40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart.

[SwimExpert]

Very good post.

Now, the question is this: Why did compensation deviate from productivity and what will it take to change this, and realign compensation with productivity?

I would submit that the deviation occurred because workers became complacent and apathetic toward their own pay and began settling for pay that was lower in value than their production. The best way to counteract this trend is for workers to be more assertive and advocate for their own compensation.

The best way to lose a job working for me is to demand I give you something. Don't like the situation, leave. I'll fill the spot tomorrow.

Cool story bro. I never said anything about demanding anything. I said that workers need to be more assertive and to advocate for their own compensation.

When you said they should be more assertive, you didn't have to use the word demanding. The terms means confidently aggressive with synonyms of forceful or demanding. The opposite of being complacent or apathetic is demanding. To demand something means you believe you deserve it and you are very clear that you think workers deserve more compensation.

You're one illiterate son of a bitch. Being assertive does not mean demanding. And you're clearly one shitty leader.

So you assert yourself in a timid manner? Assertive means forceful, pushy, aggressive, etc. It's not me saying, it's the thesaurus. Argue with it.

You clearly wouldn't make a good follower. You clearly don't understand that the boss is in charge and you work for him, he/she doesn't work for you.

Doubling down on your stupid does not make you smart, it just makes you twice as stupid. Assertiveness is not aggressiveness. The fact that you see assertiveness as such indicates that you are a weak, pathetic loser. You take all actions of non-passivity to be an aggressive action against you. PATHETIC! You sound like a whiny little four year old crying because the next door neighbor won't let you play with his toys.

 

[Conservative65]

The best way to lose a job working for me is to demand I give you something. Don't like the situation, leave. I'll fill the spot tomorrow.

Cool story bro. I never said anything about demanding anything. I said that workers need to be more assertive and to advocate for their own compensation.

When you said they should be more assertive, you didn't have to use the word demanding. The terms means confidently aggressive with synonyms of forceful or demanding. The opposite of being complacent or apathetic is demanding. To demand something means you believe you deserve it and you are very clear that you think workers deserve more compensation.

You're one illiterate son of a bitch. Being assertive does not mean demanding. And you're clearly one shitty leader.

So you assert yourself in a timid manner? Assertive means forceful, pushy, aggressive, etc. It's not me saying, it's the thesaurus. Argue with it.

You clearly wouldn't make a good follower. You clearly don't understand that the boss is in charge and you work for him, he/she doesn't work for you.

Doubling down on your stupid does not make you smart, it just makes you twice as stupid. Assertiveness is not aggressiveness. The fact that you see assertiveness as such indicates that you are a weak, pathetic loser. You take all actions of non-passivity to be an aggressive action against you. PATHETIC! You sound like a whiny little four year old crying because the next door neighbor won't let you play with his toys.

I've said twice the thesaurus said they were synonyms not me. That means you're stupid if you say I am the one that said it. For the third time bitch, the thesaurus says assertive and aggressive are synonyms. Don't agree, argue with the thesaurus. You'll lose because you are a born loser.

I buy my own toys with MY money.

 

[SwimExpert]

So like I said, you're illiterate.

 

[Andylusion]

It is inevitable in capitalist systems that increasing wealth (essentially, promissory notes) will be concentrated among fewer people, with credit extended to consumers to ensure expanding markets. Eventually, physical limitations of the planet will kick in and limit that growth:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

When people make posts like this....

Are you suggesting that capitalism didn't exist BEFORE there were promissory notes? Because it did.

Second, are you suggesting that in some other, or any other, system that wealth would not be concentrated in with the few, and credit would not be extended to consumers? Because literally every single system since the dawn of human history, has had that.

As long as people have the choice to either invest their wealth, or consume their wealth, there will always be those who consume it and are poor, and those who invest it and are rich, and inherently, in every system since the dawn of time, as people invest and grow wealth, and others consume and grow poor, the results are wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. That's the way it is, as a natural result, regardless of what economic system they operate under.

I am not suggesting any of that because it won't matter, as my argument still stands.

Then I'm not sure what the point of the statement was. This stop sign is red. Yes, all stop signs are red. True, but this one is red, and my argument stands.

Well yeah... but you don't have an argument. If all systems have this attribute, then pointing out that this specific system has this attribute, is ... true... but irrelevant.

Except that these attributes exist only with growing levels of material resources and energy, something that obviously not possible in a world with physical limitations. For more details, read

40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart. Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At some level this is theoretically true.

