Either/or

[Dad2three]

Nope that is called wages.

In 1980 the top 1% earned 8.5% of total income. In 2007 they earned 23%.

In 1980 the bottom 90% earned 68% of total income. In 2007 they earned 53%.

Summary of Latest Federal Income Tax Data Tax Foundation

GOV'T POLICY MATTERS !!!

Keynes wrote "The End of Laissez Faire" in 1926. He was correct then, and his insight remains more valid than any economics that conservative Libertarians propound ad infinitum and ad nauseum. Laissez Faire is nothing more than a childish Christmas wish of no substance; just hope and myth, and smoke and mirrors. Fails every time we try even the tiniest bit.

 

[Dad2three]

Does one have to subscribe to either a zero-sum view on economics or a non-zero sum view? Is it possible that zero-sum is a legitimate portrayal of economics as long as one doesn't view the pie from which slices are being divided by as being static? For instance, since a particular nation's economic nation is constantly producing and consuming, this suggests that pies are being eaten and created all the time. But, even if a new pie is bigger, or smaller, the question is, who is slicing the pie pieces? If portions are the same proportionate to the whole pie, then it would be a zero-sum game, given the fact that although it is a new pie, the slices given out are proportionately the same. Any thoughts?

True, a good explanation, one Bripat is to ignorant to understand


Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot
There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

WELL SAID!

Corporations exist to distribute gains to individuals after taxes, reinvestment, cost of goods sold, etc. Most corporations do not use stock as a means to create wealth or distribute gains. The reason for that is most companies are small ones or privately held. Companies are a convenient scapegoat for liberals to rail against, until you realize what most companies are.

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains


Income and wealth disparities become even more absurd if we look at the top 0.1% of the nation’s earners– rather than the more common 1%. The top 0.1%– about 315,000 individuals out of 315 million– are making about half of all capital gains on the sale of shares or property after 1 year; and these capital gains make up 60% of the income made by the Forbes 400.

The Top 0.1 Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains - Forbes


Through size, corporations, once merely an efficient tool employed by individuals in the conduct of private business have become an institution-an institution which has brought such concentration of economic power that so-called private corporations are sometimes able to dominate the state. The typical business corporation of the last century, owned by a small group of individuals, managed by their owners, and limited in size by their private wealth, is being supplanted by huge concerns in which the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of employees and the property of tens of hundreds of thousands of investors are subjected, through the corporate mechanism, to the control of a few men. Ownership has been separated from control; and this separation has removed many of the checks which formerly operated to curb the misuse of wealth and power. And, as ownership of the shares is becoming continually more dispersed, the power which formerly accompanied ownership is becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few... [and] coincident with the growth of these giant corporations, there has occurred a marked concentration of individual wealth; and that the resulting disparity in incomes is a major cause of the existing depression.

Louis Brandeis, SCOTUS

• Dissent, Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933), at 565-67.

Thanks for proving my point. What depression? We had a housing bubble which was the result of people buying more house than they could afford.

YOUR POINT?

"Corporations exist to distribute gains to individuals after taxes, reinvestment, cost of goods sold, etc. Most corporations do not use stock as a means to create wealth or distribute gains. The reason for that is most companies are small ones or privately held. Companies are a convenient scapegoat for liberals to rail against, until you realize what most companies are."

LOL

AGAIN:

The Top 0.1% Of The Nation Earn Half Of All Capital Gains

No it was a REGULATOR failure under Dubya who allowed and cheer lead for the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE and bust. Weird you don't know that. It was a ponzi scheme built on subprime loans that were made without regard for the ability to pay it back...


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


The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

, wealth is a zero-sum game.

almost too stupid for words, but typical of a liberal.

If wealth were zero sum the population of the world could not have grown to 7 billion with the majority consuming 10 times more than the majority 100 years ago when population was only 2 billion!!

Get it?? there is now far more wealth for 7 billion to share than there was 100 years ago for 2 billion to share!!

See why we are 100% positive liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

 

[Dad2three]

, wealth is a zero-sum game.

almost too stupid for words, but typical of a liberal.

If wealth were zero sum the population of the world could not have grown to 7 billion with the majority consuming 10 times more than the majority 100 years ago when population was only 2 billion!!

Get it?? there is now far more wealth for 7 billion to share than there was 100 years ago for 2 billion to share!!

See why we are 100% positive liberalism is based in pure ignorance.

So you cut off the rest of the post and argue from those few words? TYPICAL of you, you brainless flea

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.



The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that. Profit equals income minus expenses. No more, no less. Subtract the right side of the equation from the left side and the answer is always zero. Hence the term, “zero-sum.”

So, to the extent a corporation can keep from sharing the wealth with workers—the ones who created the wealth to begin with—investors and executives get a bigger slice of the income pie and become richer.

To understand this aspect of the zero-sum nature of wealth, and the way many people get rich—that is, besides selling-out our workers to Third World countries—consider how Gates, Eisner, and Welch Jr. did it. It’s no mystery, and it isn’t all that hard to do.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun?

 

[Dad2three]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun?

Yes, you should try it sometime

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun?

Yes, you should try it sometime

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun.

 

[Dad2three]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun?

Yes, you should try it sometime

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun.

Yes, you keep proving you can't think and read the proper premise of the post. You don't need to keep proving how ignorant you are, really, I get it. You can't tie your own shoelaces

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun?

Yes, you should try it sometime

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun.

Yes, you keep proving you can't think and read the proper premise of the post. You don't need to keep proving how ignorant you are, really, I get it. You can't tie your own shoelaces

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

dear, if you lack the intelligence to address my point doesn't that tell you you lack the IQ to be here? We can all cut and paste dumbto 3!!

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun.

 

[Dad2three]

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun?

Yes, you should try it sometime

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun.

Yes, you keep proving you can't think and read the proper premise of the post. You don't need to keep proving how ignorant you are, really, I get it. You can't tie your own shoelaces

Wealth is a Zero-Sum Game


Conservative damagogues like Limbaugh have been able to convince the public that the huge incomes of the wealthiest Americans are irrelevant to those who make moderate-to-low incomes. They even suggest that the more money the wealthiest Americans make, the more wealth will trickle down to the lower classes.

If you've swallowed this line of conservative garbage, get ready to vomit. As all conservative economists know, and deny to the public that they know, wealth is a zero-sum game. That is true at both the front end—when income is divided up, and the back end—when it is spent.


The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year. The more of that income that is used to pay workers, the less profit the corporation makes. The less profit, the less the stock goes up. The less the stock goes up, the less the CEO and the investors make. It’s as simple as that.

The Zero-sum Nature of economics

dear, if you lack the intelligence to address my point doesn't that tell you you lack the IQ to be here? We can all cut and paste dumbto 3!!

If wealth were zero sum there would be no more wealth now than 100 years ago! Isn't thinking fun.

Yes, once more, YOU need to try it

The Front End of Zero-Sum: Dividing the Loot


There is only so much corporate income in a given year

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is only so much corporate income in a given year

are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?

 

[Dad2three]

There is only so much corporate income in a given year

are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?

You really are pretty ignorant aren't you? How do you tie your shoes? Slip ons?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is only so much corporate income in a given year

are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?

You really are pretty ignorant aren't you? How do you tie your shoes? Slip ons?

dumbto 3 low life tries to change the subject with ad hominen when he discovers he lacks the IQ to participate substantively.

 

[Dad2three]

There is only so much corporate income in a given year

are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?

You really are pretty ignorant aren't you? How do you tie your shoes? Slip ons?

dumbto 3 low life tries to change the subject with ad hominen when he discovers he lacks the IQ to participate substantively.

Now go back and reread this:

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year"

DOES IT MEAN THIS BUBBA:

"are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?


LOL

 

[EconChick]

Jesus Christ, event the Capitalist-hating Communists in the Soviet Union understood Capitalism better than America's latest generation of economic illiterates. Of course it's not zero sum.

I've spent most of my life studying this subject and it shocks me how little the left knows about it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There is only so much corporate income in a given year

are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?

You really are pretty ignorant aren't you? How do you tie your shoes? Slip ons?

dumbto 3 low life tries to change the subject with ad hominen when he discovers he lacks the IQ to participate substantively.

Now go back and reread this:

"There is only so much corporate income in a given year"

DOES IT MEAN THIS BUBBA:

"are you saying that total wealth has not increased year to year over the last 200 years?


LOL

dear, please try to tell us what your point is or admit you lack the IQ for it??

 

[EconChick]

Even lobotomized people found in mental institutions have a better grasp....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jesus Christ, event the Capitalist-hating Communists in the Soviet Union understood Capitalism better than America's latest generation of economic illiterates. Of course it's not zero sum.

I've spent most of my life studying this subject and it shocks me how little the left knows about it.

if its zero sum then the only place to get wealth is by stealing it from the wealthy. If thats not the only place then folks have to work for wealth and liberals have no reaason to exist.

 

[EconChick]

Jesus Christ, event the Capitalist-hating Communists in the Soviet Union understood Capitalism better than America's latest generation of economic illiterates. Of course it's not zero sum.

I've spent most of my life studying this subject and it shocks me how little the left knows about it.

if its zero sum then the only place to get wealth is by stealing it from the wealthy. If thats not the only place then folks have to work for wealth and liberals have no reaason to exist.

Acutally, EB, that's a pretty profound quote.

For about ten years I've wanted to write a book that could make this subject understandable to the average person too busy with their families, livelihood, etc.... and I still haven't found a way to do that yet, but maybe the book should just be full of truisms like that this anyone can relate to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jesus Christ, event the Capitalist-hating Communists in the Soviet Union understood Capitalism better than America's latest generation of economic illiterates. Of course it's not zero sum.

I've spent most of my life studying this subject and it shocks me how little the left knows about it.

if its zero sum then the only place to get wealth is by stealing it from the wealthy. If thats not the only place then folks have to work for wealth and liberals have no reaason to exist.

Acutally, EB, that's a pretty profound quote.

For about ten years I've wanted to write a book that could make this subject understandable to the average person too busy with their families, livelihood, etc.... and I still haven't found a way to do that yet, but maybe the book should just be full of truisms like that this anyone can relate to.

thanks very much but I'm afraid dumbto3, as a typical liberal, cant relate to it. I was thinking of a book with these real world exchanges with liberals in it to showcase how really dumb they are when their ideas are put through a modest stress test here.