Very disturbing charts on the wealth imbalance in USA

[bladefd]

I don't know if you all saw this, but it was on yahoo about a week ago. I kept putting it off, but I finally decided to post the charts here. All I know is that they disturbed me a bit, and they ARE from reliable sources - Harvard, Yale, University of California, Congress' budget office and US Treasury department, amongst other sources (link is at the end of this post to the website blog where they were posted at). All of the sources for every single one of those graphs are listed towards the bottom of that blog post. I believe majority of the data is from before 2009 so I don't know where it is today in 2011.

Before I start, I want to say that this is extremely disturbing data. It made me sick to my stomach when I first saw it... This is exactly when capitalism stops working successfully.. One of the clauses (or points or whatever it is called) of capitalism says that capitalism is most successfully when money/capital/wealth is cycling between public/private/other sectors. As soon as that cycling stops or starts to slow down, capitalism starts to fall apart and destabilize. These graphs show exactly where that destabilization process is at right now in this country...

I don't want this to turn into a war of democrats vs republicans or liberals vs conservatives or whatever else that exists because the blame lies on everyone in this country from liberals to conservatives to democrats to republicans to federal governments to state governments to country governments to school teachers to businessmen to cops, everyone is involved in some way. The issue lies with greed and selfishness not specific groups of people. Once again, most of the graphs are from before 2007 (couple from 2010) so I don't know where it is today in 2011.

There are a couple other graphs that I cannot post here because the limit is 10 images..



http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_1.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_therichest280.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-page25_actualdistribwithlegend.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality_mediannetworth_1.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-who%27swinning_3.png


http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png


https://motherjones.com/files/images/lossgain_0.jpg






http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

[Legend of Josh]

Explain yourself, Vapid!

:lol

[STATUTORY]

:oldlol: :oldlol:

homie this is why you gotta get to da wall street son.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Try to keep heated political fights out of this thread if possible. Is it possible for this thread not to turn political? You yourself couldn't even keep politics out of the OP, that chart showing tax rates and Presidents is an unavoidable political statement in and of itself.

[RedBlackAttack]

Is it possible for this thread not to turn political? You yourself couldn't even keep politics out of the OP, that chart showing tax rates and Presidents is an unavoidable political statement in and of itself.
Agree with this, but the distribution of wealth in the US has gotten completely out-of-hand. There really should be outrage, but -- for some reason -- a good portion of the country doesn't seem to care.

:confusedshrug:

[bladefd]

Is it possible for this thread not to turn political? You yourself couldn't even keep politics out of the OP, that chart showing tax rates and Presidents is an unavoidable political statement in and of itself.

You can talk about politics, but just not fight like an immature 8yr old. I know for sure that there are tons of immature posters on these forums so I probably shouldn't have even mentioned that. I just said it because I don't want this to turn into a political war, but it probably will like it usually does. I wish the OPs had control over the posts in their own thread so they could delete anything that is garbage trolling.

In fact, I will remove that part right now. Thanks for reminding me of the trolls. I keep forgetting that no matter what you say to try to keep trolls out, trolls will always show up within minutes.

[STATUTORY]

Agree with this, but the distribution of wealth in the US has gotten completely out-of-hand. There really should be outrage, but -- for some reason -- a good portion of the country doesn't seem to care.

:confusedshrug:

moderators are always communists/ wealth distribution has never been succesful. The people in the highest tax bracket already pay for the vast majority of public services through taxation but it ain't never enough. Fat, high school drop out, Billy Cobb definitely deserve a bigger piece of the pie :facepalm

[-playmaker-]

I don't know what the f*ck you guys are talking about...10% of our households make $164k a year?

that is VERY GOOD!!!

10% is A LOT OF PEOPLE!!!


hell the BOTTOM 10% makes $30k...that is pretty poor, but they are living, and that is our "dirt"...


these charts are good IMO...not bad

this country is well off!

[RedBlackAttack]

moderators are always communists/ wealth distribution has never been succesful. The people in the highest tax bracket already pay for the vast majority of public services through taxation but it ain't never enough. Fat, high school drop out, Billy Cobb definitely deserve a bigger piece of the pie :facepalm
Read-up on the fall of the Middle Class, dipsh!t. Read-up on the contrast of CEO wealth to average worker and it has skyrocketed in the last couple of decades.

Why am I even responding to an obvious troll?

[RedBlackAttack]

I don't know what the f*ck you guys are talking about...10% of our households make $164k a year?

that is VERY GOOD!!!

10% is A LOT OF PEOPLE!!!


hell the BOTTOM 10% makes $30k...that is pretty poor, but they are living, and that is our "dirt"...


these charts are good IMO...not bad

this country is well off!

The problem isn't with the top 10%... The problem is with the middle... Or a lack of a middle in our current system.

[-playmaker-]

The problem isn't with the top 10%... The problem is with the middle... Or a lack of a middle in our current system.
wouldn't it be around $80k...:confusedshrug:

you can't tell me this country doesn't have a middle class...the entire nation is a giant strip mall...our middle class is enormous

it is just that the rich are just VERY VERY RICH

[crosso√er]

Agree with this, but the distribution of wealth in the US has gotten completely out-of-hand. There really should be outrage, but -- for some reason -- a good portion of the country doesn't seem to care.

:confusedshrug:

Yet to most Americans, a Russian is a "commie" and should be looked down upon because their political structure wasn't up to par.

[STATUTORY]

Read-up on the fall of the Middle Class, dipsh!t. Read-up on the contrast of CEO wealth to average worker and it has skyrocketed in the last couple of decades.

Why am I even responding to an obvious troll?

the value of a service is determined by the market. Sorry if you work on an assembly line at an auto plant you don't deserve 30dollars per hour no matter what the union says.

globalization and increased competition has doomed the american middle class.

[PHX_Phan]

I don't know what the f*ck you guys are talking about...10% of our households make $164k a year?

that is VERY GOOD!!!

10% is A LOT OF PEOPLE!!!


hell the BOTTOM 10% makes $30k...that is pretty poor, but they are living, and that is our "dirt"...


these charts are good IMO...not bad

this country is well off!

How is it good that less than 1% of the country controls more wealth than nearly the entire population?

[Jailblazers7]

The 1st chart shows the top 10% and then the bottom 90% which is probably very misleading because the very low numbers from the lowest 10-20% is pulling the number lower. I'd be more interested in seeing the middle 50% or the 40-60% category because that would be indicative of the middle class.

[Legend of Josh]

The problem isn't with the top 10%... The problem is with the middle... Or a lack of a middle in our current system.

Exactly. The lower to middle class is continuously growing (middle down to lower borderline), all the while many more Americans are becoming millionaires. The middle class is definitely shrinking and has been for a little while now. Without a stable middle class, the economy will eventually fold and everyone loses (except for the ones that purposely set all this up to begin with).

[bladefd]

I just realized that I posted a couple of the graphs twice. editing... :facepalm

[RedBlackAttack]

wouldn't it be around $80k...:confusedshrug:

you can't tell me this country doesn't have a middle class...the entire nation is a giant strip mall...our middle class is enormous

it is just that the rich are just VERY VERY RICH
That wealth came from somewhere... It didn't just magically appear in a rich person's wallet. For as much as Republicans talked about 'class warfare' in the last election, there is real class welfare in this country, but it isn't coming from the bottom or the middle...

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to 1.

How in the hell can that be defended?

The bottom 50% of earners in the US now collectively own less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.

THE BOTTOM 50 PERCENT! That large of a segment isn't 'the poor.' That is the middle class.

There has been a massive shift of wealth in this country over the last few decades to the very, very rich and it has come from the middle class. You don't need many statistics to literally SEE it.

The question is, how do we fix it? This isn't about communism or any other 'ism' that alarmists want to throw at me to make it seem as though I'm an extremist. The reality is, we need a strong middle class for the economy to be healthy.

[-playmaker-]

How is it good that less than 1% of the country controls more wealth than nearly the entire population?
well, I am not saying that is a good thing, but that chart shows that the rest of us are well off...we are far from a poor country

10% of us are borderline "rich"

it is just that top 1% that is REALLY REALLY REALLY RICH...Bill Gates and company



IDK, that is the "American Dream" right?...are we supposed to force the success stories to give their money to all the losers?

[-playmaker-]

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]That wealth came from somewhere... It didn't just magically appear in a rich person's wallet. For as much as Republicans talked about 'class warfare' in the last election, there is real class welfare in this country, but it isn't coming from the bottom or the middle...

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to 1.

How in the hell can that be defended?

The bottom 50% of earners in the US now collectively own less than 1% of the nation

[STATUTORY]

people are so clueless without any semblance of perspective. the american middle class came about with the destruction of international production following something called world war II. Only due to the utter lack of foreign production was american companies able to sustain the high salaries that were payed to americans for rather menial jobs from 1944 to 1975. As soon as capital mobility reemerged, the american "middle class" was doomed.

[Jasper]

I've been on this planet longer than most of you.
Voted and supported the poor and middle class , and wish a balance would be struck for the betterment of human life in America for all.

Not to bash the OP - fact is that those elite wealthy are in fact all Republicans.

After this last election I will never vote again.
This is sad , because I was quite proud of our country , where my grandfather came from , where my father and step father fought in WWII for our freedom and was lucky enought when the first 18 year olds were able to vote , I did and voted for a president.

Now I succumb to the realization that it is not only our goverment that is fcuked up , but the people that vote for the people that represent them.
remember the majority vote is the ruling body.
---------
Look at my state , those same voters that wanted change are now in Madison by the thousands protesting their rights... WHAT A FCUKING JOKE.

[RedBlackAttack]

our middle class is f*cking enormous...just cause the top 1% are billionares doesn't mean we don't have a middle class...


F*CK we are the only country on the planet where the poor people are fat asses and the rich people are skinny...everywhere else it is the opposite

our country is loaded...and our citzens are spoiled

don't let the charts fool you into thinking you are getting ripped off...
I don't need the charts to 'fool' me. I'm living it, man. Yeah, our country is 'loaded,' but that money is going straight to the top.

Seriously... Get the f#ck out of here with this 'spoiled' sh!t. I better leave this thread now before things get ugly.

[Jasper]

our middle class is f*cking enormous...just cause the top 1% are billionares doesn't mean we don't have a middle class...


F*CK we are the only country on the planet where the poor people are fat asses and the rich people are skinny...everywhere else it is the opposite

our country is loaded...and our citzens are spoiled

don't let the charts fool you into thinking you are getting ripped off...



If you are right , then I am clueless why the country went into the toilet , and it takes now two full time incomes in a household to keep a household afloat.
I struggled as a single home owner for 6+ years and realized the issues and if it was not for my recent refiniancing - I would of lost my home.
Unlike most , all of my equity has gone into my properties..
Many without jobs as well as lost their homes and many were MIDDLE CLASS.

[Jasper]

I don't need the charts to 'fool' me. I'm living it, man. Yeah, our country is 'loaded,' but that money is going straight to the top.

Seriously... Get the f#ck out of here with this 'spoiled' sh!t. I better leave this thread now before things get ugly.

thank you.

[RidonKs]

I better leave this thread now before things get ugly.
no, don't. stay a while.


the American Dream is rigged. tax loopholes, inheritance, opportunity imbalance, regional discrepancies, corporate collusion with gov't, the whole schpeel.

[-playmaker-]

I don't need the charts to 'fool' me. I'm living it, man. Yeah, our country is 'loaded,' but that money is going straight to the top.

Seriously... Get the f#ck out of here with this 'spoiled' sh!t. I better leave this thread now before things get ugly.
hmm...well I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, not sure why it would really, but this country is spoiled...no question about it...

everyone is at the mall with an iphone shoved up thier ass facebooking each other while in line at Starbucks...yet I am supposed to beleive we have no middle class?....naw, we are fine.....for now anyway

[RedBlackAttack]

hmm...well I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, not sure why it would really, but this country is spoiled...no question about it...

everyone is at the mall with an iphone shoved up thier ass facebooking each other while in line at Starbucks...yet I am supposed to beleive we have no middle class?....naw, we are fine.....for now anyway
In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to 1.



The bottom 50% of earners in the US now collectively own less than 1% of the nation

[crosso√er]

people are so clueless without any semblance of perspective. the american middle class came about with the destruction of international production following something called world war II. Only due to the utter lack of foreign production was american companies able to sustain the high salaries that were payed to americans for rather menial jobs from 1944 to 1975. As soon as capital mobility reemerged, the american "middle class" was doomed.

The same people that love the free-market are the same people who hate it; when they fail to make money.

The idea sounds intriguing, primarily to people with aspirations, but to the lazy people, they'll blame the system. The wealth distribution is a problem sure, but that's the structure we live in; that's our "American Dream."

It's the same dream that turns into a nightmare for so many Americans.

[Jasper]

[QUOTE=RedBlackAttack]That wealth came from somewhere... It didn't just magically appear in a rich person's wallet. For as much as Republicans talked about 'class warfare' in the last election, there is real class welfare in this country, but it isn't coming from the bottom or the middle...

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to 1.

How in the hell can that be defended?

The bottom 50% of earners in the US now collectively own less than 1% of the nation

[STATUTORY]

If you are right , then I am clueless why the country went into the toilet , and it takes now two full time incomes in a household to keep a household afloat.
I struggled as a single home owner for 6+ years and realized the issues and if it was not for my recent refiniancing - I would of lost my home.
Unlike most , all of my equity has gone into my properties..
Many without jobs as well as lost their homes and many were MIDDLE CLASS.

bingo.

the recent financial crisis had a double pronged negative effect on the middle class because one many people lost jobs. Second the collapse of the housing market destroyed much of home equity which is a huge part of middle class wealth.

and yea the women's liberation movement only made it easier for firms to suppress wages.

[STATUTORY]

The same people that love the free-market are the same people who hate it; when they fail to make money.

The idea sounds intriguing, primarily to people with aspirations, but to the lazy people, they'll blame the system. The wealth distribution is a problem sure, but that's the structure we live in; that's our "American Dream."

It's the same dream that turns into a nightmare for so many Americans.


what this thread is about is entitlement. Americans feel this deep embedded sense of entitlement and privilege to wealth and options that's just alien to most people living else where. People want to be ill educated and be rewarded for it. :facepalm

[-playmaker-]

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to 1.



The bottom 50% of earners in the US now collectively own less than 1% of the nation’s wealth.



Explain those two facts and why they make for a strong, healthy country. I'll be waiting.
sigh, I am not saying that is a good thing...I am saying that it isn't proof that we are "unhealthy"...

you are acting like we are all doomed or something...

I am betting those numbers are misleading due to the internet boom anyway...people like Gates make 1,000,000,000X more than the average Microsoft worker, so that offsets the rest....stuff like that

[Hawker]

Correlation =/= Causation

[Legend of Josh]

our middle class is f*cking enormous...just cause the top 1% are billionares doesn't mean we don't have a middle class...


F*CK we are the only country on the planet where the poor people are fat asses and the rich people are skinny...everywhere else it is the opposite

our country is loaded...and our citzens are spoiled

don't let the charts fool you into thinking you are getting ripped off...

The numbers don't lie dude. I see what you're getting at, but truth be told, people are suffering and having to 'cut back' more than ever just to keep afloat. You're stuck in the Dallas never been anywhere else mind-set so of course you have no clue. 'Just sayin...

