study wealth distribution: Gains of wealthy hurts the rest

[Truthmatters]

So, what you're saying is that we as American's shouldn't allow people to get wealthy? Are you suggesting a cap on wealth? No person in American can own over "X" amount of assets/cash? Do you realize how socialistic that sounds?

Probably not, I mean look who I'm asking.

Rick

If you would read the study and quit pretending Im saying things that I am not saying then you woud have a chance at understanding

I'd like you to explain how this quote:

If Americans continue to allow the wealthy to become wealthier then they are allowing their standard of living to fall.

doesn't mean that we as American's need to not allow other American's to accumulate wealth. Sure sounds to me like that's exactly what you're saying.

Rick

Everyone gets taxed right?

lets tax these people in equal ammounts to what they cost our society.

We can also place regulations on industry and business to keep anyone individual from cornering too many assets.

You learned NOTHING from the too big to fail mess we just had?

 

[The Infidel]

Note the cons are not coming anywhere near this thread.

Its like screaming down an old well....all the smart folks hear is an echoe here

 

[Immanuel]

If there is a class war in this country it is being waged by some of the wealthy and not by the middle class and poor.

I don't know about that. Seems to me you do a damned fine job of waging that war all by yourself. Why, look at this very thread? You are doing it again.

Immie

 

[The Infidel]

Everyone gets taxed right? NO

lets tax these people in equal ammounts to what they cost our society. WHO DECIDES THE COST ..... YOU? Gawd help us all..!

We can also place regulations on industry and business to keep anyone individual from cornering too many assets. We already do this.

You learned NOTHING from the too big to fail mess we just had? Yes, throwing 100's of BILLIONS at the problem, and it didnt work!

You really are vapid of any intlellect.

 

[Immanuel]

the person who sold it to you no longer has it.

Why dont you try reading the study and then telling me what you think about the real study?

No, the person who sold it now has cold hard cash.

Good lord, is that too difficult to understand?

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

If you would read the study and quit pretending Im saying things that I am not saying then you woud have a chance at understanding

I'd like you to explain how this quote:

If Americans continue to allow the wealthy to become wealthier then they are allowing their standard of living to fall.

doesn't mean that we as American's need to not allow other American's to accumulate wealth. Sure sounds to me like that's exactly what you're saying.

Rick

Everyone gets taxed right?

lets tax these people in equal ammounts to what they cost our society.

We can also place regulations on industry and business to keep anyone individual from cornering too many assets.

You learned NOTHING from the too big to fail mess we just had?

So you do want to put a cap on how much wealth people can accumulate!

"I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money". B.H.O., April, 2010

Bonafide, I tell ya, bon-a-fide!

 

[Truthmatters]

the person who sold it to you no longer has it.

Why dont you try reading the study and then telling me what you think about the real study?

No, the person who sold it now has cold hard cash.

Good lord, is that too difficult to understand?

Immie

Do they still have the stock?

No and that was my point

 

[California Girl]

Am I to assume that truthdon'tmatter does not want to answer a simple question?

 

[Truthmatters]

I'd like you to explain how this quote:

doesn't mean that we as American's need to not allow other American's to accumulate wealth. Sure sounds to me like that's exactly what you're saying.

Rick

Everyone gets taxed right?

lets tax these people in equal ammounts to what they cost our society.

We can also place regulations on industry and business to keep anyone individual from cornering too many assets.

You learned NOTHING from the too big to fail mess we just had?

So you do want to put a cap on how much wealth people can accumulate!

"I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money". B.H.O., April, 2010

Bonafide, I tell ya, bon-a-fide!

Nope.

Its not allowing someone to buy everything.

If everyone desides to give one person all their assets then that is fine.

Do you think that is likely to happnen?

 

[editec]

PERI: : Searching for the Supposed Benefits of Higher Inequality: Impacts of Rising Top Shares on the Standard of Living of Low and Middle-Income Families



The results of this study indicate that increases in the top share of income (whether of the top 10 percent or top one percent) lead to declines in the actual incomes (and earnings) of low and middle income households.

I do NOT think it is a straight line trend, TM.

I think that in this system we have, we need to have an invesment class and a worker class.

If the investment class does not have enough money, if the consuming classes are eating up all the seed corn (in our case that seed corn is money) then it does behoove us to initiate SUPPLY SIDE policies such that there is capital for furture development.


This is, of course, not the situation facing us today.

Today we are imbalanced in the other direction.

One where the investment class has all the seed corn and realizing that there is no market for new corn harvests, they are NOT investing in future projects to the extent is necessary for a healthy economy.

We need to change the system such that those with all the corn start planting it again.

Sticking with your analogy ed, people have to want the corn, otherwise what point is their in planting it.

True enough.

In other words there has to be demand.

Precisely.

For their to be demand there has to be some level of certainty of wha the future will hold.

Yes

Right now the investment class doesn't have that which is why they are hoarding the 'corn' taking a wait and see approach.

Yup. Their uncertainty is quite reasonable, too. They see that the consumers are not spending and they see WHY the consumers are not spending, too. Because in the last 40 years the consumers have taken every avenue available to them to keep going (sending their women to work, working more hours, borrowing on credit cards, and then borrowing on the equity of their homes) and are now pretty much berift of new options to keep up the former q1uality of life.

Demand, in the economic sense of the word, is not just people wanting something. Most of us want new stuff. It's our financial situation that is preventing them from acting on those wants.

Yup. From an economic Supply/DEMAND standpoint demand isn't really demand until somebody BUYS something.

This includes corporations, there are the ones that really need to start buying to get this kick started. The best way I can think to do that is to make it easier for them to do business. Reduce their liabilities to the government and remove some government red tape.

What "red tape" exists today, after the meltdown that did not exist BEFORE the meltdown?

