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.
These risks are what increased the wealth of the top 1%
Well, you're making some progress in understanding this. You are correct, it is risk that allows them to accumulate so much wealth.
Risk assets are being propped up right now by the government, and to varying degrees they have been propped up by the government for nearly 30 years.
We have a financial system that penalizes workers and savers, by creating unsustainable levels of private debt. It is people like the guy you're talking about who benefited from the original financial deregulation, the bubbles, the bailouts from the bursting bubbles, and quantitative easing to create new bubbles. You print money, flood the private banking system with it, and the value of his crap goes up.
At the time, people were saying that he got screwed.
The Eagles franchise is now valued at $900 MILLION dollars....a pretty good return I would say. (not to mention the income that he receives annually from the team)
These risks are what increased the wealth of the top 1%
There are winners and there are losers.
Life is tough, wear a helmet!
So you're telling us that the significant growth in wealth inequality over the last few decades is just because top few percent of rich are taking more / bigger risks than they used to - and perhaps the rest of society are taking fewer risks than they used to? That's a pretty woeful analysis you have there...
At the time, people were saying that he got screwed.
The Eagles franchise is now valued at $900 MILLION dollars....a pretty good return I would say. (not to mention the income that he receives annually from the team)
These risks are what increased the wealth of the top 1%
There are winners and there are losers.
Life is tough, wear a helmet!
It used to be that way. However, the recent debacle proved those that took the risk, passed to to the public when it came time to own up.
Funny -- I thought your income increased because you got a good contracter job overseas. Areo, let's be real, shall we? We both know the caliber of worker you have to be to land and keep a cushy, well-paid defense contracter gig. I'm not saying you're not one of the good ones, but come on. You are debt free with a high income because the money is easy when it's the American taxpayer who is picking up the tab... am I wrong?
Even if what you say is all there is to it, isn't taking a postion overseas considered somewhat of a risk?
Go to the employment forum ( or even stay in this one) and read how many won't even take a job that's more than 10 minutes from the bus line and get horrified if it's suggested to move to a different city or state.
It used to be that way. However, the recent debacle proved those that took the risk, passed to to the public when it came time to own up.
Yep. So if we're going to publicize the risks, let's publicize the profits. Socialism for all, not just rich people! Or, if you prefer to remain capitalist, force the Wall Street looters to give back every dime they took from public coffers (with interest ... it's been three years) and throw many of them in jail for fraud. Do that, and the OWS movement will go away... guaranteed.
Even if what you say is all there is to it, isn't taking a postion overseas considered somewhat of a risk?
Go to the employment forum ( or even stay in this one) and read how many won't even take a job that's more than 10 minutes from the bus line and get horrified if it's suggested to move to a different city or state.
I'm in the Army, old. I'm not slamming a poster for taking a contracter job and making a six figure salary. That's appropriate compensation for someone who is willing to work in an area that is routinely shelled with mortars. I just don't like it when someone who has gotten ahead by getting some dumb money (dumb government money no less), tries to pass himself off as a financial genuis and titan of industry. Let's be real.
I find many conservatives have an over inflated sense of their own efforts and abilities.
There are rich people who have lost everything many times it is just not in the news.
They are the exceptions that prove the rule. For example, Donald Trump. There is a joke about him that contains not just a kernel of truth, but is factually completely correct:
They are the exceptions that prove the rule. For example, Donald Trump. There is a joke about him that contains not just a kernel of truth, but is factually completely correct:
Q: How did Donald Trump make a small fortune?
A: By inheriting a large one.
Trump is a rare example of a so-called titan of industry who has exposed himself to public scrutiny. Come on. That man is an idiot. Is anyone seriously impressed with his intellectual prowess?
At the time, people were saying that he got screwed.
The Eagles franchise is now valued at $900 MILLION dollars....a pretty good return I would say. (not to mention the income that he receives annually from the team)
These risks are what increased the wealth of the top 1%
There are winners and there are losers.
Life is tough, wear a helmet!
Do you have data to back this up?
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.
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.
