Wealth Reality

[midcan5]

Interesting. See also: BBC News - How Americans view wealth and inequality

BBC News - The Wealth Gap - Inequality in Numbers

"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years–-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life." The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine

 

[Mr. H.]

The trouble with the Liberal mindset is that they think money equals wealth.

 

[Norman]

When people think about this sort of stuff, they usually only include people their age in the comparison.

People below 30 years don't necessarily have any wealth, they are in fact often indebted. Yet, because of that debt, helpful parents and their youth, their standard of living is actually decent.

Also I think it's important to differentiate between standard of living(spendable income), wealth and income. Of course for most people wealth is mostly immaterial. Skills, health and stuff like that matter. Yet none of that shows up in any wealth calculator.

 

[eflatminor]

The thing about wealth distribution that I find fascinating is comparing today to the bad old robber barron days. Over a hundred years ago, the sky was falling because the wealthiest Americans apparently controlled all the wealth. After over 100 years of Progressivism, the "problem" is worse! That's right, today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan. So much for the effectiveness of your meddling...

That said, I think the entire idea of wealth distribution is bullshit. It's not as though there is a finite pile of wealth from which everyone tries to get their piece. Wealth can be created or destroyed. Just because someone makes a ton for themselves does not mean someone else must make less.

It's all bullshit to create class warfare.

 

[expat_panama]

...today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan...

--or so they say. I've seen a lot written about wealth and income distribution and I have never once seen any report ever say that things have actually gotten 'better'. Are we to believe that if we went back to the days of huge plantations and mass slavery that things would be 'better'?


Maybe we should store that report in a place not subject to sunshine.

 

[eflatminor]

...today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan...

--or so they say. I've seen a lot written about wealth and income distribution and I have never once seen any report ever say that things have actually gotten 'better'. Are we to believe that if we went back to the days of huge plantations and mass slavery that things would be 'better'?


Maybe we should store that report in a place not subject to sunshine.

Who's talking about that? Quite the red herring there. Focus...

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The trouble with the Liberal mindset is that they think money equals wealth.

Also, our poor have tons of wealth but its held by the government from which the government distributes welfare entitlements.

Why would the poor have wealth on their own when the government supports or creates more and more people living off welfare entitlements ???

 

[Avorysuds]

I guess this is proof that Progressive policies have failed? Or wait wait... Don't tell me it's that incredibly small limited Government we have that caused this....

The prediction (and fact if you use history) is that if you give power/freedoms to Government than Government becomes corrupted. Communism and socialism work very well on paper but that’s because it assumes that you won’t have the evil people gain power and corrupt the system. That is of course looking over the fact that the advances in technology and so on dumb down to a snails pace in being created.

You guys can't keep having it both ways... You can't get what you want and then 20-50 years later bitch about how everything is crap and blame it on something that we no longer have.

 

[Mr. H.]

The trouble with the Liberal mindset is that they think money equals wealth.

Also, our poor have tons of wealth but its held by the government from which the government distributes welfare entitlements.

Why would the poor have wealth on their own when the government supports or creates more and more people living off welfare entitlements ???

I rest my case.

 

[Avorysuds]

The trouble with the Liberal mindset is that they think money equals wealth.

Also, our poor have tons of wealth but its held by the government from which the government distributes welfare entitlements.

Why would the poor have wealth on their own when the government supports or creates more and more people living off welfare entitlements ???

I rest my case.

Yes, poor and even middle class people care less and less to create something or work hard (or literally even work in far to many cases) because welfare pays slightly worse but you don't even have to go to work.

I should also comment that we have corporate welfare as well and it has caused the same problem, very poor products due to subsidies allowing a otherwise non competitive product to dominate markets because of Government.

 

[Mr. H.]

Also, our poor have tons of wealth but its held by the government from which the government distributes welfare entitlements.

Why would the poor have wealth on their own when the government supports or creates more and more people living off welfare entitlements ???

I rest my case.

Yes, poor and even middle class people care less and less to create something or work hard (or literally even work in far to many cases) because welfare pays slightly worse but you don't even have to go to work.

I should also comment that we have corporate welfare as well and it has caused the same problem, very poor products due to subsidies allowing a otherwise non competitive product to dominate markets because of Government.

Honestly that all makes a lot of sense. I had to read it three times but I can't argue with any of it.

 

[editec]

The reason wealth and income income inequity is important is because if it gets too lopsided we end up with the economy we have NOW.

I understand that fact confuses many of you.

Not much any of us can do about your confusion.

Some of you need to learn how the macro-economy really works and since you won't believe US here who try to explain it to you, you really need to READ A BOOK or two on the subject.

 

[Bfgrn]

The thing about wealth distribution that I find fascinating is comparing today to the bad old robber barron days. Over a hundred years ago, the sky was falling because the wealthiest Americans apparently controlled all the wealth. After over 100 years of Progressivism, the "problem" is worse! That's right, today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan. So much for the effectiveness of your meddling...

That said, I think the entire idea of wealth distribution is bullshit. It's not as though there is a finite pile of wealth from which everyone tries to get their piece. Wealth can be created or destroyed. Just because someone makes a ton for themselves does not mean someone else must make less.

It's all bullshit to create class warfare.

So that would make Ronald Reagan the father of progressivism.

 

[expat_panama]

...today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan...

--or so they say. I've seen a lot written about wealth and income distribution and I have never once seen any report ever say that things have actually gotten 'better'. Are we to believe that if we went back to the days of huge plantations and mass slavery that things would be 'better'? Maybe we should store that report in a place not subject to sunshine.

Who's talking about that? Quite the red herring there. Focus...

How about we focus together.

Topic: current wealth distribution is bad now.

Point: Saying it's bad now means we're saying it as better when, during the great depression like Bjorn says:

or was it better like I asked:

... back to the days of huge plantations and mass slavery...

Just answer the question: If we're not well off now, when was it that we were better off? Or how about saying if there ever was a time worse than now.

We focused yet?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The reason wealth and income income inequity is important is because if it gets too lopsided we end up with the economy we have NOW.

so then why is the liberal so afraid to say exactly how wealth inequality causes a recession?? What does your fear tell you about your IQ and character.

causes of inequality:
1) there are few like Jobs Gates Buffet

2) liberals put more and more on welfare thusn increasing bottoom quintile and inequality

3) liberal programs destroy families creating single poor mothers

4) liberals encourage open borders to drive in poor people for their votes. But, thanks to Republican capitalism fully 40% of those in the lowest quintile are no longer there 10 years later.

5) many new dual income college graduate families earn huge incomes. In fact, poor people file single income tax returns while rich people file dual income tax returns.

6) in globalized market those few with global products can get very rich

7) our liberal schools turn out the dumbest kids in the world.

8) liberal unions have driven 10 million jobs off shore

9) communist president has created huge uncertainty that keeps economy in recession and 25 million unemployed

10) The huge liberal deficits mean the Chinese and others can buy our debt rather than our products with their American dollars.

11) Welfare payments and all other transfer payments are not included in income statements thus greatly exaggerating income inequality.

12) The top 1% now pay 40% of all taxes while under Reagan they paid 20% indicating that increasing the tax rate will more likely make inequality worse as more and more leech off the rich.

 

[eflatminor]

The thing about wealth distribution that I find fascinating is comparing today to the bad old robber barron days. Over a hundred years ago, the sky was falling because the wealthiest Americans apparently controlled all the wealth. After over 100 years of Progressivism, the "problem" is worse! That's right, today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan. So much for the effectiveness of your meddling...

That said, I think the entire idea of wealth distribution is bullshit. It's not as though there is a finite pile of wealth from which everyone tries to get their piece. Wealth can be created or destroyed. Just because someone makes a ton for themselves does not mean someone else must make less.

It's all bullshit to create class warfare.

So that would make Ronald Reagan the father of progressivism.

No, the Progressive era really started with Wilson. Every since, it's been bigger and bigger government, more and more debt, and low and behold, an even wider wealth and income gap. Central planners suck, all of them.

 

[eflatminor]

If we're not well off now, when was it that we were better off? Or how about saying if there ever was a time worse than now.

I'm saying we fine now with regard to this issue of wealth and income distribution. That said, the gap is wider today than it was prior to the great depression...in the days of the so called robber barons. Again, 100 years of meddling fixed nothing.

I still have no idea why you're going on about slavery and plantations.

 

[Bfgrn]

If we're not well off now, when was it that we were better off? Or how about saying if there ever was a time worse than now.

I'm saying we fine now with regard to this issue of wealth and income distribution. That said, the gap is wider today than it was prior to the great depression...in the days of the so called robber barons. Again, 100 years of meddling fixed nothing.

I still have no idea why you're going on about slavery and plantations.

WTF is wrong with you people? Seriously! The wealth gap from the New Deal through the Great Society was the closest it has ever been in our nations history. Don't you morons know how to read a fucking graph? The REASON the wealth gap is now what it was during the Gilded Age, is Nixon, Reagan and conservative era that has destroyed the middle class. Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist in American history. Reagan transferred more than 3 trillion dollars of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

Reagan: The great American Socialist

 

[expat_panama]

...the gap is wider today than it was prior to the great depression...

That's what most people say.

No matter what happens, everyone's decided that wealth is more concentrated now than ever before. I'm hearing that wealth inequality is worse now than it was in feudal times when kings owned all and peasants had to scratch food for their families off an acre of land. Distribution is less fair now than thousands of years ago when conquering emperors forced entire peoples into slavery. We were more egalitarian back before the Civil War than we are now.

Amazing.

...I still have no idea why you're going on about slavery and plantations.

--and you can choose not to have an idea indefinitely.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Interesting. See also: BBC News - How Americans view wealth and inequality

BBC News - The Wealth Gap - Inequality in Numbers

"This is when the Republican Party set its trap. Meeting in closed sessions at the beginning of the Obama regime, the party of tax cuts for the rich, unfunded wars, and the largest deficit in the history of the country redefined itself. It suddenly became the party of deficit reduction through lean government joined to supreme confidence in unregulated financial and corporate markets. It even opposed the bail out of General Motors and Chrysler, though these actions stopped unemployment from reaching a dangerous tipping point, allowed the two companies time to reconstruct themselves, and enabled them to pay back the loans within two years–-creating one of the most successful bailouts in the history of Euro-American economic life." The Contemporary Condition: The Republican Pincer Machine

What we've learned is that even though the bottom 99% have 2/3 of the wealth, its not enough for them. The top 1% only has 1/3, that's half as much as the bottom 99%!