Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[The Rabbi]

Your quality of life far exceeds your parents'. When I grew up my parents had one air conditioner in their bedroom. My whole house is airconditioned. Add in computers, cell phones,etc etc and we have a much better standard of living.

people on limited and fixed incomes, and some people on welfare have air conditioned houses. the standard of living is only better because of progress in technological innovation and cheap labor. Quality of live is subjective. And many people who grew up poor are living better than their parents ever did -- all over the world as well as here in the good old USA.

The baby boomers parents lived in a time of economic expansion. A bubble does not go on forever. Wake up to reality. You think you are comparing apples & oranges, when in reality you are comparing apples and engine blocks.

--

the sky is not falling. The Rabbi's hysteria is a symptom of a spoiled brat.

Am I the one posting hysteria on this except the other side.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Your quality of life far exceeds your parents'. When I grew up my parents had one air conditioner in their bedroom. My whole house is airconditioned. Add in computers, cell phones,etc etc and we have a much better standard of living.

people on limited and fixed incomes, and some people on welfare have air conditioned houses. the standard of living is only better because of progress in technological innovation and cheap labor. Quality of live is subjective. And many people who grew up poor are living better than their parents ever did -- all over the world as well as here in the good old USA.

The baby boomers parents lived in a time of economic expansion. A bubble does not go on forever. Wake up to reality. You think you are comparing apples & oranges, when in reality you are comparing apples and engine blocks.

--

the sky is not falling. The Rabbi's hysteria is a symptom of a spoiled brat.

Am I the one posting hysteria on this except the other side.

most economic and political discussions today have elements of hysteria in them. When times get a little tough (as they always do) people get weird. They see the approaching storm, the end, all round.

I was just busting your balls, but I do think your views are very narrow. But most all people's views are narrow when speaking from personal experience as opposed to speaking from a wider perspective.

 

[Jeremy]

How 'bout all of you whinny little bitches that are complaining about wealth inequality just take the money you make every year in excess of what's considered the poverty line, donate it to the charity of your choice, move to the ghetto, and...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How 'bout all of you whinny little bitches that are complaining about wealth inequality just take the money you make every year in excess of what's considered the poverty line, donate it to the charity of your choice, move to the ghetto, and...

I already live in the ghetto.

 

[sparky]

"Intellectuals often make the mistake of basing political analysis on clichés that misrepresent reality. [Thomas] Sowell shows, for instance, how debates about income distribution in the United States have been distorted by a preoccupation with statistical categories.

a. Journalists and academics alike endlessly repeat that the rich are getting richer while the poor are getting poorer. What these discussions ignore is that people move with some frequency from category to category over time. Only 5 percent of Americans who were in the bottom quintile of income earners in 1975 were still there in 1991. Only 25 percent of the “super-rich” in 1996 (the top 1/100th of 1 percent of income earners) remained in that category in 2005.

quintile mobility is raft with statistical misinformation PC

in fact, it's probably the numero uno misleading economic argument

we are what? 300 mil populace?

a quint = 1/5 of that

that's 60 million Americans

the top 1% would be 3 million Americans

even that's a small nation

so how's about we talk about .1% of ALL Americans? 300,000 of them?

I think that's more in the ballpark of 'serious movers and shakers', don't you?

in fact, i'd say they'd have their reps ear a whole lot faster than me, you, or anyone else posting here, would'nt you say?

and when they do, it's NOT the woes of the middle class they're worried about

it's their own existence(s)

not ours

~S~

 

[The Rabbi]

You need to let go of your class envy and anger.
How wealthy are the people from Enron? Skilling is in jail or broke. So are most of them.

Most of them are still pretty wealthy because most of them weren't paid in stock.

A friend of mine from college ran a big division at Enron and was a candidate for President when Skilling resigned. They nailed him on an insider trading charge and he spent a few years in jail but he still walked away with millions.

Well, no. that isn't true either.
Here's the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/business/24enroncnd.html

HOUSTON, Oct. 24 — Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron, was sentenced this afternoon to more than 24 years in prison for his role in the energy giant’s collapse.

Jeffrey K. Skilling, center, and his lawyer left federal court in Houston after Mr. Skilling was sentenced.

He will be forced to forfeit $45 million, which prosecutors said would effectively wipe out his fortune.

Imagine the cost of years of expensive criminal and civil litigation in addition to the fines.
No, Skilling is not a wealthy man at this point.

 

[The Rabbi]

Surely you jest. If the small business owners are so wealthy, then why the hell won't they start hiring? Instead we hear the daily whine that they're too "scared" of what's gonna happen. As Barb said, HORSESHIT.

