The rich get richer and the poorer remain poorer?

[Erand7899]

The Super Bowl was a classic example of inequality. One team won...the other lost. What should be done about that?

I think if we don't want to 'kill' the loser's spirits we should give both teams a trophy right?
The one thing that is the ultimate anathema to any LIB is the thought of one person out- competing another person. It's their 'mother's milk'. If we all get a trophy then none of us has to work too hard right? Classic LIB mind set in every aspect of their fruitless lives. That's why 100% of Blacks vote LIB.
Be-grudge those who work harder for their rewards then claim these 'makers' ought to give to the 'takers'.

Actually the issue is about macro economic market trends that benefit one group over the other. The hope is to somehow account for these changes to ensure economic prosperity for the working people of America and the long term growth of the nation.

Market trends never benefit one group over another, with the exception of the group that is wise, versus the group that is not so wise. The only macro economic issue that is at work here, is the effect that government regulation has on small and emerging businesses.

When government makes it difficult for new businesses to enter the market, and/or makes it difficult for small businesses to grow, then it benefits established businesses, and threatens the middle class. The same government forces that hinder small businesses, stiffles the growth of employment, stagnates wages, and increases poverty.

Although, we need reasonable government regulation to conserve our environment, keep business honest, and ensure that markets are not skewed by corruption or economic power, we definitely do not need tens of thousands of pages of regulations that have little more purpose than to cater to special interest groups and/or increase the political power of the bureaucracy.

Who wants to empty their savings account, mortgage their house, and borrow everything they can from friends and relatives, just to pay lawyers to comb through all those regulations and obtain all the necessary licenses needed before one can start a basic business? Then, if that person is still financially able to open the business, put his heart, soul, and the future of his children, into the business, he/she takes the gamble that they have missed a new regulation, and some bureaucrat has assessed a huge fine and a need for expensive corrective action.

That is why we have a problem in the middle class.

 

[Bombur]

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

IF you were educated, you would know the answer, which is from finance, not economics.

What are the elements that go into any product?

Labor
Overhead
Material

Add to this the fee, or desired profit, and you have the price of the product.

If a person is worth a hundred dollars an hour, and can make 10 super-widgets per hour with a material cost of $30 per unit, then the calculation is (assume a 300% overhead)

Labor=10
Overhead = 30
Material = 30

Cost = 70

Add a 15% fee and the price of the super widget is $80.50

IF you cannot sell the super widget for $80.50, then the worker is NOT worth $100 an hour.

Costing is ALWAYS based on what the labor is worth. When you made your silly claim, you merely advertised your abject ignorance.

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

What is bullshit is your pretense that you have any knowledge on the subject. What is stupid is that you'd try and pull this shit here. Do you have ANY idea how many MBA's are here?

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

The fact that you don't grasp the distinction between finance and economics is the first clue that you're full of shit.

LOL

The "finance" you speak of is just applied economics and it doesn't really matter how many other variables you add to the equation the basic MB = MC principle remains the same and my point remains the same. A point that has clearly gone way over your head.

That is rather typical of MBAs. They are taught applied economics and then are completely dumb founded when they are told about the theory behind it.

I honestly don't think you will listen to a word I say so I suggest you just learn the topic on your own. Or don't. Whatever.

There is a lot of money in owning the sweat off your own brow. There is even more in owning the sweat off of the brow of others. Capitalism favors the capitalist. It is one of the major reasons it works so well.

 

[Bombur]

I think if we don't want to 'kill' the loser's spirits we should give both teams a trophy right?
The one thing that is the ultimate anathema to any LIB is the thought of one person out- competing another person. It's their 'mother's milk'. If we all get a trophy then none of us has to work too hard right? Classic LIB mind set in every aspect of their fruitless lives. That's why 100% of Blacks vote LIB.
Be-grudge those who work harder for their rewards then claim these 'makers' ought to give to the 'takers'.

Actually the issue is about macro economic market trends that benefit one group over the other. The hope is to somehow account for these changes to ensure economic prosperity for the working people of America and the long term growth of the nation.

Market trends never benefit one group over another, with the exception of the group that is wise, versus the group that is not so wise. The only macro economic issue that is at work here, is the effect that government regulation has on small and emerging businesses.

