A Comment On Wall Street 'Protests'

[Sallow]

Precious. Really.

It appears that CG is familiar with the Delingpole opus "Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors [Paperback]


For your edification, and so you won't embarrass yourself again...

the link from Amazon:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Watermelons-Green-Movements-True-Colors/dp/0983347409/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1317745765&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors (9780983347408): James Delingpole: Books[/ame]



The green movement, like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Yep. I read books. Pity that more people don't do likewise.... but willful ignorance is a choice.

I read all kinds of books. Even those without pictures.

Generally..I am careful about what sort of references I use.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There are no shackles holding us down. The only shackles that prevent us from succeeding is the thought that other people are responsible for our own failures.

Huh? I guess you don't think that Big Money in Politics has provided shackles on the Middle Class? Sheesh, I mean really, some of you sheep are really naive

The reason that the middle class is going away is because of big government.
When you have Government taking a large amount of the business profit for taxes and regulations it gives them no money for raises to their employees or to hire more employees.
We have to get the money out of lobbying and reform campaign contributions.

In truth, Peachy, the middle class is far from 'going away'...it is moving up into what would be called the rich category.


1. It is important to distinguish between more Americans getting richer, and only the rich getting richer. The latter, of course, is the default position of the Old Left Media. For example, the Left bemoans the declining percentage of Americans in the moderate-income range, between $35,000-$50,000. This is regularly called the ‘vanishing middle classs.’

2. What is missed…and not by accident, is that the ‘disappearance’ is largely due to fact that the percentage of households with real incomes higher than $50,000 increased from 24.9% in 1967 to 44.1% in 2003, and the percentage with real incomes lower than $35,000 fell from 52.8% in 1967 to 40.9% . More On The Certain Equality Of Reaganomics - Forbes

a. “…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

3. Mathematics is a factor in understanding the economy, as well: one must understand that the any average, or mean, of incomes in the top 20% will always be much higher than the median income in this group, for the simple reason that the top group has no ceiling…i.e., it is everyone with incomes above the 80% percentile. Of course, this description can be applied to any “top” group…1%, 5%, etc.

a. The median will consequently always provide a much more accurate reflection of the typical income earner in any top income group than any average or mean. So, changes in the “average” incomes of a top group are always misleading, and greatly exaggerates the level of typical income of top income groups.

b. “Mean income for the top 10% is about two-thirds larger than median income…” Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 21.

c. According to Federal Reserve data regarding incomes of different subgroups, the average or mean income of the top 10% households seems to increase much more from 1989 to 2004 than the average or mean of the next highest 10%, or of any lower income group. This would lead one to believe, mistakenly, that income inequality is growing, with the rich getting rich faster than any other group.

But when the more accurate median income is considered, the income of the top 10% grew virtually at the same rate from 1989 to 2004 as the bottom 20%, and as the second lowest 20%. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 20-21.

4. Similarly, changes in the bottom limit, or threshold, of any top income group appears to be rapidly increasing the top groups income…when in reality, it is the increase of the group below the top that has the benefit.

a. Thus, as the incomes of those in the second 10% grows into the top 10%, we must now add incomes of those from the next group below. This makes the higher level appear to grow, while the lower group adds lower income earners in order to have the proper number to make 10% of the total. The effect is due to increase in incomes below the threshold!

b. In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

c. Example? The top fifth of household incomes began at $68,352 in 1980 (in 2004 dollars). But by 2004, the incomes of so many in the second 20% had increased above the former $68,352 threshold that the top 20% of earners now started at $88,029 in 2004! Therefore, if one calculates the mean average of all the incomes above $88,029 in 2004 it will be considerably higher than if you averaged all the incomes above the $68,352 as we did in 1980.
The essential point is that this statistical effect does not mean that the rich are getting richer…it means more people are getting rich, and reflects the rising general prosperity!


So....here is the money shot: "In this case the average of the top 10% is being ‘pushed up’ from below by rising numbers of folks whose income has increased, with them leaving what had been a ‘middle class income’ and joining the ‘ranks of the rich.’

Covered fully in chapter nine of "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," by Ferrara
Don't let 'em fool ya', Peachy!

