Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[topspin]

It's too bad there no country with more wealth that redistributionist could point to as a better model to make there point. the us has about as many rich as the rest of the world combined. Hmm

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

OK. And? They worked for a company. People in the company including top management were corrupt. Do you expect everyone at Enron should have gone to jail?
The people who perpretrated the fraud were jailed and fined and today are hardly wealthy people. So talk of how the rich got that way by screwing everyone else is merely class envy and based on falsehood.

 

[maineman]

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

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.

OK. And? They worked for a company. People in the company including top management were corrupt. Do you expect everyone at Enron should have gone to jail?
The people who perpretrated the fraud were jailed and fined and today are hardly wealthy people. So talk of how the rich got that way by screwing everyone else is merely class envy and based on falsehood.

\\so the fact that many ENRON executives got to walk away with their parachutes intact while COUNTLESS employees and retirees with utility company stock in their retirement portfolios were made PENNILESSS is OK with you?

 

[Barb]

Rabbi, its right there in quote. If you can'tfigure it out from that, its your problem, not mine.

 

[jeffrockit]

You know............I like the way the Japanese do it. A CEO cannot make more that 100 times the salary of their lowest employee.

Wanna stimulate the economy? Tell the greedy fucks at the top to stop shipping jobs overseas, and actually bring the factories over here.

Oh wait......can't happen.......the CEO's mistress needs a new Bentley to keep her quiet.

Perhaps if the US didn't have one of the highest (39.9%) tax rates in the world, the jobs would stay here.
The Tax Foundation - National and State Corporate Income Tax Rates, U.S. States and OECD Countries, 2009

 

[sparky]

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.

there are none Jillian

those countries in Red who's disparity has assumed wider figures can't suck enough

that's why i posted it

the market is no more self correcting than the basic human element that drives it, greed

albeit the libertopians here figure it can be, you'll also see a rise in crime and poverty as the resultant backlash

to them , i suppose, it's simply causualties of capitalism

but the reality is unbridled capitalism hasn't worked in any country, any time in the history of the human race

~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.

there are none Jillian

those countries in Red who's disparity has assumed wider figures can't suck enough

that's why i posted it

the market is no more self correcting than the basic human element that drives it, greed

albeit the libertopians here figure it can be, you'll also see a rise in crime and poverty as the resultant backlash

to them , i suppose, it's simply causualties of capitalism

but the reality is unbridled capitalism hasn't worked in any country, any time in the history of the human race

~S~

you need to stop throwing around words like 'libertopians' and 'redistributionist's or whatever pithy little phrases you think make anyone you disagree with sound nefarious.

reality... the middle class doesn't exist without certain amounts of governmental protection.

have you ever been to a country where there is only rich and poor? they have armed guards on rooftops and barbed wire around residential premises.

is that what you want this country to be?

personally, i don't. and that doesn't require 'redistribution'. it requires reasonable regulation of business.

 

[sparky]

Libertopia is a fairy tale place based on libertarianism Jillian

lib·er·tar·i·an·ism \-ē-ə-ˌni-zəm\ noun

terms like these are not uncommon, and are effecitively descriptive in debate

however, if you prefer that description in street lingo, it basically translates to "F*ck you jack, i got mine"

much less palatable, and rather offensive, don't you think?

~S~

 

[The Rabbi]

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

OK. And? They worked for a company. People in the company including top management were corrupt. Do you expect everyone at Enron should have gone to jail?
The people who perpretrated the fraud were jailed and fined and today are hardly wealthy people. So talk of how the rich got that way by screwing everyone else is merely class envy and based on falsehood.

\\so the fact that many ENRON executives got to walk away with their parachutes intact while COUNTLESS employees and retirees with utility company stock in their retirement portfolios were made PENNILESSS is OK with you?

Does the phrase "life is unfair" mean anything to you?
Investing involves risk. I am sorry people didnt dump their Enron stock when it was soaring. I personally looked at the stock and walked away from it. It tanked 6 months later.
The executives who worked for the company largely did so in good faith and ignorant of what was going on. Should they be punished for doing their jobs?

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, its right there in quote. If you can'tfigure it out from that, its your problem, not mine.

WHat is "right there in the quotes"? You have made contradictory statements and I am asking how you reconcile them? You refuse to.
I am betting you cannot and are covering your own ignorance by attacking me personally.
Why not get out an actual book on economics instead of wasting your time (and ours) posting here? Maybe you can find a better job than 3rd shift hotel cleaning.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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~

What the heck is your point????

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

You evince the kind of misunderstanding of society regularly found in the left's adherents.

1. What is the definition of poor? Is same to be compared to needs, or wants? To the world or to one's neighbor?

2. Where does personal responsibility enter into the result?

3. Why does your post seem to imply that once poor, one is relegated to the same level of existence forever. This suposition is, of course, provably false.

