The Rich Are Getting Richer!

[Kimura]

I'm sorry but this is just not true, and it defies any logic whatsoever. Assets and liabilities are opposites. It's like saying, the less money you have in the bank, the more money you have. Liabilities are not assets, they are the opposite of assets. If you are calculating your net worth, you take your total assets and minus your total liabilities. Your liabilities are not also counted as your assets.

I see double-entry bookkeeping is a problem for you. For example, your mortgage is an asset to the bank and a liability for you. The same with a car note, student loan, etc.

Yep, and the liability of our debt is an asset to the Chinese government, not to us.

The Chinese desire to save in the form of US financial assets which include US Treasuries. So what?

 

[Boss]

Actually, discussing something with you is more like having a discussion with a dog. You are incapable of understanding.

Perhaps, if you could find any college willing to let you in, a course in economics would help. Though a dog trainer would probably be more appropriate.

Well, if I were inclined to study economics, I would go to George Mason University and study under Walter E. Williams. However, I am 53 and already have two degrees that I don't use. So, I think I had rather spend all my time on message boards, exposing little punk frauds like you, and baiting you into making a complete fool of yourself. It's more fun than school work.

 

[Rshermr]

QE isn’t money printing, genius. [YES IT IS!] It’s nothing more than an asset swap. [NO, IT'S NOT!]

It's the same as saying; I have this paper and ink, and a printing press, and those are my assets... so I am going to use those assets to print some currency in the basement, and swap my assets for something I can use to buy stuff. Williams suggests if you are ever charged with counterfeiting, argue that you were just engaging in monetary policy.

Jesus. You are stupid. The us gov is not a household. Just too difficult for you, isn't it boss? Just beyond your ability to understand.
Kind of like you are unable to understand that the affordable care act is not free to the public. And that there are no public insurance organizations in the act.

So, is ignorance bliss??

 

[Kimura]

QE isn’t money printing, genius. [YES IT IS!] It’s nothing more than an asset swap. [NO, IT'S NOT!]

It's the same as saying; I have this paper and ink, and a printing press, and those are my assets... so I am going to use those assets to print some currency in the basement, and swap my assets for something I can use to buy stuff. Williams suggests if you are ever charged with counterfeiting, argue that you were just engaging in monetary policy.

I explained to you how QE works from an operational standpoint.

The US government cannot counterfeit. It issues the dollar as the national unit of account. Secondly, he's really a clueless if he thinks QE is "printing money".

 

[Rshermr]

Actually, discussing something with you is more like having a discussion with a dog. You are incapable of understanding.

Perhaps, if you could find any college willing to let you in, a course in economics would help. Though a dog trainer would probably be more appropriate.

Well, if I were inclined to study economics, I would go to George Mason University and study under Walter E. Williams. However, I am 53 and already have two degrees that I don't use. So, I think I had rather spend all my time on message boards, exposing little punk frauds like you, and baiting you into making a complete fool of yourself. It's more fun than school work.

Really?? And we should believe you WHY??? When are you going to start making fools of someone?? Or are you simply talking about making a fool of yourself? If so, congratulations, you are doing a great job.

Yup. I am sure you would go to george mason university. That would be your speed. Stay in the bat shit crazy con world, and be sure you learn nothing new. Just keep lapping up that dogma. And, be completely ignorant of how stupid you look to the fact based population.

Look, it is really not your fault. Being a congenital idiot, as you are, is a medically defined malady. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Boss]

There no such thing as unfunded liabilities, genius...

Yes there are. Things that you do not have the funds to pay for, are unfunded. Things that you have promised you would pay for, are liabilities. If you have promised to pay for things that you do not have the money to pay for, they are unfunded liabilities.

as long as we can produce the real goods and services that people need to retire, there aren’t any problems in the least.

But we can't, and that is the problem. We can't even pay down the current debt we owe, we are paying the interest on it each year, which is among the largest expenditures in the fiscal budget.

Ah. Great, boss. So, we owe someone the national debt??? Who would you suggest writing a check to???
If we do not pay down the debt, then what, genius??? Armageddon?? Large unworldly dragons descending upon us? What, in that pea brain of yours, is your fear?

Well, my fear is morons like you, who think we can just keep spending money we don't have for things we don't really need. At some point, the interest on our credit card becomes more than our income, and the repo man cometh.

I would suggest, 1) that we stop spending money we don't have for things we don't need. 2) we start making an effort to pay down the principle on our debt. 3) we render morons such as yourself, incapable of any future decisions regarding our budget and finances.

 

[Rshermr]

QE isn’t money printing, genius. [YES IT IS!] It’s nothing more than an asset swap. [NO, IT'S NOT!]

It's the same as saying; I have this paper and ink, and a printing press, and those are my assets... so I am going to use those assets to print some currency in the basement, and swap my assets for something I can use to buy stuff. Williams suggests if you are ever charged with counterfeiting, argue that you were just engaging in monetary policy.

I explained to you how QE works from an operational standpoint.

The US government cannot counterfeit. It issues the dollar as the national unit of account. Secondly, he's really a clueless if he thinks QE is "printing money".

But, but....boss used bold red words!!!

Remind you at all of trying to educate a dog??

 

[Rshermr]

Yes there are. Things that you do not have the funds to pay for, are unfunded. Things that you have promised you would pay for, are liabilities. If you have promised to pay for things that you do not have the money to pay for, they are unfunded liabilities.



But we can't, and that is the problem. We can't even pay down the current debt we owe, we are paying the interest on it each year, which is among the largest expenditures in the fiscal budget.

Ah. Great, boss. So, we owe someone the national debt??? Who would you suggest writing a check to???
If we do not pay down the debt, then what, genius??? Armageddon?? Large unworldly dragons descending upon us? What, in that pea brain of yours, is your fear?

Well, my fear is morons like you, who think we can just keep spending money we don't have for things we don't really need. At some point, the interest on our credit card becomes more than our income, and the repo man cometh.

I would suggest, 1) that we stop spending money we don't have for things we don't need. 2) we start making an effort to pay down the principle on our debt. 3) we render morons such as yourself, incapable of any future decisions regarding our budget and finances.

Profound again, dipshit. So, you prefer not to study economics. Great. That explains a lot. Like why you can not explain to anyone what happens if we do not "pay down" the national debt. And why you can not explain who we should write a check to. Just too difficult, boss. Go out to your bat shit crazy con web sites, and find an answer. So you can look stupid AGAIN..

 

[Boss]

Kind of like you are unable to understand that the affordable care act is not free to the public.

LOL... No shit, Sherlock!

 

[Kimura]

Well, my fear is morons like you, who think we can just keep spending money we don't have for things we don't really need. At some point, the interest on our credit card becomes more than our income, and the repo man cometh.

The US sets the interest rate at which it acquires debt. The FED controls the interest rate all along the term structure. There is no repo man, the US can always pay off any of its debts.

I would suggest, 1) that we stop spending money we don't have for things we don't need. 2) we start making an effort to pay down the principle on our debt. 3) we render morons such as yourself, incapable of any future decisions regarding our budget and finances.

Why would we do that? The only problem would be inflation, but quite frankly, with all of our excess capacity and high unemployment numbers, that's not going to happen. If we we're at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then I'd be worried about inflation.

From a macroeconomic standpoint, the spending decisions of the federal government should be based on total spending which will produce enough real output whereby firms will employ any and all available labor. Deficits are trivial, they can be too small or too large. The goal of government is to get it to the point where we can employ all productive capacity.

 

[Rshermr]

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

In the U.S., the Rich Are Getting Richer While the Poor Get Poorer - ABC News

The Rich Are Getting Richer And Everyone Else Is Getting Hosed - Business Insider

State of Working America preview: The rich get richer | Economic Policy Institute

Haves and have nots: America's rich get richer

A Look at the Numbers: How the Rich Get Richer | Mother Jones

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/op...cher.html?_r=0

In This Recovery, the Rich Get Richer | Smart Charts, What Matters Today | BillMoyers.com

Why the Rich Are Getting Richer | Foreign Affairs

Proving my point yet again, that this is a MEME perpetrated by Liberals who have adopted Marxist Socialism. The Rich ALWAYS get Richer, it doesn't matter what kind of system, they always will get richer. The question is, do you want the rich to control all the political power and authority, or do you want them to be free market capitalists in competition for the consumer dollar? You obviously prefer to have a Ruling Class who control it all, where no one has any opportunity to escape poverty or enjoy economic prosperity. I prefer freedom.

Where does rent-seeking fit into your theory?

In economics, we have a notion of economic rent, where payments far exceed what's needed to mobilize factors of production. A perfect contemporary example would be Wall Street. It serves no other interest except its own, which we see in its parasitical and destabilizing practices. It adds a form of economic rent to every aspect of economic activity in our daily lives and society as a whole.

If we look at the vast majority of the income going to the 1%, we see that a good portion of the economic activities are economically parasitical and useless, such as serving as a CEO of an investment bank in the financial sector or receiving massive stock dividends. It should be abundantly clear that marginal productivity theory is basically useless. I still can't wrap my head around how someone can rationalize such concentrations of wealth at the very top with this idea that these people some how earned it or they deserve it due to their marginal contributions to production.

he actually has no theory. He simply posts dogma. That way he does not have to understand anything. Poor mentally ill guy. Not his fault. Just his bad luck.

 

[Rshermr]

RR has the second highest ue rate EVER.

Impossible, because both FDR's 24% and Obama's 11% are higher than Reagan's ever was. So you weren't very good with math and statistics in school either, huh?

Uh, me boy. I missed this lie. You see, Obama never, ever had an ue rate of 11%. You just lie, and lie, and lie. And then move on. But caught you again on this one. When obama took office, we were hemorrhaging jobs like crazy. From the great republican recession of 2008. The ue rate continued up to 10.2% for one month in obama's first year, then started down. Never was over 10% again. And was never at 11%, as you lie suggests.
Historical Unemployment Rates in the United States

FDR INHERITED an unemployment rate of 24%, from Hoover. Who was, me poor ignorant lying con, a republican. Another lie, me boy. Blaming the great depression on fdr when the ue rate had gone from under 3% to over 24% under the preceding republican presidents, over a period of 4 years, but went DOWN to under 9% under fdr, just does not pass the giggle test, me poor con tool liar. Caught lying again. You totally lack integrity, boss. You are a tool.

Now I know you do not mind lying in the slightest. You do it all the time. But lying about the ue rate is dangerous. Easy to catch you. So, I am waiting for your apology.

 

[Rshermr]

Kind of like you are unable to understand that the affordable care act is not free to the public.

LOL... No shit, Sherlock!

Well, good for you, boss. You said "Obamacare" gave free healthcare away. Now you admit that the recipient of hc insurance under Obamacare actually pays premiums. See how good it makes you feel to admit that you lied?

 

[Boss]

Kind of like you are unable to understand that the affordable care act is not free to the public.

LOL... No shit, Sherlock!

Well, good for you, boss. You said "Obamacare" gave free healthcare away. Now you admit that the recipient of hc insurance under Obamacare actually pays premiums. See how good it makes you feel to admit that you lied?

Again, proving your astute reading comprehension ability, or lack thereof. I never said that Obamacare gave free health care. I said that was the implied promise by everyone who supported it. You're damn straight recipients of health care insurance are going to pay a premium, and thanks to SCOTUS, this premium will be mandatory for every American, whether they want the product or not. BTW... premiums are going up 40% as of 2014.

 

[jasonnfree]

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth.

Got evidence to back that up?

Carlos Slim, The kochs, the waltons for beginners. Hard to find info about the rockefellers and rothschilds, but their wealth has to be off the charts.. The kochsuckers still seek out and always get taxpayer charity in funding their "think" tanks via 501c4 status which give useful idiots ammunition to post failed right wing dogma. In these republican infested forums though, the cons are worried more about Ophelia using food stamps to buy ding dongs than they are about how the corporations and the very wealthy scam the system.

 

[Boss]

Well, my fear is morons like you, who think we can just keep spending money we don't have for things we don't really need. At some point, the interest on our credit card becomes more than our income, and the repo man cometh.

The US sets the interest rate at which it acquires debt. The FED controls the interest rate all along the term structure. There is no repo man, the US can always pay off any of its debts.

LMAO... No, the US doesn't set the interest rate on debts it owes to others. They also cannot pay off the $15 trillion debt, or they WOULD pay it off, and save the money paid annually on the interest. Without that expense, the budget would be easy to balance.

No, there isn't a "repo man" when it comes to national debt, there is servitude. That's precisely where we're heading. It now takes until April or May for the average American to work, just to pay their tax liability. Slavery, is when we have to work 12 months to pay our liability.... we're heading in that direction.

I would suggest, 1) that we stop spending money we don't have for things we don't need. 2) we start making an effort to pay down the principle on our debt. 3) we render morons such as yourself, incapable of any future decisions regarding our budget and finances.

Why would we do that? The only problem would be inflation, but quite frankly, with allof our excess capacity and high unemployment numbers, that's not going to happen. If we we're at full employment and the economy was at full capacity, then I'd be worried about inflation.

Well, you are an idiot. Inflation happens for a myriad of reasons in combination, and you can't simply say A+B= inflation. However, the one thing that guarantees inflation, is raising taxes or regulatory fees on capitalist producers of goods and services.

From a macroeconomic standpoint, the spending decisions of the federal government should based on total spending which will produce enough real output whereby firms will employ any and all available labor. Deficits are trivial, they can be too small or too large. The goal of government is to get it to the point where we can employ all productive capacity.

Spending by the Federal government should be based on GDP, and capped at 10%. As for employment, much can be accomplished by eliminating mandates on employers who have more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance. This would prevent companies from laying off full-time workers and hiring twice as many part-timers to replace them. You see, a capitalist doesn't really mind, two part-time employees are generally more productive than a single full-time employee.

 

[Rshermr]

LOL... No shit, Sherlock!

Well, good for you, boss. You said "Obamacare" gave free healthcare away. Now you admit that the recipient of hc insurance under Obamacare actually pays premiums. See how good it makes you feel to admit that you lied?

Again, proving your astute reading comprehension ability, or lack thereof. I never said that Obamacare gave free health care. I said that was the implied promise by everyone who supported it. You're damn straight recipients of health care insurance are going to pay a premium, and thanks to SCOTUS, this premium will be mandatory for every American, whether they want the product or not. BTW... premiums are going up 40% as of 2014.

Sorry. You are wrong again. Lying I suspect. But at least wrong. Which is why you again missed providing a link.

You still have not responded to the statistics I provided you proving that healthcare without socialized healthcare insurance is 2.5Times as expensive as the average of the rest of the worlds industrialized nations. Just no response, eh, dipshit.

All we have from you is your opinion, which is the opinion of a proven liar.

 

[Rshermr]

So, boss, again proving he is an idiot, makes the following post:

Spending by the Federal government should be based on GDP, and capped at 10%. As for employment, much can be accomplished by eliminating mandates on employers who have more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance. This would prevent companies from laying off full-time workers and hiring twice as many part-timers to replace them. You see, a capitalist doesn't really mind, two part-time employees are generally more productive than a single full-time employee.

Now, since we know you have no source for this drivel, boss, and we know that you are a proven liar, why would we believe anything you say? Why, it is simple. We would not.

