Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    I get superstar calls j3lademaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    3,039

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanners View Post
    Obviously theres always going to be some kind of wealth gap, you're right that some people are more talented and/or driven than others. I dont think anyone is saying that Jeff Bezos should have the same amount of money as you, but most sane people would agree that theres something wrong with Bezos making himself one of the richest people on the planet while he has tens of hundreds of thousands of employees earning $15/hr or less as they work hellish 12hr shifts in his warehouses.

    The current level of wealth inequality in this country is obscene and unsustainable, and if we continue to let the ultra-rich gorge themselves on this nations wealth, the US is going to lose its middle class and this country is going to end up looking like Brazil or Mexico.
    Well said. It's a huge problem when the top 1% is so powerful that they're influencing lawmakers.

    And speaking of Bezos:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-working-class

    "Hey it's ok you're only making $3/hr after we take rent, utilities etc out of your check because you no longer need a car to get to work either!" Next thing you know Amazon is paying in company script.

  2. #17
    NBA rookie of the year Shogon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,659

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Nanners View Post
    Obviously theres always going to be some kind of wealth gap, you're right that some people are more talented and/or driven than others. I dont think anyone is saying that Jeff Bezos should have the same amount of money as you, but most sane people would agree that theres something wrong with Bezos making himself one of the richest people on the planet while he has tens of hundreds of thousands of employees earning $15/hr or less as they work hellish 12hr shifts in his warehouses.

    The current level of wealth inequality in this country is obscene and unsustainable, and if we continue to let the ultra-rich gorge themselves on this nations wealth, the US is going to lose its middle class and this country is going to end up looking like Brazil or Mexico.
    You're making an emotional argument and not a rational one and furthermore you haven't the faintest idea of what you're talking about and this just emphasizes the fact that most uneducated people, high school educated people and even college educated people in America don't know a ****ing thing about our monetary system and think that it's all just going to shit because of unregulated greed, lmao. The US is losing the middle class because of the federal reserve & reckless monetary policy. It has absolutely nothing to do with Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or Mark Zuckerberg or capitalism. It's a downright travesty that you actually believe this bullshit propaganda that gets pushed like opportunistic psychopathic leeches like Elizabeth Warren and AOC.

    Jeff Bezos is worth 188 billion. Now keep in mind that was acquired and built over time, almost 28 years to be exact and obviously he makes more now than he used to and I'm well aware it's a little more nuanced than this, but let's go ahead and divide that 188 billion by 28 years. Any one of his employees would have squandered this wealth and not built the company up to where it is now, but let's even forget that for a second. That works out to 6.7 billion per year up to this point.

    Amazon employs 1.3 million people.

    If Jeff Bezos gave back 100% of 6.7 billion to 1.3 million people evenly, that works out to $5100 per person annually. Casting aside the fact that different employees within Amazon contribute different amounts to Amazon itself and thus this is not fair to them and casting aside the fact that this destroys Bezos' motivation entirely, you, in theory, should quickly see that this is not going to make a substantial difference in most peoples' lives. Yes, $5100 is a lot of money especially to poor people and yes it will help out if everything around them remained static, there is no doubt, but the overwhelming majority of them are just going to squander it and they're going to continue on exactly how they have been and more importantly, things won't remain static. The goalposts for all goods and services will move.

    This is also disregarding the fact that he has ALL of the liability and the overwhelming majority of the risk if Amazon fails! "Regular" workers just go find another job and continue to live their lives but he ends up ruined.

    This all ties in with and parallels the idea that raising the minimum wage is a good thing and disregards the fact that a rising minimum wage prices the lowest skilled people out of the market entirely and even worse than that? Is arguably the biggest driver of inflation period.

    Let's say you run a successful burger joint that people enjoy... and minimum wage goes from $10 an hour to $25 an hour. Your payroll expenses have gone up and in addition to that, obviously, the demand for your product at the current price is going to rise as everyone now has more money. So guess what happens? You raise your prices out of necessity. Oh man! But I thought paying people more would help right? Haha. This trickles into literally every single good and every single service over time that doesn't have its cost reduced by unrelated factors such as technological advancements and increased competition, etc.

