Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

I have no objection to socialism as an organizing principle. Community co-ops, communes, employee owned businesses, etc... can be attractive alternatives to private ownership for many ventures. What I have a problem with is coercing participation in such projects. To the extent that the socialist ideal can be pursued while still respecting individual liberty, I'm all for it.

That's the problem with socialism. It can't work without coercion. The people doing all the work and carrying the load for all the deadbeats and parasites can't be allowed to leave when they get fed up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.

What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones.

You're right, capitalism is a horrible failure, just look at Venezuela.
It does nothing but spread misery and suffering and has led to price controls, empty shelves and even toilet paper shortages. Capitalism must be ended!!!!

Oh, wait, it's socialism and government reductions in inequality in Venezuela that did these things.
No toilet paper, but at least things are fair.

 

[Andylusion]

Androw, your stock increases offer nothing to half the country that doesn't play that game. It's odd how about 59% of Americans will experience poverty and that coincides with the stock ownership.

So as people like yourself and make money, it takes away money from those at the bottom. That's why it matters that the top 1% earn so much more. There is a limited amount of money in the system at one time and since 40% of the global wealth is owned by the top 1%, that leaves a lot less for the rest to share doesn't it? Not in your world since you have capital to back up your capital investments. What about the average household whose debt is exceeding their annual income now? I guess these people are to be written off in your equation and ignored "since they clearly haven't shown the earning power."

This American Dream is propaganda and advertisement for the US. While a few can break through the bonds of poverty, what tends to happen for those in poverty is they stay there. Not because a lack of motivation (poverty sucks!!!) but because a sheer lack of opportunity and quality education.

Read here about what American's think of the American Dream now-a-days. It ain't what it use to be...

The survey, MetLife’s 5th annual, uncovers emerging trends that show Americans are
less concerned with material issues, and that life’s traditional markers of
success — getting married, buying a house, having a family, building wealth — do not
matter as much today. Rather, achieving a sense of personal fulfillment is more
important toward realizing the American Dream than accumulating material wealth.

This tells the story that Americans have forsaken the idea of personal wealth (car, house family ownership) and is being traded in for a more feasible alternative: accepting what you have and aiming to not be a pay check away from poverty/couch surfing.

The economic policy are so evidently stacked against the poor its just dim-wittedness to miss it. War on the Poor is real and is happening. To deny it is to protect yourself in your isolated bubble of your well-to-do affluent friends. Such snobbery is easy to come by when poverty is a concept and not a reality for yourself.

It's not odd how that coincides.

People that do not own stock, generally don't because they blow all their money. I had a roommate. They were getting kicked out of their apartment, and I felt the need to offer them my spare bedroom, because I've been there. I've had my face shoved in the dirt, and people kicking me while I'm down.

It's exactly because of that, that I wanted to learn how to live better. Pay off all my debt. Save money in the bank. Invest money for a future. Have an emergency fund.

So foolishly assumed this other person was in the same place. That they would want to change their ways, so they could have a future. Instead, not only did they not fix their ways, but living in my house as a roommate, they lived even more irresponsibly than ever before. They were going out to eat, buying subscriptions to expensive magazines, going to the movies, all while they were completely broke.

Finally, I came walking in to find them surrounded with gifts for some family or something, all over the floor, and they were 2 months late on the rent, and I was giving them the lowest rent in the city.

This person will be poor until they die.... by choice. They blow every single dollar that comes into their hands. Check on Friday, gone by Thursday.

I finally informed them they needed to find another place to stay, and discovered that they couldn't get another place, because they still owed money to the last apartment they were in 18 months prior. They never paid their electric, or their gas bill, from 18 months ago... yet they were blowing money on whatever they could grab.

Choice dude. That person was making choices that left them in debt, and impoverished. Has nothing to do with the 'deck stacked against them', because I was working at the EXACT SAME JOB THEY WERE, and I had saved money, and gotten out of debt, and I was paying more money for my living, than they were.

No owning stocks doesn't take money away from the people at the bottom. That's garbage. Prove it. Prove that it takes money away from anyone. Most of those people wouldn't even have jobs if those stocks didn't exist. I don't think you grasp how stocks work, or what they are used for.

Money and wealth, are not the same. And wealth is not 'limited'. Wealth is constantly being created and destroyed. The amount of physical money in the system is irrelevant. This isn't a cartoon, with scrooge McDuck swimming through a vault full of cash. Most of the wealthy don't have cash earnings. They get stock options. When you see Person X has $124 Million or whatever, that's not "money" that's in assets.

The solution to having more debt than assets is..... TO NOT BORROW. Hello.... it's just that simple dude. I learned this the hard way. I had 3 credit cards, and two of them were maxed out. There were years that went by, where I had not a dollar to my name. First..... cut up the credit cards. Second.... cut your life style to nothing. Third.... pay off debt. Fourth, never borrow again for the rest of your life.

How much do you think I earn in a year? $20,000. I have never earned more than $20,000 in a year, for the past 15 years. Why do I have thousands of dollars in stocks? Why do I have ZERO debt anywhere? It's actually really easy. Spend less than you make, and don't borrow.

There is no war on the poor. Huffington BS is wrong. That's all there is too it. The only war against the poor, is by the leftist liberal elite whose policies keep the poor down with taxes, and programs, and incentives to stay poor.

Lastly, as far as personal fulfillment and all that. The American Dream, can't be confined to "personal Fulfillment". It wouldn't be "the American Dream" then. Think about it.... there are people in darkest jungles of Africa that also what personal fulfillment.

Is that what we've come to? Some generic aspiration that could be attributed to any human being on the face of the planet?

The American dream has always been to advance, in whatever way you choose. Whether it's whittling duck callers on your back porch, driving an old pickup truck with a sign that says "will stash your trash", or soldering circuit boards in California with the emblem of an Apple on them.... they are all seeking personal fulfillment.

And honestly, this is a self defeating argument. Because if your point is that material wealth doesn't matter, then once again, why do you care about the wealth gap? Why care about the percentage of income, or share of the wealth? It can only be for greed and envy, because you just said that materialism isn't the American Dream anymore. So why care what material others have?

 

[Indeependent]

If everybody lived on 20K/Year there would be no point in inventiveness.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

What I ASKED you, and what you persist in NOT addressing, isn't really all that difficult to answer. So try ANSWERING it this time.

You harbor serious misgivings about wealth "disparity" (or income "disparity" which is not the same thing).

* * * *

The QUESTION is WHAT, be precise here, WHAT do you propose we DO about it?

Will gnarlyload answer or will he play Shrinking Violet?

 

[Andylusion]

The point about 1997 is that you are just throwing out a reason and deciding something with no analysis other than "name something else" which really isn't all that meaningful. Actually other countries do matter because it suggests it was economic.

I am sorry but there is no comparison between the private industry following suit with ratings standards and the private industry and the ratings agencies not doing their job because of F&F.

There were plenty of local banks and credit unions that did fine even with the large economic crash. In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.

Yes the combination of commercial banking and investment banking meant more capital flowing into the MBS market. It took a lot of capital flowing into the market for the bubble to grow so big. It also played a major part in the reason we bailed them out.

Round and round we go...

No, other countries don't matter, unless you can specifically point to empirical data that suggest they do. It's ironic that you claim I'm just throwing out stuff, and yet you are throwing out "other countries" with absolutely nothing to support that their problems were in any way, related to ours.

Pointing out that Freddie Mac Securitized Sub-prime loans in 1997, is not just a random irrelevant factoid. It represents the reversal of 50 years worth of standards on what qualified to be a secure loan to the investor market. Pointing out that this act happen at the very exact moment that the sub-prime market shoots off, represents a reversal of at least 20 years of sub-prime being a niche market. Pointing out that the price bubble started, at the very moment these two events happened, is not irrelevant, or inconsequential. It is the logical steps of action verse reaction.

My opinion is based on the empirical data, that is widely known, and accepted. Saying "other countries has something similar happen in a similar time span" is both vague and correlative, not causative.

Further it seems like you have an extreme double standard. When talking about borrowers, you give them a complete and total free-pass for taking loans they had absolutely no ability to repay, and buying homes they had no ability to afford. You do not require them to have any responsibility in the loans they got, and signed their names too.

Yet with the loan originators, you claim they should have complete responsibility to knowing the ability of the borrower to pay back.

Now that right there, is in itself illogical. You expect that the person taking the loan, should have less self-knowledge of their own ability to repay, than some accountant in a cubicle somewhere? What logic is that?

Yet the government told both the borrower, and the lender, that these loans were safe, by virtue of the fact gov had their arms, Freddie and Fannie, securitize those loans.

Why is it that when the banker is told to make these loans, and that they are safe because Fannie Freddie securitized them, or they'll get sued by the government, they are supposed to know better somehow.... yet when a borrower who has bad credit, low income, no down payment walks into a bank and asks for a loan, they are absolved from knowing better, and taking responsibility for taking a loan they can't afford?

In fact the banks that did the worst were ones who were mixed institutions, something now possible since Glass Steagall.

Completely wrong.... I'm sorry, we're not going past this point either, until you admit the truth.
(GSA- Glass Steagall Act)

Washington Mutual. Savings and Loans. Did not fall under GSA.
IndyMac. Savings and Loans. Did not fall under the GSA.
Bear Stearns. Investment bank. Did not fall under the GSA.
CountryWide. Investment bank. Did not fall under the GSA.
Merrill Lynch. Investment bank. Did not fall under the GSA.
AIG. Insurance company. Did not fall under the GSA.

In fact, if you just walk down the list of all the failures, very very few were Financial Holding Companies. If you don't know... the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, did not just "allow banks to do whatever they want" or something.

Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, allowed banks to apply to change their charter to a "Financial Holding Company". By doing this, they could then operate Retail Banking (your local bank, open a savings account and such), Commercial Banking (loans and accounts of corporations and business), Investment Banking (buying securities like MBS and such), and Insurance Services.

But the key is, they had to change over their charter. Most didn't.

Thus the vast majority of all the banks that failed during the crash, were not Financial Holding Companies, and if GLB Act had never existed, nothing would have changed with the vast majority of those failures.

The only big exception that I know of, would be Wachovia.

But other companies that WERE Financial Holding Companies, many of them weathered the storm better. Wells Fargo was a FHC. They did fine. JPMorgan Chase, was a FHC, and they had no problems.

In fact, over all, Financial Holding Companies did better than their more limited competitors, naturally because of diversification. If you have your entire business wrapped up exclusively in Mortgages, and the Mortgage market tanks, you are likely to go down. If on the other hand, you have some insurance business, and some retail business, and investment business, and a fraction of your business is in Mortgages, and they tank, you or more likely to survive.

Further!!

The government actually used Financial Holding Companies, as their method for FIXING the crisis.

Hello?!?

Bank of America was not a FHC. But the government asked them to buy out CountryWide..... which required them to become an FHC.
JP Morgan Chase, was asked to purchase Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual.... which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.
Wells Fargo was asked to buy Wachovia, and Century Bank.... which they would not have been able to do without being an FHC.

What part of this is not making sense?

Bottom line..... Glass Steagall, and the Gramm Leach Bliley, neither one had ANYTHING.... to do with the crash. Nothing. Period. Sorry, you are wrong. Flat out, wrong.

You seem convinced that CRA caused a bubble but your analysis amounts to looking at a graph and a date on legislation. I am sorry but I don't think that is exactly proof. I admit that I have no proven that the bubble in 97 was just about global economic trends but I didn't mean to act like I was.

I am not saying that the borrowers are free of guilt. They just haven't been talked about until now. Seems pretty pointless to blame them as they are the ones that are getting foreclosed on and their "guilt" is rather established already.

You keep acting like F&F was mandating all of these loans which they were not. That is simply a falsehood.

You also seem set to ignore the fact that ratings agencies have a responsibility to rate both mortgages and MBS.

You also seem set to ignore the lowering of lending standards well beyond the lowered standards allowed under the CRA.

You also seem set to ignore the fact that all of these companies are responsible for their own choices for better or worse. How do you think this all went down? From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies? Sorry I lost all your money, I know you pay me millions upon millions of dollars to make these decisions but I figured why think for myself when I can let F&F think for me. Yeah they used this new formula for packaging MBS but I didn't bother to check it out. I figure we should just take it on faith that F&F knows what it is doing. Sure we employee all these people who are supposed to know this stuff but lets ignore that too.

As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it.

Looking at relevant legislation, and empirical data on a graph is 'all' I'm looking at? Should I consult a ouija board, or the stars too?

Looking at relevant data, and relevant legislation seems to be the proper course of action for investigating the empirical evidence for a given topic. What would you suggest?

F&F didn't have to mandate anything. As I've said before, they are the largest player, with the biggest authority in the market, backed by the Federal Government. When they move.... whether they "mandate it" or not, the market follows. That's how that works.

The same is true in other completely private markets. Take Intel. Intel is the 6000 lbs gorilla of the microchip market. When Intel says "we're going to do this", suddenly the market follows. Why? They are the biggest player, they hold the cards, they have the biggest weight in the market.

When Intel integrated graphic processors into their CPU chips, AMD started integrating ATI graphics processors into their CPU chips. Did Intel "mandate" it? No, they just happen to be the biggest player in the game, and they move the market, whether they intend to, or not.

Fannie and Freddie.... Same thing.

Again, the CRA lowered the standard to sub-prime. There is no standard below sub-prime. There is no Sub-sub-prime. The prime rate standard, is in fact the only standard.

So when you say they lowered the standard below the CRA.... I have no idea what you are talking about because there is nothing below sub-prime.

From what you said it is like these institutions made financial decisions by blindly trusting F&F. Do you think that passes as an excuse for the CEO's of these companies?

Again, I don't understand this comment. Yes, the fact the institution did make decisions blindly trusting F&F. Like I posted before, Countrywide was a preferred partner of Fannie Mae, and was given awards by Fannie Mae for doing what Fannie Mae wanted. I posted you the article written by Fannie Mae back in 2000, about this very issue.

Now does it excuse anything? No. I never said, nor suggested they were excused. You can't find any comment by me, which suggests that they should be excused for this. There should never have been a bailout of any type. The companies should have been bankrupted, and sold off.

Again, the difference between you and me, is not that. The difference is, I want to focus on causes, not resulting problems. What was the cause? The cause was F&F, and the Government pushing sub-prime loans. If we don't deal with the cause, and we only focus on smacking around the banks, in 10 years time, we'll be right back here with another crash, because as long as government is pushing policies to give loans to people who don't qualify.... this is the outcome. You can scream at the banks for following the government until the end of time, and they are still going to do it. I promise you. You can fine them, jail them, attack them, run around in some park, with signs saying 'eat the rich'. It won't change anything, and we'll end up right back here all over again. You have to stop the cause.... stop government from pushing bad loans.

As for GSA, look at the companies that were bailed out. Look at how their willingness to take on risk changed. Investment firms were historically far more willing to take risks than commercial banks. But hey lets just assume that had nothing to do with it

The Glass Steagall Act has nothing to do with investment firms. GSA did not prevent them from existing. GSA did not prevent them from growing. GSA did not prevent them from taking risks. GSA did not prevent them from buying MBSs. GSA did not prevent them from buying CDOs. GSA did not prevent them from doing anything at all.

The *ONLY* thing that GSA prevented, was it prevented them from ALSO running retail savings and loans, running Commercial banking, and from offering insurance.

Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, and Countrywide, were all just, and only, investment banks. None of them were doing retail, commercial, or insurance.

GSA would have had ZERO effect on any of them. None of them were Financial Holding Companies. None of them were affected by GSA, or GLBA.

If the GSA was the law of the land, it would have had zero effect on the crash of all these firms.

And by way... investment firms always take more risk than banks. That's the nature of the beast. The whole reason investment firms exist, is because banks don't pay jack on their deposits. That's why *I* invest. Do I want 0.01% interest from my account at the bank? Or do I want 26% interest I earned at my mutual fund investments?.............

Hmmmm.... 0.01%, or 26%.... hmmmm...... I want the 26%. That's why I hired my mutual fund broker to buy those investments for me.

 

[Mr. H.]

As I've stated, Capitalism guarantees nothing.

Socialism guarantees everything.

Everyone needs at least basic things. In perpetuity.

The fight to provide trumps provision by fighting.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I never said I reject capitalism outright (I live and breathe in it just like you). What I find objectionable is policy that works great for a small percent and leaves the rest to fight over bones. You'll likely contexualize this into one of two categories: either pro-Republican or Anti-republican. You never seem to address the issues without rephrasing them in your desired strawman context.

I am well aware few things will ever be fully "settled" but your black and white thinking demands that I make wild assertions. I do not think socialism is the final answer; nor is anything so definite. I know that I know very little. What I see is you claim to understand most anything and you happen to always be right about it. I want to respect you and do as any human, avoiding name calling, but when it comes to your beliefs, they are another matter.

Bertrand Russell observed, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." I am full of doubt about what works and what doesn't but I am sure that our current levels of human suffering are not essential to a functioning world and I stand by with my fellow man in solidarity, including you, to eradicate the unnecessary suffering in the world and leave the rest for individuals to manage.

Stop it. The system we use does the best for the most.
If you have a better idea, other than government central planning command and control economics, bring it on. Otherwise you can stop complaining.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your republican spin brings us back to square one. Regression is the name of the game.

No one is being accused of being evil. We are all trying to do well for ourselves and do what's right. So you can put the spin of confiscation, of commandeering, of taking but these are stumbling blocks to understanding what a healthy society looks like. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say the 2% do you? Those who own 10 houses worldwide. 70 cars. 2 private jets etc etc

A healthy society can withstand external forces and internal strife. We should seek to better cooperate instead of disparage one another if we wish to live in a resilient society. But I know you know no other game than to agree with republicans and disagree with anything that is nonrepublican. We are trying your policies in economics and it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak. Maybe your idea of a society is one that worships the one true republican diety but if you expect to endure, this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation.

At the level it has reached, this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. We understand there will always be levels of difference where people deserve more than others. But what I'm talking about the top 2% you will never brush elbows with and who own the majority of the world's wealth. 85 individuals own the equivalent wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people! That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing. They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. This is not reality. The rest of us do not aim for such exorbitance; rather, we seek to simply stay sane and that's awfully hard to do when there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive. It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh!

To whom are you posting?
Use the quote feature please!

 

[Andylusion]

Prove "CRA loans were nearly all bad."

This is one of those "Really?!?" points in the discussion.

First off.... the whole point of the CRA is to provide loans to people that would not qualify.

Why would people not qualify? Because it's a bad loan.

Banks love to make loans, if they know they'll make a good return on it..... that's why they make loans.

If this is sounding like I'm saying the obvious, that's because I am. Because the obvious is the answer to your question.

So the CRA pushes banks to make loans that they would otherwise deny, because it's not a safe loan. Therefore......... CRA loans are nearly all bad. IF they were "good", they would be prime rate loans, and the borrower would never be denied, and the CRA would never need to exist.

Really.
The whole point to CRA was to help people, who may have been good or bad credit risks, but lived in a geographic area where their local banks gladly took their deposits but refused to make loans for homes or businesses.
Put up some numbers proving most CRA loans were nearly all bad.
How do CRA foreclosures compare to other loans?
No more anecdotes.
No body cares.

Really.... So we can't talk about basic facts of what the CRA does, and make logical conclusions... no, we have to have someone else tell us basic obvious logic, or else we won't believe it, because we have our head shoved so far up our politics, we can't think for ourselves anymore, and need it spoon fed to us?

Fine... I can play the "tell me the obvious" game.

The Federal Reserve, directed by the Gramm Leach Bliley Act, was required to do a study of CRA loans.
FRB: Performance Survey
Report on the Performance and Profitability of CRA-Related Lending
Report Tables, Page 7.

As you can clearly see what should have been obvious before needing the government to spend millions doing research on the obvious.... the 30 to 89 day delinquency rate for CRA loans, was double that of all loans.

Further institutions reported consistently that in general CRA loans had a higher delinquency rate, by a large margin. 12 to 76, 8 to 86, and 15 to 41.

The exact same thing was shown with 90 days plus delinquency, with nearly double the CRA delinquency rate, to all loans. Ironically "all loans" in both cases included the CRA loans.

Similarly, institutions reported consistently that in general CRA loans had higher 90 day delinquency rates, but similarly large margins. 19 to 37, 6 to 76, and 25 to 75.

If you read the entire report, it all basically says the same thing. CRA loans have a higher delinquency, and higher default rate...... just as I had known was the case using the most elementary level logic, before I even knew this report existed.

I'm starting to grasp why the government spends millions of dollars to make reports whose conclusions are obvious to the rest of society.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your republican spin brings us back to square one. Regression is the name of the game.

No one is being accused of being evil. We are all trying to do well for ourselves and do what's right. So you can put the spin of confiscation, of commandeering, of taking but these are stumbling blocks to understanding what a healthy society looks like. You have no idea what I'm talking about when I say the 2% do you? Those who own 10 houses worldwide. 70 cars. 2 private jets etc etc

A healthy society can withstand external forces and internal strife. We should seek to better cooperate instead of disparage one another if we wish to live in a resilient society. But I know you know no other game than to agree with republicans and disagree with anything that is nonrepublican. We are trying your policies in economics and it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak. Maybe your idea of a society is one that worships the one true republican diety but if you expect to endure, this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation.

At the level it has reached, this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. We understand there will always be levels of difference where people deserve more than others. But what I'm talking about the top 2% you will never brush elbows with and who own the majority of the world's wealth. 85 individuals own the equivalent wealth of the poorest 3.5 billion people! That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing. They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. This is not reality. The rest of us do not aim for such exorbitance; rather, we seek to simply stay sane and that's awfully hard to do when there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive. It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh!

Let's discuss some of the points of your post..
"We are trying your policies in economics".....Now, "your" I guess in your book, means GOP, right wing, conservative, etc...Umm, our system is not being "tried" unless you want to label a system that's been in existence for over 230 years as a "trial".
"it's causing ever increasing strife as we speak."..
Excuse me. Strife? Where. Among whom?\
" this business of alienating people from the propserity in America is damaging to the strength of our nation."......
Who is doing this to you?
" this is not a matter of taking, its a matter of sharing what the working class helped create. "
Oh really? It's not "taking"....Hey genius, when government gets involved, it IS a taking.
I have no idea what you refer to when you say "sharing". People work. If they are employed, they have entered into an agreement. They are compensated for the work they perform. If in the opinion of the employee, the wage becomes substandard, he as three choices. Ask for a raise. Move on. Improve skill set to increase his value to the firm.
THAT is how one increases their so called share.
"That isn't a matter of earning, its a matter of not sharing.".....
From where did you get this idea that someone owes someone else?
Because that is what you project. "I earn therefore I owe a 'share' to you."
I don't think so.
I do not care to 'rub elbows' with the super wealthy. I have little in common with these people other than we belong to the same species. Nor do i wish to be in their company.
"They fly across the world whenever they want and eat anything they desire without repercussion. "....
That is just pure envy on your part. Repercussions? You're kidding, right?
What business is it of yours what anyone does with THEIR money?
" there is no work and what work there is pays less than what it takes to survive."....Come on....Stop complaining.
" It's a circus for the majority and with gullible folks like you we maintain this unshared prosperity. You stand to benefit from the sharing of the wealth you and I help generate but yet you fight to keep it stowed safely among the 2%. Geesh"
That Keynesian economics theory is debunked.
A person of wealth is no more in charge of my destiny than I am of his.
Now that you've complained about a number of things, how about you offering up a solution. One that does not involve some crackpot government mandate scheme, mandated income limits. tax increases or forced 'sharing'....
Take your time and come up with a better idea.
You have a couple weeks to complete your assignment.

 

[georgephillip]

No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under. At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.

So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?

"Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012

Good for him! That is outstanding. Sadly, it's 4.1% more than than any of us should be paying.

Stop Whining

"Roosevelt’s debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor.

"The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.
FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes.

"How stiff?

"FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate.

"At a time of 'grave national danger,' Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, 'no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.'

"That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.

"FDR 'settled' for a marginal tax rate of 94%.

"Makes today's super-wealthy seem pretty whiny and greedy, doesn't it?"

Doesn't it.

FDR's Proposed Marginal Tax Rate Was 100%

 

[georgephillip]

No, I only said that monarchy would be infinitely preferable to the rule by Obama and Harry Reid that we are all currently suffering under. At a minimum, our taxes would be less than 20% of what we now pay.

So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?

"Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012

What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

 

[georgephillip]

Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes and gave $4 million to charity.

That bastard! Giving away over 43% of his income. Awful, just awful.

You're right.
It should've been 94%.
Greedy ****, tsk tsk.

Why should it have been 94%?

"During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

"In pursuit of equality (rather than revenue) President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed a 100% tax on all incomes over $25,000.[30][31]

"When Congress did not enact that proposal, Roosevelt issued an executive order attempting to achieve a similar result through a salary cap on certain salaries in connection with contracts between the private sector and the federal government.[32][33][34]

"For tax years 1944 through 1951, the highest marginal tax rate for individuals was 91%, increasing to 92% for 1952 and 1953, and reverting to 91% for tax years 1954 through 1963."

Taxation history of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

THOSE evil ******* "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.

That's the gist of the complaint.

But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:

what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?

Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed. (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)

They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth. It doesn't belong to them, you see. They didn't earn that. They didn't build that. (Sound familiar?)

It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards. No. No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having. So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING. It's a reclamation, you see. It's not "taking from the rich." It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.

But enough of this analysis. Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.

The rich have more. The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less. There is an income inequality. There is a wealth disparity. Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"

We await your eloquence.

Corruption is the single most eloquent explanation for why your beloved "greedy rich bastards" eat better that the poor. Daily reports from around the planet confirm how government bureaucrats abuse their offices for personal gain. In the US, the greedy rich bastards bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats over the past four decades for favorable tax and trade policies that have increased a few private fortunes at the expense of millions of lost middle class jobs, pension plans, and homes. The solution was pioneered by FDR during WWII; in today's class war impose a 100% tax rates on all US incomes over 1,000,000 dollars. Any of the rich greedy pseudo job creators in the US who don't like it are free to polish their Mandarin and move where they will feel more at home.

We await your wimpish, whining, weaseling response.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

GP, life guarantees inequality. People are not born equal, not in physical, mental abilities nor in desires. Life's not fair, and you can't make it fair.

If you and I were equal we would both get a piece of chocolate cake. But the problem with that is I really don't like chocolate cake. So, that approach may be equal, but it is not fair.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Our current dilemma stems from government accepting bribes to monopolize the chocolate cake cartel.

