JPMorgan CEO: Democrats have no chance in 2020

[Pavlov]

I think people are getting tired of seeing horse like this and then being told its just because the top 1% is working harder than them lately

DAMN IT JUST LOOK AT HOW LONG THOSE FAT CAT IMMIGRANTS HAVE BEEN SCREWING REAL AMERICANS

[Chris]

So you were fine with Obama because there was growth in the nation's economy and whatnot?

Obama sucked.

Only president in the past 50 years not to have even a single year of 3% GDP growth.

Real GDP growth rate during Obama’s tenure as president, according to Statista:

2009: -2.8
2010: 2.5
2011: 1.6
2012: 2.2
2013: 1.7
2014: 2.4
2015: 2.6
2016: 1.5

Donald Trump has seen quarterly GDP rates of 1.2, 3.1, and 3.3.

[AaronY]

None of that matters when you can just run a campaign based on racism and white anger.

I agree to a certain extent I mean this is one of my favorite images of all time for a reason



But someone like Bernie wouldn't even have stood a snowball's chance in 30-40 years ago. If you watch some of them debates of his like the one with Ted Cruz on CNN the guys just full-on socialist practically communist

[Pavlov]

Obama sucked.

Only president in the past 50 years not to have even a single year of 3% GDP growth.

let's all pretend everything was perfect when he took office.

[AaronY]

Bernie would have been laughed right off the scene even 20-25 years ago soon as he opened his mouth

[DMC]

I think people are getting tired of seeing horse like this and then being told its just because the top 1% is working harder than them lately

Provide raw numbers instead of bumper sticker offerings like that misleading graph.

[AaronY]

Provide raw numbers instead of bumper sticker offerings like that misleading graph.

The right hand column has numbers on it. I don't see how it's misleading unless you're saying the numbers are made up. Pretty much no one disagrees income inequality has drastically increased that I know of

[DMC]

The right hand column has numbers on it. I don't see how it's misleading unless you're saying the numbers are made up. Pretty much no one disagrees income inequality has drastically increased that I know of

It has low resolution. What are the actual numbers for the bottom 99%? What about the top 30%? Why top 1% instead of top .5%?

Income inequality has always existed. Are you saying the native americans and recently freed slaves had income equality with the land owners and politicians and business tycoons 200 or so years ago?

Did the ability to move into the top 1% diminish over time? Was it easier to be in the top 1% in the 1960s than it is today?

[AaronY]

Pretty much no one not even Republicans argues that income inquality hasn't drastically increased the last 40 years. I'm not gonna sit here and debate basic common facts with you.

[DMC]

And still, it's not because they aren't paying enough taxes. There are a number of factors that allow investors including entrepreneurs to make money exponentially faster than wage workers who are on basically a fixed income, where their salaries are locked by a false notion of "salary cap" which basically guarantees the investor maximum return 1st, and the worker perhaps a decent salary 2nd. When the 1st is in jeopardy, the 2nd is sacrificed to preserve the 1st in the form of layoffs and relocation of factories to countries that have much lower wage demands. The hole countries. But hey, they are great countries and I don't want to come across as a racist.

The system exists only because of the investor however, as the worker hasn't provided jobs for anyone, hasn't provided ideas or created an economically advantageous situation for anyone but themselves. This is, of course, considering intellectual property belongs to the investor. There are always exceptions, and some "workers" are in the top 1%.

Some here act like there's all this money falling from the sky and the top 1% is grabbing it all before the rest can get to it, when in reality the top 1% is why the bottom 99% are as obese and technology saturated as they are.

[Chris]

I'm not gonna sit here and debate basic common facts with you.

Good idea. You would get squashed.

[AaronY]

And still, it's not because they aren't paying enough taxes. There are a number of factors that allow investors including entrepreneurs to make money exponentially faster than wage workers who are on basically a fixed income, where their salaries are locked by a false notion of "salary cap" which basically guarantees the investor maximum return 1st, and the worker perhaps a decent salary 2nd. When the 1st is in jeopardy, the 2nd is sacrificed to preserve the 1st in the form of layoffs and relocation of factories to countries that have much lower wage demands. The hole countries. But hey, they are great countries and I don't want to come across as a racist.

The system exists only because of the investor however, as the worker hasn't provided jobs for anyone, hasn't provided ideas or created an economically advantageous situation for anyone but themselves. This is, of course, considering intellectual property belongs to the investor. There are always exceptions, and some "workers" are in the top 1%.

Some here act like there's all this money falling from the sky and the top 1% is grabbing it all before the rest can get to it, when in reality the top 1% is why the bottom 99% are as obese and technology saturated as they are.

I agree with a lot of this but it overstates how much easier it is to conglomerate wealth now. It also laughably makes it seems the CEOs of yesteryear were just not as good sincerity couldn't make a wealth concentrate at the top as much.

Also, even ignoring the reasons for income inequality objectively compare the salary and housing costs for like a schoolteacher in 1970 vs today or a carpenter and the same. It's way harder.

