Unequal distribution of wealth

[georgephillip]

Does the Bush/Obama $13 trillion bail-out of the richest 2% of the population count as "redistributing" the wealth?

Now you're off the charts.
What $13T bail out of richest 2% of the population.
Look, you and this Hudson fella need to go to a brothel and get some action.
The two of you are some of the most bunged up sticks in the mud seen in modern mankind.
You're so hard up in your attempt to convince you are correct (based on your new found BFF , Mr Hudson) that you'll say or post anything even if it's false.
Good luck and good night.

Are you disputing the $13 trillion figure that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have spent to bail out Wall Street?

Maybe you're confused about the richest 2% of Americans' dependence on Wall Street for their lifestyles?

Maybe you should stay out of the brothels and read more?

 

[Gadawg73]

Does the Bush/Obama $13 trillion bail-out of the richest 2% of the population count as "redistributing" the wealth?

No.

 

[Gadawg73]

Does the Bush/Obama $13 trillion bail-out of the richest 2% of the population count as "redistributing" the wealth?

Now you're off the charts.
What $13T bail out of richest 2% of the population.
Look, you and this Hudson fella need to go to a brothel and get some action.
The two of you are some of the most bunged up sticks in the mud seen in modern mankind.
You're so hard up in your attempt to convince you are correct (based on your new found BFF , Mr Hudson) that you'll say or post anything even if it's false.
Good luck and good night.

Are you disputing the $13 trillion figure that the Treasury and Federal Reserve have spent to bail out Wall Street?

Maybe you're confused about the richest 2% of Americans' dependence on Wall Street for their lifestyles?

Maybe you should stay out of the brothels and read more?

Wall Street is middle class investors.

 

[georgephillip]

Why have the richest 2% of US investors increased "their share" of returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains) to nearly double what it was a generation ago?

Would you agree with Warren Buffett's quip in Hudson's article?

"It is a reflection of how one-sided today’s class war has become that Warren Buffet has quipped that 'his' side is winning without a real fight being waged.

"No gauntlet has been thrown down over the trial balloon that the president and his advisor David Axelrod have sent up over the past two weeks to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 per cent for 'just' two more years.

"For all practical purposes the euphemism 'two years' means forever – at least, long enough to let the super-rich siphon off enough more money to bankroll enough more Republicans to be elected to make the tax cuts permanent."

Michael Hudson:

 

[editec]

Does the Bush/Obama $13 trillion bail-out of the richest 2% of the population count as "redistributing" the wealth?

No.

Of course it does.

Banks that were about to go bankript recived money and promises to take on their bad debts.

A year or two later those same banks were handing billions of dollars in bonuses to the very same people who'd bankrpted their own businesses.

If that's not REDISTRIBUTING wealth, then what the hell is?

 

[georgephillip]

Recently Warren Buffett wrote an op-ed in the NYT titled "Pretty Good for Government Work" extolling the virtues of the bail-out.

Here's a rewrite from Barry Ritholz@The Big Picture of what Warren would have written under the influence of truth serum:

"DEAR Uncle Sam Sucker,

"I was about to send you a thank you note for bailing out the economy . . . but then some nice men dressed in Ninja outfits came in and shot me full of truth serum.

"That led me to make one more set of edits to my letter thanking you for saving the economy.

It also helped me recall some things I seemed to have forgotten in my other public pronunciations about the bailouts.

"I suddenly recalled who it was who allowed the banks to run wild in the first place: You.

"Your behavior before, during and after the crisis was the epitome of a corrupt and irresponsible government.

"You rewarded incompetency, created moral hazard, punished the prudent, and engaged in the single biggest transfer of wealth from the citizenry of the United States to the Wall Street insiders who created the mess in the first place.

"Kudos.

"Before I get to the bailouts, I have to remind you that in:

"• 1999, you passed the Financial Services Modernization Act. "This repealed Glass-Steagall, the law that had successfully kept main street banking safely separated from Wall Street for seven decades.

"Even the 1987 market crash had no impact on Main Street credit availability, thanks to Glass-Steagall..."

Dear Uncle Sucker...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All countries have mixed economies. The USA has had a mixture of capitalism and socialism since it first became great with a strong middle class. FDR's programs lifted American's out of poverty. Our parents and grand parents have done well because of programs conservatives fought against.

The GOP solution? Throw momma off the train

You haven't a clue on what your talking about, Dante. FDR helped keep us in the Great Depression. sheesh....don't ever write a history book.

I read history, not right wing political fiction.

 

[thereisnospoon]

For the last time. There is no such thing as "unequal distribution of wealth".
Wealth is created. It does not exist in a vacuum.