It's ok boss. Congenital idiocy is a medical problem. Not your fault. Just plain bad luck.

 

[Boss]

You still have not responded to the statistics I provided you proving that healthcare without socialized healthcare insurance is 2.5Times as expensive as the average of the rest of the worlds industrialized nations. Just no response, eh, dipshit.

Once again, because you are really, really, slow.... Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" virtually anything you please. This doesn't impress me like it does you, apparently.

2.5 times more expensive, and 2.5 times better quality and availability... that's why socialist rulers and tyrants come to the US for their health care, instead of staying in their own hellholes. You probably will need to update that 2.5 to 2.75 or 3.25 after Jan 2014, when Obamacare kicks in. Everything health care related is increasing in price, because someone has to pay for all the government bureaucrats now. Guess who gets to do that? Here's a clue... it's not the capitalists!

 

[Kimura]

LMAO... No, the US doesn't set the interest rate on debts it owes to others. They also cannot pay off the $15 trillion debt, or they WOULD pay it off, and save the money paid annually on the interest. Without that expense, the budget would be easy to balance.

No, there isn't a "repo man" when it comes to national debt, there is servitude. That's precisely where we're heading. It now takes until April or May for the average American to work, just to pay their tax liability. Slavery, is when we have to work 12 months to pay our liability.... we're heading in that direction.

The Federal Reserve controls the interest rate all along the term structure. I can explain it to you in detail if need be from A-Z. Again, your talking points are based off of the erroneous assumption we’re still on a fixed exchange rate.

Also, if we balanced the budget, it would cause the domestic private sector to go into deficit. One sector’s surplus is another sector’s deficit.

This whole notion that US bonds are somehow a burden for the private sector – or our kids or grandchildren – is based on the erroneous belief that bonds are debt in the literal sense of the word. The whole belief being that the federal government must pay off the debt at some point. And that this process will be a problem for the government.

What would happen if we just decided to pay off US public debt in one shot? Any and all outstanding US bonds would be replaced with bank reserves and bank deposits. The consequences of such action could be deflation or inflation which is undesirable. The point is that dollars and bonds are financial liabilities of the federal government. This means they are also assets of the non-government sector. Neither of these – bonds or currency – can be a burden for future generations.

In the event any future holders of US bonds prefer to hold dollars, or if the federal government wants to decrease the amount of its bonds, all it has to do is stop rolling over bonds. Or the FED could stop buying back bonds. Funds would simply be transferred from US bonds to reserve accounts at the FED. This is done by changing number on a computer screen. Think of an Excel spreadsheet as an example.

This has zero effect on the overall amount of non-government financial assets. It only affects the overall composition, as some of them are transferred from bonds (interest-bearing) to dollars (non-interest bearing). People sometimes erroneously refer to this as “monetizing the debt” which is really misleading when we think about it. It should be viewed as shifting overall asset composition from bonds to dollars in the non-government sector.

Well, you are an idiot. Inflation happens for a myriad of reasons in combination, and you can't simply say A+B= inflation. However, the one thing that guarantees inflation, is raising taxes or regulatory fees on capitalist producers of goods and services.

Yes, inflation is more than an increase in the supply of money. That was my point, reread my post.

Spending by the Federal government should be based on GDP, and capped at 10%. As for employment, much can be accomplished by eliminating mandates on employers who have more than 50 full-time employees to provide health insurance. This would prevent companies from laying off full-time workers and hiring twice as many part-timers to replace them. You see, a capitalist doesn't really mind, two part-time employees are generally more productive than a single full-time employee.

Why would you tie spending to GDP? That would be disastrous. First of all, modern capitalist economists aren’t structured to handle full employment. As a country, we abandoned full employment as a national policy goal after WWII. It was a mistake.

Budget surpluses don't provide any type of increased ability for the federal government to meet future needs, nor do budget deficits destroy this ability. The federal government always has the ability to spend in its own currency.

US productivity is already at an all-time high. What’s your point?