U.S. Income Inequality Now Worse Than In Many Latin American Countries

[edthecynic]

Of course it's a subjective issue. That you do not find either to be "remotely left wing" proves it. I linked a UCLA (not a bastion of right wing thinking) study which concluded that both the LA Times and the WSJ news reporting were among the furthest to the left. Once again:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

Given that, it is rather easy to see the subjectivity involved in your comment, which renders it pointless unless prefaced with something like, "In my (very) subjective opinion...".

Without such a preamble, I trust that you can clearly see why I called it BS. It also belies your lack of moderation as well as objectivity despite your efforts to build such an image.
Churchill once spoke of "a sheep in sheep's clothing" which is oddly appropriate here.

That fake UCLA "study" has been thoroughly discredited in numerous threads on this board already, yet some assholes still use it as credible.

They use arbitrary ratings of congressmen and arbitrary ratings of think tanks with meaningless cites of the think tanks by the congressmen that leads to asinine conclusions like Drudge is Liberal!

But the Misinformation Voter swallows that bullshit whole and then mindlessly parrots it in a public forum.

It is odd that that whatever finding someone does not agree with is discredited while whatever they do is gospel. Spare us your nickle-and-dime store commentary. Your contribution to this thread is even less useful than Saigon's.

Still, with all his faults, he is less disingenuous than you. There is a "dingbat element" on all these public forums which by their nature, are inevitable. I invited Saigon to engage on the subject and was met by platitudes like businesses do better when engaging the workforce. Not the stuff of a serious exchange regarding the subject matter, but at least not as mind-numbing as your "observation".

I'd like to see what "discredited" the UCLA study?

Yo edtheliar, how about a link?

I already summarized it for you, but since it was over your head let me simplify it further for you. THEIR METHODOLOGY SUCKS!
That's how they came up with Drudge as a Liberal media site!!!

Language Log: Linguistics, politics, mathematics

 

[Koios]

Now then, some very, very basic concepts on economies and shit: the US is not a capitalist country.

IF I said it was I'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again!

Next time maybe you can get past the first sentence???

You use three things, ad nauseum, and interchangeably: Republican, Capitalism, IQ (ironic since I doubt yours is above 2 digits).

Read your own shit, and you'll see.

 

[Oddball]

Sue USMB, asshole.

That was not the point a$$hole!
YOU bitch about the hypocrisy of double standards while you are the living embodiment of hypocritical double standards.
Get it a$$hole?
If you still don't get it,read my sig.

I'm not the one who invoked the trailer trash card then turned around and tried to play like I was mister above it all...Koios the commie did, a$$hole.

Now go fuck yourself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No. I skipped most intro-level courses, since I already had an idea of what my education goals were.

You skipped everything past 4th grade.

I was hoping to clue you in that your abysmal ignorance is glaring on the subject.

 

[Oddball]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

now then, some very, very basic concepts on economies and shit: The us is not a capitalist country.

if i said it was i'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again!

Next time maybe you can get past the first sentence???

you use three things, ad nauseum, and interchangeably: Republican, capitalism, iq (ironic since i doubt yours is above 2 digits).

Read your own shit, and you'll see.

lose debate, change subject, and hope no one notices. Did you fool yourself, liberal??

 

[Koios]

Why should inflation adjusted wages go up if there is a lower marginal value to that labor?

Uh, interesting claims. Do you have some proof of your statement, or is it simply opinion???

If you read this, you will get some idea of what is going on in the real world. It is greatly different than the right wing talking points going around this board:

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

You need proof that there is lower marginal value to low and medium skilled labor?

Where are iPhones made and how much does it cost per unit?

Not sure of the COGS, but associates visiting me from China have on multiple occasions bought their iPhones here, since they're half the price they pay in China.

 

[edthecynic]

Sue USMB, asshole.

That was not the point a$$hole!
YOU bitch about the hypocrisy of double standards while you are the living embodiment of hypocritical double standards.
Get it a$$hole?
If you still don't get it,read my sig.

I'm not the one who invoked the trailer trash card then turned around and tried to play like I was mister above it all...Koios the commie did, a$$hole.

Now go fuck yourself.

But you were the one who CONDEMNED that on the grounds that he believed in one set of rules for himself and a different set for others, something you have practiced on this very board for everyone to see. You attacked him for being just like YOU!!!!!!

The CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood hates everything about themselves that they see in others.
Thank you.

 

[Oddball]

if i said it was i'll pay you $10,000. Bet or run away with your liberal strawman between your legs once again!

Next time maybe you can get past the first sentence???

you use three things, ad nauseum, and interchangeably: Republican, capitalism, iq (ironic since i doubt yours is above 2 digits).

Read your own shit, and you'll see.

lose debate, change subject, and hope no one notices. Did you fool yourself, liberal??

He thought he pulled that off with the bigoted '"tell it to the people in the double wide next to you" bullshit.

And there's nothing remotely liberal about him...He's a stone Marxist.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Coming from you, Ed, it's a compliment.

Now then, some very, very basic concepts on economies and shit: the US is not a capitalist country. But we allow many forms of capitalism, such as bankers, venture capital firms, and public funding of corporations.

Our economy, and indeed, our country's economic system is, consumerist. And you, assuming you're still employed, are a consumer, and not a capitalist.

Leftists are funny creatures.

Many, like you, read a Krugman column, fail to grasp what he is spewing, and pontificate from their haughty perch of ignorance.

You foolishly bandy about terms such as "consumerist" despite not having a hint of a clue what the term means.

Because you are a fool, poorly educated and full of left wing bullshit, you latch on to "post consumerism" and other ideas that you've heard on leftist hate sites or from far left editorials. Thus, you reason, employing your childish illogic, we must be a consumerist economy rather than Capitalist.

Ergo my query as to whether you even had a Jr. College economics class to stumble into, drunk and stoned on mumsy and daddy's dime. But clearly you lack even that level of exposure to economic systems.

First fact for you to grasp, consumerism is not a replacement of capitalism. It would be very unlikely (though not theoretically impossible) for consumerism to exist in anything OTHER than a capitalist economy.

Read that again, sparky.

When a leftist bandies about consumerism, it is generally an attack on the middle class and the concept that markets tailor toward the middle. Leftism is elitist by nature and seeks to reserve the luxuries of life for the ruling elite. When an economist such as Paul Krugman spews against consumerism, he is not claiming that the economy is anything other than capitalist, he is simply bemoaning the existence of the Bourgeoisie, the middle class.

But don't feel too badly. Wyatt Earp also called himself a capitalist, having gained some respect for his employers (Capitalists) who capitalized on the silver mining in Tombstone and needed a deputy marshall on its payroll, since they displaced the many small entrepreneurs (speculators) who flooded the area after silver was discovered in great quantity.

You're an astoundingly ignorant fellow, drunkenly stumbling about in a blind attempt to make a point.

Earp owned (with his brothers) the "Oriental," a highly successful casino, bar, and hotel. What this has to do with anything, no one, particularly you, knows.

So, in short, capitalism exists within economic systems, everywhere, damn near. Capitalists are those who capitalize ventures. Workers are either quasi-indentured (communist countries) or consumers (free republics).

ROFL

You are one stupid little hack, I'll grant you that.

No sparky, Capitalism is a term for a particular form of economics, based on the principles of a self-regulating market. Capitalism recognizes that trade occurs independent of the actions of rulers. Monarchs and dictators are neither required or beneficial to markets existing. Markets exist as a means of humans trading value for value. The market flowing with the guidance of the invisible hand.

And, btw, nothing of much significance is taught in intro-level courses, which you'd know, had you ever been inspired by one (if you needed to be thus inspired) and then took higher level courses where shit is taught. Ergo, when folks say it's "this and that 101," they're actually saying they're idoits and poorly educated.

While not particularly interested in your above comments, i will state that you are abysmally ignorant in this subject. Bluff and bluster cannot cover the complete lack of knowledge you demonstrate.

No doubt you would self-identify as Keynesian in school, but I guarantee that you haven't the slightest idea of what that entails. Reading and failing to grasp a Krugman column or two, does not a Keynesian make.

My only final observation is; if you ever do go back for you GED, you should seriously consider a survey level course in general economics.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I already summarized it for you, but since it was over your head let me simplify it further for you. THEIR METHODOLOGY SUCKS!
That's how they came up with Drudge as a Liberal media site!!!

Language Log: Linguistics, politics, mathematics

If you wish to attack the UCLA study, then offer valid and CITED criticism.