Does being wealthy have anything to do with hiring? Isn't hiring a business decision based on projected return on the employee's labor?
Or do you think hiring someone is an act of charity that the wealthy ought to do just because there are people who need a job and they have plenty of money? This is what the Obama Administration apparently believes.

And Barb is clearly full of shit herself as I posted her contradictory comments and asked her to pick one. She hasn't been back.

I'm so sorry my need to sleep for the graveyard shift disturbed you so.
I posted the contradiction, AND explained it, dumbass. But okay, if I explained it more clearly in the original you wouldn't have gotten so strung up on a detail in the second post.

Oh, you explained it already. Sure.
Mind explaining how both high value dollar and a low value dollar contribute to companies relocating off shore?
This ought to be good.

 

[sparky]

In 1973, the top 10% held 49% of wealth; the bottom 90% held 51% of wealth. That means 37 years ago, middle- and lower-class citizens could afford to buy American, shop in small community stores, pay their bills and have savings accounts.

By 2005, the top 10% held 73% of wealth; the bottom 90% held 27% of wealth. That means that middle- and lower-class citizens can now only afford to buy cheap goods from China in giant big box stores that deal in volume, not quality, have difficulty paying their bills and saving at the same time.

This is not a Bush-bashing subject. It's a topic for discussion that big corporations run the economy now, and small businesses exist only to support them. There is no doubt about it.

Problem: You are measuring wealth, not income.

.

good point....>


Which is a Better Measure of Societal Inequality: Wealth or Income?

Looking at the distribution of wealth and looking at the distribution of income gives the researcher two quite different views of the amount of inequality in American society. Which economic measure -- wealth or income -- should be emphasized?


Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, make the case for wealth:
"Ultimately, we are interested in the question of relative standards of living and economic well-being. We need to examine trends in the distribution of wealth, which, more fundamentally than earnings or income, represents a measure of the ability of households to consume."


from>
Wealth Distribution

 

[Jeremy]

What would be "fair" wealth inequality in the eye of the lib? Or is the only answer the complete elimination of wealth inequality all together, (ie. true, noncorrupted communism)

 

[PoliticalChic]

What would be "fair" wealth inequality in the eye of the lib? Or is the only answer the complete elimination of wealth inequality all together, (ie. true, noncorrupted communism)

Total Equality! Nothing else!

1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.” Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’
The above essentially from Robert Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrrah"

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

 

[Jeremy]

All 'men' are "created" equal. After the point of a persons "creation" or conception it's fair game.

 

[jillian]

All 'men' are "created" equal. After the point of a persons "creation" or conception it's fair game.

so you believe we should live in a dickensian nightmare where there are a few rich people and the rest of the country is poor?

do the words banana republic mean anything to you?

 

[sparky]

Those libertopians are the red couintries>

File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~S~

 

[jillian]

Those libertopians are the red couintries>

File:Gini Coefficient World CIA Report 2009.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

~S~

what 'libertopians' are we talking about?

and feel free to give examples of what countries you believe represent successful unrestrained capitalism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

These threads are so creepy. I cringe at the responses and comments from the Left.

I was fortunate enough to see first hand how someone could grow a business from an idea and borrowed $50,000 into one of the biggest real estate companies in the USA and put himself and his partner on Forbes 400.

It was the dream of the man in a country that let people manifest their dreams that made it possible.

In an early meeting with him when I was a second assistant pencil sharpener, I made the comment, "you can't have everything" and he challenged me, "Why Not?" and I knew that's why he was successful and was going to be as big as he wanted.

Some see a bright and glorious future in their dreams and say, "Why not?" Others say, "at a certain point you've made enough money"

 

[The Rabbi]

All 'men' are "created" equal. After the point of a persons "creation" or conception it's fair game.

so you believe we should live in a dickensian nightmare where there are a few rich people and the rest of the country is poor?

do the words banana republic mean anything to you?

Wow, talk about spin.
Do you really think the U.S is there? The rest of our country is poor? Really?
Banana Republics get that way because of crony capitalism and government interference. In a banana republic the head of state can summarily fire CEOs at will and install anyone he wants. He can cripple industries with regulation and taxation, and then bail them out and take control in the process.
Oh, wait.

 

[Barb]

Does being wealthy have anything to do with hiring? Isn't hiring a business decision based on projected return on the employee's labor?
Or do you think hiring someone is an act of charity that the wealthy ought to do just because there are people who need a job and they have plenty of money? This is what the Obama Administration apparently believes.

And Barb is clearly full of shit herself as I posted her contradictory comments and asked her to pick one. She hasn't been back.