    Also, by the way, the people that were making more than minimum wage before the wage hike are now going to seek out jobs that pay more and as much in proportion to minimum wage than they were making before otherwise the government essentially just gave them a pay cut, and basically in a few years or a decade or whatever everyone is going to end up exactly where they were before. And these people are the ones that get hit the hardest as companies struggle to adjust and keep up with rising inflation.


    Look, I'm not saying we don't have some greedy pricks at the top that live in excess, but this subject is a lot more nuanced than retards like AOC would have you believe. And on top of all of that, for you to believe that the middle glass is going away because of these top guys is just one of the most saddening things I've ever read on this website.

    Ideally, these guys would give back a lot more than they do on their own free will. That is the ideal outcome. Trying to regulate their wealth away will not be a net positive for us overall. It will be a huge detriment and yet another step towards a full collapse.

  3. #18
    #701 highwhey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    30,309

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by j3lademaster View Post
    Well said. It's a huge problem when the top 1% is so powerful that they're influencing lawmakers.

    And speaking of Bezos:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...-working-class

    "Hey it's ok you're only making $3/hr after we take rent, utilities etc out of your check because you no longer need a car to get to work either!" Next thing you know Amazon is paying in company script.

  4. #19
    NBA rookie of the year Shogon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,659

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    I forgot one more thing about the complaining about billionaires thing...

    STOP USING THEIR PRODUCTS.

    If you find their wealth so abhorrent and the wages they pay their workers to be disgusting, STOP USING THEIR SERVICES. STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS.

    But you won't stop using their services, because you don't care. Pretty standard bullshit out of people with left leaning world views.

  5. #20
    Learning to shoot layups
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    55

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Both Nanners are Shogon are half correct. Nanners is correct in that there is a worsening wealth divide and if the issue is not dealt with there will be consequences. Shogon is correct in that the wealth divide has little to do with people like myself or my friend Jeff. The problem is much deeper than that. In the US 10% of all adults are now millionaires. We have millionaires all around us. But on the opposite end of the spectrum we have the same happening only in a negative capacity. The poor are getting poorer. Home prices and rent are more out of reach than ever.

    The consequences to this growing wealth gap we are happening already. It's the Great Resignation.

  6. #21
    NBA rookie of the year Shogon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    6,659

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gates View Post
    Both Nanners are Shogon are half correct. Nanners is correct in that there is a worsening wealth divide and if the issue is not dealt with there will be consequences. Shogon is correct in that the wealth divide has little to do with people like myself or my friend Jeff. The problem is much deeper than that. In the US 10% of all adults are now millionaires. We have millionaires all around us. But on the opposite end of the spectrum we have the same happening only in a negative capacity. The poor are getting poorer. Home prices and rent are more out of reach than ever.

    The consequences to this growing wealth gap we are happening already. It's the Great Resignation.
    And employers are finding out first hand that federal and state minimum wage means absolutely nothing because people are unable/unwilling to accept their shitty pay because they literally will not be able to survive on it.

    Well, there's a lot going on here right now because a shit ton of people retired early due to COVID concerns, but the pay standard has shifted right beneath employers' collective feet and some of them have yet to catch up, hence all the job vacancies. This is part of the free market at work.

    Minimum wage on federal and state levels be damned, the standards have changed because of inflation.

  7. #22
    NBA lottery pick diamenz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,197

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Shogon View Post
    The US is losing the middle class because of the federal reserve & reckless monetary policy.
    so what policy exactly? what are we spending so recklessly on that's causing this decline in the middle class?

  8. #23
    Learning to shoot layups
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    55

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by diamenz View Post
    so what policy exactly? what are we spending so recklessly on that's causing this decline in the middle class?
    He is speaking of what he calls "just printing up money". The covid bailout spending of trillions of dollars like the Trump Cares Act adding huge amounts of money to the supply. And he is correct that's part of the problem but he is overlooking several things.

    Our inflation issues come from much more than "just printing up money" it is really being caused by a perfect storm of situations.

    People getting wealthy off the stock market leads to them buying things at high prices which leads to retailers charging more.
    Labor shortages leads to charging more.
    Limited supply from the supply chain issues leads to prices rising. This one is a big factor.
    People were able to save during the pandemic because no student loans, rent forgiveness, etc. This led to them buying things beyond their means.

    It is a confluence of issues happening all at once.

