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.
OK, make it a year. Or 10 years -- the pie has a finite size over any given period. That is why it matters a lot how big a share everyone gets.
Say I made $60,000 last year. I work really hard this year and increase my share to $66,000.
How did I reduce your share of the pie?
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down. In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
OK, make it a year. Or 10 years -- the pie has a finite size over any given period. That is why it matters a lot how big a share everyone gets.
Say I made $60,000 last year. I work really hard this year and increase my share to $66,000.
How did I reduce your share of the pie?
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down. In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Say I made $60,000 last year. I work really hard this year and increase my share to $66,000.
How did I reduce your share of the pie?
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down. In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down.
Yes! By definition.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Bzzzzt!!!!! Thanks for playing. Buh bye.
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down. In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down.
Yes! By definition.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Bzzzzt!!!!! Thanks for playing. Buh bye.
Oh, so you were playing. Good, 'cause for a while I thought you are that dumb for real. I mean honestly, an intelligent person would never ask a stupid question like "how my rising income reduces your share of the pie?"
Originally Posted by ilia25
Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot
Originally Posted by ilia25
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down. In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Not necessarily my share, and not by you personally -- but if your annual income increased faster than GDP, then there must be someone, whose annual income increased by a smaller percentage than GDP. Or someone whose income had actually come down.
Yes! By definition.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
Bzzzzt!!!!! Thanks for playing. Buh bye.
Oh, so you were playing. Good, 'cause for a while I thought you are that dumb for real. I mean honestly, an intelligent person would never ask a stupid question like "how my rising income reduces your share of the pie?"
An intelligent person could answer my question.
A previous poster made the claim, so I asked how.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-size-democrats-believe-so-4.html#post5874245
So far, no answers.
Originally Posted by ilia25
Oh, so you were playing. Good, 'cause for a while I thought you are that dumb for real. I mean honestly, an intelligent person would never ask a stupid question like "how my rising income reduces your share of the pie?"
An intelligent person could answer my question.
A previous poster made the claim, so I asked how.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-size-democrats-believe-so-4.html#post5874245
So far, no answers.
I just gave you a straight answer a 6-years old would understand. Of course I never hoped that an asshole like you would accept it as such
Never admitting that you have lost an argument, are we?
An intelligent person could answer my question.
A previous poster made the claim, so I asked how.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-size-democrats-believe-so-4.html#post5874245
So far, no answers.
I just gave you a straight answer a 6-years old would understand. Of course I never hoped that an asshole like you would accept it as such
Never admitting that you have lost an argument, are we?
Your straight answer was wrong.
That's a fair point.I just gave you a straight answer a 6-years old would understand. Of course I never hoped that an asshole like you would accept it as such
Never admitting that you have lost an argument, are we?
Your straight answer was wrong.
Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
If they cannot convince people that wealth is a zero-sum game, then they have no argument, and they know it. So, they will deflect from this little litany of facts with asinine statements of wealth accumulation at the top somehow affects the poor, all the while ignoring the the power of the economy and the wealth of this nation is in small businesses, where there is no wealth accumulation."It's this belief that the economy is some fixed pie," said Ryan.
"That there's only so much money in America, it's fixed and that the job of the government is to redistribute the slices of the pie.
That's not true.
The job of government is to set the conditions for economic growth so we can grow the pie and everybody can get a bigger slice of the American pie."
Paul Ryan resurrects Obama¿s greatest hits (the Republican version) - Los Angeles Times
But is that TRUE? Let's look at the history of the USA and the gross domestic product. GDP as just ONE illustration of the "FIXED PIE FALLACY".
First the source of these FACTS.. Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage
Consider what the gross domestic product for this illustration the "PIE" of the USA was in 1790 $187 million.
The GDP (or PIE) in 2011 $15.94 TRILLION.
The PIE grew over 221 years by $15.093 TRILLION - an increase of 80,715% over 221 years!
So the next point of comparison is what does this relate to per person/ (capita)?
In 1790 there were 3.929 million people. The GDP per person was $1,024 (in 2005 dollars - inflation)
In 2011 there were 312.041 million people. The GDP per person was $42,671 (adjusted for inflation 2005 dollars)
This increase from 1790 to 2011 in per person GDP was over 221 years of 87,473% (adjusted for inflation).
So IF the PIE is FIXED and ONLY the government can re-distribute... HOW do we explain the growth of the PIE???
