isn't there something fundamentally wrong?

[Jauronimo]

so you are saying that the wealthy won't find a way to make money out of a crash like they did last time? i'm saying that many will. and we're talking about a few, by definition, as a small minority that holds much of the wealth already. doesn't take much searching to find that historically, regular folks buy at tops and sell at bottoms way more than the 1%ers do. they more often buy at the bottom and sell at the top. coincidence? i don't think so.

Those 1%ers are all masters at market timing. Market timing is a science.

 

Historically, regular folks are indeed !@#$ing stupid. And yet you are still baffled by wealth inequality.

[birdog1960]

Those 1%ers are all masters at market timing. Market timing is a science.

 

Historically, regular folks are indeed !@#$ing stupid. And yet you are still baffled by wealth inequality.

not confused at all. and thanks for confirming my point that a burst bubble will likely lead to more wealth concentration. and what are all those poor folks doing spending their money on a place to live. how stupid!the point distills down to the fact that massive wealth concentration is the natural consequence of the system the way it's currently designed. whether you think that fundamentally good, bad or indifferent is the only real question.

[Jauronimo]

1. not confused at all.

 

2. and thanks for confirming my point that a burst bubble will likely lead to more wealth concentration.

 

and what are all those poor folks doing spending their money on a place to live. how stupid!the point distills down to the fact that massive wealth concentration is the natural consequence of the system the way it's currently designed. whether you think that fundamentally good, bad or indifferent is the only real question.

Clearly you're confused as I confirmed nothing of the sort. Your conclusions are truly gatorific.

 

Wealth concentration is the natural consequence of any system. Accepting that fact is the first step.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jauronimo

[birdog1960]

I confirmed nothing of the sort and your conclusions are truly gatorific.

 

Wealth concentration is the natural consequence of any system. Accepting that fact is the first step.

really? any system? are you ssying that there are no conceivable systems where that is not the case? whatever gatorific is, i suspect this conclusion meets the criterisa.but even accepting your premise, are there limits to wealth concentration that it would seem unwise to exceed? could regulatory and legal provisions be enacted that would likely prevent crossing that threshold? are the in place now? my answers: yes, yes, no.

[GG]

really? any system? are you ssying that there are no conceivable systems where that is not the case? whatever gatorific is, i suspect this conclusion meets the criterisa.but even accepting your premise, are there limits to wealth concentration that it would seem unwise to exceed? could regulatory and legal provisions be enacted that would likely prevent crossing that threshold? are the in place now? my answers: yes, yes, no.

 

So other than the politics of envy and making you feel good about yourself, what would you accomplish by taking the wealth away from the top 1% and helicoptering the wealth (forget about those logistics for a second) to the rest of the 99%? Never mind that the top 1% isn't a static figure, because it fluctuates regularly. Were Page, Brin, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc part of the top 1% 20 years ago?

[birdog1960]

So other than the politics of envy and making you feel good about yourself, what would you accomplish by taking the wealth away from the top 1% and helicoptering the wealth (forget about those logistics for a second) to the rest of the 99%? Never mind that the top 1% isn't a static figure, because it fluctuates regularly. Were Page, Brin, Musk, Zuckerberg, etc part of the top 1% 20 years ago?

well, things would probably look a lot more like things look in scandanavia or canada. social mobility isn't nearly as fluid as i expect you imagine in the good old us and within the american dream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility look at the "great gatsby curve" here or the graph directly proceeding it. and, it's an easy argument but that doesn't make it correct. envy is not the only conceivable reason for opposing massive wealth concentration.

Edited November 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[GG]

well, things would probably look a lot more like things look in scandanavia or canada. social mobility isn't nearly as fluid as i expect you imagine in the good old us and within the american dream. http://en.wikipedia....Social_mobility look at the "great gatsby curve" here or the graph directly proceeding it. and, it's an easy argument but that doesn't make it correct. envy is not the only conceivable reason for opposing massive wealth concentration.

 

Except we are not Scandinavia or Canada. People still flock to the US for the opportunity to go from bottom 1%

[Jauronimo]

really? any system? are you ssying that there are no conceivable systems where that is not the case? whatever gatorific is, i suspect this conclusion meets the criterisa.but even accepting your premise, are there limits to wealth concentration that it would seem unwise to exceed? could regulatory and legal provisions be enacted that would likely prevent crossing that threshold? are the in place now? my answers: yes, yes, no.

To my knowledge, there has never been a political or economic system which stood the test of time and was applied to large groups of people which didn't result in concentration of wealth.

 

Yes, I believe there are likely limits to wealth concentration which are detrimental to exceed although I have no idea what that limit is. Yes, I know there are provisions which would prevent crossing that threshold and could even set us all back to even. No, those limits are not in place.

 

You are asking the wrong questions. You should be asking why wealth concentrates among a few. You should be asking how wealth is created. You should be asking "if wealth isn't fixed, does the success of some come at the expense of a few OR are disparate outcomes totally independent events?" You should be asking if government intervention and legislation is the best way to lift up the lower classes and promote wealth equality.

