Quote:
Originally Posted by kayanne
I'm not an economist or expert on the subject. Is this accurate? If so, what are your thoughts?
|
It's NAZI style propaganda.
That is painfully obvious from the first few seconds where they claim to have asked 5,000 people how they thought wealth is distributed.
That's all well and fine, provided you have first ensured that all 5,000 clearly understand the definition Wealth.
Liberals -- like this Harvard professor -- like to play word games and conflate words with different meanings just like Herr Josef Göbbels did. You can see that clearly on C-D as the words "Wealth," "Income" and "Earnings" (wages/salary) are incorrectly used interchangeably.
It's not much different than the use of "Capitalism" -- which is a Property Theory -- incorrectly and improperly used as a synonym for the Free Market Economic System. Every time you see the word "Capitalism" you have to ask yourself, "
Is the person a total douche-bag moron, or are they a propaganda and disinformation artist intent on creating confusion?"
And one might say, that's splitting hairs, or not relevant, but it is relevant, because Capitalism, Socialism and Communism are nothing more than theories positing who should control Capital (private individuals/groups, the government or society as an whole -- which is not the same thing as the government).
Communism has never been implemented on a State scale, but Capitalism and Socialism have.
The Free Market Economic System is compatible with both Capitalism and Socialism (and even Communism even though no Communist State has ever existed and so we've never seen Communism would operate with the Free Market).
We have seen Socialism operated with the Command Economic System, most notably in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Many people believe that was a failure, although their beliefs are flawed and disingenuous.
The point I'm trying to make is that you can have Capitalism and a Soviet-style Command Economic system.....and there are many people in the US who want exactly that, but they lack the guts to come out and say it straight to your face, so they obfuscate.
Wealth," "Income" and "Earnings" (wages/salary) are not synonymous.
Income includes Earnings, but it does not include Wealth. Wealth includes Income and Earnings, but Wealth is not Income or Earnings. How can that be?
Wealth is assets.
It is possible for someone to have $1 Million in Wealth, but $0 in Cash. How? They own land but that land is not rented, or they own bearer bonds or some other tangible/intangible assets.
I'm 13 seconds into the video, and it gets an "F".
"Ideal Wealth Distribution" -- fail. No such thing, and it it would exist, then it constantly shifts and changes, why? Because Wealth is distributed in accordance with the Laws of Economics.
"Skewed unfairly" -- fail. A display of bias and prejudice, not to mention out-right bigotry. The Laws of Economics seek to achieve balance, harmony and equilibrium, and none of those concepts rises to the level of "fairness" or "equality." In other words, balance, harmony and equality are not synonymous with fairness or equality.
In the photo above, note that water -- in accordance with the Laws of Physics -- has sought its own level. However, as you can see, each tube contains a different volume -- amount -- of water.
Is that fair? Is it equitable? Those questions are as irrelevant as asking if Wealth Distribution is fair.
Again, a magnificent display of bigotry using the term "skewed."
So far --- 1:30 into the video -- the propaganda artist has succeeded in proving that 5,000 Americans have no clue what Wealth actually is, and due to that fact, some correctly identify Wealth as assets, while others erroneously believe Wealth to be Income (which may or may not include Earnings) and others falsely believe Wealth is Earnings (even though they don't know what Earnings are).
At 1:56 he lines up 100 people symbols and starts showing the wages/salaries they earn.
At 2:05 he then mentions Net Worth.
See how he attempts to confuse people by conflating Earnings and Wealth?
At 3:26 we have another fail -- equitable wealth distribution. Again, Wealth is distributed in accordance with the Laws of Economics. The distribution of Wealth cannot be equitable any more than Income can be equitable, or any more than Earnings can be equitable.
For instance, you own a 2-family house. You live on the top floor and rent the first floor out for $350/month. That $350/month is not Earnings (salary/wages), rather it is Income (specifically rents). Another owns a 2-family house and rents out one of the units for $650/month.
$350/month versus $650/month. Is that fair? Is it equitable? It doesn't matter, because it is in accordance with the Laws of Economics.
Since the other person is getting $300 more each month than you, they can acquire more assets and build Wealth more quickly, reaching an higher Net Worth before you do.
So....what should be done about that?
Again, at 3:41 in the video "
What Americans Think The Distribution Is" he commits a cardinal display of propaganda and disinformation by stating "
...while the rich and wealthy are making 100x that of the poorest Americans...."
To you now see how he is trying his damnedest to confuse people by conflating Wealth and Earnings, even though Wealth and Earnings are not the same thing?
That's disgusting.
At 4:35 he shifts back to Wealth again. He makes blatantly false statements referring to "
...a stack of cash..." and "
....a stack of money..." and "
...so much green in his pockets...."
What he is very disingenuously trying to do is convince you that a Net Worth of $400 Million equals $400 Million in cash.....that could not be farther from the Truth.
At 4:48 he says that the Top 1% hold 40% of all the wealth in America which he claimed earlier was $54 TRILLION or so.
You see, Wealth is assets. You may or may not derive Income from your Wealth -- it all depends. I own $1 Million worth of real estate and you own $1 Million worth of real estate. That real estate is an asset, not cash like he said when he intentionally lied to you. You might rent your $1 Million worth of real estate and derive income from it, while my $1 Million in real estate is undeveloped and cannot be rented, so I cannot derive Income from it.
