|
|
On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case.
Can you provide evidence for everything in bold?
|
The NY Times wrote an article in 2009 that the economy in 1982 was far worse than today.
But the hard statistics:
Unemployment: 10.1% in Sept 1982, 7.8% in Sept 2012
Median income: $19004 in 1982 ($45,139 in 2012 dollars), $49,103 in 2011 ($50,054 in 2012 dollars)
Federal debt: $1.1 trillion in 1982 (35.2% of GDP), $16.1 trillion as of today (102% of 2011 GDP)
|
On October 06 2012 05:19 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:08 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 06 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote:
I love it when people defend capitalism by saying things like "hey, it's better than Bangladesh."
Makes my job so much easier. His argument is that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth. Focusing on the specifics of the nation of Bangladesh is to completely ignore the central point he was trying to make. I guess your job is to beat up straw men. Absolute wealth doesn't mean jack shit if only a fraction of the population sees the colour of it. You can very well have absolute help growing and 90% of the people situation getting worse. Oh wait, that reminds me president Bush mandates, how funny. In all seriousness, what matters is that people's situation improves. Period. And "people" are not Romney and his billionaires friends. But do you understand that there's no scenario in which the economy grows in a way that the poor get richer but the rich stay the same or get poorer?
Uh, there is such a scenario, it's called "reality". You can talk about hypothetical all you want and maybe it really does hold true in Candyland or on Mars or whatever, but meanwhile, in reality, massive increases in wealth for the super-rich and stagnation for everyone else is the real life--totally not in the Matrix or Plato's Cave or Kirby's Dreamland--reality.
|
On October 05 2012 14:44 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 14:25 CatharsisUT wrote:On October 05 2012 12:19 CajunMan wrote:
If you seriously believe that's how Bain worked you really need to not vote because your understanding is very limited.
All companies bought by Bain are failing and going out of business. Bain's job is to take the business and restructure it so it can A) Survive and B) Make a profit. Without Bain every person in every business they purchase would be out of work instead of only some. To say Bain just buys businesses and fires people is ignorant and stupid because they would have no job if not for Bain. I suppose your angry about them making a profit off of helping businesses survive as well?
That's not actually true. PE firms buy a wide range of companies. Some of them are struggling, but most of them aren't. Sometimes it's a family business that the founders are ready to retire from. Sometimes it's a part of a larger company that wants to change its focus. There are a huge number of rationales for PE transactions, so it's not fair to say that every company they buy would be out of business otherwise. HOWEVER, you make a very important point, which is that Bain and other PE firms make the most money when their investments are successful. The goal is always to leave the company as profitable as possible (when you sell a company, the buyer generally pays some industry-appropriate percentage of earnings; the higher the earnings, the better Bain does). So yes, sometimes that means moving/consolidating production facilities, but IMO that's not a bad thing. Improved efficiency is a constant of business. It certainly hurts the people whose jobs are lost, but it's inevitable. PE gets a bad wrap for that kind of thing because they are often seen as the instigators. If you want to read more about the PE aspects of the election, Dan Primack writes for Fortune about the industry, and his takes on the election have thus far been fairly insightful from someone who knows how the industry actually works. Or you can just read about Romney and his Bain record! http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/mitt-romney-is-lying-again-20120830 (more in depth here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829 ) http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829
I've read the Taibbi article, and that's the reason I mentioned Primack. Taibbi, at least in this case, did a hack job. Primack wrote a good response (and opens with the best point, which is that Taibbi spends so much time criticizing the private equity structure it detracts from his best point, which is that Romney opposing debt is pretty ironic).
Primack response
In particular, Taibbi is just making things up when he says "In the Bain model, the actual turnaround isn't necessary. It's just a cover story. It's nice for the private equity firm if it happens, because it makes the acquired company more attractive for resale or an IPO. But it's mostly irrelevant to the success of the takeover model, where huge cash returns are extracted whether the captured firm thrives or not."
That "resale or IPO" is how PE firms make their returns. Throughout the piece Taibbi tries to make the point that once a PE fund invests in a company they have already made their profit because they can just take whatever they want. That is a horribly uninformed opinion; in my opinion, Taibbi doesn't actually believe it himself, it just works for his narrative.
The links posted above are not a reasonable introduction to Bain and PE generally as they were written by someone with a very clear agenda.
|
On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold?
I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims.
|
On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims.
Debt economy.
|
On October 06 2012 05:40 coverpunch wrote:The NY Times wrote an article in 2009 that the economy in 1982 was far worse than today. But the hard statistics: Unemployment: 10.1% in Sept 1982, 7.8% in Sept 2012 Median income: $19004 in 1982 ($45,139 in 2012 dollars), $49,103 in 2011 ($50,054 in 2012 dollars) Federal debt: $1.1 trillion in 1982 (35.2% of GDP), $16.1 trillion as of today (102% of 2011 GDP)
Comparing "incomes" across decades are practically meaningless. There are dozens of reasons for this. First of all, inflation is typically based upon the consumer price index which itself has a strong inflationary bias. Money income is adjusted by taking into account the cost of living, which is measured by the cost of some collection of items commonly bought by most people. The problem with that approach is that what people buy is affected by price. When video cassette recorders were first introduced, they sold for $30,000 each and were sold as a luxury item at Neiman Marcus stores. Only many years later after their price declined below $200 were they so widely used that they were included in the collection of items used to determine the consumer price index. All the previous years of dramatically declining prices had no effect on the statistics used to compile the CPI. The same general pattern has occurred with innumerable other goods that went from being rare luxuries to common items. This trend has only been more exacerbated by the advances in technology and the pace of cost reductions in that sector.
