More economic GOOD News...DOW hits new record..on track to hit 17K.

[Marxist]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

 

[Andylusion]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

 

[Marxist]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

 

[Andylusion]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

In terms of production, is the same. Try and take their goats which produce goat milk they sell. Good luck. Hope you like your head hanging from a poll.

It's the same regardless. They make carts. You going to take away their cart making capital? Not going to happen.

 

[Marxist]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

In terms of production, is the same. Try and take their goats which produce goat milk they sell. Good luck. Hope you like your head hanging from a poll.

It's the same regardless. They make carts. You going to take away their cart making capital? Not going to happen.

Most modern communists aren't referring to goats or carts.. You're pulling the toothbrush shit.

 

[Andylusion]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

In terms of production, is the same. Try and take their goats which produce goat milk they sell. Good luck. Hope you like your head hanging from a poll.

It's the same regardless. They make carts. You going to take away their cart making capital? Not going to happen.

Most modern communists aren't referring to goats or carts.. You're pulling the toothbrush shit.

It's the same. Capital is capital. You want to try and make an arbitrary distinction. There is no distinction.

 

[Marxist]

As discussed by many Marxists, communism cannot exist alongside capitalism, and it didn't help that communism is supposed to take root over already, oh, let's not forget the constant fear of communism, the hatred, the problems faced by the leaders of socialist states. (it's. Not communism)

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

In terms of production, is the same. Try and take their goats which produce goat milk they sell. Good luck. Hope you like your head hanging from a poll.

It's the same regardless. They make carts. You going to take away their cart making capital? Not going to happen.

Most modern communists aren't referring to goats or carts.. You're pulling the toothbrush shit.

It's the same. Capital is capital. You want to try and make an arbitrary distinction. There is no distinction.

Keep throwing out the usual bullshit.

 

[Andylusion]

Of course it can. Why could it not? By what logic?

Did you know that even under Stalin, about 10% of the farms that provided food for the Soviets, were private Capitalist run farms? That tiny faction of the farms produced 1/3rd of all the food, because the Soviet collectives were terrible, and produced less food, using more land.

Communism lends itself to a dictatorship and authoritarian government. It has to. No one gives up their property to 'communal ownership' by choice. So inherently, a communist system must impose itself on the public with force, and thus fear.

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

In terms of production, is the same. Try and take their goats which produce goat milk they sell. Good luck. Hope you like your head hanging from a poll.

It's the same regardless. They make carts. You going to take away their cart making capital? Not going to happen.

Most modern communists aren't referring to goats or carts.. You're pulling the toothbrush shit.

It's the same. Capital is capital. You want to try and make an arbitrary distinction. There is no distinction.

Keep throwing out the usual bullshit.

I see. So you have no answer, just to keep repeating that one form of capital is magically different than another. And somehow everyone else is BS to even ask for reason?

 

[boilermaker55]

As expected, your rant doesn't even start to address the statement made or the premise of the comment.
When you start to inject your own interpretations of a post , that makes you ballistic.

The investment doesn't work unless the middle class workers do the job. Dumbass!

Yes, yes, your petty ROFL response is hilarious. Now tell me, what work does the capitalist actually do then "invest" to buy materials, made by workers, hell, everything the capitalist uses is made by workers.

ROFL what a dumb ass POS you are.

I suppose you've never done any work as an investment that you were not directly paid for. Effing marxist pig. Investments don't have to pay off. Investments in $ is no different than an investment in time or effort.

That doesn't matter. Without the Capitalists, there would be no work for the middle class to do.

Without the capitalists, work would be based on the actual needs of society, not by what the capitalist wants done for profit.

Wow......Without the business owner we have...WHAT?
Business does not operate for "the needs of society"...Nor should it.
Products and services are made available through market research.
Your premise would suggest you would have government force business for instance to continue making manual typewriters.
After all, the people employed by the typewriter manufacturer "need" jobs.
Have you a problem with the concept of profit?

 

[boilermaker55]

Engage in a debate? You understanding seems to be to perplexed for you to make a comment regarding what is being discussed.

