Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44
  1. #1
    Damn The Man Mr. Peabody's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    4,475
    The quote is from 57 years ago, but I find it interesting for it's relevance to our current situation.

    Friday night on Real Time with Bill Maher (I know people think he's a pompous , but so am I sometimes), they were discussing the growing disparity between the wealthy and the rest of America. Someone (Bernie Sanders maybe) pointed out that so much wealth hasn't been allocated to so few people since just prior to the Great Depression and that the allocation of wealth lead to the Great Depression. Bill Maher said that he once read description of the economy in that era likening it to a poker game where only a few players have all the chips and no one else can play without borrowing. The game ends as soon as the house credit runs out.

    I thought it was an interesting description and googled the quote. This is what came up -

    This comes to us courtesy of , the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1934 1948 — think of him as the Ben Bernanke of his day.

    In his 1951 memoir Beckoning Frontiers, Eccles detailed what he believed caused the Depression.

    Eccles wrote:
    "As mass production has to be accompanied by mass consumption, mass consumption, in turn, implies a distribution of wealth — not of existing wealth, but of wealth as it is currently produced — to provide men with buying power equal to the amount of goods and services offered by the nations economic machinery. [Emphasis in original.]

    Instead of achieving that kind of distribution, a giant suction pump had by 1929-30 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth. This served them as capital ac ulations. But by taking purchasing power out of the hands of mass consumers, the savers denied to themselves the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital ac ulations in new plants. In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When their credit ran out, the game stopped.

    That is what happened to us in the twenties. We sustained high levels of employment in that period with the aid of an exceptional expansion of debt outside of the banking system. This debt was provided by the large growth of business savings as well as savings by individuals, particularly in the upper-income groups where taxes were relatively low. Private debt outside of the banking system increased about fifty per cent. This debt, which was at high interest rates, largely took the form of mortgage debt on housing, office, and hotel structures, consumer installment debt, brokers' loans, and foreign debt. The stimulation to spending by debt-creation of this sort was short-lived and could not be counted on to sustain high levels of employment for long periods of time. Had there been a better distribution of the current income from the national product — in other words, had there been less savings by business and the higher-income groups and more income in the lower groups — we should have had far greater stability in our economy. Had the six billion dollars, for instance, that were loaned by corporations and wealthy individuals for stock-market speculation been distributed to the public as lower prices or higher wages and with less profits to the corporations and the well-to-do, it would have prevented or greatly moderated the economic collapse that began at the end of 1929.
    It sounds similar to our current situation.

    Currently our per capita GDP is around $44,000. That means for a family of four $176,000 of goods and services are created in this country. However, our real median household income is only $50,000. That means that half the households in this is country have the purchasing power of less than a third of what is produced (before taxes). That seems problematic. How do we facilitate demand for our goods and services when we cannot afford our goods and services?

    I'll admit, I don't know much about economics. I must be missing something. What am I missing?

  2. #2
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    the GDP has not contracted any year under dubya.

    productivity has increased, also

    but househould income has stagnated or declined, in parallel with an increase in poverty.

    I just read an article where real salaries of young people (under 30 years old) in NYC has not improved in 30 years (the time span of the asendance of conservative philosophy). Salaries of young people across the country are worse over the 30 years.

    dubya's job creation growth has not kept up with population growth

    dubya's sickly GDP boom has been detached from growth in mass wealth.

    resulting in an income/wealth disparity which is a great as it was in the boom of the 1920s.

    yet, the dumb s in this forum continue to suppport the conservative philosophy of concentration of wealth (the very well hidden primary objective of conservatives), by cutting taxes and "free market" bull , buying into the conservative philosophy of "all taxes and all government are bad, are socialism"

    The "shock capitalism" of the bail out and bank injections is Repugs stealing capital via extortion from the people, their tax $$$, to hand it to the corps and capitalists who created the shock.

    btw, dubya's bull wars are another "shock capitalism" where the govt creates a bogus war as "shock" and then borrows money to transfer war wealth to the MIC, privatizes the war into to the hands of the MIC.

    Watch the stupid, suckered "conservatives" and Repugs in this forum trash the above and me as communist and socialist. Almost none of them will ever ac ulate enough capital to be called wealthy, but the suckers continue to support the conservative philosophy they assures their chances of wealth are diminished.

    btw, the sicker Americans get, self-inflicted personal "shocks", the more of their incomes are transferred to the corps. Americans getting sick is "good for business"

  3. #3
    Displaced 101A's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    7,711
    I just read an article where real salaries of young people (under 30 years old) in NYC has not improved in 30 years (the time span of the asendance of conservative philosophy).
    So let's spread those NY policies nationwide!!!

  4. #4
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    yet, the dumb s in this forum continue to suppport the conservative philosophy of concentration of wealth (the very well hidden primary objective of conservatives), by cutting taxes and "free market" bull , buying into the conservative philosophy of "all taxes and all government are bad, are socialism"

    If you don't like "free market" bull , i.e. capitalism, what do you propose as an alternative?



    The "shock capitalism" of the bail out and bank injections is Repugs stealing capital via extortion from the people, their tax $$$, to hand it to the corps and capitalists who created the shock.

    The bail out was supported by your candidate and a majority of your party.

  5. #5
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "let's spread those NY policies nationwide"

    already done. Young people outside of NYC, across the country, are doing worse over the past 30 years.

  6. #6
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "what do you propose as an alternative?"

    regulated capitalism,

    transparent accounting (the credit crunch is due to nobody in financial industry lending to anybody else because they don't trust the counterparty's balance sheet),

    laws against corp/capitalist money purchasing govt employees.

    etc, etc.

    Such capitalism made ALL of America better off.

  7. #7
    Damn The Man Mr. Peabody's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    4,475
    Nobody's really answering the question about whether the concentration of wealth among so few is a good thing for the economy?

  8. #8
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    Nobody's really answering the question about whether the concentration of wealth among so few is a good thing for the economy?
    I don't think it's necessarily bad if I'm the one concentrating the wealth.

  9. #9
    Damn The Man Mr. Peabody's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    4,475
    I don't think it's necessarily bad if I'm the one concentrating the wealth.

    How very conservative of you.

  10. #10
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    42,561
    "what do you propose as an alternative?"

    regulated capitalism,

    transparent accounting (the credit crunch is due to nobody in financial industry lending to anybody else because they don't trust the counterparty's balance sheet),

    laws against corp/capitalist money purchasing govt employees.

    etc, etc.

    Such capitalism made ALL of America better off.


    So, when the Republicans were calling for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats blasted both the Republicans and the regulator, calling it a "political lynching" of Franklin Raines, were the Republicans right?

  11. #11
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    Nobody's really answering the question about whether the concentration of wealth among so few is a good thing for the economy?
    because it's propaganda. The middle class in the country is healthiest in the world. A recent readers digest poll showed about 50% of people from each country around the world believes this country is the land of opportunity. And you know what, it is. You're a small business owner, so you should know. I don't think you're holding anyone back and I don't think you're anyone special.

    If you want to help the middle class, focus on energy independence and decreasing the cost of medical care. That's it, no need to redistribute wealth.

  12. #12
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    So, when the Republicans were calling for more regulation of Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac and the Democrats blasted both the Republicans and the regulator, calling it a "political lynching" of Franklin Raines, were the Republicans right?
    The Republicans had 6 years to implement the regulations. Why did it not happen? Perhaps some Republicans did not want to regulate Freddie and Fanny either? How could that be?

  13. #13
    🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆 ElNono's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Post Count
    153,473
    because it's propaganda. The middle class in the country is healthiest in the world. A recent readers digest poll showed about 50% of people from each country around the world believes this country is the land of opportunity. And you know what, it is. You're a small business owner, so you should know. I don't think you're holding anyone back and I don't think you're anyone special.

    If you want to help the middle class, focus on energy independence and decreasing the cost of medical care. That's it, no need to redistribute wealth.
    +1

  14. #14
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    So comparing the USA middle class to poor bas s in the rest of the world (outside of Europe and Japan) is how Repugs justify the lower 98% getting poorer under dubya while the top 2% ac ulate more capital?

  15. #15
    Veteran ratm1221's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    1,282
    That's it, no need to redistribute wealth.
    I keep seeing this come up. Define your idea of redistributing the wealth. Like as in you make a million dollars and I make 100,000 dollars so you give me 450k? Because I don't think anyone is proposing that.

  16. #16
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    So comparing the USA middle class to poor bas s in the rest of the world (outside of Europe and Japan) is how Repugs justify the lower 98% getting poorer under dubya while the top 2% ac ulate more capital?
    mr. propaganda machine, even 50% of the French would move here if they had the chance.

  17. #17
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    I keep seeing this come up. Define your idea of redistributing the wealth. Like as in you make a million dollars and I make 100,000 dollars so you give me 450k? Because I don't think anyone is proposing that.
    take billions from the top classes and redistribute to the lower classes. That's the Obama proposal. There are way better ways to circulate that money than to confiscate it through the IRS.

  18. #18
    Veteran ratm1221's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    1,282
    take billions from the top classes and redistribute to the lower classes. That's the Obama proposal. There are way better ways to circulate that money than to confiscate it through the IRS.
    So the better way for them to distribute the money is for them to loan me the money and charge me interest for it?

  19. #19
    Damn The Man Mr. Peabody's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Post Count
    4,475
    because it's propaganda. The middle class in the country is healthiest in the world. A recent readers digest poll showed about 50% of people from each country around the world believes this country is the land of opportunity. And you know what, it is. You're a small business owner, so you should know. I don't think you're holding anyone back and I don't think you're anyone special.

    If you want to help the middle class, focus on energy independence and decreasing the cost of medical care. That's it, no need to redistribute wealth.
    I am a small business owner and as such, I'm concerned about the economy. I only make money if other people have it to spend on my services. My livelihood depends on people walking through the door each day with money to give me. It can be a precarious situation to find yourself in during times like these.

    But we're not addressing the issue I presented (Reader's Digest poll aside). Mr. Eccles described a situation where the distribution of wealth was so unequal that it created an unstable economy. Again, quite simply, there wasn't enough money around to sustain a thriving marketplace. We see a similar situation in today's economy in terms of wealth distribution. Is this a bad thing? If not, why not?

  20. #20
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    So the better way for them to distribute the money is for them to loan me the money and charge me interest for it?
    I've got much better ways, but nothing is wrong with the method you mentioned. of course the dems have an easier method, demonize the wealthy to justify taking from them.

  21. #21
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Post Count
    15,842
    "even 50% of the French would move here if they had the chance."

    no, they wouldn't, nor would most Europeans or Japanese.

    America is a great place to visit, and it's fascinating to watch on foreign TV, but the risks of getting destroyed financially by health problems (all other countries have national health insurance), or by violence (MUCH higher in USA vs other industrial countries), or spending your retirement in poverty on ty pensions (if you can afford to retire voluntarily).

    iow, other industrial countries have safety nets. They know there is no safety net in USA. They know you can strike it rich in socially/economically Darwinistic USA, but more often than not, you strike out, sooner or later.

  22. #22
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    I am a small business owner and as such, I'm concerned about the economy. I only make money if other people have it to spend on my services. My livelihood depends on people walking through the door each day with money to give me. It can be a precarious situation to find yourself in during times like these.
    cry me a river. the good businesses will survive. If you want a handout vote Obama.

    But we're not addressing the issue I presented (Reader's Digest poll aside). Mr. Eccles described a situation where the distribution of wealth was so unequal that it created an unstable economy. Again, quite simply, there wasn't enough money around to sustain a thriving marketplace. We see a similar situation in today's economy in terms of wealth distribution. Is this a bad thing? If not, why not?
    propaganda. I'm not seeing a similar thing in my business. There are things we can do to make this economy grow and create more opportunities for everyone, but redistribution of wealth isn't one of them. Doesn't matter what I think, you will have the power and communisim will be that much closer.

  23. #23
    Veteran ratm1221's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Post Count
    1,282
    I'm sorry but no matter how you sugar coat it, when 20% of the population in the United states has 84% of the wealth, leaving only 16% of the wealth in the entire US to be shared among 80% of AMERICAN PEOPLE....

    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AMERICAN ABOUT IT.

  24. #24
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    "even 50% of the French would move here if they had the chance."

    no, they wouldn't, nor would most Europeans or Japanese.
    go to this months issue of Readers Digest. Yes they would, but those polls are nothing compared to your intelligence.


    America is a great place to visit, and it's fascinating to watch on foreign TV, but the risks of getting destroyed financially by health problems (all other countries have national health insurance), or by violence (MUCH higher in USA vs other industrial countries), or spending your retirement in poverty on ty pensions (if you can afford to retire voluntarily).

    iow, other industrial countries have safety nets. They know there is no safety net in USA. They know you can strike it rich in socially/economically Darwinistic USA, but more often than not, you strike out, sooner or later.
    those blogs are turning your brain into mush.

  25. #25
    Homer 2centsworth's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    8,677
    I'm sorry but no matter how you sugar coat it, when 20% of the population in the United states has 84% of the wealth, leaving only 16% of the wealth in the entire US to be shared among 80% of AMERICAN PEOPLE....

    THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AMERICAN ABOUT IT.
    I understand, the man is keeping you down. What's American is to take what belongs to you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •