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

[healthmyths]

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?

I am advising the following is sarcasm because there WILL be some DEFINITELY STUPID people who will agree with what I say in sarcasm!

Yea... will there are MILLIONS of poor people that are being robbed by the GATES/Buffets of the world and just American Household increased by
$674 billion that was because the 1% wealth increased by $500 billion! YEA the average household didn't see no increase it all went to the
1% people!
And we all know what those 1% people do with all that increase they hide it under their mattresses or bury in their backyard!
They don't trust banks... so the convert all those billions into cash and bury it... yea that's the ticket!!! (Courtesy Jon Lovitz..).

 

[Dad2three]

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?

I am advising the following is sarcasm because there WILL be some DEFINITELY STUPID people who will agree with what I say in sarcasm!

Yea... will there are MILLIONS of poor people that are being robbed by the GATES/Buffets of the world and just American Household increased by
$674 billion that was because the 1% wealth increased by $500 billion! YEA the average household didn't see no increase it all went to the
1% people!
And we all know what those 1% people do with all that increase they hide it under their mattresses or bury in their backyard!
They don't trust banks... so the convert all those billions into cash and bury it... yea that's the ticket!!! (Courtesy Jon Lovitz..).

Nah, the 1%ers just use it Vegas East to offshore jobs with the lowest sustained tax burden on them in 80+ years and record (40 years) profits with the lowest tax burden

They sure as hell don't 'create jobs' as right wingers posit with their 'trickle down'

 

[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

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

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

Is that because wealth is zero sum?

 

[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

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.

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

You mean wealth is zero sum, except when you consider the stock market?

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.

You're right, little investors always buy high and sell low.
And never hold on to stock during a recovery.

 

[Dad2three]

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

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

Is that because wealth is zero sum?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

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.

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

You mean wealth is zero sum, except when you consider the stock market?

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.

You're right, little investors always buy high and sell low.
And never hold on to stock during a recovery.

Nope, wealth through the stock market, like almost EVERYTHING conservatives push, is bogus



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

 

[Dad2three]

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

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

You mean wealth is zero sum, except when you consider the stock market?

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.

You're right, little investors always buy high and sell low.
And never hold on to stock during a recovery.

Nope, wealth through the stock market, like almost EVERYTHING conservatives push, is bogus



Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

wealth through the stock market, like almost EVERYTHING conservatives push, is bogus

You should tell Bill Gates and Warren Buffett that their wealth is bogus.
Let us know how they react.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Of course, the more government control over the economy, the better.

Venezuela is awesome!

Unless you need luxuries like food or toilet paper.

 

[healthmyths]

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

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

Is that because wealth is zero sum?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Well let's see...
What tax rate on the "wealthy" should we have...like we had under FDR/Truman/Ike and wait a democrat Kennedy lowered...

"Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable.
Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes. "
JFK on the Economy and Taxes - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

Maybe we should go back to FDR/Truman/IKE of 90% or why not like Cuba 100%???

 

[Dad2three]

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

Is that because wealth is zero sum?

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory


The conclusion?

Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nation’s economic growth.

This paragraph from the report says it all—

“The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.”

These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain.

Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory-GOP Suppresses Study - Forbes

Well let's see...
What tax rate on the "wealthy" should we have...like we had under FDR/Truman/Ike and wait a democrat Kennedy lowered...

"Declaring that the absence of recession is not tantamount to economic growth, the president proposed in 1963 to cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
He also proposed a cut in the corporate tax rate from 52% to 47%. Ironically, economic growth expanded in 1963, and Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress insisted that reducing taxes without corresponding spending cuts was unacceptable.
Kennedy disagreed, arguing that “a rising tide lifts all boats” and that strong economic growth would not continue without lower taxes. "
JFK on the Economy and Taxes - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

Maybe we should go back to FDR/Truman/IKE of 90% or why not like Cuba 100%???

Oh you mean LBJ's tax cuts, DEMAND side that was sold on lowering tax rates and getting rid of loopholes. Want to go back to his 70% rate? How about Ronnie's 50% the first 6 years when the economy boomed?




STUDY: These Charts Show There's Almost No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP

These Charts Show There's Probably No Correlation Between Tax Rates and GDP - Business Insider


Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not)

If you read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal (or surf around the nether regions of Forbes.com), you may come to the conclusion that no aspect of tax policy is more important for economic growth than the way we tax capital gains. You’d be wrong

Capital Gains Tax Rates and Economic Growth (or not) - Forbes




As measured by IRS data, the share of income accruing to the top 0.1% of U.S. families increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% by 2007 before falling to 9.2% due to the 2007-2009 recession. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top 0.1% fell from over 50% in 1945 to about 25% in 2009. Tax policy could have a relation to how the economic pie is sliced—lower top tax rates may be associated with greater income disparities.

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)

 

[Dad2three]

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data | Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

Of course, the more government control over the economy, the better.

Venezuela is awesome!

Unless you need luxuries like food or toilet paper.

Weird, False premises, distortions or LIES is ALL you EVER have


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.


Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[healthmyths]

I had my securities license in 1970 selling mutual funds right after Mr. Tsai changed the securities industry dramatically.

In 1969 when Gerald Tsai Jr. a billionaire investor and philanthropist who helped build Fidelity Investments into a mutual fund powerhouse.
Tsai pioneered the use of performance funds in money management during the 1950s and 1960s.
Gerald Tsai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tsai revolutionized mutual funds from the traditional dividend yield from solid dividend paying companies like AT&T, US Steel,etc.
to an equity appreciation basis. His premise was more money could come from a share of stock appreciating in value and then selling the share..quickly and not hold on to it as the old premise i.e. prime purpose earn a dividend.
As a result public held companies began looking at what can be done to increase the price to earning ratio and therefore the price of the stock goes up.
As a result the executives with options would make out very well.

Was this a bad premise by Tsai that has caused "false" values of public held companies that are specifically built around the P:E ratio?
I am not qualified to say it was or wasn't but I am totally convinced mutual funds using as Fidelity did appreciation rather then dividend yield were able
to by factors of 100s increased mutual fund values... real values based on real assets?? Time will tell.