U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-25-2019, 08:42 AM
 
2,800 posts, read 1,807,514 times
Reputation: 6203

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
Is his name a 5-letter word that begins with a "T" and ends in a "p"?
Tulip
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-25-2019, 10:57 AM
 
5,624 posts, read 2,399,901 times
Reputation: 16805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Its better to be uninformed than misinformed.

Well, you certainly are living up to that maxim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 11:21 AM
 
Location: Manchester NH
9,950 posts, read 2,768,576 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by MinivanDriver View Post
Well, you certainly are living up to that maxim.
I'm neither.

anyways I watched the video and the narrator doesn't doesn't understand its not a question of who is wealthy, but capital and wealth are concentrated in a highly undemocratic way.

It means the economy is manged by the needs of capital, not labor.

Preferably no one should become super rich or super poor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 01:01 PM
 
2,496 posts, read 643,226 times
Reputation: 4351
Quote:
Originally Posted by shanv3 View Post
You are talking as an investor. What about common men who rely on savings?
Savings ≡ Investment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 01:05 PM
 
72,824 posts, read 72,675,802 times
Reputation: 50340
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
Savings=Investment.
exactly .... unless you are gun shy and doing the wrong thing , avoiding investments like broad based funds with long term money is why they never develop any kind of base
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 01:10 PM
 
2,496 posts, read 643,226 times
Reputation: 4351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd View Post
The video is corporate/rich man's propaganda. Salaries have been relatively flat for the past three decades. The middle class is treading water.
Economic literacy.... it's a thing.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 01:12 PM
 
72,824 posts, read 72,675,802 times
Reputation: 50340
as they should be ..there is no reason the same jobs should command anymore value except for inflation adjusting , and not all inflation should be adjusted out to boot ....

inflation we do to ourselves by creating a shortage in things is not an employers responsibility to adjust for . that can just as easily come down , like we saw with oil ...it has nothing to do with wages ... stop over using something or increase the supply and prices will fall .

we increase wages in real dollars by moving up the earnings ladder with our abilities and skills ..someone sitting in the same job position for decades has little chance of the same job being worth anymore today , just because ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 01:58 PM
 
2,496 posts, read 643,226 times
Reputation: 4351
Quote:
Originally Posted by concept_fusion View Post
To answer the OP's question, yes the rich get most of the gains.

Here are the facts. The top 10% own 84% of the stocks.

So a 10%er has $84 in stocks on average to $1.77 in stocks that a bottom 90%er has. That's because those bottom 90%ers are splitting a tiny sliver, just 16% of the market.

So if a bottom 90%er has $17,777.00 in a retirement stock account, imagine that a top 10%er would have $840,000.00.

I would not say it's a highly stable situation, but it's today's America.
The top stockholder in the USA is CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System. The top 10 include other public employee retirement systems. Major private owners:
  • Vanguard Group (through its mutual funds and ETFs such as VOO and VFIAX, which in turn are the investment vehicles for private sector pensions, 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc).
  • Blackrock Inc (through its iShares brand of mutual funds and ETFs, which in turn are the investment vehicles for private sector pensions, 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc).
  • Berkshire Hathaway, a holding company famous for its leader Warren Buffett, and in which both private sector and public sector pensions are invested, along with 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc.
  • State Street Corporation (through its SPDR brand of mutual funds and ETFs such as SPY, which in turn are the investment vehicles for private sector pensions, 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc).
  • Fidelity (through its mutual funds and ETFs and individual holdings, which in turn are the investment vehicles for private sector pensions, 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc).
  • Geode Capital Management through its mutual funds and ETFs and individual holdings, which in turn are the investment vehicles for public & private sector pensions, 401K plans, etc.
  • Northern Trust Corporation (through its mutual funds and ETFs, which in turn are the investment vehicles for private sector pensions, 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc).
  • Norges Bank Group, which is the Sovereign Wealth Fund managing the wealth of Norway, largely from offshore oil, for its individual citizens.
  • Invesco (through its PowerShares ETFs, which in turn are the investment vehicles for private sector pensions, 401K plans, IRAs, SEP-IRAs, Roth-IRAs, and individual savings & investment for college, retirement, vacations, down-payment on houses, etc).
  • Bank of New York Mellon (which helps end-customers, public sector pension plans, private sector pension plans, and various qualified and non-qualified plans).

Most every corporation is owned by the same major cast of players: public sector pension plans, private sector pension plans, 401Ks, IRAs, their respective Roth variants, and traditional savings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 02:10 PM
 
3,776 posts, read 965,083 times
Reputation: 4337
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
The top stockholder in the USA is CalPERS, the California Public Employees' Retirement System. The top 10 include other public employee retirement systems.
Major tangent but hey...

See, the vilified defined benefit pension plans are funded with an investment account, just like many other retirement plans. The distributions are just made in a different way. Whether transparent to the employee or not, the investments may be more conservative than a young investor would choose for him or herself. This takes a higher contribution amount to fund, especially when an 18-year-old gets hired and wants "30-and-out".

But I can't blame them. If you can put in 30 years in a big city job (esp union) and walk away with a six figure pension (if spiked with overtime), a 401(k) AND group healthcare for LIFE? Why would you -ever- turn that down?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2019, 02:15 PM
 
5,624 posts, read 2,399,901 times
Reputation: 16805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
I'm neither.

anyways I watched the video and the narrator doesn't doesn't understand its not a question of who is wealthy, but capital and wealth are concentrated in a highly undemocratic way.

It means the economy is manged by the needs of capital, not labor.

Preferably no one should become super rich or super poor.

If ever there was a fallacious statement, that one is it. In one sentence, you manage to betray your complete misunderstanding of how the economy works.

