US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

This is a discussion on Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism? within the Economy forums, part of the US Discussion category; Capitalism isn't a political phylosophy, its an economic one....


Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy

Economy Discuss economic policy and wallstreet

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:19 PM
Beavis
Member #11281
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 15,080
Thanks: 1
Thanked 422 Times in 375 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 158
sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor sealybobo could be State Governor
Capitalism isn't a political phylosophy, its an economic one.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
USMessageBoard.com is the premier Political Forum Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:29 PM
ilia25's Avatar
I can do math
Member #34909
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,834
Thanks: 46
Thanked 190 Times in 155 Posts
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 51
ilia25 has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by TakeAStepBack View Post
We'd first need to have capitalism for it to be in crisis from income inequality. It seems the elite realize that their corporatism is causing a crisis and now want the gubmints to "do something about it".

They should, too. only certainly not what their corp. leaders want them to do. They should GTFO out of business altogether, restore a sane monetary policy and allow for free markets.
And if that leads to more income inequality, then what?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ilia25 For This Useful Post:
editec (03-21-2012)
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:37 PM
TakeAStepBack's Avatar
Registered User
Member #29021
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 12,341
Thanks: 929
Thanked 5,580 Times in 3,328 Posts
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 3 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2816
TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute
TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute TakeAStepBack has a reputation beyond repute
If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:37 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,978
Thanks: 3,720
Thanked 10,781 Times in 6,297 Posts
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22559
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
So, the world's elite investors are saying that income inequality is hurting capitalism and they are communist lefties driving their ideology? These people live off of capitalism and capitalism is driven by consumer spending.

As noted in the article, ""There is a large and growing wealth disparity and I think it is unhealthy,” Steve Morton, a director at Natixis Securities in New York who took part in the survey, said in an e-mail. “The lower levels of the pyramid don’t have enough money to buy things and keep the economy going.”

Around 70% of the US economy is driven by consumer spending, yet the base of the consumer class doesn't have the expendable income to "keep the economy going". And it's good to keep the status quo and continue to watch our own country's economy flounder? Seems to most folks that the status quo isn't good for the US broad economy.

So, Corporate America is seeing excellent profits and the profits are making the uber wealthy wealthier and while this is going on wages for the working class remain dormant and this is good? How is this good for the US's economy long-term in a consumer driven economy? Who determines the working class's wages?

Some people are completely missing the point. A majority of the world's top investors "get it", what do they know anyway, right?
1. Earlier I asked if you read books.
No need to answer...this post is clearly a response in negative.

2. "“The lower levels of the pyramid don’t have enough money to buy things and keep the economy going.”

The broadest and most accurate measure of living standard is real per capita consumption. That measure soared by 74% from 1980 to 2004. U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis

a. A study of table 7.1 would show that between 1973 and 2004, it doubled. And between 1929 and 2004, real per capita consumption by American workers increased five fold. The fastest growth periods were 1983-1990 and 1992-2004, known as the Reagan boom.

b. For those who insist that wealth has fallen, this in a discussion of the recession: “The decline in home prices and stock portfolios in 2008 wiped out gains in net worth from the previous three years, the Fed said. Median household net worth increased 17.7 percent between 2004 and 2007, but fell 3.2 percent from 2004 through last October, according to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances.” Average American Net Worth Drops 23% - CBS News

c. Meanwhile real G.D.P. has increased from $3.771 trillion in 1970 to $9.817 trillion in 2000. Average real consumption per person has increased 66% between 1970 and 1996. Poverty and Wage Stagnation in the U.S.? | Discourse

3. "...excellent profits and the profits are making the uber wealthy wealthier and while this is going on wages for the working class remain dormant..."

a. If "lower levels of the pyramid don’t have enough money to buy things..." where are the profits you refer to coming from?