The problem is, as any given resource fails to keep up with demand, the increase in price will motivate still further production. As the price of water goes up, the practical use of desalination becomes viable. As the price of food goes up, the use of less and less fertile land for food production becomes viable.

Equally as the price goes up, the use of high cost resources will go down. People buy cars with higher mpg, when the cost of gas goes up. Manufacturers, build more efficient cars when the price is high.

So while no one would deny that there are physical limits, the claim we're on the verge of an economic collapse is a joke. If we have a crash, it will be because government screwed up the economy, just like the sub-prime crisis. Not because of some running out of resources any minute now.

 

[Andylusion]

Too stupid and conservative, Republican capitalism screwed the middle class and lower class and made the rich uber uber wealthy. In the meantime they cried "foul" when people started to question why they shouldn't earn a little more. Heaven forbid You have no right to ask for more in wages, you should be happy with what you make now. Another empty rhetoric is "there are too many regulations" or "taxes are too high" while laughing behind everyone backs as the uber wealthy cash in big time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the fallacies out.. Meanwhile the poor slobs in China work for $10 an hour and think they are doing well when in fact...

You live in the most wealthy country in the world, with an average standard of living, greater than that of most of the planet, including dozens of countries that have existed, and grown for literally thousands of years longer than the US.

Think about that.... Our system, allowed our people to build, and grow a standard of living in just 200 years, that is greater than the standard of living in countries that have existed for thousands of year.

Do you realize that if you earn just $32K a year.... literally less money than a truck driver... you are the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?

You *ARE* the 1%.

So of our poorest working people, live standards of living, that is greater than the middles class of most of the planet.

So when you say why are the right-leaning people against changing the system, that has given us the most wealthy country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world.... than answer is..... because the only change we could adopt from here, would lower us. That's what you advocate. When you advocate changing to a system used elsewhere, you advocate screwing the country over. Yeah.... we tend to be against that. It's not shocking.

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

 

[Dad2three]

It is inevitable in capitalist systems that increasing wealth (essentially, promissory notes) will be concentrated among fewer people, with credit extended to consumers to ensure expanding markets. Eventually, physical limitations of the planet will kick in and limit that growth:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

When people make posts like this....

Are you suggesting that capitalism didn't exist BEFORE there were promissory notes? Because it did.

Second, are you suggesting that in some other, or any other, system that wealth would not be concentrated in with the few, and credit would not be extended to consumers? Because literally every single system since the dawn of human history, has had that.

As long as people have the choice to either invest their wealth, or consume their wealth, there will always be those who consume it and are poor, and those who invest it and are rich, and inherently, in every system since the dawn of time, as people invest and grow wealth, and others consume and grow poor, the results are wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. That's the way it is, as a natural result, regardless of what economic system they operate under.

I am not suggesting any of that because it won't matter, as my argument still stands.

Then I'm not sure what the point of the statement was. This stop sign is red. Yes, all stop signs are red. True, but this one is red, and my argument stands.

Well yeah... but you don't have an argument. If all systems have this attribute, then pointing out that this specific system has this attribute, is ... true... but irrelevant.

Except that these attributes exist only with growing levels of material resources and energy, something that obviously not possible in a world with physical limitations. For more details, read

40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart. Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At some level this is theoretically true.

The problem is, as any given resource fails to keep up with demand, the increase in price will motivate still further production. As the price of water goes up, the practical use of desalination becomes viable. As the price of food goes up, the use of less and less fertile land for food production becomes viable.

Equally as the price goes up, the use of high cost resources will go down. People buy cars with higher mpg, when the cost of gas goes up. Manufacturers, build more efficient cars when the price is high.

So while no one would deny that there are physical limits, the claim we're on the verge of an economic collapse is a joke. If we have a crash, it will be because government screwed up the economy, just like the sub-prime crisis. Not because of some running out of resources any minute now.

"If we have a crash, it will be because government screwed up the economy, just like the sub-prime crisis."



You mean the guys who "believed in" laissez faire like Dubya, Ronnie (S&L( AND Harding/Coolidge that gave US the Banksters credit bubbles???

 

[ralfy]

It is inevitable in capitalist systems that increasing wealth (essentially, promissory notes) will be concentrated among fewer people, with credit extended to consumers to ensure expanding markets. Eventually, physical limitations of the planet will kick in and limit that growth:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

When people make posts like this....

Are you suggesting that capitalism didn't exist BEFORE there were promissory notes? Because it did.