Successful economies are not 'managed.' Instead, in successful economies, capital goes where it finds return on its investment, the cumulative decision of millions of investors. Managed economies wind up failing over time chiefly under the cumulative weight of bad decisions by a small number of bureaucrats. The more heavily the economy gets managed, the more quickly the process happens. Conversely, markets function best when they are information gathering tools. When a government bureau gets in the way of pricing model, it creates distortions in the system. The housing bubble was a perfect example of that.

The farm crisis that contributed to the Great Depression is another fine example. Before tariffs were levied on imports, the American farmer sold a bushel of wheat for roughly $1. After the tariffs were levied with the inevitable retaliatory tariffs, that same farmer was lucky to get 25. In turn, this led to rural banks failing, etc., etc. Everybody reads The Grapes of Wrath, clucking their tongues at how bad the Joads had it. However, they never think for a second how some seriously stupid 'management' of the economy contributed to the plight of Okies in the first place. Everyone wants to demonize the banks of the period because they foreclosed, but those rural banks were suddenly on death's door, too.

One of the great lies of the Great Depression, by the way, was that Roosevelt swooped in and saved the country from the hapless, laisez-faire Herbert Hoover. Nope. Hoover's intervention in the economy was widespread and ultimately destructive. He essentially tripled income taxes on the top earners, increased Federal spending 50%, and signed the disastrous Hawley Smoot act. The Federal Reserve helped out by tightening credit. Roosevelt came along and did more of the same. In fact, Morgenthau, FDR's Treasury secretary, praised Hoover's programs as the foundation of the New Deal. The result? Unemployment in 1938 was almost as bad as it was in 1933. The true savior of the American economy, sad to say, was Adolph Hitler and how he set fire to the world. That's Exhibit A why 'managed' economies lead to disaster.

I'll give you the perfect working example of why you are wrong, by the way. Let's look at Paul Krugman, the perpetual darling of Keynesians. Coasting on his Nobel Prize for years, he's basically nothing more than a political gadfly at this point. Why? Because the few times has ventured to make a prediction about anything, he has proved spectacularly wrong. He famously opined in 1998 that the Internet would have no more economic impact than the fax machine. He egged on the housing bubble. He also was completely blindsided by the housing bubble when a lot of us were bailing out of the financial markets as fast as we could sell. I literally saw the handwriting on the wall in mid-2007 and organized our finances accordingly. Paul Krugman? Never saw it comes. He claimed that fracking would have absolutely no effect on the price of oil, and the US would remain sidelined as a player in the energy markets. That the election of Trump would cause an immediate market crash. The only thing Paul Krugman excels at is fooling dupes in the Op-Ed pages of the Times. If Krugman predicts one thing happening, you can almost always count on the opposite.

Now, Paul Krugman is entitled to his opinions because he's largely harmless, a bloviating hack who appeals to those who prefer ideology over reality. But the minute you put a handful of Paul Krugmans into positions of power 'managing' the economy, to use your term for it, you run into real problems. That's because you've just trusted the entire direction of the economy to the predictive ability of a few economists and their craven minions. Anybody who knows anything about the predictive ability of economists knows that's a idea that's beyond awful. I mean, hell, you have proof of it at the end of every fiscal quarter, when economic bureaus have to compare their predictions with actual performance--and are uniformly wrong.

Instead, capital goes where the efficiencies are going to be, whereas labor is backwards looking. Labor doesn't care if the allocation of capital is inefficient or efficient. All it seeks to do is enlarge its share of the pie. As someone famously remarked, the Soviet Union ultimately failed because they couldn't figure out what it cost to make a pair of shoes, chiefly because the system was organized along the needs of labor rather than along the needs of capital.

This is also why guys like you rend your garments when a factory closes, regardless of how much money it's losing for its owner. Meanwhile, if it makes economic sense to build a plant in the US rather than outsource the manufacturing to China, that's the decision capital will make. Institute policies that make it cost-effective to produce in the United States, then productivity rises. When productivity rises, wages rise along with it.

The only 'management' that really works long-term is to allow capital to seek out the right opportunities, not cleave to some hazy standard of what is fair and what is not, whipped up by those who wouldn't succeed under any system. If I create a widget that changes the world, I'll be damned if some lazy ivory tower thinker is going to tell me how much I 'deserve.' I would tell that person to go jump in the lake. I mean, who were the first to be led to the firing squads in post-revolutionary Russia and China? The idealists. The Communist revolutions in both those countries simply replaced one set of oligarchs with a far more ruthless bunch who felt that the law and property rights were for chumps.

So as far as your statement that no one should become super rich, you really don't have the right to decide that. Jeff Bezos is super rich because he gave the world what it wanted. Bill Gates is super rich because he gave the world what it wanted. Warren Buffett is super rich because he gave the world what it wanted. And the value of what they provided the world is way more than how the world has rewarded them in return.

The problem with your entire mindset is that it fails to take into account that the super rich weren't super rich to begin with. Instead, you view wealth as static, the result of entitlement the unfairness of the world. But this isn't the Medieval period with titled aristocracy. You either produce, invest, or you aren't rich for very long. Jeff Bezos started Amazon in his garage. His wife literally couldn't use the hair dryer or vacuum cleaner because it would fire the circuit breakers, thereby cutting off power to the servers. Bill Gates started out as some kid peddling software. Warren Buffett started out in the financial backwater of Omaha, Nebraska, with a clear-eyed understanding of value investing and entrepreneurship. They all created something of enormous value, whether it is an operating system, a distribution system, or just consistent returns on investment. And became incredibly rich because of it.

Last edited by MinivanDriver; 06-25-2019 at 03:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top