All men are created equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

So, you're planning on contributing to Money Mitt's refund?

"Mitt Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1%, his campaign said Friday."

Romney paid 14% effective tax rate in 2011 - Sep. 21, 2012

What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

The only parasites I'm aware of are all getting checks from the government.

My preference is that everyone's taxes should go to 0.

 

[RKMBrown]

What does Mitt Romney have to do with issue of whether monarchy is preferable to democracy?

Romney's another hereditary economic parasite whose taxes your preferences would decrease by 20% in the name of democracy.

The only parasites I'm aware of are all getting checks from the government.

My preference is that everyone's taxes should go to 0.

Agreed. IMO every dollar taxed and subsequently "re-distributed" is a dollar stolen.

 

[bripat9643]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

GP, life guarantees inequality. People are not born equal, not in physical, mental abilities nor in desires. Life's not fair, and you can't make it fair.

If you and I were equal we would both get a piece of chocolate cake. But the problem with that is I really don't like chocolate cake. So, that approach may be equal, but it is not fair.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Our current dilemma stems from government accepting bribes to monopolize the chocolate cake cartel.

All men are created equal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For those of you with reading comprehension problems, in the sentence "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" the second part of the sentence explains the meaning of the first. That is, men are equally endowed with rights. Note that it refers to "the pursuit of happiness," not happiness itself. That means men are free to pursue whatever goals they desire. It doesn't mean the government is obligated to provide them with a living. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone is entitled to chocolate cake.

Our current dilemma stems from that fact that government has any authority whatsoever to establish a chocolate cake cartel.

 

[bripat9643]

THOSE evil ******* "rich" people eat well while the less affluent have to scrape by.

That's the gist of the complaint.

But while the new lolberal talking point is making the rounds, I can't help but ask:

what exactly do these guys propose as the solution for this disparity?

Strip away all the excess verbiage (verbal camouflage, since they don't want to ever come right out and SAY it) and their agenda is revealed. (This is why they don't care to address their 'solution" in clear terms.)

They want to -- they think they should be entitled to do it in fact -- and they WILL seek to confiscate from the evil rich bastards ever increasing amounts of their wealth. It doesn't belong to them, you see. They didn't earn that. They didn't build that. (Sound familiar?)

It isn't "really" the wealth of the rich greedy bastards. No. No no. It's stuff they somehow denied the other 99% from having. So, whether it takes the form of outright confiscation or just the death of a million cuts (taxation without end), the 'solution" is some kind of TAKING. It's a reclamation, you see. It's not "taking from the rich." It's taking BACK from the "rich" to redistribute to everybody ELSE.

But enough of this analysis. Let's have the spokespersons for this new liberal talking point meme step up to the podium and cut the malarkey.

The rich have more. The less affluent (the poor, the 99%) have less. There is an income inequality. There is a wealth disparity. Now, what is the proposed "lib" solution to this identified "problem?"

We await your eloquence.

Corruption is the single most eloquent explanation for why your beloved "greedy rich bastards" eat better that the poor. Daily reports from around the planet confirm how government bureaucrats abuse their offices for personal gain. In the US, the greedy rich bastards bribed elected Republicans AND Democrats over the past four decades for favorable tax and trade policies that have increased a few private fortunes at the expense of millions of lost middle class jobs, pension plans, and homes. The solution was pioneered by FDR during WWII; in today's class war impose a 100% tax rates on all US incomes over 1,000,000 dollars. Any of the rich greedy pseudo job creators in the US who don't like it are free to polish their Mandarin and move where they will feel more at home.

We await your wimpish, whining, weaseling response.

Go **** yourself, you ******* commie asshole.

Government has no right to anyone's money. It certainly doesn't have the moral authority to determine how much anyone can earn. If the person who earned the money isn't entitled to it, then why is government entitled to it?

You're nothing but a thief and a cheap thug.