Graphs for you to ignore
- Thread starter domonkoz
- Start date
I don't see and never have seen why the amount of cash that a rich guy has affects the amount of cash that i have. What do you see as the link?
Take a look at the lot of the "aveage man" before the end of pardise in the Industrial Revolution. Was there a thriving Middle Class? How many folks attended Universities? How many Universities were there?
How many people were there? There were about a tenth of the crowd we currently navigate through. Famines routinely thinned the herd. Who owned everything? How much ownership was there among the folks, who were just about all of the folks, called slaves, serfs, indentured servants, or just plain servants?
You seem to recall a time that never existed.
People abandoned everything: Home, family, country and religion, to move to the Americas and literally dig a hole in the sod of the Great plains of America, cover it with other sod, burn buffalo dung to avoid freezing to death and live like that for years.
Seriously! This is as good as it gets, people. If we can't make it right here, right now in the most accomodating times for the masses that has ever occurred on this planet, we, as individuals, are simply doing it wrong.
It's time to look in the mirror if you're not making it. You will find the cause within the person you see therein.
Big money manages the world today. We are witnessing another transformation that removes democracy and replaces it with a plutocracy while we sleep and work, and oddly we support this plutocracy through our inaction and voting special interests. Which side of the ideology spectrum are you on, does it matter?
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World ]
"Some commentators at the time, who were not in a position of responsibility and hence could not influence the decision making, had a different take on the financial mayhem. In the U.S., the free-market purists -- the "Atlas Shruggians," if you will -- vociferated that the failed banks ought to be let go into bankruptcy, ignoring the fact that these megabanks "account for 85% of the assets of the world's top 1,000 banks ranked by Tier 1 capital" (cf., Andrew G. Haldane). To let them go into bankruptcy would certainly have wiped out the investors, but it also would have debilitated the depositors and led to a total collapse of the Main Street economy.
However, there was another alternative -- neither let the banks fail nor make the investors whole, the latter having been the road taken (with few exceptions) -- that was advocated by other commentators, including this one, who were not in a position of responsibility either: the governmental seizure of these megabanks; that is the nationalization of these behemoths. Analysts and economists such as Paul Jorion and Frédéric Lordon in France (3) or Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Volcker, and Robert Kuttner in the U.S. come to mind. Sheila Bair, who headed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for five years until her retirement on July 8, 2011, was a strong proponent of that approach. Under her leadership, the FDIC successfully managed over 370 bank failures in the past three and one-half years -- the biggest one was Washington Mutual, which was the sixth-largest US banking institution with over $300 billion in assets when it collapsed in September 2008, and was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision and put into receivership with the FDIC. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bair commanded little clout in the higher echelons of the Bush and Obama administrations." Swans Commentary: Clueless Or Malevolent "Leaders"? Part I - The Financial Crisis, by Gilles d'Aymery - ga295
Come on ... it takes money to make money and not recently, but it has always been like this!!
If I have 10 dollars to waste on a sure bet and someone with money (one of the rich people you dislike) has 1000 who is going to profit more? Is there something wrong or illegal about it? Should they be punished for doing something that makes them a profit?
If you take from the wealthy to give MORE to the "poor" and everyone is on a level playing field trust me they will have a new reason for taking everyone's money at that point especially the shit stain currently in office.
Do you have cds, 401K or etc and are you making more than "poor" below you? Maybe you need to give more of what you are making before asking those above to give theirs.
Do you have a clue as to what they (the wealthy) actually donate to the needy every year without the government involved!?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
July 6, 2010
RUSH: It is said of Reagan -- I think it's true to a certain extent -- Reagan decided to starve the welfare state by creating deficits and spending
daveman
Diamond Member
Welcome to the board, Useful Idiot.
Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.
Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
DittoTard parroting.
Big money manages the world today. We are witnessing another transformation that removes democracy and replaces it with a plutocracy while we sleep and work, and oddly we support this plutocracy through our inaction and voting special interests. Which side of the ideology spectrum are you on, does it matter?
"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey [see Democracy after Citizens United | MIT World ]
"Some commentators at the time, who were not in a position of responsibility and hence could not influence the decision making, had a different take on the financial mayhem. In the U.S., the free-market purists -- the "Atlas Shruggians," if you will -- vociferated that the failed banks ought to be let go into bankruptcy, ignoring the fact that these megabanks "account for 85% of the assets of the world's top 1,000 banks ranked by Tier 1 capital" (cf., Andrew G. Haldane). To let them go into bankruptcy would certainly have wiped out the investors, but it also would have debilitated the depositors and led to a total collapse of the Main Street economy.
However, there was another alternative -- neither let the banks fail nor make the investors whole, the latter having been the road taken (with few exceptions) -- that was advocated by other commentators, including this one, who were not in a position of responsibility either: the governmental seizure of these megabanks; that is the nationalization of these behemoths. Analysts and economists such as Paul Jorion and Frédéric Lordon in France (3) or Joseph Stiglitz, Paul Volcker, and Robert Kuttner in the U.S. come to mind. Sheila Bair, who headed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) for five years until her retirement on July 8, 2011, was a strong proponent of that approach. Under her leadership, the FDIC successfully managed over 370 bank failures in the past three and one-half years -- the biggest one was Washington Mutual, which was the sixth-largest US banking institution with over $300 billion in assets when it collapsed in September 2008, and was seized by the Office of Thrift Supervision and put into receivership with the FDIC. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bair commanded little clout in the higher echelons of the Bush and Obama administrations." Swans Commentary: Clueless Or Malevolent "Leaders"? Part I - The Financial Crisis, by Gilles d'Aymery - ga295
Middy, middy, middy.
