Income Gap

uscitizen said:
But where does that capital come from to invest and take the risk with ? All of us are not born with a silver foot in our mouth.
Some seem to think all should make their money thru the market. Who would produce products for the market to gamble on if everyone played the market ?
Click to expand...

If everyone gambled on the market the market wouldn't be worth anything and everyone would stop gambling on it. It tends to be a self-sustaining cycle.

But most of the ultra-rich in America aren't of inherited wealth... inflation tends to eat away at a big families wealth over time, and most of the children in rich families are too stupid to know how to manage the fortune and end up spending it all. Then it has to be split to each generation in the future...

This is why inherited wealth was only a really big factor during the feudal times.
 
Although, I really object to calling the stock market "gambling". Hell, you'd really have to call insurance "Gambling" by that measure, cause you're betting that you'll die.
 
It's borderline retarded saying the top 10% making a lot hurts the bottom 90%.
At best it totally ignorant.:pke:
 
Watermark said:
I won't deny that the workers haven't really been gaining in the past few years. They've barely been beating inflation. I'm just disputing using income distribution to measure that.

I also won't deny that Bushes tax cuts probably weren't good for the average worker... we go through ups and down all the time, but this business cycle is odd in that the booms are all going to the rich. The poor aren't getting any of it like they have in the past. The economies too big to point at any one factor, but it seems like an awfully big coincidence that this happened just as soon as the Republicans got in office.
Click to expand...

Well, this is a fair post Water...Ok.
 
Topspin said:
It's borderline retarded saying the top 10% making a lot hurts the bottom 90%.
At best it totally ignorant.:pke:
Click to expand...

Really? Well pal, some of the best economists in the country, you know, nobel prize winning ones? disagree with you and find severe income inequality to be an alarming development.

But you know, they do give a lot of "borderline retards" nobel prizes.
 
it's so cute seeing the clueless try to swim in the deep water.
DUhhla, do you know any highly educated people struggling to make a decent income.
Please explain how punishing the rich and making less of them helps the guys in the bottom ten percent.
Don't we want more rich and not less?
What do you think the % of those in the bottom 90 that want to be in the top ten %.
I say it's 99%:pke:
 
Well, an economy in which 10% made a billion a year and the rest made a million a year (in our dollars, that is, not inflated ones) would still be a good economy and would still be good for the 90%. But you never really have an economy like that. If there's a lot of income inequality it tends to be a sign of something, although you can't definitely say anything. So you're both partially right and partially wrong...

This economy, however, is one in which I'd say that the income inequality was certainly being taken from the lower classes.
 
Topspin said:
you need to take an economics class if you think it's taken from the poor person.
Click to expand...

I explained to you my reasoning. This business cycle has been marked by an unusually low amount of actual GAIN amongst the poor. There's something causing that, and there's a lot of factors in it.
 
Darla said:
Really? Well pal, some of the best economists in the country, you know, nobel prize winning ones? disagree with you and find severe income inequality to be an alarming development.

But you know, they do give a lot of "borderline retards" nobel prizes.
Click to expand...

Long Term Capital Management.
 
check bold.

Topspin said:
it's so cute seeing the clueless try to swim in the deep water.
DUhhla, do you know any highly educated people struggling to make a decent income. YES...more than one.
Please explain how punishing the rich and making less of them helps the guys in the bottom ten percent. Taxing the rich via a progressive taxation system is not "punishing" them. Historically, economic expansion has done very well under a progressive tax system, and the rich were still, well, rich. I have already provided examples of just how the poor are being hurt earlier in the thread. You ignored that because you are an idealog and you don't want to deal with facts that do not fit your view of the world..
Don't we want more rich and not less?
What do you think the % of those in the bottom 90 that want to be in the top ten %. I say it's 99% Yes top, I think you might be on to something here. I think that poor people would like to be able to afford food and rent. Wow, that is a stunning observation you have made there. Gosh you really are smart. You say you had to get some kind of economic degree to make observations like this? Well, it was worth every penny and don't let anyone tell you any differently.
Click to expand...
 
Topspin said:
there has always been income inequality and there always will be.
Click to expand...

Well, here is another stunning economic observation from the only person on two boards who "understands" economics.

Gosh, are you sure you're not Friedman? Galbraith? Krugman even?

Well, whoever you are, keep these "lessons" coming. I know I'm learning a lot.

There's always been income inequality! Shit...well, back to the grindstone for me.
 
Troglodyte27 said:
Long Term Capital Management.
Click to expand...

Yes Trog. I will tell you, I read a book called "The working poor" by David Shipler, and I understand your feelings on this. And there are personal choices and circumstances that contribute to the problem. The thing that I liked about this book is that Shipler did not approach the subject from the view of an ideologue and does not gloss over or ignore in any way some of the bad choices and bad habits that contribute to the condition. However, to credit only those circumstances and not societal circumstances, is also to approach the problem in an idealogical manner.

Trog, you had advantages. That you would be in the same position if you came from a family of crack addicts and high school dropouts is by no means clear.
 
Topspin said:
you need to take an economics class if you think it's taken from the poor person.
Click to expand...

Top I saw on another thread that you would not be adverse to John Edwards.

You understand that he is going to move to provide universal health care, and that he is going to institute a more progressive taxation system in order to do so, don't you?
 
Watermark said:
Now you see why I'm not fair more often. I bore the hell out of people when I'm fair. I'm surprised you stayed awake through the whole two paragraphs.
Click to expand...

Well, I wasn't bored Water. I find you boring when you are playing an obnoxious character. Thoughtful opinions don't bore me.
 
Darla, any dem not just Edwards.
Here's my break down for ya.
Universal healthcare or Nationalized medicince long overdue.
I'm very left on most things even a turbo-lib.
I'd cut the military 50% and stop attacking ever 2 bit dictator that flinches.
I would not attack the rich, or overtax them
Neither will the next dem that gets elected.
Hillary/Edwards are smart enough to know how important Wall Street is to the Nations economy and won't throw a wrench in the spokes.
Not sure about Obama but I'm hopefull he gets it.:clink:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top