"Just get by President..the only way is to grab larger slice of the economic pie..."

[JoeNormal]

You're looking at GDP where GDP per capita is the pertinent metric

GDP in 2009 dollars Population GDP per capita in 2009 dollars.

He clearly has GDP per capita. Sloppy?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

If you think that this scenario is far-fetched, read what Barron’s had to say about “What’s Behind America’s Trend Towards Widened Income Inequality?”:

The revolution in office technology has broken the back of the market for secretaries and clerks. Robotics has destroyed whole categories of factory work. These seismic shifts have meant that millions of people who might otherwise have gotten the blue- and pink-collar positions in these sectors must now chase what jobs remain. And an in-creased labor supply generally brings a lower wage. (Oct. 26, 1998, 55)

Two simple questions: Who got most of the benefits of all this new technology? Who made all the sacrifices? It was no accident

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Who lost wealth when Zuckerberg created Facebook?

When Page and Brin created Google?

When Walt Disney drew Mickey Mouse?

You're confusing people who actually created something will Wall Street scum and many CEOs.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To much for YOU to read huh?



" There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. "


The Zero-sum Nature of economics



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people.

If they freely purchased your product, they believe it was worth more to them than the cash they traded.

Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

They didn't lose it, they freely used it to buy what you were selling.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They could have kept their money, they valued your goods instead.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

Freedom is awful, I should make a law so they can't buy stuff from you.

Conservatives and their bumper sticker mentality strike again *shaking head*

GLAD YOU AGREE

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservatives and their bumper sticker mentality strike again *shaking head*

Yes, basic economics could fit on a bumper sticker.

And you still wouldn't understand it.

 

[Misty]

Lol I know I laugh at these liberals trying to prove money is bad while they rake it in from the wealthiest at fund raisers. Obama is the king of getting the rich to just hand him money.

 

[healthmyths]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

If you think that this scenario is far-fetched, read what Barron’s had to say about “What’s Behind America’s Trend Towards Widened Income Inequality?”:

The revolution in office technology has broken the back of the market for secretaries and clerks. Robotics has destroyed whole categories of factory work. These seismic shifts have meant that millions of people who might otherwise have gotten the blue- and pink-collar positions in these sectors must now chase what jobs remain. And an in-creased labor supply generally brings a lower wage. (Oct. 26, 1998, 55)

Two simple questions: Who got most of the benefits of all this new technology? Who made all the sacrifices? It was no accident

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Who lost wealth when Zuckerberg created Facebook?

When Page and Brin created Google?

When Walt Disney drew Mickey Mouse?

To much for YOU to read huh?



" There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. "


The Zero-sum Nature of economics



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

 

[Dad2three]

Lol I know I laugh at these liberals trying to prove money is bad while they rake it in from the wealthiest at fund raisers. Obama is the king of getting the rich to just hand him money.

LOL, False premises, distortions and lies, the ONLY thing conservatives EVER have in their bag...

 

[Dad2three]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Who lost wealth when Zuckerberg created Facebook?

When Page and Brin created Google?

When Walt Disney drew Mickey Mouse?

To much for YOU to read huh?



" There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. "


The Zero-sum Nature of economics



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To much for YOU to read huh?



" There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. "


The Zero-sum Nature of economics



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes.

That should make liberals favor sealing the border, so that illegals would stop raising the profit of corporations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well,I was just taking a WAG at how you came up with your bogus numbers. I think I know what it is now. You're looking at GDP where GDP per capita is the pertinent metric. Strange that such a key cog in the steno pool should make such a sloppy mistake.

BTW, your Angie's List pipe dream sounds a whole lot like a ghetto kid looking to make it big as a rapper. Oh well, what else do you have to do besides spend 12 hours a day on this pathetic site.

You're looking at GDP where GDP per capita is the pertinent metric

GDP in 2009 dollars Population GDP per capita in 2009 dollars.

He clearly has GDP per capita. Sloppy?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

If you think that this scenario is far-fetched, read what Barron’s had to say about “What’s Behind America’s Trend Towards Widened Income Inequality?”:

The revolution in office technology has broken the back of the market for secretaries and clerks. Robotics has destroyed whole categories of factory work. These seismic shifts have meant that millions of people who might otherwise have gotten the blue- and pink-collar positions in these sectors must now chase what jobs remain. And an in-creased labor supply generally brings a lower wage. (Oct. 26, 1998, 55)

Two simple questions: Who got most of the benefits of all this new technology? Who made all the sacrifices? It was no accident

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

LOL!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

What kind of idiot confuses wealth for the entire world with the annual earnings of a single company?

Oh, right, a liberal idiot.

 

[Dad2three]

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes.

That should make liberals favor sealing the border, so that illegals would stop raising the profit of corporations.

Weird, Reagan gave amnesty and the GOP had Congress for most of the last 20 years...

 

[Dad2three]

You're looking at GDP where GDP per capita is the pertinent metric

GDP in 2009 dollars Population GDP per capita in 2009 dollars.

He clearly has GDP per capita. Sloppy?

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

If you think that this scenario is far-fetched, read what Barron’s had to say about “What’s Behind America’s Trend Towards Widened Income Inequality?”:

The revolution in office technology has broken the back of the market for secretaries and clerks. Robotics has destroyed whole categories of factory work. These seismic shifts have meant that millions of people who might otherwise have gotten the blue- and pink-collar positions in these sectors must now chase what jobs remain. And an in-creased labor supply generally brings a lower wage. (Oct. 26, 1998, 55)

Two simple questions: Who got most of the benefits of all this new technology? Who made all the sacrifices? It was no accident

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

LOL!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

What kind of idiot confuses wealth for the entire world with the annual earnings of a single company?

Oh, right, a liberal idiot.

Says the baboon who 'believes in' trickle down and low taxes will create jobs...

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes.

That should make liberals favor sealing the border, so that illegals would stop raising the profit of corporations.

Weird, Reagan gave amnesty and the GOP had Congress for most of the last 20 years...

Weird, Reagan gave amnesty

Weird, he was promised the border would be sealed. They lied.

No new amnesty.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

Although the following specific details are fictional, the scenario is accurate. Through their emissaries, Mr. Bill Gates (CEO of Micro- soft), met with Michael Eisner (CEO of Walt Disney Corp.), and John Welch Jr. (CEO of General Electric). Their discussion went like this:

Gates: “Gentlemen, you astute, wise, talented, outstanding, and morally principled managers of today—I can sell you something that cost me $10 per unit to produce for $400 each. It’s a little disk with a bunch of zeros and ones on it.”

Eisner and Welch Jr., in unison: “Why in the hell would we be stupid enough to do something like that?”

Gates: “Simple. It will enable your secretaries to produce twice as much work in half the time. In other words, you can fire half your secretaries—those who helped make your organizations successful in the first place. And the secretaries who remain will still work the same hours for the same pay. You will cut your labor costs in half, the stock of your companies will skyrocket and your grateful shareholders will reward your managerial brilliance by making you incredibly, fabulously rich. Not like me, of course, but pretty damn rich.

“Here’s another wrinkle you’ll love. When your companies start growing again, Disney will hire the experienced secretaries that GE fired, and GE will hire the secretaries that Disney fired. Since they are new employees, they’ll start out at base pay, which has hardly budged for the past 20 years—and with no benefits. Times are tough for secretaries these days, you know, with the corporate downsizing and all.

“Oh yes, with Republicans in control of Congress and Clinton ap-pointing conservative judges to the courts, you can work your secretaries’ asses off, and you don’t have to worry about them getting carpal tunnel syndrome and suing you.”

If you think that this scenario is far-fetched, read what Barron’s had to say about “What’s Behind America’s Trend Towards Widened Income Inequality?”:

The revolution in office technology has broken the back of the market for secretaries and clerks. Robotics has destroyed whole categories of factory work. These seismic shifts have meant that millions of people who might otherwise have gotten the blue- and pink-collar positions in these sectors must now chase what jobs remain. And an in-creased labor supply generally brings a lower wage. (Oct. 26, 1998, 55)

Two simple questions: Who got most of the benefits of all this new technology? Who made all the sacrifices? It was no accident

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

LOL!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

What kind of idiot confuses wealth for the entire world with the annual earnings of a single company?

Oh, right, a liberal idiot.

Says the baboon who 'believes in' trickle down and low taxes will create jobs...

Between the belief that higher taxes create jobs and the belief that lower taxes will create jobs, I'll go with lower taxes..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

To much for YOU to read huh?



" There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. "


The Zero-sum Nature of economics



If I 'make' a million dollars, I accumulated money from other people. I'm not actually producing cash, I'm acquiring theirs. Therefore, others have collectively lost a million dollars of purchasing power to me.

These people can't go demand new money just because I have all of their money.

They go broke, I get rich, and income inequality is a thing.

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

Household net worth is $6.7 trillion above its pre-recession peak of $68.1 trillion reached in the third quarter of 2007. It was $73.5 trillion in the first three months of 2013.

The value of financial assets, including stocks and pension fund holdings, held by American households increased by $674 billion in the second quarter, according to today’s Fed report.


Household Net Worth in U.S. Increases by $1.3 Trillion - Bloomberg

How can Bloomberg be so stupid?

I saw on USMB that wealth is zero sum, how can our wealth increase?

 

[Dad2three]

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes.

That should make liberals favor sealing the border, so that illegals would stop raising the profit of corporations.

Weird, Reagan gave amnesty and the GOP had Congress for most of the last 20 years...

Weird, Reagan gave amnesty

Weird, he was promised the border would be sealed. They lied.

No new amnesty.

Got a link to that 'promise' and what Ronnie did about it? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game

LOL!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

What kind of idiot confuses wealth for the entire world with the annual earnings of a single company?

Oh, right, a liberal idiot.

Says the baboon who 'believes in' trickle down and low taxes will create jobs...

Between the belief that higher taxes create jobs and the belief that lower taxes will create jobs, I'll go with lower taxes..

Yeah because when the top rate was 50%-94% from 1932-1987 (6 years of Reagan at 50%) the US didn't create many jobs?

 

[Dad2three]

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

Household net worth is $6.7 trillion above its pre-recession peak of $68.1 trillion reached in the third quarter of 2007. It was $73.5 trillion in the first three months of 2013.

The value of financial assets, including stocks and pension fund holdings, held by American households increased by $674 billion in the second quarter, according to today’s Fed report.


Household Net Worth in U.S. Increases by $1.3 Trillion - Bloomberg

How can Bloomberg be so stupid?

I saw on USMB that wealth is zero sum, how can our wealth increase?

Can't use reason and logic huh?


80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.


"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline. A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Warren Buffett



For working people the economy has been in recession since 1973:



1. Before 1973, The inflation Adjusted Median Income rose at 2.5% per year:

1953 = $22,648
1973 = $34,762


From 1947 to 1973 – a period of just 26 years – inflation-adjusted median income in the United States more than doubled. But in the 31 years from 1973 to 2004, it rose only 22 percent. And, over the last decade, it actually declined. -

WITH LINKS

Median-itis and The Great Stagnation



2. From 1973 to 2009, Inflation Adjusted Median Income fell by $2,578.

1973 = $34,762
2009 = $32,184

http://www*.census.g*ov/hhes/w*ww/income*/da¬ta/his*tori¬cal/p*eople/P05*AR_2009.x*ls

4. While per capita GPD has doubled:

1969 = $21,021
2010 = $42,517

4) Per capita. Grab the first one

per capita GPD - ERS Search Results



5. This is accomplish by shifting the income distributi*¬on:

Share Of Aggregate Income by Quintile:

BOTTOM 20% – 1967: 4.0% 2009: 3.4% Change: -0.6%
LOWER MIDDLE – 1967: 10.8% 2009: 8.6% Change: -2.2%
MIDDLE CLASS – 1967: 17.3% 2009: 14.6% Change: -2.7%
UPPER MIDDLE – 1967: 24.2% 2009: 23.2% Change: -1.0%
UPPER CLASS – 1967: 43.6% 2009: 50.3% Change: +6.7%

Share of income percentile

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/publications/newydata.pdf


Bottom line message: WORK MORE, PRODUCE MORE, BUT GET LESS”

3. The same thing shows up in Weekly Earnings




All earners:

1979 = $339
2008 = $339

No Change over 30 years

Men:

1979 = $412
2010 = $389

DECREASE of $23/week

3)

Here

Earnings (CPS)

here

http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1981/02/art5full.pdf

and here

Usual Weekly Earnings of Wage and Salary Workers

RIGHT WINGERS ARE HORRIBLE AT ECONOMICS

 

[whitehall]

Barry Hussein never had a job that wasn't paid by taxpayers or some rich endowment fund. He never struggled to make a buck and he never has a supervisory job until he became ...gulp...president. Apparently his education was paid for by taxpayers because he claimed to have alien status which meant that he wasn't "born in the USA" but the "justice" dept is in his back pocket as well as the media and the democrat party is as ignorant as they always were. Hillary's claim of being dirt poor is as ludicrous as Barry Hussein claiming to represent the common man.

 

[Dad2three]

Yea well you are ignoring many many things here!

A) Explain to me how the USA GDP grew from 1800 of $7.9 billion to 2013 $15.7 trillion?
WHO HAD the money to take it away in a zero sum process?
Explain how a mortgage for a 30 year loan is made? Did someone take money from another pile and put it in the home seller's pile?
Of course not! IT WAS BORROWED AGAINST future repayments.
See that's what all you "zero-sum" people forget!