    Shogon has some good points but where he is wrong is in thinking that if we only had BTC and no USD that we would be in a better situation but we would be in a much worse situation and many of us would have no BTC at all.

  9. #24
    NBA lottery pick diamenz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,197

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gates View Post
    He is speaking of what he calls "just printing up money". The covid bailout spending of trillions of dollars like the Trump Cares Act adding huge amounts of money to the supply. And he is correct that's part of the problem but he is overlooking several things.

    Our inflation issues come from much more than "just printing up money" it is really being caused by a perfect storm of situations.

    People getting wealthy off the stock market leads to them buying things at high prices which leads to retailers charging more.
    Labor shortages leads to charging more.
    Limited supply from the supply chain issues leads to prices rising. This one is a big factor.
    People were able to save during the pandemic because no student loans, rent forgiveness, etc. This led to them buying things beyond their means.

    It is a confluence of issues happening all at once.

    Shogon has some good points but where he is wrong is in thinking that if we only had BTC and no USD that we would be in a better situation but we would be in a much worse situation and many of us would have no BTC at all.
    this is interesting.

    https://www.americanactionforum.org/...balance-sheet/



    quantitative easing aka socialism for the rich?

    Is Ben Bernanke the father of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Not in the literal sense, obviously, but in the philosophical and political sense.




    As we mark the 10th anniversary of the bull market, it is worth considering whether the efforts of the US Federal Reserve, under Mr Bernanke’s leadership, to avoid 1930s-style debt deflation ended up spawning a new generation of socialists, such as the freshman Congresswoman Ms Ocasio-Cortez, in the home of global capitalism.

    Mr Bernanke’s unorthodox “cash for trash” scheme, otherwise known as quantitative easing, drove up asset prices and bailed out baby boomers at the profound political cost of pricing out millennials from that most divisive of asset markets, property. This has left the former comfortable, but the latter with a fragile stake in the society they are supposed to build.

    As we look towards the 2020 US presidential election, could Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s leftwing politics become the anthem of choice for America’s millennials?

    But before we look forward, it is worth going back a bit. The 2008 crash itself didn’t destroy wealth, but rather revealed how much wealth had already been destroyed by poor decisions taken in the boom. This underscored the truism that the worst of investments are often taken in the best of times.


    Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
    https://www.ft.com/content/cbed81fc-...8-28303f70fcff

    Mr Bernanke, a keen student of the 1930s, understood that a “balance sheet recession” must be combated by reflating assets. By exchanging old bad loans on the banks’ balance sheets with good new money, underpinned by negative interest rates, the Fed drove asset prices skywards. Higher valuations fixed balance sheets and ultimately coaxed more spending and investment. However, such “hyper-trickle-down” economics also meant that wealth inequality was not the unintended consequence, but the objective, of policy.

    Soaring asset prices, particularly property prices, drive a wedge between those who depend on wages for their income and those who depend on rents and dividends. This wages versus rents-and-dividends game plays out generationally, because the young tend to be asset-poor and the old and the middle-aged tend to be asset-rich. Unorthodox monetary policy, therefore, penalises the young and subsidises the old.

    When asset prices rise much faster than wages, the average person falls further behind. Their stake in society weakens. The faster this new asset-fuelled economy grows, the greater the gap between the insiders with a stake and outsiders without. This threatens a social contract based on the notion that the faster the economy grows, the better off everyone becomes.

    What then? Well, politics shifts.

    Notwithstanding the observation often attributed to Winston Churchill about a 20-year-old who isn’t a socialist not having a heart, and a 40-year-old who isn’t a capitalist having no head, polling indicates a significant shift in attitudes compared with prior generations.

    According to the Pew Research Center, American millennials (defined as those born between 1981 and 1996) are the only generation in which a majority (57 per cent) hold “mostly/consistently liberal” political views, with a mere 12 per cent holding more conservative beliefs.

    Fifty-eight per cent of millennials express a clear preference for big government. Seventy-nine per cent of millennials believe immigrants strengthen the US, compared to just 56 per cent of baby boomers. On foreign policy, millennials (77 per cent) are far more likely than boomers (52 per cent) to believe that peace is best ensured by good diplomacy rather than military strength. Sixty-seven per cent want the state to provide universal healthcare, and 57 per cent want higher public spending and the provision of more public services, compared with 43 per cent of baby boomers. Sixty-six per cent of millennials believe that the system unfairly favours powerful interests.