Second, are you suggesting that in some other, or any other, system that wealth would not be concentrated in with the few, and credit would not be extended to consumers? Because literally every single system since the dawn of human history, has had that.

As long as people have the choice to either invest their wealth, or consume their wealth, there will always be those who consume it and are poor, and those who invest it and are rich, and inherently, in every system since the dawn of time, as people invest and grow wealth, and others consume and grow poor, the results are wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. That's the way it is, as a natural result, regardless of what economic system they operate under.

I am not suggesting any of that because it won't matter, as my argument still stands.

Then I'm not sure what the point of the statement was. This stop sign is red. Yes, all stop signs are red. True, but this one is red, and my argument stands.

Well yeah... but you don't have an argument. If all systems have this attribute, then pointing out that this specific system has this attribute, is ... true... but irrelevant.

Except that these attributes exist only with growing levels of material resources and energy, something that obviously not possible in a world with physical limitations. For more details, read

40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart. Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At some level this is theoretically true.

The problem is, as any given resource fails to keep up with demand, the increase in price will motivate still further production. As the price of water goes up, the practical use of desalination becomes viable. As the price of food goes up, the use of less and less fertile land for food production becomes viable.

Equally as the price goes up, the use of high cost resources will go down. People buy cars with higher mpg, when the cost of gas goes up. Manufacturers, build more efficient cars when the price is high.

So while no one would deny that there are physical limits, the claim we're on the verge of an economic collapse is a joke. If we have a crash, it will be because government screwed up the economy, just like the sub-prime crisis. Not because of some running out of resources any minute now.

Unfortunately, all of these alternatives are part of the same biosphere, so the problem remains. Worse, the same alternatives require higher energy costs. On top of that, efficiency given such an economy leads to more consumption, not less.

Finally, it is likely that the issue has less to do with governments as business control the global economy:

The Capitalist Core 1380 Corporations US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ralfy]

Too stupid and conservative, Republican capitalism screwed the middle class and lower class and made the rich uber uber wealthy. In the meantime they cried "foul" when people started to question why they shouldn't earn a little more. Heaven forbid You have no right to ask for more in wages, you should be happy with what you make now. Another empty rhetoric is "there are too many regulations" or "taxes are too high" while laughing behind everyone backs as the uber wealthy cash in big time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the fallacies out.. Meanwhile the poor slobs in China work for $10 an hour and think they are doing well when in fact...

You live in the most wealthy country in the world, with an average standard of living, greater than that of most of the planet, including dozens of countries that have existed, and grown for literally thousands of years longer than the US.

Think about that.... Our system, allowed our people to build, and grow a standard of living in just 200 years, that is greater than the standard of living in countries that have existed for thousands of year.

Do you realize that if you earn just $32K a year.... literally less money than a truck driver... you are the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?

You *ARE* the 1%.

So of our poorest working people, live standards of living, that is greater than the middles class of most of the planet.

So when you say why are the right-leaning people against changing the system, that has given us the most wealthy country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world.... than answer is..... because the only change we could adopt from here, would lower us. That's what you advocate. When you advocate changing to a system used elsewhere, you advocate screwing the country over. Yeah.... we tend to be against that. It's not shocking.

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

As "stuff," it's actually paper, metal, or numbers in hard drives. As "wealth," it's actually debt.

Most people use money, with significant numbers using credit cards. But the largest transactions in businesses aren't personal ones but between financiers and businesses, and involving more than a quadrillion dollars in notional value.

 

[Andylusion]

When people make posts like this....

Are you suggesting that capitalism didn't exist BEFORE there were promissory notes? Because it did.

Second, are you suggesting that in some other, or any other, system that wealth would not be concentrated in with the few, and credit would not be extended to consumers? Because literally every single system since the dawn of human history, has had that.

As long as people have the choice to either invest their wealth, or consume their wealth, there will always be those who consume it and are poor, and those who invest it and are rich, and inherently, in every system since the dawn of time, as people invest and grow wealth, and others consume and grow poor, the results are wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few. That's the way it is, as a natural result, regardless of what economic system they operate under.

I am not suggesting any of that because it won't matter, as my argument still stands.

Then I'm not sure what the point of the statement was. This stop sign is red. Yes, all stop signs are red. True, but this one is red, and my argument stands.

Well yeah... but you don't have an argument. If all systems have this attribute, then pointing out that this specific system has this attribute, is ... true... but irrelevant.

Except that these attributes exist only with growing levels of material resources and energy, something that obviously not possible in a world with physical limitations. For more details, read

40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart. Page 18 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

At some level this is theoretically true.

