the rich get richer

• isadore

  Gosh a ruddies the greedy and selfish are doing so well. Congratulations guys.
  
  "The World's 85 Richest People Are as Wealthy as the Poorest 3 Billion
  The report that everybody's talking about this morning is Oxfam's opus on global inequality, which leads with an eye-popping statistic: The richest 85 people in the world own more wealth than the bottom half of the entire global population.
  Yes, that equation works out to: 85 > 3,000,000,000.
  Before we dig into the document, a programming note about wealth inequality. Wealth isn't income. Salary is income. But investments—stocks, houses, or equity in a business—build wealth. Wealth comes from the money you don't immediately spend. Since poor people spend more of their income immediately, and rich people save/invest more of their income immediately, it's predictable that wealth inequality be much worse than income inequality.
  1) Seven in ten people live in countries where inequality has increased, and the United States is leading the wave. This graph from the report looks at national income (not wealth) accumulation to the top one percent, but it makes a clear point that inequality is rising everywhere, but nowhere more than the U.S.
  1) Seven in ten people live in countries where inequality has increased, and the United States is leading the wave.
  2) The richest 1 percent saw its share of income rise in 24 out of 26 countries for which Oxfam collected data between 1980 and 2012. Again, the story here is the U.S. leading a global trend.
  3) Related to the graph above: In the US, the wealthiest one percent "captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009," Oxfam reports. The bottom 90 percent actually lost wealth
  http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/the-worlds-85-richest-people-are-as-wealthy-as-the-poorest-3-billion/283206/
  　
  
• WebFire

  The rich get richer because they know how to, and put in the work. Cry me a river.
• WebFire

  The US is leading the wave because of all the entitlement programs. Not because of the rich.
• Belly35

  

  I will make this simple ... In the last 6 year the spread between rich and poor has widen, the gap of racism is wider, the black unemployment is the worst ever and the Democrat wealthy are richer and so are Obama butt buddies... Thanks to Obama, Democrat Socialist Party and the Government of Fools
  
  Fuck global inequality Countries want to live under a Socialist or Marxist government that their fucking problem.
  
  What equality here in America start by getting a free public education and take advantage of what is given and achieve, get a fucking job and work to make yourself better prosper, you want entitlement them you get what you get and your self worth is as low as your living standard.
  
  I wasn’t raised with being poor as my example…., rich, wealthy and prosperous is not a bad thing it what we all should strive for… achievement, prosperity and standards
  poor are poor because they want to be poor …. Hope this helps
  rich are rich because they achieve, prosper and set goals and standard… Hope this helps
• Heretic

  

  Sigh...politard threads go in the politard forum so all the tards can tard out together where non-tards don't have to be exposed to their tardness.
• GoPens

  

  Heretic;1570686 wrote:Sigh...politard threads go in the politard forum so all the tards can tard out together where non-tards don't have to be exposed to their tardness.

  Amen brotha!
• isadore

  WebFire;1570667 wrote:The US is leading the wave because of all the entitlement programs. Not because of the rich.

  America is leading the way because of policies began during the Reagan administration, it has helped to choke off the claim that the United States is the land of opportunity. Of course policies supported by those in this echo chamber for greed.
• isadore

  Belly35;1570683 wrote:I will make this simple ... In the last 6 year the spread between rich and poor has widen, the gap of racism is wider, the black unemployment is the worst ever and the Democrat wealthy are richer and so are Obama butt buddies... Thanks to Obama, Democrat Socialist Party and the Government of Fools
  
  Fuck global inequality Countries want to live under a Socialist or Marxist government that their fucking problem.
  
  What equality here in America start by getting a free public education and take advantage of what is given and achieve, get a fucking job and work to make yourself better prosper, you want entitlement them you get what you get and your self worth is as low as your living standard.
  
  I wasn’t raised with being poor as my example…., rich, wealthy and prosperous is not a bad thing it what we all should strive for… achievement, prosperity and standards
  poor are poor because they want to be poor …. Hope this helps
  rich are rich because they achieve, prosper and set goals and standard… Hope this helps

  From the proponent of I got mine screw you.
  Oh and 6 years is tricky big guy because that is when the Bush Great Recession is beginning.
• Belly35

  

  You want equality join a bowling league where keeping score doesn’t happen, softball team where you don’t have to try out, basketball team where every one get to play or find a school where grades aren’t counted. But in real life while you have your head up your ass and crying for entitlements and equality you can kiss my ass as you get passed by in the real world…
  
  Screw you no, you’ve screwed yourself and now you want someone to leach off of … sorry I made it you, you had the same option to be successful, prosper, achieve but you pissed yours away and now you what everyone else…
• gut

  Well, the gap widens when you print money to pump $3T into the markets. And does anyone know the number? Aren't our "poor" wealthier than like 95% of the planet?
  
  And the gap in the US is growing more quickly because of globalization - in other words, the gap between the average American and the average other person in the world is shrinking. Isn't that a good thing from a liberal perspective, you know reducing actual poverty?
• ernest_t_bass

  

  Isadore and Belly arguing back and forth just may break the internetz.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1570708 wrote:America is leading the way because of policies began during the Reagan administration, it has helped to choke off the claim that the United States is the land of opportunity. Of course policies supported by those in this echo chamber for greed.

  
  
  Mind numbing.
• isadore

  Belly35;1570732 wrote:You want equality join a bowling league where keeping score doesn’t happen, softball team where you don’t have to try out, basketball team where every one get to play or find a school where grades aren’t counted. But in real life while you have your head up your ass and crying for entitlements and equality you can kiss my ass as you get passed by in the real world…
  
  Screw you no, you’ve screwed yourself and now you want someone to leach off of … sorry I made it you, you had the same option to be successful, prosper, achieve but you pissed yours away and now you what everyone else…

  tsk tsk tsk vulgarities, vulgarities. The Reagan era policies have shrunk opportunity and social mobility in America. And it has helped increase the attitude reflected in your comments, Social Darwinism.
• isadore

  gut;1570734 wrote:Well, the gap widens when you print money to pump $3T into the markets. And does anyone know the number? Aren't our "poor" wealthier than like 95% of the planet?
  
  And the gap in the US is growing more quickly because of globalization - in other words, the gap between the average American and the average other person in the world is shrinking. Isn't that a good thing from a liberal perspective, you know reducing actual poverty?

  the hope would be to raise for all rather than the Reagan-Bush policies that have choked off opportunity and social mobility.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1570773 wrote:Mind numbing.

  gosh a ruddies, obviously we have not reached the day when your heart grows three sizes.
• gut

  isadore;1570799 wrote:the hope would be to raise for all rather than the Reagan-Bush policies that have choked off opportunity and social mobility.

  At least people had jobs under Reagan-Bush policies. Bush/Reagan never laundered money to the rich via the Fed.
• isadore

  gut;1570820 wrote:At least people had jobs under Reagan-Bush policies. Bush/Reagan never laundered money to the rich via the Fed.

  gosh a ruddies you do not seem to remember the end of the Bush Presidency when we plunged into our Greatest economic calamity in 70 plus years. It saddled us with the worst unemployment rate in that period of time. Gosh a ruddies all of it aided by the freewheeling, unrestricted actions of Alan Greenspan at the Fed.
• WebFire

  [video=youtube;ss2hULhXf04][/video]
• BoatShoes

  gut;1570820 wrote:At least people had jobs under Reagan-Bush policies. Bush/Reagan never laundered money to the rich via the Fed.

  It really takes some kind of hubris to post around here the kinds of self-aggrandizing statements it appears you have done of late about your own views, especially as someone who is sympathetic to markets, when the most preeminent free-market economist since WWII would dismiss the acrimony behind this statement out of hand.
  
  Federal Reserve policy has been steadily moving toward using the credit and asset price channels of monetary transmission to hit its targets since at least the early 70's when inflation got built into wages. I haven't been able to post much lately but I see that you're running around here saying you "know" economics and yet a statement like: "Bush/Reagan never laundered money to the rich via the Fed" to the entirety of the Friedman/Keynes post WWII thinking on macroeconomics. As if Obama, Reagan or Bush had any real control over Fed policy in any event. If anything, FED policy has been captured by ZIRP hating rentiers in the business world who have pressured Bernanke and co. against using the "Rooseveltian Resolve" he called for when he was an academic that would be necessary for pure monetary stimulus alone to really work.
  
  Unconventional monetary policy has proven more effective than I thought it could be. Milton Friedman and his followers have been right where I was wrong. You on the other hand, are totally off the map of reality considering you oppose both monetary stimulus and fiscal stimulus to bring us back to full employment and potential output.
  
  The only thing that is going to lead to more jobs and growth is either, A. More expansionary monetary policy as Milton Friedman would suggest and the FED is trying to do now, B. A higher inflation target to lower the real interest rate as New Keynesians like Krugman would've suggest before the mask came off or C. More expansionary Fiscal Policy (hoping that the FED doesn't offset it with tight monetary policy) like Keynes the original would've called for through either large direct transfers....i.e. giving cash to people we know with certainty that they will spend it like food stamps; or, large tax cuts...i.e. giving people more cash for their current output and increasing incentives for new output and hoping that the money is spent...or large increases in direct government expenditures...i.e. giving people cash for new output, knowing with certainty that it is spent.
  
  All in all it amounts the fact that nominal spending has to go up and it has to come from some where, either the government or the private sector, in all likelihood induced by some government policy (i.e. QE and Forward Guidance inducing people to take out loans or borrow against higher valued assets, tax cuts, or handing the private sector cash, etc).
  
  You are the economics expert here and yet you reject Milton Friedman and the prescriptions of the Neo-Monetarists calling it "laundering money to the rich", you reject the prescriptions of the New-Keynesians which make up pretty much every major economics institution in the world from the FED, the World Bank, the IMF, etc. and I've seen you re-ject old school keynesianism as "quackery".
  
  You simply can't have it both ways and yet you have snobbish contempt for people who might disagree. It is one thing to be a monetarist and reject the necessity or usefulness running deficits and using fiscal stimulus, etc. But, you can't be a monetary hawk and a deficit hawk or you're going to have a depression. If it were not for Ben Bernanke and his alleged "money laundering to the rich" we would have had a depression, just like in the Great Depression when we had tight money and tight fiscal policy. If you don't want to "launder money to the rich" then you've got two choices, 1). Fiscal Stimulus of some kind...perhaps tax cuts if you're a free-marketer or 2). Depression.
  
  You can run around here acting all condescending and arrogant like you like to do, resulting to smug insults about how stupid everyone else is at every chance you get but thankfully the United States and its policy makers, whatever their flaws, as a whole are smart enough not to listen to people like yourself who call for tight money and tight fiscal policies in periods of depressed nominal spending (there are plenty) and we are liberated from having to find out just how wrong this type of thinking is.
  
  Europe on the other hand, is exhibit A. Tight Monetary Policy under current conditions that would repulse Milton Friedman and oppressive fiscal policy that would disgust John Maynard Keynes....but you'll just sit here and say that the youth unemployment rate in Spain is 57.7% because those Damn Socialists don't want to work, etc. etc. Complete liquidationist Derp that was refuted 100 years ago.
• queencitybuckeye

  I'd hope you had died.
  
  Not kidding.
• queencitybuckeye

  Your post is 100% off-topic. Perhaps you would care to speak to that.
• QuakerOats

  ACTUALLY, "The only thing that is going to lead to more jobs and growth is ..." >>>> less intrusive government, fewer regulations, repeal of obamaKare, and lowering taxes on the productive.
  
  
  AND, "...in all likelihood induced by some government policy..." >>>> Incorrect!!! WE need government to simply get the hell out of the way - period. BIG government is the problem; it should be carved out like a cancer.
  
  
  
  It is mesmerizing that the intellectual elites can continue to proffer this BS, as BS just did above. All anybody has to do is go out and talk to real business people, particularly small and mid-size businesses that do the lion's share of producing, innovating, hiring, and creating wealth. Government never created one dollar's worth of wealth, not one. All government can do is stifle free enterprise, as is on full display under the current regime.
  
  
  
• jmog

  isadore;1570821 wrote:gosh a ruddies you do not seem to remember the end of the Bush Presidency when we plunged into our Greatest economic calamity in 70 plus years. It saddled us with the worst unemployment rate in that period of time. Gosh a ruddies all of it aided by the freewheeling, unrestricted actions of Alan Greenspan at the Fed.

  And you don't seem to remember that the Carter recession was worse than the one at the end of the Bush Presidency by far.
  
  Convenient huh?
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1570848 wrote:ACTUALLY, "The only thing that is going to lead to more jobs and growth is ..." >>>> less intrusive government, fewer regulations, repeal of obamaKare, and lowering taxes on the productive.
  
  
  AND, "...in all likelihood induced by some government policy..." >>>> Incorrect!!! WE need government to simply get the hell out of the way - period. BIG government is the problem; it should be carved out like a cancer.
  
  
  
  It is mesmerizing that the intellectual elites can continue to proffer this BS, as BS just did above. All anybody has to do is go out and talk to real business people, particularly small and mid-size businesses that do the lion's share of producing, innovating, hiring, and creating wealth. Government never created one dollar's worth of wealth, not one. All government can do is stifle free enterprise, as is on full display under the current regime.
  
  
  

  gosh a ruddies bush jr. gave us tax cuts and less government regulation = worse economic catastrophe in 70 years. thank you Reaganomics.
• DeadliestWarrior34

  

  inb4 50 pages of bullshit