OK so you anti-growth, anti-capitalists say "YEA but all that is owned by as our current Prez says.."millionaires and billionaires"!!!
How many millionaires in 1790 in the USA? Don't know but in 1892 there were 4,047 Millionaires.
GDP in 1892 was $16.352 billion and per person adjusted for inflation was $5,147.
Again 2011 GDP $15,940 billion and per person $42,671.
Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.
More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
In 2010 the U.S. had 3,100,000 millionaires in 2010
In 1892 total millionaires - 4,047
Growth of 3,098,108 millionaires or an increase over the 118 years from 1892 of 648%.
So regardless.. the GDP as a "PIE" doesn't look fixed from the perspective of the individual person.
Granted there are fewer agrarians (farmers- today ) then in 1790 so self sufficiency is not the case.
But when liberals/progressives/anti-capitalists talked about the "FIXED PIE".... there is NOT one at least compared to the GDP!
If they cannot convince people that wealth is a zero-sum game, then they have no argument, and they know it.
I just gave you a straight answer a 6-years old would understand. Of course I never hoped that an asshole like you would accept it as such
Never admitting that you have lost an argument, are we?
Your straight answer was wrong.
Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
Help me out here - are you saying that the act of purchasing a home and paying off the loan makes the pie larger?So let me make it simpler for idiots like YOU!Nobody here knows what you're talking about. That means nobody, including you.
If over several years you are paid money for work (as unlikely as that might be)..
and you are just a little savvy you buy a house.
You make payments and overtime the house is paid off.
Remember OVER TIME!!!
Well since basically 1790 most people have worked.
Most people have accumulated houses, businesses, property ASSETS!!!
Most people may have had debt or .. LIABILITIES
When the federal government tracks Assets and liabilities and subtract the liabilities.
IT means there are $83 trillion left over!
Do you understand that???
HOW did these people get $83 trillion in net worth ???
DUH! I am so tired of dumb f..ks like you who can't even subtract!
So tell me again IF THERE WASN"T a growing pie and trickle down how did these people get $83 trillion in net worth??
GEEZ I can't believe how f...king dumb you are!
YES!!!!!
<hint for the cheap seats: There's a reason why purchasing a home does not contribute to GDP>
If they cannot convince people that wealth is a zero-sum game, then they have no argument, and they know it.
It does not matter how many times you repeat this nonsense -- it is still nonsense.
Economy is not a zero-sum game because new wealth is constantly created -- but in no way it can justify high inequality. Top 1% spending millions on luxury goods when millions Americans struggle is deeply unfair.
Then why did you mention it?
Because barring increased debt, a tax cut for one person is effectively a transfer payment.
Neither change the size of the pie.
I'm only interested in your claim that if my piece of the pie increases, the amount available to the rest of the country shrinks.
Oh bejeebers. This is where the confusion comes in.Your straight answer was wrong.
Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
Please show all your work.
Thanks!
Help me out here - are you saying that the act of purchasing a home and paying off the loan makes the pie larger?So let me make it simpler for idiots like YOU!
If over several years you are paid money for work (as unlikely as that might be)..
and you are just a little savvy you buy a house.
You make payments and overtime the house is paid off.
Remember OVER TIME!!!
Well since basically 1790 most people have worked.
Most people have accumulated houses, businesses, property ASSETS!!!
Most people may have had debt or .. LIABILITIES
When the federal government tracks Assets and liabilities and subtract the liabilities.
IT means there are $83 trillion left over!
Do you understand that???
HOW did these people get $83 trillion in net worth ???
DUH! I am so tired of dumb f..ks like you who can't even subtract!
So tell me again IF THERE WASN"T a growing pie and trickle down how did these people get $83 trillion in net worth??
GEEZ I can't believe how f...king dumb you are!
YES!!!!!
<hint for the cheap seats: There's a reason why purchasing a home does not contribute to GDP>
GDP is the market value of currently produced ... There are a number of things we buy that are not the product of current production, and the value of these transactions is excluded from GDP.
Missing from GDP calculations would be the value of the sales of existing homes or used cars, although the sales commissions are included because they represent payment for a currently provided service.
Out.OM1a
Your straight answer was wrong.
Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.
I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.
Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.
I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.
Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).
It came at expense of my share of GDP,
My growth of GDP didn't cost you a thing.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society
Doubling GDP isn't contributing to society? LOL!
You're funny.
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone.
You're right, the perfect equality of Communism is better.
