American Wealth Inequality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I tend to believe that we're not in danger of revolutions in a violent sort of way because as others have pointed out the standard of living is so high here that while people may grumble about the situation who is really going to get violent while they live in relative comfort.

---

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.

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...

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

Extra Stout seems to be convinced of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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.

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

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.

@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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randomguy, who asked, fruitlessly and repeatedly

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...e658bc1728.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)

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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...e658bc1728.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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

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

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

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

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.

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.