[RedBlackAttack]

what this thread is about is entitlement. Americans feel this deep embedded sense of entitlement and privilege to wealth and options that's just alien to most people living else where. People want to be ill educated and be rewarded for it. :facepalm
It isn't about entitlement. You are talking about getting things for free. I'm talking about people being paid a livable income for jobs that were once able to support the middle class and now -- with CEOs taking 10 times the money that they used to out of the pot (literally, 10-20 times) -- those jobs cannot support a single person, let alone an entire family.

Why do CEOs need to earn 500x what an average worker in a company makes? Weren't they satisfied with *only* taking 30x the income?

[-playmaker-]

The numbers don't lie dude. I see what you're getting at, but truth be told, people are suffering and having to 'cut back' more than ever just to keep afloat. You're stuck in the Dallas never been anywhere else mind-set so of course you have no clue. 'Just sayin...
I've been to almost every major city in this country...

[Hawker]

It isn't about entitlement. You are talking about getting things for free. I'm talking about people being paid a livable income for jobs that were once able to support the middle class and now -- with CEOs taking 10 times the money that they used to out of the pot (literally, 10-20 times) -- those jobs cannot support a single person, let alone an entire family.

Why do CEOs need to earn 500x what an average worker in a company makes? Weren't they satisfied with *only* taking 30x the income?

More CEOs need to be on that show called, "Undercover Boss." Most of those guys can't even do the grunt work that those workers get paid to do...like fixing cable boxes and what not.

If the big cigars had to go to a process where they had to be a "worker" for 6 months, maybe they'd appreciate those workers a little more and raise their salary. I think that's what it comes down to. Having a business degree doesn't mean shit.

[PHX_Phan]

hmm...well I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, not sure why it would really, but this country is spoiled...no question about it...

everyone is at the mall with an iphone shoved up thier ass facebooking each other while in line at Starbucks...yet I am supposed to beleive we have no middle class?....naw, we are fine.....for now anyway

You're mistaking shit that a lot of people buy on credit with actual assets. You can pick out a person at random who has a decent house, nice car and valuables and chances are barely any of it is paid for.

[RedBlackAttack]

sigh, I am not saying that is a good thing...I am saying that it isn't proof that we are "unhealthy"...

you are acting like we are all doomed or something...

I am betting those numbers are misleading due to the internet boom anyway...people like Gates make 1,000,000,000X more than the average Microsoft worker, so that offsets the rest....stuff like that
Not sure if you've noticed, but the country isn't in the best shape. Our deficits are through the roof, the unemployment rate is through the roof, the under-employed rate is through the roof....

And, all the while, CEOs are bringing in record profits. Do you not see something *happening* to the nation's wealth?

Come to Ohio if you think that everything is fine and people spend $1,000 at strip malls every weekend. People are struggling in this country... Really struggling. I'm not just talking about the poor. I'm talking about people with college degrees, that worked their @sses off for an education and are thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt with school loans and there are literally no good paying jobs available.

If you don't see it, it isn't me that is living in a fantasy world... it's you.

[crosso√er]

It isn't about entitlement. You are talking about getting things for free. I'm talking about people being paid a livable income for jobs that were once able to support the middle class and now -- with CEOs taking 10 times the money that they used to out of the pot (literally, 10-20 times) -- those jobs cannot support a single person, let alone an entire family.

Why do CEOs need to earn 500x what an average worker in a company makes? Weren't they satisfied with *only* taking 30x the income?

Because corporations are considered social beings; who pay taxes and account for more then 70% of the countries wealth. The same budget that is used to pay people their social assistance and disability checks.

I'm not disagreeing with you that low/middle-class families are in trouble; I'm just we the people didn't speak early enough. Now it's too late, and the opportunities we all were seeking are diminishing. How do we break the bubble? Unfortunately, the possibility of WW3.

[Hawker]

Not sure if you've noticed, but the country isn't in the best shape. Our deficits are through the roof, the unemployment rate is through the roof, the under-employed rate is through the roof....

And, all the while, CEOs are bringing in record profits. Do you not see something *happening* to the nation's wealth?

Come to Ohio if you think that everything is fine and people spend $1,000 at strip malls every weekend. People are struggling in this country... Really struggling. I'm not just talking about the poor. I'm talking about people with college degrees, that worked their @sses off for an education and are thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt with school loans and there are literally no good paying jobs available.

If you don't see it, it isn't me that is living in a fantasy world... it's you.

Is it the fault of the economy or is it the fault of those people for not really doing much research into their degree and looking at how much they'll make vs. how much they'll have to pay for school.

I remember reading on yahoo! about some girl who pulled $200k in loans for a sociology degree at a private school. That's on her. Just a stupid decision.

[RedBlackAttack]

More CEOs need to be on that show called, "Undercover Boss." Most of those guys can't even do the grunt work that those workers get paid to do...like fixing cable boxes and what not.

If the big cigars had to go to a process where they had to be a "worker" for 6 months, maybe they'd appreciate those workers a little more and raise their salary. I think that's what it comes down to. Having a business degree doesn't mean shit.
Exactly. This really isn't a left-right issue... Or, it shouldn't be. This impacts everyone. I'm living paycheck to paycheck and barely scraping by... And it takes a hell of an effort to do that.

[-playmaker-]

Not sure if you've noticed, but the country isn't in the best shape. Our deficits are through the roof, the unemployment rate is through the roof, the under-employed rate is through the roof....

And, all the while, CEOs are bringing in record profits. Do you not see something *happening* to the nation's wealth?

Come to Ohio if you think that everything is fine and people spend $1,000 at strip malls every weekend. People are struggling in this country... Really struggling. I'm not just talking about the poor. I'm talking about people with college degrees, that worked their @sses off for an education and are thousands upon thousands of dollars in debt with school loans and there are literally no good paying jobs available.

If you don't see it, it isn't me that is living in a fantasy world... it's you.
I know Detriot and Cleveland and others are suffering a bit, but we are on the rebound from this recession...the stock market is healthy...

Florida and Cali are having housing issues...I am aware...

we are probably both on polar opposites of the spectrum...you being hit harder than the average, and me being hit less than the average...

[RedBlackAttack]

Is it the fault of the economy or is it the fault of those people for not really doing much research into their degree and looking at how much they'll make vs. how much they'll have to pay for school.

I remember reading on yahoo! about some girl who pulled $200k in loans for a sociology degree at a private school. That's on her. Just a stupid decision.
If it were isolated incidents, it would be one thing... This is happening to people in all fields with all manner of degrees from state and private schools.

[-playmaker-]

the only real point I was trying to make is that those charts make us seem well off...most of us anyway...10% make over $160k???...that's a lot of money

half of us make $80k or more????...f*ck!!!

I am not saying it is good that owners make a kagillion times more than the workers...



MEXICO is unhealthy...no the US (in general)

[RedBlackAttack]

I know Detriot and Cleveland and others are suffering a bit, but we are on the rebound from this recession...the stock market is healthy...

Florida and Cali are having housing issues...I am aware...

we are probably both on polar opposites of the spectrum...you being hit harder than the average, and me being hit less than the average...
And, what happens when the economy does rebound? Will CEOs kick it up to 1,000x what the average earner makes?

The point of this thread isn't how badly people in Cleveland are struggling. It is the re-distribution of wealth that has occurred in the last 50 years and the death of a healthy middle class.

Simply put, you can't have CEOs taking that big of a piece of the pie and still support a strong workforce with livable wages. It is literally impossible.

You can't expect the bottom 50% of the population to live on 1% of the nation's wealth and expect a strong middle class.

[-playmaker-]

And, what happens when the economy does rebound? Will CEOs kick it up to 1,000x what the average earner makes?

The point of this thread isn't how badly people in Cleveland are struggling. It is the re-distribution of wealth that has occurred in the last 50 years and the death of a healthy middle class.

Simply put, you can't have CEOs taking that big of a piece of the pie and still support a strong workforce with livable wages. It is literally impossible.

You can't expect the bottom 50% of the population to live on 1% of the nation's wealth and expect a strong middle class.
okay I am not saying that the CEOs making that much more is good...but do you honestly think we don't have a strong middle class?

I don't...

[bladefd]

I've been on this planet longer than most of you.
Voted and supported the poor and middle class , and wish a balance would be struck for the betterment of human life in America for all.

Not to bash the OP - fact is that those elite wealthy are in fact all Republicans.

After this last election I will never vote again.
This is sad , because I was quite proud of our country , where my grandfather came from , where my father and step father fought in WWII for our freedom and was lucky enought when the first 18 year olds were able to vote , I did and voted for a president.

Now I succumb to the realization that it is not only our goverment that is fcuked up , but the people that vote for the people that represent them.
remember the majority vote is the ruling body.
---------
Look at my state , those same voters that wanted change are now in Madison by the thousands protesting their rights... WHAT A FCUKING JOKE.

I do agree with you that a large number of the elite wealthy are republicans in this country. I could have probably put that in someplace in OP, but I just wanted to keep my opinion out of the OP as much as possible without starting the thread outright bashing people.

As for the voting aspect that you mentioned, I think it all boils down to what people watch or read throughout their daily life that determines what they do when they go to vote. There is a saying that says something like "a few control the minds of many."

Basically that is how successful propaganda works. What information a few guys put out will determine who wins the election when the time comes. It is a definitely disturbing how quickly a FEW guys are able to incite everyone that is listening/watching/reading them just based on the wording and tone that they use.

I remember reading there being a study on this in psychology before when we were talking about propaganda some time back. I'm sure a simple google search on propaganda would bring tons of results on that specific study (the one that I am thinking of was done early in the decade, I'm sure there were other new studies since and studies on propaganda from before that).

I truly wish we had better media in this country. People like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc intentionally make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and they have more power than the other groups of people in this country. Guys like those incite hatred against the other groups of people in this country that are making much less than they are to protect their own huge salaries.

Doesn't Bill O'Reilly proudly say that he considers himself a middle-class member? I know he said that a couple times (on youtube videos, google it up). The truth is that he makes a few millions per year.

And most of the FOX watchers believe him when he says he is middle-class. :confusedshrug: I asked a conservative friend of mine how much he thinks O'Reilly makes every year - he told me $250,000. I told him that O'Reilly actually makes over 10 million every year, and I said right away that I have proof of it (in case if he interrupts me to ask for proof). INSTANTLY he starts to talk about how much money O'Reilly gives away to help out the poor. It was almost automatic as if he had to defend O'Reilly for some reason. It was so quick that I almost felt like it was a defense mechanism. :confusedshrug:

[crosso√er]

And, what happens when the economy does rebound? Will CEOs kick it up to 1,000x what the average earner makes?

The point of this thread isn't how badly people in Cleveland are struggling. It is the re-distribution of wealth that has occurred in the last 50 years and the death of a healthy middle class.

Simply put, you can't have CEOs taking that big of a piece of the pie and still support a strong workforce with livable wages. It is literally impossible.

You can't expect the bottom 50% of the population to live on 1% of the nation's wealth and expect a strong middle class.

Dude it's the evolution of technology. Today it's all about knowledge-based economy; people go to school not for craftsmanship anymore but for knowledge-based jobs like Accounting, Law & Medicine. Machines are taking over...

Labor is diminishing; it's the evolution in technology that is killing the middle-class from opportunities to make money. A CEO makes this much because he's responsible for running billion dollar companies and maximizing stakeholder value; that in turn gives back to the community through huge tax payouts.

[Legend of Josh]

hmm...well I didn't mean to hurt your feelings, not sure why it would really, but this country is spoiled...no question about it...

everyone is at the mall with an iphone shoved up thier ass facebooking each other while in line at Starbucks...yet I am supposed to beleive we have no middle class?....naw, we are fine.....for now anyway

You are so ***'n clueless it's not even laughable anymore; it's transitioned into sad.

[crosso√er]

okay I am not saying that the CEOs making that much more is good...but do you honestly think we don't have a strong middle class?

I don't...

It's all based on experience as well; some people have had bad experiences with finding work or perhaps live in a city like (Cleveland) that is an absolute shit hole (no offense) and they're forced to over-exaggerate.

And then there are people like you who are on a different end of the spectrum; presumably.

[Hawker]

Dude it's the evolution of technology. Today it's all about knowledge-based economy; people go to school not for craftsmanship anymore but for knowledge-based jobs like Accounting, Law & Medicine. Machines are taking over...

Labor is diminishing; it's the evolution in technology that is killing the middle-class from opportunities to make money. A CEO makes this much because he's responsible for running billion dollar companies and maximizing stakeholder value; that in turn gives back to the community through huge tax payouts.

That has a lot to do with it as well. More jobs are going to those that are innovative and can combine their right and left brain.

[Sarcastic]

Cheap credit masks how poor people really are. If credit were eliminated tomorrow, and people had to pay off their debt, there would be a revolution.

[Legend of Josh]

I've been to almost every major city in this country...

Having said that, it's quite sad you haven't really learned much from your experiences. I have no beef with you man. In certain facets, you're knowledgeable and quite intelligent at times, but in most you're purely clueless and incredibly small minded. I'm not trying to offend you; I just wish you'd realize going to your local mall and seeing people using iPhones doesn't equate to USA having an extravagant middle class.

[-playmaker-]

You are so ***'n clueless it's not even laughable anymore; it's transitioned into sad.
most of this country is spoiled...if you don't understand that then it is you that is clueless...

poor you on your computer, being held down by the man...

take a trip to Mexico...then $80k might seem like a lot to you...

[PHX_Phan]

most of this country is spoiled...if you don't understand that then it is you that is clueless...

poor you on your computer, being held down by the man...

take a trip to Mexico...then $80k might seem like a lot to you...

Borrowing doesn't make anybody spoiled.

[RedBlackAttack]

Dude it's the evolution of technology. Today it's all about knowledge-based economy; people go to school not for craftsmanship anymore but for knowledge-based jobs like Accounting, Law & Medicine. Machines are taking over...

Labor is diminishing; it's the evolution in technology that is killing the middle-class from opportunities to make money. A CEO makes this much because he's responsible for running billion dollar companies and maximizing stakeholder value; that in turn gives back to the community through huge tax payouts.
It isn't just that the economy is 'knowledge based' and the other kind of workers are no longer needed. Our country is still filled with companies that need things manufactured... Literally filled with them.

The problem is that trade agreements in the last 30 years like NAFTA have completely killed the industrial base in this country and, while we do use a lot of 'stuff,' almost none of that stuff is produced here. That means that a CEO will move his entire workforce out of the country and to India or China because it is slightly more cost-efficient.

The result of this is a greater bottom-line and a higher stock price, but that money only goes one place... To the top of the company. The few pennies that they do throw these workers in other countries do not even re-circulate in the US. The lack of tariffs and the existence of these trade agreements help one group of people... The super, super rich... The people at the top of these massive corporations.

The jobs that unskilled workers used to be able to do and support a family are totally gone. That money that those employees used to bring home in America and re-circulate on things like house payments, furniture, car payments, etc. is gone, as well.

It doesn't just impact the unskilled workers... College graduates might work in human resources or in PR departments for these big corporations, but they have literally cut back on everything now that there is no manufacturing taking place in this country anymore.

I mean, why do you need a human resources department if your human resources are in India?

The death of the middle class happened when the tariffs were thrown away, trade agreements signed and manufacturing fled so that CEOs could make 500x the average worker instead of 30x.

[RoseCity07]

Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.

[-playmaker-]

Borrowing doesn't make anybody spoiled.
where the money came from means nothing in terms of being spoiled...

if you make $80k a year, and are still leaving out of yor means, it doesn't mean you aren't spoiled, it just means you aren't good with money...

a 5 year old can be spoiled...

