguards in place such as Mitchell Lama and Section 8 that allow them decent living conditions despite the ever increasing value of land.

But the cost of land increasing is not an issue by any means.

Oh yeah...and no. That was not all I got from that. I actually liked some of the things you said earlier in the post. Agree with some, disagree with some.....and even considered some as something I should reco0nsider.....dude.

 

[Bombur]

in bold...

Yes, it allows the value of their own property increase as well.

Dude that is all you got from that?

Rising land values still do exactly what I said they did even if there are cases where people make money on rising home values. Many, especially the poor, are renters and higher land values impact the cost of everything. Including the next home you buy.

so what? the price of everything is going up. priced a car lately?

are prices going up because the evil rich are making huge profits? NO. prices are going up due to inflation and artificial money created by the FED.

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

 

[Redfish]

Dude that is all you got from that?

Rising land values still do exactly what I said they did even if there are cases where people make money on rising home values. Many, especially the poor, are renters and higher land values impact the cost of everything. Including the next home you buy.

so what? the price of everything is going up. priced a car lately?

are prices going up because the evil rich are making huge profits? NO. prices are going up due to inflation and artificial money created by the FED.

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

What you on the left refuse to grasp is that wealth is not a zero sum game.
When one person gets richer it does not make another person poorer. In fact the rich guy will probably spend more which will create jobs for the poor.

But you lefties want the govt to TAKE the rich guys money that he has worked for, and GIVE it to the poor guy who has done nothing to earn or create that wealth.

That never works, never has, never will.

 

[Bombur]

so what? the price of everything is going up. priced a car lately?

are prices going up because the evil rich are making huge profits? NO. prices are going up due to inflation and artificial money created by the FED.

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

What you on the left refuse to grasp is that wealth is not a zero sum game.
When one person gets richer it does not make another person poorer. In fact the rich guy will probably spend more which will create jobs for the poor.

But you lefties want the govt to TAKE the rich guys money that he has worked for, and GIVE it to the poor guy who has done nothing to earn or create that wealth.

That never works, never has, never will.

Ohh good grief, the silly "it isn't a zero sum game" blah blah blah.

Never said it was. I would also point out that it is a fact that certain macro economic conditions do favor one group over the next.

I generally think wealth redistribution is an inefficient way of dealing with problems in markets but I am not against them based on ideology. If it was more efficient to redistribute wealth than to rely on politicians to fix the labor market in some other way then so be it. In a perfect world there is no wealth redistribution but we don't live in that world.

 

[Jarhead]

Dude that is all you got from that?

Rising land values still do exactly what I said they did even if there are cases where people make money on rising home values. Many, especially the poor, are renters and higher land values impact the cost of everything. Including the next home you buy.

so what? the price of everything is going up. priced a car lately?

are prices going up because the evil rich are making huge profits? NO. prices are going up due to inflation and artificial money created by the FED.

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

In the 5 boros of NYC and the surrounding areas such as Long Island, the price a billionaire will pay for a 3 bedroom cape has absolutely no affect on the price of that cape because the billionaire who may want to buy that cape as an investment, will, if he/she has a brain, pay a price based on his or her being able to sell it for a profit. And a smart billionaire will not assume another billionaire is going to buy it from him. He/she will assume it will be bought by one who will reside in that cape. So a billionaire will not bid and "jack up the price" for that cape. A billionaire will walk away from that cape if it does not come in at a market value...a value based on its re-sellability to the masses...not to another billionaire.

So whereas your THEORY has credibility, in the end it is not valid.

 

[Jarhead]

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

What you on the left refuse to grasp is that wealth is not a zero sum game.
When one person gets richer it does not make another person poorer. In fact the rich guy will probably spend more which will create jobs for the poor.

But you lefties want the govt to TAKE the rich guys money that he has worked for, and GIVE it to the poor guy who has done nothing to earn or create that wealth.

That never works, never has, never will.

Ohh good grief, the silly "it isn't a zero sum game" blah blah blah.

Never said it was. I would also point out that it is a fact that certain macro economic conditions do favor one group over the next.

I generally think wealth redistribution is an inefficient way of dealing with problems in markets but I am not against them based on ideology. If it was more efficient to redistribute wealth than to rely on politicians to fix the labor market in some other way then so be it. In a perfect world there is no wealth redistribution but we don't live in that world.

I personally believe neither redistribution OR politicians are efficient ways to fix the labor market.

We have HR laws and OSHA regulations that protect the worker. From there on, all we need is for government to stay out of it and let the market do its job.

You don't like Walmart because it pays its employees minimum wage? Don't buy from them. Enough don't like it? They will pay their employees more.

Pretty basic. Politicians make it complicated.

 

[Bombur]

so what? the price of everything is going up. priced a car lately?

are prices going up because the evil rich are making huge profits? NO. prices are going up due to inflation and artificial money created by the FED.

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

In the 5 boros of NYC and the surrounding areas such as Long Island, the price a billionaire will pay for a 3 bedroom cape has absolutely no affect on the price of that cape because the billionaire who may want to buy that cape as an investment, will, if he/she has a brain, pay a price based on his or her being able to sell it for a profit. And a smart billionaire will not assume another billionaire is going to buy it from him. He/she will assume it will be bought by one who will reside in that cape. So a billionaire will not bid and "jack up the price" for that cape. A billionaire will walk away from that cape if it does not come in at a market value...a value based on its re-sellability to the masses...not to another billionaire.

So whereas your THEORY has credibility, in the end it is not valid.

Dude the massive impact of NYC land values stretches all the way to CT and NJ. The effect on the economy is that the person in NYC or even CT and NJ may find themselves competing with labor in Kansas where the property values are far less.

When economies grow there is often times a point where the company looks at their labor force in a high cost area and moves as much as they can somewhere else. Usually they only leave behind the highest skilled employees.

It is very hard to understand markets when you can only consider one or two people at a time.

 

[Bombur]

What you on the left refuse to grasp is that wealth is not a zero sum game.
When one person gets richer it does not make another person poorer. In fact the rich guy will probably spend more which will create jobs for the poor.

But you lefties want the govt to TAKE the rich guys money that he has worked for, and GIVE it to the poor guy who has done nothing to earn or create that wealth.

That never works, never has, never will.

Ohh good grief, the silly "it isn't a zero sum game" blah blah blah.

Never said it was. I would also point out that it is a fact that certain macro economic conditions do favor one group over the next.

I generally think wealth redistribution is an inefficient way of dealing with problems in markets but I am not against them based on ideology. If it was more efficient to redistribute wealth than to rely on politicians to fix the labor market in some other way then so be it. In a perfect world there is no wealth redistribution but we don't live in that world.

I personally believe neither redistribution OR politicians are efficient ways to fix the labor market.

We have HR laws and OSHA regulations that protect the worker. From there on, all we need is for government to stay out of it and let the market do its job.

You don't like Walmart because it pays its employees minimum wage? Don't buy from them. Enough don't like it? They will pay their employees more.

Pretty basic. Politicians make it complicated.

So does China manipulating our currency.

Your faith seems to be in markets producing good results but you don't really seem to understand how markets produce good results and why they may not produce good results. Laissez faire economics is based on market theory btw.

 

[Jarhead]

The point of talking about land is that it helps demonstrate how localized the impact of income inequality can be. A person making $1 billion in NYC may not really impact the person in NC but it will impact the people living in an around NYC. The comment was in direct response to the claim that having people make a lot of money has no impact on others who are making less.

This issue applies to scenarios where a resource is scarce and there is common competition for that resource. The billionaire's consumption of apples won't have the same impact as their consumption of land.

If you want to talk about the Federal Reserve just start another thread.

In the 5 boros of NYC and the surrounding areas such as Long Island, the price a billionaire will pay for a 3 bedroom cape has absolutely no affect on the price of that cape because the billionaire who may want to buy that cape as an investment, will, if he/she has a brain, pay a price based on his or her being able to sell it for a profit. And a smart billionaire will not assume another billionaire is going to buy it from him. He/she will assume it will be bought by one who will reside in that cape. So a billionaire will not bid and "jack up the price" for that cape. A billionaire will walk away from that cape if it does not come in at a market value...a value based on its re-sellability to the masses...not to another billionaire.

So whereas your THEORY has credibility, in the end it is not valid.

Dude the massive impact of NYC land values stretches all the way to CT and NJ. The effect on the economy is that the person in NYC or even CT and NJ may find themselves competing with labor in Kansas where the property values are far less.

When economies grow there is often times a point where the company looks at their labor force in a high cost area and moves as much as they can somewhere else. Usually they only leave behind the highest skilled employees.

It is very hard to understand markets when you can only consider one or two people at a time.

I am by no means looking at it from a one or two person scenario.

I see where this is going.

You are right and I am wrong. You don't respond to what I say, you simply criticize it and then, as I said yesterday, cite theory.

Well....DUDE.....there is more than one theory as I am sure you realize. Neither theory can be proven as right or wrong...although many, like you, and like politicians from both sides, seem to believe the answer is clear.

Unlike you, I have repeatedly said I understood your reasoning and then gave my theory as to why I disagree.

You throw out terms like "good grief" and "OMG" and "dude you are missing it"...

Fine. You win. You are right and 50% of the people out there are wrong.

By the way....you here in the northeast?

 

[Bombur]

In the 5 boros of NYC and the surrounding areas such as Long Island, the price a billionaire will pay for a 3 bedroom cape has absolutely no affect on the price of that cape because the billionaire who may want to buy that cape as an investment, will, if he/she has a brain, pay a price based on his or her being able to sell it for a profit. And a smart billionaire will not assume another billionaire is going to buy it from him. He/she will assume it will be bought by one who will reside in that cape. So a billionaire will not bid and "jack up the price" for that cape. A billionaire will walk away from that cape if it does not come in at a market value...a value based on its re-sellability to the masses...not to another billionaire.

So whereas your THEORY has credibility, in the end it is not valid.

Dude the massive impact of NYC land values stretches all the way to CT and NJ. The effect on the economy is that the person in NYC or even CT and NJ may find themselves competing with labor in Kansas where the property values are far less.

When economies grow there is often times a point where the company looks at their labor force in a high cost area and moves as much as they can somewhere else. Usually they only leave behind the highest skilled employees.

It is very hard to understand markets when you can only consider one or two people at a time.

I am by no means looking at it from a one or two person scenario.

I see where this is going.

You are right and I am wrong. You don't respond to what I say, you simply criticize it and then, as I said yesterday, cite theory.

Well....DUDE.....there is more than one theory as I am sure you realize. Neither theory can be proven as right or wrong...although many, like you, and like politicians from both sides, seem to believe the answer is clear.

Unlike you, I have repeatedly said I understood your reasoning and then gave my theory as to why I disagree.

You throw out terms like "good grief" and "OMG" and "dude you are missing it"...

Fine. You win. You are right and 50% of the people out there are wrong.

By the way....you here in the northeast?

You have indirectly sited market theory to me multiple times in this thread. Pretty much everyone who is a conservative indirectly references it. When I make an argument I am making it in reference to the foundation of your argument.

Your theory depends on things. It is not accurate to say that it is my theory to say your position depends on certain market conditions. It is a given. The real question is if they are present or not. Which they clearly are.

I am not an ideologue. Changing economic conditions would change what I think should be done.