The problem is, as any given resource fails to keep up with demand, the increase in price will motivate still further production. As the price of water goes up, the practical use of desalination becomes viable. As the price of food goes up, the use of less and less fertile land for food production becomes viable.

Equally as the price goes up, the use of high cost resources will go down. People buy cars with higher mpg, when the cost of gas goes up. Manufacturers, build more efficient cars when the price is high.

So while no one would deny that there are physical limits, the claim we're on the verge of an economic collapse is a joke. If we have a crash, it will be because government screwed up the economy, just like the sub-prime crisis. Not because of some running out of resources any minute now.

Unfortunately, all of these alternatives are part of the same biosphere, so the problem remains. Worse, the same alternatives require higher energy costs. On top of that, efficiency given such an economy leads to more consumption, not less.

Finally, it is likely that the issue has less to do with governments as business control the global economy:

The Capitalist Core 1380 Corporations US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Which is perfectly fine. I have no problem paying more for energy, if it's merely the cost of producing energy.

What I have a problem with, is pay more for energy, simply because the government is driving up the cost.

A ton of people screamed that even if we allowed production of oil in ANWR, that it wouldn't produce oil for 10 years. Interestingly, no one bothered to ask why? The reason is because of all the litigation, environmental studies, all the tests and government red tape which drives up the cost of producing oil.

And contrary to your claim, government is the problem. Not 'business'.

There is no solution to the physical limitations of the planet. I'm not even arguing or discussing it. What's the point? There is no possible way to change the laws of physics, so the entire discussion is mute.

 

[Andylusion]

Too stupid and conservative, Republican capitalism screwed the middle class and lower class and made the rich uber uber wealthy. In the meantime they cried "foul" when people started to question why they shouldn't earn a little more. Heaven forbid You have no right to ask for more in wages, you should be happy with what you make now. Another empty rhetoric is "there are too many regulations" or "taxes are too high" while laughing behind everyone backs as the uber wealthy cash in big time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the fallacies out.. Meanwhile the poor slobs in China work for $10 an hour and think they are doing well when in fact...

You live in the most wealthy country in the world, with an average standard of living, greater than that of most of the planet, including dozens of countries that have existed, and grown for literally thousands of years longer than the US.

Think about that.... Our system, allowed our people to build, and grow a standard of living in just 200 years, that is greater than the standard of living in countries that have existed for thousands of year.

Do you realize that if you earn just $32K a year.... literally less money than a truck driver... you are the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?

You *ARE* the 1%.

So of our poorest working people, live standards of living, that is greater than the middles class of most of the planet.

So when you say why are the right-leaning people against changing the system, that has given us the most wealthy country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world.... than answer is..... because the only change we could adopt from here, would lower us. That's what you advocate. When you advocate changing to a system used elsewhere, you advocate screwing the country over. Yeah.... we tend to be against that. It's not shocking.

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

As "stuff," it's actually paper, metal, or numbers in hard drives. As "wealth," it's actually debt.

Most people use money, with significant numbers using credit cards. But the largest transactions in businesses aren't personal ones but between financiers and businesses, and involving more than a quadrillion dollars in notional value.

Bonds have the corporation as collateral. That's 'stuff'. All of those mortgage backed securities, are built on property, which is 'stuff'.

The only bonds that have zero backing in stuff, is government bonds. If the government refuses to pay......... you just don't get paid.

Everything else though, is built on stuff.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You mean the guys who "believed in" laissez faire like Dubya, Ronnie (S&L( AND Harding/Coolidge that gave US the Banksters credit bubbles???

some of them may have believed in the free market but with 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford they certainly did not have it.

 

[georgephillip]

some of them may have believed in the free market but with 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford they certainly did not have it.

More cut and paste for the rich neo-con to duck?
"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said.

"In the 1980s, many Savings and Loans failed because of poor management, risky loans and investments, and in some cases, fraud. Taxpayers were left with a $132 billion tab to cover federal guarantees to S&L customers."

Do you remember what the FBI said about private entity mortgage fraud in 2004?

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud epidemic - Sep 17 2004

 

[ralfy]

Too stupid and conservative, Republican capitalism screwed the middle class and lower class and made the rich uber uber wealthy. In the meantime they cried "foul" when people started to question why they shouldn't earn a little more. Heaven forbid You have no right to ask for more in wages, you should be happy with what you make now. Another empty rhetoric is "there are too many regulations" or "taxes are too high" while laughing behind everyone backs as the uber wealthy cash in big time. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the fallacies out.. Meanwhile the poor slobs in China work for $10 an hour and think they are doing well when in fact...