[RedBlackAttack]

It's all based on experience as well; some people have had bad experiences with finding work or perhaps live in a city like (Cleveland) that is an absolute shit hole (no offense) and they're forced to over-exaggerate.

And then there are people like you who are on a different end of the spectrum; presumably.
Cleveland isn't a 'sh!thole'... that is just a stupid thing to say and, yeah... It is offensive. What has happened to Cleveland can happen anywhere when greedy CEOs take their workforce overseas and from an area was dependent upon manufacturing.

The same thing has happened with the garment industry in New York City. It is dying... And it is sad.

[shlver]

Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.
Do the democrats have a solution?

[DeuceWallaces]

PT has been to the strip mall; of course he's an expert in class economics and sociology.

Anyway, just glad I'm not in the bottom 90%.

[Sarcastic]

I think it should be painfully aware to everyone that supply side economics does not work.

[crosso√er]

It isn't just that the economy is 'knowledge based' and the other kind of workers are no longer needed. Our countries are still filled with companies that need things manufactured... Literally filled with them.

The problem is that trade agreements in the last 30 years like NAFTA have completely killed the industrial base in this country and, while we do use a lot of 'stuff,' almost none of that stuff is produced here. That means that a CEO will move his entire workforce out of the country and to India or China because it is slightly more cost-efficient.

The result of this is a greater bottom-line and a higher stock price, but that money only goes one place... To the top of the company. The few pennies that they do throw these workers in other countries do not even re-circulate in the US. The lack of tariffs and the existence of these trade agreements help one group of people... The super, super rich... The people at the top of these massive corporations.

The jobs that unskilled workers used to be able to do and support a family are totally gone. That money that those employees used to bring home in America and re-circulate on things like house payments, furniture, car payments, etc. is gone, as well.

It doesn't just impact the unskilled workers... College graduates might work in human resources or in PR departments for these big corporations, but they have literally cut back on everything now that there is no manufacturing taking place in this country anymore.

I mean, why do you need a human resources department if your human resources are in India?

The death of the middle class happened when the tariffs were thrown away, trade agreements signed and manufacturing fled so that CEOs could make 500x the average worker instead of 30x.

Of course bro, globalization is another component of our struggles among many others.
But like I've already summarized our core problem; it's our proud notion of being a free-market country, and now the middle/low class people are complaining because incrementally the distribution (predictably mind you) has shifted to a point of no return. Communist Manifesto is perhaps the greatest ethical/economical article I've ever read (by Marx) regarding this very issue.

Further more; I am not disagreeing with you about CEO's making ridiculous amount of money but it's the economic structure that is detrimental to our struggles.

As far as the work-force; those UNSKILLED workers are REPLACED with machinery. You nit-picking about the HR department or claiming that certain manufacturing companies still need worker isn't a rebuttal. Those workers that work for Toyota for example; hardly do labor-intensive work, they use their knowledge to operate the machinery.

I never said there aren't jobs like the "docks" or some miscellaneous labor intensive jobs that middle to low class families can get hired for; but there is a significantly reduction in those jobs which is a direct causation of the problems you're highlighting.

Many companies also are transnational companies who hire people abroad (foreigners) to work for their subsidiaries; therefore, less Americans have those opportunities.

Bottom line; it's the bed we made for ourselves, now sleep in it.
We had no problems with our economical structure (or distribution of wealth) until it became a serious problem. Being short-sighted isn't an excuse.

[shlver]

For those advocating the redistribution of wealth, how far should it go? How progressive should our progressive income taxes become? Forced redistribution does not help economic growth.

[Jasper]

We must not just look at our current historic point of view in regards to the economy as well as the gross national product and class.
We need to go back when civilzation was created believe it or not.

There was once all who were equal , until civilization became structured.
Once commerce occurred the origins of class became RICH and POOR.
Eventually the poor wanted more , and then the Middle class evolved.
Middle class did not evolve from the rich.
Obviously America has a vast majority of middle class compared to the poor and as well as the rich.
But as Blackattack had stated the trend where not only revenue , tax's could be balanced from the majority (middle class) the economic turn has evolved into a top heavy society of a trend to Rich and less efficient (meaning more people that were on the edge of being poor are POOR)
The only way this cycle can be changed is what happened on black Friday , disarming the wealthy and reestablishing the wealth across our country.
Bush nearly toppled our country into depression , which would of been horrific for not only America but the world.
I am clueless to how our country gets the balance back to where the Middle Class sustains major influence on the wealth of our country and commerce.
However exporting jobs globally does not help.
Because I live in a rural forest region , I am aware that exporting of goods processed in other countrys and shipped back here , seems like a huge fail to me.
Go to Home Depot and you will see China stamped on lumber you buy , but the wood is actually from America.

[crosso√er]

Cleveland isn't a 'sh!thole'... that is just a stupid thing to say and, yeah... It is offensive. What has happened to Cleveland can happen anywhere when greedy CEOs take their workforce overseas and from an area was dependent upon manufacturing.

The same thing has happened with the garment industry in New York City. It is dying... And it is sad.

Cleveland became a shit hole because of greedy CEO's; it might be offensive but you just admitted of it being the truth.

Look, I know you're from Cleveland it's close to your heart. I've visited the city in 2009 and it was disgusting man. It does piss me off that this country is dominated by fortune 500 companies and people like you struggle; but it's something we should have dealt with a long time ago. Now you want change and force-feed the government to distribute wealth; it's plausible just not in the short-term, and by that I mean, not in your life time.

[RedBlackAttack]

Good post, crosso√er. I will respond when I get a chance. I'm about to eat dinner and watch a documentary. Stay online if you can... I'm enjoying this back-and-forth.


For those advocating the redistribution of wealth, how far should it go? How progressive should our progressive income taxes become? Forced redistribution does not help economic growth.

I'm not saying that this country *needs* redistribution of wealth. I'm saying that the redistribution has already happened and it has gone to the top.

Why is it 'redistribution' of wealth when workers feel like they should be paid a livable wage, but when CEOs go from making 30x the average worker's salary to 500x the average worker's salary, that isn't BLATANT redistribution?

[Sarcastic]

For those advocating the redistribution of wealth, how far should it go? How progressive should our progressive income taxes become? Forced redistribution does not help economic growth.

We have always been redistributing wealth. We have been redistributing it towards the top. How else do you think the imbalances were made? Do you think rich people worked harder or something? :lol

[-playmaker-]

PT has been to the strip mall; of course he's an expert in class economics and sociology.

Anyway, just glad I'm not in the bottom 90%.
yes, I claimed to be economics expert...that's what I did

rather than juts point out that it looks like we have still have good money on those charts...

[shlver]

Good post, crosso√er. I will respond when I get a chance. I'm about to eat dinner and watch a documentary. Stay online if you can... I'm enjoying this back-and-forth.



I'm not saying that this country *needs* redistribution of wealth. I'm saying that the redistribution has already happened and it has gone to the top.

Why is it 'redistribution' of wealth when workers feel like they should be paid a livable wage, but when CEOs go from making 30x the average worker's salary to 500x the average worker's salary, that isn't BLATANT redistribution?
Well, it is useless hand waving to discuss what is apparent. We need to discuss solutions. If the control of wealth being concentrated in the top 10% is a crisis then solutions should be discussed and that is what I meant by my question.

[shlver]

We have always been redistributing wealth. We have been redistributing it towards the top. How else do you think the imbalances were made? Do you think rich people worked harder or something? :lol
Of course. Wealth shows a strong correlation with age. People tend to save as they grow older.

[crosso√er]

We have always been redistributing wealth. We have been redistributing it towards the top. How else do you think the imbalances were made? Do you think rich people worked harder or something? :lol

No, it's a fundamental concept of a free-market, something America embedded for decades. That concept is Supply & Demand; that's what causes the "imbalance".

Like someone already mentioned (a terrific point); before you go to school, learn about the economy first. Don't just go pursue your hobby and subsequently complain about "inequality" or "distribution of wealth"; before you actually select a program, make sure your monetary needs are met (if that is a primary concern of yours for attending that specific program).

It is YOUR responsibility not the billionaires who make fortunes.

[shlver]

Cleveland isn't a 'sh!thole'... that is just a stupid thing to say and, yeah... It is offensive. What has happened to Cleveland can happen anywhere when greedy CEOs take their workforce overseas and from an area was dependent upon manufacturing.

The same thing has happened with the garment industry in New York City. It is dying... And it is sad.
CEO's are investors with capital at risk. Take for example Buffet. Look at his list of CEO's and try to find an example of excess compensation. You won't find it because the shareholders monitor CEO pay also.

[joe]

The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is the deterioration of capitalism in our country, being replaced with socialist and tyrannical rule. The federal reserve is not an instrument of capitalism. The heavy regulation on our businesses is not an instrument of capitalism.

If you don't know what I'm talking about in that last paragraph, yet you think the problem is capitalism.. you need to do more research before you become part of the political movement in America that looks to continue to deteriorate capitalism, in favor of socialist legislation.

[crosso√er]

Of course. Wealth shows a strong correlation with age. People tend to save as they grow older.

Exactly; especially with all the tax incentives emerging.

[3ptShooter]

It isn't about entitlement. You are talking about getting things for free. I'm talking about people being paid a livable income for jobs that were once able to support the middle class and now -- with CEOs taking 10 times the money that they used to out of the pot (literally, 10-20 times) -- those jobs cannot support a single person, let alone an entire family.

Why do CEOs need to earn 500x what an average worker in a company makes? Weren't they satisfied with *only* taking 30x the income?

too damn busy with work to respond to all i'd like to but just a few quick things.

1. it's a very complex issue to discuss, regardless of the casual cliches thrown around

2. many of those graphs are political and may be deceptive. example:

http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-who%27swinning_3.png

they clearly pick the years the housing bubble burst. they could pick only 2004-2006 and it would be a rosy outlook. btw - the majority of americans own stock, so that +720 affects most through pensions, 401k's, investments...

and why no mention of who is paying what % of taxes? would seem to be helpful in a fair debate. how about the wealth they create (although I'd bet that is going down too compared to the past).



http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
if you look you'll see that the wealthiest line goes up sharply during the boom times. you'll see reagan, the internet bubble and burst (95-99), and the housing bubble (03-07). i'd bet that top line had dipped accordingly with the crash.

also regarding that line, the wealthy have the money to invest in stocks, houses, business, so when the booms come they benefit the most. compound interest helps too. :D it also benefits everyone.

most of the posts here are at least partially right. thanks to globalization and many other factors, the middle class will never be the same. also true that we don't have it all that bad.







I do agree with you that a large number of the elite wealthy are republicans in this country. I could have probably put that in someplace in OP, but I just wanted to keep my opinion out of the OP as much as possible without starting the thread outright bashing people.

As for the voting aspect that you mentioned, I think it all boils down to what people watch or read throughout their daily life that determines what they do when they go to vote. There is a saying that says something like "a few control the minds of many."

Basically that is how successful propaganda works. What information a few guys put out will determine who wins the election when the time comes. It is a definitely disturbing how quickly a FEW guys are able to incite everyone that is listening/watching/reading them just based on the wording and tone that they use.

I remember reading there being a study on this in psychology before when we were talking about propaganda some time back. I'm sure a simple google search on propaganda would bring tons of results on that specific study (the one that I am thinking of was done early in the decade, I'm sure there were other new studies since and studies on propaganda from before that).

I truly wish we had better media in this country. People like Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, etc intentionally make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and they have more power than the other groups of people in this country. Guys like those incite hatred against the other groups of people in this country that are making much less than they are to protect their own huge salaries.

Doesn't Bill O'Reilly proudly say that he considers himself a middle-class member? I know he said that a couple times (on youtube videos, google it up). The truth is that he makes a few millions per year.

And most of the FOX watchers believe him when he says he is middle-class. :confusedshrug: I asked a conservative friend of mine how much he thinks O'Reilly makes every year - he told me $250,000. I told him that O'Reilly actually makes over 10 million every year, and I said right away that I have proof of it (in case if he interrupts me to ask for proof). INSTANTLY he starts to talk about how much money O'Reilly gives away to help out the poor. It was almost automatic as if he had to defend O'Reilly for some reason. It was so quick that I almost felt like it was a defense mechanism. :confusedshrug:

wow - from "i don't want to inject politics" to all this. it was obvious when you posted a link from mother jones, but i guess you lasted 4 pages.

1. saying beck and o'reilly fool the middle class into thinking they have it good is absurd. "if they only knew the truth" is a sad refrain from either side.

2. you know why o'reilly makes all that money? cause he makes them a ton and is therefore worth every penny! not exactly sure what's wrong with that. he did come from a middle class background from what i understand and gives a boatload to charity.

if you actually watched you'll find that o'reilly has more varied view points than most news/opinion shows on tv. i guess that doesn't matter. you only want one opinion given.

btw: democrats and republicans supported nafta. when ross perot was attacking it, you know who debated him in favor of nafta?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/OPINION/05/28/larry.kings.top.5/story.nafta.debate.lkl.cnn.jpg




Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.
yeah. not one single issue that caused... ah nevermind.



Cleveland became a shit hole because of greedy CEO's; it might be offensive but you just admitted of it being the truth.

Look, I know you're from Cleveland it's close to your heart. I've visited the city in 2009 and it was disgusting man. It does piss me off that this country is dominated by fortune 500 companies and people like you struggle; but it's something we should have dealt with a long time ago. Now you want change and force-feed the government to distribute wealth; it's plausible just not in the short-term, and by that I mean, not in your life time.

it's not greedy CEO's for damn sake! don't you realize that when business is faced with cheaper labor and competion that is using it, they are usually forced to adapt or go under?

you mentioned cleveland. i have family from the steel mill days. greedy CEO's didn't kill the mills, just like they didn't kill the car industry. cheap foreign competition and labor did it to both!

if all the ceo's got paid nothing, it wouldn't do a thing to solve the problem. :facepalm

i hate it as much as anyone, but class warefare doesn't help.

[bladefd]

wow - from "i don't want to inject politics" to all this. it was obvious when you posted a link from mother jones, but i guess you lasted 4 pages.

1. saying beck and o'reilly fool the middle class into thinking they have it good is absurd. "if they only knew the truth" is a sad refrain from either side.

2. you know why o'reilly makes all that money? cause he makes them a ton and is therefore worth every penny! not exactly sure what's wrong with that. he did come from a middle class background from what i understand and gives a boatload to charity.

if you actually watched you'll find that o'reilly has more varied view points than most news/opinion shows on tv. i guess that doesn't matter. you only want one opinion given.


1) You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that Beck/O'reilly make the middle-class think they have it good.

What I did say is that Beck/O'reilly make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and you have the freedom to vote for who you want in power. They basically make it seem like it is the middle-class that has the numbers so they can decide whoever they want to put into office. I wish that is how it worked..

The people do not directly vote for the president due to the electoral college; a representative in the electoral college does not necessarily need to side with the popular vote if they don't want to. Also, the people running for presidency also usually need to have money to run to begin with. Maybe not big money but they need decent money to start a political campaign for presidency. How many middle-class people have successfully run for a presidency campaign in the last 50 years? By middle-class I'm talking about people with salaries around 50k-60k or under.

Then there is propaganda that changes who has a specific piece of knowledge; if somebody doesn't want to show you a specific piece of information about somebody, they won't. They can easily play around it or change the wording/tone to try to make an outrage out of something minuscule. That was my point to the guy I was quoting since he was talking about how the voting system is a mess.