[birdog1960]

Except we are not Scandinavia or Canada. People still flock to the US for the opportunity to go from bottom 1%

yup. somewqhere around 50% of virginians play the lottery at least weekly, also. doesn't make it smart.

[IDBillzFan]

Except we are not Scandinavia or Canada.

 

Not yet, anyway. But we're on our way Fore!ward!!!

[GG]

yup. somewqhere around 50% of virginians play the lottery at least weekly, also. doesn't make it smart.

 

So you disparage the bottom 50%'s spending proclivity, yet you favor the redistribution of wealth from the top 50% to the bottom 50%?

 

Can you at least be consistent in your logic?

[birdog1960]

So you disparage the bottom 50%'s spending proclivity, yet you favor the redistribution of wealth from the top 50% to the bottom 50%?

 

Can you at least be consistent in your logic?

i disparage the quest for the magic bullet or pot of gold. but mostly i blame a culture that fosters and skillfully cultivates that quest and not those that have been successfully indoctrinated.

 

 

To my knowledge, there has never been a political or economic system which stood the test of time and was applied to large groups of people which didn't result in concentration of wealth.

 

Yes, I believe there are likely limits to wealth concentration which are detrimental to exceed although I have no idea what that limit is. Yes, I know there are provisions which would prevent crossing that threshold and could even set us all back to even. No, those limits are not in place.

 

You are asking the wrong questions. You should be asking why wealth concentrates among a few. You should be asking how wealth is created. You should be asking "if wealth isn't fixed, does the success of some come at the expense of a few OR are disparate outcomes totally independent events?" You should be asking if government intervention and legislation is the best way to lift up the lower classes and promote wealth equality.

ah yes. i rising tide lifts all ships. except it doesn't in most economies. it lifts the well maintained yachts. the leaking dingys sink.

[jjamie12]

i disparage the quest for the magic bullet or pot of gold. but mostly i blame a culture that fosters and skillfully cultivates that quest and not those that have been successfully indoctrinated.

 

ah yes. i rising tide lifts all ships. except it doesn't in most economies. it lifts the well maintained yachts. the leaking dingys sink.

You're serious?

 

What do you think of living standards of 'the 99%' over the past 100 years? Any improvement? Or has it all been downhill?

Edited November 20, 2013 by jjamie12

[Jauronimo]

i disparage the quest for the magic bullet or pot of gold. but mostly i blame a culture that fosters and skillfully cultivates that quest and not those that have been successfully indoctrinated.

 

ah yes. i rising tide lifts all ships. except it doesn't in most economies. it lifts the well maintained yachts. the leaking dingys sink.

I'm going to have to ask you to go ahead and back that statement up.

 

Hint: Save yourself some trouble and look at the last 2,000 years of human history rather than cherry picking outcomes from the last 10-20 years.

[birdog1960]

You're serious?

 

What do you think of living standards of 'the 99%' over the past 100 years? Any improvement? Or has it all been downhill?

i'm serious. many have more but many more are 1 financial catastrpohe away from the title car loan usury store or the street. and the number in that precarious position increases every day. we reached the economic apex some time ago ( and it lasted only a couple of generations or so) and i fear the big drop will be sudden.

Edited November 20, 2013 by birdog1960

[Joe Miner]

i'm serious. many have more but many more are 1 financial catastrpohe away from the title car loan usury store or the street. and the number in that precarious position increases every day. we reached the economic apex some time ago ( and it lasted only a couple of generations or so) and i fear the big drop will be sudden.

 

So people have more than they used to, but more people are also living very dangerously with that additional wealth which your saying is a bad thing.

 

But at the same time you are wanting to take from the top 1% and give people even more yet. And that will be a good thing?

[Jauronimo]

i'm serious. many have more but many more are 1 financial catastrpohe away from the title car loan usury store or the street. and the number in that precarious position increases every day. we reached the economic apex some time ago ( and it lasted only a couple of generations or so) and i fear the big drop will be sudden.

Economic apex? Are you a peak oil kinda guy?

 

If we've reached our economic apex and the end is nigh, doesn't $4 trillion spent on healthcare reform seem like a particularly bad idea?

Edited November 20, 2013 by Jauronimo

[birdog1960]

Economic apex? Are you a peak oil kinda guy?

 

If we've reached our economic apex and the end is nigh, doesn't $4 trillion spent on healthcare reform seem like a particularly bad idea?

peak oil seems pretty unlikely now although we quite recently fought a war over that commodity. healthcare reform becomes even more important with median wealth decreasing and the middle class disappearing. costs as a percent of gdp need to be reigned in. no other country spends near what we do per capita on healthcare. and, no, the aca doesn't immediately address that...further reform will.

[Jauronimo]

peak oil seems pretty unlikely now although we quite recently fought a war over that commodity. healthcare reform becomes even more important with median wealth decreasing and the middle class disappearing. costs as a percent of gdp need to be reigned in. no other country spends near what we do per capita on healthcare. and, no, the aca doesn't immediately address that...further reform will.

You are on fire today.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Economic Apex? What the !@#$ does that even mean? That we've hit our peak economic output? That wealth is finite, and we're essentially living in a grand game of hungry hungry hippos?