American Wealth Inequality

[Winehole23]

We're so fucking rich, DR, I thought it would never happen.

But I can see it now. I definitely wouldn't rule it out. The Jeffersonian purge might come back in, to freshen the tree of liberty...

or...


something possibly even worse.



I don't rule that out either...

[Winehole23]

We live in interesting times, for better and for worse.

[boutons_deux]

I don't think the US govt will be overthrown by violence. Nor will the paranoia of the camo-bubba fringe be proven to be anything but paranoia. There may be a couple of Waco/Ruby Ridge made-for-TV incidents, but they will be perpetrated by the camo-bubbas, not by the govt. Violating posse comitatus won't even be necessary. The NRA is a corporate business shill, not an army.

The capitalists and corps above all want to maintain ("conserve"-ative) and improve the status quo, which is fantastically in their favor. ie, they don't want to kill the Golden Goose, aka America The Suckered Fat-asses, that lays them endless multi-$T golden eggs.

iow, the Wall St banksters ain't gonna start wearing camo and shooting up the place. They leave that distraction to the camo-bubbas. The banksters are way too sophisticated for camo-thoughts.

Intelligent and highly motivated, they want at all costs to avoid direct confrontation and to avoid exposing who they really are. They know a large Silent Majority of Americans are fat/obese, dumb, and comfortable enough to do nothing and be demagogued by the VRWC into amusing themselves by feebly venting at the wrong, fabricated targets (immigrants, niggas, FDR, Dems, libruls, socialists, communists, lost freedoms, etc).

Very few Americans really care about politics. American know almost nothing about how the financial sector has fucked them over, and how it will now live, unregulated behind the lie of "free markets" and hidden, to fuck them over again.

Since the corps and capitalists control with their money who the serious candidates are, how their corporations depict the candidates, who wins, and how legislation/regulation is/isn't made, their is no way to save America through the political system from their predations and control. In fact, America is irretrievably lost, GAMEOVER. The VRWC shock troops have won.

The rich will continue getting richer, while the poor will keep getting poorer (and sicker from corporate food-like substances) by voting against their own interests.

eg, red-state bubbas and Bible-thumpers voting for VRWC ticket of Repugs who cut taxes for the rich and maintain/raise taxes for everybody else.

eg, Dems who vote for change but get the same ol' same ol' with some pro forma window dressing.

[LnGrrrR]

We're so fucking rich, DR, I thought it would never happen.

But I can see it now. I definitely wouldn't rule it out. The Jeffersonian purge might come back in, to freshen the tree of liberty...

or...


something possibly even worse.



I don't rule that out either...


I think you're looking at too much of a "big picture" WH23. Will the country erupt into unrest overnight? Highly doubtful. But I could certainly see pockets of frustrated citizen causing riots, unrest and the like.

How many death threats did those bankers receive, after all?

[RandomGuy]

We're so fucking rich, DR, I thought it would never happen.

But I can see it now. I definitely wouldn't rule it out. The Jeffersonian purge might come back in, to freshen the tree of liberty...

or...


something possibly even worse.



I don't rule that out either...

Extra Stout seems to be convinced of it.

[RandomGuy]

Yes, and the more assets taken away from them, the less they have to create new jobs.


Ah yes, the supply-side argument.

Tell me, how would you go about supporting this thesis with actual data or economics principles?

Let's start with a fairly simple concept from macro/micro economics. I will post it and check back later today on my afternoon break.

R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?

Well a day has passed and neither WC, nor Darrin has answered.

WC may or may not have actually read the question, so I will leave it out there a bit longer.

The lack of response simply adds to my overall assertion that almost all on the right who represent themselves to be "free market" advocates know next to nothing about economics.

[DarrinS]

Well a day has passed and neither WC, nor Darrin has answered.


Actually, I answered you yesterday. I said that I don't know and neither do you.

[Winehole23]

Extra Stout seems to be convinced of it.If ES still posts here, he's not using that handle. I miss him. I hope he's doing alright.

[RandomGuy]

Actually, I answered you yesterday. I said that I don't know and neither do you.

I do know the answer for certain.

The fact that you insist that the answer cannot be known from the information given simply adds to the level of self-pwnage, when I finally explain it.

The pwnage will be exacerbated by the fact that it would have taken so little effort on your part to actually find the answer, even when given a fairly solid hint.

Why do you do this kind of thing to yourself?

[EVAY]

I do know the answer for certain.

The fact that you insist that the answer cannot be known from the information given simply adds to the level of self-pwnage, when I finally explain it.

The pwnage will be exacerbated by the fact that it would have taken so little effort on your part to actually find the answer, even when given a fairly solid hint.

Why do you do this kind of thing to yourself?

laziness.

[Nbadan]

Oh, there was ownage...on RG for bothering with DarrinS

[Winehole23]

http://www.mexicolore.co.uk/uploadimages/244_01_2.jpg

DarrinS keeps putting himself out there for it. Casual bystanders are sometimes tempted to take a swing.

[Winehole23]

@Nbadan:

The case being that DarrinS kicks his own ass in this forum practically on a daily basis, I guess you do have a point about the gratuitousness of taking him to account at all, but everyone gets to dispose of his/her own free time, verdad?

Why so harsh on RG? :lol

[DarrinS]

I do know the answer for certain.

The fact that you insist that the answer cannot be known from the information given simply adds to the level of self-pwnage, when I finally explain it.

The pwnage will be exacerbated by the fact that it would have taken so little effort on your part to actually find the answer, even when given a fairly solid hint.

Why do you do this kind of thing to yourself?


You claim to know the answer, but you don't post it. Then you claim I've somehow "pwned" myself. You and WH should get together for some whine and cheeze.

If I didn't know the answer, it's because I'm being honest. I guess I could Google an equation, plug in all the parameters, and pat myself on the back for a job well done.

But, you can use an equation or mathematical model for anything. But all models are simply that -- models.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box

[LnGrrrR]

But, you can use an equation or mathematical model for anything. But all models are simply that -- models.

Really?

I reallllllly hope you aren't any sort of engineer. :lol

[RandomGuy]

Oh, there was ownage...on RG for bothering with DarrinS

Granted. I labor under the delusion, that every once in a while, somehow, somewhere, I might make a dent in someones false underlying assumptions.

A sysphian task to be sure.

[RandomGuy]

You claim to know the answer, but you don't post it. Then you claim I've somehow "pwned" myself. You and WH should get together for some whine and cheeze.

If I didn't know the answer, it's because I'm being honest. I guess I could Google an equation, plug in all the parameters, and pat myself on the back for a job well done.

But, you can use an equation or mathematical model for anything. But all models are simply that -- models.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box

Sigh.

Ok, since neither your nor WC have taken even the mildest stabs at it:


R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.

How much has this transaction changed GDP?

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/f/1/df12362d625e86c3d4fe89e658bc1728.png

GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X - M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)


I (investment) includes business investment in equipments for example and does not include exchanges of existing assets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product


I asked you something about the most basic of definitions involved in macro-economics. There was no need to plug anything into an equation.

It would have taken you less than a few minutes to look up the equation on wiki, read the definition of GDP, and notice the above quoted bit.

The answer to my question is ZERO, since the exchange was of an existing asset, i.e. existing stock.

If the stock had been issued directly from the company, and the funds raised were used to purchase new means of production, say a new factory, or office building, etc. it would have counted towards GDP for the year. But since the purchase was from Mutual Fund A, that was obviously not the case.

That is the answer, readily determinable, and easily found with a minimal effort. Effort that you did not make, even when I told you how easy it would be to find the answer and where to look.

You were at least honest that you didn't know the answer.

That you assumed I was erring in saying that I knew the answer, simply further demonstrates your inability to admit that someone who you perceive as disagreeing with you might actually know more about something than you do.

This is part and parcel of why I tend to assign your arguments little weight when it comes to a lot of subjects. If you assume that you know everything you need to know when it comes to any given topic, and don't express the intellectual oopmph to stretch your mind/understanding... (shrugs)

[rjv]

You claim to know the answer, but you don't post it. Then you claim I've somehow "pwned" myself. You and WH should get together for some whine and cheeze.

If I didn't know the answer, it's because I'm being honest. I guess I could Google an equation, plug in all the parameters, and pat myself on the back for a job well done.

But, you can use an equation or mathematical model for anything. But all models are simply that -- models.

All models are wrong, but some are useful. -George Box


there is relativism and then there is "cop out" relativism...

[RandomGuy]

While I think youre already aware, let me point at not every part of the country is oil-rich Texas.

Nor Ann Arbor.

If the concentration of social rot becomes dense enough in any one area, youre not far from radical change.

Moreover, I dont believe the complete opposition of the current administration by conservatives, libertarians or the Tea Party folks is the source of such a possible discontented mass.

The disassociation of the average, tax-paying American from the politcal and wealth process in this country, IMO, is the underlying method of upheaval. It will be generalized and concentrated if it were to ever happen at all.

I imagine over-priced food, fuel, low-labor area of middle class nobodies.

That is what worries me about the fact that we are failing to limit our CO2 emissions at this time.

Limiting our CO2 emissions generally means limiting our usage of oil/coal/gas that is being rapidly exhausted, meaning that we are barrelling towards a rather precipitous run-up in energy prices that will have ripple effects in terms of food production, as modern farming relies heavily on oil usage, both for planting/harvesting/shipping as well as for pesticidies/fertilizers.

In examining options,economists, accountants, and financiers use a financial concept called "net present value". Basically it is a way of accounting for the fact that the value of money changes over time (i.e. inflation, or Time Value of Money). It rolls back all future costs and benefits to the present of different options, so that they may be evaluated and compared in a meaningful way.

Energy is, at the moment, relatively cheap, especially compared with probable future prices. (i.e. Peak Oil concept of resource depletion)

This strongly implies to me that the costs of switching over our economy to one that emits less CO2 now are much lower than if we decide to wait.

What we are doing now, i.e. nothing, appears to me to be similar financially to those Adjustable Rate Mortgages that re-adjust in the future with nasty balloon payments.

[DarrinS]

Sigh.

Ok, since neither your nor WC have taken even the mildest stabs at it:


GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/d/f/1/df12362d625e86c3d4fe89e658bc1728.png

GDP (Y) is a sum of Consumption (C), Investment (I), Government Spending (G) and Net Exports (X - M).

Y = C + I + G + (X − M)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product


I asked you something about the most basic of definitions involved in macro-economics. There was no need to plug anything into an equation.

It would have taken you less than a few minutes to look up the equation on wiki, read the definition of GDP, and notice the above quoted bit.

The answer to my question is ZERO, since the exchange was of an existing asset, i.e. existing stock.

If the stock had been issued directly from the company, and the funds raised were used to purchase new means of production, say a new factory, or office building, etc. it would have counted towards GDP for the year. But since the purchase was from Mutual Fund A, that was obviously not the case.

That is the answer, readily determinable, and easily found with a minimal effort. Effort that you did not make, even when I told you how easy it would be to find the answer and where to look.

You were at least honest that you didn't know the answer.





Ok, so what? What does it MEAN? How does it relate to wealth inequality?

That's why I posted the Drake equation in your other thread. Has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.





That you assumed I was erring in saying that I knew the answer, simply further demonstrates your inability to admit that someone who you perceive as disagreeing with you might actually know more about something than you do.

This is part and parcel of why I tend to assign your arguments little weight when it comes to a lot of subjects. If you assume that you know everything you need to know when it comes to any given topic, and don't express the intellectual oopmph to stretch your mind/understanding... (shrugs)


Did I ever say I knew more than you about accounting? I know you are an accountant. You should go work for the CBO. They have an army of number-crunchers that are NEVER PROVEN WRONG BY REALITY. :lmao

[DarrinS]

But I do admire RG's ability to Google the wiki entry on GDP. You have mad internets skills.

[DarrinS]

Back in 1967, didn't the the House Ways and Means Committee estimate Medicare would cost $10 billion annually by 1990, when, IN REALITY, it wound up costing $110 billion?

Maybe they needed better equations?

[xrayzebra]

Its a shame that the information linked above does not support that. Yes, there will always be rich and poor but will the rich always have such a disproportionate levels of relative wealth? They haven't in the past.

Look at the charts. The numbers aren't made up.

Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.

[rjv]

the assaults on democracy and markets are related. their roots lie in the power of corporate entities that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public. what we really have is an oligopolistic competition and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces,conditioning today's competitive advantage.

i think there are conclusions often drawn that the framers of the constitution sought to balance the rights of persons against the rights of property. but that formulation is misleading. property has no rights. in both principle and practice, the phrase "rights of property" means the right to property, typically material property, a personal right which must be privileged above all others, and is crucially different from the position that one person's (or corporate entity's) possession of such rights deprives another of them. when these facts are stated clearly, we can appreciate the force of the doctrine that "the people who own the country ought to govern it," "one of john jay's favorite maxims. but more and more so what was once belonging to the public gets handed over to the corporate infrastructure.

[xrayzebra]

It's weird how countries with reasonably regulated financial sectors don't fuck up the planet's economy and destroy $Ts in wealth.

You obviously believe all the Karl Marx fiction stories. Go live in those
fine Socialist countries. Only the elite leaders, like our Dear Leader, reap
the benefits of their efforts, passing regulations.