I mean do you even read my posts? I am very pro capitalist and hate Bernie as I have said over and over but income inequality drastically increasing like this pisses people off and will cause them to seek drastic solutions

[AaronY]

Good idea. You would get squashed.

Yeah, I could use some help. Know of any cartoons out there that could help me win this argument?

[ElNono]

Trump won not because he was business-friendly (he didn't even run on the typical Republican platform, and you could even argue he ran an anti-business campaign when he kept saying him and the hedge funds would have to pay more in taxes, all bull obviously), but because he was a populist with the right message for those in need (see: Rust Belt). The fact that he ended up enacting a lot of the Republican platform has to do with Congress running the Republican agenda and him having a vested interest that he did something, anything, during his presidency.

[ElNono]

I agree with a lot of this but it overstates how much easier it is to conglomerate wealth now. It also laughably makes it seems the CEOs of yesteryear were just not as good sincerity couldn't make a wealth concentrate at the top as much.

Also, even ignoring the reasons for income inequality objectively compare the salary and housing costs for like a schoolteacher in 1970 vs today or a carpenter and the same. It's way harder.

I mean do you even read my posts? I am very pro capitalist and hate Bernie as I have said over and over but income inequality drastically increasing like this pisses people off and will cause them to seek drastic solutions

There's also the fact that in a fiat economy, you don't have to invest in the 99%. You can invest in all sorts of fic ious capital with a given value (aka financial instruments), that never touches the 99%. Heck, some will argue some of those instruments will give a better ROI or carry less risks than investing in the 99%.

This is where the populist message from the campaign trail resonated. Bringing manufacturing back, etc, etc, etc... those are investments that touch the 99%, and easy to relate to.

[DMC]

I agree with a lot of this but it overstates how much easier it is to conglomerate wealth now. It also laughably makes it seems the CEOs of yesteryear were just not as good sincerity couldn't make a wealth concentrate at the top as much.

Also, even ignoring the reasons for income inequality objectively compare the salary and housing costs for like a schoolteacher in 1970 vs today or a carpenter and the same. It's way harder.

I mean do you even read my posts? I am very pro capitalist and hate Bernie as I have said over and over but income inequality drastically increasing like this pisses people off and will cause them to seek drastic solutions

Do you think it detracts from your life that some Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars? It's not about capitalism. It's about what causes growth and who benefits from it. Signal to noise ratio, higher signals usually mean higher noise as well, but not in a very efficient system that finds ways of become more effective at increasing the signal without increasing the noise. I'm not calling workers noise, but if you're going to lump everyone in who falls outside of the 1% as the comparison, then they are the noise by default.

If the gap was closer, if Americans in general all made about the same, it would be just the .05% who were on a different playing field financially. The 1% talk is just a random number. It's really the very top, the financially elte, not the 500K a year earners, who should be looked at as using their capital power to rig a system in their favor, for centuries perhaps. I know several people who fall into the 1%.

But that's why I asked for raw numbers. Has your income doubled in the past 10 years? Has it tripled? It could have and yet you could still not be close to the 1%, but the growth % would be the same. The higher end would just get more separation from you. Imagine you make a dime, then next week you make a dollar. You just saw a 10x earning increase, however the upper echelon could see a .5% earning increase in they would be putting distance between themselves and you still.

So what's your proposed solution? How do you think the laws of supply and demand can be tweaked to make more money go to lower demand skillsets, where the workforce may be near saturation, and less money go to the owners of businesses that are super successful? Wealth redistribution? If so, how long would that last before the capitalist system collapsed since money is the incentive to create Amazon or Walmart or AT&T or Tesla?

[AaronY]

Do you think it detracts from your life that some Jeff Bezos is worth 100 billion dollars? It's not about capitalism. It's about what causes growth and who benefits from it. Signal to noise ratio, higher signals usually mean higher noise as well, but not in a very efficient system that finds ways of become more effective at increasing the signal without increasing the noise. I'm not calling workers noise, but if you're going to lump everyone in who falls outside of the 1% as the comparison, then they are the noise by default.

If the gap was closer, if Americans in general all made about the same, it would be just the .05% who were on a different playing field financially. The 1% talk is just a random number. It's really the very top, the financially elte, not the 500K a year earners, who should be looked at as using their capital power to rig a system in their favor, for centuries perhaps. I know several people who fall into the 1%.

But that's why I asked for raw numbers. Has your income doubled in the past 10 years? Has it tripled? It could have and yet you could still not be close to the 1%, but the growth % would be the same. The higher end would just get more separation from you. Imagine you make a dime, then next week you make a dollar. You just saw a 10x earning increase, however the upper echelon could see a .5% earning increase in they would be putting distance between themselves and you still.

So what's your proposed solution? How do you think the laws of supply and demand can be tweaked to make more money go to lower demand skillsets, where the workforce may be near saturation, and less money go to the owners of businesses that are super successful? Wealth redistribution? If so, how long would that last before the capitalist system collapsed since money is the incentive to create Amazon or Walmart or AT&T or Tesla?

Who are arguing with here? You act like I'm anti-capitalist.

[AaronY]

Capitalism is awesome but the money has a tendency to conglomerate at the top so it's needs to redistributed some by the government is my points basically

Tell these Republicans your lectures as even they agree with this

[AaronY]

There's also the fact that in a fiat economy, you don't have to invest in the 99%. You can invest in all sorts of fic ious capital with a given value (aka financial instruments), that never touches the 99%. Heck, some will argue some of those instruments will give a better ROI or carry less risks than investing in the 99%.

This is where the populist message from the campaign trail resonated. Bringing manufacturing back, etc, etc, etc... those are investments that touch the 99%, and easy to relate to.

Yep. Schoolteachers, carpenters, plumbers, etc compare their salary and housing costs from 1970 to today and then seeing how much harder it is jarring. Capitalism and Globalism has been great for decreasing the costs electronics and technologies but have hurt in a lot of other areas

[boutons_deux]

Trump won not because he was business-friendly (he didn't even run on the typical Republican platform, and you could even argue he ran an anti-business campaign when he kept saying him and the hedge funds would have to pay more in taxes, all bull obviously), but because he was a populist with the right message for those in need (see: Rust Belt). The fact that he ended up enacting a lot of the Republican platform has to do with Congress running the Republican agenda and him having a vested interest that he did something, anything, during his presidency.

You grant him some honesty, WRONG!

As an billionaire elitist, he ran on pro-white working class / anti-elitist / anti-DC-swamp bull , was a LIE then, proven to be a LIE now.

[boutons_deux]

Why is pro-business a dirty word? Chances are most people here have jobs connected with some business or other. Unless you are independently wealthy, you should be pro-business - because that means jobs, which is the way most of us make our living. Even government is treating the public as "customers" now (at least my orientation did).

goddamn! you're ing stupid

pro-business means anti-customer, anti-Labor, anti-EVERYTHING except profits for Capitalists.

the oligarchy only interest is ac ulation of capital which has and does now include ing over employees, which we see in that household REAL income that essentially flat since St Ronnie came into office, and 10Ms of jobs exported.

[pgardn]

well for starters bernie is a 2 face sellout and warren is a ing lying ass fraud.

.

These did not stop Trump from winning.
So find some other characteristics that prohibits a candidate from winning the presidency.

[pgardn]

You grant him some honesty, WRONG!

As an billionaire elitist, he ran on pro-white working class / anti-elitist / anti-DC-swamp bull , was a LIE then, proven to be a LIE now.

goddamn! you're ing stupid

pro-business means anti-customer, anti-Labor, anti-EVERYTHING except profits for Capitalists.

the oligarchy only interest is ac ulation of capital which has and does now include ing over employees, which we see in that household REAL income that essentially flat since St Ronnie came into office, and 10Ms of jobs exported.

You are a perfect example of why the Democrats deserve to lose.

[pgardn]

Good idea. You would get squashed.

You are in completely over your head.
Just stop.
Even boots can argue a point with pure zealotry.

[rmt]

One of the reasons I think that chart has significantly gone toward people believing the upper income should be more heavily taxed is government interference/safety nets. Human nature, being what it is, if one is receiving something for nothing (or little to nothing), one is going to want to hold on to it. This is why I am a big proponent of work requirements for any government assistance - I read somewhere (and don't have time to look it up now) that work requirements for Medicaid reduces participation. Anything that requires some work instead of none, some people are going to decide that it's not worth it to work.

Because of this government "help" and the way in which one loses it if one's income reaches a certain level, no one is incentivized to earn more lest they lose their benefits. And of course, the more people on welfare and who have less, the more they look to those who have to tax them and continue getting this government "help". I think that explains why over time (the recent decades), more and more of this thinking has become prevalent. Imo, it is the explosion of the welfare state that is the cause of people NOT trying to better themselves financially and actively seeking to stay under a certain income - part of the reason why I hate Obamacare and its insiduousness regarding Medicaid (able-bodied people under a certain income getting free healthcare with no work requirements - although Trump administration is trying to change that - I'm sure the first lawsuit is ready when it gets implemented).

Money earned from capital gains is not taxed with SS and Medicare as is earned income - you get to keep more of it. So, it is much more profitable to make money investing your money than through labor - and this is what the top x%ers do and those who earn only enough to pay living expenses can't. Most of you scoff at me and think I'm crazy when I day trade bit coin. How do you think we survived on one income all these years? Yes, I took a lot of risk - some I win and some I lose but overall, it's on the win side. And because I took such risk with my money, I should be allowed to keep it - not have it taken and re-distributed to some one who has done nothing and taken no risk. On that chart, as income rises, more people think that they (or others) should not be taxed more. Now, if you do not feel the same way, please feel free to give away what you have but keep your hands off mine. Many of you are young now, but as you earn more, your thoughts on this matter may change.

AaronY, please don't fool yourself into thinking that the man holding the bag of money only applies to Republicans - just like the sexual scandal that crosses party lines, both sides have stacked the deck with their law-making/policies (or been donor to) - Democrats too don't care a rat's behind about the little man - these policies are all to gain voters in order to stay in power and enrich themselves (see the immigration mess).