If only your interest was economics and facts, rather than the Left-wing envy and liberal sophistry.
1. There is no perennial group known as the 'wealthy'...not in America. The term applies to a snap-shot in time, as said group is fluid, dynamic and changes.
"More than three-quarters of those working Americans whose incomes were in the bottom 20 percent in 1975 were also in the top 40 percent of income earners at some point by 1991, says Sowell."
Source: Thomas Sowell, "How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions," Investor's Business Daily, January 12, 2010.
For text:
How Media Misuse Income Data To Match Their Preconceptions - Investors.com
2. The opperative term is 'opportunity.'
The vast majority of our millionaires earned their money. They didn't inherit it.
3. Over any extended period, from 1929 onward, prosperity has increased, not decreased.
4. In this nation, work is honored, and is rewarded.
a. Wages equal the marginal productivity of labor, meaning that the outcome in terms of income and wealth is a function of what one does. It is also a function of how many people do the same.
5. In Alan Reynold’s “Income and Wealth,” he studied the data, and found the following. Certainly the top fifth of households has a far greater proportion of same, but it also has six times as many full-time workers as the bottom fifth, heavily composed of two-earner couples with older children or other relatives who work. The bottom fifth is heavily composed of aged or younger couples, the retired or the still in school. Also, some in the bottom fifth because they are part of the underground economy, or in crime, so income is not reported. Or suffer addictions which preclude work.
a. In 2004, 56.4% of households in the bottom fifth featured no work by anyone for the entire year. HINC-05--Part 1
b.The total number of full time, year round workers in the bottom fifth for 2004 was less than 3 millionÂ…which compares to 16.4 million in the top fifth of households. Ibid.
The difference in income does not reflect inequality, but rather, productivity. The fact that the lowest fifth are neither starving, nor living in the streets reflects the intrinsic generosity of our society, and the transfer of incomes via government programs. 80% of income in the bottom fifth is from such transfers; it is only 2% for the top fifth.
Only a purblind socialist would argue that doing no work is the basis for the same rewards as those producing and working...
...don't you agree?
But...but....he's right 99% of the time, isn't he, BeetsAndSpinach?
CALLER: Your accuracy rating as stated yesterday or the day before, 99.1.
RUSH: No, no. Documented now to be almost always right 99.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042209/content/01125109.guest.html
And the there 0.9% would be...you?
Welcome to the board, Useful Idiot.
Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.
Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.
Well, Daveman, if you won't go for the confetti, the least you could do was play the Internationale, don't ya think?
So....what do you think about shrinking the welfare state?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
Anyone stupid enough to believe anything your MessiahRushie says is "documented" has to be the most gullible person on Earth!
Obviously the claim that your MessiahRushie is right 99+% of the time is part of the <1%.
Anyone stupid enough to believe anything your MessiahRushie says is "documented" has to be the most gullible person on Earth!
Obviously the claim that your MessiahRushie is right 99+% of the time is part of the <1%.
How about the specifics...
1. Is Obama a gonner?
2. Is it a good idea to shrink the welfare state?
C'mon...don't be afraid of agreeing with your guru!
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
I think the GOP running up $12 trillion in debt, including interest, since St Ronnie is the wrong way to reduce welfare.
See that.....all those hours spent at the feet of Rush is pushing you in the right direction!
"...to reduce welfare."
There you go!
Uh oh! Ms. Truthie just ripped up the Christmas card she was going to send you!
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
1. Obama is not gone yet.Anyone stupid enough to believe anything your MessiahRushie says is "documented" has to be the most gullible person on Earth!
Obviously the claim that your MessiahRushie is right 99+% of the time is part of the <1%.
How about the specifics...
1. Is Obama a gonner?
2. Is it a good idea to shrink the welfare state?
C'mon...don't be afraid of agreeing with your guru!
2. Running up $12 trillion in debt is NOT the way to reduce welfare.
Here is one for you. Your MessiahRushie's opinion of his following words is they are BRILLIANT.
C'mon...don't be afraid of disagreeing with your MessiahRushie!
BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!
I hate to break this to you, TM...but the founders WERE the wealthy and the powerful. They set up a democracy because they didn't like being constrained by a monarchy.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,888
- 1,830
I'm glad you agree that the Right direction is away from the Reagan/CON$ervative/GOP solutions!
There you go!
Uh oh! Your MessiahRushie just ripped up the Christmas card he was going to send you!
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #39
So why did they not just make themselves kings?
Truthmatters
Diamond Member
- May 10, 2007
- 80,182
- 2,276
- 1,283
- Banned
- #40
Pareto index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In economics the Pareto index, named after the Italian economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto, is a measure of the breadth of income or wealth distribution. It is one of the parameters specifying a Pareto distribution and embodies the Pareto principle. As applied to income, the Pareto principle is sometimes stated in popular expositions by saying 20% of the population has 80% of the income. In fact, Pareto's data on British income taxes in his Cours d'économie politique indicates that about 30% of the population had about 70% of the income.
Last edited:
Similar threads