4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63.

a. If health and retirement benefits are included, as they should be, worker compensation rose by almost a third. And, even this is illusory, as it doesn’t include the “statistically invisible (not on taxes) returns inside IRA and 401(k) plans.” Reynolds, op. cit., p.64.

b. And, the way real income is computed tends to understate its growth (money income divided by some price index, to account for inflation), and government indexes are open to questions of accuracy. Many economists regard the CPI as inherently- even intentionally- an exaggeration of inflation. http://www.econport.org/content/hand...Index/CPI.html

c. But in high income families, the “rich,” household size is often the explanation for increased income. With 39 million in households in the lowest 20% vs. 64 million in the households with the top 20% of earnings, it’s easy to see the reason for the disparity. But wait! The number of workers in those households is even more telling! The top 20% had 19 million heads of households who worked, compared to fewer than 8 million in the bottom 20%! See Sowell, “ Economic Facts and Fallacies, “ chapter five, and Income Inequality: How Census Data Misrepresent Income Distribution

So, Mr. NO LABELS, I have a label for you....but you're not gonna like it.
Yeah, I can read things that fit the way I want things to be, but I don't. I prefer the real world instead of a world a world painted with rose-colored glasses that fit my ideology.

The facts you love to go into denial with are help by the world's top investors, the world's top economist and good ole hard facts by the IRS, the Census Bureau and the CBO.

I see you used the Federal Reserve as a source,what is the Fed saying?


Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin said the financial inequality resulting from stagnating incomes for most Americans and rapid growth in wealth for the richest 1 percent is hindering the U.S. economic recovery.
“This inequality is destabilizing and undermines the ability of the economy to grow sustainably and efficiently,” Raskin said today to a forum in Washington sponsored by the New America Foundation. The disparities help “drag down maximum economic growth and are anathema to the social progress that is part and parcel of such growth,” she said.
Raskin Says Income Inequality Among Americans Undermining Economic Growth - Bloomberg




But you choose to ignore them because you read ideological friendly books.
"...you read ideological friendly books."
Actually, I read books on both sides, but am able to discriminate between correct conclusions, and the kind of stuff you put on bumper stickers.

"Federal Reserve Governor Sarah Bloom Raskin said the financial inequality resulting from stagnating incomes for most Americans and rapid growth in wealth for the richest 1 percent is hindering the U.S. economic recovery."

Horsefeathers.

1. The glaring error in your precis is the underlying idea that there is a 'rich' class in this nation, i.e. the "1%."
No such class exists in an ongoing basis...merely as a snapshot in time.

"More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell."
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com

2. So concerned about the "rich" are you hand-wringers (oops...was that a LABEL??) that you don't know what income that requires:
To get into the “top 1%” of Americans you don’t need to be a billionaire or millionaire or half-millionaire. The minimum wage earners in that group make about $343k/year….The “top 1%” of wage earners earn 17% of the nation’s income.
Nicole Lapin, Who the Heck Are the "Top 1%"?!!

$343k/year...do you realize that that income could represent a husband-wife team of police officers who use all the overtime they can get???

3. They earn 20% of earned income, but pay 38% of federal taxes!
Hey...do you feel their pain?

4. “…in 1967 only one in 25 families earned an income of $100,000 or more in real income, whereas now, one in six do. The percentage of families that have an income of more than $75,000 a year has tripled from 9% to 27%. But it's not just the rich that are getting richer. Virtually every income group has been lifted by the tide of growth in recent decades.”
Great American Dream Machine

5. Income and wealth inequality…or demographics. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.

a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year.
HINC-05--Part 1

b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 million…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.


Did you have to step over any starving bodies on your way to work today?
No?
I didn't think so.

Look at the free education you're getting here!!!

All that remains to be seen is whether or not your are educable.....
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:47 PM
kiwiman127's Avatar
Comfortably Moderate
Member #25493
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Posts: 4,864
Thanks: 1,320
Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,105 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2073
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist
__________________
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis -1916 to 1939.