Your partisan drooling is unconvincing to anyone beyond the level of Jakestarkey.

A 2005 criticism of a Penn State study does little to undermine a 2012 study by UCLA.

 

[edthecynic]

l, you on the left are openly lying.

And yet neither of the sources are remotely left wing, and one has clearly right wing owners.

What are you talking about?

Ah, the irony! When you're not using tired platitudes, seems you default to outright BS:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.


Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA NewsroomWhat I was saying was the above in response to you comment. I wouldn't have thought it was that difficult. Sorry about the confusion.

I already summarized it for you, but since it was over your head let me simplify it further for you. THEIR METHODOLOGY SUCKS!
That's how they came up with Drudge as a Liberal media site!!!

Language Log: Linguistics, politics, mathematics

If you wish to attack the UCLA study, then offer valid and CITED criticism.

Your partisan drooling is unconvincing to anyone beyond the level of Jakestarkey.

A 2005 criticism of a Penn State study does little to undermine a 2012 study by UCLA.

This is why GOP hate media and the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood lies so frequently and openly to the Misinformation Voter!!!!!!!

First they are too lazy to think for themselves and when given a link they are too lazy to click on it because they are too lazy to actually read it if they do click.

Second if they do click they can't understand any of the words or numbers or schools or years.

Third Meathead's link was to a December 2005 review of the November 2005 publication of the phony UCLA study. My link was to a member of the UNIVERSITY of Pennsylvania faculty's December 2005 analysis of the flawed methodology of the 2005 UCLA fake study. There was NO 2012 UCLA study and there was NO 2005 Penn STATE study.

You are the pan-ultimate Misinformation Voter!!!

 

[Koios]

Coming from you, Ed, it's a compliment.

Now then, some very, very basic concepts on economies and shit: the US is not a capitalist country. But we allow many forms of capitalism, such as bankers, venture capital firms, and public funding of corporations.

Our economy, and indeed, our country's economic system is, consumerist. And you, assuming you're still employed, are a consumer, and not a capitalist.

Leftists are funny creatures.

Many, like you, read a Krugman column, fail to grasp what he is spewing, and pontificate from their haughty perch of ignorance.

You foolishly bandy about terms such as "consumerist" despite not having a hint of a clue what the term means.

Because you are a fool, poorly educated and full of left wing bullshit, you latch on to "post consumerism" and other ideas that you've heard on leftist hate sites or from far left editorials. Thus, you reason, employing your childish illogic, we must be a consumerist economy rather than Capitalist.

Ergo my query as to whether you even had a Jr. College economics class to stumble into, drunk and stoned on mumsy and daddy's dime. But clearly you lack even that level of exposure to economic systems.

First fact for you to grasp, consumerism is not a replacement of capitalism. It would be very unlikely (though not theoretically impossible) for consumerism to exist in anything OTHER than a capitalist economy.

Read that again, sparky.

When a leftist bandies about consumerism, it is generally an attack on the middle class and the concept that markets tailor toward the middle. Leftism is elitist by nature and seeks to reserve the luxuries of life for the ruling elite. When an economist such as Paul Krugman spews against consumerism, he is not claiming that the economy is anything other than capitalist, he is simply bemoaning the existence of the Bourgeoisie, the middle class.

But don't feel too badly. Wyatt Earp also called himself a capitalist, having gained some respect for his employers (Capitalists) who capitalized on the silver mining in Tombstone and needed a deputy marshall on its payroll, since they displaced the many small entrepreneurs (speculators) who flooded the area after silver was discovered in great quantity.

You're an astoundingly ignorant fellow, drunkenly stumbling about in a blind attempt to make a point.

Earp owned (with his brothers) the "Oriental," a highly successful casino, bar, and hotel. What this has to do with anything, no one, particularly you, knows.

So, in short, capitalism exists within economic systems, everywhere, damn near. Capitalists are those who capitalize ventures. Workers are either quasi-indentured (communist countries) or consumers (free republics).

ROFL

You are one stupid little hack, I'll grant you that.

No sparky, Capitalism is a term for a particular form of economics, based on the principles of a self-regulating market. Capitalism recognizes that trade occurs independent of the actions of rulers. Monarchs and dictators are neither required or beneficial to markets existing. Markets exist as a means of humans trading value for value. The market flowing with the guidance of the invisible hand.