I'm so sorry my need to sleep for the graveyard shift disturbed you so.
I posted the contradiction, AND explained it, dumbass. But okay, if I explained it more clearly in the original you wouldn't have gotten so strung up on a detail in the second post.

Oh, you explained it already. Sure.
Mind explaining how both high value dollar and a low value dollar contribute to companies relocating off shore?
This ought to be good.

The higher value of the dollar of the time was due to inflation, not reality.
Quote:
The Reagan tax cuts, combined with a 41 percent real increase in the defense budget, caused the federal deficit to soar from $90 billion in 1982 to $283 billion in 1986 - nearly ten times the highest deficit under any previous president. To finance the debt, America had to borrow, raising interest rates to attract capital. What that did, in turn, was to generate a flow of foreign money into America, which then caused the value of the dollar to rise dramatically, out of ll proportion to its true worth [emphasis mine]. As the dollar skyrocketed, imports became cheaper, forcing many American industries either to relocate to third world countries or go out of business- and the nations trade imbalance also went haywire, since foreign markets could not afford to buy American goods at the at the inflated dollar value that now prevailed.486-487
Chafe, William H., The Unfinished Journey: America since World War II, 4TH Ed., Oxford University Press, Inc., New York (1999).

I'll type slowly so you can understand. The. High. "Value." was. artificial. The. TRUE. value. was. much. much. lower.

 

[hipeter924]

What would be "fair" wealth inequality in the eye of the lib? Or is the only answer the complete elimination of wealth inequality all together, (ie. true, noncorrupted communism)

That's impossible, the whole liberal system relies on there being poverty and inequality, to remove such an important part of the system would be catastrophic as then there would be virtually no need for tax or social welfare. As for the realistic and pragmatic (non liberal approach) that is creating jobs, having low tax and providing all the basic needs and services rather than wasting all the money and resources on celebrities, Al Gore Films, and fashion.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm so sorry my need to sleep for the graveyard shift disturbed you so.
I posted the contradiction, AND explained it, dumbass. But okay, if I explained it more clearly in the original you wouldn't have gotten so strung up on a detail in the second post.

Oh, you explained it already. Sure.
Mind explaining how both high value dollar and a low value dollar contribute to companies relocating off shore?
This ought to be good.

The higher value of the dollar of the time was due to inflation, not reality.
Quote:
The Reagan tax cuts, combined with a 41 percent real increase in the defense budget, caused the federal deficit to soar from $90 billion in 1982 to $283 billion in 1986 - nearly ten times the highest deficit under any previous president. To finance the debt, America had to borrow, raising interest rates to attract capital. What that did, in turn, was to generate a flow of foreign money into America, which then caused the value of the dollar to rise dramatically, out of ll proportion to its true worth [emphasis mine]. As the dollar skyrocketed, imports became cheaper, forcing many American industries either to relocate to third world countries or go out of business- and the nations trade imbalance also went haywire, since foreign markets could not afford to buy American goods at the at the inflated dollar value that now prevailed.486-487
Chafe, William H., The Unfinished Journey: America since World War II, 4TH Ed., Oxford University Press, Inc., New York (1999).

I'll type slowly so you can understand. The. High. "Value." was. artificial. The. TRUE. value. was. much. much. lower.

Please explain the difference between high value and true value in a way that explains why companies would want to relocate overseas in a high value, as opposed to true value, environment.

This ought to be good. You are clearly out of your depth here, mouthing words you've seen or heard elsewhere.

 

[Toro]

You need to let go of your class envy and anger.
How wealthy are the people from Enron? Skilling is in jail or broke. So are most of them.

Most of them are still pretty wealthy because most of them weren't paid in stock.

A friend of mine from college ran a big division at Enron and was a candidate for President when Skilling resigned. They nailed him on an insider trading charge and he spent a few years in jail but he still walked away with millions.

Well, no. that isn't true either.
Here's the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/23/business/24enroncnd.html

HOUSTON, Oct. 24 — Jeffrey K. Skilling, the former chief executive of Enron, was sentenced this afternoon to more than 24 years in prison for his role in the energy giant’s collapse.

Jeffrey K. Skilling, center, and his lawyer left federal court in Houston after Mr. Skilling was sentenced.

He will be forced to forfeit $45 million, which prosecutors said would effectively wipe out his fortune.

Imagine the cost of years of expensive criminal and civil litigation in addition to the fines.
No, Skilling is not a wealthy man at this point.

Nope, and a few others were wiped out too. But most of the Enron executives walked and got to keep their bank accounts.