When government makes it difficult for new businesses to enter the market, and/or makes it difficult for small businesses to grow, then it benefits established businesses, and threatens the middle class. The same government forces that hinder small businesses, stiffles the growth of employment, stagnates wages, and increases poverty.

Although, we need reasonable government regulation to conserve our environment, keep business honest, and ensure that markets are not skewed by corruption or economic power, we definitely do not need tens of thousands of pages of regulations that have little more purpose than to cater to special interest groups and/or increase the political power of the bureaucracy.

Who wants to empty their savings account, mortgage their house, and borrow everything they can from friends and relatives, just to pay lawyers to comb through all those regulations and obtain all the necessary licenses needed before one can start a basic business? Then, if that person is still financially able to open the business, put his heart, soul, and the future of his children, into the business, he/she takes the gamble that they have missed a new regulation, and some bureaucrat has assessed a huge fine and a need for expensive corrective action.

That is why we have a problem in the middle class.

I have no problem with a political ideology based on the principle that government should ensure that small businesses and start up businesses have the opportunity they need to enter the market place.

The middle class doesn't begin and end with small business though and a lot of the middle class will always be made up of people selling their labor in the labor market.

If it was up to me these two areas would get a lot more attention but our current political parties tend to focus on the other ends of the spectrum IMO.

You are wrong about the macro economic trends though.

 

[Bombur]

Bullshit.



You know nothing of economics, finance, or business. You're making up shit.

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

They're worth $100 to you because they bring in $1000 worth of revenue, you dimwit. Do you need someone to draw you a diagram of what "worth to you" means and how to determine it?

What a fucking moron.

ROFL
Am I the only one that finds your flailing around hilarious?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have no problem with a political ideology based on the principle that government should ensure that small businesses and start up businesses have the opportunity they need to enter the market place.

The middle class doesn't begin and end with small business though and a lot of the middle class will always be made up of people selling their labor in the labor market.

If it was up to me these two areas would get a lot more attention but our current political parties tend to focus on the other ends of the spectrum IMO.

You are wrong about the macro economic trends though.

So, are you saying that if someone wants to "create" a business, they should apply to the government, who can either grant them the business or not? And the the government should decide what products that business makes or selles, what they pay the workers, and how much profit they can earn?

This all sounds eerily familiar...

 

[Spiderman]

The same old whining.

I'll ask the question again

Who has ever stopped you from earning more if you wanted to?

Who has ever stopped you from saving more if you wanted to?

Who is forcing you to buy shit you can't afford?

Until you can tell me who is doing this STOP FUCKING WHINING

 

[Uncensored2008]

ROFL
Am I the only one that finds your flailing around hilarious?

Most of us are too busy laughing at you to pay attention to that....


Can you say "blowhard?"

I knew you could....

 

[Bombur]

I have no problem with a political ideology based on the principle that government should ensure that small businesses and start up businesses have the opportunity they need to enter the market place.

The middle class doesn't begin and end with small business though and a lot of the middle class will always be made up of people selling their labor in the labor market.

If it was up to me these two areas would get a lot more attention but our current political parties tend to focus on the other ends of the spectrum IMO.

You are wrong about the macro economic trends though.

So, are you saying that if someone wants to "create" a business, they should apply to the government, who can either grant them the business or not? And the the government should decide what products that business makes or selles, what they pay the workers, and how much profit they can earn?

This all sounds eerily familiar...

Huh? No.

The government does have to make sure that when they create their regulations they are not overly burdensome on small business though. The government has to make sure big businesses don't create oligopolies or other market conditions that severely limit the ability of small businesses to function.

I am not against regulations but I think it is the job of the government to make navigating the regulations as simple as possible.

 

[Bombur]

ROFL
Am I the only one that finds your flailing around hilarious?

Most of us are too busy laughing at you to pay attention to that....


Can you say "blowhard?"

I knew you could....

I am sorry you were never taught economics. Don't blame me that your MBA program failed you.

Ironically understanding Marginal Benefit and Marginal Cost is a major reason why markets result in better decision making than government. This is what happens when people are just taught conclusions and don't understand the reasons why those conclusions are taught.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I am sorry you were never taught economics. Don't blame me that your MBA program failed you.