“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
Adam Smith-The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Last edited by kiwiman127; 10-03-2012 at 02:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:52 PM
uscitizen's Avatar
unregistered user
Member #5174
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: My Shack
Posts: 45,943
Thanks: 7,022
Thanked 9,091 Times in 6,629 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2663
uscitizen has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
On a different note this is also about Global income disparity.
Chinese work cheaper so we have less jobs/money.
1. "For certain classes of goods and certain services, like customer phone centers, it makes sense—economically if not socially—to employ these offshore workers. Americans as a group have too high a standard of living for anyone to employ them making, say, lawn mowers. A mower made overseas costs $250 to $350. One made by American hands would cost $800 to $900—and the utility value simply is not there."
The Coming Robotics Age

2. If they [iPads] were built in the USA you basic model iPad would likely cost closer to $800 or $1,00 instead of $499.
Samsung to seek iPhone 5 ban in Korea – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

3. Walmart's new ad campaign says that the store saves the average American family $2,500 a year. What is doesn't say is that you don't actually have to shop at Walmart to take advantage of the savings.

The study that Walmart is citing in their ad showed that competition from Walmart lowered prices and saved the average family some serious money, regardless of where they actually shopped. Also, Walmart isn't mentioning that after wage depression, the net increase in purchasing power averages only $1,122 annually.
Walmart "Saves The Average Family $2,500 A Year," But You Don't Actually Have To Shop There - The Consumerist
Yep why I say we are not thru going down in living standards yet.
Less wages/benefits for US workers is the only way we can compete in the global marketplace. It is called increasing productivity.
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:54 PM
uscitizen's Avatar
unregistered user
Member #5174
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: My Shack
Posts: 45,943
Thanks: 7,022
Thanked 9,091 Times in 6,629 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2663
uscitizen has disabled reputation
Quote: Originally Posted by TakeAStepBack View Post
If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.
It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 12:59 PM
Registered User
Member #33658
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 40,117
Thanks: 37
Thanked 14,037 Times in 9,279 Posts
Mentioned: 35 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 6801
Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow Katzndogz is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by TakeAStepBack View Post
If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.
It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.
Competing with a big box store is really rather easy. My closest competitor was PetCo and I did remarkably well. Competing with WalMart would be a snap.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Katzndogz For This Useful Post:
Uncensored2008 (02-16-2012)
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 01:03 PM
Uncensored2008's Avatar
Libertarian Radical
Member #27995
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 29,206
Thanks: 9,961
Thanked 8,256 Times in 6,343 Posts
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 10678
Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati
Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati Uncensored2008 gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?
Have employees who speak English.

Quote:
It would be kinda like me running for president.
I rarely go into Walmart, and when I do it's rarely a pleasant experience.
__________________
"If your Health Care cost have risen 30% or more, thank Obamacare."
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 01:07 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,978
Thanks: 3,720
Thanked 10,781 Times in 6,297 Posts
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22559
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
On a different note this is also about Global income disparity.
Chinese work cheaper so we have less jobs/money.
1. "For certain classes of goods and certain services, like customer phone centers, it makes sense—economically if not socially—to employ these offshore workers. Americans as a group have too high a standard of living for anyone to employ them making, say, lawn mowers. A mower made overseas costs $250 to $350. One made by American hands would cost $800 to $900—and the utility value simply is not there."
The Coming Robotics Age

2. If they [iPads] were built in the USA you basic model iPad would likely cost closer to $800 or $1,00 instead of $499.
Samsung to seek iPhone 5 ban in Korea – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

3. Walmart's new ad campaign says that the store saves the average American family $2,500 a year. What is doesn't say is that you don't actually have to shop at Walmart to take advantage of the savings.

The study that Walmart is citing in their ad showed that competition from Walmart lowered prices and saved the average family some serious money, regardless of where they actually shopped. Also, Walmart isn't mentioning that after wage depression, the net increase in purchasing power averages only $1,122 annually.
Walmart "Saves The Average Family $2,500 A Year," But You Don't Actually Have To Shop There - The Consumerist
Yep why I say we are not thru going down in living standards yet.
Less wages/benefits for US workers is the only way we can compete in the global marketplace. It is called increasing productivity.
Citi...the danger is the global totalitarians, perfectly represented by this administration.