Oh, I forgot, I think you said at one time you lived in Germany as a
teenager.:lol

[xrayzebra]

the assaults on democracy and markets are related. their roots lie in the power of corporate entities that are totalitarian in internal structure, increasingly interlinked and reliant on powerful states, and largely unaccountable to the public. what we really have is an oligopolistic competition and strategic interaction among firms and governments, rather than the invisible hand of market forces,conditioning today's competitive advantage.

i think there are conclusions often drawn that the framers of the constitution sought to balance the rights of persons against the rights of property. but that formulation is misleading. property has no rights. in both principle and practice, the phrase "rights of property" means the right to property, typically material property, a personal right which must be privileged above all others, and is crucially different from the position that one person's (or corporate entity's) possession of such rights deprives another of them. when these facts are stated clearly, we can appreciate the force of the doctrine that "the people who own the country ought to govern it," "one of john jay's favorite maxims. but more and more so what was once belonging to the public gets handed over to the corporate infrastructure.

It's hard to believe that we have someone this dumb on this forum.

First, we do not live in a Democracy, we are suppose to be a Republic.
I am not sure you know what a Republic is, but since you are such a
brilliant soul, maybe you can look it up.

Kalifornia is more of the type government of which you speak. And look
what a wonderful position they hold in the world as we speak. They are
bankrupt in everyway you can mention.

[RandomGuy]

But I do admire RG's ability to Google the wiki entry on GDP. You have mad internets skills.

I didn't have to look it up, simply because I already knew the concept.

The link given was to simply provide a readily-verifiable source data, so that anyone who wanted to, including you, could find the answer for themselves.

It hardly takes a genius to search google.com for the term "GDP equation", but thanks. :)

[RandomGuy]

Back in 1967, didn't the the House Ways and Means Committee estimate Medicare would cost $10 billion annually by 1990, when, IN REALITY, it wound up costing $110 billion?

Maybe they needed better equations?

Was that $110 billion in 1967 dollars? or $110 billion in 1990 dollars?

[DarrinS]

Was that $110 billion in 1967 dollars? or $110 billion in 1990 dollars?

You haven't Google'd it already?

[RandomGuy]

You haven't Google'd it already?

It is your statistic.

Are you saying you presented it without doing any critical thinking?

If you can't answer the question, does that mean that I should assume you are wrong? i.e. "mute genius" as you put it?

[RandomGuy]

Since you asked, I didn't google your factoid specifically, as I didn't know the source.

Assuming that your source or you fucked up on the Time Value of Money concept, I did look up inflation in that period, and calculated what $110bn in 1990 would have been worth in 1967.

According to inflation.com, $110 billion dollars in 1990 would have been $28 billion in 1967. (calculated by indexing average inflation in each year after 1967, including 1990)

Given that we are missing an important set of data, i.e. if an expansion of benefits occurred in that period of time, it is hard to say if their estimate was really far off.

[RandomGuy]

Ok, so what? What does it MEAN? How does it relate to wealth inequality?

That's why I posted the Drake equation in your other thread. Has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

Did I ever say I knew more than you about accounting? I know you are an accountant. You should go work for the CBO. They have an army of number-crunchers that are NEVER PROVEN WRONG BY REALITY. :lmao

It relates rather directly to the topic at hand.

Ff you give $100,000,000 to people who tend to be wealthier, and they will be more likely to invest in existing assets, this therefore does not expand GDP more than, say, giving $100,000,000 to people in lower income brackets, who would be much more likely to actually spend that money, an activity that DOES spur GDP.

Shift tax burden to the rich, and you get higher GDP.

This becomes quite the argument for making the income tax MORE progressive, not less.

[rjv]

It's hard to believe that we have someone this dumb on this forum.

First, we do not live in a Democracy, we are suppose to be a Republic.
I am not sure you know what a Republic is, but since you are such a
brilliant soul, maybe you can look it up.

Kalifornia is more of the type government of which you speak. And look
what a wonderful position they hold in the world as we speak. They are
bankrupt in everyway you can mention.

the intention of the framers and what we are now are not one in the same. yes, we have elected officials who represent us but we also have ballot referendums which are clearly not what the framers such as madison had in mind when setting up our "republic". also, the two forms of government are not mutually exclusive. we have a republic that is very disimilar to the roman republic (theoretically at least) in that we were constructed in a fashion that was meant to avoid the election of nobles only and an oligarchy as a result. in that sense, we are really more or a representative democracy. references to town hall meetings and tea parties are direct references to a democracy and not a republic. the creation of the constitution itself may have been a reaction against democracy, but the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make our government into a representative democracy.

so even if the framers were not about democracy, the people already were. the demands of the people to vote were taken into consideration by the framers and this is why they wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the constitution. the senate was not to be elected directly by the people; the president was not to be directly elected by the voters, and the supreme court was to be appointed. and more importantly to the "is this a democracy-versus-republic debate", the constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. so the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only an iota of democratic representation. this is what people mean today when they say America is a republic, not a democracy (when not parroting the cliche du jour that is). the fact is that the passage of the 17th ammendment essentially made us a representative democracy.

as to your latter point, your antecedent leaves me at an impasse. is the "government of which [i] speak" the quasi-democracy you have implied the rest of the united states is not, or is it the corporate based oligarchy that we have since become under the banner of neoliberal policies ?

[baseline bum]

Look at DarrinS busting out the Chewbacca defense over the more traditional Youtube defense.

[admiralsnackbar]

What we are doing now, i.e. nothing, appears to me to be similar financially to those Adjustable Rate Mortgages that re-adjust in the future with nasty balloon payments.

Nice analogy.

[Winehole23]

(coffee)

[xrayzebra]

the intention of the framers and what we are now are not one in the same. yes, we have elected officials who represent us but we also have ballot referendums which are clearly not what the framers such as madison had in mind when setting up our "republic". also, the two forms of government are not mutually exclusive. we have a republic that is very disimilar to the roman republic (theoretically at least) in that we were constructed in a fashion that was meant to avoid the election of nobles only and an oligarchy as a result. in that sense, we are really more or a representative democracy. references to town hall meetings and tea parties are direct references to a democracy and not a republic. the creation of the constitution itself may have been a reaction against democracy, but the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make our government into a representative democracy.

so even if the framers were not about democracy, the people already were. the demands of the people to vote were taken into consideration by the framers and this is why they wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the constitution. the senate was not to be elected directly by the people; the president was not to be directly elected by the voters, and the supreme court was to be appointed. and more importantly to the "is this a democracy-versus-republic debate", the constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. so the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only an iota of democratic representation. this is what people mean today when they say America is a republic, not a democracy (when not parroting the cliche du jour that is). the fact is that the passage of the 17th ammendment essentially made us a representative democracy.

as to your latter point, your antecedent leaves me at an impasse. is the "government of which [i] speak" the quasi-democracy you have implied the rest of the united states is not, or is it the corporate based oligarchy that we have since become under the banner of neoliberal policies ?

I think I just read someone's high school paper on government.

Your statement: "but we also have ballot referendums" is absolute
incorrect. Only in some states. None in Texas. None at the Federal Level.

Your observation on election of the President was to stop the more
populated states from having undue influence in electing the President.

But corporate based influence, I might ask: who makes up the corporation?
I would say people who buy the shares. I would also ask, who creates
wealth? Not government, but business. The producers. Producers also
include workers, who profit and invest in their own companies.

[DarrinS]

Since you asked, I didn't google your factoid specifically, as I didn't know the source.

Assuming that your source or you fucked up on the Time Value of Money concept, I did look up inflation in that period, and calculated what $110bn in 1990 would have been worth in 1967.

According to inflation.com, $110 billion dollars in 1990 would have been $28 billion in 1967. (calculated by indexing average inflation in each year after 1967, including 1990)

Given that we are missing an important set of data, i.e. if an expansion of benefits occurred in that period of time, it is hard to say if their estimate was really far off.



Wow. You have a lot of free time to waste. No, the House Means and Ways Committee didn't ignore interest or inflation. Good to know that you think you're the only one that understands the ooooh so complex "time value of money" concept. Again -- big hat, no cattle.

[rjv]

I think I just read someone's high school paper on government.

Your statement: "but we also have ballot referendums" is absolute
incorrect. Only in some states. None in Texas. None at the Federal Level.

Your observation on election of the President was to stop the more
populated states from having undue influence in electing the President.

But corporate based influence, I might ask: who makes up the corporation?
I would say people who buy the shares. I would also ask, who creates
wealth? Not government, but business. The producers. Producers also
include workers, who profit and invest in their own companies.

http://texaslegislativeupdate.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/texas-whats-on-the-ballot-candidates-god-abortion-voter-i-d/

i guess texas doesn't elect senators either.

[xrayzebra]

I stand corrected rjv, my intent was that the "people" in Texas or at the Federal level
cannot have placed or enacted a law by ballot. As in California.

In Texas the voter can only approve or reject a Constitutional amendment, which in Texas,
our amendments are larger than the original Constitution. Or express their "wishes" on
an issue. In respect to your link, it might help you to know they were talking about
the April primary election, which is for the election of the parties canidates and their
party platform. So it really has no real meaning on what will be passed into law.

[Warlord23]

Wealth inequality is an unfortunate side-effect of the US political and economic system. Let's perform a simple thought experiment.

Let's say I built a system (a technology based business) that provides all of man's basic needs at an extraordinarily low cost. This technology provides food, energy, clothing, information, entertainment, etc at a much higher quality than comparable alternatives, and at a much lower cost. Let's also suppose that the entire manpower needed to run this system is based out of a low-cost outsourcing destination like India or China.

What would happen if I were to deploy this system? People would switch to this option because it would be a no-brainer in terms of value/cost. All other businesses would have to shut down, everybody else would lose their jobs. All income would be concentrated towards my firm which operates this system. This would result in an extreme case of income and wealth inequality.

At this point, do you think people accept living without any source of income, even though I would have legally built a business that would essentially concentrate all income towards me? The answer is obviously "No". The whole situation would be unsustainable. New laws (unconstitutional ones, by the way) will have to be created to dismantle my business for the greater good of the country.

That example was an extreme scenario of what is happening on a smaller scale today. Wealth and income have become concentrated due to automation, outsourcing and a political/legal framework which is aimed at helping big businesses and wealthy individuals.

Some day, a critical inflexion point will be reached when the "have-nots" would rather fight to dismantle the current system rather than suffer under it.

[xrayzebra]

Let's say I built a system (a technology based business) that provides all of man's basic needs at an extraordinarily low cost. This technology provides food, energy, clothing, information, entertainment, etc at a much higher quality than comparable alternatives, and at a much lower cost. Let's also suppose that the entire manpower needed to run this system is based out of a low-cost outsourcing destination like India or China.

What would happen if I were to deploy this system?

.

Well I hate to tell you but free enterprise did do exactly what you described
in the first paragraph above. What made things expensive? Government,
what made things like water scarce, government. What made energy
expensive, government. Who is still trying to cause scarcity and
rationing, government. You name a problem we have today and I can
guarantee that government has caused it through their actions. So
don't blame business, they work within the framework.

[Warlord23]

Well I hate to tell you but free enterprise did do exactly what you described
in the first paragraph above. What made things expensive? Government,
what made things like water scarce, government. What made energy
expensive, government. Who is still trying to cause scarcity and
rationing, government. You name a problem we have today and I can
guarantee that government has caused it through their actions. So
don't blame business, they work within the framework.

Way to miss my point altogether. Do you see any mention of government intervention at any point in my imaginary example? My point was that even the free market framework can cause acute wealth inequality under the right (wrong?) circumstances

[xrayzebra]

Way to miss my point altogether. Do you see any mention of government intervention at any point in my imaginary example? My point was that even the free market framework can cause acute wealth inequality under the right (wrong?) circumstances

Talking about missing a point.........

"Well I hate to tell you but free enterprise did do exactly what you described
in the first paragraph above."

Government intervention destroyed the the system that was created
by business. And what damn "acute wealth inquality"

[Warlord23]

^^ I don't think anybody can be this dumb, so you're probably trolling me. I give up.

[xrayzebra]

^^I think you already have with post like the last two......sheeeesh!

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sorry, but I literally LOL each time I see Darrin mocking the use of an equation to get the GDP.

WTF did he think the GDP was?

[DarrinS]

I'm sorry, but I literally LOL each time I see Darrin mocking the use of an equation to get the GDP.

WTF did he think the GDP was?



I wish I was like you
Easily amused
Find my nest of salt
Everything is my fault
I'll take all the blame
aqua seafoam shame

[Winehole23]

Condescending and self-pitying in the same breath? Seems to fit.

[RandomGuy]

Wow. You have a lot of free time to waste. No, the House Means and Ways Committee didn't ignore interest or inflation. Good to know that you think you're the only one that understands the ooooh so complex "time value of money" concept. Again -- big hat, no cattle.

All I asked was for some source for your stats, so I could figure out for myself what to think about it.

People like you simply ape disinenguous lies all the time through sheer ignorance, so I am forced to do this.

You read some thing somewhere that says "look they thought medicare would only cost X in 1990, but it was really 11 times that" in order to make the argument "all entitlements spiral really wildly out of control, so they must be stopped".

"time value of money" is simply a way of accounting for inflation. It isn't all that fancy.

Not allowing for inflation is one of the oldest tricks in the book for lying with statistics, especially when it comes to politics.

That you don't know to look for it says to me that you get lied to all the time and don't know it.

Do you actually have source link for your previous statment?