A further inflationary bias in the consumer price index is that many goods which are increasing in price are also increasing in quality, so that the higher prices do not necessarily reflect inflation as they would if prices for the same identical goods were rising.
"Real wages" are simply money wages adjusted for the cost of living, as measured by the consumer price index. If that index is biased upward, it means that real wage statistics are biased downward. A difference of one percentage point in the CPI over a period of 25 years means that the average American income is under-estimated by around $9,000 a year. And in practice, it was during periods of "declining real wages" that the total consumption of goods and the average net worth of American's have increased dramatically.
And again, and even greater complication in measuring changes in the standard of living is that more and more of the increase in compensation for work takes the form of fringe benefits, rather than direct wages. Thus, in the United States, total compensation has been rising over the same span of years during which real wages have been declining.
|
On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims.
The people below poverty line usually don't have all these things, I know tons of families, people without cars(use public transportation). Most of them have some kind of computer shared among there family at home, with the "free" internet their apartment provides or the "free" internet their neighbors provide, because computers are needed for a lot of things from school for their children to job applications and job hunting, to personal comfort, I would not consider a cheap computer to be this huge luxury in this day and age. They don't have cell phones or don't have fancy cell phones, seriously this is all anecdotal evidence and so is yours, people have posted charts showing the distribution in new wealth over the last 30 years has gone entirely to the rich.
|
On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims.
You should visit some properly poor neighborhoods.
|
On October 06 2012 05:54 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims. The people below poverty line usually don't have all these things, I know tons of families, people without cars(use public transportation). Most of them have some kind of computer shared among there family at home, with the "free" internet their apartment provides or the "free" internet their neighbors provide, because computers are needed for a lot of things from school for their children to job applications and job hunting, to personal comfort, I would not consider a cheap computer to be this huge luxury in this day and age. They don't have cell phones or don't have fancy cell phones, seriously this is all anecdotal evidence and so is yours, people have posted charts showing the distribution in new wealth over the last 30 years has gone entirely to the rich.
Do you really believe that 100% of the "new wealth" over the last 30 years have gone to the rich? All the technological advances over the last 30 years, all the dramatically declining prices of technological/electronic goods, etc... not one penny of that benefit has gone to poor people? All you need to see is a chart and your common sense and personal experience get thrown out the window? That's really scary...
|
On October 06 2012 06:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:54 BlueBird. wrote:On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims. The people below poverty line usually don't have all these things, I know tons of families, people without cars(use public transportation). Most of them have some kind of computer shared among there family at home, with the "free" internet their apartment provides or the "free" internet their neighbors provide, because computers are needed for a lot of things from school for their children to job applications and job hunting, to personal comfort, I would not consider a cheap computer to be this huge luxury in this day and age. They don't have cell phones or don't have fancy cell phones, seriously this is all anecdotal evidence and so is yours, people have posted charts showing the distribution in new wealth over the last 30 years has gone entirely to the rich. Do you really believe that 100% of the "new wealth" over the last 30 years have gone to the rich? All the technological advances over the last 30 years, all the dramatically declining prices of technological/electronic goods, etc... not one penny of that benefit has gone to poor people? All you need to see is a chart and your common sense and personal experience get thrown out the window? That's really scary...
My common sense and personal experience? Really? That's your argument? That I'm the one not using common sense and personal experience?
I really want to know where you guys live that you can tell me I'm not using common sense.. You think there is not an issue with poverty and such right now? Is it some really nice suburb with walls around it where your cut off from the rest of the world? Where is my common sense? Seriously?
I think our poor can benefit from technological goods/services and still totally be fucked. Our middle class is shrinking. The amount of people below poverty line is growing. Our fucking quality of life is really low compared to most of Europe. Honestly, defending this bullshit with what you call "common sense" makes me sick.
|
On October 06 2012 06:05 BlueBird. wrote:
Is it some really nice suburb with walls around it where your cut off from the rest of the world?
Well, the things get in, it's just the people that stay out.
|
On October 06 2012 06:01 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:54 BlueBird. wrote:On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims. The people below poverty line usually don't have all these things, I know tons of families, people without cars(use public transportation). Most of them have some kind of computer shared among there family at home, with the "free" internet their apartment provides or the "free" internet their neighbors provide, because computers are needed for a lot of things from school for their children to job applications and job hunting, to personal comfort, I would not consider a cheap computer to be this huge luxury in this day and age. They don't have cell phones or don't have fancy cell phones, seriously this is all anecdotal evidence and so is yours, people have posted charts showing the distribution in new wealth over the last 30 years has gone entirely to the rich. Do you really believe that 100% of the "new wealth" over the last 30 years have gone to the rich? All the technological advances over the last 30 years, all the dramatically declining prices of technological/electronic goods, etc... not one penny of that benefit has gone to poor people? All you need to see is a chart and your common sense and personal experience get thrown out the window? That's really scary...
So what if it's actually just 99% instead? Or even 98%? If you give the pies to the rich and feed the poor with the crumbs, that's not a very sustainable model because pretty soon you're going to have to be baking mountains of pies just to keep people from starving. There's only so much butter in the world...
|
The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago?
Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5IXHH.png)
|
On October 06 2012 06:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago? Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand. + Show Spoiler +
So you're asking for a race to the bottom, not a race to the top?
Technology has improved our standard of living but effective wages etc have been falling.
|
On October 06 2012 06:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago? Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand.
I am very happy that we have benefited from AC's becoming cheaper and produced in higher quantities, but if you think people having AC is going to change my view on the state of the country your mistaken. Your situation is very specific, maybe you live in an area that it's cheaper to live, you might not have others to support with your income, you might not have other financial responsibilities that others might such as school debt or medical bills. Your situation does not disprove poverty.
|
On October 06 2012 05:59 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate. No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims. You should visit some properly poor neighborhoods.
I let them come to me when I am participating with my Church community that gives out 300$ worth of food to each person. All those food stamps they got- they just sell, sometimes right in front of me. The amount of smoke/alchol on them is saddening.
I had to stop helping cause I just got so mad, they don't need help- they need work ethic.
|
On October 06 2012 06:22 SayGen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 05:59 JinDesu wrote:On October 06 2012 05:46 SayGen wrote:On October 06 2012 05:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 05:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 05:06 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
[quote]
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class. Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody. Which, as I said, makes no sense at all today. http://www.oecd.org/social/name,59278,en.htmhttp://www.oecd.org/std/labourstatistics/societygovernmentsmusttacklerecordgapbetweenrichandpoorsaysoecd.htmConsidering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now. Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago. Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no. You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth. How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape. If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets. Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982. Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects. Ok, so let's make a list: In the last thirty years:- richs got MUCH MUCH richer ... meanwhile, - poors got poorer
- middle class income didn't improve
- the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit
- unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period. Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case. Can you provide evidence for everything in bold? I want to know how the poor have gotten poorer when I see more people than ever with cars, AC, Computers, Iphones, and 700$ spinner rims. You should visit some properly poor neighborhoods. I let them come to me when I am participating with my Church community that gives out 300$ worth of food to each person. All those food stamps they got- they just sell, sometimes right in front of me. The amount of smoke/alchol on them is saddening. I had to stop helping cause I just got so mad, they don't need help- they need work ethic.
Then those are the ones taking advantage of the system - and taking advantage of people who are uneducated, work two jobs to take care of the family, live in trailers without AC computers and iphones, etc.
Yes - there are poor people who game the system. Unfortunately they hurt the properly poor people that actually need these benefits.
|
On October 06 2012 06:18 BlueBird. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 06:14 jdseemoreglass wrote:The reason the number of people below the poverty line is growing is because our society has been consistently raising the bar for what poverty actually means. By the current government definition, I am living below the poverty line. I am well housed, well fed, I own good transportation, air-conditioned, I can even afford things like a cell phone or cable television. Do you think that was the standard for poverty 30 years ago? Here is just one metric to look at out of a thousand. I am very happy that we have benefited from AC's becoming cheaper and produced in higher quantities, but if you think people having AC is going to change my view on the state of the country your mistaken.
Sure, I didn't expect facts to change your world view.
Look, I don't care if you want to be a big government liberal who advocates more redistribution of wealth. I have no problem with that, it's a valid position. But when you say things like suggesting we aren't any better off than we were 30 years ago, I have to assume that you are either being terribly disingenuous or are just lacking in common sense. Based on your post I guess I will now assume the former.
Why do people find it so hard to say things like, "Yes, I agree that society has been progressing and that the standards of poverty are rising. However, I still think we need to do more to help the poor."
That is a sensible and perfectly fine position, and it conforms to reality. When people go to such lengths to suggest the country is a shit hole and everything is terrible and getting worse and poor people are starving to death on the streets, it comes across as either delusional or disingenuous.
|
How are people arguing about this? Didn't Romney claim he wasn't cutting taxes for the rich?
Wealth comes from the middle class, not the very rich. The rich don't create jobs. They have capital. Capital is good, don't get me wrong, but it can only create jobs indirectly (and when there's an unstable stock market it's just terrible at it). What you want to generate jobs is to give money to middle class and upper middle class because they are the ones actually running the businesses and small businesses that hire most people.
Every single time we cut taxes for the rich, the economy is relatively unaffected. All that happens is the rich get more money. That is not the efficient place to cut taxes. If anything, it's the least efficient way to cut taxes. When we have had high taxes on the rich, we've had unprecedented growth for all classes of the economy. All the empirical evidence goes against tax cuts for the rich.
The countries that are doing really well economically nowadays don't have this kind of stupidly huge wealth gap that we do. An unstable economy is exactly what we expect to occur when there's a massive wealth gap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