Aside from the Obama HC fiasco, I mean?

YOu see, I think you're putting the cart before the horse, here.

Businesses didn't stop investing until the consumers stopped consuming.

Now I completely agree with you that businesses must invest and that will certainly help in recovery.

But as I think we both know, businesses aren't going to invest until the consumers start spending, too.

We're NOT in a recession because businesses are paying too high a tax. We're not in a recsssion because big businesses are lacking capital, either.

Finally I don't buy the premise that businesses are being discouraged by regulations because if anything, they are in a more regulatory free environment now than ever!

We're in a recession because the MARKET (read the buyers) are broke.

Why are they broke?

In part because their purchasing power over the last 4 decades has eroded.

Now what caused that?

Trade laws that sent their job offshore in the biggest factor, and the fiat money game (where the workers ALWAYS lose) is the other biggest factor.

If we truly want to fix the American economy, we have to start by finding ways to fix the working class economy.

Beating down unionism and sending more jobs off shore is clearly NOT the way to do that.

Neither incidetly is increasing taxes on the wealthy.

Neither is decreasing the amount of money governments spend.

Both of those ideas exascerbates the problem we are facing.

One is the DEM solution, the other the REP solution.

 

[Truthmatters]

Am I to assume that truthdon'tmatter does not want to answer a simple question?

Im not going to hang arround and try to read your mind.

You tell me the word you are trying to make me devine from your wilted brain.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Am I to assume that truthdon'tmatter does not want to answer a simple question?

Her reply indicates that she can't.

 

[Immanuel]

the person who sold it to you no longer has it.

Why dont you try reading the study and then telling me what you think about the real study?

No, the person who sold it now has cold hard cash.

Good lord, is that too difficult to understand?

Immie

Do they still have the stock?

No and that was my point

And what difference does that make? Stocks are assets just as cash is. The only way the person who sold those stocks would have lost any wealth is if they had bought the stocks at a price that is higher than what they sold it for. No one forced them to sell it. Likewise the only way the person that bought those stocks gets wealthier is when dividends are paid or if they sell the stocks later for a profit.

No one forced the seller to sell. It was a conscious decision.

But a single transaction between two willing parties does not make one more wealthy and the other poorer.

Immie

 

[Skull Pilot]

the person who sold it to you no longer has it.

Why dont you try reading the study and then telling me what you think about the real study?

I Bought them on the stock exchange and if you knew anything about that you'd know that there need not be a share sold for every share bought because the stock exchange is not a zero sum game.

I'm not listening to some 14 minute long video clip of some moron trying to sell the fiction that income or wealth is a zero sum game.

 

[Truthmatters]

when you buy as share of a company you are buying just that.

a piece of it.

how many times they slice it doesnt change that you have bought a slice does it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

when you buy as share of a company you are buying just that.

a piece of it.

how many times they slice it doesnt change that you have bought a slice does it?

Wow you really don't get it do you?

If I buy 1000 shares in X company and no shares are sold that day does the value of the shares of other holders decrease?

The answer is no.

 

[The Infidel]

when you buy as share of a company you are buying just that.

a piece of it.

how many times they slice it doesnt change that you have bought a slice does it?

You forget that the "pie" is not supposed to stay the same size... even Obama knows that

Come on TM.... stop making an ass of yourself.

 

[hboats]

If you would read the study and quit pretending Im saying things that I am not saying then you woud have a chance at understanding

I'd like you to explain how this quote:

If Americans continue to allow the wealthy to become wealthier then they are allowing their standard of living to fall.

doesn't mean that we as American's need to not allow other American's to accumulate wealth. Sure sounds to me like that's exactly what you're saying.

Rick

Everyone gets taxed right?

lets tax these people in equal ammounts to what they cost our society.

We can also place regulations on industry and business to keep anyone individual from cornering too many assets.

You learned NOTHING from the too big to fail mess we just had?

So, we're going to tax people in equal amounts to what they cost our society? Wouldn't that mean that someone on welfare living in government housing should pay more in taxes? Sounds great, oh wait, you're talking about making the people who already contribute the most to our society pay more.

You really do have a screwed up world view Truthnevermatters.

And you're still proposing a cap on wealth. You haven't explained how your above quote doesn't mean exactly what I said it means. I won't wait for an answer, because I'm sure it's almost time for you to tuck your tail and run from this thread, since you've been called on your idiotic lies.

Rick

 

[California Girl]

Am I to assume that truthdon'tmatter does not want to answer a simple question?

Im not going to hang arround and try to read your mind.

You tell me the word you are trying to make me devine from your wilted brain.

It's quite straightforward. The important word in that overview: 'could'. Look it up. You will find it does not mean 'would' or 'will'. It is an indicator of probability. It does not mean 'proof'. The study does not 'prove', it indicates a probability of an outcome.

I recommend you learn the skill (and it is a skill) of interpreting research results before you start using research results to 'prove' your stupidity. You show absolutely no ability to think critically. None. Nada. Zip. You're intellectually lazy and somewhat irrational.

 

[Truthmatters]

when you buy as share of a company you are buying just that.

a piece of it.

how many times they slice it doesnt change that you have bought a slice does it?

Wow you really don't get it do you?

If I but 1000 shares in X company and no shares are sold that day does the value of the shares of other holders decrease?

The answer is no.

Where did I ever say it did?

You people are trying REAL hard to avoid the facts this study found.

When you concentrate TOO much wealth in too few hands it harms the vast majority of peoples lifes in the society.


So which is the society you want to see with your policy decisions?


More people having a decent level of human experience for their hard work in society OR a soceity where we end up with a few small uber wealthy class and everyone else living a third world exsistance?

That is the choice we are about to make.

how would you vote to protect yout own self interests?