[RandomGuy]

Well I hate to tell you but free enterprise did do exactly what you described
in the first paragraph above. What made things expensive? Government,
what made things like water scarce, government. What made energy
expensive, government. Who is still trying to cause scarcity and
rationing, government. You name a problem we have today and I can
guarantee that government has caused it through their actions. So
don't blame business, they work within the framework.

We have always had rationing in our economy. We ration by ability and willingness to pay.

Government has not made water scarce, the fact that there is a rather fixed amount of it, but an increasing demand for it did.

How exactly has government made energy expensive?

[DarrinS]

All I asked was for some source for your stats, so I could figure out for myself what to think about it.

People like you simply ape disinenguous lies all the time through sheer ignorance, so I am forced to do this.

You read some thing somewhere that says "look they thought medicare would only cost X in 1990, but it was really 11 times that" in order to make the argument "all entitlements spiral really wildly out of control, so they must be stopped".

"time value of money" is simply a way of accounting for inflation. It isn't all that fancy.

Not allowing for inflation is one of the oldest tricks in the book for lying with statistics, especially when it comes to politics.

That you don't know to look for it says to me that you get lied to all the time and don't know it.

Do you actually have source link for your previous statment?


http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/

[ChumpDumper]

Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.That 47 percent number is highly misleading. It's not like that 47 percent are paying no federal taxes at all.

[DarrinS]

Anyone have any ideas on how to increase the wealth of those at the bottom, other than stealing money from the productive sector and giving it to them?

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone have any ideas on how to increase the wealth of those at the bottom, other than stealing money from the productive sector and giving it to them?Are you saying all those on the bottom are not productive? From the numbers bandied about, it seems that those on the top have found a way to steal money from an increasingly more productive group on the bottom.

[admiralsnackbar]

Anyone have any ideas on how to increase the wealth of those at the bottom, other than stealing money from the productive sector and giving it to them?

Ignoring your characterization of social programs as giveaways for a moment... do you have a better idea?

[DarrinS]

Ignoring your characterization of social programs as giveaways for a moment... do you have a better idea?


I asked the question.

[admiralsnackbar]

I asked the question.

And I ignored it because it was vapid.

[Winehole23]

I asked the question.Priority.

How chickenshit. That's no excuse for being non-responsive. None at all. Unless you have already ruled out answering a question and asking your own in the same post. Nothing prevents that at all.

This whole answer *no, you answer mine first* schtick is puzzling to me, D. I wonder whether the authority you seem to rely on for this demand can really be traced to the courtroom or the debate hall. To me it just seems rude, and and a little bit obtuse.

[Winehole23]

That said, I ignored it because it was vapid smacks this slightly tipsy reader as being Darrinesque, par excellence, almost.

Pure condescending sidestep. Not to be much distinguished in form from my target in the above post, except that you at least attempted the next topic.

DarrinS couldn't even hang long enough to follow up on his own posts.

[MannyIsGod]

Condescending and self-pitying in the same breath? Seems to fit.

:lol

He did vote for Obama after all.

[LnGrrrR]

Back in 1967, didn't the the House Ways and Means Committee estimate Medicare would cost $10 billion annually by 1990, when, IN REALITY, it wound up costing $110 billion?

Maybe they needed better equations?

And the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey was way off too.

[MannyIsGod]

Are you saying all those on the bottom are not productive? From the numbers bandied about, it seems that those on the top have found a way to steal money from an increasingly more productive group on the bottom.

[spursncowboys]

The Jetsons were way off too. However this seems to be an MO of the Nati Govt.

[MannyIsGod]

That said, I ignored it because it was vapid smacks this slightly tipsy reader as being Darrinesque, par excellence, almost.

Pure condescending sidestep. Not to be much distinguished in form from my target in the above post, except that you at least attempted the next topic.

DarrinS couldn't even hang long enough to follow up on his own posts.

To be fair, if I ask you how you plan on dealing with the sky being black during the day you're probably not going to to try to answer my question because the sky isn't black during the day now is it?

When someone uses the word stealing to frame their question when nothing is being stolen then it is very difficult to answer their question.

[MannyIsGod]

Assuming that unreferenced item of information is correct (I refuse to call it a fact), then what does it prove? That projections used by congress can be incorrect? Was this even up for debate or relevant to the question posed by RG about something affecting GDP?

[Winehole23]

Was this even up for debate or relevant to the question posed by RG about something affecting GDP?As usual, things never really got that far.

[LnGrrrR]

Anyone have any ideas on how to increase the wealth of those at the bottom, other than stealing money from the productive sector and giving it to them?

What makes the theft of the rich so much more heinous that the "theft" of anyone who pays taxes? I don't have a child in the public education system for instance. Would you call taxation of my income to pay for services I don't use "theft"?

Also, way to use a term like "theft"... Even though progressive taxes are obviously legal. Tell me, have you beaten your wife lately?

[LnGrrrR]

Remember Manny, if one fact of a theory can be proven wrong, that immediately invalidates the whole theory.

See most global warming debates for further examples...

[spursncowboys]

What makes the theft of the rich so much more heinous that the "theft" of anyone who pays taxes? I don't have a child in the public education system for instance. Would you call taxation of my income to pay for services I don't use "theft"?

Also, way to use a term like "theft"... Even though progressive taxes are obviously legal. Tell me, have you beaten your wife lately?

I think it could be considered stealing when it is taken by one small section and made to directly benefit others. Taxes should go towards something for everyone.

[MannyIsGod]

:lmao

I guess I am really amused, but trying to downlplay the GDP equation used here is like mocking someone for going to a dictionary for a definition.

"Well, I'm not going to trust your usage of the [b]hilarity[b] because you just pulled it off of MarianWebster.com"

[MannyIsGod]

I think it could be considered stealing when it is taken by one small section and made to directly benefit others. Taxes should go towards something for everyone.

I'm sorry but that is not stealing. Perhaps I can interest you in visiting this new website I just mentioned:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

[Winehole23]

To be fair, if I ask you how you plan on dealing with the sky being black during the day you're probably not going to to try to answer my question because the sky isn't black during the day now is it?

When someone uses the word stealing to frame their question when nothing is being stolen then it is very difficult to answer their question.Of course.

I'm not sure what you mean by word stealing, but the first part is clear enough. Better to ignore plain absurdities than dwell too long upon them.

[MannyIsGod]

Of course.

I'm not sure what you mean by word stealing, but the first part is clear enough. Better to ignore plain absurdities than dwell too long upon them.

Look at Darrin's question. He used to the word stealing where there is no theft taking place.

[spursncowboys]

MIG: maybe you should check that same website out.

[boutons_deux]

"stealing when it is taken by one small section and made to directly benefit others. "

like when red states "steal" more federal dollars than they send to the feds?

"socialist" blue states subsidize most red states.

[MannyIsGod]

MIG: maybe you should check that same website out.

No, I'm quite sure I know the difference between taxation and stealing. I appreciate your concern, however.

[RandomGuy]

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/

Thank you.

From your link, I got the original quote:

Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10.

That came from a document put out by Republican Sam Brownback:
http://jec.senate.gov/republicans/public/_files/Are_Health_Care_Reform_Cost_Estimates_Reliable__Ju ly_31_2009.pdf

Which in turn derived its source data from the following for the cost of the program in 1990:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist16z1.xls

and the following for the original estimate:
"Actuarial Cost Estimates for the Old-Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance System as Modified by the Social Security Amendments of 1967."


Now given that actuaries are pretty sharp cookies, I would imagine the $12bn figure was in 1967 dollars, but the document is not available electronically.

BUT

As I stated previously, the second figure was in 1990 dollars.

So, in essence, the ultimate source for your statement did just as I said was most likely, fudge the numbers. More than likely the drone responsible for researching for the good Senator made the sophmore mistake of not accounting for inflation when considering the 1990 figure.

After accounting for inflation the statement should have read:

"In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $28bn in 1967 dollars, off by a factor of 2.3"

The actuarial assumption that probably threw the thing off was life expectency. People probably lived a lot longer in 1990 than was projected in 1967.

Not quite the damning sniglet you wanted it to be concerning entititlements is it?

[RandomGuy]

Are you saying all those on the bottom are not productive? From the numbers bandied about, it seems that those on the top have found a way to steal money from an increasingly more productive group on the bottom.

That is precisely the conclusion one should make, given productivity gains, and the fact that the only people who have actually seen their income rise ahve been in the upper quarter of income earners, and even that is mostly in the upper upper upper .1% of income earners.

I would further point out that if your argument is that "rich people are the ones that provide all the capital for new investments, so taxing them more will cost a lot of jobs", then you are ignoring the fact that most stock ownership is done in mutual funds held for retirement benefits.

Stock ownership in this country is generally NOT the exclusive purview of "the rich".

[LnGrrrR]

I think it could be considered stealing when it is taken by one small section and made to directly benefit others. Taxes should go towards something for everyone.

And I think it could be considered stealing by using lobbyists to get favors from the political system.

Or maybe it's theft when the majority of taxpayers bail out CEOs who still make millions.

[RandomGuy]

Assuming that unreferenced item of information is correct (I refuse to call it a fact), then what does it prove? That projections used by congress can be incorrect? Was this even up for debate or relevant to the question posed by RG about something affecting GDP?

It wasn't really relevant to my question no. It seemed to have pretty much nothing to do with the conversation in general, as it was introduced with little to no explanation.

Darrin was trying to make the point that new entitlements tend to be far more expensive than they are initially projected to be.

People making that point will try to fudge the numbers to make their case, and selectively parcel out facts/statistics to support their position. That is the definition of intellectually dishonest, but it is the way politics is generally argued.

[LnGrrrR]

Let's review:

Making lots of wealth by gaming the system for loopholes through congressmen= Brilliant, wise, benevolent leaders, using their profits to reinvest in American knowhow

Trying to gain back wealth by gaming the system for taxation through congressmen= Useless druggies who would rather kill a baby than work a day in their lives

What's the magic income number where you are inherently smart/wise/benevolent, I wonder? Certainly, the lower income people are all lazy shifty hobos, so I'd like to know the tipping point.

[DarrinS]

It wasn't really relevant to my question no. It seemed to have pretty much nothing to do with the conversation in general, as it was introduced with little to no explanation.

Darrin was trying to make the point that new entitlements tend to be far more expensive than they are initially projected to be.

People making that point will try to fudge the numbers to make their case, and selectively parcel out facts/statistics to support their position. That is the definition of intellectually dishonest, but it is the way politics is generally argued.


You ASSUMED that the numbers weren't adjusted to account for inflation.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS claims a win in the Medicare sidebar he introduced himself.

[Winehole23]

(Golf clap.)

[ChumpDumper]

You ASSUMED that the numbers weren't adjusted to account for inflation.You assume they are?

[admiralsnackbar]

That said, I ignored it because it was vapid smacks this slightly tipsy reader as being Darrinesque, par excellence, almost.

Pure condescending sidestep. Not to be much distinguished in form from my target in the above post, except that you at least attempted the next topic.

DarrinS couldn't even hang long enough to follow up on his own posts.

Omnisciently-voiced play-by play might be considered condescending, too, Wino.

I reflected the question because I wrote a long reply earlier in the thread explaining exactly where I stand, and because it (his Q) came loaded with no genuine curiosity, only the now-familiar dead-stupid preconceptions.

[RandomGuy]

You ASSUMED that the numbers weren't adjusted to account for inflation.

I did indeed assume that something was amiss and likely there was a TVM/inflation error somewhere within the statement.

Given that many figures given concerning such things that deal with long periods of time tend not to be, especially when the topic is politics, the odds tend to favor that. My general experience when it comes to things like that says that someone is usually leaving something out.

I tested my assumption, and that assumption proved correct.

That is how a critical thinker goes about examining his own underlying assumptions.

Further, had I been incorrect, the intellectual honesty principle of critical thinking would have compelled me to admit that my assumption was incorrect.

[ChumpDumper]

I do give props to the Heritage Foundation for proposing health care mandates, though. :tu

[RandomGuy]

You ASSUMED that the numbers weren't adjusted to account for inflation.

You did notice that I PROVED the second figure was unadjusted for inflation (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4242457&postcount=329)and therefore misleading, right?

[DarrinS]

I did indeed assume that something was amiss and likely there was a TVM/inflation error somewhere within the statement.

Given that many figures given concerning such things that deal with long periods of time tend not to be, especially when the topic is politics, the odds tend to favor that. My general experience when it comes to things like that says that someone is usually leaving something out.

I tested my assumption, and that assumption proved correct.

That is how a critical thinker goes about examining his own underlying assumptions.

Further, had I been incorrect, the intellectual honesty principle of critical thinking would have compelled me to admit that my assumption was incorrect.



If nothing else, you've shown us all a good example of "confirmation bias".

From http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/category/inflation/page/2/

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/jec-medicare-cost-ests.JPG




When Medicare was passed, various future estimates of costs were made by Congress. Those estimates were wildly off base, so much so that it is doubtful that Medicare would have passed, had there been an accurate cost estimate. The chart above shows the estimate for the year 1990 of $12 billion versus actual spending of $110 billion. The $12 bill estimate was adjusted for inflation. So, the actual costs were nine times higher than estimated.

[DarrinS]

Back to the subject at hand, why not redistribute GPA's in college?


_p8DFUnYtPo

[admiralsnackbar]

Back to the subject at hand, why not redistribute GPA's in college?


_p8DFUnYtPo

Because it doesn't serve the purpose of bettering the economy like social programs hope to.

[RandomGuy]

If nothing else, you've shown us all a good example of "confirmation bias".

From http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/category/inflation/page/2/

http://www.fundmasteryblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/jec-medicare-cost-ests.JPG

The thing is that blog seems to base his information on the same report from Brownback as the other one you linked.

Since the original source data is not available online, can you really, truly be sure that this blogger hasn't made the assumption that the Brownback report's figure was adjusted for inflation?


You might want to read a section in the wiki entry for confirmation bias :

Rather than searching through all the relevant evidence, they frame questions in such a way that a "yes" answer supports their hypothesis and stop as soon as they find supporting information.

Did you stop as soon as you found this, even though there is still no first-hand evidence as to what original assumptions were being used?

If the number is indeed adjusted for inflation then the comparison is much more valid, however still not quite an exact one (I can elaborate on this if you wish).

I will freely admit if I am wrong about this. I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong when there exists ambiguity, as there is in this case. Since we do not really have access to the original papers' assumptions. Find THAT and we might get to the bottom of this tempest in our teacup.

I will remain, however, generally skeptical of figures presented to me by people making public policy points, as anybody should.

It might surprise you to know that I generally acknowledge the ultimate thrust of Browback's paper:

"Whatever the causes, it seems there is a kind of Murphy‟s Law of health care legislation: 'If it can cost more than the highest available official estimate, it probably will.' "

You get the inevitable benefits creep accompanyed by medical inflation that invariably is greater than assumed in most estimates. Both of which are the most probable causes of the overage. (note: populations living longer contribute a LOT to cost increases)

FWIW:

I have seen studies that show that medical cost inflation has exceeded that of overal inflation for at least 20-30 years, but I was struck by something that I ran across here, in one of the sources for Brownback's report, by an actuary in an insurance journal:

"In all of these prior estimates, no allowance was made for the fact that hospital costs were increasing three percentage points per annum faster than wages--a phenomenon known well since 1946 when AHA began posting average hospital charges"
Barkev S. Sanders-- 1967 American Risk and Insurance Association.

On a related note, a quote from Brownback's report that I found to be quite admirable and fair:


This is not to say the official “scorekeepers” are bad at their jobs. On the contrary, they typically exhibit very high levels of skill, integrity, independence, and professionalism—often working under extremely tight time frames and hectic conditions, and not infrequently amidst a din of interested voices attempting to influence their work.

[MannyIsGod]

Back to the subject at hand, why not redistribute GPA's in college?


_p8DFUnYtPo

That's on subject?

:lol

"Hi, lets get back on subject with some more deflection to issues that aren't on subject. Oh and hear is a youtube."

So good.

[TeyshaBlue]

That's on subject?

:lol

"Hi, lets get back on subject with some more deflection to issues that aren't on subject. Oh and hear is a youtube."

So good.

Let's get back on subject. Why hasn't everyone sent me a $100 bill?

:lmao
:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

You get the inevitable benefits creep accompanyed by medical inflation that invariably is greater than assumed in most estimates. Both of which are the most probable causes of the overage. (note: populations living longer contribute a LOT to cost increases)

Mainly because the older you get, the more likely you will need medical services. I don't have a graph available, but I'm guessing if you were to graph age on the bottom and hospital needs/costs/etc on the left, it would form a mirrored L shape.

[RandomGuy]

Mainly because the older you get, the more likely you will need medical services. I don't have a graph available, but I'm guessing if you were to graph age on the bottom and hospital needs/costs/etc on the left, it would form a mirrored L shape.

Pretty much.

I think that the best criticism of the most current health care bill is that it didn't do enough to control costs.

Oddly enough, I will pretty much have to read that thing for my job as part of the background material for my next assignment.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty much.

I think that the best criticism of the most current health care bill is that it didn't do enough to control costs.

Oddly enough, I will pretty much have to read that thing for my job as part of the background material for my next assignment.

Start drinking now. :toast

I don't know how you can make it thru that thing sober.:lol

[boutons_deux]

"it didn't do enough to control costs."

it didn't do anything to control costs.

If it had, the doc and insurers and BigPharma who profit from those exorbitant costs would have killed it, Harry-and-Louise style. They were all bought off and their incomes/our costs untouched.

The fleecing/impoverishment of Americans by the for-profit health care industry will continue unabated.

[Winehole23]

Omnisciently-voiced play-by play might be considered condescending, too, Wino.Sure. In the interest of even-handedness.

I thought you deflected deftly, Darrin, much more crudely. :toast

[admiralsnackbar]

Sure. In the interest of even-handedness.

I thought you deflected deftly, Darrin, much more crudely. :toast

I try to be civilized, but I'm only human, man. When you try to engage somebody reasonably and respectfully and repeatedly get antagonistic non-sequiturs in return, MonCalamarian snippy-ness is not far off :toast

[Winehole23]

When you try to engage somebody reasonably and respectfully and repeatedly get antagonistic non-sequiturs in return, MonCalamarian snippy-ness is not far offA totally appropriate response IMO, but maybe Darrin knows that too. He might be trying to get yer goat.

[Spurminator]

Has this been posted in this thread yet?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-13-2010/that-s-tariffic

[spursncowboys]

Way to miss my point altogether. Do you see any mention of government intervention at any point in my imaginary example? My point was that even the free market framework can cause acute wealth inequality under the right (wrong?) circumstances
Your entire example is as if everything was at a stand still. What about others making something better than what you have. Also not everything is about what is cheaper. Price differentiation or just materialism would get you competition. Then what about all the people it would take to fix and maintain your great contraption?

[Winehole23]

:sleep

[Wild Cobra]

Well a day has passed and neither WC, nor Darrin has answered.

WC may or may not have actually read the question, so I will leave it out there a bit longer.

The lack of response simply adds to my overall assertion that almost all on the right who represent themselves to be "free market" advocates know next to nothing about economics.
Actually, I did answer a few posts before this one I'm quoting of yours.

Not a relevant question.

I am back after not being her for four days though. Been busy.

[Wild Cobra]

The answer to my question is ZERO, since the exchange was of an existing asset, i.e. existing stock.

So my vague recollection was correct, post #249:

Maybe because its an absurd question, and has nothing to do with what at least I have argued. You are speaking of a way of sheltering money, which people do more when taxed at high levels. My point is that people shelter their money less with lower tax rates.

As for change in GDP? I forget what it is completely, and not going to look it up. However, I think it is a net zero change... off the top of my head.

Still, if anything, you are proving my argument with the example.

[Wild Cobra]

Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.
I made that point also, but I think you worded it far better.

[RandomGuy]

I will freely admit if I am wrong about this. I always allow for the possibility that I am wrong when there exists ambiguity, as there is in this case. Since we do not really have access to the original papers' assumptions. Find THAT and we might get to the bottom of this tempest in our teacup.

I will remain, however, generally skeptical of figures presented to me by people making public policy points, as anybody should.



Mr. [Randomguy's last name redacted],

We have located a 1965 projection from the Social Security Board of Trustees that indicates a projected cost for the Hospital Insurance (HI, or Medicare Part A) program of about $9 billion for 1990 (see http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/1967/1967hos2.pdf). This $9 billion for 1990 was in 1990 dollars.
The corresponding report for the Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI, or Medicare Part B) program did not show projections for 1990 (see http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/trust/1967/1967sup.pdf). However, it is likely that the $12 billion figure you cite was the total projection completed at the time for Medicare Parts A and B for 1990, in 1990 dollars.

Note that it has been subsequently observed that health costs in general rose much faster than anyone had anticipated. The HI program, initially only for those over 65, has since been extended to disabled persons. Â Some the unanticipated increase in costs was from expansion of services over the years, which was substantial.
Other increase is attributable to coverage of disabled persons who would have been uninsured by the time they reached 65, but were not due to the extension of benefits to the disabled and the freeze on the insured requirement for those had become disabled before 65.


Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.

Karen P. Glenn
Office of the Chief Actuary
Social Security Administration

-----Original Message-----
From: [Randomguy's email redacted]
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 6:49 PM
To: ^Actuary [[email protected]]
Subject: Quick specific question

Sir/Madam,
I am trying to make sense of a certain statistic that I came across recently.

Here is the statement:

"In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new
Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12
billion in 1990."

The source for this statistic was given as being from the following document:

"Actuarial Cost Estimates for the Old-Age, Survivors, Disability, and Health Insurance System as Modified by the Social Security Amendments of 1967,"

The question I have is fairly simple.:
Was the $12bn figure given in that report in 1967 dollars, or projected 1990 dollars?

I have a feeling it is the former, but just want to make sure.


Regards,
[Randomguys name redacted]

I stand corrected. Brownbacks statement stands as fully truthful, and the implication that was made is a fair one.

(in the interest of absolute accuracy, actual inflation was higher in that period than was likely assumed in the 1960's era estimates, so the ending numbers should have compensated for that, but this would not effect the ending numbers materially)

[RandomGuy]

So my vague recollection was correct, post #249:

Indeed it was. My apologies again. You correctly answered the question, although I don't see how the answer supports your position.

[word]

An honest question here - since the rich have acquired so much more wealth why have they not created more jobs that distribute wealth throughout the rest of society? Isn't this what should have happened?

The Rich have undoubtdly grown their wealth so why have the rest of us lagged behind.

Because of how capital gains are taxed. It's not taxed like regular income, till you spend it, so there is no incentive to do anything but hold on to it. Once you move it over to the 'income side' it's taxed. This is done by selling a stock for a profit, for example.

Fact is, if they'd fix the tax code, things like 'national healthcare' and all this bullshit wouldn't be necessary. You do realize that even the rich, will be getting free health care. And I use the word 'free' loosely.

[RandomGuy]

Think about what you posted. Has there ever been a time when 47 percent
are on the wagon being pulled by other 53 percent. Stands to reason,
those that are producing are going to reap more of the wealth than those
standing around waiting for handouts.

Production and income are not quite related.

If, say the average professional basketball player today is paid, say more than 400 times what the average joe was in any given year, whereas that professional basketball player was only paid 5 times as much 20 years ago, should we then assume that average scores for games have gone up eightfold?

[RandomGuy]

Because of how capital gains are taxed. It's not taxed like regular income, till you spend it, so there is no incentive to do anything but hold on to it.

Fact is, if they'd fix the tax code, things like 'national healthcare' and all this bullshit wouldn't be necessary. You do realize that even the rich, will be getting free health care. And I use the word 'free' loosely.

So, in essence, you are saying that the wealthiest taxpayers are given preferential tax treatment.

I would agree on that point.

It also puts the lie to the "give the rich money and we all benefit" schtick as Manny points out.

[word]

So, in essence, you are saying that the wealthiest taxpayers are given preferential tax treatment.

I would agree on that point.

It also puts the lie to the "give the rich money and we all benefit" schtick as Manny points out.

Well, it's a double edge sword. It encourages investment but investment doesn't necessarily equate into economic growth and jobs. The tax code has always been THE way the government uses to encourage certain activities and discourage others. The government likes people to invest and used to like people to save, till they lowered interest rates to the level you're better off investing in baseball cards than putting money in the bank. I think that's about to change but if you don't save money, or have money, then it's all moot. As my dad told me from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, 'If you don't save money, you'll never have anything.'

[MannyIsGod]

Well, it's a double edge sword. It encourages investment but investment doesn't necessarily equate into economic growth and jobs. The tax code has always been THE way the government uses to encourage certain activities and discourage others. The government likes people to invest and used to like people to save, till they lowered interest rates to the level you're better off investing in baseball cards than putting money in the bank. I think that's about to change but if you don't save money, or have money, then it's all moot. As my dad told me from the time I was knee high to a grasshopper, 'If you don't save money, you'll never have anything.'

I'm ok with this statement. Tax cuts for the rich are whats best for the rich but that doesn't necessarily mean its whats best for our country.

[word]

I have always found it odd, that so many people defend the super-wealthy and I think part of it is, that people don't understand, that they can't wrap their mind around, people that have a billion dollars or 100 million or even 20 million. They have a good job and a nice house and car..etc...and they think of themselves as 'rich'. For many people, they have never really seen the super rich. They don't live in New York or LA or Miami, where wealth is on display. When I was growing up, in my small town, the wealthiest person in the town had 35 million. I know because there was an article written about him in the Dallas paper. This was, 25 years ago. But people, and I think myself included, can't fathom 100 million or 500 million. Even 50. The wealthiest people I know, and they have a lot of dough and toys and shit...15 million I'd say. That's nothing on Park Avenue or Beverly Hills. Their houses are worth more than that.

[word]

This reminds me, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on WOAI in the afternoon and all these people call in as Rush goes on about taxes and I get a kick out of it. Rush has about 300 million dollars. Those people have DICK in common with Rush Limbaugh. They couldn't get near his property to drive by his house to see where he lives ...

It's a strange strange phenomena....

[Yonivore]

What about prosperity inequality? Work ethic inequality? Ingenuity inequality? Productivity inequality? Personal responsibility inequality?

Take care of those "inequalities" and you'll solve the so-called "wealth inequality."

And, word, Rush Limbaugh wasn't always wealthy.

[word]

Always or not, he ain't one of them. You know why we didn't have these 'inequities' of wealth in America in the 1950's and 60's ?

The answer my friend, is in the tax code.

When wealth becomes concentrated, it stifles invention and innovation. That's why, in the past, we didn't allow it in the % we have now. But hey, if you want to open a hamburger joint next to a McDonalds with some super duper burger, give it a shot.

[Yonivore]

Always or not, he ain't one of them. You know why we didn't have these 'inequities' of wealth in America in the 1950's and 60's ?

The answer my friend, is in the tax code.

When wealth becomes concentrated, it stifles invention and innovation. That's why, in the past, we didn't allow it in the % we have now. But hey, if you want to open a hamburger joint next to a McDonalds with some super duper burger, give it a shot.
Seriously?

The wealth was concentrated among fewer in the fifties than the present. You can almost name them on two hands..and a couple of toes. Just run down Broadway, Park Avenue, or 5th Avenue in New York City and list the names of the buildings. That's where the wealth was concentrated in the 50's and before.

Present-day wealth, for the most part, has been created, not redistributed.

And, whether or not Limbaugh is like his listeners isn't the question, it's whether or not any of his listeners can, one day, be wealthy like Limbaugh. And, the answer is...yes, with a good work ethic and exploiting opportunities when they arise...absolutely.

[rjv]

And, whether or not Limbaugh is like his listeners isn't the question, it's whether or not any of his listeners can, one day, be wealthy like Limbaugh. And, the answer is...yes, with a good work ethic and exploiting opportunities when they arise...absolutely.


now that is the pollyanna thought of the day !

[word]

Seriously?

The wealth was concentrated among fewer in the fifties than the present. You can almost name them on two hands..and a couple of toes.

And here ladies and gentlemen we have an example of 'perception is reality'.

how about this one ....the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid in a fortune 500 company is the highest it's ever been.

Perception, or reality ?

Let me ask you this, when a companies board pays their executives 1% of the profit as a bonus, would you be ok if the congress paid themselves 1% of the tax revenue ? After all, it's only 1 % ?

Oh, it's not their money you say ?

Well guess what, it ain't those other guys money either, but the pissant stock holder can't organize to stop it.

And once again I state my amazement of this phenomena of believing that it's ok because 'I could be like that too one day' or whatever.

[Yonivore]

now that is the pollyanna thought of the day !
Really? Was Limbaugh always worth $300 Million? Was it given to him?

How 'bout Gates? Dell? Bezos? et. al.? Or the Google and YouTube geniuses?

There are very few trust fund babies left, like the Hiltons, etc... Most of the wealthy earned or created their worth.

If you think it's pollyannaish, then you've accepted you don't have the work ethic or tenacity to achieve like they have.

[Yonivore]

And here ladies and gentlemen we have an example of 'perception is reality'.

how about this one ....the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid in a fortune 500 company is the highest it's ever been.

Perception, or reality ?
What's the difference between the lowest paid today and the lowest paid 50 years ago?

What's the difference between the number of highest paid today and highest paid 50 years ago?


Let me ask you this, when a companies board pays their executives 1% of the profit as a bonus, would you be ok if the congress paid themselves 1% of the tax revenue ? After all, it's only 1 % ?

Oh, it's not their money you say ?

Well guess what, it ain't those other guys money either, but the pissant stock holder can't organize enough to stop them from doing it.
Sure they can. They can divest. If I don't like the way a company in which I invest spends it's profits, I can sell my stock.

Unfortunately, we can't do the same with our tax burden. But, come November, we can do the next best thing.

[word]

Really? Was Limbaugh always worth $300 Million? Was it given to him?

How 'bout Gates? Dell? Bezos? et. al.? Or the Google and YouTube geniuses?

There are very few trust fund babies left, like the Hiltons, etc... Most of the wealthy earned or created their worth.



Well if anyone deserves his money it's bill gates.

lol ...

[Spurminator]

There are very few trust fund babies left, like the Hiltons, etc... Most of the wealthy earned or created their worth.

Link?

[word]

What's the difference between the lowest paid today and the lowest paid 50 years ago?

What's the difference between the number of highest paid today and highest paid 50 years ago?


Sure they can. They can divest. If I don't like the way a company in which I invest spends it's profits, I can sell my stock.

Unfortunately, we can't do the same with our tax burden. But, come November, we can do the next best thing.

yeah, vote in someone who is going to do the same thing. again, why so many average schmucks scream and cry over wanting to limit CEO pay or raise taxes on high incomes, is beyond me.

Oh that's right, that's gonna be you some day....:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

What about prosperity inequality? Work ethic inequality? Ingenuity inequality? Productivity inequality? Personal responsibility inequality?

Take care of those "inequalities" and you'll solve the so-called "wealth inequality."

And, word, Rush Limbaugh wasn't always wealthy.

Quantify those inequalities. Show me.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously?

The wealth was concentrated among fewer in the fifties than the present. You can almost name them on two hands..and a couple of toes. Just run down Broadway, Park Avenue, or 5th Avenue in New York City and list the names of the buildings. That's where the wealth was concentrated in the 50's and before.

Present-day wealth, for the most part, has been created, not redistributed.

And, whether or not Limbaugh is like his listeners isn't the question, it's whether or not any of his listeners can, one day, be wealthy like Limbaugh. And, the answer is...yes, with a good work ethic and exploiting opportunities when they arise...absolutely.

Show me.

[word]

Say yoni...do you believe in things like anti-trust laws ? A progressive tax system ?

[Yonivore]

Well if anyone deserves his money it's bill gates.

lol ...
How 'bout the thousands of executives at Microsoft making mid-six figures and above? All because of the vision and business acumen of Bill Gates?

Then, you have to talk about all the executives of all the high-tech firms making damn good salaries because of the marketability of the computer achieved by Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs et. al.

I have friends that make a quarter-million a year doing mid-level technical work for Dell Computers.

You would begrudge Michael Dell his billions? Well, because of him, there are thousands of people worth millions to billions.

That's wealth creation. If you can't do it, shut up and let those who can, keep on. And, if their company's boards see fit to reward them with what you believe are exorbitant bonuses, don't buy their stock...and, if you have it, sell it. I'll gladly enjoy the splits on your dime.

[spursncowboys]

This reminds me, I listen to Rush Limbaugh on WOAI in the afternoon and all these people call in as Rush goes on about taxes and I get a kick out of it. Rush has about 300 million dollars. Those people have DICK in common with Rush Limbaugh. They couldn't get near his property to drive by his house to see where he lives ...

It's a strange strange phenomena....
What is strange about it? Rush earning that 300 mil doesn't take away from the viewers earning the same. Maybe they respect his work ethic.

[spursncowboys]

yeah, vote in someone who is going to do the same thing. again, why so many average schmucks scream and cry over wanting to limit CEO pay or raise taxes on high incomes, is beyond me.

Oh that's right, that's gonna be you some day....:lmao
as an average schuck, I have a huge problem with the government depicting groups as victims. I hate someone want to have power over someone having to explain how they became financially successful. I find it hillarious to think people who never had a job in the private sector think they can make it "fair" in the private sector.

[word]

How 'bout the thousands of executives at Microsoft making mid-six figures and above? All because of the vision and business acumen of Bill Gates?

Then, you have to talk about all the executives of all the high-tech firms making damn good salaries because of the marketability of the computer achieved by Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Steve Jobs et. al.

I have friends that make a quarter-million a year doing mid-level technical work for Dell Computers.

You would begrudge Michael Dell his billions? Well, because of him, there are thousands of people worth millions to billions.

That's wealth creation. If you can't do it, shut up and let those who can, keep on. And, if their company's boards see fit to reward them with what you believe are exorbitant bonuses, don't buy their stock...and, if you have it, sell it. I'll gladly enjoy the splits on your dime.

I won't even buy his crappy software ...he's a criminal. Dell I have no particular problem with.

Warren Buffet agrees with me. You have Rush.

I guess we're even.

[word]

I have friends that make a quarter-million a year doing mid-level technical work for Dell Computers.



I call bullshit.

[spursncowboys]

Work a 9-5 M-F job and then moonlight on weekends and some weeknights.

[word]

It was an auspicious week for the touchy issues surrounding executive pay. One after another, President Obama’s pay czar, Kenneth Feinberg, announced new restrictions for AIG executives; Goldman Sachs was reported to be putting aside $23 billion for this year’s bonus pool, the largest anywhere, ever; and Elinor Ostrom from Indiana University shared the Nobel Prize in economics for her breakthrough work on how large companies organize themselves, often in ways that encourage executives to put their own financial interests before those of the shareholders.

Starting with Goldman, it’s obvious that annual bonuses equal to 10 or 20 times what an average American earns in his or her entire lifetime, coming from a firm which recently received huge, direct and indirect taxpayer-funded assistance, are certain to spark outrage. That reaction isn’t misplaced, and there’s a sensible response to it based on the core tenets of capitalism, which we will get to shortly.....

http://www.sonecon.com/blog/?tag=executive-compensation

[word]

I feel so sorry for these poor guys ...it just makes me weep....by the way, GE, of which Welch was the CEO of, payed zero income tax last year. Zero, Zip, Nada...


It took public divorce proceedings against GE’s Jack Welch for shareholders to find out that on top of the many hundreds of millions of dollars Welch received in stock and salary, his friendly board had also awarded him lifetime use of the company’s 737 and helicopters; lifetime floor seats for the Knicks and lifetime box seats for the Red Sox, Yankees and the Metropolitan Opera; exclusive lifetime use of a sprawling Manhattan apartment, including fresh flowers, dry cleaning service and even the tips for the doorman; and a catalog of lifetime golf and country club memberships. His and most other executive contracts also now include “gross-ups,” which means that the shareholders also pick up federal and state taxes owed on the executives’ various perks.

[Yonivore]

I feel so sorry for these poor guys ...it just makes me weep....by the way, GE, of which Welch was the CEO of, payed zero income tax last year. Zero, Zip, Nada...
How much income did they have? If you want to blame someone for GE paying no taxes, blame the legislators that write the Tax Code allowing GE to do what any of us would do.

How much tax did their employees pay?

[word]

How much income did they have? If you want to blame someone for GE paying no taxes, blame the legislators that write the Tax Code allowing GE to do what any of us would do.


About FACE, forward MARCH ...lol

Actually I don't care about that. We have some the highest corporate taxes in the world. I would like to see zero corporate tax, as it is in Hong Kong. You tax the individual wage earner, not the corporation. It would be nice if these chumps wouldn't steal the money though..oh, of course these are salaries and bonus's they 'earned'. CEO's and boards get bonus's, HUGE bonus's whether the company makes money or loses money. Surely you've heard about this. It's been on the news...for about ...10 years or longer....

[word]

How about this one...there are tons of 'em out there....


Sanjay Kumar, former CEO of Computer Associates had pleaded guilty to charges including conspiracy, securities fraud and obstruction of justice back in April. He has been sentenced to 12 years and fined $8 million.


As part of a $2.2 billion accounting scandal he had falsely reported software licence revenues and lied to investors

[word]

Another big fraud that shook the corporate world was planned by founder and CEO of Adelphia Communications Corporation, John Rigas. Adelphia was once the fifth-largest US cable-television company. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

....

In one of the biggest scandals in telecom history, former CEO of Denver-based telecommunications company Qwest International was convicted of insider trading.

The SEC lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleges that actions by Nacchio and other former Qwest Communications International Inc. executives allowed the Denver-based company to improperly report revenue.

...

A stock option backdating scandal hit the storage networking company Brocade Communications Systems in 2005. Its CEO Gregory Reyes was sentenced to 21 months in prison for tampering with the financial records of stock options the company offered its employees.

.....

The 85-count indictment of HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in 2003 sent shock waves through corporate America, especially since Scrushy was the first CEO to be charged under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Scrushy eventually stood trial for 36 counts of fraud and money-laundering, but was acquitted of all charges in 2005. However, his legal battles did not end there. In 2006, Scrushy was convicted of bribing former Alabama governor Don Siegelman in exchange for a seat on a state medical review board. He is currently serving a seven year prison term.

...

Sam Waksal, founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company ImClone, is a long-time friend of Martha Stewart and the person responsible for tipping off her broker and members of his own family to the pending plunge of ImClone stock in 2002. He was convicted of several counts of fraud, obstruction of justice and perjury, and sentenced to more than seven years in federal penitentiary.


the list goes on and on and on and on ....

let me ask you this yoni, what would you say is at the core of this recent phenomena of so many ceos being crooks ? Is it the general decay in the moral fiber of our nation, or is there something else at the heart of it ?

[Yonivore]

About FACE, forward MARCH ...lol

Actually I don't care about that. We have some the highest corporate taxes in the world. I would like to see zero corporate tax, as it is in Hong Kong. You tax the individual wage earner, not the corporation. It would be nice if these chumps wouldn't steal the money though..oh, of course these are salaries and bonus's they 'earned'. CEO's and boards get bonus's, HUGE bonus's whether the company makes money or loses money. Surely you've heard about this. It's been on the news...for about ...10 years or longer....
Again, you're back to wanting to control what they do with their own money.

[Yonivore]

Another big fraud that shook the corporate world was planned by founder and CEO of Adelphia Communications Corporation, John Rigas. Adelphia was once the fifth-largest US cable-television company. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

....

In one of the biggest scandals in telecom history, former CEO of Denver-based telecommunications company Qwest International was convicted of insider trading.

The SEC lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleges that actions by Nacchio and other former Qwest Communications International Inc. executives allowed the Denver-based company to improperly report revenue.

...

A stock option backdating scandal hit the storage networking company Brocade Communications Systems in 2005. Its CEO Gregory Reyes was sentenced to 21 months in prison for tampering with the financial records of stock options the company offered its employees.

.....

The 85-count indictment of HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy in 2003 sent shock waves through corporate America, especially since Scrushy was the first CEO to be charged under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Scrushy eventually stood trial for 36 counts of fraud and money-laundering, but was acquitted of all charges in 2005. However, his legal battles did not end there. In 2006, Scrushy was convicted of bribing former Alabama governor Don Siegelman in exchange for a seat on a state medical review board. He is currently serving a seven year prison term.

...

Sam Waksal, founder and former CEO of the biotechnology company ImClone, is a long-time friend of Martha Stewart and the person responsible for tipping off her broker and members of his own family to the pending plunge of ImClone stock in 2002. He was convicted of several counts of fraud, obstruction of justice and perjury, and sentenced to more than seven years in federal penitentiary.


the list goes on and on and on and on ....

let me ask you this yoni, what would you say is at the core of this recent phenomena of so many ceos being crooks ? Is it the general decay in the moral fiber of our nation, or is there something else at the heart of it ?
Sounds to me like the legal system works...at least it did under the Bush administration.

Let's see if Obama's Justice Department is as zealous...

Besides, as long a list as you could come up with, there are a 100 times more corporations out there doing honest business and creating wealth for their employees and stockholders.

Well, until Obama got ahold of Wall Street. We'll have to see how this all shakes out now, won't we?

[word]

You see, when they give them these stock options as bonus's, it dilutes shareholder value, simple as that. The boards of these companies work on a 'scratch my back I'll scratch yours' mentality and the stockholders be damned because the system is rigged against them to have an power to vote against it. In fact, you don't get a vote if you want to award bonus's. You only get to vote on the board. After that, whatever they do, they do. Is it too much to ask that I don't have to pay for a CEO's 737, or opera tickets etc etc or have to shell out, as in the case of some wall street firms, a multi- billion dollar bonus to A PERSON. A person who not only I have to pay his bonus but the tax ON that bonus ?

"These are all examples of what economists call the “agent-principal problem,” in which the interests of agents — they’re the executives — diverge from those of the principals, who here are the owners or shareholders.

[word]

Clearly you never been burned by a company, either working for them, or owning their stock. Hope it never does, but if it does, I assure you, you'll be pissed when you find out someone 'told you what to do' with 'your money'. That is, put it in 'their pocket'. But I don't know your age/experience in life. I'm retired, and I've seen too much of this bullshit.

[Yonivore]

You see, when they give them these stock options as bonus's, it dilutes shareholder value, simple as that. The boards of these companies work on a 'scratch my back I'll scratch yours' mentality and the stockholders be damned because the system is rigged against them to have an power to vote against it. In fact, you don't get a vote if you want to award bonus's. You only get to vote on the board. After that, whatever they do, they do. Is it too much to ask that I don't have to pay for a CEO's 737, or opera tickets etc etc or have to shell out, as in the case of some wall street firms, a multi- billion dollar bonus to A PERSON. A person who not only I have to pay his bonus but the tax ON that bonus ?

"These are all examples of what economists call the “agent-principal problem,” in which the interests of agents — they’re the executives — diverge from those of the principals, who here are the owners or shareholders.
If their stock isn't earning for me, I sell it. Simple as that. And, my friend, that's where the stockholder's power lies. If I'm earning on their stock, I could care less what they pay their executives.

[Yonivore]

Clearly you never been burned by a company, either working for them, or owning their stock. Hope it never does, but if it does, I assure you, you'll be pissed when you find out someone 'told you what to do' with 'your money'. That is, put it in 'their pocket'. But I don't know your age/experience in life. I'm retired, and I've seen too much of this bullshit.
Watched my 401K disintegrate and I'm about to retire. Lucky for me, I'm invested broadly.

I choose my stocks carefully.

[word]

You do understand that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have been hurt by this bullshit and catching them 'after the fact' after the damage is done, is not 'the system worked'. The criminal justice system, yes, but I don't own stock in that.

We can agree on that, right ?

[Yonivore]

You do understand that thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people have been hurt by this bullshit and catching them 'after the fact' after the damage is done, is not 'the system worked'. The criminal justice system, yes, but I don't own stock in that.

We can agree on that, right ?
I wasn't invested in any of those criminal enterprises. Or, if I was, it wasn't much.

The economic policies of the Congress and the Executive are stealing more from me than any criminal CEO could ever hope to pocket.

[word]

I'll give you this. You are 100% right wing capitalist all the way...

[Yonivore]

I'll give you this. You are 100% right wing capitalist all the way...
And, I'll give you this; you think you're somehow entitled to someone else's wealth.

The term, "wealth inequality," itself, is a farce. Who ever said wealth was to be equally distributed?

[MannyIsGod]

Show it.

[word]

And, I'll give you this; you think you're somehow entitled to someone else's wealth.

The term, "wealth inequality," itself, is a farce. Who ever said wealth was to be equally distributed?

I am not the original poster. Somehow you've given me some beliefs I don't hold. I am not as passionate as you about it. I'm not a 100%'er, of anything.

I believe in capitalism, with adequate control and regulation. I believe in a progressive tax system. I believe stock holders should be protected from greedy corrupt executives. I believe in the need for unions. I believe in the rights of the working man. I believe kittens should be able to coexist peacefully with dogs of all breeds.

Yet, I've never once voted democrat but I just might because this republican party gets further and further away from me with each day that passes. I'm hoping someone can right the ship.

[Yonivore]

Show it.
Manny, you've become just another gnat in the forum...

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, you've become just another gnat in the forum...

:lmao

So much for that olive branch of yours. I'm sorry I bothered you by asking for proof of your statements other than anecdotes. I didn't mean to offend.

[Winehole23]

I doubt you did offend him. It was just another opportunity for Yoni to strut his evident superiority.

Vain, yes.

[Winehole23]

Yoni=olympian, elevated and sublime

[Winehole23]

MIG=gnatlike, base and chthonic

[2centsworth]

Link?

http://www.thomasjstanley.com/

80% of millionaires are 1st generation.



I'm assuming if the original charts had some integrity they would have measured much differently. For instance, eliminating the likes of Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet along with the Massive Prison Population would be a clearer representation.

[admiralsnackbar]

http://www.thomasjstanley.com/

80% of millionaires are 1st generation.



I'm assuming if the original charts had some integrity they would have measured much differently. For instance, eliminating the likes of Bill Gates and Warrent Buffet along with the Massive Prison Population would be a clearer representation.

I wonder what percentage of these millionaires makes above the $250K/year tax threshold?

[2centsworth]

I wonder what percentage of these millionaires makes above the $250K/year tax threshold?

Don't have the answer to that. What I do know is that most 1st generation millionaires are small business owners.

[LnGrrrR]

Yoni, you are aware that company executive are morally bound (and perhaps legally, not clear on that) to do what's best for stakeholders, correct?

Taking billions of money and putting it into bonuses... is that the best way for a stakeholder to realize the value of their money?

Also, are these bonuses public information? Available to all shareholders?

[coyotes_geek]

Also, are these bonuses public information? Available to all shareholders?

Yes. Each year when shareholders get their proxy statements and notice of annual shareholder meeting there's a section in there that details the compensation for the top executives and board of directors.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes. Each year when shareholders get their proxy statements and notice of annual shareholder meeting there's a section in there that details the compensation for the top executives and board of directors.

Ah, thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if they had to make that public or not.

[rjv]

Really? Was Limbaugh always worth $300 Million? Was it given to him?

How 'bout Gates? Dell? Bezos? et. al.? Or the Google and YouTube geniuses?

There are very few trust fund babies left, like the Hiltons, etc... Most of the wealthy earned or created their worth.

If you think it's pollyannaish, then you've accepted you don't have the work ethic or tenacity to achieve like they have.

well hell, then i guess idi amin was just a self-motivator ! the cartel leaders in mexico are just entrepeneurs !

outside the context of an individual who represents a fraction of a fraction of the population is reality, a reality in which not all roads are as open for such a fairy tale (hell just a decent living) for all people.

but hey, i guess you just happen to be a mutli-mllionaire who spends his time on preaching to the rest of us on a forum.

[RandomGuy]

Ah, thanks for the info. I wasn't sure if they had to make that public or not.

If you go to yahoo finance you can also see the declared income (but not the unexercised stock options, which are generally MUCH more than the actual pay) of the top 5 execs.

You start at the page where they show the company base data:

(here is the link for citigroup) (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=C)

Look down the left side, and you will see a list of links.

The group "Company" has a link with the text "profile". Click on that, or this link to go directly there. (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=C+Profile)

That shows the base pay and exercised stock options in the lower right corner.

Note again, the UNEXERCISED stock options are not shown. Since most CEO's are paid pretty much by stock options, this doesn't generally capture the true compensation.

This is one of the reasons I am all for capital gains taxes being changed and simply counted as regular income.

[rjv]

That's wealth creation. If you can't do it, shut up and let those who can, keep on. And, if their company's boards see fit to reward them with what you believe are exorbitant bonuses, don't buy their stock...and, if you have it, sell it. I'll gladly enjoy the splits on your dime.


just make sure you have reliable information on the performance of the company. the SEC already has found DELL to be guilty of illegal auditing practices before.

[RandomGuy]

If their stock isn't earning for me, I sell it. Simple as that. And, my friend, that's where the stockholder's power lies. If I'm earning on their stock, I could care less what they pay their executives.

Most stockholders are absolutely clueless as to the amount of their money that is going to bloated executive pay.

I think that if the average stockholder really knew how much their shares were diluted, and how of their money went into the pockets of management, they would not be quite so sanguine about it.

Boards of directors are supposed to represent the interests of stockholders, but very often... don't.

Boards of directors generally defer almost entirely to management, especially given the number of CEO's who cooincidentally happen to be Chairmen of their respective boards.

Do you really know what the dilutive effects are of the stock options issued to the execs in the company you hold stock in?

How much more would your stocks earn if the top execs simply decided to pay themselves $200k per year and never took anything else from the company?

Everybody here knows you can't answer either question.

[RandomGuy]

just make sure you have reliable information on the performance of the company. the SEC already has found DELL to be guilty of illegal auditing practices before.

Don't forget Enron, WorldCom, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[Yonivore]

First, someone needs to explain why an unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing.

Then, we can talk about if or how it should be fixed.

Simple thought experiment.

If everyone held the same amount of wealth (wealth equality), how would you determine who gets to purchase finite resources?

Second simple thought experiment.

If everyone held the same amount of wealth (wealth equality), who would be motivated to produce the goods everyone would be able to afford? In other words, if my wealth is equal to your wealth, what's my motivation to produce anything for more than my immediate family, friends, or associates? If I cannot enrich myself more than the non-producer (because that would result in a "wealth inequality"), what's the point in producing at all?

And, rjv, this isn't Uganda or Mexico.

[Yonivore]

Most stockholders are absolutely clueless as to the amount of their money that is going to bloated executive pay.

I think that if the average stockholder really knew how much their shares were diluted, and how of their money went into the pockets of management, they would not be quite so sanguine about it.

Boards of directors are supposed to represent the interests of stockholders, but very often... don't.

Boards of directors generally defer almost entirely to management, especially given the number of CEO's who cooincidentally happen to be Chairmen of their respective boards.

Do you really know what the dilutive effects are of the stock options issued to the execs in the company you hold stock in?

How much more would your stocks earn if the top execs simply decided to pay themselves $200k per year and never took anything else from the company?

Everybody here knows you can't answer either question.
As a stockholder, I'm either satisfied with my return or I'm not. What's your point?

Paying executives exorbitant bonuses or giving them golden parachutes does not equate to cooking the books or illegality. There's a difference. Conflating the two does your argument no good.

Do I want to be a stockholder in a company that cooks the books or engages in illegal activities? Probably not -- unless, of course, that illegality improves the value of my holdings without exposing me to culpability or sudden, unforeseen loss in value.

Do I want to be a stockholder in a company that legally pads their executives' pockets? Probably not -- unless, of course, that padding has little or no detriment on the value of my stocks. At the point I think a company is working against my interests, as a stockholder, I divest. It's that simple.

These CEO's don't live secret lives (for the most part). Maybe stockholders should educate themselves about companies in which they invest. If a company doesn't appear to be straightforward in it's prospectus or required filings, don't invest.

Quit being victims.

[coyotes_geek]

Note again, the UNEXERCISED stock options are not shown. Since most CEO's are paid pretty much by stock options, this doesn't generally capture the true compensation.

This is one of the reasons I am all for capital gains taxes being changed and simply counted as regular income.

The annual meeting notices include the number of shares of unexercised stock options the ceo's hold.

It's also important to note that not all stock options get taxed at capital gains tax rates. Short term / long term rules still apply. So when a CEO exercises his options and sells the stock immediately, that's short term capital gains which get taxed as ordinary income. Exercising stock options also has AMT implications.

All that being said, I agree with you about capital gains tax rates and don't have a problem with changing them to make them either match or more closely mirror traditional income tax rates.

[rjv]

And, rjv, this isn't Uganda or Mexico.

it isn't? really ?

way to miss the sarcasm that neither ambition nor nobility can be measured by wealth.

[rjv]

First, someone needs to explain why an unequal distribution of wealth is a bad thing.

Then, we can talk about if or how it should be fixed.

Simple thought experiment.

If everyone held the same amount of wealth (wealth equality), how would you determine who gets to purchase finite resources?

Second simple thought experiment.

If everyone held the same amount of wealth (wealth equality), who would be motivated to produce the goods everyone would be able to afford? In other words, if my wealth is equal to your wealth, what's my motivation to produce anything for more than my immediate family, friends, or associates? If I cannot enrich myself more than the non-producer (because that would result in a "wealth inequality"), what's the point in producing at all?


this is an extremely ambiguous question..are we talking about needs or luxuries?

also, what universe is this ? i imagine in this mystical place that we are all also physical and intellectual equals living in a world that is at complete peace and rid of violence and disease.

[Yonivore]

this is an extremely ambiguous question..are we talking about needs or luxuries?
Take your pick.


also, what universe is this ? i imagine in this mystical place that we are all also physical and intellectual equals living in a world that is at complete peace and rid of violence and disease.
Y'all are the ones arguing for "wealth equality," not me.

As for me, I recognized early in life, things aren't equal. They never will be. My station in life is wholly dependent on my abilities and determination.

[RandomGuy]

As a stockholder, I'm either satisfied with my return or I'm not. What's your point?

Paying executives exorbitant bonuses or giving them golden parachutes does not equate to cooking the books or illegality. There's a difference. Conflating the two does your argument no good.

Do I want to be a stockholder in a company that cooks the books or engages in illegal activities? Probably not -- unless, of course, that illegality improves the value of my holdings without exposing me to culpability or sudden, unforeseen loss in value.

Do I want to be a stockholder in a company that legally pads their executives' pockets? Probably not -- unless, of course, that padding has little or no detriment on the value of my stocks. At the point I think a company is working against my interests, as a stockholder, I divest. It's that simple.

These CEO's don't live secret lives (for the most part). Maybe stockholders should educate themselves about companies in which they invest. If a company doesn't appear to be straightforward in it's prospectus or required filings, don't invest.

Quit being victims.

My point is that your returns would be a lot better for any given revenue stream if the executives had not taken quite so large of a share, as statistically they probably do, based on overall compensation.

There is some evidence to suggest that CEO pay and company perfomance are inversely correlated.

Simply waving ones hand and saying "they should educate themselves or they have only themselves to blame" strikes me as a glib transfer of responsibility.

Don't you think that boards of directors, as representatives of stockholders, have an ethical duty to make things a bit more transparent to the average stockholder?

[RandomGuy]

Paying executives exorbitant bonuses or giving them golden parachutes does not equate to cooking the books or illegality. There's a difference. Conflating the two does your argument no good.

(sniffs)

Smells like moral ambiguity to me.

You are, in essence, saying:

"There is a difference between unethical behavior and illegal behavior, and if it isn't illegal it is ok."

Can something be legal, and yet unethical?

[rjv]

Take your pick.


Y'all are the ones arguing for "wealth equality," not me.

As for me, I recognized early in life, things aren't equal. They never will be. My station in life is wholly dependent on my abilities and determination.


arguing for a more level and less corrupt playing field is not tantamount to saying that everyone should have the exact same amount.

and of course abilities and detmermination are part of the equation. but there are lot of other variables as well. simplifying them to all it takes is some good old fashioned american ethic and pride is too simplistic.

but outside the context of this elementary critique of human nature is the fact that we have a government that is destroying the invisible force of the market and replacing it with rules and regulations meant to abet corporate crooks (both individual and institutional) hellbent on creating a competitive advantage.

when administrations destroy anti-trust laws (reagan), deregulate the financial sector (clinton), enlarge the miltary's relationship with corporate america (reagan, bush, clinton, bush and obama) and then bail out banks (obama) you can not honestly say that this is really a "free" market.

[Yonivore]

arguing for a more level and less corrupt playing field is not tantamount to saying that everyone should have the exact same amount.

and of course abilities and detmermination are part of the equation. but there are lot of other variables as well. simplifying them to all it takes is some good old fashioned american ethic and pride is too simplistic.

but outside the context of this elementary critique of human nature is the fact that we have a government that is destroying the invisible force of the market and replacing it with rules and regulations meant to abet corporate crooks (both individual and institutional) hellbent on creating a competitive advantage.

when administrations destroy anti-trust laws (reagan), deregulate the financial sector (clinton), enlarge the miltary's relationship with corporate america (reagan, bush, clinton, bush and obama) and then bail out banks (obama) you can not honestly say that this is really a "free" market.
So, the problem is government? I agree.

[Yonivore]

(sniffs)

Smells like moral ambiguity to me.

You are, in essence, saying:

"There is a difference between unethical behavior and illegal behavior, and if it isn't illegal it is ok."

Can something be legal, and yet unethical?
Yep.

[Winehole23]

@Yoni: A mild rejiggering of the equities back toward the bottom of the scale needn't presuppose a strict equalitarian distribution of the social product, and even Marxism doesn't assume one: "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need" is an insight that proceeds from presumed inequalities of wealth and ability.

(So much for that strawman.)

Besides, you haven't even acknowledged/responded to the argument that extreme concentration of wealth can breed economic inefficiencies.

[Winehole23]

The system relies on happy consumers. Wealth is squeezing out the middle class in the US. That's not a good thing for the legitimacy of the system. In that direction lie Mexico and Brazil. But maybe that was the intended result all along.

[Yonivore]

Besides, you haven't even acknowledged/responded to the argument that extreme concentration of wealth can breed economic inefficiencies.
And, are self-correcting if you don't fuck with it.

[RandomGuy]

Can something be legal, and yet unethical?


Yep.

If companies are, by their actions, unethically witholding a part of the information that could materially affect its stockholders, what do we do about it?

[RandomGuy]

And, are self-correcting if you don't fuck with it.

You are assuming that it is supposed to be self-correcting based on what, exactly?

[rjv]

So, the problem is government? I agree.


not government. the problem is the past few adminstrations. they have turned our particular government into a statist nation when it comes to how our economy is run.

this does not make the corporations any less cuplable. there is a reason that lobbyists are sent to capitol hill in record amounts year after year...all with the intent of making sure that policies prove to be more beneifical to them than to the public.

[Winehole23]

And, are self-correcting if you don't fuck with it.According to theory and legend, yes.

Who's the utopian now, Yoni? :lol

The state is boots deep in business, and the other way around. There's no free market. There hasn't been one for 100 years, if ever. There's always the context of legality and political power. Maybe you can bracket the state conceptually, but in reality you can't untangle it from everyday life.

[Winehole23]

The plea to "leave business alone" at this point is a demand that the concupiscence of commerce and the state be allowed to continue without interruption or interference.

[MannyIsGod]

And, are self-correcting if you don't fuck with it.


Tell that to the corporations who fuck with it on a daily basis to their benefit and societies detriment.

[MannyIsGod]

The plea to "leave business alone" at this point is a demand that the concupiscence of commerce and the state be allowed to continue without interruption or interference.

Surely the American people are smart enough to not let the system do horrible things, WH. We dont' need regulation, its just a power grab. We've seen recently how well our system runs when consumers and business are allowed to go at it. The consumers run all over business!

[Winehole23]

And, are self-correcting if you don't fuck with it.If only business lobbies were similarly reluctant to "fuck" with elections and legislative process. Wouldn't that be nice?

[rjv]

The plea to "leave business alone" at this point is a demand that the concupiscence of commerce and the state be allowed to continue without interruption or interference.

i never thought of it in such intimate terms but i guess that is kind of what it is.

[MannyIsGod]

After what I've seen in the past few years anyone who still clings to anarcho-capitalism is an ignorant fool, IMO.

[Yonivore]

If only business lobbies were similarly reluctant to "fuck" with elections and legislative process. Wouldn't that be nice?
There again, I blame the politicians. Elect people with integrity.

[rjv]

There again, I blame the politicians. Elect people with integrity.

sounds like you're actually blaming the voters.

[Winehole23]

There again, I blame the politicians. Elect people with integrity.A good businessman would after all be remiss in his responsibility to shareholders to refrain from abusing a venal government....

[Yonivore]

sounds like you're actually blaming the voters.
Well, I'll be damn; I am.

[rjv]

Well, I'll be damn; I am.

so then that means your blaming the electoral process since it is dependent upon such fallability.

[Yonivore]

so then that means your blaming the electoral process since it is dependent upon such fallability.
Well, to be sure, this isn't our forefathers electoral process.

[rjv]

Well, to be sure, this isn't our forefathers electoral process.

sure. they did not allow women nor blacks to vote but they believed in elected representation (as far as the house went).

[Yonivore]

sure. they did not allow women nor blacks to vote but they believed in elected representation (as far as the house went).
More appropriately, until around 1850, they only allowed tax-paying property owners to vote.

And, prior to the 17th amendment, States still were able to choose the occupants of the Senate (the advise and consent side of the legislature).

Now, the Senate is a beauty contest and people with no investment in this country can vote the theft of my money to support their lifestyle.

[Winehole23]

I don't see how having Senators in tow to state political machines, as they were previously, necessarily improves matters, and the Amendment itself would seem to indicate there was a general urgency about changing that state of affairs.

/smoke-filled room

[rjv]

More appropriately, until around 1850, they only allowed tax-paying property owners to vote.

And, prior to the 17th amendment, States still were able to choose the occupants of the Senate (the advise and consent side of the legislature).

Now, the Senate is a beauty contest and people with no investment in this country can vote the theft of my money to support their lifestyle.

well since neither blacks nor women were property owners i guess it all works out the same.

but yes, the framers intentionally framed a republic so as to avoid the pitfalls of other "democracies" of the time. and even more so, your point about tax payers illustrates that the framers wanted to make sure that they could secure the permanent interests of the country, which were property rights. in other words, the government must guard the rights of persons generally, but must provide special and additional guarantees for the rights of one class of persons, property owners.

the framers were aristocrats and they often spoke in condescending tones in regards to the "people".

"When I mention the public, I mean to include only the rational part of it. The ignorant and vulgar are as unfit to judge of the modes [of government], as they are unable to manage [its] reins.." alexander hamilton

"The people who own the country ought to govern it." john jay

and the primary responsibility of the constiution according to madison was "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority..."

the founding fathers were more concerned about property than democracy.

[MannyIsGod]

1. Yoni sees no problem with the wealth in this country accumulating in the hands of a few
2. Yoni advocates that only property owners be allowed to vote.

Very telling.

[RandomGuy]

According to theory and legend, yes.

Who's the utopian now, Yoni? :lol

The state is boots deep in business, and the other way around. There's no free market. There hasn't been one for 100 years, if ever. There's always the context of legality and political power. Maybe you can bracket the state conceptually, but in reality you can't untangle it from everyday life.

Total lasiez-faire capitalism does tend to lead to monopolies.

I think we can all agree that monopolies are very inefficient outcomes.

I have yet to hear a free-market solution for monopolies.

Yoni, since you are the liberatarian champion here, can you tell me what the libertarian answer to monopolies is?

Just to be clear: I am not being snarky at all, I am genuinely curious to see if there is an answer, as I can't really think of one other than govermental regulation.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yoni should try living in countries where his preferred policies have been implemented. Oligarchies are pretty depressing (unless you happen to be born to the oligarchs, of course -- then it's kick-ass!)(once you clear the hurdles of conscience).

[RandomGuy]

1. Yoni sees no problem with the wealth in this country accumulating in the hands of a few
2. Yoni advocates that only property owners be allowed to vote.

Very telling.

He does make a very valid point or two though.

All economic systems are essentially methods of rationing goods and services. In communism/socialism that method is usually allotment, and/or the ability to be first in line, in free-market system that is accomplished by ability/willingness to pay.

If everybody were of equal wealth, how would you go about distributing goods/services?

How would you then reward risk, talent, or good ideas?

I think we need to be mindful of the consequences of completely unfettered capitalism, as well as the fact that it is a driver of innovation.

[LnGrrrR]

My guess at Yoni's solutions:

How to correct extreme wealth inequality - Revolution
How to combat monopolies - You don't. Alternatively, revolution.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, since you are the liberatarian champion here, can you tell me what the libertarian answer to monopolies is?
Monopoly on what? Some aren't worth worrying about. Others are only able to exist because of government/congressional enabling/tinkering/fubaring.


Just to be clear: I am not being snarky at all, I am genuinely curious to see if there is an answer, as I can't really think of one other than govermental regulation.
No, I get that. I honestly think it depends on what is being monopolized.

[Winehole23]

Yoni, since you are the liberatarian champion here, can you tell me what the libertarian answer to monopolies is?I know you didn't ask me, and I don't really have an answer to that question, but I can offer this:

We could use existing Federal antitrust laws to break up abusive trusts and combinations, and RTC-like resolution authority to break up shitty banks.

[Yonivore]

My guess at Yoni's solutions:

How to correct extreme wealth inequality - Revolution
Only necessary when extreme "wealth inequality" is combined with oppressive, fascist government control of its citizenry. When the wealthy start crying, "Let them eat cake!" and the government condones and enables that, yeah, revolution may be the only recourse.

I don't think we're there.

There are 350 million Americans. If we collectively think Bill Gates is too wealthy, we start buying another operating system. Same with General Motors.

Unfortunately, in the case of GM, the government has stepped in and propped up the wealthy.

Nobody is too big to fail in this country. And, nobody is too small to succeed. If only government would stay out of the way.


How to combat monopolies - You don't. Alternatively, revolution.
Again, depends on what's being monopolized.

[MannyIsGod]

He does make a very valid point or two though.

All economic systems are essentially methods of rationing goods and services. In communism/socialism that method is usually allotment, and/or the ability to be first in line, in free-market system that is accomplished by ability/willingness to pay.

If everybody were of equal wealth, how would you go about distributing goods/services?


The same way you do now? Are you telling me capitalism only works because of wealth inequality? Goods would still have value attached to them and just because everyone had equal wealth I don't see how any of that would change.

Not that anyone was advocating equal distribution of wealth. That was addressed very early on in this thread



How would you then reward risk, talent, or good ideas?


What about when ideas are squashed by force or saved only by government intervention? Imagine surfing the web today if Sun Microsystems hadn't won court battles against Microsoft. No Java because Microsoft was successful in punishing a good idea they didn't start.

Thats just an example.

I agree that a system that completely distributes wealth evenly wouldn't reward those tenets but then I don't really believe our current system does a good job of doing that either.



I think we need to be mindful of the consequences of completely unfettered capitalism, as well as the fact that it is a driver of innovation.

Absolutely.


Another point that I find rather ironic is that Yonivore simultaneously berates the voters for making poor decisions and champions a system that counts on the consumers to make good decisions. Who exactly does he believe consumers are if not the same people who are voting?

[MannyIsGod]

Monopoly on what? Some aren't worth worrying about. Others are only able to exist because of government/congressional enabling/tinkering/fubaring.


No, I get that. I honestly think it depends on what is being monopolized.

Uh, what?

[Winehole23]

Who exactly does he believe consumers are if not the same people who are voting?Compartmentalization is a bitch.

It's like Church of the Sub-genius: the cash nexus completes one's reliable link to salvation.

[Winehole23]

Voting is nice but its benefits are seldom economically measurable in the short term, unlike shopping.

[RandomGuy]

I know you didn't ask me, and I don't really have an answer to that question, but I can offer this:

We could use existing Federal antitrust laws to break up abusive trusts and combinations, and RTC-like resolution authority to break up shitty banks.

It was mostly to Yoni, it was a pretty general question open to anybody who wanted to put forth something. :toast

As I said, I can't think of anything other than big bad government, and having the government interfere with business is a libertarian no-no.

I always make the case that any good free market system needs rules and referees.

The question is not whether, unless you ask a real extremist like Ron Paul, but how much.

Therein lies the rub.

[RandomGuy]

Yoni, since you are the liberatarian champion here, can you tell me what the libertarian answer to monopolies is?


Monopoly on what? Some aren't worth worrying about. Others are only able to exist because of government/congressional enabling/tinkering/fubaring.


No, I get that. I honestly think it depends on what is being monopolized.

So, the answer is... it depends?

You seem to imply that monopolies aren't necessarily the inevitable consequence of capitalism without rule.

I do get that goverment interference does occasionally lead to monopolies, but I would contend that monopolies are almost inevitable consequences of NOT interfering. Sooner or later some company somewhere, would get the upper hand, and become a monopoly.

A monopoloy in a fairly minor aspect of the economy could always be broken by a bigger bully, but when it is somethign like oil or other high entry cost businesses, then we would pretty much have to have some goverment regulations.

How about oil, since it was the big one that pretty much caused the original anti-trust laws?

Other than laws, how would we as a society combat that?

[RandomGuy]

Another failure of liberatarian thinking for me:

Law enforcement.

Say you shrink the federal goverment, and push the functions of the FBI down to a state level.

How then would a state like Maine, or Wyoming, with a sparse popultion deal with a large drug cartel, or foreign/domestic mafia setting up shop, and buying a state government?

What is the libertarian, small government answer to organized crime?

Yet another thing that the founding fathers never had to contend with, and definitely never forsaw.

[LnGrrrR]

What is the libertarian, small government answer to organized crime?


Another guess!

State militias, organized by volunteers. :D

[RandomGuy]

Another guess!

State militias, organized by volunteers. :D

That honestly had not occurred to me.

I don't see the average militia standing up to a drug cartel with a billion dollars to spend on thugs/guns/bribes.

Good try though.

[LnGrrrR]

That honestly had not occurred to me.

I don't see the average militia standing up to a drug cartel with a billion dollars to spend on thugs/guns/bribes.

Good try though.

To be fair, I'm sure many wouldn't imagine that America could win a war against what was the strongest nation in the world at the time.

As well, the militia wouldn't have to WIN the war... just make it costly enough for the drug sellers that it's not worth selling there. :)

Not sure about the feasibility, but theoretically it could work. :D

[MannyIsGod]

One of the biggest failings of libertarian thinking is lack of acknowledgement that multinational corporations are just as bad if not worse than government.

[MannyIsGod]

Also RG, I personally believe you're going beyond libertarian thinking straight into anarchist thinking. Libertarians doesn't necessarily believe in no government but extremely limited government.

Anarcho-capitalism has a lot of answers to the questions you pose but i don't believe them to be either feasible or effective.

[RandomGuy]

Also RG, I personally believe you're going beyond libertarian thinking straight into anarchist thinking. Libertarians doesn't necessarily believe in no government but extremely limited government.

Anarcho-capitalism has a lot of answers to the questions you pose but i don't believe them to be either feasible or effective.

I would tend to agree. I think libertarianism has a stronger anarchist streak in it than some would care to admit to.

There are other hybrid ideas out there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Wrap yer brain around that one.

[Yonivore]

Another point that I find rather ironic is that Yonivore simultaneously berates the voters for making poor decisions and champions a system that counts on the consumers to make good decisions. Who exactly does he believe consumers are if not the same people who are voting?
Not ironic at all when you consider I don't believe everyone should be voting nor do I believe everyone should have equal consumer power.

Perfectly consistent.

The problems in both systems lie with those who do not suffer the consequences of their decisions.

[Yonivore]

Uh, what?
Uh, pecans. I could care less if one guy owned all the pecans.

[Yonivore]

So, the answer is... it depends?

You seem to imply that monopolies aren't necessarily the inevitable consequence of capitalism without rule.

I do get that goverment interference does occasionally lead to monopolies, but I would contend that monopolies are almost inevitable consequences of NOT interfering. Sooner or later some company somewhere, would get the upper hand, and become a monopoly.
Again, you have to tell me what they've monopolized before I can venture a guess of whether or not I care.


A monopoloy in a fairly minor aspect of the economy could always be broken by a bigger bully, but when it is somethign like oil or other high entry cost businesses, then we would pretty much have to have some goverment regulations.

How about oil, since it was the big one that pretty much caused the original anti-trust laws?

Other than laws, how would we as a society combat that?
I think necessity is the mother of invention. I would think monopolizing oil would be a blessing to environmentalists. I can imagine a boom in alternative energy sources if, in fact, oil were monopolized.

Maybe, we'd finally get off our asses and find something else on which to run our engines.

We've already learned, you don't have to have oil to make an engine run. Now, make the price prohibitive -- due to monopoly -- and watch alternative energies take off.

Screw Mr. Oil Tycoon.

Also; so many industries are dependent on cheap and available energy, I can't imagine a monopoly would be able to sustain a prohibitive price for very long without biting a thousand hands that feed it. After all, Mr. Oil Tycoon can't run the oil company himself and he must employ thousands -- maybe hundreds of thousands (in a monopoly) -- that depend on their needs being delivered by a transportation industry that can't exist if a monopoly drives energy prices out of reach.

[Winehole23]

http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/carya/cgc/carya1.jpg

Native range as of 1997.

[Yonivore]

Voting is nice but its benefits are seldom economically measurable in the short term, unlike shopping.
Really? Have you seen the debt and deficits President Obama has managed to rack up over the past year?

All because of voters.

[MannyIsGod]

Uh, pecans. I could care less if one guy owned all the pecans.


:lol

Who gives a shit if you give a shit? Must be nice in the Yonicentric universe. Maybe you can just vote for everyone and control all the wealth yourself Yoni.

[LnGrrrR]

Really? Have you seen the debt and deficits President Obama has managed to rack up over the past year?

All because of voters.

Hmm not sure about that. How much direct responsibility do voters have?

Does every person who voted for Obama share some blame for whatever he does in gov? Or just blame of they supported the actions he's taking?

What about if you voted for him even though you disagreed with half of his
platform, in order to prevent someone from winning whose platform you disagreed with entirely?

[Yonivore]

:lol

Who gives a shit if you give a shit?
Hey, you asked the question.


Must be nice in the Yonicentric universe. Maybe you can just vote for everyone and control all the wealth yourself Yoni.
Sounds like a plan.

[Yonivore]

Hmm not sure about that. How much direct responsibility do voters have?

Does every person who voted for Obama share some blame for whatever he does in gov? Or just blame of they supported the actions he's taking?
Yes and yes.


What about if you voted for him even though you disagreed with half of his platform, in order to prevent someone from winning whose platform you disagreed with entirely?
You're an idiot.

[MannyIsGod]

My question was rhetorical mainly to point out how ridiculous your statement was.

You never cease to amaze Yoni.

[Winehole23]

Really? Have you seen the debt and deficits President Obama has managed to rack up over the past year?

All because of voters.I said voting isn't measurable short term, unlike shopping. I'll stand by that.

(Pokes fun at homo economicus (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-prospects-for-homo-economicus))

[LnGrrrR]

You're an idiot.

You're the idiot if you don't recognize the value of voting for a lesser evil, IMO.

Are you Captain Kirk, gaming the Kobayashi Maru? :lol

Now if you want to argue against voting for either using something like the Lottery Paradox, go ahead. However, I see no need for ad hominems. I was asking a valid question.

Why doesn't everyone in the country share some responsibility? Surely, if one were to receive blame for voting for the "wrong" candidate, then one could receive blame for not doing enough to support the "right" candidate.

As well, placing blame on a group of people for the actions of one is interesting. It happens in politics with regularity, but it doesn't seem half as moral in other areas. Especially if the gov individual goes against campaign promises.

For instance, if McCain were voted in and hypothetically performed the same exact way as Obama, the blame would be magically shifted on a total different part of te population.

[Winehole23]

Your thesis that voters are somehow to blame for massive deficits, massive debt and massive QE is correct, but trivial, stressing very much the *somehow*.

We stood to get the massive deficits, the massive debt and the massive QE regardless of who won in Nov 2008.

[Winehole23]

Putting it all on Obama voters is a cop out and a gross simplification.

[LnGrrrR]

Your thesis that voters are somehow to blame for massive deficits, massive debt and massive QE is correct, but trivial. We stood to get the massive deficits, the massive debt and the massive QE regardless of who won in Nov 2008.

WH23, if you want to answer my rambling screed above, Id be interested to read it.

[Yonivore]

You're the idiot if you don't recognize the value of voting for a lesser evil, IMO.

Are you Captain Kirk, gaming the Kobayashi Maru? :lol
Actually, I was saying you're an idiot if you think Obama is the lesser evil. As a libertarian, I've been voting for the lesser of evils for quite some time.

And, if you voted for Obama, thinking he was the lesser of evils, I apologize for calling you an idiot. I'll keep that to myself in the future.


Now if you want to argue against voting for either using something like the Lottery Paradox, go ahead. However, I see no need for ad hominems. I was asking a valid question.

Why doesn't everyone in the country share some responsibility? Surely, if one were to receive blame for voting for the "wrong" candidate, then one could receive blame for not doing enough to support the "right" candidate.
That's when you get into the realm of what information is accessible to the electorate.


As well, placing blame on a group of people for the actions of one is interesting. It happens in politics with regularity, but it doesn't seem half as moral in other areas. Especially if the gov individual goes against campaign promises.

For instance, if McCain were voted in and hypothetically performed the same exact way as Obama, the blame would be magically shifted on a total different part of te population.
Yep. It's one of the reasons our founders hoped to keep all elections local; including that of President. Once upon a time, my local state representative was responsible for selecting the slate of electors that would vote for President.

I can pick up the phone, most days, and talk directly to my State Representative or State Senator.

[Winehole23]

If Obama is tied even vaguely and semantically to the ongoing economic fiasco in people's minds, that may be to one side's advantage.

The president owns the economy, again -- in people's minds -- despite the fact it rationally and technically it makes very little sense to say so.

[Yonivore]

If Obama is tied even vaguely and semantically to the ongoing economic fiasco in people's minds, that may be to one side's advantage.

The president owns the economy, again -- in people's minds -- despite the fact it rationally and technically it makes very little sense to say so.
I think the president's party orchestrated this whole calamity. Chief among the culprits, Tim Geithner.

[Winehole23]

I think the president's party orchestrated this whole calamity.I think it's fair to say Geithner was wearing a different hat when it first went down, as President of the NY Fed under Bush, as you may recall.

[Winehole23]

As I recall, the market rallied at news of his appointment to Treasury.

[Winehole23]

Elements of self-dealing were thematic post-panic, to be sure, but the loose threads led mostly to Goldman alums, i thought.

[Winehole23]

However did you trace the satanic partisan plot to sink the US economy and put the whole country in hock to megabanks and bank receivers to the Dems? That's a brand new one on me.

How'd it go down, profe?

[Ace9]

All I have to say is: Fuck Republicans.

[Wild Cobra]

My guess at Yoni's solutions:

How to correct extreme wealth inequality - Revolution
How to combat monopolies - You don't. Alternatively, revolution.
Maybe the inequity problem would fix itself if we stopped subsiduizing Americans that can work, and force them to work again.