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.
Again, you TRULY dont understand the scope of income equality going on if you think 225K is anything, its a pittance. He doesn't even make it to the 1%
And the income inequality he is discussing isn't even the 1% its the .1%!
Talk about thread fail.
There is no Income Inequality. If you cannot define objectively then it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
entry to the .1% requires a income of 1.9 million a year.
So...what, it's now a crime to be Black and in the NBA?
Are you going to give them a fair trial for their Crimes Against Humanity, or just lynch them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Our GDP has doubled in the last 40 year..has the incomes? Nope.
There is no relationship between GDP and income.
If you were able to prove such a relationship, you'd win the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Good luck with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Sigh. no thats not it at all. Its simple math. We cannot afford to have a small minority earn money on capital faster then the rise of GDP.
Whose Kool-Aid® are you drinking now?
I'm sorry, but you know nothing of Economics and you've never once displayed any evidence of Critical Thinking Skills.
It's not cool to spam stuff from blogs and web-sites without giving the source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
We either need to slow their earnings, or increase the rate of GDP faster.
Or change the way you calculate GDP.
Ooops.....that's in reference to the Critical Thinking Skills thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Soo...you're ok with 400 guys say..owning...say 90% of everything in the US?
Which 10% do they not own?
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
So please layoff the personal attacks, and try to understand the math in the linked post earlier. im not throwing out theories that capital grows faster then GDP, im throwing out FACTS. Feel free to research it.
Then link to your source.
I don't see where you are capable of original thinking, much less critical thinking.
You don't even know what Capital is and you don't understand there is no "right" way to calculate GDP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
...and a serious threat to any democracy.....
The Stupid® are a more serious threat to any government....since there is no cure for Stupid®.
Again, you TRULY dont understand the scope of income equality going on if you think 225K is anything, its a pittance. He doesn't even make it to the 1%
And the income inequality he is discussing isn't even the 1% its the .1%!
Talk about thread fail.
225k is 3x the rich that many liberal labeled rich as family making 75k or more.
Yeah it worked, but its a horrible meme. It misses the issue completely and clumps a lot of hard working folks in with people not working at all, and misses the real underlying issue of capital growth out stripping GDP growth, and the issues that causes.
Its almost like saying "we can treat these diseases by cutting off the infected body parts if they become infected after surgery"....while completely missing that you should wash your hands before surgery.
IE we're looking at symptoms, not the causes.
The Dumdumocrats do not care about anything but the win and gaining more and more power/control.
Brass knuckle political tactics are being used because it works and the end-game is in sight...........and yes, the eventual results will be horrible.......think Detroitbabwe * 1000.
There is no Income Inequality. If you cannot define objectively then it doesn't exist.
So...what, it's now a crime to be Black and in the NBA?
Are you going to give them a fair trial for their Crimes Against Humanity, or just lynch them?
There is no relationship between GDP and income.
If you were able to prove such a relationship, you'd win the Nobel Prize in Economics.
Good luck with that.
Whose Kool-Aid® are you drinking now?
I'm sorry, but you know nothing of Economics and you've never once displayed any evidence of Critical Thinking Skills.
It's not cool to spam stuff from blogs and web-sites without giving the source.
Or change the way you calculate GDP.
Ooops.....that's in reference to the Critical Thinking Skills thing.
Which 10% do they not own?
Then link to your source.
I don't see where you are capable of original thinking, much less critical thinking.
You don't even know what Capital is and you don't understand there is no "right" way to calculate GDP.
The Stupid® are a more serious threat to any government....since there is no cure for Stupid®.
Economically...
Mircea
blah blah blah
Seriously Mircea? Another drive by blathering where you argue definitions of things? Accuse people of being unable to engage in critical thinking because it puts you up on some pedestal?
As long as CAPITAL grows faster then GDP we have a issue. Income is a tangential discussion regarding the .1% and is merely a scorekeeper as it were. To be honest income isn't the problem, its just a convenient way to delineate where the problem is.
But you know that. right?
So tell me Mircea, whats the inevitable result of capital growing faster then GDP.....go ahead, use those "critical thinking skills"
And yes Im familiar with the flaws of calculating GDP....but overall its a very effective measure. You know that too. So why this diatribe? Oh because you think it makes you look smarter then others.
Quit nit picking, and look at the issues not all the side arguments about definitions.
Sigh. no thats not it at all. Its simple math. We cannot afford to have a small minority earn money on capital faster then the rise of GDP. We either need to slow their earnings, or increase the rate of GDP faster.
If not the capital they control will consume a ever larger and larger % of the economy.
Soo...you're ok with 400 guys say..owning...say 90% of everything in the US?
Now personally, Id FAR prefer to have the rate of GDP go up faster then the rate of growth on capital. I just dont see that being realistic given how the two numbers are entertwined.
Greed and envy do not cloud my thinking, saying that ignore the basic math that is occuring. Personally if I didnt see a horrible endgame for all of this, with inherited wealth determining winners and losers, and not merit I wouldnt give a damn about their money.
Righties are so ignorant of basic economics and math. (like that? If lefties are arrogant asses, then righties are apparently unable to understand economics, and basic math.....but lets be honest, we both know neither statement is true. So please layoff the personal attacks, and try to understand the math in the linked post earlier. im not throwing out theories that capital grows faster then GDP, im throwing out FACTS. Feel free to research it.
Trust me, I probably know far more about "simple math" than you do, with several years of integral and derivative calculus, multivariate calc, linear algebra, etc. Mechanical engineering does that to you. Now...where is the "basic math" in any of your little rant, as opposed to unsupported ranting and envy? We want to take from the rich...just because they are rich? We want to seize inheritance...as if the public, rather the person that earned that wealth in the first place, has the right to determine how to dispose of it? As far as Klugman...please. He has a degree in economics, but hasn't shown any understanding of how an economy actually functions. He blogs and writes editorials that appeal to the vile envy of many. But as an economist, he's pretty well ignored and discredited.
If we have an issue, it's with a corrupt political class that is for sale to the highest bidder. But, that's not an effect of the rich, it's issue with those who vote for whoever promises them the most free stuff from the government, or that they will attack whoever the voters don't like, ethical or not.
I'd be careful about that, Krugmans very specific on when he thinks government should spend more, and when it should spend less. I think you may be surprised when he starts saying "OK now its time to deal with the deficit".
Course his solution will probably be one you dont agree with-and it may be big governmenty. So maybe not.
I don't care that much about the deficit. But if Krugman ever says "let's shrink government", I'll be on his side. I doubt that he will ever say that.
If we have an issue, it's with a corrupt political class that is for sale to the highest bidder. But, that's not an effect of the rich, it's issue with those who vote for whoever promises them the most free stuff from the government, or that they will attack whoever the voters don't like, ethical or not.
We see this here everyday.
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.