 

[Londoner]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

This is a great question.

Unequal distribution is absolutely fine until you reach a point where the bottom half has insufficient income to consume. Your workers are also consumers. Put another way: one person's spending is another person's income. The economy cannot survive unless enough people in the lower half can buy things (either through higher wages/more benefits or after-market policies that make poor consumers more solvent). During the postwar years, there were all these policies designed to include the middle class in economic growth - more of the total pie went to demand centered policies and investment in the public sector. And when the middle class has money, the capitalist has to innovate and add jobs in order to capture that money. That's what capital does - it goes wherever consumers have money and it grows that economy to get at that money. And when consumers don't have money, the opposite happens - the capitalist has to shed jobs because he can't sell anything.

You will recall Reagan's famous quip about the soviet union when he pointed out that workers didn't make enough to buy things and live a good life. Reagan benefited deeply by pointing at the postwar Keynesian model where there was a strategic compression of income and Washington concerned itself with full employment.

After Reagan said that, of course, he undermined the conditions for high wages so he could free capital to go in search of high returns (through lower labor costs in the 3rd world). He also dismantled many of the other programs and policies that made the middle class solvent. This is when trade was aggressively liberalized and America sent its manufacturing base (mostly) to China. American labor markets (consumers) had to compete with sweatshop labor markets - which drove down wages and consumer demand. This is precisely when American households began to borrow at unprecedented rates. Research household debt starting in the 80s. Washington replaced the high wages and the middle class programs of the postwar years with credit cards and the suicidal expansion of consumer debt. It got so bad that we eventually hawked our homes, the last thing left of any value.

The problem is really twofold. When the bottom half lacks the solvency to consume, we see the toxic expansion of consumer debt. But there are also problems on top when too much capital collects and has no investment outlet in the real economy. The result is that surplus capital needs to find something else to invest in - so it pressures Wall Street to come up with higher returns some other way. Enter casino capitalism... ponzi derivatives and the dangerous expansion of risk.

The US has overplayed two models in the past 50 years,

Keynesianism, if overcooked, becomes crude and leads to terrible inflation.

Supply side economics and neoliberalism (which imposes low wages and austerity), if overcooked, leads to insufficient money for consumption. But it also leaves too much surplus on top without any viable investment opportunities... (because you can't invest in and grow the economy if there are no consumers).

Point is: it's just as dangerous when crude Keynesianism overcooks demand as it is when Reaganomics leaves too much surplus on top, which overcooks risk. [If you don't have enough money to buy my widgets, then I have to find somewhere else to invest and grow my money. If there aren't enough consumers in the real economy, I'll create a phantom economy out of speculation and risk]

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

This is a great question.

Unequal distribution is absolutely fine until you reach a point where the bottom half has insufficient income to consume. Your workers are also consumers. Put another way: one person's spending is another person's income. The economy cannot survive unless enough people in the lower half can buy things (either through higher wages/more benefits or after-market policies that lower the cost of living or make poor consumers more solvent). During the postwar years, there were all these policies designed to include the middle class in economic growth - more of the total pie went to demand centered policies and investment in the public sector. And when the middle class has money, the capitalist has to innovate and add jobs in order to capture that money. That's what capital does - it goes wherever consumers have money and it grows that economy to get at that money. And when consumers don't have money, the opposite happens - the capitalist has to shed jobs because he can't sell anything.

You will recall Reagan's famous quip about the soviet union when he pointed out that workers didn't make enough to buy things and live a good life. Reagan benefited deeply by pointing at the postwar Keynesian model where there was a strategic compression of income and Washington concerned itself with full employment.

After Reagan said that, of course, he undermined the conditions for high wages so he could free capital to go in search of high returns (through lower labor costs in the 3rd world). He also dismantled many of the other programs and policies that made the middle class solvent. This is when trade was aggressively liberalized and America sent its manufacturing base (mostly) to China. American labor markets (consumers) had to compete with sweatshop labor markets - which drove down wages and consumer demand. This is precisely when American households began to borrow at unprecedented rates. Research household debt starting in the 80s. Washington replaced the high wages and the middle class programs of the postwar years with credit cards and the suicidal expansion of consumer debt. It got so bad that we eventually hawked our homes, the last thing left of any value.

The problem is really twofold. When the bottom half lacks the solvency to consume, we see the toxic expansion of consumer debt. But there are also problems on top when too much capital collects and has no investment outlet in the real economy. That is, when there are no investment opportunities in the real economy (because the consumer has been choked by austerity to make room for more tax cuts), then... surplus capital needs to find something else to invest in - so it pressures Wall Street to come up with higher returns some other way. Enter casino capitalism... ponzi derivative markets and the dangerous expansion of risk.

