birdog1960

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/columnist/roth/2014/10/19/leo-roth-veteran-leadership-pays/17589873/

hmmm….roubini vs gg? yellen vs gg? seems you believe that you "know what you're talking about" and these two don't. we can look up their credentials and accomplishments. how about yours? oh, and your question about economists and ceo's? i'll take "because they have a conscience" for $1000, alex.

the same guys pronouncing the trade a success after 7 games would be saying "it's too early to know" if he were having a bad start. guess what? it's too early to know. he has nearly identical numbers to lee evans at this point in his rookie year. in retrospect, was lee worth two 1's and a 4th?

gleason comes of as the jerk to me. and he was clearly wrong on multiple accounts. johnson may well have told the bills brass that he'd do whatever was needed to win. BUT HE DIDN"T WIN and therefore didn't do what was needed whether the brass felt he did or not! flute did. i suspect the choice between retaining flute and johnson the following year was strongly influenced by wilson and we all knew who he favored.

i'm pretty certain i understand the roubini quote i pasted. not a lot to decipher there: the rise of the middle class was due to "progressive economic,fiscal and other social policies". not due to economic growth. interesting that in states like nc they are actually going after one of the reasons roubini gives for middle class success: education. keep em stupid. but you keep it up with your hand wave dismissal of arguments. it's befitting of a pompous ass like you.

interesting how you inflict a frontal assault on a major part of chef's argument but he appears preoccupied with setting gator straight on wealth and income - which is immaterial to the discussion.

thanks for these. i especially like roubini's piece. unfortunately, i doubt they'll be looked at by many here. " the rise of the middle class and the increasing living standards of the working class was thus not a mechanical result of economic growth, but the active outcome of many economic policies—such as universal publicly provided education financed by progressive taxation, to give just one example—that increased the skills, knowledge and human capital and the economic opportunities even of individuals born in disadvantaged economic circumstances. Social mobility in any society was never the result of market forces, but the outcome of progressive economic, fiscal, taxation and other social policies"

from what i'm told, well worth a visit if you find a few free hours - http://www.dday.org/

she said that massive inequality in both are adversely affecting the economy. they both exist, they are both a problem therefore distinguishing between the two in regards to negative effects on the economy is not necessary to establish the premise: massive financial inequality of both wealth and income adversely affect the economy. agreed? if not, why not?

give them time....

how bout you defend your obsession with the distinction between wealth and income inequality when the fed chair states that both are currently present. makes the distinction moot, non? unless you disagree with the fed chair. if so, then you should explain your disagreement.

at this point it isn't about seed money to enlarge or start businesses except in the case of actual start ups. much of the recent rise in stocks is due to buy backs from companies buying their own stock. that's not helping the economy. it's just further concentrating wealth and earning in the hands of the few. and it's enabled and encouraged by the continued QE. one doesn't even need to invoke capital gains taxes to make this argument. it's really not that complicated: the deck is stacked for thems that haves to win and thems that don't to lose. it's by design. i judst can't understand why thems that don't aren't more enraged on the whole.

Firstly, people think they know how to make money in this sector. they just don't have the dollars to invest. and then they don't make money in the sector while a small minority does. it's a vicious cycle that accelerates the wealth inequality that would result from our system eventually anyway. Secondly, buy and hold has always been the mantra of the financial experts when schooling th e average joe on investing. except it doesn't work, at least hasn't lately. even with the artificially elevated market today. buy and hold of the s and p over the last 10 years would have resulted in less than a 1% return (i'll look for the reference later. it may have been the 10 year period ending last year). at any rate, buy and hold is rarely the strategy of the folks whose wealth is spiraling into the stratosphere. which again acce;erases the inevitable movement towards more wealth inequality. and the QE programs have done the same. they have helped the avg joe very little while enriching big investors hugely. and many of them will know when to get out when the time comes. lets call it intuition.

there is a sweet spot where people still invest,, still remain in the country yet pay more (closer to their fair share if you like). we aren't anywhere near that sweet spot. we are in a massive, logrythmic spiral of wealth inequality rapidlky approaching 3rd world status in terms of the difference between haves and have nots. no one believes trhis to be healthyv including yellen and many other enlightened elites, many of whom are very wealthy. btu you see this market manipulation as tolerable all the while shouting liberterian slogans from the rooftops. why should anyone pay attention?

never satisfied? we've all been fans of a perennial loser for more years than most of us want to admit. i think we're all too easily satisfied. that was a boring, very badly played game for 58 minutes.(thank goodness i taped it) even the fox studio guys were ridiculing it at halftime. i'm happy we have a winning record but i haven't seen much to instill confidence in this team, this year. i certainly hope to be wrong.

i think that artificially propping up the market with ultra low interest rates is certainly worsening the problem. i'd start there.

go back to the equities. look at who owns the majority of them and how capital gains are taxed. then look at executive pay. then look at average wages and the minimum wage. plenty more to look at. yellen is right. and it's a big problem and threat. perhaps you should read the article summarizing her speech.

yellen doesn't think so. she sees both (kinda like me). hmmm, whose opinion do i put greater value in?

same as the texans game: two bad teams, the worst team lost. i hope the bills get better soon.

sure we could. a good samaritan law like that in effect for cpr would do the trick and would be totally appropriate imo. mandatory vaccination is a no go. but we could certainly have the more intelligent pop culture icons working to help change opinions. find some handsome, mcdreamy, real life doc's that aren't dr oz as spokespeople as well.

pretty much what i'd imagine a typical haunted house to look like - http://hauntedva.blogspot.com/2010/05/tavern-abingdon-virginia.html. it's almost halloween so it seems appropriate. there are also stories about civil war ghosts and numbers appearing on the rafters at night supposedly representing hospital bed numbers from when it was used for that purpose during the war.

virginia and louisiana. the tavern in va is primarily a restaurant now. very good but very haunted.

this is the biggest myth among the many you've stated here. the wealth disparity is most evident in the holding of securities. 60% of americans have lass than $2500 in stocks. i guess the significance is dependent on how you define middle class. many, many people (in fact most) do not have nearly enough in their 401k to retire comfortably and never will. the market correction will change this very little as has the forming of a bubble. they're screwed regardless. mortgages and jobs have been historically easier to get in many periods of higher interest rates.

that would be the fed. perhaps you'd like to know a bit more about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System

and a satellite might drop from the sky onto my house today. it's called risk/benefit analysis. the risks are extremely low. the benefits are very high. ever met anyone that had polio as a child? i've met plenty. the next generation won't. it's been almost completely, globally eradicated (except in the few backwater places where idiots actually fight against immunization).