r > g

[Dot Com]

1.5% growth rate & 3/4's of that is going to the top Another way to represnt that is to say "most of MURICA is getting screwed" (many of them repub-voters. ) Sounds like a Republican utopia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/upshot/stephen-colbert-on-thomas-piketty.html?_r=0

And his full interview with Mr. Piketty, where he tries to wrap his head around the r>g formula (that is, the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth) that economics commentators have been debating all spring

Thomas Piketty vs. Billionaire Heroes - The Colbert Report

Thomas Piketty - Thomas Piketty - The Colbert Report

Theres nothing really to debate here. Its a fact

 

[Kimura]

If we look at economies where the rate of return on capital is a consistent amount among the owners of capital, R > G is required in order for rentiers’ income share to increase.

I was impressed how Piketty’s data demonstrates the critical role of capitalists’ savings rates in being a cause of inequality. Increasing inequality depends more on than just R and G, but rather on how inheritors of capital save their capital.

 

[Dot Com]

theres wealth disparity then there Randian wealth disparity. Heres a chart showing how the plutocrats have clawed back their ill-gotten gains through their owning of the gov't (You can thank the Repubs/cons for putting the gov't up for sale to the highest bidder ) Part of Picketty's remedy is to return tax-rates to prior levels for plutocrats.

many of their recent gains, in the last 40 years or so, have anything to do w/ real investment but rather making money w/ money and it doesn't hurt to have politicians in your pocket
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

[Kimura]

The problem, at the end of the day, is that capitalists are almost pathologically driven to seek economic rent to get a larger percentage of value than is given to workers, regardless of any type of productive contribution. Side issue, though.

 

[Dot Com]

FDR had it right in his 1936 Madison square Garden speech:
1936 Madison Square Garden speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps the most memorable line of the speech came when Roosevelt described forces which he labeled "the old enemies of peace: business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering." He went on to claim that these forces were united against his candidacy; that "They are unanimous in their hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."

either obama is too timid, as a source on that entry indicates, or he's been bought-off by the monied-interests (plutocrats). I suspect it is the latter.

 

[SteadyMercury]

In a programmer's mind r is indeed greater than g, unless the R is uppercase and the g lower.

 

[Toro]

many of their recent gains, in the last 40 years or so, have anything to do w/ real investment but rather making money w/ money and it doesn't hurt to have politicians in your pocket
.
.

That's really not true.

Returns that have accrued to capital have done so across many industries and across many geographies, which have nothing to do with trading activities.

The biggest gains have come from technology. Profit margins are at all time highs. Part of that is because of lower effective taxes and interest rates, but a big part of it is because of the change in the composition of the economy, which has moved from a manufacturing economy to a knowledge-based economy. Profit margins are much higher in knowledge-based industries than old-line businesses.

The fastest accumulation of wealth has come not in the financial economy, though it certainly has been fast, but in Silicon Valley, where 20-somethings have become billionaires.

There have been several economic studies which have concluded that the biggest driver of increasing inequality is technological change. Those who can adapt and manipulate new technologies have done best. Those who are on the receiving end have done worst. That's why those with higher educations have earned relatively more over the past four decades and those with less or little education have stagnated.

 

[Dot Com]

education doesn't account for inheritances. Money can buy lackeys to turn the wheels and flick the switches.

BTW- I'm 3/4 of the way through the book about the hero (Brad Katsuyama) from the RCB (Royal Canadian Bank) and his calling out the way the markets are electronically rigged to profit the major crimin .....errr .....players on Wall St.

 

[Dot Com]

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/may/08/thomas-piketty-new-gilded-age/

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Dot Com: It doesn't take stats or numbers on the market to understand.

Just look at property ownership, KNOWLEDGE of business and government,
even on a local level of cities.

What people run the politics in government, OWN and make deals with laws and businesses? What people are left out of that loop?

If you can imagine cities set up where districts are owned and run by the residents themselves, who are taught and trained in self-government and financial management.

And compare to how we run things right now, where even schools are controlled by bureaucracies funded by taxpayers without accountability on spending, and prisons
are WORSE.

You can see the inequality without looking up the numbers. You can see it all around us.
We are not equal, and it will take a lot of work, restructuring and years of education
training and experience to get everyone equal access to the same knowledge and capacity as the people in charge of businesses, finances and institutions now.

It cannot be gained by "legislating" and "redistributing" the resources.
The KNOWLEDGE and EXPERIENCE it takes to self-govern and manage sustainably
will take years to catch up whole populations on the leanring curve. Even if we start today.

