Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
4) the bottom 50% have no accumulated wealth because the liberals take it to pay welfare entitlements. They gets trillions each year so they don't have to accumulate wealth. In fact let them keep just their Social Security and they'd retire rich!
Social Security has been running a surplus that was stolen. Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drugs, Tax Cut/Loopholes for the wealthy and Excessive Military Spending are what is blowing holes in the budget.
so you agree that the bottom has no wealth because the liberals steal it all away to pay for big liberal government??
Really, Really ignorant. Another con who believes the fight wing dogma, and passes it on. God, I would like to see one who actually does some research, and uses objective reason.The 2006 housing bubble collapse was caused by rampant speculation (risking for reward, and losing), not by hedging (playing it safe, foregoing possible profit, to avoid loss).
You have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about (but that doesn't stop you from commenting anyway).
The housing collapse had absolutely, positively, NOTHING to do with investing (sepculation, hedging, or anything else). It was the direct result of liberal Socialism (as usual).
The housing market collapsed because of Bill Clinton's "Community Reinvestment Act" which ensured that people who didn't previously qualify for home loans received them (because the idiot liberal - in true Communist/Marxist/Socialist fashion believes everyone should own a home, whther they can afford it or not). Of course, everyone of them can make their first mortgage payment. But over time (though a wide variety of reasons), people start falling behind. They start putting everything on credit cards, until those get maxed out. Eventually, they default on everything and file for bankruptcy. At first, it's not that big of deal. But the more time goes by, the more people are added to the bankruptcy pool.
With each bankruptcy - two things occur. First, is that yet another house is on the market at well below market price (just so the banks can unload them). With too mnay houses (too much supply, not enough demand) at too low of a price, all homes start to plummet. The second that thing occurs is that as the banks to get repaid on their loans and on their credit cards, they have to start laying off workers. Which then ADDS to the pool of people now unable to pay their mortgage. The entire thing continues to spiral out of control.
That's what happens when fucking liberals control government - and government sticks it's nose in the private sector where it doesn't belong.
So, the values, of personal holdings of real-estate & stocks, each decreased about $6T. Other assets must make up the remainder. i understand, that bond sales are crucial to financing business operations. But why would stock sales affect business operations? Falling stock prices make bonds look less attractive?total assets values including real estate dropped $16T, of which the $6T drop in real estate was less than the $10T drop in everything else...
real estate hasn't recovered with everything else. Any way we look at it the description 'rampant speculation' applies less to real estate than to other assets...
stock and bond sales --along with all other savings-- aren't directly counted in the GDP, corporate activity is and it's the majority of the GDP's component totals. Without stock and bond sales, corporate activity would stop and most of the GDP would disappear.
your own chart shows, that median incomes are higher than ever, excepting for 2008, from which incomes, like the economy, have yet to recover. Complaining about incomes being higher than ever, amidst a recession, is not legitimateLower & Middle class income has been on the decline for the past 13 years.
Adam Smith did say that since the top 1% have 43% of the nations wealth that they should pay over 43% of the taxes.
1) if so I'll pay you $10,000. Bet??
2) all agree taxes are based on income, not wealth
3) since the bottom 50% pay no tax and make no contribution toward their fair share why not conscript them?
4) the bottom 50% have no accumulated wealth because the liberals take it to pay welfare entitlements. They gets trillions each year so they don't have to accumulate wealth. In fact let them keep just their Social Security and they'd retire rich!
No, real estate by itself fell $6T. It's on the feds report as--So, the values, of personal holdings of real-estate & stocks, each decreased about $6T. Other assets must make up the remainder....total assets values including real estate dropped $16T, of which the $6T drop in real estate was less than the $10T drop in everything else...
Corps get the money they need by selling both stocks and bonds. The Fed says that right now in the US there's about $25T in stocks and $5T in bonds. Corps get five times as much money from stock sales than bond sales.... i understand, that bond sales are crucial to financing business operations. But why would stock sales affect business operations? ...
are you sure? Stocks are like the titles to cars, except they are the titles to (partial shares of) businesses. Buying & selling stock, on stock-exchanges, is like buying and selling (titles to) cars, on the aftermarket. Corporations are uninvolved, and do not derive any money, from other remote parties, swapping cash for existing stock. Only in IPOs are businesses party to the transaction, selling the stock equity, for cash.The Fed says[/COLOR][/URL] that right now in the US there's about $25T in stocks and $5T in bonds. Corps get five times as much money from stock sales than bond sales.
My being sure is irrelevant. Mark Twain once said that it's not what you don't know that can hurt you, it's what you're sure of that isn't so that can kill you. You can be sure that "that bond sales are crucial to financing business operations" or you can download the flow of funds from here, then read the $5,192.5B on line 25 of page 114, then you can read the the $25,187.5B on line 1 of page 101.are you sure? ...The Fed says that right now in the US there's about $25T in stocks and $5T in bonds. Corps get five times as much money from stock sales than bond sales.
Not really, when people buy stocks in an IPO they're not giving money to the corp but rather to the underwriters. Of course it helps the corp because the underwriters would never have given money to the corp if they didn't know they'd sell the shares --and that's how it works for all resales. There's more. When prices go up then companies can issue more shares. Companies also sell stock directly or grant options to employees as a performance motivation.... Only in IPOs are businesses party to the transaction, selling the stock equity, for cash.
i'm grateful for the nuanced clarificationwhen people buy stocks in an IPO they're not giving money to the corp but rather to the underwriters. Of course it helps the corp because the underwriters would never have given money to the corp if they didn't know they'd sell the shares --and that's how it works for all resales.
businesses selling stock directly raises revenues for them. (Issuing shares, or options, may motivate performance, boosting productivity, and profits ultimately & indirectly; but both represent paying employees more, and so are actually & directly expenses.)When prices go up then companies can issue more shares. Companies also sell stock directly or grant options to employees as a performance motivation.
are you sure? i've never heard that before. Persons invest in stock-markets. If i invest, i buy stock other persons are selling. Businesses are not involved, any more than Ford is involved, when one past customer sells their Ford pickup to somebody else, in the aftermarket. you're saying, that "one way or another" your $500 is benefiting Apple (per your example), even if not necessarily directly (indirectly, by pushing up share prices, helping Apple motivate employees & sell additional shares) ?when I buy $500 worth of Apple stock, Apple stock is using my money to operate the Apple Corp. The underwriters are long gone.
If you've ever personally worked with shares sold to employees, you'll remember that it involves employees paying money directly to the employer corporation. Employees can be better motivated when they own the company. Companies are not in the habit of increasing expenses for no reason. All this seems so extremely obvious to me that I honestly wonder if you're deliberately refusing to work seriously. Then again, I fondly remember more than a few exasperated college profs......Issuing shares, or options, may motivate performance, boosting productivity, and profits ultimately & indirectly; but both represent paying employees more, and so are actually & directly expenses...
Has to do with lien/liability transfers.are you sure? i've never heard that before. Persons invest in stock-markets. If i invest, i buy stock other persons are selling. Businesses are not involved......when I buy $500 worth of Apple stock, Apple stock is using my money to operate the Apple Corp. The underwriters are long gone.
The bottom line is that when I buy $500 worth of Apple stock, Apple stock is using my money to operate the Apple Corp. The underwriters are long gone.
...underwriters are gone and so is Apple...