 

[longknife]

This "economic equality" ploy by Obama and the Democrats really bothers me.

Sounds an awful lot like communism. Nobody to earn more than anyone else - except for the bigshots who run the system.

It appears to me to be an effort to turn us into a society of drones. Why work hard to get ahead when someone/something is going to take it away from you to give it to the "lesser advantaged"?

We've already got the War on Poverty which hasn't won anything and we still have lots and lots of people living at the Poverty Level - where they own cars, A/Cs, TVs, Refrigerators, with electricity and hot/cold running water.

Millions - nay billions - would give anything to have what our "poor" have.

 

[Bombur]

This "economic equality" ploy by Obama and the Democrats really bothers me.

Sounds an awful lot like communism. Nobody to earn more than anyone else - except for the bigshots who run the system.

It appears to me to be an effort to turn us into a society of drones. Why work hard to get ahead when someone/something is going to take it away from you to give it to the "lesser advantaged"?

We've already got the War on Poverty which hasn't won anything and we still have lots and lots of people living at the Poverty Level - where they own cars, A/Cs, TVs, Refrigerators, with electricity and hot/cold running water.

Millions - nay billions - would give anything to have what our "poor" have.

Growing income inequality leads to desperation which leads to socialism and Fascism. The goal of addressing rising income inequality is to prevent such desperation.

 

[Papageorgio]

In economics we learn that there is no money in paying people what they are actually worth.

Bullshit.

In fact the general idea is to stop hiring new people once you start paying them what they are worth to you.

You know nothing of economics, finance, or business. You're making up shit.

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

If you pay employees using profit, it isn't profit, it is an expense.

Profit is after ALL expenses are paid.

You pay employees what you can afford and still make a profit and you hope you make a profit, otherwise you are closed.

 

[Papageorgio]

This "economic equality" ploy by Obama and the Democrats really bothers me.

Sounds an awful lot like communism. Nobody to earn more than anyone else - except for the bigshots who run the system.

It appears to me to be an effort to turn us into a society of drones. Why work hard to get ahead when someone/something is going to take it away from you to give it to the "lesser advantaged"?

We've already got the War on Poverty which hasn't won anything and we still have lots and lots of people living at the Poverty Level - where they own cars, A/Cs, TVs, Refrigerators, with electricity and hot/cold running water.

Millions - nay billions - would give anything to have what our "poor" have.

Growing income inequality leads to desperation which leads to socialism and Fascism. The goal of addressing rising income inequality is to prevent such desperation.

What creates desperation is propaganda and those that use class warfare, to help create division. Hitler was great at creating the divide between the people and the ruling class.

 

[Bombur]

Bullshit.



You know nothing of economics, finance, or business. You're making up shit.

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

If you pay employees using profit, it isn't profit, it is an expense.

Profit is after ALL expenses are paid.

You pay employees what you can afford and still make a profit and you hope you make a profit, otherwise you are closed.

Like I said employers are not perfect and will sometimes try and keep employees on even when their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit.
The comment has nothing to do with timing but possible reality in reference to where MC = MB.

 

[Bombur]

This "economic equality" ploy by Obama and the Democrats really bothers me.

Sounds an awful lot like communism. Nobody to earn more than anyone else - except for the bigshots who run the system.

It appears to me to be an effort to turn us into a society of drones. Why work hard to get ahead when someone/something is going to take it away from you to give it to the "lesser advantaged"?

We've already got the War on Poverty which hasn't won anything and we still have lots and lots of people living at the Poverty Level - where they own cars, A/Cs, TVs, Refrigerators, with electricity and hot/cold running water.

Millions - nay billions - would give anything to have what our "poor" have.

Growing income inequality leads to desperation which leads to socialism and Fascism. The goal of addressing rising income inequality is to prevent such desperation.

What creates desperation is propaganda and those that use class warfare, to help create division. Hitler was great at creating the divide between the people and the ruling class.

He didn't invent all of the desperation, he simply took advantage of it. This is basic history.

 

[Papageorgio]

If someone is worth $100 to you and you pay them $100 how much do you make on the deal?