 

[Claudette]

Fannie and Freddie had almost nothing to do with the financial meltdown. Neither did the program for low-income mortgages. The mortgages that failed, triggering the collapse of the mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps, were disproportionately ARMs, and disproportionately mortgages of business property rather than homes.

Yes they did, Fannie and Freddie and others sold these homes to people who could not afford them at adjustable rate mortgages and businesses.
And if the people themselves had had any common sense you never buy a large ticket item like a home or business on any arm's.
You always should buy them at a fixed rate.
My girlfriends daughters bought a home to open a day care center on an adjustable rate loan.
We told them to do it with a fixed rate but they would not listen to us.
They lost the business and it will take them five years ( a very expensive 5 yrs) to pay back the mess that they got themselves into.

It's really worse than that. With the ease of getting mortgages, home values rose. People who could afford the homes they bought refinanced and took out the equity to the point where they couldn't afford them. Some people refinanced 5-6 times taking out the equity. They had a good time with that money. They went on vacations, bought cars, new furniture. They bought a house for $150,000 that they could afford and borrowed it out to $600,000 that they couldn't afford.

If this had never happened there would have been no toxic mortgages to bundle and get rid of.

IMO There would have been no crisis at all and no need to bail out anyone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It appears that CG is familiar with the Delingpole opus "Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors [Paperback]


For your edification, and so you won't embarrass yourself again...

the link from Amazon:
Amazon.com: Watermelons: The Green Movement's True Colors (9780983347408): James Delingpole: Books



The green movement, like a watermelon: green on the outside, red on the inside.

Yep. I read books. Pity that more people don't do likewise.... but willful ignorance is a choice.

I read all kinds of books. Even those without pictures.

Generally..I am careful about what sort of references I use.

So careful that you decided not to use any to support your original contention....

But I believe you read lots of books...sure.

You’re probably the right one to ask this….do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?

 

[Jarhead]

"My take is that we shouldn't envy what others have and try to demonize successful people. We just need to work hard so we can aspire to succeed. We're in the greatest country in the world. There are no shackles holding us down. The only shackles that prevent us from succeeding is the thought that other people are responsible for our own failures.

A quick message to everyone who supports this "occupy wall street" movement protesting corporations:


- throw away your ipods, ipads, and ibooks. those products are made by one of the wealthiest and most successful corporations in the world.
- stop organizing your events on facebook and twitter, and delete your accounts. yeah, those guys are rich too.
- make sure your pants don't say levi, express, old navy, etc.
- be sure to read your pamphlets by candle light and get rid of all your light bulbs because they're made by corporations. oh, and don't get your candles from yankee candle co. they're evil, right?
- get rid of your corporate made car. buy a bike... but not scwhinn. er, actually you should ride a horse or walk. but make sure your shoes don't say nike.
- sit on the floor instead of a chair. your seat could be made by ikea or laz-e-boy. oh, and make sure you don't sit on a floor manufactured by tile corporations or lumber companies. they're probably evil too.
- throw away your michael moore dvd collection. he's actually one of the biggest capitalists in hollywood. you don't even have a TV anyway, right? those are made by corporations.
- get rid of your fancy shmancy smart phone. you'll never guess this, but it was made by a corporation too. you don't need txting or the internet! those things are fueled by corporate funding.
- call out your favorite bands, like radio head, for using fender or gibson guitars. make sure they use non-corporate instruments while they spread their propag.. er, message.
- no more stoves or microwaves.
- no more ramen noodles or mac 'n cheese. there goes your cheap meals.
- no more video games.
- no more cameras to capture your revolution.
- no more books.
- no more gps.
- no more jon stewart.
- no more weekend at the movies.
- no more farms.
- no more radio.
- no more electricity.
- no more AC or heat. unless, of course you burn wood. but then you're destroying the ozone layer.

and if you happen to think it irony [or poetic justice] to use the tools made by the corporations to protest the system, i disagree. it's just plain hypocrisy."

Wish I could take credit for this, but it was in my morn emails....

Almost each and every one of those products you mentioned originated in a government lab or was part of a government/private partnership.

So tax-payers are funding wealth. Nothing wrong with people getting rich. There is something wrong when they are not equitably sharing profit.

Even "Kraft" cheese didn't become a super duper corporation on thier own. They got a contract during WWII from the government.

Equitably sharing profit?

Do you believe in equitably sharing loss?

Wait...NOW I GET IT..........That is why no one on the left is upset about Solyndra....you DO believe we should share in loss....

Correct?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/187950-christie-live.html​

 

[Dragon]

In truth, Peachy, the middle class is far from 'going away'...it is moving up into what would be called the rich category.

That is, by definition, impossible.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Would there have been a 'mortgage meltdown' leading to financial collapse, without government slipping 'control of home ownership' into Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?

Yes. The meltdown had nothing to do with government regulations on mortgages, and everything to do with the LACK of government regulations on other financial transactions.

Your response is totally consistent with all of your other posts...

....and just as vacant of rectitude.

 

[Jarhead]

Yep.

Why are these idiots on Wall St. anyway.

They should be in DC where the laws, regs and oversite originate.

Any idea which left wing groups are behind this??

Van, Watermelon Man, Jones.

Precious. Really.

Ouch Sallow.

This was a fuck up by you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In truth, Peachy, the middle class is far from 'going away'...it is moving up into what would be called the rich category.

That is, by definition, impossible.

Now, why am I not surprised that you were unable to understand
post #42?

Far from impossible, it demonstrates the multiple lacunae in your comprehension
in economics, statistics, mathematics ....and, I'll include logic.

#42 was unnecessary to reveal same about your politics.

 

[Dragon]

Far from impossible.

On the contrary, it is, by definition, impossible for the middle class as a whole to become rich. It is of course possible for any one member of the middle class to become rich, but the middle class is defined as those whose incomes are in the middle range, neither rich nor poor.

In reality, there has been much more downward mobility than upward mobility for the formerly middle class. The rich (defined as those of the top X% in income) have become richer; that is, those who make more money than 99% of the people now make a higher percentage of the total income than in the past. At the same time, the availability of high-paying jobs that put working people in the middle class has declined. The remaining members of the middle class are today mostly highly educated professionals and the most successful small-business owners. It has surely occurred that some few of those remaining middle-class people have managed to invest their way into real wealth. But far more people have lost high-paying manufacturing jobs and replaced them with lower-paying service jobs, dropping out of the middle class into the ranks of the working class, than have risen to real wealth.

Any attempt to deny this is a lie told with statistics. And I do understand your post. That's why I know that it's bullshit.

 

[Jarhead]

Would there have been a 'mortgage meltdown' leading to financial collapse, without government slipping 'control of home ownership' into Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?

Yes. The meltdown had nothing to do with government regulations on mortgages, and everything to do with the LACK of government regulations on other financial transactions.

OH...I see....so banks would never have lost that money when the borrowers went iunto foreclosure.

So in other words, the banks only usffered losses becuase other banks purchased those bad loans.

Uh...no....wrong...

whether they were sold or not, when those loans went bad, the bank was going to lose on it.

 

[Jarhead]

On the contrary, it is, by definition, impossible for the middle class as a whole to become rich. It is of course possible for any one member of the middle class to become rich, but the middle class is defined as those whose incomes are in the middle range, neither rich nor poor.

exactly...

But every member of that middle class has an opporutnity to rise.

Eliminate cpaitalism and no one has that opportunity.

So.....what you say?

Lets punsih those that strive so those that dont can be equal to them?

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Dragon]

So in other words, the banks only usffered losses becuase other banks purchased those bad loans.

Correct. Defaulted mortgages would have caused some losses, but not nearly enough to send the banks into near-ruin and require a federal bailout.

 

[Jarhead]

So in other words, the banks only usffered losses becuase other banks purchased those bad loans.

Correct. Defaulted mortgages would have caused some losses, but not nearly enough to send the banks into near-ruin and require a federal bailout.

wrong son.

Private investors such as you and I may not have kost money...

But the amount the banks lost?

Equal to the amount they would have lost if they were not sold.

It is like a circle....

A sells to B who sells to C who sells to A....with A B and C being lending institutions......

AB and C combined had 20 loans out of 100 go bad....

A B and C combined lost X amount of money.....with or without selling to each other.