Actual cash today grows because lenders borrow from banks and banks from what Federal Reserve and that brings me to the next point.

B) YOU Obviously haven't ever hear of QE so here I'll help.
The central bank may enact quantitative easing (QE) by purchasing a predetermined quantity of bonds or other assets from financial institutions without reference to the interest rate.
And that's the 2nd of things you ignored!
AGAIN the pie keeps getting BIGGER as you zero-sum animals keeping fighting amongst yourselves.
As mentioned by a prior comment... Did someone take money from a big pile and give it to ZUCKENBERG? Or Gates? Or Buffet?
NO what has happened is the VALUE of their SHARES increased and when they wish to exchange their shares, NOW there will be someone
who has to part with some cash for Gates, etc. to then turn around and do what????
Put into the bank most likely another investment probably spend it possibly!
BUT NO ONE DESTROYS cash!
Again.. I just don't understand WHY animals like you that apparently have a modicum of intelligence don't comprehend that the
ZERO SUM premise is totally false. Especially when considering as I've pointed out the GDP has grown over 200,000%!
By goodness there has to be some validity to my point that help people grow the pie, not be like animals and tear at others' share of the pie which is what YOU obviously advocate! YOUR premise is WE should TEAR at the evil Buffets,Gates share of the pie so that others can more fairly
share! HOW selfish you people are! Why not be the constructive people and make the GDP and more peoples' share grow bigger rather then like dinosaurs fight over any small piece that momentarily feeds you!
Disgusting how uncivilized people like you have become!

Weird, you can't comprehend

"The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot

There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that"

The Zero-sum Nature of economics




Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing
By David Cay Johnston

The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves."

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."


Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html

Household net worth is $6.7 trillion above its pre-recession peak of $68.1 trillion reached in the third quarter of 2007. It was $73.5 trillion in the first three months of 2013.

The value of financial assets, including stocks and pension fund holdings, held by American households increased by $674 billion in the second quarter, according to today’s Fed report.


Household Net Worth in U.S. Increases by $1.3 Trillion - Bloomberg

How can Bloomberg be so stupid?

I saw on USMB that wealth is zero sum, how can our wealth increase?

Net worth huh? Oh you mean when stock market values are added in, that ponzi scheme, Vegas East?





The way things worked before the US essentially invented the middle class by implementing the progressive tax structure and the New Deal in the wake of the Great Depression, was a series of booms & busts. These sucked for the ordinary people, but were a fantastic way for the obscenely wealthy to garner more wealth.

Here's how it worked:

Choose a market segment and start investing heavily.

Create a bunch of noise around how that segment is growing.

Create investment tools that even the little guy can buy.

Whip the public into a buying frenzy. No one wants to be left behind in a market that has no place to go but "up."

When the bubble inflates to a point of your choosing, it's time to start the next bubble, strip your profits out via a massive sell off.

This happens to crash the market, reaming the little investors - but you don't care, because you just took all the money they'd invested.

Sock a bunch of your ill-gotten gains into an inheritance trust to be passed on to your children, then start investing the rest in another market segment. Pump that bubble, pop it, move on to the next.

To these avaricious slime-balls, "the economy" is a toy, not something on which they rely for survival. We're the only ones who get hurt when they crush it.

 

[Dad2three]

Barry Hussein never had a job that wasn't paid by taxpayers or some rich endowment fund. He never struggled to make a buck and he never has a supervisory job until he became ...gulp...president. Apparently his education was paid for by taxpayers because he claimed to have alien status which meant that he wasn't "born in the USA" but the "justice" dept is in his back pocket as well as the media and the democrat party is as ignorant as they always were. Hillary's claim of being dirt poor is as ludicrous as Barry Hussein claiming to represent the common man.

WINGNUT, YOU GOING TO RESPOND TO THE FALSE BARNEY/F-F DID IT OR KEEP UP WITH THE BIRTHER NONSENSE?


Just because the right will repeat a lie forever, doesn't mean that lie will ever produce facts.

 

[Dad2three]

Barry Hussein never had a job that wasn't paid by taxpayers or some rich endowment fund. He never struggled to make a buck and he never has a supervisory job until he became ...gulp...president. Apparently his education was paid for by taxpayers because he claimed to have alien status which meant that he wasn't "born in the USA" but the "justice" dept is in his back pocket as well as the media and the democrat party is as ignorant as they always were. Hillary's claim of being dirt poor is as ludicrous as Barry Hussein claiming to represent the common man.

WAITING FOR YOU HERE, on your false 'Barney' did it crap


Will 2015 = 2008? - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum