Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Surely you're not facile enough to confuse BO with a liberal?
If so, kindly explain his continued support for Honduran fascists who overthrew a democratically elected president?

BO is an uber liberal who had two communist parents, voted to the left of Bernie Sanders, and openly supports single payer. One would have to be dead not to know that BO is uber liberal.

 

[georgephillip]

Why did BO take single payer off the table before beginning the discussions of health care reform?
Any explanation for Honduras?
Or were you born dead?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Why did BO take single payer off the table before beginning the discussions of health care reform?

because he knows that elections are decided by independents. A child would know this

 

[georgephillip]

Independents overwhelmingly support single payer.
Even fascists know this.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Independents overwhelmingly support single payer.
Even fascists know this.

Would you bet $10,000 or run away again with your tail between your legs?

 

[georgephillip]

I don't have $10,000 or see anything to run from.
Unlike fascists who divide the world into "Worthy" ergo "Rich" and "Unworthy" ergo "Not Rich."
Are you "Rich"?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I don't have $10,000 or see anything to run from.
Unlike fascists who divide the world into "Worthy" ergo "Rich" and "Unworthy" ergo "Not Rich."
Are you "Rich"?

no BS say if you are liberal and conservative and why!!

 

[georgephillip]

I don't have $10,000 or see anything to run from.
Unlike fascists who divide the world into "Worthy" ergo "Rich" and "Unworthy" ergo "Not Rich."
Are you "Rich"?

no BS say if you are liberal and conservative and why!!

Liberal AND conservative??

I suppose we are all liberal about some things and conservative about others.

I'm liberal in my beliefs about health care, education, and a chance to move up in the world and conservative when it comes to environmental issues. The "why" part of the question probably stems from the role empathy plays in formulating my moral code unlike conservatives who base their morality on obedience to a higher authority.

Like Moses and his God of the Collection Plate.

 

[Trajan]

Capitalism Seen in Crisis by Investors Citing Inequalities

International investors say capitalism is in crisis, with almost one in three backing radical changes to the system, according to a Bloomberg survey.

As the global financial and business elite gather in Davos for their annual forum, a majority in the Bloomberg Global Poll agree that income inequality hurts the economy and that governments need to do something to address it -- ideas at the heart of “Occupy” protests worldwide. Those surveyed also voice reservations about the financial industry’s role in society, with seven in 10 seeing at least some truth in the argument that banks have too much power over governments.

“Capitalism is in crisis because there is a huge and growing disparity in income/wealth distribution in Western economies, and an equally divisive generational disparity,” poll participant Michael Derks, chief strategist for FXPro Financial Services broker in London, said in an e-mail.

<snip>

"There is a large and growing wealth disparity and I think it is unhealthy,&#8221; Steve Morton, a director at Natixis Securities in New York who took part in the survey, said in an e-mail. &#8220;The lower levels of the pyramid don&#8217;t have enough money to buy things and keep the economy going.&#8221;

<snip>

The banking culture has evolved radically, to the point where the perception amongst most members of society is that their actions are driven by the relentless pursuit of earnings with no regard to their potential negative impact on communities,&#8221; said Anson Rosewall, a poll participant and sales trader at BBY Ltd., a financial services firm in Sydney, Australia.

&#8220;The fact that banks have taken government cash, while the average person has lost his job and house without help, will probably forever tarnish the reputation of these major institutions,&#8221; he said in an e-mail.

The gap between rich and poor is widening across most developed economies as executives, bankers and skilled workers reap more rewards, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development said last month.

<snip>

The 459 U.S. investors who answered the survey view capitalism more favorably than their counterparts elsewhere, with roughly one in five saying the system needs an overhaul, according to the poll.
Capitalism Seen in Crisis by Investors Citing Inequalities - Bloomberg

The US investors have a more rosey outlook, maybe because Chart 1 leads to Chart 2?

Discuss.

income equality doesn't mean anything , unless you wish to use it for immediate political purposes....times right now are on a low, then they are on a high and the same thing can b said, buts is the temporary lows that give this false impression strength...behold;



Share of wealth held by the Bottom 99% and Top 1% in the United States, 1922-2007.
Bottom 99 percent Top 1 percent
1922 63.3% 36.7%
1929 55.8% 44.2%
1933 66.7% 33.3%
1939 63.6% 36.4%
1945 70.2% 29.8%
1949 72.9% 27.1%
1953 68.8% 31.2%
1962 68.2% 31.8%
1965 65.6% 34.4%
1969 68.9% 31.1%
1972 70.9% 29.1%
1976 80.1% 19.9%
1979 79.5% 20.5%
1981 75.2% 24.8%
1983 69.1% 30.9%
1986 68.1% 31.9%
1989 64.3% 35.7%
1992 62.8% 37.2%
1995 61.5% 38.5%
1998 61.9% 38.1%
2001 66.6% 33.4%
2004 65.7% 34.3%
2007 65.4% 34.6%


go ahead and average it out, 30 seconds in excel.......meet the 'new paradigm' same as the old paradigm....class warfare= bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jefferson was not a Republican. He was a Democratic-Republican, a party that bears very little resemblance to the current Republican party.

Thomas Jefferson founded the Republican party. Andrew Jackson and Aaron Burr founded the Democrats. While the initial name was "Democratic-Republicans," by the time of the Jefferson presidency, the name was simply "Republican."

When the party fell apart with the Whig usurpation, the reforming was absolutely of Jefferson's party and took the name he used, "Republican."

Ron Paul is a libertarian. The Republican establishment hates him.

The GOP establishment hates all save the DC insiders.

What happened when the Republicans were in control under bush? More debt. More spending. More war. Patriot act. Medicare part D. No child left behind. All examples of government expansion.

No. Both parties are the problem. It is imperative that every American wakes up to that fact so a real debate can occur.

True enough.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Two things come to mind.

Over the past decades, it was pretty obvious that Microsoft had a technique. Every year, a company like the creators of WordPerfect, would come up with a new and innovative addition to their software. The next year, Microsoft would copy their creation and add it to their software package.

What a steaming pile.

First off, WordPerfect didn't come up with crap. They took the concept that WordStar already had on the market and refined it. WordStar having copied the paradigm from dedicated Wang word processing terminals.

Further, Microsoft didn't "copy" anything, they bought packages that looked promising. PFS Write, which predates WordPerfect by 3 years, is the foundation for MS Word. SuperCalc is what turned into Excel.

Microsoft bought best of breed technology and incorporated it into their own - providing HUGE advantages for the user, such as integration between word processing, spreadsheet and presentation graphics.

The dominance of Microsoft has not been their marvelous ability at inventiveness. Microsoft has enjoyed what is called a natural monopoly.

Utter bullshit.

It amazes me the ignorant shit people post around here.

When a company, that I was working for, was trying to decide what desktop computers and software to deploy through out the departments, the choice was obvious. The choice was simply the one that had the market dominance. Once Microsoft gained sufficient market share, every company had to use it. Otherwise, they couldn't function in communicating with suppliers and customers.

Gee, they didn't want to use proprietary machines that don't interact with others?

Imagine.

Before Microsoft - ALL platforms were proprietary. It was Microsoft (and IBM) who ushered in the CONCEPT and the era of interoperablity.

The second thing that comes to mind is the stock market.

The literal translation for "stock" as in "stock market" is "guessing paper".

Ohhh, more interesting facts that you just made up.

******* leftists.

The literal translation of "stock" is "The goods or merchandise kept on the premises of a business or warehouse and available for sale or distribution."

Moron.

The idea of an IPO is to sell partial ownership in a company so that it can raise capital to invest in expansion and leverage into the remaining untapped market demand.

And?

Once beyond the IPO, the purchase and sale of stock has nothing to do with the original company except in the income produced from the dividends or in the returns obtained by selling the stock.

And?

The majority of the gains from the stock market have nothing to do with the functioning of the economy. This is, of course, why the sale and purchase of stock isn't part of the GDP.

The stock market remains little more then a form of gambling. And, in fact, it has been shown repeatedly that stock brokers performance is little more then blind luck, good or bad.

You can read Wikipedia, but you aren't much for thinking.

 

[itfitzme]

The literal translation of "stock" is "The goods or merchandise kept on the premises of a business or warehouse and available for sale or distribution."

Oops, I forgot to put the word "Chinese" in there, as in "The literal Chinese translation of 'stock' is 'guessing paper'".