Is that fair or equitable? Perhaps you should give all of the Income you derive from rents to me so that I may development my land at some point in the future -- maybe after 30 years of giving me 100% of your rents I'll have enough to develop it...maybe....maybe not....perhaps I'm merely content to live off of the all of the rents you give to me.
I'm at 5:06 where he once again deceptively and deceitfully switches back to income claiming that the 1% take 24% of the Income --- and he refuses to act honorably and tell you that Income includes Earnings (wages/salaries) but is not limited to Earnings.
At 5:13 he claims that the Top 1% own 50% of the stocks, bonds and mutual funds -- I'll come back to this.
We're at 5:47 where he deceitfully switches back to Earnings -- like I said, he is banking (no pun intended) on the fact that 999 out of 1,000 Americans are unable to differentiate between Wealth, Income and Earnings, and thanks to the propaganda and disinformation spewed by people like him, they are even more confused than ever.
Let's go back to Wealth and Net Worth.
Those are personal choices.
My Net Worth is close to $30,000. I own an home in Romania and some land, some animals, an apartment, and then I own another apartment in Kosice (Slovakia) and have some money in banks in Germany and Romania.
The apartment in Kosice I get token rent. I was out in the country-side and a family in one of the villages invited me to stay in their home. Turns out he was the village police chief. His daughter was attending university, so I benefit from her living in my apartment. His other daughter and son lived there and were graduated. Another person from the village lived there, and now a kid from a neighboring village lives there. My apartment in Arad I rent to a young Magyar couple from Satu Mare who came down to attend university.
I had an apartment in Queens Park (London) but I sold that when I bought my house. I could use that and other money I have to buy more land, or more rental property or buy stocks or bonds,
but I choose not to do that.....and I'm not being oppressed.
What this liar failed to tell you in the video, is that any person in the US is free to acquire Wealth....they just have to
want to do that.
You can spend $400 on an iPhone, or you can buy $400 worth of stocks or bonds, and build Wealth while simultaneously deriving Income,
but you cannot do both at the same time.
Who is oppressing the Poor? The Poor.....yeah, that's right....Poor people are oppressing themselves.
Give me one good reason why a so-called "Poor Person" (snicker) should not move into a rental house or apartment and share it with 3-5 other people.....like I did when I was an undergrad/grad student....save their money to put 35% down on a 2-family home, live on one floor and rent out the other to derive Income and build Wealth?
People
openlyblatantly refuse to do those things necessary to build Wealth, and so the solution is to attack, condemn and vilify those people who did choose to build Wealth.....yeah, that makes a lot of friggin' sense.
One last thing....he kept mentioning "...the last 25-50 years..."
Wanna see how bigoted he really is? He doesn't tell you what happened "in the last 25-30 years."
At one time, the Number #1 cultural priority in America was building Wealth.
30 years ago that changed. What are the cultural priorities in America today?
1] Sega
2] X-Box
3] Game-Boy
4] iPhone
5] iPod
6] GPS
7] NetFlix
8] Starsux
9] Laptop
10] Desktop
11] Notebook
12] Plasma TV
13] McMansion
14] McDonald's
15] Chipotle
16] McDonald's
17] Applebe's
18] McDonald's
19] Starsux
20] Cell-Phone Batteries
21] More cars than you need to have
22] A new car every time you get upside down on the car note
23] Coogi, Tommy-Gear, Nike, Prada, DKNY, BeBe
24] McDonald's
25] DVDs
26]......
Do any of those things build Wealth? No.
Then why are you throwing your money away and what gives you the right to ***** like a witch?
30 years ago, did people buy cars with no money down and finance them for 72 months? No. You put 10%-20% down and financed it for 1 year. Maybe 18-24 months if you were a loyal customer or had a good relationship with your bank or credit union.
Do perpetual car payments make sound financial sense? No. Does it build wealth? No.
Then why are you throwing away $189/month to $329/month each every month for 40 years?
30 years ago, did people buy a $1,700 Plasma TV using their credit card and pay $1,700 for the TV while throwing away $1,789 in Interest?
Elaborate in detail how giving $1,789 to the Top 1% is unfair or inequitable, when you voluntarily chose to do that? Explain how paying $1,789 in Interest builds Wealth?
30 years ago, did people buy an home with no money down? No. You lived in a cramped apartment and saved up 25%-35% for a down-payment, instead of voluntarily choosing to buy a $250,000 McMansion with 0% down at 6.5 % for 30 years and pay $318,000 in interest.
Grow a brain and put 35% to 45% down on the $250,000 McMansion and pay only $79,956 in interest.
It's a personal choice to voluntarily pay $318,000 in interest instead of paying $79,956 in interest.
The fool who pays $318,000 voluntarily chose to destroy $238,044 in Wealth.
Take the $238,905 in interest not paid and put that money in something like a pass-book savings account and after 30 years, you have
...$762,505
That, is how wealth is created.
Proving liars are pathetic....
Mircea
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.
Everyone knows that it is a heckuvalot easier to acquire assets, wealth, whatever you want to call it when you already have the financial assets of say Mitt Romney at your disposal. Your analysis above also conveniently omits the people (again, the 1%, correct?) who are born into wealth by default and therefore are never really challenged to even have to do the heavy lifting to secure wealth that you had mentioned in the first place.