The are hardly looking out for Americans...they wish for global governance.

Did you see this:


Speaking in Milwaukee on February 15, President Obama, re-ignited a controversy on "global taxation" set off by his top economic adviser during comments on the administration’s budget on Monday.

Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), caused a commotion this week with his statement that the Obama administration favors “a global minimum tax.” Sperling’s comment, captured by C-SPAN cameras, was soon spread across the blogosphere in numerous YouTube postings (watch below).
Obama Confirms Adviser Sperling
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 01:13 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,978
Thanks: 3,720
Thanked 10,781 Times in 6,297 Posts
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22559
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist
You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 01:42 PM
Dont Taz Me Bro's Avatar
Registered User
Member #21665
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 12,671
Thanks: 3,024
Thanked 6,800 Times in 3,772 Posts
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 3559
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute Dont Taz Me Bro has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by TakeAStepBack View Post
If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.
It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.
We have anti-trust laws that prevent monopolies.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 01:50 PM
kiwiman127's Avatar
Comfortably Moderate
Member #25493
Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: 4th Cleanest City in the World-Minneapolis
Posts: 4,864
Thanks: 1,320
Thanked 1,553 Times in 1,105 Posts
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 2073
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute kiwiman127 has a reputation beyond repute
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist
You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year
And what percent of wealth did everyone else lose during that same time frame? Or were the wealthy the only ones losing wealth? I lost wealth, for example the value of my properties took a big hit, this happened to every home owner in America. Working Americans also lost money in their 401ks. So, comparing wealth lost in percentages, how did average Americans fare versus the uber wealthy?

So in the real world, the wealthy weren't the only ones to lose wealth or is that an uneducated statement?
__________________
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both." -U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis -1916 to 1939.



“The disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and the powerful, and to despise, or, at least, to neglect persons of poor and mean condition is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.”
Adam Smith-The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Last edited by kiwiman127; 10-03-2012 at 02:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 03:21 PM
PoliticalChic's Avatar
Fighting Thugs and Libs
Member #12394
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 30,978
Thanks: 3,720
Thanked 10,781 Times in 6,297 Posts
Mentioned: 56 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 22559
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati PoliticalChic gives orders to the Illuminati
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalChic View Post
Quote: Originally Posted by kiwiman127 View Post
"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist
You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year
And what percent of wealth did everyone else lose during that same time frame? Or were the wealthy the only ones losing wealth? I lost wealth, for example the value of my properties took a big hit, this happened to every home owner in America. Working Americans also lost money in their 401ks. So, comparing wealth lost in percentages, how did average Americans fare versus the uber wealthy?

So in the real world, the wealthy weren't the only ones to lose wealth or is that an uneducated statement?
Now, before you change the direction of what has been an interesting thread, let's review:

1. Capitalism isn't in a crisis. Left wing propaganda is on the rise, probably sensing that they can persuade folks who don't think and don't read to give the statists more power (if the shoe fits....)

2. The greatest mechanism known to man to raise the standards of living for society is capitalism.

a. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

3. Aside from this recession, made worse and extended by the Obama administration, wages have grown, not stagnated, and the middle class has grown.

4. Because America is the land of opportunity, there is no permanent rich class.

5. The OWS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Soros-Tides foundation-adbusters-Ruckus Society.

6. And, finally, finding a nugget of truth in your OP is more difficult than finding a reference to cats in the Bible.
__________________
People are most conservative on issues that they know most about. --Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 02-16-2012, 03:26 PM
Banned
Member #21210
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 50,356
Thanks: 9,352
Thanked 19,950 Times in 11,912 Posts
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Rep Power: 0
California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow
California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow California Girl is cooler than the underside of a pillow
Quote: Originally Posted by uscitizen View Post
On a different note this is also about Global income disparity.
Chinese work cheaper so we have less jobs/money.
Thank you, Capt Obvious.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Lower Navigation
Go Back   US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum > US Discussion > Economy
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.