Why would anyone use the word "translation" to describe the definition of a word in the same language?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oops, I forgot to put the word "Chinese" in there, as in "The literal Chinese translation of 'stock' is 'guessing paper'".

Why would anyone use the word "translation" to describe the definition of a word in the same language?

Why would anyone post the ignorant shit you posted?

Why ask why?

It's called "stock" because people bought shares of the assets, the goods or stock of the company. There is no "Chinese" or other meaning.

 

[itfitzme]

What a steaming pile...... crap. ...Utter bullshit....ignorant shit ..******* leftists...Moron....

The first and obvious thing is the use of the words and phrases, "What a steaming pile ", "crap", "ignorant shit", "******* leftists". "Moron". None of these have anything to do with the subject of Microsoft and it's dominance in the distributive platform computing market. They are little more than emotionally based words that convey no information except that your thinking is dominated by emotional bias.

It is interesting what happens when people suffer from a stroke or other brain damage to their cerebral cortex. While they are unable to access words that convey objective information, they can easily say "crap", "****", "shit", "moron" and other emotionally based terms. I know someone that had a stroke. He was able to say "****" very well, in spite of having 99.9% of his ability to use language.

You have some sort of fixation with bowel movements. Are you constipated these days? You might try a laxative.

 

[jillian]

Oh goody, another "Communism is the only answer" thread...

is that what he said? i don't see that.

and do you interject that way on all the rightwingnut threads?

just wondering.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The first and obvious thing is the use of the words and phrases, "What a steaming pile ", "crap", "ignorant shit", "******* leftists". "Moron". None of these have anything to do with the subject of Microsoft and it's dominance in the distributive platform computing market.

No, they have to do with the fact that what you posted is a complete fabrication - a pile of steaming shit that you either made up or are repeating from some other leftist who simply made it up.

Look, your mommy no doubt bought you a Mac in 2006 or 2007, which you probably see as the beginning of the computer era - and Microsoft sux cause Apple invented everything...

They are little more than emotionally based words that convey no information except that your thinking is dominated by emotional bias.

The fact is that you're an ignorant buffoon, posting complete bullshit in a forum dominated by highly technical people.

You're an ignorant fool - but no need to advertise it..

It is interesting what happens when people suffer from a stroke or other brain damage to their cerebral cortex. While they are unable to access words that convey objective information, they can easily say "crap", "****", "shit", "moron" and other emotionally based terms. I know someone that had a stroke. He was able to say "****" very well, in spite of having 99.9% of his ability to use language.

You have some sort of fixation with bowel movements. Are you constipated these days? You might try a laxative.

What do you think causes people to be blowhards? You know, to post bullshit on subjects they don't grasp?

Simply put son, you're a ******* moron.

 

[Uncensored2008]

is that what he said? i don't see that.

and do you interject that way on all the rightwingnut threads?

just wondering.

Say Jillian, are you fabulously wealthy? Aren't you a $10,000 an hour Park Ave. lawyer? Seems someone around here was posting something to that effect, can't say it was you directly, though. No matter, ask any leftist troll here and they'll tell you just how extraordinarily successful and amazingly wealthy they are.

The rich should be punished though, shouldn't they - oh, not you of course, you're a party member - the evil rich are those other people who didn't vote for Obama (several times!)

Income inequality - those bad Republicans who make $200K a year should be punished severely; am I right?

 

[itfitzme]

Over the past decades, it was pretty obvious that Microsoft had a technique. Every year, a company like the creators of WordPerfect, would come up with a new and innovative addition to their software. The next year, Microsoft would copy their creation and add it to their software package.

First off, WordPerfect didn't come up ... They took the concept that WordStar already had on the market and refined it. WordStar having copied the paradigm from dedicated Wang word processing terminals.

Further, Microsoft didn't "copy" anything, they bought packages that looked promising. PFS Write, which predates WordPerfect by 3 years, is the foundation for MS Word. SuperCalc is what turned into Excel.

Microsoft bought best of breed technology and incorporated it into their own - providing HUGE advantages for the user, such as integration between word processing, spreadsheet and presentation graphics.

The dominance of Microsoft has not been their marvelous ability at inventiveness. Microsoft has enjoyed what is called a natural monopoly.

Gee, they didn't want to use proprietary machines that don't interact with others?

Before Microsoft - ALL platforms were proprietary. It was Microsoft (and IBM) who ushered in the CONCEPT and the era of interoperablity.

That Microsoft first purchased WordStar, and Supercalc doesn't preclude that they also copied what they could, purchased what they had to, and entered into licensing agreements when it was the the last option. That WordStar copied from Wang and that WordPerfect copied from someone else, doesn't preclude Microsoft copying what they could from "the likes of WordPerfect" and other development companies.

The smartest thing Microsoft did, that Apple failed to do, is that they focused on marketing the operating system and let the rest of the market develop application software.

None of it precludes the fact that Microsoft enjoys a natural monopoly as a result of economies of scale and simply a natural lack of a realistic substitute. The Mac was never a serious substitute for business applications.

That they purchased WordStar and Supercalc rather then develop from scratch only adds to the point of it not being as much the result of "inventiveness" as it was gaining dominance due to having the ownership of the underlying operating system and leveraging that to expand vertically. Nor does it say they didn't do inventive things. Still, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on being creative and inventive.

Microsoft "providing HUGE advantages for the user" is just as much a part of them having a natural monopoly as anything.

This natural monopoly effect was the same thing that gave Alcoa it's dominance and eventually being "slapped" with an anti-monopoly judgment by the Supreme Court. Alcoa originally owned the patent rights to a far less expensive process for extracting aluminum from ore. As they gained market dominance, they expanded vertically in the market place, burying all competition.

What was really interesting was when Microsoft was called up before Congress on it having a monopolistic dominance. Nothing says that you have achieved success, in capitalism, like being called up before Congress on anti-trust allegations.

None of this speaks badly of Microsoft, or Alcoa. It is what it is.


I mentioned the business decision of being able to best communicate with vendors and suppliers as being the rational reason that gave Microsoft that natural market monopoly. Even if someone had shown that the Apple was better in one way or another, it didn't outweigh the utility of being able to integrate with vendors and suppliers.

Gee, they didn't want to use proprietary machines that don't interact with others?

What the **** you think your defending is beyond anyone of rational mind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That Microsoft first purchased WordStar, and Supercalc doesn't preclude that they also copied what they could, purchased what they had to, and entered into licensing agreements when it was the the last option.

Okay sparky, offer us some evidence that Microsoft "copied" WordPerfect?

Any evidence.

That WordStar copied from Wang and that WordPerfect copied from someone else, doesn't preclude Microsoft copying what they could from "the likes of WordPerfect" and other development companies.

Yeah, because Microsoft is evil and MACS RULE!

The smartest thing Microsoft did, that Apple failed to do, is that they focused on marketing the operating system and let the rest of the market develop application software.

Izzatrite sparky?

I love to reminisce about all those clever MSDOS ads that Microsoft ran - I mean there was the one with the skinny cool guy lying about how Apple was unstable and the fat guy - OH WAIT, that wasn't Microsoft.

In fact, there were virtually ZERO ads for MS-DOS, It took the industry by storm with virtually no marketing.

None of it precludes the fact that Microsoft enjoys a natural monopoly as a result of economies of scale and simply a natural lack of a realistic substitute. The Mac was never a serious substitute for business applications.

At the time that Microsoft entered the market, CP/M dominated the business market and Apple dominated the home computer market. Microsoft gained dominance because they offered the public a means of buying off the shelf parts and having them work. NOBODY else did that, everything else was proprietary. Apple still is.

That they purchased WordStar and Supercalc rather then develop from scratch only adds to the point of it not being as much the result of "inventiveness" as it was gaining dominance due to having the ownership of the underlying operating system and leveraging that to expand vertically. Nor does it say they didn't do inventive things. Still, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly on being creative and inventive.

Yawn.

Do you realize that Apple didn't create Siri? (I mean if they did, they would call it "iTalk" or some stupid shit like that, based on the iPaq - er iPhone...)

Microsoft took fledgling programs like PFS Write and SuperCalc and enhanced them to the point no one bothers with anything else.