2) You're right, he has worked his way up the ladder. He makes millions for Fox and in return, FOX has to repay a fraction of what he makes for FOX. I have no problem with him making what he makes. Hell, he could be getting paid $20 million per year, nothing wrong with it. What I have a problem with though is him considering himself part of the middle-class. He was a middle-class member once, but he is not a middle-class member anymore. Why does he say he is middle-class when he clearly isn't?

3) No, Bill O'Reilly doesn't have as varied viewpoint as you say. Want to see? Go on youtube and search up Bill O'Reilly. Go through video after video of O'Reilly talking over the years. That's all I will say.

btw - I don't want to single out Beck/O'Reilly. The left side also has plenty of crazy people like Beck/O'Reilly, Olbermann and Maher are a similar way when it comes to inciting people on their side against the other side. Media has become an issue around here as I mentioned multiple times.

[shlver]

1) You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say that Beck/O'reilly make the middle-class think they have it good.

What I did say is that Beck/O'reilly make it seem like the middle-class is glorious and you have the freedom to vote for who you want in power. They basically make it seem like it is the middle-class that has the numbers so they can decide whoever they want to put into office. I wish that is how it worked..

The people do not directly vote for the president due to the electoral college; a representative in the electoral college does not necessarily need to side with the popular vote if they don't want to.

Then there is propaganda that changes who has a specific piece of knowledge; if somebody doesn't want to show you a specific piece of information about somebody, they won't. They can easily play around it or change the wording/tone to try to make an outrage out of something minuscule. That was my point to the guy I was quoting since he was talking about how the voting system is a mess.

2) You're right, he has worked his way up the ladder. He makes millions for Fox and in return, FOX has to repay a fraction of what he makes for FOX. I have no problem with him making what he makes. Hell, he could be getting paid $20 million per year, nothing wrong with it. What I have a problem with though is him considering himself part of the middle-class. He was a middle-class member once, but he is not a middle-class member anymore. Why does he say he is middle-class when he clearly isn't?

3) No, Bill O'Reilly doesn't have as varied viewpoint as you say. Want to see? Go on youtube and search up Bill O'Reilly. Go through video after video of O'Reilly talking over the years. That's all I will say.

btw - I don't want to single out Beck/O'Reilly. The left side also has plenty of crazy people like Beck/O'Reilly, Olbermann and Maher are a similar way when it comes to inciting people on their side against the other side. Media has become an issue around here as I mentioned multiple times.
Which has only happened like twice and only one candidate has lost with the majority popular vote.

[Hawker]

Thank Bush and the republicans that have ruined this country. They are on the wrong side of every issue.
:facepalm

[bladefd]

Which has only happened like twice and only one candidate has lost with the majority popular vote.

That's a good point. I tried to do the wording in that sentence as neutrally as possible because I realized that while typing that post. In the original post that I had typed up, I realized that I was being too harsh and I changed up wording a bit before I submitted that post. Glad you didn't see what I had typed up in that paragraph before posting. :lol

I just try to be more careful nowadays before submitting reply. anyways I hope the rest of that post makes logical sense.

btw - plenty of electoral college members have gone against the popular vote in their own small area of the election. That wasn't what I was saying in that post though so I won't act like I was. Overall for national popular vote, only Al Gore has lost a national popular vote

[Naruto-sama]

The problem is NOT capitalism. The problem is the deterioration of capitalism in our country, being replaced with socialist and tyrannical rule. The federal reserve is not an instrument of capitalism. The heavy regulation on our businesses is not an instrument of capitalism.

If you don't know what I'm talking about in that last paragraph, yet you think the problem is capitalism.. you need to do more research before you become part of the political movement in America that looks to continue to deteriorate capitalism, in favor of socialist legislation.


:facepalm

[joe]

:facepalm

It's true man. All this capitalism hate is extremely dangerous. Capitalism made us the prosperous country we are to begin with. Capitalism increases the wealth of the country, it uplifts the middle class and lower class. The problems in America have nothing to do with capitalism, because the truth is we don't have true capitalism in America right now. We have heavily regulated capitalism mixed with fascism, socialism, and big government. Those are your enemies, not capitalism.

[Jasper]

Of course. Wealth shows a strong correlation with age. People tend to save as they grow older.
This could be read in a misleading way.
Facts show that a SMALL majority of baby boomers have saved.
Their vast amount of economic stimilus to our society has been vested in buying.
I am a baby boomer , and never had done as much as the average middle class baby boomer , and yet I am in serious trouble.

When you talk about wealth correlates with age , you are only refering to individuals that have enough wealth to sustain their life styles as well as save lump sums of equity.

If I were to save as my parents advised me , to eventually buy the house I am in right now .. it would of taken a considerable amount of my life to acquire it , to find in less than 10 years that appreciation value had dropped 25-33%.
As many baby boomers have done borrowing is the name of the game.
That said the majority of baby boomers that are from 50-65 have little savings ,but on paper as I am are worth more than their parents because of all the money spent.
That spent money gets you seldom any revenue in return at the present time.

[shlver]

This could be read in a misleading way.
Facts show that a SMALL majority of baby boomers have saved.
Their fast amount of economic stimilus to our society has been vested in buying.
I am a baby boomer , and never had done as much as the average middle class baby boomer , and yet I am in serious trouble.

When you talk about wealth correlates with age , you are only refering to individuals that have enough wealth to sustain their life styles as well as save lump sums of equity.

If I were to safe as my parents advised me , to eventually buy the house I am in right now .. it would of taken a considerable amount of my life to acquire it , to find in less than 10 years that appreciation value had dropped 25-33%.
As many baby boomers have done borrowing is the name of the game.
That said the majority of baby boomers that are from 50-65 have little savings ,but on paper as I am are worth more than their parents because of all the money spent.
That spent money gets you seldom any revenue in return at the present time.
No it is not misleading at all. People tend to work and save as they get older and become more mature with money.

[RedBlackAttack]

It's true man. All this capitalism hate is extremely dangerous. Capitalism made us the prosperous country we are to begin with. Capitalism increases the wealth of the country, it uplifts the middle class and lower class. The problems in America have nothing to do with capitalism, because the truth is we don't have true capitalism in America right now. We have heavily regulated capitalism mixed with fascism, socialism, and big government. Those are your enemies, not capitalism.
Unrestricted, unregulated capitalism can be as dangerous as unchecked communism, socialism, etc.

We have never had a completely capitalistic society. It didn't exist in America's formative years and it doesn't exist now. The best systems are ultimately the ones who can take the good aspects of different socio-economic systems and implement them while maintaining the integrity of the thing.

Funny that you mention the non-capitalistic ventures as what is killing America... As if implementing other systems in certain areas is a new idea... Or something that the founders didn't intend.

Do you know what a strict interpretation of capitalism leads to? The Triangle fire. Look it up...

[Disaprine]

iam not very surprised by that, the system has been ****ed up for a while now.

[iamgine]

Pareto principle. 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth. Always been true, and will continue to be true.

[RedBlackAttack]

and why no mention of who is paying what % of taxes? would seem to be helpful in a fair debate. how about the wealth they create (although I'd bet that is going down too compared to the past).

It hasn't just gone down... It has shrunk to relatively nothing (compared to past decades). The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91-92%.

Now, it is mid-30%.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

People are calling Obama a socialist because he wants to raise the marginal tax rate for the Top 1% from 35% to 37%. Meanwhile, under Eisenhower and back when the middle class was at its absolute strongest, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

If we are turning to socialism by going from 35 to 37%, what the hell kind of system was it when we were at 91%? It is fascinating to me that people fall for these talking-points.

Meanwhile, the redistribution of wealth to the top is absolutely clear.... And Obama is a socialist because he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 37%.

SMH

Not that it will solve anything to make such an incremental raise or even a massive raise in the top marginal tax rate. Our problems go far, far deeper than that, which I have outlined in prior posts.

However, I do think it is pretty ridiculous that our marginal tax rate stops at around $300,000. So, a person who makes $1 billion a year is paying the same taxes as a family who brings in $300,000 a year.

That tax rate should continue to go up as it gets into the ludicrously over-the-top salaries. Maybe, under a system like that, the top marginal tax rate can actually even approach what it was in the economic boom-time in America -- the 1950s.

Maybe we also wouldn't have such a massive deficit. Food for thought.


btw: democrats and republicans supported nafta. when ross perot was attacking it, you know who debated him in favor of nafta?

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/OPINION/05/28/larry.kings.top.5/story.nafta.debate.lkl.cnn.jpg

As I said early on in this thread, this isn't a left-right issue... Or it shouldn't be. This impacts everyone.

Do you want to know whom I consider the greatest offender in the absolute decimation of the US manufacturing base? It's not Reagan or Bush or Bush II or Obama...

It was Clinton. Sure, those other guys played a part and later presidents furthered his policies, but Clinton -- the face of the 'new' moderate democratic party -- was the one who pushed NAFTA through. He is the one who massively lowered tariffs. He is the one who endorsed other trade agreements that made it more cost efficient for companies to pack up their things and leave than to provide jobs to Americans and keep their money circulating in this country.

It was Clinton who I consider mainly responsible for these massive CEO earnings... And he is maybe the major culprit in the destruction of the middle class.

For as revered as he has become to the modern American left, if they really examined his policies and their impacts, I doubt many would walk away with a smile on their faces.



it's not greedy CEO's for damn sake! don't you realize that when business is faced with cheaper labor and competion that is using it, they are usually forced to adapt or go under?

you mentioned cleveland. i have family from the steel mill days. greedy CEO's didn't kill the mills, just like they didn't kill the car industry. cheap foreign competition and labor did it to both!

if all the ceo's got paid nothing, it wouldn't do a thing to solve the problem. :facepalm

i hate it as much as anyone, but class warefare doesn't help.

How can you possibly say that attempting to get these CEO salaries under control wouldn't help the situation? If a CEO was making, say, 50x the average worker instead of 500x, I think it is safe to say that said worker would be in much better shape to support his family, re-circulate that money into the economy, buy things... And, all of that extra money could also fund more jobs for more people.

No, it isn't going to 'solve' the real problem. These massive CEO salaries are only the RESULT of the core problems. But, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored and deemed hopeless in trying to remedy.

[joe]

It hasn't just gone down... It has shrunk to relatively nothing (compared to past decades). The top marginal tax rate in the 1950s was 91-92%.

Now, it is mid-30%.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

People are calling Obama a socialist because he wants to raise the marginal tax rate for the Top 1% from 35% to 37%. Meanwhile, under Eisenhower and back when the middle class was at its absolute strongest, the top marginal tax rate was 91%.

If we are turning to socialism by going from 35 to 37%, what the hell kind of system was it when we were at 91%? It is fascinating to me that people fall for these talking-points.

Meanwhile, the redistribution of wealth to the top is absolutely clear.... And Obama is a socialist because he wants to raise the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 37%.

SMH

Not that it will solve anything to make such an incremental raise or even a massive raise in the top marginal tax rate. Our problems go far, far deeper than that, which I have outlined in prior posts.

However, I do think it is pretty ridiculous that our marginal tax rate stops at around $300,000. So, a person who makes $1 billion a year is paying the same taxes as a family who brings in $300,000 a year.

That tax rate should continue to go up as it gets into the ludicrously over-the-top salaries. Maybe, under a system like that, the top marginal tax rate can actually even approach what it was in the economic boom-time in America -- the 1950s.

Maybe we also wouldn't have such a massive deficit. Food for thought.



As I said early on in this thread, this isn't a left-right issue... Or it shouldn't be. This impacts everyone.

Do you want to know whom I consider the greatest offender in the absolute decimation of the US manufacturing base? It's not Reagan or Bush or Bush II or Obama...

It was Clinton. Sure, those other guys played a part and later presidents furthered his policies, but Clinton -- the face of the 'new' moderate democratic party -- was the one who pushed NAFTA through. He is the one who massively lowered tariffs. He is the one who endorsed other trade agreements that made it more cost efficient for companies to pack up their things and leave than to provide jobs to Americans and keep their money circulating in this country.

It was Clinton who I consider mainly responsible for these massive CEO earnings... And he is maybe the major culprit in the destruction of the middle class.

For as revered as he has become to the modern American left, if they really examined his policies and their impacts, I doubt many would walk away with a smile on their faces.




How can you possibly say that attempting to get these CEO salaries under control wouldn't help the situation? If a CEO was making, say, 50x the average worker instead of 500x, I think it is safe to say that said worker would be in much better shape to support his family, re-circulate that money into the economy, buy things... And, all of that extra money could also fund more jobs for more people.

No, it isn't going to 'solve' the real problem. These massive CEO salaries are only the RESULT of the core problems. But, that doesn't mean that they should be ignored and deemed hopeless in trying to remedy.

You're correct, it shouldn't be a left right issue. The left and the right have both failed us.

Getting "CEO salaries under control" is to me, an anti-American statement. People have the right to make money in this country, and the government putting a cap on earnings has no business in a free society.

People spending money won't fix the economy, people saving money will. We need savings in this country, and to do that we need the federal reserve abolished. They are artificially keeping interest rates low, making the return of savings next to nothing. Then to make matters worse, they keep inflating the dollar, meaning that if you save money today you'll actually have LESS money in the future.

We need REAL savings, so that entrepreneurs can use that money to start businesses. Businesses that people actually WANT, not businesses that failed and had to be bailed out (a very anti-capitalist move). Failed businesses should be allowed to fail so that productive businesses can grow in their place. From there, we can create jobs and wealth.

Instead what we do is heavily regulate businesses so that EVEN IF the above were true, nobody would want to start a business in America anyway.

Obama isn't a socialist because he's raising taxes. He does however support some socialist policies, his health care reform being the most despicable of all.

Good intentioned but arrogant liberals laugh at republicans for their fear of socialism. I'm neither democrat or republican, and from my outside view it's democrats that are the wrongful party in that situation. Socialism IS something to be feared, and it IS slowly being integrated into America. It started with social security and welfare but it continues on today. Yelling "socialist!" isn't just a way for republicans to insult Obama, it's a very true criticism, and quite a scary thing.

We don't need tax rates going up on ANYONE, we need tax rates going down. We need massive cuts of government programs, we need to get out of these wars and withdraw our troops all over the world. Military spending needs to be cut, education spending, welfare, social security, all of these things need to be massively cut.

Then, the American people need to take a good hard look at the constitution and decide if they want it anymore. We're at a crossroads here people.. are we going to continue to be a free nation with all the personal responsibility it entails, or go down the road of big government, loss of freedoms, welfare state, weak economy? What do you guys want?

You mention that unregulated capitalism isn't perfect either. I agree, some regulations should exist. But we've over regulated and now we're driving businesses out of America, have been for some time. Not only that, but we're making the businesses that do stay here uncompetitive. Then people wonder why their company is cutting employees and moving to other cities. It's not profitable to do business in America now, entirely thanks to our government interfering with the economy. This has been a slow moving train that started in 1913, and now we're in complete free fall mode.

[Hawker]

How much we owe in debt (http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112189/who-owns-the-us?mod=bb-debtmanagement)

[RedBlackAttack]

You're correct, it shouldn't be a left right issue. The left and the right have both failed us.

Getting "CEO salaries under control" is to me, an anti-American statement. People have the right to make money in this country, and the government putting a cap on earnings has no business in a free society.