The US has overplayed two models in the past 50 years,

Keynesianism, if overcooked, becomes crude and leads to terrible inflation.

Supply side economics and neoliberalism, if overcooked, leads to toxic levels of consumer debt at the bottom, and an over abundance of risk on top.

Point is: it's just as dangerous when crude Keynesianism overcooks demand as it is when Reaganomics leaves too much surplus on top with insufficient spending money down low...

This is an observation. Not a criticism.
Your post is long on statement. Short on useful solution.
Would it be you are suggesting a balance between the two economic theories?

 

[Charles_Main]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Because they hate Capitalism of course.

Capitalism is always going to have Unequal Distribution of Wealth. That is Kinda the Point. You can start with Nothing and end up Rich. Which Many do in this Country. The poor in America do not, as a Rule, Stay Poor. They Move up the Ladder, and new Poor (mostly Immigrants) take their place.

it is silly, The Dems Support Policies that lead to the mass Immigration of very poor, relatively Uneducated people into the Country. (which is fine) But then the Fuckers say look how many Poor we have, We keep getting more and more Poor, The Line Between the poor and the Rich keeps getting Bigger.

Fucking of course, We Taking in Millions of new poor Every Fucking year, and doing everything we can to Make it Fucking hard to get rich, and once you do hard to keep it. Even in Death the Fucking Rape you.

It's Un real, how you people think. It's as if you think the Rich have an Unlimited Sea of Money to Fund your Fantasy land. The Fact is if you took every penny they make every single year, It would not even put a Dent in the Kind of Spending You fuck heads have set us up to do.

Idiots.

Nothing else to say even.

Just fucking idiots.

 

[georgephillip]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Because they hate Capitalism of course.

Capitalism is always going to have Unequal Distribution of Wealth. That is Kinda the Point. You can start with Nothing and end up Rich. Which Many do in this Country. The poor in America do not, as a Rule, Stay Poor. They Move up the Ladder, and new Poor (mostly Immigrants) take their place.

it is silly, The Dems Support Policies that lead to the mass Immigration of very poor, relatively Uneducated people into the Country. (which is fine) But then the Fuckers say look how many Poor we have, We keep getting more and more Poor, The Line Between the poor and the Rich keeps getting Bigger.

Fucking of course, We Taking in Millions of new poor Every Fucking year, and doing everything we can to Make it Fucking hard to get rich, and once you do hard to keep it. Even in Death the Fucking Rape you.

It's Un real, how you people think. It's as if you think the Rich have an Unlimited Sea of Money to Fund your Fantasy land. The Fact is if you took every penny they make every single year, It would not even put a Dent in the Kind of Spending You fuck heads have set us up to do.

Idiots.

Nothing else to say even.

Just fucking idiots.

Three questions for Uncle Sucker:

How many immigrants pushed for the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act which effectively repealed Glass-Steagal?

What percentage of immigrants currently profit from 13 years of legislation allowing Credit Ratings Agencies to change their business models from Investor pays to Underwriter pays?

Did Alan Greenspan have his Green Card between 2001-2004 when he dropped Fed fund rates to 1%, "...set)ing) off an inflationary spiral in housing, commodities, and in most assets priced in dollars or credit."

Do shit-for-brains conservatives never tire of sucking up to rich parasites?

Dear Uncle Sucker . . . | The Big Picture

 

[Big Fitz]

Juan H Christmas! Wasn't this hash settled 18 months ago? What's with the necrotardia?

 

[francoHFW]

"Because the worst rich/poor gap EVER we have NOW ruins the country and the non rich, and ruins DEMAND, dupes." That well known commie Henry Ford said to pay as much as you can so your workers can be your customers. The greedy, mega rich, myopic, arrogant Pubs these days will turn us into a banana republic. DUH.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'd like to know why the unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing. This seems to be a major premise from those on the left, but it's like you just assume it's a bad thing without every really providing evidence or justifying the premise.

Because they hate Capitalism of course.

Capitalism is always going to have Unequal Distribution of Wealth. That is Kinda the Point. You can start with Nothing and end up Rich. Which Many do in this Country. The poor in America do not, as a Rule, Stay Poor. They Move up the Ladder, and new Poor (mostly Immigrants) take their place.

it is silly, The Dems Support Policies that lead to the mass Immigration of very poor, relatively Uneducated people into the Country. (which is fine) But then the Fuckers say look how many Poor we have, We keep getting more and more Poor, The Line Between the poor and the Rich keeps getting Bigger.

Fucking of course, We Taking in Millions of new poor Every Fucking year, and doing everything we can to Make it Fucking hard to get rich, and once you do hard to keep it. Even in Death the Fucking Rape you.

It's Un real, how you people think. It's as if you think the Rich have an Unlimited Sea of Money to Fund your Fantasy land. The Fact is if you took every penny they make every single year, It would not even put a Dent in the Kind of Spending You fuck heads have set us up to do.

Idiots.

Nothing else to say even.

Just fucking idiots.

Three questions for Uncle Sucker:

How many immigrants pushed for the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act which effectively repealed Glass-Steagal?

What percentage of immigrants currently profit from 13 years of legislation allowing Credit Ratings Agencies to change their business models from Investor pays to Underwriter pays?

Did Alan Greenspan have his Green Card between 2001-2004 when he dropped Fed fund rates to 1%, "...set)ing) off an inflationary spiral in housing, commodities, and in most assets priced in dollars or credit."

Do shit-for-brains conservatives never tire of sucking up to rich parasites?

Dear Uncle Sucker . . . | The Big Picture

Non Sequitur.
Those questions are irrelevant.
The fact that there are over 20 million( that's a US govt guess) than there were in 2000.
90% of them are poor. most of those are on public assistance.
Their mere presence in the workforce has dragged down average wages and thus skewed the average net worth of each household downward.
Add that to the fact that home values overall are down since 2008. Some MSA's are seeing home values down 50%. Las Vegas is the "champ" at nearly 60%.
The nation has lost 10 years of real estate value equity.
The class warfare argument no longer works. It's crap and has been dismissed.

 

[georgephillip]

Because they hate Capitalism of course.

Capitalism is always going to have Unequal Distribution of Wealth. That is Kinda the Point. You can start with Nothing and end up Rich. Which Many do in this Country. The poor in America do not, as a Rule, Stay Poor. They Move up the Ladder, and new Poor (mostly Immigrants) take their place.

it is silly, The Dems Support Policies that lead to the mass Immigration of very poor, relatively Uneducated people into the Country. (which is fine) But then the Fuckers say look how many Poor we have, We keep getting more and more Poor, The Line Between the poor and the Rich keeps getting Bigger.

Fucking of course, We Taking in Millions of new poor Every Fucking year, and doing everything we can to Make it Fucking hard to get rich, and once you do hard to keep it. Even in Death the Fucking Rape you.

It's Un real, how you people think. It's as if you think the Rich have an Unlimited Sea of Money to Fund your Fantasy land. The Fact is if you took every penny they make every single year, It would not even put a Dent in the Kind of Spending You fuck heads have set us up to do.

Idiots.

Nothing else to say even.

Just fucking idiots.

Three questions for Uncle Sucker:

How many immigrants pushed for the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act which effectively repealed Glass-Steagal?

What percentage of immigrants currently profit from 13 years of legislation allowing Credit Ratings Agencies to change their business models from Investor pays to Underwriter pays?

Did Alan Greenspan have his Green Card between 2001-2004 when he dropped Fed fund rates to 1%, "...set)ing) off an inflationary spiral in housing, commodities, and in most assets priced in dollars or credit."

Do shit-for-brains conservatives never tire of sucking up to rich parasites?

Dear Uncle Sucker . . . | The Big Picture

Non Sequitur.
Those questions are irrelevant.
The fact that there are over 20 million( that's a US govt guess) than there were in 2000.
90% of them are poor. most of those are on public assistance.
Their mere presence in the workforce has dragged down average wages and thus skewed the average net worth of each household downward.
Add that to the fact that home values overall are down since 2008. Some MSA's are seeing home values down 50%. Las Vegas is the "champ" at nearly 60%.
The nation has lost 10 years of real estate value equity.
The class warfare argument no longer works. It's crap and has been dismissed.

"Non sequitur (Latin for 'it does not follow'), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises."

So you're confused about the logical connection between Greenspan's manipulation of the Fed's funds rate between 2001-2004 and "the fact that home values overall are down since (the Greenspan Bubble burst) in 2008?

Which economic class has found the most ways to profit from our lost decade of real estate equity value?

The immigrants?

 

[georgephillip]

Non sequitur (logic) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[cutter]

Wealth is like Respect, it isn't given by the gov, it is earned. Only a lib would think otherwise.

 

[BDBoop]

 

[georgephillip]

Wealth is like Respect, it isn't given by the gov, it is earned. Only a lib would think otherwise.

Only cons are confused about which economic class has controlled all governments since the imposition of chattel slavery. Fortunes that come from war and money that comes from debt are the chains worn by today's slaves.