The "TRUTH" about "Wealth Distribution".

[logical4u]

Americans Are Horribly Misinformed About Who Has Money

The top row shows the actual distribution of wealth in America. The richest 20 percent, represented by that blue line, has about 85 percent of the wealth. The next richest 20 percent, represented by that red line, has about 10 percent of the wealth. And the remaining three-fifths of America shares a tiny sliver of the country's wealth.

Below that, the "Estimated" rows show how different groups think wealth is distributed.

--------------------------------------------------------------

If people have no money, then the economy will NOT expand. It's just that simple. All the tax breaks in the world don't mean anything if you don't have a job.

What are some suggestions on nation building. Not building Iraq or China, but "THIS" nation. The most important nation. Home.

Read the recent history of Zimbabwe to find out "exactly" what happens when "wealth" is re-distributed (hint: brains can't be re-distributed).

 

[California Girl]

Hey, Oddball, still sitting on your porch with a shotgun across your lap, sucking on a dandelion just waitin' for them revenuers to trespass? Or, are you suitin' up to go out into the woods and practice your paramilitary exercises?

I can see why you're already in neg rep. Try not to be an idiot. Then people might take you seriously.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, in your first paragraph, you acknowledge that there is a distribution of wealth early in the economic process just as I described, and you further imply that ‘righties’ do not argue with the existence/occurrence of that distribution either. Whenever the righties use the term ‘distribution of wealth’ it is always in the context that distribution of someone’s wealth is wrong, un-American, inequitable, unfair, unconstitutional, etc., etc., etc. My point is that most people (and that includes both and most all righties and lefties) don’t realize that the real inequitable distributions of wealth can and do occur in the transactions of the market economy itself. So, I guess I should thank you for the support.

In your second paragraph you ‘guess’ that Friedman and Smith don’t attribute ‘uneven wealth distribution’ to some hidden force that naturally and unevenly distributes. Well, guess what? Flash Bang! They do attribute it to an inherent natural force and they were OK with that, just like you are. And they do attribute this unevenness to the people in the economic system in the aggregate, despite the best efforts of the many. This force doesn’t say “sorry” either.

You ask the question if the non-achievement of wealth by the many is due to a natural force in capitalism or is it a ‘flaw’ in the ‘many’ not doing their part in the system. Without directly answering your own questions, you go on to assert that those that have wealth do take necessary actions to get it. The implication is that those that do not have wealth are flawed and are not doing their part in the system. I smell more fomenting of class warfare here.

The bottom 60% in the USA have only 4% of the nations wealth, the bottom 40% have less than 1%, the bottom 85% have less than 15% of the nations wealth. Each stat I just cited reflects a majority of the people in our America. What you have just said by transparent implication is that the vast majority of we Americans are flawed and do not do their part which is the cause of the uneven distribution of wealth in this country.

I consider your post, in pertinent part, a slap in the face of American exceptionalism and reflects an un-American, unpatriotic, disparaging position and attitude toward the vast majority of Americans.

Additionally, you mentioned that most have to figure out and do the actions required to get wealth. Well, I agree that figuring stuff out can lead to wealth in our system. After all, isn’t that what Wall Street shadow banking promoters did, in some cases making hundreds of millions of dollars in one or two years of work, while honest hard working Americans work for under $60,000/yr defending our country in the armed services, maintaining our roads and buildings, in short, doing all the work with their own hands that produces all the real goods and services we use to sustain life, our homes, our families? The vast, vast majority of all hard working truly productive Americans will never ever get even close to making the obscene amounts of money in their life times like Wall Streeters have in one or two years. You have implicated that is OK with you. It is my belief that concentrations of that kind of income is actually very unhealthy for our economy on so many levels.

Where you and I really disagree is in which flaw we identify that leads to ‘uneven’ wealth. In short, you say it’s the people, I say it’s defects in the system itself.

Just looked at some posts since your post. There you guys go again railing against ‘distribution’ the way you do. The biggest error that leads to your collective folly is in your limited understanding of what value is, the different levels at which it exists and at which it is “actually” created, where/how it is stored, how it can be measured, traded, destroyed, consumed, the distinctions between price and value (this one is particularly hard and elusive for the simplistic thinkers, righties beware), and misidentified.

There is some questions I would like to posit: 1) Is the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top healthy or unhealthy for the country? Keep in mind that the USA is the 2nd worst ‘offender’ in the world. 2)Is it possible to modify our current economic system to reduce the lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top in such a way that our country would be healthier economically and improve the financial status of the vast majority in the long term?

Editec, you are definitely on the right track.

You consider my post a slap in the face? Then the simplE reality is you haven't considered my post at all. I'm not the one engaging in class warfare here. That's what YOU want it to be about. That's what the people who would rather not entertain that they are part of this 'problem' would like it to be about.

I am not saying people who don't attain wealth are flawed. I am not saying there is anything benevolent or evil about attaining wealth. I am saying wealth attainment is a specific goal that requires specific actions on the part of individuals to achieve. The simple fact is, most people don't consciously make wealth accumulation a goal, and even fewer take the steps required to achieve it. Again that doesn't make them good or bad people. Where I get annoyed with people is when the complain about the people that do have money and uneven wealth distribution. I simply ask them 'did you make making money a goal?' If yes, 'what are you doing to accomplish that?' Is what you are doing an efficient way of making money?

The whole debate starts on the wrong foot simply by the use of the term wealth distribution. The problem is, as I said, wealth isn't distributed. It isn't just given out. Wealth is obtained through the actions of individuals. If too many people aren't taking said actions to attain wealth who exactly should those people blame?

Let's look at some interesting comparisons. Most people aren't wealthy. Most people work 9-5 jobs (or more). Well, contrary to popoluar opinion, working hard and being productive aren't all it takes to be wealthy. You say people who are productive and work hard will likely never be uber wealthy. You're right. But you say that as if you expect that hard work and being productive is what should make one wealthy. To which I say you need to examine that presumption before getting upset at the fact that people who work hard aren't getting wealthy. Becoming wealthy isn't about working hard. The problem with society is almost all of us have been told exactly that. "Work hard and you will be rewarded". That is only partially true. Everyone here intuitively knows that you can spend a lot of hours being productive building homes for example. Should you expect to become obscenely wealthy doing that? Of course not.

Your questions:

Yes it probably is bad if it get's too lopsided.

Yes, I'm sure there are a lot but just for starters removing some of the barriers to entry where entrepreneurship is concerned. Yes there are defects in the system. I acknowledge that. But if you want wealth to be more evenly distributed it would behouve you to engage in a little brutally objective introspection and ask yourself if you have any right to expect that what you're doing now will make you wealthy. If the answer is no, do you think you are somehow unique in that answer. Or would most of the people you know probably answer the same way.

 

[Oddball]

Hey, Oddball, still sitting on your porch with a shotgun across your lap, sucking on a dandelion just waitin' for them revenuers to trespass? Or, are you suitin' up to go out into the woods and practice your paramilitary exercises?

Like I figured...You want substance from everyone else, yet can't supply any of it yourself.

Sorry, but rdunce and Truthdontmatter have already filled the position...Leave your resume with the nice receptionist and we'll give you a call if we need anymore of the bullshit you're peddling.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wealth Distribution/Redistribution = Code for Socialism/Communism.

Taking 1/6th of the economy and placing it under government control (ObamaCare) won't help.

Reduce the size and scope of government. Conservatives pay less taxes, Liberals get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a win/win situation.

Who put them there?

All of congress, and the president in case you have forgotten hairnet. All but one senator voted for going to war.

 

[MitchMan]

Now we are getting somewhere (not you, Oddball).

Just for the record, you did unequivocally imply that those who do not attain wealth are flawed. Don’t get excited, I don’t believe that you are a mean guy. I appreciate your thoughtful approach and the effort to reason things out and that you have restated some of your message.

With regard to class warfare, it is the right wing that constantly accuses the left of instigating class warfare, not commonly the other way around. I merely point out the statements that instigate class warfare made by those on the right such as blaming the poor for being poor, supporting tax breaks for the wealthy while not wanting to extend unemployment, indifference to the uninsured in America, being against the minimum wage because they don’t deserve more money, and when those without much wealth are called flawed.

I am not ‘against the wealthy’, I do not believe for one minute that all or most of those who are wealthy are bad people at all. Nor do I believe that most wealthy people do bad or immoral things only to get the wealth that they have. You missed my point. I am saying (not by asking a question, but by declarative statement) that our economic structure is flawed when we have the massive high and low business cycles that we have historically had and when our economy results in this very lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top. I am not directly blaming the players only, I am saying that the system is flawed.

You know, most all people do not know the extent of the lopsidedness of things. If they did, I think things would be very different going on into the future. That is why I take every opportunity to put it out there.

Very few people understand the S&L failures, nor do they sufficiently understand why we went into a deep recession this time. They don’t know what derivatives are or what CDO’s/CDS’s are and how the shadow banking system contributed to the problem (who the players were) and what history politically and economically contributed to their existence. Wall Street knows this stuff inside and out. Main Street doesn’t have a clue.

I do believe there are bad apples in the mix. There are those that know exactly how and why there is a lopsided economy, and they are hell bent on keeping it that way and even making it worse if they can.

I think that most righties hearts are in the right place (though certainly not all), they simply are mistaken about the facts and suffer from simplistic thinking without realizing it.

Bern, question: You conceded that 'too lopsided' is probably bad, is it too lopsided now? If not now, then what % for the top 1%, top 10%, bottom 60% would "probably" be bad? Don't hedge, don't be afraid, we are all anonomous here. I know you like to insinuate things by posing questions, and using terms like 'possibly' and 'probably'. Take a stand, be commital, and don't give me the "I don't know" answer. I am not asking if you know the answer, I am asking what you think is the answer.

 

[Oddball]

I think that most righties hearts are in the right place (though certainly not all), they simply are mistaken about the facts and suffer from simplistic thinking without realizing it.

<snip>

You conceded that 'too lopsided' is probably bad, is it too lopsided now? If not now, then what % for the top 1%, top 10%, bottom 60% would "probably" be bad? Don't hedge, don't be afraid, we are all anonomous here. I know you like to insinuate things by posing questions, and using terms like 'possibly' and 'probably'. Take a stand, be commital, and don't give me the "I don't know" answer. I am not asking if you know the answer, I am asking what you think is the answer.

Did I hear someone say "Freudian projection"?

 

[Big Fitz]

I think that most righties hearts are in the right place (though certainly not all), they simply are mistaken about the facts and suffer from simplistic thinking without realizing it.

<snip>

You conceded that 'too lopsided' is probably bad, is it too lopsided now? If not now, then what % for the top 1%, top 10%, bottom 60% would "probably" be bad? Don't hedge, don't be afraid, we are all anonomous here. I know you like to insinuate things by posing questions, and using terms like 'possibly' and 'probably'. Take a stand, be commital, and don't give me the "I don't know" answer. I am not asking if you know the answer, I am asking what you think is the answer.

Did I hear someone say "Freudian projection"?

What? Project their intentions on others? Never! that's a bald faced lie! They'd never do something lie THAT! Their intentions are what matters and should be the only things that should be judged.

Now, I intend to eat a salad, but that Big Mac is just calling out. Shouldn't my high blood pressure and cholesterol listen to my intentions?

 

[Oddball]

Good thing leftist know-it-alls aren't arrogant, condescending, parochial or anything untoward like that!

 

[editec]

IN the 50's the top 1% owned about 25% of all the assets in this nation.

Now they own about 50%.

Throw in the remaining 9% of top earners and that top 10% own more like 66% of all the weath in this nation.

For a democratic republic that lopsided distribution of wealth and income is a death sentence.

I think I understand that some of you cannot understand why that is so, of course.

But if you cannot understand why our children aren't properly educated, why our houses have been reduced in value, why our government continues to give the rivch every davantage and the poor the shaft or if you think that's okay, well then..

Don't keep bitching about the fact that this nation is going down.

You guys support that problem by imagining that the system can work when everybody but the top 10% are feaking poor.

And I guantee you that this nation will not be a superpower if it's economy looks like a feudal kingdom....which is what its is beginning to look like.

WE don;t need socialism to solve this.

We just need honest capitalism and government that supports such a thing.

Sure I'll entertain the theory that an overly uneven distribution of wealth would be a bad thing.

Well you don't have to entertain it.

You can quite easily see the effects of such uneven wealth distribution in every shithole in the world, and in every shithole in history, too.

But what I'm trying to get across is the WHY. WHY our weatlh is unevenly distributed means everything where this debate is concerned.

There are multiple factors to explain it. Mostly it has to do with the fact that CAPITAL BEGATS CAPITAL, but there's other factors, too.

If you don't understand why wealth is unevenly disributed how do you expect to come to a workable solution to make it more evenly distributed?

You presume I don't understand what's causing it. I'm fairly willing to suggest that I understand why this has happened far better than you ever will but I'm waiting for you to explain it to me, anyway.

The problem is fairly identifiable, imho and so is the solution. The issue is no one wants to hear either because no one wants to hear that they are part of the problem and they have to be part of the solution.

Yeah okay...get to it.

If this were about wealth distribution in the literal sense of the concept. That is if some benevolent figure sits on high handing out a share of a finite pool of money to everyone and most get some and a few get big stacks, you might have a gripe. But that's not how it is.

Yeah, duh. Do go on

Capitalism is dependent on the very same thing socialism is dependent in order to actually work. It depends on the individuals in the system understanding the system's rules and participating accordingly. The rules of capitalism are simple. You have the opportunity, through whatever resources you have and/or choose to avail yourself of, to achieve as much wealth as you desire.

Oh my god! this is what passes in your world for analysis, is it?

The unsaid part of that is if you choose NOT to avail yourself of the resources available to you, society owes you nothing. One very possible reason that wealth is unevenly distributed in this country is because a lot of poeple aren't taking the neccessary steps to be wealthy.

Thanks for you input.

I think it's just a tad more complex than "people choosing to be poor" but I appreciate that such a POV must be very comforting to some of us.

 

[georgephillip]

Austerity Three-Step?

If extending the Bush tax cuts is the first step of a general US austerity strategy, Step Two could come as soon as Obama's State of the Union Address, certainly before the ceiling on the federal debt has to be lifted.

Look for Obama announce massive spending cuts that target Social Security and Medicare in particular while claiming all he's doing is preventing an even greater Republican onslaught.

Step Three rolls out in the summer of 2012 packaged as bi-partisan "reform" of the US tax code. For starters, this phase would likely make the Bush tax cuts permanent for the duration of the decade.

We may also see a reduction of top personal income tax brackets with a top rate of no more than 28%.

"This would represent a return to the Reagan years.

On Super Bowl Sunday (February 6, 2011) get ready for the Gipper's Big Return. That day marks the anniversary of Reagan's birth, and you can bet your childrens' future tax rates the rich will continue invoking Reagan's legacy as an excuse to widen the gap between rich and poor.

See: The 'Repo-Demo' Partys...

 

[Bern80]

IN the 50's the top 1% owned about 25% of all the assets in this nation.

Now they own about 50%.

Throw in the remaining 9% of top earners and that top 10% own more like 66% of all the weath in this nation.

For a democratic republic that lopsided distribution of wealth and income is a death sentence.

I think I understand that some of you cannot understand why that is so, of course.

But if you cannot understand why our children aren't properly educated, why our houses have been reduced in value, why our government continues to give the rivch every davantage and the poor the shaft or if you think that's okay, well then..

Don't keep bitching about the fact that this nation is going down.

You guys support that problem by imagining that the system can work when everybody but the top 10% are feaking poor.

And I guantee you that this nation will not be a superpower if it's economy looks like a feudal kingdom....which is what its is beginning to look like.

WE don;t need socialism to solve this.

We just need honest capitalism and government that supports such a thing.

Sure I'll entertain the theory that an overly uneven distribution of wealth would be a bad thing.

Well you don't have to entertain it.

You can quite easily see the effects of such uneven wealth distribution in every shithole in the world, and in every shithole in history, too.




There are multiple factors to explain it. Mostly it has to do with the fact that CAPITAL BEGATS CAPITAL, but there's other factors, too.




You presume I don't understand what's causing it. I'm fairly willing to suggest that I understand why this has happened far better than you ever will but I'm waiting for you to explain it to me, anyway.




Yeah okay...get to it.




Yeah, duh. Do go on




Oh my god! this is what passes in your world for analysis, is it?

The unsaid part of that is if you choose NOT to avail yourself of the resources available to you, society owes you nothing. One very possible reason that wealth is unevenly distributed in this country is because a lot of poeple aren't taking the neccessary steps to be wealthy.

Thanks for you input.

I think it's just a tad more complex than "people choosing to be poor" but I appreciate that such a POV must be very comforting to some of us.

It's as complicated as you make it ed. Like it or not, this is quite simple. Everyone here seemingly wants everyone to have more money, agreed? And since you agreed that wealth is in fact not distributed in random amounts from on high, the alternative is that some action is required on the part of individuals to obtain wealth. That ought to beg the question, of the everyone who would like more money, how many are taking the smart, efficient steps necessary to accomplish that. 80%, 50%, 20%? Pick a number.

This is not complex. The only hard part for people is changing how people think about it. We agree that obtaining wealth requires certain actions. The issue is most people aren't taught what they are and are instead told to navigate life in a way that simply is not conducive to wealth accumulation;

wracking up college debt studying shit you'll never use is not conducive to wealth accumulation.

Trying to own a home is not conducive to wealth accumulation.

Working for other people is not conducive to wealth accumulation.

Yet these are the things society tells us we are supposed to do in life and people like wonder why when everyone is told to take the above action, why wealth is unevenly distributed. Or worse, you don't wonder why, but think it has nothing to do with the above.

 

[Barb]

Hey Hairnet... you ducked out on my question in another thread, but since it is still appropriate here again I ask:

At what point does a person's property stop being theirs and become the government's property? Or now in this framing YOUR property?

What did you do to EARN someone elses property?

Jason Lewis the other day put this example to better visual accuity. He pointed out that Government right now believes itself entitled to about 20% of the average wage earner's pay. So, does the government believe that 20% of your house is theirs? It must if 20% of your income is theirs. Which rooms would it take? Or what days does it get to open your house to the public?

The absurdity that you don't own what you earn is palpable. (that means you can feel it, Hairnet.) The government has no ownership of your property. It takes what is not theirs to give to those who have not earned.

Taxes are the dues you pay for living in the decent and well structured society that protected you from harm and produced the atmosphere necessary for you to achieve. Take all your natural talent (at birth) and wonder (just for shits and giggles) how far it might get you (from birth) someplace like Darfur.

 

[Barb]

Oh, MitchBoy can spout all the specious and disingenuous collectivist central planner class warrior boilerplate nonsense he wants, but nobody else can reply in kind.

Get lost, junior.

Oh, don't be such a sour puss. He's presenting a different (and wholly accurate) angle on this, and you don't have a coherant argument.
I think we should keep him.

 

[Bern80]

Just for the record, you did unequivocally imply that those who do not attain wealth are flawed. Don&#8217;t get excited, I don&#8217;t believe that you are a mean guy. I appreciate your thoughtful approach and the effort to reason things out and that you have restated some of your message.

Just for the record, NO I didn't say anyone that doesn't attain wealth is flawed. Of the people that don't attain wealth the only flawed ones would be those that have made it a goal but don't take the correct actions to become so. Again, becomng wealthy has to be a goal first. It isn't enough to just want more money. All of us want that. Very few make it a goal and pursue it. Those that don't conciously make it a goal are not flawed. There is no flaw in not setting wealth accumulation as a goal.

With regard to class warfare, it is the right wing that constantly accuses the left of instigating class warfare, not commonly the other way around. I merely point out the statements that instigate class warfare made by those on the right such as blaming the poor for being poor, supporting tax breaks for the wealthy while not wanting to extend unemployment, indifference to the uninsured in America, being against the minimum wage because they don&#8217;t deserve more money, and when those without much wealth are called flawed.

Hard to get into this because so much of it is flawed reasoning. Instead of calling it instigating class warfare, instead of getting defensive why don't you objectively consider what is being said?

Saying many of the poor are poor because of the choices they've made is not instigating class warfare. It might be something certain people don't want to hear, true. But it's a simple statement of fact. Many people are poor due to the poor choices they've made. You can't change what you don't acknowledge and one thing some people need to acknowledge is there own role in where they are otherwise they have no hope in improving their position in life.

Supporting tax breaks for the wealthy but not extending unemployment: Again the implied premise needs to be looked at. The premise being it's 'mean' I guess to give people who don't need money more of it while not giving money to those that do, right? But what about the end results? What are the outcomes of those two actions. Tax breaks to wealthy people are arguably the most beneficial of tax breaks because that group has more money at their disposal to be used for a variety of things. What does extendng unemployment benefits gain society? It keeps on unemployment longer.....and that's about it. Necessity is the mother of invention. If you need to get a job you will. If you don't, you won't.

The number of uninsured in this country is grossly inflated. Especially for use by partisan hacks who like to claim it's 30 million americans or more. It's maybe half of that. the number of peope who would purchase insurance if not but for the cost are the people we're really talking about. So what's the goal? Is it to really get them enough money to afford health insurance or is it to just make sure those that can't afford it still get the health care they need. I think it's the later. There's always going to be x number of people that simply can't afford insurance. Saying we're going to insure them is just semantics. I say we simply agree that we are going to provide care to those that need it.

Minimum wage. Don't wanna really get started on this one.....BUT the concept does unequivocally hurt the very group of people those who push for it claim to want to help. Everytime the min wage goes up, the number of min wage jobs goes down. You may put a little more money in the pocket of some, but you take away all of someone elses too.

I am not &#8216;against the wealthy&#8217;, I do not believe for one minute that all or most of those who are wealthy are bad people at all. Nor do I believe that most wealthy people do bad or immoral things only to get the wealth that they have. You missed my point. I am saying (not by asking a question, but by declarative statement) that our economic structure is flawed when we have the massive high and low business cycles that we have historically had and when our economy results in this very lopsided concentration of wealth and income at the top. I am not directly blaming the players only, I am saying that the system is flawed.

Who's the one calling people flawed now? A capitalist system is as flawed as the people participating in it. WHAT is the flaw? What causes it? I think the big swings are ultimately the irresponsible management of money by people. ALL people. From government beauracrats to Joe Blow. We go through highs of prosperity where people get carried away and spend money they really don't have then we go through lows like now where every cinches the belt. That's your true flaw mitch.

You know, most all people do not know the extent of the lopsidedness of things. If they did, I think things would be very different going on into the future. That is why I take every opportunity to put it out there.

Very few people understand the S&L failures, nor do they sufficiently understand why we went into a deep recession this time. They don&#8217;t know what derivatives are or what CDO&#8217;s/CDS&#8217;s are and how the shadow banking system contributed to the problem (who the players were) and what history politically and economically contributed to their existence. Wall Street knows this stuff inside and out. Main Street doesn&#8217;t have a clue.

True. I would only contend that the above issues are irrelevent where wealth accumulation is concerned.

I do believe there are bad apples in the mix. There are those that know exactly how and why there is a lopsided economy, and they are hell bent on keeping it that way and even making it worse if they can.

That gets to how lopsided is too lopsided and thus can't really agree with the statement. Obviously an extreme like 100% of the wealth in the hands of 10% of the population is not only problematic for the 90% with nothing, but also for the 10% with everything.

I think that most righties hearts are in the right place (though certainly not all), they simply are mistaken about the facts and suffer from simplistic thinking without realizing it.

As I said to ed, this issue is as complex is you make it. I think it gets made complex when people would rather blame everything but themselves for the position their in. It's far easier for somene to try and blame their plight on shadow banking and the creation of derivatives than it is to take a look in the mirror and admit you 'bought' a house you had not financial business buying.

Bern, question: You conceded that 'too lopsided' is probably bad, is it too lopsided now? If not now, then what % for the top 1%, top 10%, bottom 60% would "probably" be bad? Don't hedge, don't be afraid, we are all anonomous here. I know you like to insinuate things by posing questions, and using terms like 'possibly' and 'probably'. Take a stand, be commital, and don't give me the "I don't know" answer. I am not asking if you know the answer, I am asking what you think is the answer.

Personally I don't take stands on things I'm not certain about. And pulling numbers out of the air is useless. If you have a point in mind just say so. I think the lopsidedness becomes a problem when the have nots can no longer afford to pay the haves for their goods and services. What percentage that would be I have no idea.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, MitchBoy can spout all the specious and disingenuous collectivist central planner class warrior boilerplate nonsense he wants, but nobody else can reply in kind.

Get lost, junior.

Oh, don't be such a sour puss. He's presenting a different (and wholly accurate) angle on this, and you don't have a coherant argument.
I think we should keep him.

No, he's not...He's been merely reframing the same stale old arguments, with "facts and figures" just pulled out of the air no less, that the envious have been regurgitating for decades, if not centuries.

Then, like the smarmy little Fabian socialist/progressive tool he clearly is, he makes up rules of engagement for everyone else that he himself immediately ignores.

Add to that, the arrogant chickenshit assertion that anyone and everyone who dares to point out the flaws in his lame-assed arguments is just parroting what some radio talk jock said, while his are the only "thoughts" (for lack of a better term) coming completely and independently from his own head, and all MitchBoy adds up to just another dyed-in-the-wool leftist windbag.

If you want a coherent argument out of me, you have to come up with one yourself.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you speaking for the "happy 2%

"Thanks largely to the $13 trillion Wall Street bailout &#8211; while keeping the debt overhead in place for America&#8217;s 'bottom 98 per cent' &#8211; this happy 2 per cent of the population now receives an estimated three quarters (~75 per cent) of the returns to wealth (interest, dividends, rent and capital gains).

"This is nearly double what it received a generation ago.

Do you dispute the accuracy of the "facts and figures" posted above?

Has two percent of America nearly doubled its share of returns to wealth within the last generation?

Have you?

Michael Hudson

 

[Oddball]

I was against the bailouts, schmuck.

Try another strawman.

 

[georgephillip]

Richest two percent?

Nearly doubled share of returns to wealth in last generation?

You?

 

[Oddball]

I'm not concerned or envious of what others make and what I've accumulated is none of your business.