And today, we are not even having this discussion. When I bring it up, I get blank stares.
Most people have never considered asking to run their own cities themselves
so they can learn to be independent and equal. Never even though to ask. How long will it take to achieve economic and political equality if we aren't even asking for it?
Much less demanding it in order to be equal in society? Where and when do we start?

1.5% growth rate & 3/4's of that is going to the top Another way to represnt that is to say "most of MURICA is getting screwed" (many of them repub-voters. ) Sounds like a Republican utopia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/upshot/stephen-colbert-on-thomas-piketty.html?_r=0

And his full interview with Mr. Piketty, where he tries to wrap his head around the r>g formula (that is, the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth) that economics commentators have been debating all spring

Thomas Piketty vs. Billionaire Heroes - The Colbert Report

Thomas Piketty - Thomas Piketty - The Colbert Report

Theres nothing really to debate here. Its a fact

 

[Kimura]

London School of Economics - Capital in the Twenty-First Century [Slides+Audio]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXYIYDnuSXo&feature=youtu.be"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXYIYDnuSXo&feature=youtu.be[/ame]

 

[TakeAStepBack]

If we look at economies where the rate of return on capital is a consistent amount among the owners of capital, R > G is required in order for rentiers’ income share to increase.

I was impressed how Piketty’s data demonstrates the critical role of capitalists’ savings rates in being a cause of inequality. Increasing inequality depends more on than just R and G, but rather on how inheritors of capital save their capital.

Impressed? Maybe not that much from here, but what do you think regarding savings rates in correlation with monetary policy? Do you see any connection there? Further, how such a correlation could produce the wealth gap we see today?

 

[william the wie]

If we look at economies where the rate of return on capital is a consistent amount among the owners of capital, R > G is required in order for rentiers’ income share to increase.

I was impressed how Piketty’s data demonstrates the critical role of capitalists’ savings rates in being a cause of inequality. Increasing inequality depends more on than just R and G, but rather on how inheritors of capital save their capital.

Piketty's data is also skewed to France and Scandinavia, suspect as to source and generally crap.

 

[Dot Com]

London School of Economics - Capital in the Twenty-First Century [Slides+Audio]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXYIYDnuSXo&feature=youtu.be

Thanks. I will watch this later.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People who save and invest grow wealthy, people who take advice from liberals who never ran a business or made a dollar from industry or investing don't.

Wow.

Fucking complete state of shock

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[Windship]

People who save and invest grow wealthy, people who take advice from liberals who never ran a business or made a dollar from industry or investing don't.

Wow.

Fucking complete state of shock

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

"save and invest"? Are you kidding?.
What makes me laugh is these business' would be nowhere if it werent for the workers and how do the employers show their thanks? By looking down their noses at them and treating them like crap, making them work long hours or part time and paying them peanuts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

People who save and invest grow wealthy, people who take advice from liberals who never ran a business or made a dollar from industry or investing don't.

Wow.

Fucking complete state of shock

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

"save and invest"? Are you kidding?.
What makes me laugh is these business' would be nowhere if it werent for the workers and how do the employers show their thanks? By looking down their noses at them and treating them like crap, making them work long hours or part time and paying them peanuts.

I guarantee your opinion will change once you leave Mom's basement and get out in the real world.

Guaranteed

 

[bripat9643]

The problem, at the end of the day, is that capitalists are almost pathologically driven to seek economic rent to get a larger percentage of value than is given to workers, regardless of any type of productive contribution. Side issue, though.

Economic rent only comes about through the use of government force. It's the opposite of capitalism. It's a feature of feudalism or modern liberal crony capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

1.5% growth rate & 3/4's of that is going to the top Another way to represnt that is to say "most of MURICA is getting screwed" (many of them repub-voters. ) Sounds like a Republican utopia

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/upshot/stephen-colbert-on-thomas-piketty.html?_r=0

And his full interview with Mr. Piketty, where he tries to wrap his head around the r>g formula (that is, the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth) that economics commentators have been debating all spring

Thomas Piketty vs. Billionaire Heroes - The Colbert Report

Thomas Piketty - Thomas Piketty - The Colbert Report

Theres nothing really to debate here. Its a fact

the r>g formula (that is, the rate of return on capital exceeds the rate of growth)

Why does the rate of return on capital have to exceed the rate of growth?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If we look at economies where the rate of return on capital is a consistent amount among the owners of capital, R > G is required in order for rentiers’ income share to increase.

I was impressed how Piketty’s data demonstrates the critical role of capitalists’ savings rates in being a cause of inequality. Increasing inequality depends more on than just R and G, but rather on how inheritors of capital save their capital.

If we look at economies where the rate of return on capital is a consistent amount among the owners of capital,

Gotta list?