And, btw, nothing of much significance is taught in intro-level courses, which you'd know, had you ever been inspired by one (if you needed to be thus inspired) and then took higher level courses where shit is taught. Ergo, when folks say it's "this and that 101," they're actually saying they're idoits and poorly educated.

While not particularly interested in your above comments, i will state that you are abysmally ignorant in this subject. Bluff and bluster cannot cover the complete lack of knowledge you demonstrate.

No doubt you would self-identify as Keynesian in school, but I guarantee that you haven't the slightest idea of what that entails. Reading and failing to grasp a Krugman column or two, does not a Keynesian make.

My only final observation is; if you ever do go back for you GED, you should seriously consider a survey level course in general economics.

So much rhetoric, that picking out the substance would be a needle-hunt in a field of haystacks.

So some mild corrections:

Earp got a 1/4 share in the Oriental for being a bouncer / strongman. But no matter. Indeed, later in life, when in CA, he called himself a "Capitalist" on his business card, when it's not clear he capitlized any ventures.

Capitalism might well be a belief in market-based regulation, but that ignores quite a bit of history and the roots of capitalist enterprises, beginning in the great city states that evolved toward the end of a period in which smaller polities, millions of them, evolved (often by force) into larger polities (a few) and commerce (trade within and without) boomed, creating an opporunity to capitlize enterprises, which was done mostly by the crown / emperor / etc., but nobles / leaders /etc also got into the game.

"Private capitalism" thus was born, in which privately-funded enterprise and ownership of goods, etc. became a larger part of the society as a whole, albeit, under strict regulation (rules of the game) that were and still are vital to capital being risked. No rules, and none would dare enter, for fear others would swindle them, free of repercussion.

As for the more modern theories on capitalism (laissez-faire, welfare-capitalism, fordism, etc, etc.) take your fucking pick. Economists, past and present (I most-closely agree with Robert Reich, btw) are all over the fucking map on it.

So to suggest there's an absolute definition/theory/whatever, merely speaks to the depth of your ignorance, and lack of formal study on the subject, truth be told.

 

[Uncensored2008]

So much rhetoric, that pikcing out the substance would be a needle-hunt in a field of haystacks.

Koios, I advise you not to attempt your usual smoke blowing and bullshitting.

You are way out of your depth.

So some mild corrections:

Oh, YOU are going to give corrections?

BWAHAHAHA

Earp got a 1/4 share in the Oriental for being a bouncer / strongman. But no matter. Indeed, later in life, when in CA, he called himself a "Capitalist" on his business card, when it's not clear he capitlized any ventures.

That you lack even a rudimentary grasp of the term or concept is utterly irrelevant to what a 19th century cowboy did or did not have on his business card.

Capitalism might well be a belief in market-based regulation, but that ignores quite a bit of history and the roots of capitalist enterprises, beginning in the great city states that evolved toward the end of a period in which smaller polities, millions of them, evolved (often by force) into larger polities (a few) and commerce (trade within and without) boomed, creating an opporunity to capitlize enterprises, which was done mostly by the crown / emperor / etc., but nobles / leaders /etc also got into the game.

What capitalism might be makes little difference in this case, because you have no grasp at all what the word, or the concepts behind the word mean.

Even your sloppy and fumbling attempt above to demean the Renaissance and the rise of the markets reveals your fundamental ignorance of the subject.

A gentleman whom you've never heard of, wrote quite eloquently of the rise of markets and the wealth of nations.

{But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old cloaths which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old cloaths which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, cloaths, or lodging, as he has occasion.*44}

Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty

"Private capitalism" thus was born, in which privately-funded enterprise and ownership of goods, etc. became a larger part of the society as a whole, albeit, under strict regulation (rules of the game) that were and still are vital to capital being risked. No rules, and none would dare enter, for fear others would swindle them, free of repercussion.

"Private Capitalism" is an ignorant term floated by a fool without regard for the meaning of language, history, or reality.

The idiotic gobbldygook you posted here doesn't baffle anyone, it merely reveals the utter depth of your ignorance, and your insipid stupidity in the belief that you can bullshit your way out of the trap you find yourself in.

Capitalism is by nature "private." And the tightly controlled markets you blather about are a figment of your own imaginings. The markets of Venice and Lourdes were a wild west affair in the early days of capitalism. So much so, that one of our most enduring terms rose from observations of the Lourdes markets.

Vincent de Gournay observed "Laissez faire et laissez passer" From this arose the foundational concept of Capitalism, let it be.

As for the more modern theories on capitalism (laissez-faire, welfare-capitalism, fordism, etc, etc.) take your fucking pick. Economists, past and present (I most-closely agree with Robert Reich, btw) are all over the fucking map on it.

You ignorant little fool, the " Journal Oeconomique" was published in 1751. Long before the Fabians, Keynesians, or other neo-Feudalism systems the left promotes,

So to suggest there's an absolute definition/theory/whatever, merely speaks to the depth of your ignorance, and lack of formal study on the subject, truth be told.

Nice weave attempt, but quite meaningless. I have asserted only that which I have asserted. Thus far my assertion is limited to this, you are abysmally ignorant of macro-economics.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

My only final observation is; if you ever do go back for you GED, you should seriously consider a survey level course in general economics.

don't count on it, this is one liberal who is actually proud of his illiteracy!

Too lazy and dumb to learn he wants to teach us his own version of economics. He has the self-assurance and intelligence of a true ego manic.

 

[Koios]

So much rhetoric, that pikcing out the substance would be a needle-hunt in a field of haystacks.

Koios, I advise you not to attempt your usual smoke blowing and bullshitting.

You are way out of your depth.

So some mild corrections:

Oh, YOU are going to give corrections?

BWAHAHAHA



That you lack even a rudimentary grasp of the term or concept is utterly irrelevant to what a 19th century cowboy did or did not have on his business card.



What capitalism might be makes little difference in this case, because you have no grasp at all what the word, or the concepts behind the word mean.

Even your sloppy and fumbling attempt above to demean the Renaissance and the rise of the markets reveals your fundamental ignorance of the subject.

A gentleman whom you've never heard of, wrote quite eloquently of the rise of markets and the wealth of nations.

{But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chuses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old cloaths which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old cloaths which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, cloaths, or lodging, as he has occasion.*44}

Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty



"Private Capitalism" is an ignorant term floated by a fool without regard for the meaning of language, history, or reality.

The idiotic gobbldygook you posted here doesn't baffle anyone, it merely reveals the utter depth of your ignorance, and your insipid stupidity in the belief that you can bullshit your way out of the trap you find yourself in.

Capitalism is by nature "private." And the tightly controlled markets you blather about are a figment of your own imaginings. The markets of Venice and Lourdes were a wild west affair in the early days of capitalism. So much so, that one of our most enduring terms rose from observations of the Lourdes markets.

Vincent de Gournay observed "Laissez faire et laissez passer" From this arose the foundational concept of Capitalism, let it be.

As for the more modern theories on capitalism (laissez-faire, welfare-capitalism, fordism, etc, etc.) take your fucking pick. Economists, past and present (I most-closely agree with Robert Reich, btw) are all over the fucking map on it.

You ignorant little fool, the " Journal Oeconomique" was published in 1751. Long before the Fabians, Keynesians, or other neo-Feudalism systems the left promotes,

So to suggest there's an absolute definition/theory/whatever, merely speaks to the depth of your ignorance, and lack of formal study on the subject, truth be told.

Nice weave attempt, but quite meaningless. I have asserted only that which I have asserted. Thus far my assertion is limited to this, you are abysmally ignorant of macro-economics.

There's a maxim that suggests the only thing worse than having never read a book is to have only read one book.

But I think you've just illustrated something worse, still: reading one book's synopsis online. Mygod, how do you get dressed in the morning? Utter fucking mystery.

 

[Oddball]

Dude, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....Seriously....

 

[Koios]

Dude, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....Seriously....

That's some clever shit. No doubt the rest of the kids at the home for the severly mentally challenged are simply dazzled by your clever retorts.

Astonishing.

 

[Oddball]

Comrade, Uncensored2008 knows more about economics by accident than you ever learned on purpose...I've learned some things from him myself.

You're so fucking stupid and arrogant that the thought hasn't even entered into your head of how badly you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground....Seriously....

That's some clever shit. No doubt the rest of the kids at the home for the severly mentally challenged are simply dazzled by your clever retorts.

Astonishing.

It's sad that you think you are fooling anyone.

Lick your wounds and move on - have some semblance of dignity.