Obama To Wall Street: "I Do Think At A Certain Point You've Made Enough Money"

[QUENTIN]

If you think Singapore and China, just for example, are not industrialized countries, you are an idiot. (Mexico IS an industrialized country.)

Again, your statement simply is not true.

Singapore has less wealth disparity than the U.S. does, so it's not relevant. China is 2 points higher on the Gini index and is not considered an industrialized nation. Neither is Mexico which is one point higher. Both are not recognized by the UN, IMF, or CIA as developed countries. They are both, in fact, considered developing countries where the level of industrialization relative to the population is not high and where the standard of living is low.

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're actually the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to insult me for knowing what I'm talking about. Click again the link on developed countries and now developing countries for further explanation of why you're mistaken. I'll admit that I was wrong in saying we had the highest disparity, it's actually the second highest, after Hong Kong. #2 among industrialized nations. Somehow, apparently, this means it doesn't matter or something that it's so incredibly and unusually high I guess was your point. If not, what was?

You are just being willfully ignorant. I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong. The USA does not have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.

Deal with it.

You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:

Developing countries are in general countries which have not achieved a significant degree of industrialization relative to their populations, and which have, in most cases a medium to low standard of living. There is a strong correlation between low income and high population growth.

The terms utilized when discussing developing countries refer to the intent and to the constructs of those who utilize these terms. Other terms sometimes used are less developed countries (LDCs), least economically developed countries (LEDCs), "underdeveloped nations" or Third World nations, and "non-industrialized nations". Conversely, the opposite end of the spectrum is termed developed countries, most economically developed countries (MEDCs), First World nations and "industrialized nations".

Countries with more advanced economies than other developing nations, but which have not yet fully demonstrated the signs of a developed country, are grouped under the term "newly industrialized countries"

The following are considered emerging and developing economies according to the International Monetary Fund's World Economic Outlook Report, October 2009:

China
Mexico

IMF Developed Countries:

Australia • Germany • Malta • South Korea
• Austria • Greece • Netherlands • Spain
• Belgium • Hong Kong • New Zealand • Sweden
• Canada • Iceland • Norway • Switzerland
• Cyprus • Ireland • Portugal • Taiwan
• Czech Republic • Israel • San Marino[19] • United Kingdom
• Denmark • Italy • Singapore • United States
• Finland • Japan • Slovakia
• France • Luxembourg • Slovenia

Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.

You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.

Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is now most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.

In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.

There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.

About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.

Deal with it.

Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?

Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?

LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.

Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis

Economists estimate that 1.8 million borrowers will lose their homes this year, up from 1.4 million last year

And yes, millions are without adequate food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2

The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 35 million in June 2009, the highest number since the program began in 1962, with an average monthly benefit of $133.12 per person. As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day.

And yes, millions are without medicine.

Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million

The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year as people began losing jobs and coverage in the current recession. The poverty rate hit 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.

It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.

And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.

 

[chanel]

Great editorial today.

In fact, the $2.4 billion in total earnings of the 100 highest-paid CEOs, regardless of industry, barely beat out the $2.1 billion of the twenty-five best-compensated celebs (living ones, that is). Just seven of those 100 CEOs worked in the financial industry.

I don’t begrudge Beyonce, Spielberg or Tiger — or the head of JP Morgan — the pay they receive. Nor do I begrudge Obama his $5.5 million in 2009 income — again, more than I and probably you.

Exactly who ‘makes enough money’ in Obama’s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield

 

[editec]

What I don't understand is why people think they need investment brokers like GS when they can buy their own investments through Schwab, TD, E Trade, Fidelity etc etc and not have to pay some fat cat broker a dime.

Because Goldman was the financial gambling organization that was taking the bets in this case.

They set the game up, knowing it was fixed.

At least that's the charge being brought against them.

And if that is true, and people do not go to prison for it, then you have to be nuts to invest in this country.

If we don't AT MINIMUM, make sure that the derivative casinos are on the level, then that is a doomed industry.

Some of you might object to government interference with business, but that's not what this is about.

This is about FRAUD, folks.

If the chrages are true, GOLDMAN is a GRIFTER..not socialist, not capitalist, just criminal.

 

[boedicca]

That's the wrong approach.

Derivatives (futures) have existed for ages. Farmers use them to derisk prices they receive for crops; transportation companies use them to manage fuel prices (just two examples). We all benefit from innovation in financial instruments that enable more efficient business activity.