    One battle ground for the new politics is the urban property market. While average hourly earnings have risen in the US by just 22 per cent over the past 9 years, property prices have surged across US metropolitan areas. Prices have risen by 34 per cent in Boston, 55 per cent in Houston, 67 per cent in Los Angeles and a whopping 96 per cent in San Francisco. The young are locked out.

    Similar developments in the UK have produced comparable political generational divides. If only the votes of the under-25s were counted in the last UK general election, not a single Conservative would have won a seat.

    Ten years ago, faced with the real prospect of another Great Depression, Mr Bernanke launched QE to avoid mass default. Implicitly, he was underwriting the wealth of his own generation, the baby boomers. Now the division of that wealth has become a key battleground for the next election with people such as Ms Ocasio-Cortez arguing that very high incomes should be taxed at 70 per cent.

    For the purist, capitalism without default is a bit like Catholicism without hell. But we have confession for a reason. Everyone needs absolution. QE was capitalism’s confessional. But what if the day of reckoning was only postponed? What if a policy designed to protect the balance sheets of the wealthy has unleashed forces that may lead to the mass appropriation of those assets in the years ahead?
    Last edited by diamenz; 01-14-2022 at 12:30 AM.

  10. #25
    NBA lottery pick diamenz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    5,197

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Another Possible Stock Trading Loophole
    Members of Congress would be allowed to continue trading industry funds under the two leading stock trading ban bills in Congress.

    The two leading stock trade-banning bills, in terms of number of cosponsors, are the Ban Conflicted Trading Act (H.R. 1579 and S. 564) and the TRUST in Congress Act (H.R. 336). Both bills would prohibit members of Congress from trading corporate stocks, but they contain the same exemption: they would not apply to widely held investment funds, which is defined in the legislation as a fund that is either publicly traded or composed of assets that are widely diversified, and where the investor does not exert control over the assets held by the fund. So while members of Congress would be banned from trading individual corporate stocks, they would still be allowed to trade products like mutual funds or exchange-traded funds composed of bundles of corporate stocks.

    This loophole may undercut what the bills’ sponsors describe as their goals: restricting the conflicts of interest that are presented when members of Congress make decisions that affect the stocks they are trading. While the Ban Conflicted Trading Act and the TRUST in Congress Act would ban members of Congress from trading a stock like ExxonMobil or Chevron, it would allow them to continue buying and selling shares in something like the Energy Select Sector SPDR Fund, which is composed of shares in ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and 18 other prominent oil, gas, and energy equipment companies. At least nine House members are invested in that fund, according to a Business Insider database compiling 2020 annual financial disclosure information.
    “But the ideal would be limiting members to the even broader class of funds specified in the Warren/Jayapal bill as ‘widely-held and diversified investment fund.’”

    The Warren and Jayapal bill, called the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act, would only allow members of Congress to trade investment funds that “[do] not have a stated policy of overly concentrating its investments” and that “[do] not pose a conflict of interest.” That bill is much less popular among members of Congress—while the Ban Conflicted Trading Act and TRUST in Congress Act each have more than 50 House cosponsors, the House version of the Bipartisan Ban on Congressional Stock Ownership Act has just three co-sponsors so far. Its five Senate co-sponsors include two Republicans, Steve Daines of Montana and Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Another bill, the Ban Congressional Stock Trading Act that was proposed by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), would also ban the trading of industry-specific funds. It has 12 Senate cosponsors, all Democrats, and no House version.
    https://readsludge.com/2022/03/08/an...ding-loophole/

    sludge

  11. #26
    pronouns - he/haw Nanners's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    12,195

    Default Re: Trading Ban for US Lawmakers

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Gates View Post
    Shogon has some good points but where he is wrong is in thinking that if we only had BTC and no USD that we would be in a better situation but we would be in a much worse situation and many of us would have no BTC at all.
    Unfortunately the federal reserve (the most powerful institution on the planet) would NEVER allow something like this to happen... BTC poses a direct threat to the fiat central bank currencies, which is no doubt the reason why the US govt is so interested in "regulating" cryptocurrencies right now.

    Enjoy your crypto while it lasts... in the not so distant future the only digital currency you will be allowed to own is your local central bank digital currency

Posting Permissions

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