You live in the most wealthy country in the world, with an average standard of living, greater than that of most of the planet, including dozens of countries that have existed, and grown for literally thousands of years longer than the US.

Think about that.... Our system, allowed our people to build, and grow a standard of living in just 200 years, that is greater than the standard of living in countries that have existed for thousands of year.

Do you realize that if you earn just $32K a year.... literally less money than a truck driver... you are the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?

You *ARE* the 1%.

So of our poorest working people, live standards of living, that is greater than the middles class of most of the planet.

So when you say why are the right-leaning people against changing the system, that has given us the most wealthy country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world.... than answer is..... because the only change we could adopt from here, would lower us. That's what you advocate. When you advocate changing to a system used elsewhere, you advocate screwing the country over. Yeah.... we tend to be against that. It's not shocking.

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

As "stuff," it's actually paper, metal, or numbers in hard drives. As "wealth," it's actually debt.

Most people use money, with significant numbers using credit cards. But the largest transactions in businesses aren't personal ones but between financiers and businesses, and involving more than a quadrillion dollars in notional value.

Bonds have the corporation as collateral. That's 'stuff'. All of those mortgage backed securities, are built on property, which is 'stuff'.

The only bonds that have zero backing in stuff, is government bonds. If the government refuses to pay......... you just don't get paid.

Everything else though, is built on stuff.

Credit levels for unregulated derivatives alone are twenty times higher than the size of the global GDP itself:

Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog

Also, liquidity pyramids show that the same is far greater than the value of real estate, bonds, stocks, bills, and reserve and currency notes combined.

 

[Andylusion]

You live in the most wealthy country in the world, with an average standard of living, greater than that of most of the planet, including dozens of countries that have existed, and grown for literally thousands of years longer than the US.

Think about that.... Our system, allowed our people to build, and grow a standard of living in just 200 years, that is greater than the standard of living in countries that have existed for thousands of year.

Do you realize that if you earn just $32K a year.... literally less money than a truck driver... you are the top 1% of wage earners in the entire world?

You *ARE* the 1%.

So of our poorest working people, live standards of living, that is greater than the middles class of most of the planet.

So when you say why are the right-leaning people against changing the system, that has given us the most wealthy country in the world, with the highest standard of living in the world.... than answer is..... because the only change we could adopt from here, would lower us. That's what you advocate. When you advocate changing to a system used elsewhere, you advocate screwing the country over. Yeah.... we tend to be against that. It's not shocking.

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

As "stuff," it's actually paper, metal, or numbers in hard drives. As "wealth," it's actually debt.

Most people use money, with significant numbers using credit cards. But the largest transactions in businesses aren't personal ones but between financiers and businesses, and involving more than a quadrillion dollars in notional value.

Bonds have the corporation as collateral. That's 'stuff'. All of those mortgage backed securities, are built on property, which is 'stuff'.

The only bonds that have zero backing in stuff, is government bonds. If the government refuses to pay......... you just don't get paid.

Everything else though, is built on stuff.

Credit levels for unregulated derivatives alone are twenty times higher than the size of the global GDP itself:

Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog

Also, liquidity pyramids show that the same is far greater than the value of real estate, bonds, stocks, bills, and reserve and currency notes combined.

And yet where did the crash happen? In regulated mortgage backed securities.

 

[Andylusion]

some of them may have believed in the free market but with 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford they certainly did not have it.

More cut and paste for the rich neo-con to duck?
"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said.

"In the 1980s, many Savings and Loans failed because of poor management, risky loans and investments, and in some cases, fraud. Taxpayers were left with a $132 billion tab to cover federal guarantees to S&L customers."

Do you remember what the FBI said about private entity mortgage fraud in 2004?

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud epidemic - Sep 17 2004

I'm not even sure what the point of this post is. No one has denied any of this, yet clearly it didn't cause the 2008 crash. Nor does it contradict the prior post.

Is this just another "spam links and cut&paste random articles, while pretending to have a point" leftism?

 

[SwimExpert]

And yet where did the crash happen? In regulated mortgage backed securities.

Actually, they were "regulated," but not really regulated.

 

[Dad2three]

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

As "stuff," it's actually paper, metal, or numbers in hard drives. As "wealth," it's actually debt.