Mortgages have also been sold in secondary markets for a long time. CDOs were an innovation which enabled more mortgages to be done by facilitating a bigger after market. Were they abused - yes. Why - because the government socialized the risk.

A better solution is to move such instruments into an options exchange with standardized contracts and much improved transparency. This is how the commodities futures work - people are willing to take long and short positions because they have a great deal of information available as to the sentiments of price movements.

As to Goldman being a grifter, the CDO transactions for which they are being investigated had a Very Willing Buyer who was seeking the riskiest instruments possible.

Sophisticated Investor

Not just anyone invests in synthetic CDOs and other asset-backed securities. Buyers are limited to big, sophisticated investors. After all, IKB purchased $150 million worth of the bonds in the deal -- only a serious investor has that kind of cash to spend. This wasn't a case where Goldman cold-called a guy who works at a tire factory to trick him into buying a wacky security. IKB should have had the resources and motivation to understand what it was buying.

The Collateral Wasn't Misleading

IKB's sophistication wouldn't matter if Goldman lied to the German bank about what was in the portfolio that the bonds were based on. The SEC doesn't allege that. Instead, the complaint says that Goldman didn't disclose that a hedge fund manager, John Paulson, played a role in creating the pool of securities. While that may or may not be found to be material, it's hard to imagine how it would have made a difference to IKB. The collateral would have been the same either way, and IKB had the opportunity to perform its own analysis on the pool's potential performance. There's no input in a cash flow model for evaluating a CDO that takes into account the parties influencing the collateral pool's creation.

(snip)

By Definition, IKB Knew a Short Existed

Finally, most news articles about the SEC case imply that if investors realized a big hedge fund had shorted the portfolio, then they would have thought twice about going long. In the case of a synthetic CDO, that's a nonsensical claim, because you can't create a synthetic CDO without also creating a short interest. The security we're talking about is derivative-like, because it references other securities. So in order to have long invertors profit if the portfolio does well, a short investor must pay up accordingly. The reverse works the same way -- so when investors like IKB lost money, Paulson profited. You need the two sides of the equation to balance.


http://www.theatlantic.com/business...the-investors-goldman-allegedly-misled/39282/

 

[editec]

I wasn't fauliting derivatives generally, Boed.

I'll say it again...

IF Goldman was pressuring the bond risk assessment folks to understate the risk, THEN what Goldman did was a CRIME.

Sophisticated investors or NOT, if they were lied to , then Goldman knowingly grifted those investors.

 

[boedicca]

Where has Goldman been charged with pressuring the bond risk assessment folks (do you mean the rating agencies)?

For large CDOs such as the ones IKB purchased, the buyer performs its own analysis.

 

[Samson]

Great editorial today.

In fact, the $2.4 billion in total earnings of the 100 highest-paid CEOs, regardless of industry, barely beat out the $2.1 billion of the twenty-five best-compensated celebs (living ones, that is). Just seven of those 100 CEOs worked in the financial industry.

I don’t begrudge Beyonce, Spielberg or Tiger — or the head of JP Morgan — the pay they receive. Nor do I begrudge Obama his $5.5 million in 2009 income — again, more than I and probably you.

Exactly who ‘makes enough money’ in Obama’s eyes? | Kyle Wingfield

For a guy who wanted "To be Clear, he sure did fuck up:

“I want to be clear, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But part of the American way is you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or you’re providing a good service. We don’t want people to stop fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow the economy.”

Again, as with his comment regarding the US being a Superpower, "whether we like it or not" he seems conflicted between what he WISHES his job was, and what it IS.



Having a President of the USA that needs to get a grip should be more than a little unsettling even for democrats

 

[mudwhistle]

Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.

I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.

You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.

China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.

Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.

A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.

In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.

 

[JBeukema]

Its a legitimate question about whether or not it is reasonable to allow the creation of products that arguably have zero social value, or substantially less value, so that people can make literally billions of dollars on these products, as John Paulson did.

Why should someone only be able to make a profit off of a product with 'social value'? Can you please define 'social value'? Does any given song or painting have 'social value'? What about wicker furniture, plastic gnomes, or a pizza? Who is to determine whether a given product [or service] has 'social value' and how are they to make that determination?

As someone who engages in speculation, I don't want my options limited. But I also don't want products that benefit the few and hurt the many.

This goes back to what I said about exploiting people. This is why we have regulation in the first place, from the Muckrackers and the FDA to financial regulations and anti-trust laws. However, I still don't see how you 'social value' argument has any merit or serves to do anything but stifle any business you don't personally appreciate merely because you don't see any need for a given product.