What happened to WordPerfect? Well, first of all it sucked. Want to center that word? Press control, F7, alt+z and hit the space bar with your nose.... It was a convoluted pile of shit. What REALLY killed it was that it never could transition to the graphical world. Ami Pro and Word were the only programs to ever run properly on Mac or Windows.

Microsoft "providing HUGE advantages for the user" is just as much a part of them having a natural monopoly as anything.

If they had a natural monopoly, why would they invest billions into creating OLE to provide seamless embedding of objects into the various office elements to empower users to create robust documents that allowed each element to do what it did best, natively? If what you claim is true then users would have bought Word and Excel instead of Ami or Lotus simply because Microsoft was a monopoly, not because they created a massive technological advantage for the user in offering a means of creating professional and complex documents that competitors couldn't match.

Dude, this is just a really bad forum to try and bullshit your way through in.

This natural monopoly effect was the same thing that gave Alcoa it's dominance and eventually being "slapped" with an anti-monopoly judgment by the Supreme Court. Alcoa originally owned the patent rights to a far less expensive process for extracting aluminum from ore. As they gained market dominance, they expanded vertically in the market place, burying all competition.

What was really interesting was when Microsoft was called up before Congress on it having a monopolistic dominance. Nothing says that you have achieved success, in capitalism, like being called up before Congress on anti-trust allegations.

And that was because they built a better Office package than WordPerfect? Or was it really that Algore (inventor of all interwebz) was buddies with Marc Andresseen and was on the board of Netscape?

What came of that? (Or Marc's little Global Crossings venture?)

None of this speaks badly of Microsoft, or Alcoa. It is what it is.

What is your purpose for bashing Microsoft?

I mentioned the business decision of being able to best communicate with vendors and suppliers as being the rational reason that gave Microsoft that natural market monopoly. Even if someone had shown that the Apple was better in one way or another, it didn't outweigh the utility of being able to integrate with vendors and suppliers.

Apple was utter crap until they dumped Motorola and used BSD as an OS. Current Macs are passable,

What the **** you think your defending is beyond anyone of rational mind.

Can you repeat that in English?

 

[itfitzme]

Your understanding of the stock market far exceeds my own.
I've had my doubts about its "free market" aspects since the Flash Crash, at least.
Can you speculate on how a market free of rentier influence like the one Smith envisioned would function without stock market bubbles?
What investment alternatives currently exist for retirement funds?

Well, you might not want to read too much into it.

I wouldn't put too much stock in advice from an internet forum. I'm pretty sure that there isn't anyone here sitting on their yacht, off the coast of Cancun, reading and posting on internet forums. It's one thing to make a personal decision to buy or sell, based on some short term change. It's another thing to be giving advice. Last I heard, Jim Cramer's track record is less then 50:50.

If you have the cash, you can open up an account with one of the online trading companies then pull most of it back out again. Last I saw, once you have the account, there is no minimum. Never invest more than you can afford to lose.

I have been fortunate to have been able to learn some tools that I can validate some things with. And it's way easier to prove that something isn't true then it is to predict the future. There is one person here that knows enough to ask me what the p-value and t-stat is. And he is right, without a p-value and the t-stat, it doesn't mean that much.

I just found that volatility before and after the debt ceiling crisis rather interesting. I have no idea if it can be used for anything beyond "interesting".

The standard advise is that, over the long run, the market performs well enough if your in a risk adverse mutual fund. 25% of the change in the market is somehow connected to the GDP. (That's an interesting question; is that 25% the result of the long run trend?)

And there is a reason that people buy government bonds, even though they make less then anything else.

The second best advise that I have heard is to go with fundamental analysis, get to know the company and the market. That seems to be what Warren Buffet does. And it makes sense.

Better to talk to the person who handles your companies 401K plan. They pretty much say the same thing, over the long term, risk adverse mutual funds are the safest. At least that way, when it tanks, your not worse of then every one else. You really haven't "lost" what you never had in the first place.

"Buy low and sell high." That's the rule, and it seems so obviously simple as to be stupid. But if you think about it, anyone that loses money didn't follow it. Nobody loses money that follows it. The corollary would be, never sell low. I figure, if I'm not in it for the long run, maybe I shouldn't be in it.

Seems like the smartest people bought in the beginning of 2008, when everyone else was selling low.