Still won't take up the challenge of putting all your investment into a company and its equipment and not hire anyone to do the work!
See how much money you get on your investment.
You choose to justify your ideology on the poorest of poor countries ; and who knows where the photos were taken.
Put up or shut up! LOL

Without the capitalists, work would be based on the actual needs of society, not by what the capitalist wants done for profit.

Yeah, that's why the Soviets were literally starving to death. That's why Venezuela has record poverty and malnutrition. That's why people were willing to risk death to swim to Miami.

We've seen how your system works... it works by leaving people impoverished, and starving.

Cuban "pharmacy". No Capitalists making profit, and no medications either.

Venezuela; Sign says "made with socialism"... above the empty shelves.

Dude people do what you say all the time.

My former employer, they had a picture of the dude with all the machines, building stuff by himself in his basement. He built the company with his own hands. He was worth millions before he hired the first employee.

Apple computer, HP, and dozens of other companies all started without employees, just the owners making it work.

I think it was Snapple, where the guy put literally all his money into the business, and actually lived out of his car, in the parking lot of his business.

People do what you say ALL THE FREAKIN TIME.

As soon as I can find it, there was a Hot Rod Magazine article, about a guy who bought all the equipment, and the building, and hand made hot rods. He molded the metal, and did all the work himself. He was a multi millionaire making custom coups. He hired.... NO ONE.

People do this all the time. You people are bat crazy.

I'll never forget the day I was working at this company, and one of the machines broke down. So this dude was there rolling around on the floor, in jeans and a t-shirt, flopping around with tools in the dirt. And one of the guys walked up and said.... "that's him". I was standing there, thinking that's who? The new maintenance crew? The guy looked at me... no he's the owner and CEO. He signs your pay check. He owns this whole place.

I was shocked.... there he was with grimy tools, cranking on a machine. Turns out he installed all the machines himself, and before he had employees, he setup the machines, ran the machines, and repaired the machines all himself. So when they broke down, he just put on some old jeans, grabbed his tools, and fixed them.

He could run the WHOLE FREAKIN PLACE, without an employee. But that doesn't work with your socialist myth that "they can't earn anything without us, and they don't do anything".

But you are wrong. You are ignorant, and foolish.

Keep cherry picking and ignoring that once companies are founded, this stops happening in those companies.

Ahh..The lib playbook.....Instead of engaging the debate, you find yourself unable to rebut, you accuse the OP of cherry picking......Typical.

 

[boilermaker55]

You seem to have the trouble of being the asshole. LOL
Get it, dumb f*ck.

And a CEO is worth his money?
Doubt it but your kind seem to kiss the ground they walk on.

The investment doesn't work unless the middle class workers do the job. Dumbass!

Yes, yes, your petty ROFL response is hilarious. Now tell me, what work does the capitalist actually do then "invest" to buy materials, made by workers, hell, everything the capitalist uses is made by workers.

ROFL what a dumb ass POS you are.

I suppose you've never done any work as an investment that you were not directly paid for. Effing marxist pig. Investments don't have to pay off. Investments in $ is no different than an investment in time or effort.

ROFL what an idiot. Yeah cause a lawyer or engineer getting paid 300k is "middle class."

You talking to me ass hole?

 

[RKMBrown]

You seem to have the trouble of being the asshole. LOL
Get it, dumb f*ck.

And a CEO is worth his money?
Doubt it but your kind seem to kiss the ground they walk on.

The investment doesn't work unless the middle class workers do the job. Dumbass!

ROFL what a dumb ass POS you are.

I suppose you've never done any work as an investment that you were not directly paid for. Effing marxist pig. Investments don't have to pay off. Investments in $ is no different than an investment in time or effort.

ROFL what an idiot. Yeah cause a lawyer or engineer getting paid 300k is "middle class."

You talking to me ass hole?

I'm not the one that thinks bill gate's being rich is stealing money from me.

 

[boilermaker55]

Now you are injecting your own perilous and idiotic drama into my posts.
Not nice! Try playing fair and nice. Once!

You seem to have the trouble of being the asshole. LOL
Get it, dumb f*ck.

And a CEO is worth his money?
Doubt it but your kind seem to kiss the ground they walk on.

The investment doesn't work unless the middle class workers do the job. Dumbass!

ROFL what an idiot. Yeah cause a lawyer or engineer getting paid 300k is "middle class."

You talking to me ass hole?

I'm not the one that thinks bill gate's being rich is stealing money from me.

 

[RKMBrown]

Now you are injecting your own perilous and idiotic drama into my posts.
Not nice! Try playing fair and nice. Once!

You seem to have the trouble of being the asshole. LOL
Get it, dumb f*ck.

And a CEO is worth his money?
Doubt it but your kind seem to kiss the ground they walk on.

ROFL what an idiot. Yeah cause a lawyer or engineer getting paid 300k is "middle class."

You talking to me ass hole?

I'm not the one that thinks bill gate's being rich is stealing money from me.

Who said life was supposed to be "fair?" Hint... it's not.

 

[Marxist]

Private property exists because of a state that enforces it.

Really.....

So if you go to some of the barren arid areas of the world, where there is absolutely no government enforcement to speak of, places only inhabited by nomadic peoples.... they don't have private property? Go try taking one of their camels. See what happens to you.

Private property existed before there were governments.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

Private property in terms of production.. Obviously, don't pull the toothbrush shit.

In terms of production, is the same. Try and take their goats which produce goat milk they sell. Good luck. Hope you like your head hanging from a poll.

It's the same regardless. They make carts. You going to take away their cart making capital? Not going to happen.

Most modern communists aren't referring to goats or carts.. You're pulling the toothbrush shit.

It's the same. Capital is capital. You want to try and make an arbitrary distinction. There is no distinction.

Keep throwing out the usual bullshit.

I see. So you have no answer, just to keep repeating that one form of capital is magically different than another. And somehow everyone else is BS to even ask for reason?

The reason is simple: Modern day communists refer to the means of production as, primarily, actual production that matters, not a fucking cart.

 

[Marxist]

Now you are injecting your own perilous and idiotic drama into my posts.
Not nice! Try playing fair and nice. Once!

You seem to have the trouble of being the asshole. LOL
Get it, dumb f*ck.

And a CEO is worth his money?
Doubt it but your kind seem to kiss the ground they walk on.

You talking to me ass hole?

I'm not the one that thinks bill gate's being rich is stealing money from me.

Who said life was supposed to be "fair?" Hint... it's not.

Why can't it be?

 

[Flopper]

No, they invest the money. Others who work in the factories or in the offices or wherever, help the company to survive and to make a profit.
Try this. Take $100,000 and buy a building and all the equipment need for your "company" then lets just see how much money you make without help.
Try it, just once!

The Dow being up never seems to translate into jobs. Seems like there's a permanent cork in the tubing of "trickle down economics". Hoarding is a problem with the 1%. The cure, if not an adoption of a fiscal morality, should be one of patriotism. If that fails, a mandate. Either way the American economy cannot stand up much longer without one of the three.

Malignant greed is never suddenly overcome with compassion or patriotism. So when the rich grumble about raising taxes, they can look in the mirror when they want someone to blame. Gotta keep the consuming 99% consuming somehow..

The Chinese symbol for the American economy is a dragon eating its own tail.

.

The stock market is not the economy. There has never been a better example of that than this market run-up.

This market growth has been based on QE/Infinity, and anyone not paralyzed by politics knows this.

When a hardcore partisan ideologue is discussing the market of the economy, there's no reason to pay attention.

.

Thankfully then you'll be glad to know I straddle the middle of the aisle. I believe in capitalism AND a living wage. Wrap your head around that! What that means is, I know capitalism is what drives our economy. And I also know what drives our economy is the 99% consuming. You choke them out and you're putting the noose around your own neck if you're at the top.

Of course if you're at the VERY top, you don't give a fuck. That's because you are so wealthy that even a lifetime of economic hits won't crumble your castle walls. It's the top 15% of business owners that I worry about. They will soon find themselves in the bread lines as the middle class dries up and blows away in the wind.

This malignant greed isn't going to end pretty...