It is called math not bullshit. I will grant you that more often then not the two won't be equal because the employer will be taking risks and possibly even using profit to pay some employees more than they are worth. Many employers are not perfect.

If you really want to learn about the economics I am talking about I bet there are some labor economics classes you can take for free online.

If you pay employees using profit, it isn't profit, it is an expense.

Profit is after ALL expenses are paid.

You pay employees what you can afford and still make a profit and you hope you make a profit, otherwise you are closed.

Like I said employers are not perfect and will sometimes try and keep employees on even when their marginal cost exceeds their marginal benefit.
The comment has nothing to do with timing but possible reality in reference to where MC = MB.

But you called it profit, it is not profit, you don't pay employees with profits, you pay them and it is an expense, you misuse of the terms is pretty common for those that don't know about money and business.

 

[Papageorgio]

Growing income inequality leads to desperation which leads to socialism and Fascism. The goal of addressing rising income inequality is to prevent such desperation.

What creates desperation is propaganda and those that use class warfare, to help create division. Hitler was great at creating the divide between the people and the ruling class.

He didn't invent all of the desperation, he simply took advantage of it. This is basic history.

So, why is the left playing the game? We aren't anywhere near the poor of the world.

 

[Londoner]

The middle class started losing ground when our capitalists shifted production (manufacturing) to cheaper labor markets in Communist China, only to replace those jobs with a sea of low-wage, no-benefit retail & service sector jobs, ones that left average American families vulnerable to credit (debt) which exploded as we transitioned to a low wage economy so our suppliers could realize higher profits.

In the 2000s Bush aggressively expanded credit to the middle and lower classes so they could buy homes. And yes, like any credit bubble, there was plenty of prosperity in the beginning, especially because the bubble enabled an explosion of spending across consumer markets as Americans furnished their homes . But eventually all bubbles burst and the bills come due. Now we're paying for the so-called prosperity of the Bush years. All the lower and middle class families who were lifted into the American Dream of home ownership are now being foreclosed upon, and all the bubble jobs that were sustained by artificial bubble money are gone. But at least we bailed out the wealthy Wall Street firms that fueled the boom by their willingness to turn those mortgages into a trillion dollar profit cow of securities, swaps and derivatives. As it turns out, the temporary upward mobility of those home owners turned into fools gold, to be sold all over the globe. The number of home owners bankrupted by the Bush years stands in stark contrast to a study which conveniently excludes 2008, the year when the bubble burst and the economy started shedding over a million jobs .... and home owners faced record foreclosures.

Again, why does the study only include the bubble years and not the meltdown?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The middle class started losing ground when our capitalists shifted production (manufacturing) to cheaper labor markets in Communist China, only to replace those jobs with a sea of low-wage, no-benefit retail & service sector jobs, ones that left average American families vulnerable to credit (debt) which exploded as we transitioned to a low wage economy so our suppliers could realize higher profits.

In the 2000s Bush aggressively expanded credit to the middle and lower classes so they could buy homes. And yes, like any credit bubble, there was plenty of prosperity in the beginning, especially because the bubble enabled an explosion of spending across consumer markets as Americans furnished their homes . But eventually all bubbles burst and the bills come due. Now we're paying for the so-called prosperity of the Bush years. All the lower and middle class families who were lifted into the American Dream of home ownership are now being foreclosed upon, and all the bubble jobs that were sustained by artificial bubble money are gone. But at least we bailed out the wealthy Wall Street firms that fueled the boom by their willingness to turn those mortgages into a trillion dollar profit cow of securities, swaps and derivatives. As it turns out, the temporary upward mobility of those home owners turned into fools gold, to be sold all over the globe. The number of home owners bankrupted by the Bush years stands in stark contrast to a study which conveniently excludes 2008, the year when the bubble burst and the economy started shedding over a million jobs .... and home owners faced record foreclosures.

Again, why does the study only include the bubble years and not the meltdown?

Yep, I heard that in the 50's - "All them there Chinese Japs are taking the toy making jobs."

Then in the 60's. - "All them there Chinese Japs are taking the car making jobs."

Then in the 70's - "All them there Chinese Japs are taking the steel making jobs."


You Communists sure are a smart bunch, no problem with global competition until other countries started competing...

Fucking morons.