People spending money won't fix the economy, people saving money will. We need savings in this country, and to do that we need the federal reserve abolished. They are artificially keeping interest rates low, making the return of savings next to nothing. Then to make matters worse, they keep inflating the dollar, meaning that if you save money today you'll actually have LESS money in the future.

We need REAL savings, so that entrepreneurs can use that money to start businesses. Businesses that people actually WANT, not businesses that failed and had to be bailed out (a very anti-capitalist move). Failed businesses should be allowed to fail so that productive businesses can grow in their place. From there, we can create jobs and wealth.

Instead what we do is heavily regulate businesses so that EVEN IF the above were true, nobody would want to start a business in America anyway.

Obama isn't a socialist because he's raising taxes. He does however support some socialist policies, his health care reform being the most despicable of all.

Good intentioned but arrogant liberals laugh at republicans for their fear of socialism. I'm neither democrat or republican, and from my outside view it's democrats that are the wrongful party in that situation. Socialism IS something to be feared, and it IS slowly being integrated into America. It started with social security and welfare but it continues on today. Yelling "socialist!" isn't just a way for republicans to insult Obama, it's a very true criticism, and quite a scary thing.

We don't need tax rates going up on ANYONE, we need tax rates going down. We need massive cuts of government programs, we need to get out of these wars and withdraw our troops all over the world. Military spending needs to be cut, education spending, welfare, social security, all of these things need to be massively cut.

Then, the American people need to take a good hard look at the constitution and decide if they want it anymore. We're at a crossroads here people.. are we going to continue to be a free nation with all the personal responsibility it entails, or go down the road of big government, loss of freedoms, welfare state, weak economy? What do you guys want?

You mention that unregulated capitalism isn't perfect either. I agree, some regulations should exist. But we've over regulated and now we're driving businesses out of America, have been for some time. Not only that, but we're making the businesses that do stay here uncompetitive. Then people wonder why their company is cutting employees and moving to other cities. It's not profitable to do business in America now, entirely thanks to our government interfering with the economy. This has been a slow moving train that started in 1913, and now we're in complete free fall mode.

Regulations making the US uncompetitive? Are you talking about minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety, etc?

Because, in order to be 'competitive' with places like China and India, we would have to use American workers 14 hours a day for $10 a day.

There are still major corporations in America that are bringing in RECORD profits... Not just profits, but RECORD profits. Americans still love buying stuff and this country still uses a hell of a lot of steel.

The biggest difference between now and 50 years ago are the trade agreements, globalization and the lack of tariffs on imported products... And that is why CEOs are making obscenely more money, there are virtually NO jobs that can support a family for unskilled workers and there has been a massive redistribution of wealth to the Top 1%.

If you want to take things back to when the Constitution was written, fine... Massive tariffs on imported goods and no trade agreements. I'm with you on those two things.

[bladefd]

People spending money won't fix the economy, people saving money will. We need savings in this country, and to do that we need the federal reserve abolished. They are artificially keeping interest rates low, making the return of savings next to nothing. Then to make matters worse, they keep inflating the dollar, meaning that if you save money today you'll actually have LESS money in the future.

We need REAL savings, so that entrepreneurs can use that money to start businesses. Businesses that people actually WANT, not businesses that failed and had to be bailed out (a very anti-capitalist move). Failed businesses should be allowed to fail so that productive businesses can grow in their place. From there, we can create jobs and wealth.


And you do know that if people were saving money, many (if not most) would save up their money in the bank without ever touching it? It would essentially lead to money being "stuck" - not the best word to use for this situation but can't think of a better one. Not everyone will invest the money they save up, not even half will.

I actually hear a similar argument to that earlier today (much more extreme than your argument but their logic for end result is similar). The other person said that government needs to remove income taxes entirely so people have more money in their pockets to buy more things with and to invest more with, allowing the economy to flourish. I asked him "What happens when the people refuse to buy more things and refuse to invest and end up keeping the extra money they make in the bank?" He said "Well then it would be their choice." I wasn't too happy with that response. That tells me one of 2 things: a) He doesn't understand the basics of how taxation works and/or b) he doesn't understand that cutting all income taxes is not an answer to solving the economic problems.

As I mentioned in my opening post, capitalism works best when money is cycling between different sectors (i.e. public sector, private sector, etc). Taxing helps the money cycle between the government and the people. When the government receives the tax money, they spend that money on other matters, such as building roads and providing service to the people. As soon as the money cycle stops or slows down, capitalism starts to destabilize and fall apart.

Therefore, leaving the spending in the hands of the people is not a solution. If anything, it could hurt the economy more than help.

[joe]

Regulations making the US uncompetitive? Are you talking about minimum wage, child labor laws, workplace safety, etc?

Because, in order to be 'competitive' with places like China and India, we would have to use American workers 14 hours a day for $10 a day.

There are still major corporations in America that are bringing in RECORD profits... Not just profits, but RECORD profits. Americans still love buying stuff and this country still uses a hell of a lot of steel.

The biggest difference between now and 50 years ago are the trade agreements, globalization and the lack of tariffs on imported products... And that is why CEOs are making obscenely more money, there are virtually NO jobs that can support a family for unskilled workers and there has been a massive distribution of wealth to the Top 1%.

If you want to take things back to when the Constitution was written, fine... Massive tariffs on imported goods and no trade agreements. I with you on those two things.

There are other differences between now and 50 years ago. 1- There are more regulations. For instance, due to the Patriot Act banks have to monitor their clients banking habits and are forced to report those habit to the government. That is extra time and money, and is one of many regulations we have on businesses today.

Another difference is government interference in markets. The most obvious example of this is college tuition. People wonder why college tuition is so high and I know the answer, it's a fairly simple one. They're high because the government guarantees the repayment of loans to the lenders. Because of this, the lenders take no risk by giving out loans. Even if the student doesn't pay them back, they get their money from the government. This leads to lower loaning standards, and now EVERYONE and their momma is able to get loans.

You'd think this would be a good thing, right? More kids could go to college? Actually it's a negative, because due to this, colleges can raise the tuition as high as they please. Because EVERYONE can get a loan, they don't lose any customers by raising the tuition.

If the government didn't guarantee tuition loans, tuition would be much cheaper. Colleges would be forced to lower prices to attract customers. Imagine trying to charge $25,000 a year for college, when customers had to pay cash? It'd be impossible. Prices would come way down.

And in fact that's what you see. Look at college tuition prices before government got involved and they're in the $2,000 a year range, more or less depending on the school.

Government is similarly involved in other markets, including medical care and real estate.

But by far the biggest difference between now and 50 years ago is inflation. We had inflation 50 years ago, sure, but it's continued to skyrocket since then and now we're at a precipice. This is caused by the Federal Reserve, an entirely unconstitutional bank that is allowed to expand the money supply at their own will.

Of course companies are still bringing in profits.. it's the smaller companies that are most hurt by regulations. The big companies can afford to pay the extra money, the smaller companies can't. They either go out of business or move overseas.

Also, their record profits may be misleading. With so much inflation, of course their raw dollar number is higher. But is it of the same worth?

[RedBlackAttack]

There are other differences between now and 50 years ago. 1- There are more regulations. For instance, due to the Patriot Act banks have to monitor their clients banking habits and are forced to report those habit to the government. That is extra time and money, and is one of many regulations we have on businesses today.

Another difference is government interference in markets. The most obvious example of this is college tuition. People wonder why college tuition is so high and I know the answer, it's a fairly simple one. They're high because the government guarantees the repayment of loans to the lenders. Because of this, the lenders take no risk by giving out loans. Even if the student doesn't pay them back, they get their money from the government. This leads to lower loaning standards, and now EVERYONE and their momma is able to get loans.

You'd think this would be a good thing, right? More kids could go to college? Actually it's a negative, because due to this, colleges can raise the tuition as high as they please. Because EVERYONE can get a loan, they don't lose any customers by raising the tuition.

If the government didn't guarantee tuition loans, tuition would be much cheaper. Colleges would be forced to lower prices to attract customers. Imagine trying to charge $25,000 a year for college, when customers had to pay cash? It'd be impossible. Prices would come way down.

And in fact that's what you see. Look at college tuition prices before government got involved and they're in the $2,000 a year range, more or less depending on the school.

College tuition and student loans are complete rackets. I think we can all agree on that... At least, anyone who has ever been to college. You are right in that there is no risk to lenders and there seems to be no cap on the ever-increasing price of tuition.

I think that there is another, less obvious problem at work, here, involving the current state of colleges, tuition and -- more importantly -- the value of a diploma.

There was a time when reaching the upper-levels of education by getting accepted into college and earning your degree was a real accomplishment that came with real rewards (full-time employment upon graduation, plenty of job offers).

These days, with the massive number of people attending universities and colleges across the country, the market-place has been totally diluted with students and graduates and they all cannot be compensated with work.

This goes back to your statement about the enterprise that upper-echelon schooling has become. It is no longer about developing the nation's future leaders and the people who are truly skilled in a subject, but about holding onto you for as long as possible (average time for degree completion has increased from four to five years in the last 15-20 years), milking as much money as possible out of you and then getting you out of there.

Things like graduation rates have supplanted actual education for a lot of schools, because the higher the graduation rate, the more they can charge.

Now, throw in the fact that the unskilled labor force is basically done in this country and you have an influx of students who may have worked in a mill for a good, livable wage right out of high school being forced to go to college to even have a shot at a similar paying job.

It is really a vicious circle. The fall of our manufacturing base has had ripples in literally every segment of society. From the ridiculous redistribution of wealth to the top 1% of the country to the completely deluded workforce all competing for the same jobs.


Also, their record profits may be misleading. With so much inflation, of course their raw dollar number is higher. But is it of the same worth?

Raw dollar numbers really have nothing to do with it. Again, in 1950, the average CEO made 30x the average worker. Now it is 300-500x the average worker. There is no amount of inflation that is going to explain away this disparity. It is staggering, frankly.



I would like to hear your opinions on NAFTA, tariffs and other trade agreements.

[joe]

College tuition and student loans are complete rackets. I think we can all agree on that... At least, anyone who has ever been to college. You are right in that there is no risk to lenders and there seems to be no cap on the ever-increasing price of tuition.

I think that there is another, less obvious problem at work, here, involving the current state of colleges, tuition and -- more importantly -- the value of a diploma.

There was a time when reaching the upper-levels of education by getting accepted into college and earning your degree was a real accomplishment that came with real rewards (full-time employment upon graduation, plenty of job offers).

These days, with the massive number of people attending universities and colleges across the country, the market-place has been totally diluted with students and graduates and they all cannot be compensated with work.

This goes back to your statement about the enterprise that upper-echelon schooling has become. It is no longer about developing the nation's future leaders and the people who are truly skilled in a subject, but about holding onto you for as long as possible (average time for degree completion has increased from four to five years in the last 15-20 years), milking as much money as possible out of you and then getting you out of there.

Things like graduation rates have supplanted actual education for a lot of schools, because the higher the graduation rate, the more they can charge.

Now, throw in the fact that the unskilled labor force is basically done in this country and you have an influx of students who may have worked in a mill for a good, livable wage right out of high school being forced to go to college to even have a shot at a similar paying job.

It is really a vicious circle. The fall of our manufacturing base has had ripples in literally every segment of society. From the ridiculous redistribution of wealth to the top 1% of the country to the completely deluded workforce all competing for the same jobs.



Raw dollar numbers really have nothing to do with it. Again, in 1950, the average CEO made 30x the average worker. Now it is 300-500x the average worker. There is no amount of inflation that is going to explain away this disparity. It is staggering, frankly.



I would like to hear your opinions on NAFTA, tariffs and other trade agreements.

Haven't done much research on NAFTA or US tariffs, but I'll do some and come back with an opinion later tonight (if I'm able to learn enough about it in a few hours to form some type of rational opinion).


To respond to your other points though..

1 - More people in college, college holding us there longer. I don't disagree with you but I don't necessarily blame the colleges for wanting people there longer. When you're making the amount of money they're making for one year of classes, it makes good business sense to get people to stay an extra year. I think the blame for this goes back to the government for guaranteeing the repayment of loans, allowing tuition prices to sky rocket.

The fact that so many people are attending college is again the governments fault. Hate to sound like a dead horse, but the truth is the truth is the truth. Government has made college a VERY profitable business venture. By guaranteeing the loan repayments, college tuition has skyrockets as a result. Of course this should lead to more colleges opening up. And that's what I find with my research:

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98

Scroll down and look at the chart. As you can see, the number of higher education institutions has increased every year studied.

That page also shows that colleges are enrolling more people every year. Again, this is the cause of government. If colleges weren't making $20,000 a year per student, they couldn't afford to allow so many people to enroll. They couldn't afford to build the extra dorms, hire the extra teachers, etc.

Then here's the real effect of this: College is leaving too many citizens with too much debt. The more debt a citizen has, along with the more taxes they pay, equals the less amount of money they have to save. Coupled with the federal reserve inflating the money/artificially lowering interest rates, saving is now more than ever an impossible option for most Americans. If you believe like me that it's a surplus of savings which allows new businesses to be born and to thrive... it becomes a huge problem.

How can new businesses be born when banks have no money to lend, and people have no money to spend?

To your point about the fall of our manufacturing base. This is a huge problem and the main reason for our trade deficit. We produce very little these days, which is why everything you own says "made in China" on it. In the 30's, it'd say "Made in the United States."

Production is the key to a great economy because it increases exports. Exports not only decrease our trade deficit but put us on the positive side of things.. we'd be owed more money than we owe.

There's many many factors to our lack of production and I can't pretend to know them all. I think the surplus of college students may be a small part of it, but I'd say the larger part is that we as a country haven't had to pay the price of our negative trade deficit.

Because the dollar is the default currency, and because of our overall reputation as a prosperous nation, we've gotten away with all this importing, even when we hardly export anymore.

Eventually, sooner rather than later, this will all come crashing down. People aren't going to keep giving us cars/tv's/computers in exchange for the dollar soon enough, because the dollar won't be worth jack. When that happens, expect all of your standards of living to go down.

For now, other countries are propping our way of life up. But when they stop.. could be this year, could be within the next few years.. It will be a long fall down.

The inflation of the dollar, the big government, and everything else will act as a bed of spikes at the bottom of our fall.

[bdreason]

The real estate bust isn't helping either.

Middle-class people who were trying to buy homes, ended up losing their homes and destroying their credit. Lower-class people completely lost any dream of owning a home. And the upper-class people with disposable income are buying up homes for dirt cheap... and then renting them to the poor and middle class people.



Rich get richer.

[PowerGlove]

The real estate bust isn't helping either.

Middle-class people who were trying to buy homes, ended up losing their homes and destroying their credit. Lower-class people completely lost any dream of owning a home. And the upper-class people with disposable income are buying up homes for dirt cheap... and then renting them to the poor and middle class people.



Rich get richer.

Exactly whats happening in Florida.

[sawyersauce]

I don't know what the f*ck you guys are talking about...10% of our households make $164k a year?

that is VERY GOOD!!!

10% is A LOT OF PEOPLE!!!


hell the BOTTOM 10% makes $30k...that is pretty poor, but they are living, and that is our "dirt"...


these charts are good IMO...not bad

this country is well off!

Re-read the chart.

That's not the bottom 10%. That's the bottom 90%.

[joe]

Some people (not Breason :-)) like to blame the housing bubble/housing collapse/recession on capitalism.

The housing bubble was NOT the fault of rich people, or capitalism, or anything like that.