4. Are you familiar with the concept of capitalism? I recommend that you study the recent history of Estonia vis-a-vis Finland.

5. Left-wing social programs? From Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980: “In 1964 we declared ‘War on Poverty.” In 1968 13% of Americans were poor. From 1968 to 1980 we increased social welfare payments by 400%. In 1980 13% of Americans were poor.”

6. Would I be correct in believing that you would subscribe to The American Victimization Thesis:

a. During the ‘Bush Years’ taxes on the wealthy have been slashed.
b. If your parents were rich, you’ll be rich. Otherwise, no chance.
c. Government is the answer to whatever ails us.
d. Ambition, determination, grit and sweat count for nothing.
e. Neither personal responsibility nor merit are necessary.
f. Whatever your personal failures, shortcomings, and weaknesses, your troubles are caused by anyone and everyone except youself.
g. It’s not that I don’t want to succeed, it’s that I can’t succeed.
h. The deck is always stacked against me.
i. Anyone who is poor or black or short or old or handicapped or female or gay or uncoordinated shouldn’t even try.
j. The Constitution guaranteed me ‘Life, Liberty, and Happiness!’
k. The government must make sure we are all equal in everything.
l. The government should make poor people rich and rich people poor!
m. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Kanye West.
n. There must be more I can complain about!

 

[Barb]

Rabbi, its right there in quote. If you can'tfigure it out from that, its your problem, not mine.

WHat is "right there in the quotes"? You have made contradictory statements and I am asking how you reconcile them? You refuse to.
I am betting you cannot and are covering your own ignorance by attacking me personally.
Why not get out an actual book on economics instead of wasting your time (and ours) posting here? Maybe you can find a better job than 3rd shift hotel cleaning.

I've read actual books on economics, you fuckwit, CURRENT texts, not the flat earth shit you studied 50 years ago.

The contradiction was that the low dollar value (devalued) was inflated beyond its worth. I really don't know how many ways you want me to phrase that. If I were trying to HIDE it, I wouldn't have spent the time to TYPE it.

And guess what? I'm off school for the summer semester, and you don't have the chops to be handing out written assignments or demanding they be re-done.

People don't clean in hotels on the overnight shift. It would disturb the sleeping guests.

Meanwhile, you're not any one with claim to civility, and you get none in return for that very reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, its right there in quote. If you can'tfigure it out from that, its your problem, not mine.

WHat is "right there in the quotes"? You have made contradictory statements and I am asking how you reconcile them? You refuse to.
I am betting you cannot and are covering your own ignorance by attacking me personally.
Why not get out an actual book on economics instead of wasting your time (and ours) posting here? Maybe you can find a better job than 3rd shift hotel cleaning.

I've read actual books on economics, you fuckwit, CURRENT texts, not the flat earth shit you studied 50 years ago.

The contradiction was that the low dollar value (devalued) was inflated beyond its worth. I really don't know how many ways you want me to phrase that. If I were trying to HIDE it, I wouldn't have spent the time to TYPE it.

And guess what? I'm off school for the summer semester, and you don't have the chops to be handing out written assignments or demanding they be re-done.

People don't clean in hotels on the overnight shift. It would disturb the sleeping guests.

Meanwhile, you're not any one with claim to civility, and you get none in return for that very reason.

So your explanation is that the low-value dollar was artificially made a high value dollar?
Now, understand that money is an invention. The government creates it out of thin air. Therefore it can create whatever value with it it wants. So there is no "artificial" vs "natural" value of any currency, the dollar included, because it is all artificial.
So the notion that companies went overseas because the currency was manipulated is false from the outset.
Second, companies sent production overseas both in the high dollar atmosphere under Reagan and Clinton and the low dollar atmosphere under Bush 1 and 2. So whether the dollar was high or low value really doesn't seem to have much effect on transferring production.
Your argument is looking worse and worse.
Finally, if we ask what is the source of outsourcing, we would find generally the high UNIT COST of labor (note the phrase unit cost) in this country vs comparable other countries. That high cost comes from a variety of sources, including union rules and government regulation--all associated with Democratic Party issues.
So I don't know what books you've been reading (if any), but they are bogus and have filled you with misinformation. Your clear lack of education has left you unprepared to read and analyze arguments properly and defend your views.
I am sorry. You can always blame Bush.

 

[Barb]

So the notion that companies went overseas because the currency was manipulated is false from the outset.

If that were the only factor cited, you would have a point. It was not, and you don't. You latched onto ONE item, figured you had yourself a "gotcha" moment, and ran with it.