 

[Si modo]

Singapore has less wealth disparity than the U.S. does, so it's not relevant. China is 2 points higher on the Gini index and is not considered an industrialized nation. Neither is Mexico which is one point higher. Both are not recognized by the UN, IMF, or CIA as developed countries. They are both, in fact, considered developing countries where the level of industrialization relative to the population is not high and where the standard of living is low.

Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're actually the one who doesn't know what he's talking about and is trying to insult me for knowing what I'm talking about. Click again the link on developed countries and now developing countries for further explanation of why you're mistaken. I'll admit that I was wrong in saying we had the highest disparity, it's actually the second highest, after Hong Kong. #2 among industrialized nations. Somehow, apparently, this means it doesn't matter or something that it's so incredibly and unusually high I guess was your point. If not, what was?

You are just being willfully ignorant. I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong. The USA does not have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.

Deal with it.

You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:









Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.

You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.

Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is not most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.

In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.

There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.

About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.

Deal with it.

Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?

Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?

LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.

Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis



And yes, millions are without adequate food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2

The number of Americans receiving food stamps reached 35 million in June 2009, the highest number since the program began in 1962, with an average monthly benefit of $133.12 per person. As of late November 2009, one in eight Americans and one in four children are using food stamps and the program rate is growing at 20,000 people a day.

And yes, millions are without medicine.

Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million

The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year as people began losing jobs and coverage in the current recession. The poverty rate hit 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.

It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.

And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.

Of course I called you an idiot. You are. Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra). I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.

A lesson you and others should learn. Then you wouldn't be idiots. It's just that simple.

 

[QUENTIN]

Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.

I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.

You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.

China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.

Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.

A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.

In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.

There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be developing countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.

You are just being willfully ignorant. I provided links for you, and wasted my time, showing that you are flat wrong. The USA does not have the largest income disparity of all industrialized countries.

Deal with it.

You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:









Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.

You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.

Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is not most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.

In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.

There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.

About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.

Deal with it.

Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?

Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?

LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.

Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis



And yes, millions are without adequate food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2



And yes, millions are without medicine.

Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million

The number of Americans without health insurance rose to 46.3 million last year as people began losing jobs and coverage in the current recession. The poverty rate hit 13.2 percent, an 11-year high.

It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.

And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.

Of course I called you an idiot. You are. Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra). I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.

A lesson you and others should learn. Then you wouldn't be idiots. It's just that simple.

I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong.

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong.

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?

 

[Toro]

Its a legitimate question about whether or not it is reasonable to allow the creation of products that arguably have zero social value, or substantially less value, so that people can make literally billions of dollars on these products, as John Paulson did.

Why should someone only be able to make a profit off of a product with 'social value'? Can you please define 'social value'? Does any given song or painting have 'social value'? What about wicker furniture, plastic gnomes, or a pizza? Who is to determine whether a given product [or service] has 'social value' and how are they to make that determination?

As someone who engages in speculation, I don't want my options limited. But I also don't want products that benefit the few and hurt the many.

This goes back to what I said about exploiting people. This is why we have regulation in the first place, from the Muckrackers and the FDA to financial regulations and anti-trust laws. However, I still don't see how you 'social value' argument has any merit or serves to do anything but stifle any business you don't personally appreciate merely because you don't see any need for a given product.

Perhaps the phrase "social value" is the wrong one, but there are all sorts of activities that we as a society restrict because we see those activities as harmful to society in general. A private citizen cannot buy and sell a nuclear weapon, for example. We disallow the trafficking of illegal narcotics. One may disagree with those restrictions but society has deemed it such that many activities are harmful to society.

I'm not saying that trading synthetic CDOs should be restricted. I don't know the answer to that question. All I'm saying is that it is reasonable to debate the issue. Warren Buffett called these things "financial weapons of mass destruction." George Soros said that "derivatives will end society as we know it." These are two of the greatest investors of all time. I think their concerns are not unreasonable because I can see how they could be right.

 

[Toro]

I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity. I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.

What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world. But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe. In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.

BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state. Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.

 

[bucs90]

Protecting the corprations from the people.

Yeah you guys have found a real winner of an Issue here.

I think you need to work harder though.

You need to find all the RINOS and kick them out of the party.

You need to find a way to piss off other people besides just the latinos and blacks.

Cant you figure out how to piss off Asians?

Wow. "Protecting the corporations from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the corporations", aka, unions and socialist loons like Obama and Marx.

There is one thing you libtards never seem to realize: The corporations ARE THE PEOPLE.

You libiots seem to equate corporations with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a corporation, a business, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a corporation doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" corporations like Wal-Mart. And Hardees/Carl's Jr. And BP.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people own stock in them and make money from them. And other businesses share and trade with them. And thats how the economy works, with corporations earning, spending, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you lefties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite Obama stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Big Sugar Daddy government can fairly distribute the Obama stash to you.

So, when Obama says a corporation has "Made enough money", he's telling it's thousands of workers, and thousands of shareholders, and hundreds of businesses that company buys supplies and services from: No more. You have enough. The Obama stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my minions.

Sounds an awful lot like commun........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social fairness. There, thats better, right?

 

[bucs90]

Oh, and as for income disparity, it's nothing more than an argument of envy.

Our poor live better than the rest of the worlds middle class. In fact, if your HOUSEHOLD, combined, is $50,000 or more, you are in the wealthiest 2% of the world.

Thats right. 2 roommates, working as managers at fast food joints, have a household income in the top 2% of the world.

The African-American population of the USA, if taken seperately, would be the 4th richest nation on Earth.

Income disparity in the USA is NOTHING but a statement of envy and jealousy from libiots who are jealous of what others have and want someone to take it from them so they will feel better about themselves. Plain and simple.

 

[boedicca]

I see that there is a debate raging on income disparity. I will post this graph. It is a decade old but I don't think things have changed too much.

What this graph says is that, yes, the income disparities between the richest and the poorest in America is the widest of all the richest countries in the world. But, interestingly, the disparity between the median income and the poorest is actually not that much wider than it is in Europe. In fact, the difference between the poorest and the median income in the US was slightly less than that in the welfare states of Sweden and Finland.

BTW, it is a specious argument to compare America to China and Mexico, but it is somewhat fair to compare the US to Singapore, although Singapore is a small city-state. Perhaps we should compare Singapore to Minneapolis.

What's the income disparity of Zimbabwe?

Your graph is really quite meaningless. The people below the median level of income in the U.S. have standards of living that not even kings had in the past. They have indoor plumbing, potable water, heat, air conditioning, big screen TVs, motor powered transportation, inexpensive food....all of which are the products of capital investment which made them widely available, relatively cheap, and cost effective to distribute.

Instead of comparing oneself to everyone who is better off, a better use of one's time is to focus on improving one's own lot in life - something to which people in the U.S. have generally had far more opportunity than most everyone who has ever lived (if you really need to make a comparison).

 

[Samson]

Instead of comparing oneself to everyone who is better off, a better use of one's time is to focus on improving one's own lot in life - something to which people in the U.S. have generally had far more opportunity than most everyone who has ever lived (if you really need to make a comparison).

You have a graph to compare the opportunity of people in the USA with "most everyone who has ever lived?"

Instead of comparing Toro's graph to a mythical one, a better use of one's time would be to sample Rex-Goliath Chardonnay, 2008, Woodbridge, CA. The wine is named after the "World's Largest ......um.....'Rooster'.......weighing in at 47 lbs.

 

[Si modo]

Fuckheads like Quentin need to get a grip.

I'm sure if you search long enough you can find some kind of obscure statistic that backs up your lame-brained ideological beliefs....but the overall big picture doesn't jive with your findings.

You see in order for your stance on the subject to have any validity you have to exclude countries and pigeonhole the fuck out of the facts.

China is industrialized...and they are quickly overtaking us. They produce more products then the United States. Yes they are developing but they are a modern society. Mexico is an industrialized nation as well. The very fact that they are so fucked up is why they are worse off then we are...and that simple fact is what you're using to exclude them.

Any country that doesn't meet your criteria is automatically excluded which means the sample you're using is biased. The whole premise is rigged to get findings that are not real nor do they reflect the truth.

A more honest result would be derived from using all countries in the world and compare them, not just look at the few that fall into the narrow class that suits your aims.

In a nut-shell....any country that is worse off then the United States, according to you, doesn't meet your criteria....so they are automatically and conveniently excluded. So guess what.....your findings are meaningless.

There are three and only three widely respected and recognized organizations that classify countries based on their economies. They are the International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), all three groups uniformly consider China and Mexico to be developing countries on their way to industrialization, not industrialized countries. This information is contained in the links that both I and Si modo posted in this thread.

I'm not a part of any of the three organization. It's not my standards, I'm doing no pigeonholing and the criteria are not mine. Words have meanings that can't be defined by us as we see fit to make an argument. An industrialized or developed nation is one that has reached a certain level of industrialization and quality of life measured by these international organizations that have the means to make these measurements and rate them accordingly.

All of the major bodies tasked with relaying their expert findings on whether a country is industrialized and developed or not conclude that Mexico and China are not.

If you have an issue with that, take it up with them. The fact is, you are wrong. What seems most likely from your attempt at argument is that you don't know what industrialized means or what criteria are recognized as the measurements of industrialization and development. You apparently think the fact that China for instance sells more things than us means it's industrialized. On this subject, you're quite ignorant. That would be fine, as long as you didn't make an ass of yourself by calling someone else a fuckhead for knowing more than you about the subject and being able to back that up with the findings of the IMF, UN, and CIA, which were already provided in the thread before you tried to call me a fuckhead for accurately citing them.

You don't know what you're talking about, it's probably best for your own sake that you either now inform yourself or shut up about it.

You're either being really dishonest, didn't read your own links, didn't understand your own links, or are trying to save face. I'm not sure which one it is, but while technically right that the U.S. does not have the #1 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries, as I've already admitted and clarified twice, it has the #2 largest income disparity of all industrialized countries... So what is your point in trying to discredit that?

From the links we've already posted here, which you're apparently not reading or understanding:









Mexico and China are not developed countries, Singapore has less wealth disparity than the US. The only industrialized nation in the world with greater wealth disparity than the US is Hong Kong, that's the third time I've said that now, we're not #1 but #2.

You called me an idiot for not thinking Mexico and China were industrialized countries. All of the major bodies that classify countries economically -the IMF, UN, and CIA - do not classify them as industrialized countries but rather developing countries. You continue to assert the same claim even when the evidence I, and even you, provide demonstrates that you're wrong.

Perhaps you don't understand these terms, "industrialized" (which is not most commonly referred to as "developed"), "newly industrialized" (which is a euphemism for "developing" among those not yet industrialized), "developing" (which is everyone not yet industrialized) but they're all defined rather clearly in the Wikipedia links we've both posted.

In point of fact and as evidenced by the UN, IMF, and CIA analysis and classification, you're the one who was wrong (and by your standards an idiot) for thinking China and Mexico were industrialized countries or that Singapore had greater wealth disparity.

There is only one developed country with greater wealth disparity than the U.S. and that's Hong Kong.

About China, Mexico, Singapore, and every other assertion but that we're #2, I've provided links for you showing that you're flat wrong.

Deal with it.

Now that we've got that out of the way, what point were you trying to make?

Do you think because, even if I were to quite generously give you that say Mexico and China are developed countries (they're not), the fact that America would still be in the top 5 for wealth disparity in the industrialized world is not a problem? Is something to ignore? Doesn't matter? Isn't representative of anything?

LuckyDan, I didn't say "homeless, starving, dying," I said without food, homes, and medicine and that's true. Millions of Americans are losing their homes, that's not an exaggeration.

Unemployment Spike Compounds Foreclosure Crisis



And yes, millions are without adequate food.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/us/29foodstamps.html?_r=2



And yes, millions are without medicine.

Census Bureau: Number of Americans without health insurance rises to 46.3 million



It gets pretty frustrating arguing with people who insult you for being right as they defiantly insist on making totally inaccurate assertions and holding totally inaccurate beliefs, especially when the evidence is not only readily available but even presented for them.

And my point is that, while people can try to pinpoint and bicker over semantic arguments or whether our wealth disparity is #1, #2, or #3 or whether there are 3 million people without homes or 5 million, America clearly has an enormous and increasing (increasing since the 1970s and with no signs of abating, but actually getting worse) gap between the rich and poor and while that exists and is so extreme, it's the height of immorality for a billionaire to buy a new yacht while a child can't afford the bare necessities. But people don't want to defend that, even if it's what they're defending when they argue the rich can never make enough money and it's evil to tax them to pay for social services the country has democratically chosen to implement.

Of course I called you an idiot. You are. Anyone who makes a claim, ESPECIALLY one so easily verified or refuted, without backing it up is an idiot.

And, Singapore, Mexico, and China - all with higher income disparity, just for example - are industrialized countries (vide supra). I don't make claims that are not supported AND I support those claims with links and/or references.

A lesson you and others should learn. Then you wouldn't be idiots. It's just that simple.

I did back it up, you even helped back it up for me. As stated now repeatedly and as evidenced here:

Developed country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Developing country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And as I quoted above.

Like mudwhistle, you seem to not know what being an industrialized or developed nation means and think, like a huge fucking idiot making your stupidity readily apparent, that "Well they have a really large economy and make lots of stuff, they must be industrialized!" Again, it wouldn't be a problem to be ignorant on the subject if you didn't pretend to know what you were talking about and chastise someone for speaking accurately on the subject when even you have provided the evidence that you are wrong.

Your links and references you've cited demonstrate that Singapore has less income inequality than the US (Singapore = 42.5, US =45 on Gini index) and that China and Mexico are both developing countries on their way to being industrialized but not yet having met the benchmarks that the IMF, CIA, and UN use for determining what countries are and are not "developed."

It's hard to tell whether you're lying to save face or have no idea what you're talking about, but the longer this goes on either the more dishonest or more stupid you look.

Check your own references, they prove you wrong.

And again, even if we were to set aside this issue and pretend China and Mexico were already developed nations, their income inequality is 1 and 2 points higher than the U.S., or in other words quite similar. It doesn't prove anything because they're not developed nations, but if they were, what would that prove? That we have the fourth greatest income inequality in the world? What the hell is the purpose of your point? What are you trying to argue by attempting to point out, even if you weren't wrong, that there are a couple countries even worse than we are? Is our level of income inequality then not a problem, in need of no reform, and a moot discussion point?

Moron.

Mexico, China, and Singapore, just for example, ARE industrialized nations (vide supra).

At this point, you are a bigger idiot for trying to deny it.

Your claim that the USA has the highest income disparity of all induistrialized nations, or even the second largest, is just plain bullshit, as my links and the references therein demonstrate.

Moron.

 

[QUENTIN]

Wow. "Protecting the corporations from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the corporations", aka, unions and socialist loons like Obama and Marx.

There is one thing you libtards never seem to realize: The corporations ARE THE PEOPLE.

You libiots seem to equate corporations with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a corporation, a business, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a corporation doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" corporations like Wal-Mart. And Hardees/Carl's Jr. And BP.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people own stock in them and make money from them. And other businesses share and trade with them. And thats how the economy works, with corporations earning, spending, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you lefties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite Obama stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Big Sugar Daddy government can fairly distribute the Obama stash to you.

So, when Obama says a corporation has "Made enough money", he's telling it's thousands of workers, and thousands of shareholders, and hundreds of businesses that company buys supplies and services from: No more. You have enough. The Obama stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my minions.

Sounds an awful lot like commun........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social fairness. There, thats better, right?

Wow. "Protecting the government from the people". You said that in sarcasm, so I assume you buy into the idea of "Protecting the people from the government", aka, militias and conservative loons like Reagan and Von Mises.

There is one thing you conservadolts never seem to realize: The government IS THE PEOPLE.

You contards seem to equate governments with non-human things. It's not the terminator. It's not global warming, or a hurricane, or an asteroid. It is a government, an institution, run by people, founded by people, employing and paying people.

Without people, a government doesn't exist. Somewhere in the past, a single person founded "evil" governments like U.S.. And England/UK. And France.

PEOPLE founded it. And people run it. And people are employed by them. And people pay taxes to them and get services from them. And other governments share and trade with them. And thats how the world works, with governments legislating, regulating, employing, succeeding, and failing, and all around the merry go round.

But no, you righties don't grasp that. You believe there is an infinite free market stash of money out there with your name on it, and only Sugar Daddy Big Business can fairly distribute the corporate stash to you.

So, when Boehner says a government has "Gotten big enough", he's telling its thousands of workers, and millions of citizens, and millions of people that government protects and provides services for: No more. You have enough. The corporate stash needs a boost so I can handout some goodies to my industry minions.

Sounds an awful lot like plutoc........wait, that must of been my racism about to slip out. Sounds a lot like social inequality There, thats better, right?

/\ I don't necessarily agree with all of the above, but it's the equal argument that you made. In other words, you chastised people for demonizing corporations in exactly the same way you and your ilk demonize government and despite the fact that it's also made up of lots of people who work for it, benefit from it, rely on it, etc. It's a hypocritical line of thinking. If you want to defend an unfettered and unregulated market, there are ways to do that, but employing the same tactics you condemn others for in the process won't cut it.

 

[saveliberty]

A two party system bent on getting your vote and taking your money. Government is the people, get a clue moron.