It is the fault of government interference with the economy.

What we currently have in the USA, is the federal reserve bank which artificially manipulates interest rates. I won't get into why or how, but they've been keeping interest rates artificially low for a very long time. Including the time period before the housing collapse. This means you get less return for saving, but you pay less interest to borrow.

What this did was allow many people who had no business borrowing money, to borrow money from banks. Now we've got a bunch of Americans with loans looking for something to spend the money on.

Then, we've got the government guaranteeing bad mortgages. They say to any mortgage company, that if a person defaults on their loan, don't worry about it, we'll pay you the money. Because of this, mortgage companies lowered their standards. Even if you had not-so-good credit, they'd accept you and give you the money for a home.

Meanwhile, the false perception was growing that homes were a good investment. The thought was that the price of homes would continue to rise forever, so smart people should borrow money, buy a home, and later sell it for a profit. Remember all those people with the bank loans? This is what they spent their money on.

Because the DEMAND for homes was growing from people who seemed to have money (they didn't REALLY have money, they just borrowed it), companies began to increase the supply to match it. We had companies all over the USA building new homes, thinking there'd be massive amounts of people with money ready to buy them all up.

This my friend, is what we call a bubble. We had a housing bubble. So how did the bubble burst?

The bubble burst because banks/real estate brokers/mortgage companies realized the people couldn't really afford those homes they bought. We got people defaulting on their loans left and right, and suddenly the price of real estate is going DOWN because the companies see that nobody can really afford these houses at the inflated prices. Meanwhile we've got all these homes being built across the country that nobody can afford anymore (nor could they truly ever).

The true cause of the housing bubble was government interfering with the economy. If the federal reserve wasn't messing with interest rates, companies could better read if people had money to spend, and banks wouldn't be giving out loans to people who didn't have the money to pay it back. If the government wasn't guaranteeing mortgages, we wouldn't have a bunch of people buying homes that truly couldn't afford them.

This also helped cause the recession, but I'll get into that another time if anyone is still interested.

And now what direction are we going in? We are only getting more government interference with the economy, and worse yet, the people are CLAMORING for it! They don't understand that that's what caused these problems to begin with.

[bdreason]

I'm a Real Estate agent with a BA in Economics... but thanks.

I didn't blame anything on "the rich people". I simply stated that the real estate bust is further increasing the wealth gap between the upper, middle, and lower class.


I'de say 90% of the homes I sell these days are secondary homes or investment properties... and most of them are short sells as well(meaning the original owner is defaulting on the loan).

[joe]

I'm a Real Estate agent with a BA in Economics... but thanks.

I didn't blame anything on "the rich people". I simply stated that the real estate bust is further increasing the wealth gap between the upper, middle, and lower class.


I'de say 90% of the homes I sell these days are secondary homes or investment properties... and most of them are short sells as well(meaning the original owner is defaulting on the loan).

My fault, didn't realize you had a background in economics. Honestly, that "rich get richer" bit you said was true, but most people who say that are people who AREN'T educated in economics. "Oh, the rich get richer, what a horrible country we are," calling for the end of capitalism and what not. That's why I went off on that whole lecture. My apologies.

[bdreason]

My fault, didn't realize you had a background in economics. Honestly, that "rich get richer" bit you said was true, but most people who say that are people who AREN'T educated in economics. "Oh, the rich get richer, what a horrible country we are," calling for the end of capitalism and what not. That's why I went off on that whole lecture. My apologies.


No worries man, it was good info.



I personally hold the lending institutions largely responsible for the real estate bust... and many of my good friends are loan officers (or were). These institutions were making loans they knew people couldn't afford, and then after everyone started defaulting on their loans, these same institutions tried to act like they were the victims.

I feel part of the blame falls on my shoulders too. I was selling homes to people even though I knew they couldn't afford them, and connecting them with my friends (loan officers) to get them pre-approved. Some of these sub-prime loans these people were taking out were beyond ridiculous, and I knew they could never pay them... but I said nothing. I have plenty of former clients who have defaulted on their loans, and it's something that I regret everyday of my life.




ps- a sub-prime loan is a loan that starts off with a low, fixed interest rate, but then changes to an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), increasing the monthly payments on the loan. Most the people who took these loans could barely pay their initial monthly payments, and once the ARM kicked in, they were forced to default on the loan.

[joe]

No worries man, it was good info.



I personally hold the lending institutions largely responsible for the real estate bust... and many of my good friends are loan officers (or were). These institutions were making loans they knew people couldn't afford, and then after everyone started defaulting on their loans, these same institutions tried to act like they were the victims.

I feel part of the blame falls on my shoulders too. I was selling homes to people even though I knew they couldn't afford them, and connecting them with my friends (loan officers) to get them pre-approved. Some of these sub-prime loans these people were taking out were beyond ridiculous, and I knew they could never pay them... but I said nothing. I have plenty of former clients who have defaulted on their loans, and it's something that I regret everyday of my life.




ps- a sub-prime loan is a loan that starts off with a low, fixed interest rate, but then changes to an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM), increasing the monthly payments on the loan. Most the people who took these loans could barely pay their initial monthly payments, and once the ARM kicked in, they were forced to default on the loan.

My brother in law worked for a mortgage company, and he feels some of the same guilt you speak of. Got to do what you got to do to support yourself/the family, though.

He worked with people to re-structure the terms of their mortgage, so they wouldn't have to default. This generally let people lower their monthly fee, but added years and years of repayment overall, and of course much more interest to be paid overall as well.

[-playmaker-]

Re-read the chart.

That's not the bottom 10%. That's the bottom 90%.
you're right, I completely f*cked that up...thank you

[sawyersauce]

you're right, I completely f*cked that up...thank you

You're welcome.

It was a nit-pick, but I figured that mis-read was shaping your latter argument.

[-playmaker-]

You're welcome.

It was a nit-pick, but I figured that mis-read was shaping your latter argument.
yes it was...not a nit pick at all really...It actually had a great deal to do with how I viewed the entire thing...

the later charts go on to say that the average medium net worth is $120k or so though...how is that even possible making 30k a year?

seems like a lot of this you just kind of have to accept...and it also feels like a lot of it is very misleading...



but whatever...I am just trying to worry about myself, I know this country is far from perfect...but we are still much better off than most...

[-playmaker-]

it also says your odds of being a millionare are 1 in 22...

that seems very high to me, not low...that is a shit load of millionares...

[bdreason]

My brother in law worked for a mortgage company, and he feels some of the same guilt you speak of. Got to do what you got to do to support yourself/the family, though.

He worked with people to re-structure the terms of their mortgage, so they wouldn't have to default. This generally let people lower their monthly fee, but added years and years of repayment overall, and of course much more interest to be paid overall as well.


It's an incredibly volatile situation. The people buying the home want the loan, even if they can't afford it (or don't know they can't afford it). I want to sell them the home, because that's how I earn my living... and the loan officer is in the same boat. Everyone wants to get the deal done, so if there is anyway (sub-prime loan) to get it done, everyone turns a blind eye to the possible problems down the road. The entire situation was like a perfect storm, and when you throw big money commissions into the equation, it turns into a tornado. At times, it didn't even seem real. Like we were operating outside the box, in some fantasy world. I imagine that's what it must feel like for the people working on wall street as well. Playing with peoples livelyhoods like it's funny money in fantasy world. I considered becoming a stockbrocker or investment analyst coming out of College, but I got into real estate because I thought I could make a good living providing an honest service (and because many of my family members work in real estate). For the most part I feel like I have stayed true to myself, but there is no doubt that I've ruined peoples lives to improve my standard of living, and its something I think about all of the time.

[bdreason]

Sorry for the rant. It's late, I'm tired.

[joe]

It's an incredibly volatile situation. The people buying the home want the loan, even if they can't afford it (or don't know they can't afford it). I want to sell them the home, because that's how I earn my living... and the loan officer is in the same boat. Everyone wants to get the deal done, so if there is anyway (sub-prime loan) to get it done, everyone turns a blind eye to the possible problems down the road. The entire situation was like a perfect storm, and when you throw big money commissions into the equation, it turns into a tornado. At times, it didn't even seem real. Like we were operating outside the box, in some fantasy world. I imagine that's what it must feel like for the people working on wall street as well. Playing with peoples livelyhoods like it's funny money in fantasy world. I considered becoming a stockbrocker or investment analyst coming out of College, but I got into real estate because I thought I could make a good living providing an honest service (and because many of my family members work in real estate). For the most part I feel like I have stayed true to myself, but there is no doubt that I've ruined peoples lives to improve my standard of living, and its something I think about all of the time.

It's a volatile situation indeed, but there's a few other factors that need to be mentioned.

1- Those mortgage companies messed up, no doubt about it. Not only was it immoral to make those loans, but it was also very bad business. If you know someone can't pay back a loan, you shouldn't make the loan. You're getting screwed just as much as them in the end.

It's those business practices that should have put these companies out of business, yet we bailed many of these companies out. What would've happened if we let them fail? Well, many people would lose their jobs (maybe even you). There would be a lot of mis-allocated resources in the economy, causing a recession (or a dip). However, in place of those failed companies, over time, newer and better mortgage companies would emerge. These new companies would create more jobs, and create more wealth in the economy. The recession could end peacefully.

But what we did instead was bail them out. Now we're stuck with companies that the people clearly don't want, as they failed. Just to save a few jobs? That's not how capitalism is supposed to work.

The good companies should survive, the bad companies should die off.

2) It's in large part the federal reserves fault, for messing with interest rates. They keep rates too low, allowing any schmoe to get bank loans, regardless of if they can realistically pay it back. Since banks can get money from the fed damn near anytime they want, they've lowered lending standards. This led to many people having loans that SHOULDN'T have had them to begin with.

If those people couldn't get loans, like they wouldn't be able to in a free market economy.. everyone and their brother couldn't go and buy a house as a supposed "investment."

[bdreason]

The argument for and against deregulation, or how much deregulation was to blame for the entire situation is an interesting topic. I'll post my opinions tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. I will say that, in the end, the federal reserve is really the one dictating everything. That's reason enough to require significant regulation, if for no other reason than to dampen the boom and bust cycles the Fed creates. Less regulation, less government, and truely free markets would obviously be ideal if we weren't dealing with a central banking system that calls all the shots, and answers to nobody.

[joe]

The argument for and against deregulation, or how much deregulation was to blame for the entire situation is an interesting topic. I'll post my opinions tomorrow when I'm not half asleep. I will say that, in the end, the federal reserve is really the one dictating everything. That's reason enough to require significant regulation, if for no other reason than to dampen the boom and bust cycles the Fed creates. Less regulation, less government, and truely free markets would obviously be ideal if we weren't dealing with a central banking system that calls all the shots, and answers to nobody.

Totally agree with the bolded. If you do post those thoughts I'll make sure to read them.

Anyone in here still think capitalism is the problem? If so open your mind. This country was built on capitalism, and we had our most prosperous times because of it. Along with the constitution, it's the most important building block of our country. Sadly, both of those things are very misunderstood and trampled upon in 2011.

[Stuckey]

just have a few questions

if things get worse, rich get richer poor poorer, would a revolution happen?

[joe]

just have a few questions

if things get worse, rich get richer poor poorer, would a revolution happen?

Idk if this was directed at me but I'll answer it anyways because I'm bored.

As far as a violent revolution, I don't really see that happening right now. People don't care enough about this stuff to risk their lives for it. But a revolution of thought is certainly possible, especially if things get bad enough.

It seems somewhat of a revolution of thought is going on right now, but it's fighting for the wrong things. A lot of young people got excited about politics in 2008, I was one of them, but we keep begging for our own destruction. We want socialized medicine. Bigger government. Less freedoms in exchange for protection from terrorism.

Some people are on the right track, however.

If the rich keep getting richer, poor keep getting poorer, my hope is that THIS is the revolution:

People realize our government has been hijacked by corporations, and our politicians are corrupt. They are disregarding the constitution at every turn, and that needs to be stopped. The government must be shrunk, and we need to bring our troops home from EVERYWHERE, not just the middle east. We want our personal liberties back, and in return we'll abolish this welfare state. Real capitalism is to be restored. We want the return of sound money, which means the federal reserve shall be abolished, and we go back on the gold standard. We want much fewer regulations on business. We need less prisoners, and companies shouldn't profit from putting people behind bars. End of the drug war. Legalization of marijuana and other drugs. FREEDOM. The constitution restored, and followed strictly.

My fear is that THIS may be the revolution:

We desire socialist policies because that's the only "fair" way to do things. It's not right that some people are filthy rich while others can't afford food. We want these dirty businessmen to give some of their wealth to us. We want "free" healthcare, even though it's entirely unconstitutional and will cost a bunch in taxes. The constitution is outdated, and only restricts us from growing as a country. We need harsher regulations on business because that's the only way to keep them from stealing from the poor. We need more military spending because terrorists lurk at every turn. We need more welfare because I don't want to support myself. More "republican Vs Democrat" non-sense, when the fact is they're nearly the exact same thing, policy wise.

What I think will probably happen?

People will continue to not really care about any of this. They think hell, the country's messed up but why should I care? I just want to live my life and enjoy it, no sense in worrying about politics.

That attitude, which currently permeates most of the country.. will continue on until the dollar collapses. At that point people will want answers, and because they're still not educated, they'll be convinced that "what they need is THIsss...", with "THIssss" being more policy that keeps the current powers that be in power, so they can continue to pass ridiculous legislation that helps no one but themselves.

Naysayers will continue to be marginalized in the media. Ignorant Americans will continue to believe everything the news tells them, because, "if they're on tv, they must know what they're talking about."

And then the masses will be convinced that they want more socialization in the government. That they want more war. That it's good for them, good for us as a country. Just as they're being convinced of that now by Obama and his cronies.

And the people will not only get what they want.. but they will beg for it. For the very things that will bring us down in the end.

Sad face.

[Stuckey]

you really think the dollar will collapse?

[joe]

you really think the dollar will collapse?

I do think so sadly. I could be wrong, but from my own research.. and from the words of experts I trust on this topic.. that seems to be where we're headed unless there's major changes. And FAST. But that doesn't seem likely.

The basic problem is the federal reserve keeps inflating the dollar. It's losing its worth steadily over time, and relatively sharply in the last few years. That obviously doesn't make all of our debtors happy. China especially. There's no possible way we'll ever be able to pay China back everything we owe them.

Meanwhile, we're not taking any steps to help that situation. We're still inflating. We're making it impossible for new businesses to form, ones that actually produce things (thanks to all of our regulations, taxes, etc.) If we had businesses exporting products, it'd lower our trade deficit. But most businesses we have are consumer businesses, that don't produce goods. Things like movie theatres, wal-mart, etc. That's all well and good, but it doesn't help the trade deficit. And more importantly, most of the goods we buy are from other countries (because we don't produce much). That helps the other countries while simultaneously hurting us.

While this is all going on, China keeps propping us up. They allow us to raise the trade ceiling. They keep exporting us products at a deficit. They buy our dollars.

But what may (and I think will) happen eventually, is China will get tired of that. They will realize we aren't making any changes that would help us to pay them back in the future. The dollar will keep being worth less and less over time. Eventually, China will pull out. They'll stop supporting us.

When that happens.... is when the dollar would collapse. And our economy will be in shambles.

Many say the Chinese would never do this, because we're their biggest exporter. Without us, who would they sell all of their stuff too? And while it's true that it'll hurt them a bit in the short term, in the long term dropping us will only strengthen their economy and quality of life. Instead of exporting all of their products to us, the Chinese people will actually be able to enjoy some of those things for themselves. There's plenty of people in China with money to spend.

I'm still in the continuous process of educating myself on these things as well, so I may be missing some additional details. But that's basically the bare bones of the situation.

Also, it's important to note that this is nothing unexpected. This is what happens to countries that use paper money, as we do. Our money used to be backed by gold, but is no longer. When the money isn't "tied down," so to speak, the way of things is inflation, corruption, and everything else we see. The only answer is to abolish the federal reserve. And while that is just one of the many things that need to happen for America to get back on track, it may very well be the most important.

It's also important to note that there's no guaranteed time line of when this will happen. It could happen this year, it could be in the next few years. It depends on how China decides to play it. But from what I'm hearing from reliable experts, and from what I read, it will happen. Barring a miracle of policy change in the USA, that is.

[-playmaker-]

healthy inflation is 5% a year and we have been below that recently...we aren't inflating much, our shit is going down in value...we have been deflating at times even...

we owe China an amount that is near impossible to pay back they guess what....they have a huge debt with us as well...

in order for the dollar to collapse there needs to be hyperinflation and that isn't anywhere in our near future...

[-playmaker-]

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/Inflation500x312.gif


^^^ see that, we were deflating there for a while during that recession, meaning that the dollar gained value...people are hungry for money


but that is a BAD THING ALSO...obviously

for the economy to remain healthy, 5% inflation is needed...inflation like that let's our property rise and gain value...

you buy a house 15 years ago, and you are still making payments on it based on what the dollar was valued BACK THEN!!!

so inflation is good for home owners...you see?

if we were to inflate to the point that 1,000 is nothing, then suddenly my morgage payments are nothing...(extreme example, obviously that would be a bad thing if 1,000 was nothing)

but can you see how a little inflation helps the economy?...it raises the value of what we own...

[joe]

http://www.dollarsandsense.org/archives/2009/Inflation500x312.gif


^^^ see that, we were deflating there for a while during that recession, meaning that the dollar gained value...people are hungry for money


but that is a BAD THING ALSO...obviously

for the economy to remain healthy, 5% inflation is needed...inflation like that let's our property rise and gain value...

you buy a house 15 years ago, and you are still making payments on it based on what the dollar was valued BACK THEN!!!

so inflation is good for home owners...you see?

if we were to inflate to the point that 1,000 is nothing, then suddenly my morgage payments are nothing...(extreme example, obviously that would be a bad thing if 1,000 was nothing)

but can you see how a little inflation helps the economy?...it raises the value of what we own...

It's clear that we come from different ways of economic thinking. That's fine, there are many different ways of looking at and studying economics. However..

I don't believe inflation is a good thing ever. And we may also be using different definitions of what inflation is. How do you define inflation?

My definition of inflation is an increase of the money supply. Plain and simple. Every time a new dollar is created, there's inflation. And all it does is decrease the value of every dollar we hold. If you take out a 3,000 loan in 2010, by 2015 that 3,000 loan may be easier to pay, because you hold more dollars on average. But everything else will be more expensive. Remember when milk was like 2 bucks a gallon? It's not that the price of milk actually went UP. It's that the value of the dollar went DOWN. That's because of inflation.

And by that definition of inflation, the dollar is constantly being inflated. The fed pumps more money into the system all the time. That's why you make the same amount of money today that you did a few years ago, but it seems like it buys so much less.

Inflation doesn't raise the value of our houses. If you buy a house for $50,000 today.. inflation may very well make the price go up to $60,000 in a few years. But you didn't gain any value, it's just that the dollars you received back are all worth a little less than they were a few years ago. It takes 60,000 to pay for something that used to cost 50,000. Just like gas used to be X price and now it's X+inflation. Same with milk, with cars. Why do you think prices keep going up?

What causes houses to gain value is markets. Is there a high demand for houses in a particular area? Do you have a nice house, that you've made good renovations on, etc? That's what gets you more money back for your house than what you paid.

Inflation does no such thing. You might get back more dollars total. But they'll be worth less.

[rufuspaul]

However, I do think it is pretty ridiculous that our marginal tax rate stops at around $300,000. So, a person who makes $1 billion a year is paying the same taxes as a family who brings in $300,000 a year.


I've never understood this. My household income is usually $250,000-$300,000 so I am considered "rich" even though the truly rich make 1000x my income. Yet we are taxed at the same rate.:confusedshrug:

imo as bad as the housing market, deficit, etc. are the real depressing figures are in the job market. It's not just the unskilled that are getting screwed. RBA mentioned how hard it is for a young graduate saddled with debt but I've also seen middle aged people in the prime of their careers get the shaft. Imagine having worked for 20 years in a good job with benefits, got a mortgage, kids in college, and one day you're told your job has been eliminated. Who is going to hire you? If you were the HR person at a company and you have the choice of hiring someone young and single, who you can work all hours at an entry level salary, or the 50 yr. old that is used to a comfortable lifestyle and income, vacations, etc., who would you hire?

[STATUTORY]

It's clear that we come from different ways of economic thinking. That's fine, there are many different ways of looking at and studying economics. However..

I don't believe inflation is a good thing ever. And we may also be using different definitions of what inflation is. How do you define inflation?

My definition of inflation is an increase of the money supply. Plain and simple. Every time a new dollar is created, there's inflation. And all it does is decrease the value of every dollar we hold. If you take out a 3,000 loan in 2010, by 2015 that 3,000 loan may be easier to pay, because you hold more dollars on average. But everything else will be more expensive. Remember when milk was like 2 bucks a gallon? It's not that the price of milk actually went UP. It's that the value of the dollar went DOWN. That's because of inflation.

And by that definition of inflation, the dollar is constantly being inflated. The fed pumps more money into the system all the time. That's why you make the same amount of money today that you did a few years ago, but it seems like it buys so much less.

Inflation doesn't raise the value of our houses. If you buy a house for $50,000 today.. inflation may very well make the price go up to $60,000 in a few years. But you didn't gain any value, it's just that the dollars you received back are all worth a little less than they were a few years ago. It takes 60,000 to pay for something that used to cost 50,000. Just like gas used to be X price and now it's X+inflation. Same with milk, with cars. Why do you think prices keep going up?

What causes houses to gain value is markets. Is there a high demand for houses in a particular area? Do you have a nice house, that you've made good renovations on, etc? That's what gets you more money back for your house than what you paid.

Inflation does no such thing. You might get back more dollars total. But they'll be worth less.


:facepalm :facepalm

we got a teabagger amongst us. Let me guess the people you trust on economics is ron paul, rothbard and von mises.

your view against increase in the money supply is an oversimplified one that does not take into consideration rational expectation, which is crucial in determining the actual effect of said increase.

furthermore, you realize that china's money supply has increased at far greater rate than us right? in fact their growth bubble is partly due to the hike in money supply. so this is not some US phenomenal.

[Hawker]

:facepalm :facepalm

we got a teabagger amongst us. Let me guess the people you trust on economics is ron paul, rothbard and von mises.

your view against increase in the money supply is an oversimplified one that does not take into consideration rational expectation, which is crucial in determining the actual effect of said increase.

furthermore, you realize that china's money supply has increased at far greater rate than us right? in fact their growth bubble is partly due to the hike in money supply. so this is not some US phenomenal.

Ron Paul is the only current politician that can point out the reasons for our recession. All Obama and other dems say is, "Bush ****ed it up" and the other republicans say,
"Now it's Obama's fault."

Ron Paul makes a lot of sense if you just listen to what he has to say.

[Lebowsky]

It's clear that we come from different ways of economic thinking. That's fine, there are many different ways of looking at and studying economics. However..

I don't believe inflation is a good thing ever. And we may also be using different definitions of what inflation is. How do you define inflation?

My definition of inflation is an increase of the money supply. Plain and simple. Every time a new dollar is created, there's inflation. And all it does is decrease the value of every dollar we hold. If you take out a 3,000 loan in 2010, by 2015 that 3,000 loan may be easier to pay, because you hold more dollars on average. But everything else will be more expensive. Remember when milk was like 2 bucks a gallon? It's not that the price of milk actually went UP. It's that the value of the dollar went DOWN. That's because of inflation.

And by that definition of inflation, the dollar is constantly being inflated. The fed pumps more money into the system all the time. That's why you make the same amount of money today that you did a few years ago, but it seems like it buys so much less.

Inflation doesn't raise the value of our houses. If you buy a house for $50,000 today.. inflation may very well make the price go up to $60,000 in a few years. But you didn't gain any value, it's just that the dollars you received back are all worth a little less than they were a few years ago. It takes 60,000 to pay for something that used to cost 50,000. Just like gas used to be X price and now it's X+inflation. Same with milk, with cars. Why do you think prices keep going up?

What causes houses to gain value is markets. Is there a high demand for houses in a particular area? Do you have a nice house, that you've made good renovations on, etc? That's what gets you more money back for your house than what you paid.

Inflation does no such thing. You might get back more dollars total. But they'll be worth less.

I've read all your posts in this thread and, while some of your statements are somewhat acceptable, most of your economic "analysis" (for a lack of a better word) is seriously incorrect. You're trying to analyze very complex economic questions without, apparently, much knowledge of what your talking about. You're oversimplifying to the point you're leaving very relevants effects and causes out of the equation, only to present your biased point of view in a false light of coherence.

Your definition of inflation is wrong. Inflation is the general rise in the price of goods and services over a period of time. It is not only inherent to a capitalistic economy, but it's also necessary (a healthy inflation rate, that is). What you presented as a definition of inflation is actually called "expasionary monetary policy" and it's implemented in order to modify interest rates and, eventually, inflation rates. However, inflation rates will not always increase as a result of an expansionary monetary policy, they will increase or decrease depending on many factors (likely it will in most developed economies, but it's not a given), characteristic of that economy in particular.

I won't even get in depth about your opinions on the Federal Reserve and how good it'd be to go back to the gold standard because I don't know a lot about the first and the latter speaks for itself (and not in a good way).

I appreciate you trying to contribute to the debate here, but most of what you said is way, way off.

[rufuspaul]

This is for RBA:

[quote]
ExxonMobil CEO Really Hurt That College Student Is Talking About Him Right Now

February 28, 2011 | [URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/issue/4709/"][COLOR=#333333]ISSUE 47

[Hawker]

I love that article.

"**** ExxonMobil."

*Drives to gas station to fill up SUV*

[RidonKs]

we got a teabagger amongst us. Let me guess the people you trust on economics is ron paul, rothbard and von mises.

your view against increase in the money supply is an oversimplified one that does not take into consideration rational expectation, which is crucial in determining the actual effect of said increase.

furthermore, you realize that china's money supply has increased at far greater rate than us right? in fact their growth bubble is partly due to the hike in money supply. so this is not some US phenomenal.

I've read all your posts in this thread and, while some of your statements are somewhat acceptable, most of your economic "analysis" (for a lack of a better word) is seriously incorrect. You're trying to analyze very complex economic questions without, apparently, much knowledge of what your talking about. You're oversimplifying to the point you're leaving very relevants effects and causes out of the equation, only to present your biased point of view in a false light of coherence.

Your definition of inflation is wrong. Inflation is the general rise in the price of goods and services over a period of time. It is not only inherent to a capitalistic economy, but it's also necessary (a healthy inflation rate, that is). What you presented as a definition of inflation is actually called "expasionary monetary policy" and it's implemented in order to modify interest rates and, eventually, inflation rates. However, inflation rates will not always increase as a result of an expansionary monetary policy, they will increase or decrease depending on many factors (likely it will in most developed economies, but it's not a given), characteristic of that economy in particular.

I won't even get in depth about your opinions on the Federal Reserve and how good it'd be to go back to the gold standard because I don't know a lot about the first and the latter speaks for itself (and not in a good way).

I appreciate you trying to contribute to the debate here, but most of what you said is way, way off.
:)

thanks for the responses fellas. i was thinking of attempting a rebut, but most of what i could come up with revolved around the fact that the American fiat dollar has been 'inflating' since its inception, mostly for the simple reason that it had to reflect GDP (and other measures, i'm sure) growth during economic boom eras. otherwise money circulation wouldn't be anywhere near widespread enough to satisfy the economy's activity. though i've got to admit, i get the feeling that last sentence smacks of the same gross oversimplification to which Lebowsky referred.

this is exactly what i was talking about in my argument with -prime- a few weeks ago though, and Leb really did put it perfectly. it's actually quite easy to rationalize incorrect explanations of the economy in very coherent and understandable terms. what these explanations lack is a full account of every factor involved, instead revolving around heavily politicized economic players; e.g. the fed. criticism of entities like that are much easier for the public to digest, and because the arguments maintain their coherent structure, only a well-informed economics study is well enough equipped to poke holes.

the bottom line is this: the sort of economic argument that joe made isn't illogical, but it is incomplete on a vast scale, thus nullifying any conclusions at which it settles.

[-playmaker-]

Joe, I didn't mean it let's our property rise in actual value, I am sure you knew that though...I ment inflation cheapens our debt...(our personal debts, which is also part of the national debt)

if you owe $100k over 30 years, and there is a 5% inflation over that time...that $100k you owe becomes cheaper and cheaper...at the end of the 30 years it will be much less than the start, and the monitary value of your property will have gone up to reflect inflation...you WIN just like Charlie Sheen...inflation has done a great survice to you, and that reflects well on the overall economy...

[heyhey]

in defense of Joe, the monetarist notion of inflation is not some fabricated thought. it's one that's backed by people like Milton Friedman. "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenonmenon." But even Friedman would agree that monetary contraction, aka the deflationary cycle, is much more haphazard than inflation, see his take on great depression. and deflation was very much a real worry following 2008.

economics is often deemed the dismal science because there's very little tools actually available to the government to regulate it. many austrian economists believe that it's better to do nothing than to engage in keynesian stimuluses. But if you look at Thatcher era Britain or Fed policy from late 70s to 80s that seemed hardly to work.

[RidonKs]

didn't Thatcherism work out pretty much as expected? massive civil unrest and downturn for the average folks to start, but once the weaknesses were weeded out by the more pure form of capitalism, they moved into an upturn. that was my understanding, semi-confirmed by a Wiki fact check. then i guess eventual failings caught up with GB, coinciding with just about everybody else, along with the fall of the Iron Curtain.

i barely understand your first paragraph and it's a bit late here for me to give comprehension a go. hopefully Leb will be back with a response.

[heyhey]

i barely understand your first paragraph and it's a bit late here for me to give comprehension a go. hopefully Leb will be back with a response.


my point was simply joe didn't make up a definition for inflation randomly by himself. Economists, prominent ones like Friedman, sometimes equate inflation with monetary expansion. Although Friedman states it more like inflation is the likely result of monetary expansion.

[Lebowsky]

in defense of Joe, the monetarist notion of inflation is not some fabricated thought. it's one that's backed by people like Milton Friedman. "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenonmenon." But even Friedman would agree that monetary contraction, aka the deflationary cycle, is much more haphazard than inflation, see his take on great depression. and deflation was very much a real worry following 2008.

economics is often deemed the dismal science because there's very little tools actually available to the government to regulate it. many austrian economists believe that it's better to do nothing than to engage in keynesian stimuluses. But if you look at Thatcher era Britain or Fed policy from late 70s to 80s that seemed hardly to work.

The monetary side of inflation is only part of the question of inflation itself.

[Lebowsky]

my point was simply joe didn't make up a definition for inflation randomly by himself. Economists, prominent ones like Friedman, sometimes equate inflation with monetary expansion. Although Friedman states it more like inflation is the likely result of monetary expansion.

They equate inflation with monetary expansion when discussing economic policies because monetary expansion/contraction is by far the most used way mean of influencing inflation rates. So basically, they identify inflation with monetary expansion not because they're one and the same in nature, but rather because monetary expansion results in inflation in some models, ceteris paribus and ignoring the effect of the rest of variables relevant to the model. That is a huge simplification, good for divulgation books, giving conferences or teaching purposes, but far from reality.

[joe]

They equate inflation with monetary expansion when discussing economic policies because monetary expansion/contraction is by far the most used way mean of influencing inflation rates. So basically, they identify inflation with monetary expansion not because they're one and the same in nature, but rather because monetary expansion results in inflation in some models, ceteris paribus and ignoring the effect of the rest of variables relevant to the model. That is a huge simplification, good for divulgation books, giving conferences or teaching purposes, but far from reality.

Monetary expansion always gives inflation. Like I said, we're using two different definitions of inflation. You say that inflation is when prices go up, I say it's when new money is created. Money being created will always create a weaker dollar. That's not a debatable point.. Forget economics for a second, its' just a very logical thought. If you have 10 of something that people want, then create 10 more... each one will have less value.



in defense of Joe, the monetarist notion of inflation is not some fabricated thought. it's one that's backed by people like Milton Friedman. "inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenonmenon." But even Friedman would agree that monetary contraction, aka the deflationary cycle, is much more haphazard than inflation, see his take on great depression. and deflation was very much a real worry following 2008.

economics is often deemed the dismal science because there's very little tools actually available to the government to regulate it. many austrian economists believe that it's better to do nothing than to engage in keynesian stimuluses. But if you look at Thatcher era Britain or Fed policy from late 70s to 80s that seemed hardly to work.

exactly, Austrian economics is what I'm talking about.

[joe]

I've read all your posts in this thread and, while some of your statements are somewhat acceptable, most of your economic "analysis" (for a lack of a better word) is seriously incorrect. You're trying to analyze very complex economic questions without, apparently, much knowledge of what your talking about. You're oversimplifying to the point you're leaving very relevants effects and causes out of the equation, only to present your biased point of view in a false light of coherence.

Your definition of inflation is wrong. Inflation is the general rise in the price of goods and services over a period of time. It is not only inherent to a capitalistic economy, but it's also necessary (a healthy inflation rate, that is). What you presented as a definition of inflation is actually called "expasionary monetary policy" and it's implemented in order to modify interest rates and, eventually, inflation rates. However, inflation rates will not always increase as a result of an expansionary monetary policy, they will increase or decrease depending on many factors (likely it will in most developed economies, but it's not a given), characteristic of that economy in particular.

I won't even get in depth about your opinions on the Federal Reserve and how good it'd be to go back to the gold standard because I don't know a lot about the first and the latter speaks for itself (and not in a good way).

I appreciate you trying to contribute to the debate here, but most of what you said is way, way off.

1- I'm not wrong about the definition of inflation. Like I said, we study different forms of economics, and that's okay, but the economics you personally learned isn't the only type in existence. Go to google and type "schools of economics," and you'll see that there's more types than maybe you realize. Not all of them have the same definition of or feelings on inflation.

2- Inflation is not inherent to a capitalist economy, that's a very short sighted thought. Prices are supposed to go down in a capitalist economy. Kind of like computers, look at that market. The price of computers has slowly gone down over time, because capitalism allowed competition+entrepreneurship+advances in technology make them easier to make. The first computers took up an entire room and cost millions of dollars. Now you can buy an even stronger computer for $400. That's capitalism.

Your idea that prices are supposed to rise over time is one strictly tied in with the existence of a federal bank. It's not that prices would never rise or fall without one.. it's just that they wouldn't rise due to a weakened dollar. It would happen because supply fell or demand fell. Which leads me to..

3- I believe you're trying to say I'm wrong for wanting a gold standard. Well, since you think rising prices are a good thing for some reason, I can understand why you wouldn't want us to have sound money. But honestly, I'm not sure how one can study money and come to the conclusion that the gold standard was anything but a positive.

[Lebowsky]

Monetary expansion always gives inflation. Like I said, we're using two different definitions of inflation. You say that inflation is when prices go up, I say it's when new money is created. Money being created will always create a weaker dollar. That's not a debatable point.. Forget economics for a second, its' just a very logical thought. If you have 10 of something that people want, then create 10 more... each one will have less value.



exactly, Austrian economics is what I'm talking about.

Lol, you've got austrian school written written all over yourself :oldlol: I know what you mean and what you're trying to say, but it's incorrect. First: monetary expansion doesn't directly cause inflation, monetary expansion lowers interest rates, which increase consumption, wich increases prices and, therefore, inflation. Second: new money being created doesn't mean money is weaker or can buy less goods per se, because you have to factor in the relative effect of prices. That's why macroecomic models use the variable "real monetary base" instead of just monetary base, because the first is relative to the general level of prices while the latter ignores it. Third: it is possible to find scenarios in which a monetary expasion wouldn't result in inflation.

[joe]

:facepalm :facepalm

we got a teabagger amongst us. Let me guess the people you trust on economics is ron paul, rothbard and von mises.

your view against increase in the money supply is an oversimplified one that does not take into consideration rational expectation, which is crucial in determining the actual effect of said increase.

furthermore, you realize that china's money supply has increased at far greater rate than us right? in fact their growth bubble is partly due to the hike in money supply. so this is not some US phenomenal.

Yes, there's a large number of fiat money systems in the country, not just the US. I understand that. However, China's growth rate has more to do with having a production economy than their growth bubble. They produce the most in the world (I believe, or close to it), and export quite a bit as well. Something the US used to do, but does no longer.

And yes, I do trust Ron Paul, Rothbard, and Von Mises.

Am I teabagger? No, but I do agree with them on quite a few things. What's wrong with financial responsibility, sound money, and following the constitution? Seems like something all Americans should be interested in, but I guess "teabagger" is supposed to be some kind of insult.

[Lebowsky]

1- I'm not wrong about the definition of inflation. Like I said, we study different forms of economics, and that's okay, but the economics you personally learned isn't the only type in existence. Go to google and type "schools of economics," and you'll see that there's more types than maybe you realize. Not all of them have the same definition of or feelings on inflation.

2- Inflation is not inherent to a capitalist economy, that's a very short sighted thought. Prices are supposed to go down in a capitalist economy. Kind of like computers, look at that market. The price of computers has slowly gone down over time, because capitalism allowed competition+entrepreneurship+advances in technology make them easier to make. The first computers took up an entire room and cost millions of dollars. Now you can buy an even stronger computer for $400. That's capitalism.

Your idea that prices are supposed to rise over time is one strictly tied in with the existence of a federal bank. It's not that prices would never rise or fall without one.. it's just that they wouldn't rise due to a weakened dollar. It would happen because supply fell or demand fell. Which leads me to..

3- I believe you're trying to say I'm wrong for wanting a gold standard. Well, since you think rising prices are a good thing for some reason, I can understand why you wouldn't want us to have sound money. But honestly, I'm not sure how one can study money and come to the conclusion that the gold standard was anything but a positive.

Gotta go to bed, I'll answer your post tomorrow.

[joe]

Lol, you've got austrian school written written all over yourself :oldlol: I know what you mean and what you're trying to say, but it's incorrect. First: monetary expansion doesn't directly cause inflation, monetary expansion lowers interest rates, which increase consumption, wich increases prices and, therefore, inflation. Second: new money being created doesn't mean money is weaker or can buy less goods per se, because you have to factor in the relative effect of prices. That's why macroecomic models use the variable "real monetary base" instead of just monetary base, because the first is relative to the general level of prices while the latter ignores it. Third: it is possible to find scenarios in which a monetary expasion wouldn't result in inflation.

Well since I have austrian economics "written all over myself" I might as well just be clear.. I don't have faith in your variables, macroeconomics models and the like. From an austrian perspective, what all that does is try to turn something inherantly unscientific (economics) and try to measure it as though it were a real science (like chemistry).

Yes, monetary expansion (what I would define as inflation) first is an attempt to lower interest rates, in a misguided attempt to increase consumption. Yes. But after the fun is over, that new money finds its way into the economy. And when that happens, the money will become weaker. It doesn't happen right away, you're right. The market needs some time to realize that new money has been added. But that doesn't mean it won't happen.

I'd like to see your scenarios where monetary expansion won't result in inflation. Although, monetary expansion IS inflation.. I'll go by your definition for a moment.

[-playmaker-]

Monetary expansion always gives inflation.
then why did we deflate after pumping in trillions?

cause a lot of that money left the country...

monetary expansion doesn't always result in inflation...just cause you pump new money into the system, doesn't mean that money stays in the system...

[joe]

then why did we deflate after pumping in trillions?

cause a lot of that money left the country...

monetary expansion doesn't always result in inflation...just cause you pump new money into the system, doesn't mean that money stays in the system...

Definition of inflation that I'm using: Any increase in the supply of money. Therefore, what you call monetary expansion I call inflation.

Just because dollars aren't actively in the American system doesn't much either. If China buys a bunch of dollars, those dollars are still out in existence. All it means is that China owns weakened currency.

I don't think it should be that hard to figure out. Think of it this way.. Ever hear an old person say "back in my day.. going to the movies only cost a nickel!" Do you think the price of going to the movies went up, or that the value of the dollar went down? It's the latter. That's caused by inflation or, as you put it... an expansion in the money supply.

[bladefd]

I don't think it should be that hard to figure out. Think of it this way.. Ever hear an old person say "back in my day.. going to the movies only cost a nickel!" Do you think the price of going to the movies went up, or that the value of the dollar went down? It's the latter. That's caused by inflation or, as you put it... an expansion in the money supply.

It is actually a combination of both (more so that the value of dollar went down, but the other reason also is partially part of the answer). Since the salaries of the people working in Hollywood has gone up overall along with more people required to make movies today, the extra money is required to pay for those higher salaries and more people in the Hollywood industry. Similar things apply to other cases too

Here's a quick calculation to prove why it is not just inflation:
If you calculate for the inflation differences between 1954 and 2009, $7.50, which is the average price of movie tickets in 2009, in 2009 is equal to $0.94 in 1954. The average ticket prices in 1954 was in reality $0.49. A difference of 45 cents between what it is supposed to be if we only take into account inflation and what it is actually was (which takes into account factors other than just inflation).

It is not just inflation that has changed the value of things. Inflation is a big reason but not the only reason.



Sources for the average ticket prices and also for the inflation calculator:
http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm
http://www.natoonline.org/statisticstickets.htm

[-playmaker-]

Definition of inflation that I'm using: Any increase in the supply of money. Therefore, what you call monetary expansion I call inflation.

Just because dollars aren't actively in the American system doesn't much either. If China buys a bunch of dollars, those dollars are still out in existence. All it means is that China owns weakened currency.

I don't think it should be that hard to figure out. Think of it this way.. Ever hear an old person say "back in my day.. going to the movies only cost a nickel!" Do you think the price of going to the movies went up, or that the value of the dollar went down? It's the latter. That's caused by inflation or, as you put it... an expansion in the money supply.
yes I understand what inflation is, lol...I don't think you understand that when kept low, around 5% or so, it helps the economy...and I don't think that is debated by anyone, it is accepted...hyperinflation is bad...like if we were to inflate at 10% or higher...that would get scary...but we aren't...early you acted like we were on the verge of the dollar collapsing that inflation is off the chains...you were wrong

I also don't think you understand that increasing the supply of money doesn't always cause inflation...like I said, the Fed just pumped in trillions of new dollars, and we deflated while they did it...

the stock market is global...money can go "here and there" with great ease these days...

[joe]

yes I understand what inflation is, lol...I don't think you understand that when kept low, around 5% or so, it helps the economy...and I don't think that is debated by anyone, it is accepted...hyperinflation is bad...like if we were to inflate at 10% or higher...that would get scary...but we aren't...early you acted like we were on the verge of the dollar collapsing that inflation is off the chains...you were wrong

I also don't think you understand that increasing the supply of money doesn't always cause inflation...like I said, the Fed just pumped in trillions of new dollars, and we deflated while they did it...

the stock market is global...money can go "here and there" with great ease these days...

I think the dollar may very well collapse. But in any event, we haven't seen the worst of this depression. It's going to get a lot worse. Do you at least agree with that?

Prices are going down (what you'd call deflation) because people can't afford the higher prices. Are you referring to things like the housing market? Those prices are dropping because they were too high to begin with. That doesn't mean the dollar isn't losing value.. In fact the lower they fall, the more it probably indicates that the dollar is in fact losing value. But it depends on the market. Obviously gas prices aren't coming down regardless, because demand is always high and supply is constantly getting lower.

[-playmaker-]

I think the dollar may very well collapse. But in any event, we haven't seen the worst of this depression. It's going to get a lot worse. Do you at least agree with that?

Prices are going down (what you'd call deflation) because people can't afford the higher prices. Are you referring to things like the housing market? Those prices are dropping because they were too high to begin with. That doesn't mean the dollar isn't losing value.. In fact the lower they fall, the more it probably indicates that the dollar is in fact losing value. But it depends on the market. Obviously gas prices aren't coming down regardless, because demand is always high and supply is constantly getting lower.
I am reffering to the value of the dallor...look at the chart I posted...HOWEVER if house prices and everything else is going down cause people can't afford, then obviously that means the dollar is worth more, it can BUY MORE STUFF NOW THAT EVERYTHING IS CHEAPER!!!

you can't have the price of all our goods and services go down the same time the value of the dollar goes up, that makes no sense...

if the value of the dollar goes down, then people start marking prices UP to make up for it, not down...

[rufuspaul]

I made an A in the one econ class I took in undergrad but after reading these posts I see there was a good reason why I didn't go any further in the subject.:D

[Jasper]

I'm going to throw this in here , just to show how our goverment works at the state level.
Tommy Thompson was a long tenored' elected gov for Wisconsin.
Made the states heart beat go faster , by doing a republican infostructure to the state.
What he did was give all companies out of state to come into the state and set up business with cheap labor and pay ZERO tax's.
All the companies kept their home offices in their local states , but had the companies labor force in Wisc.
Get it ? (Obviously Tommy is gone)

More people had jobs , had less to spend (poor wages) , but it looked great that the citizens of the state paid for all the tax's.
===============
Finally the populas said enough , lets get our horrid high property tax's down , so they started tax'ing those neat new companies.
What did they do , pay the tax's until they could relocate all of their companies.
Now not only was the tax burden just as high , but unemployment became higher , and now in the state we look at empty buildings.
---------------------
Have we learned our lesson ?

The gov was on tonight and stated he has the perfect fix to our budget and excessive tax's. He's going to create jobs !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GREAT guy ....
hammer drops : All new companies that come into the state as start up companies get a free ride .
Everyone in the state room , we're on the feet clapping :facepalm
Do they not know that they will be paying the tax's for these knew businesses ??? :banghead:
And these were the alderman that represent our state (where are their brains) :facepalm
===========
By the way : the Gov is a republican , and as the old saying goes " line the pockets of the rich to take from the poor and middle class"
DONE DEAL.
-----------> The perfect bandaid affect to get through the election years , to the next term ,, while who gets rich ???