If the rich people all left, how pretty would it be? The rich people are the ones who have created all the wealth in our society. Without them, you would be impoverished and starving.

Trickle down economics, is how all economics works. Every bit of wealth the lower and middle class has, only exists because of the wealthy. Equally every job that the lower and middle class has, only exists because of the wealthy. Without trickle down, we would all be poor and impoverished.

Hoarding is not a problem. Wealth itself is dynamic. If you take a Rich guys Luxury sports car, and give it to a lower class person, without the wealth to maintain the car, the car will quickly end up worthless, and the Rich guy will buy another.

Moving wealth around, will never change the economic status of the people involved. Never.

America is one of the most compassionate countries in the world. The wealthiest people in our culture, give more money to the poor and charitable organizations, than anywhere in the world. That is not our problem. Our problem is greed and envy of the poor and middle class, who spend too much of their time being bitter and complaining about the rich, instead of working on improving their own lives.

The DOW and the Stock Market, was never about jobs. It's about the success of companies in our country. Success of companies, isn't about jobs either. If we make it unprofitable to create jobs in the US, companies will make jobs elsewhere, and still be profitable, and thus have a growing stock market. When you demand things like "a living wage", the result is that you make employing Americans less profitable, or unprofitable. Thus jobs are created outside the US. The DOW will go up, without jobs here in the US. Your policies have the bad results you don't like. Stop it.

Consuming is a natural part of any economy, and by definition is the driving force behind a consumer-driven economy. But consuming everything you have is not automatic. People should save and invest. But that's not the fault of CEOs or corporations if they don't. You are not pathetic children, at the mercy of big bad companies. Stop acting like it. Take responsibility for your life.

You don't need to worry about the top 15% of business owners. If the middle class dries up, they will simply work elsewhere.

France tried to soak the rich, and the result was the Rich packed up their money, and their jobs, and moved out of France.

The rich will be rich, and wealthy, either here at our benefit, or elsewhere, at our loss. You can't harm them. You can't punish them. The only thing you can do, is suffer when they leave. Atlas Shrugged. Read it.

Don't think that the middle class is going to harm the rich. You will only harm yourself. Especially since most of the business owners you are talking about, are already internationally connected. The CEO of Ford, can very easily move the companies to any number of other countries, and resettle there. They already have large offices, and regional headquarters elsewhere in the world. It wouldn't take much to move.

Similarly, they can move their jobs as well. If you push a "living wage" that makes it cheaper to build cars outside the US, and import them..... it won't take much to make that happen when they already have factories around the world.

I always hear that capitalists create the jobs, well, everything the capitalist uses, acquires, the labor they use, it all comes from workers. Who are the real job creators?

It requires both capital and labor. Jobs are being created where the conditions are right for job creation. However, the discussion should not be about job creation but rather the kind of jobs being created. There are plenty of jobs in the US and other developed nations, temporary, part time, split shift, minimum wage, dead end jobs that provide bare subsistence.

 

[Claudette]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

 

[Marxist]

No, they invest the money. Others who work in the factories or in the offices or wherever, help the company to survive and to make a profit.
Try this. Take $100,000 and buy a building and all the equipment need for your "company" then lets just see how much money you make without help.
Try it, just once!

The Dow being up never seems to translate into jobs. Seems like there's a permanent cork in the tubing of "trickle down economics". Hoarding is a problem with the 1%. The cure, if not an adoption of a fiscal morality, should be one of patriotism. If that fails, a mandate. Either way the American economy cannot stand up much longer without one of the three.

Malignant greed is never suddenly overcome with compassion or patriotism. So when the rich grumble about raising taxes, they can look in the mirror when they want someone to blame. Gotta keep the consuming 99% consuming somehow..

The Chinese symbol for the American economy is a dragon eating its own tail.

.

The stock market is not the economy. There has never been a better example of that than this market run-up.

This market growth has been based on QE/Infinity, and anyone not paralyzed by politics knows this.

When a hardcore partisan ideologue is discussing the market of the economy, there's no reason to pay attention.

.

Thankfully then you'll be glad to know I straddle the middle of the aisle. I believe in capitalism AND a living wage. Wrap your head around that! What that means is, I know capitalism is what drives our economy. And I also know what drives our economy is the 99% consuming. You choke them out and you're putting the noose around your own neck if you're at the top.

Of course if you're at the VERY top, you don't give a fuck. That's because you are so wealthy that even a lifetime of economic hits won't crumble your castle walls. It's the top 15% of business owners that I worry about. They will soon find themselves in the bread lines as the middle class dries up and blows away in the wind.

This malignant greed isn't going to end pretty...

If the rich people all left, how pretty would it be? The rich people are the ones who have created all the wealth in our society. Without them, you would be impoverished and starving.

Trickle down economics, is how all economics works. Every bit of wealth the lower and middle class has, only exists because of the wealthy. Equally every job that the lower and middle class has, only exists because of the wealthy. Without trickle down, we would all be poor and impoverished.

Hoarding is not a problem. Wealth itself is dynamic. If you take a Rich guys Luxury sports car, and give it to a lower class person, without the wealth to maintain the car, the car will quickly end up worthless, and the Rich guy will buy another.

Moving wealth around, will never change the economic status of the people involved. Never.

America is one of the most compassionate countries in the world. The wealthiest people in our culture, give more money to the poor and charitable organizations, than anywhere in the world. That is not our problem. Our problem is greed and envy of the poor and middle class, who spend too much of their time being bitter and complaining about the rich, instead of working on improving their own lives.

The DOW and the Stock Market, was never about jobs. It's about the success of companies in our country. Success of companies, isn't about jobs either. If we make it unprofitable to create jobs in the US, companies will make jobs elsewhere, and still be profitable, and thus have a growing stock market. When you demand things like "a living wage", the result is that you make employing Americans less profitable, or unprofitable. Thus jobs are created outside the US. The DOW will go up, without jobs here in the US. Your policies have the bad results you don't like. Stop it.

Consuming is a natural part of any economy, and by definition is the driving force behind a consumer-driven economy. But consuming everything you have is not automatic. People should save and invest. But that's not the fault of CEOs or corporations if they don't. You are not pathetic children, at the mercy of big bad companies. Stop acting like it. Take responsibility for your life.

You don't need to worry about the top 15% of business owners. If the middle class dries up, they will simply work elsewhere.

France tried to soak the rich, and the result was the Rich packed up their money, and their jobs, and moved out of France.

The rich will be rich, and wealthy, either here at our benefit, or elsewhere, at our loss. You can't harm them. You can't punish them. The only thing you can do, is suffer when they leave. Atlas Shrugged. Read it.

Don't think that the middle class is going to harm the rich. You will only harm yourself. Especially since most of the business owners you are talking about, are already internationally connected. The CEO of Ford, can very easily move the companies to any number of other countries, and resettle there. They already have large offices, and regional headquarters elsewhere in the world. It wouldn't take much to move.

Similarly, they can move their jobs as well. If you push a "living wage" that makes it cheaper to build cars outside the US, and import them..... it won't take much to make that happen when they already have factories around the world.

I always hear that capitalists create the jobs, well, everything the capitalist uses, acquires, the labor they use, it all comes from workers. Who are the real job creators?

It requires both capital and labor. Jobs are being created where the conditions are right for job creation. However, the discussion should not be about job creation but rather the kind of jobs being created. There are plenty of jobs in the US and other developed nations, temporary, part time, split shift, minimum wage, dead end jobs that provide bare subsistence.

Capital, in reference to production, needs to be owned by the laborers. Jobs are created based on the needs of the capitalists, not the needs of a society. You're right, companies hate paying out what a laborer is worth.

 

[Marxist]

So, the rich keep getting richer, and we created some jobs but not as many as we lost, and more peoe left the job market than were hired but the left is celebrating? Hey, have at it.

I don't know about just the rich getting richer. Anyone who plays the stock market has the opportunity to do well.

As for the stock market it has nothing to do with the economy.

Just because the stock market is doing well this week doesn't mean the economy is.

Next week the stock market could be back in the toilet. Let see if Sallow touts that.

They are getting richer, and anyone who works the stock market for a living is a worthless scum.