 

[maineman]

OK. And? They worked for a company. People in the company including top management were corrupt. Do you expect everyone at Enron should have gone to jail?
The people who perpretrated the fraud were jailed and fined and today are hardly wealthy people. So talk of how the rich got that way by screwing everyone else is merely class envy and based on falsehood.

\\so the fact that many ENRON executives got to walk away with their parachutes intact while COUNTLESS employees and retirees with utility company stock in their retirement portfolios were made PENNILESSS is OK with you?

Does the phrase "life is unfair" mean anything to you?
Investing involves risk. I am sorry people didnt dump their Enron stock when it was soaring. I personally looked at the stock and walked away from it. It tanked 6 months later.
The executives who worked for the company largely did so in good faith and ignorant of what was going on. Should they be punished for doing their jobs?

should the utilty company employees whose funded company retirements were completely wiped out be punished for doing THEIR jobs?

 

[MaggieMae]

You could always neg rep the post, which is what it deserves.
Not only will other countries retaliate with trade sanctions, they already have. Look at China, Europe, and Canada, all of them imposed sanctions in response to acts of the U.S. to protect our own industries.
Some people are just dumber than rocks.

Of course the disagreements have been resolved (they always are), but you don't mention that.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Well if business owners who are sitting on all this cash aren't prepared to be just a wee bit charitable and start hiring, maybe slowly (?), then how much more "charitable" can the Obama administration be? I mean after all, the screeching from the right is that the gubmit is being too charitable. Somebody's got to start creating jobs, and the government has reached the end of its rope (and authority) by way of tax incentives and tax credits. That leaves the private sector and they need to step up to the plate.

OK, so you believe that hiring someone is an act of charity.

Let me disabuse you of that notion.

Businesses exist to make money for their owners. That is the only reason they exist. In the course of doing that they frequently make money for their employees, their suppliers, their customers, and of course the government. But all of that is incidental to their true purpose, which is the enrichment of the owners.
Once the owners make money they may, if they so choose, contribute whatever they want to whomever they want for whatever purpose they want. But they are under no obligation, legal or moral, to.

Businesses will hire people ONLY if doing so will make them money. If it will not, they have no--zero--reason to hire someone. If they hire when it will not make them money they will eventually go out of business, causing job loss for lots of people.

Currently the administration has created the most anti business climate in memory. Businesses will not expand and will not hire in that environment. Nor should they.
So if you want to complain about unemployment, call Obama and tell him to lay the fuck off.

In order to save the economy, why should the government be the only entity relied upon? It's YOU PEOPLE who have been saying the free market will adjust itself. Well, we're waiting... When will that be? When all of business gets subsidized so they're assured of never being too small to fail?

 

[MikeK]

[...]The executives who worked for the company largely did so in good faith and ignorant of what was going on. Should they be punished for doing their jobs?

Rabbi,

By way of simplified analogy:

You answer an ad for a salesman at Lay & Skilling Automotive Salvage, Inc., where you're told the job pays no salary but you get a 20% commission on everything you sell -- and Lay & Skilling sells at 25% below any competitor. Wow! So you go to work for Lay & Skilling, selling everything from used Lexus transmissions to used Ford headlights and in just one year you manage to earn $250,000.

One day the cops walk in, bust the operation and you are charged with participation in a criminal enterprise. You've been selling stolen goods. You say you didn't know. The judge says that doesn't matter. You were selling stolen goods. Property that belongs to other people. And now those people must be compensated. So those assets you've managed to accumulate during the time you worked at Lay & Skilling's chop shop must be seized and distributed among the victims of the criminal enterprise you participated in. Because you claim to be a schmuck who "didn't know" is nothing but a meaningless waste of the court's time. And you're lucky you're not going to prison with Lay & Skilling.

But in spite of the foregoing circumstances, the brokers at Enron walked away with the money they helped to steal from thousands of trusting investors who simply and legitimately didn't know they were dealing with a criminal enterprise.

Even if you're willing to believe that it never entered the mind of one who knows enough about the used auto parts business to make $250,000 in a year that some or all of those auto parts might be stolen, do you think it's fair that they be allowed to keep the fruit from a stolen tree?

 

[The Rabbi]

So the notion that companies went overseas because the currency was manipulated is false from the outset.

If that were the only factor cited, you would have a point. It was not, and you don't. You latched onto ONE item, figured you had yourself a "gotcha" moment, and ran with it.

Oy.
Here is your post:

His borrowing, the trade imbalance, and the devaluation of the dollar is what led to (once) US corporations off-shoring manufacturing in the search for ever lower wage platforms to compete. Even the most conservative political science scholars cede this point.

So please explain how "borrowing, trade imbalance, and devaluation of the dollar" (the last makes dollars cheaper, not artificially high) would induce companies to go overseas.
It isn't a gotcha moment, it's a gotcha thread, and you're the gotchee.