Most people use money, with significant numbers using credit cards. But the largest transactions in businesses aren't personal ones but between financiers and businesses, and involving more than a quadrillion dollars in notional value.

Bonds have the corporation as collateral. That's 'stuff'. All of those mortgage backed securities, are built on property, which is 'stuff'.

The only bonds that have zero backing in stuff, is government bonds. If the government refuses to pay......... you just don't get paid.

Everything else though, is built on stuff.

Credit levels for unregulated derivatives alone are twenty times higher than the size of the global GDP itself:

Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog

Also, liquidity pyramids show that the same is far greater than the value of real estate, bonds, stocks, bills, and reserve and currency notes combined.

And yet where did the crash happen? In regulated mortgage backed securities.

The onset of the recent financial crisis in late 2007 created an intellectual crisis for conservatives, who had been touting for decades the benefits of a hands-off approach to financial market regulation. As the crisis quickly spiraled out of control, it quickly became apparent that the massive credit bubble of the mid-2000s, followed by the inevitable bust that culminated with the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

Predictably, many conservatives sought to blame the bogeymen they always blamed.

Politics Most Blatant Center for American Progress


Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf



"I made a mistake in presuming that the self-interests of organisations, specifically banks and others, were such that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms," said Allan Greenspan.

Greenspan - I was wrong about the economy. Sort of Business The Guardian

 

[guno]

 

[Dad2three]

some of them may have believed in the free market but with 132 Federal and State programs to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford they certainly did not have it.

More cut and paste for the rich neo-con to duck?
"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said.

"In the 1980s, many Savings and Loans failed because of poor management, risky loans and investments, and in some cases, fraud. Taxpayers were left with a $132 billion tab to cover federal guarantees to S&L customers."

Do you remember what the FBI said about private entity mortgage fraud in 2004?

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud epidemic - Sep 17 2004

I'm not even sure what the point of this post is. No one has denied any of this, yet clearly it didn't cause the 2008 crash. Nor does it contradict the prior post.

Is this just another "spam links and cut&paste random articles, while pretending to have a point" leftism?

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - latimes

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. P. J. O'Rourke

 

[Dad2three]

Much of that wealth consists of numbers in hard drives, is essentially debt, controlled by a very small number of people:

Revealed the capitalist network that runs the world - physics-math - 19 October 2011 - New Scientist

and ultimately dependent on increasing amounts of material resources and energy to maintain its importance.

In addition, such living standards can only be maintained if businesses are able to sell to a growing global consumer market:

The rise of the global middle class - BBC News

which is not likely given a world with physical limitations:

Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we re nearing collapse Cathy Alexander and Graham Turner Comment is free The Guardian

Nah. I would completely reject all of that. Wealth is not debt. Wealth is stuff. I personally do not owe anyone anywhere, anything. Zero debt. I don't have a credit card, or a car note, or anything.

Yet, I have a standard of living that would be an envy to the rest of the world.

Second, there are millions of businesses that buy and sell exclusively in the US.

Now don't get me wrong, there is no question at all, that global commerce is a benefit to everyone, and obviously harming global trade would harm living standards. I agree. But to say that we could not achieve a decent standard of living out side of global trade, I don't see any real evidence of that.

As "stuff," it's actually paper, metal, or numbers in hard drives. As "wealth," it's actually debt.

Most people use money, with significant numbers using credit cards. But the largest transactions in businesses aren't personal ones but between financiers and businesses, and involving more than a quadrillion dollars in notional value.

Bonds have the corporation as collateral. That's 'stuff'. All of those mortgage backed securities, are built on property, which is 'stuff'.

The only bonds that have zero backing in stuff, is government bonds. If the government refuses to pay......... you just don't get paid.

Everything else though, is built on stuff.

Credit levels for unregulated derivatives alone are twenty times higher than the size of the global GDP itself:

Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog

Also, liquidity pyramids show that the same is far greater than the value of real estate, bonds, stocks, bills, and reserve and currency notes combined.

And yet where did the crash happen? In regulated mortgage backed securities.

Jun 16, 2005

The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history.

The global housing boom In come the waves The Economist


Yes govt failed us. Are who was in charge of that govt? Can you say republicans? (I've found conservatives wont even state obvious facts)

The political PHILOSOPHY that failed was conservatism.



The banks have known for 30 years the risks involved on the loan products they sold. This is why they lobbied so hard to allow them to sell the bad products to investors so they would not be holding the bad paper or the risks. The developed the products like stated income stated assets then bundled them to make it appear they were blended risks and then sold them to multiple investors

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum