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.
- lets not punish entrepenuers who create wealth in this economy.
(yelling) YEAH...LIKE OK...BUT WHO ARE WE GOING TO PUNISH...HUH?
In other words, even though our middle class standard of living has pretty much doubled over the last 60 years, WE'RE MAD AS H*LL, AND WE WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE. The question is who? .... oh, I know Obama...no strike that: Bush...no, strike that: rich guys. How about some personal responsiblity here. I am rich/poor/happy/mad/whatever because of the choices I made. Sure my parents had some responsibilty for that--until I was um...maybe 20 years old...but now it is my responsibility. The responsibility for my happiness and well being stops here. With me.
So, if you agree with this assessment, that wealth is not created but transferred, then by logical deduction you also agree that the middle class is shrinking and going away (which is the assessment from the OP).
If wealth is continuously being transferred to the wealthy (as the GINI and the incomes reports show)... then Yes, you agree with the rest of us that the middle class is shrinking. Ergo, it is also harder to become or stay in the middle class as has been our argument since the beginning.
Yeah yeah yeah. I curse Bill Gates name everytime I turn on windows. But come on guys this thread nor my post is not about Bill Gates and we don't need two posts giving a detailed essay on the history of the PC. No offense but I and probably everyone stopped reading your post after the third sentence. Lets stay on topic.
My point still stands - lets not punish entrepenuers who create wealth in this economy.
Hi Dd714
I agree with that. My point is we need to pay attention and know the difference. We not only have to defend innovators from populism and government but also from monopoly capitalists. There is often a monopoly capitalist behind some irrational populist movement.
Now more to the point. Wall Street makes nothing. I consider the current financial apparatus an enemy to the people .
no no no...I think you are looking at the narrow definition of wealth. Wealth doesn't simply mean "money" or "being rich", it has an alternative definition in economy. I won't get into boring Adam Smith/economic lectures, but basically wealth is the value of materials and resources in society. You don't simply transfer resources, you convert them into product - and that's how you create wealth.
A man has a scrap of metal, value $10, builds a vacuum cleaner out of it, value $100. That is "creating wealth".
(yelling) YEAH...LIKE OK...BUT WHO ARE WE GOING TO PUNISH...HUH?
In other words, even though our middle class standard of living has pretty much doubled over the last 60 years, WE'RE MAD AS H*LL, AND WE WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE. The question is who? .... oh, I know Obama...no strike that: Bush...no, strike that: rich guys. How about some personal responsiblity here. I am rich/poor/happy/mad/whatever because of the choices I made. Sure my parents had some responsibilty for that--until I was um...maybe 20 years old...but now it is my responsibility. The responsibility for my happiness and well being stops here. With me.
hahaha, I am happy to take those AIG executives out in the street to tar and feather. Also all politicians in general. Don't blame one party or another - just all of them.
(yelling) YEAH...LIKE OK...BUT WHO ARE WE GOING TO PUNISH...HUH?
In other words, even though our middle class standard of living has pretty much doubled over the last 60 years, WE'RE MAD AS H*LL, AND WE WANT TO BLAME SOMEONE. The question is who? .... oh, I know Obama...no strike that: Bush...no, strike that: rich guys. How about some personal responsiblity here. I am rich/poor/happy/mad/whatever because of the choices I made. Sure my parents had some responsibilty for that--until I was um...maybe 20 years old...but now it is my responsibility. The responsibility for my happiness and well being stops here. With me.
Of course, we could just be happy go lucky dolts, and slaves of the system. Yes, even poor people can be happy too.
But then again... what was the point of an education? the ability to perform critical reasoning? if you can't analyze and find fault in the system and try to fix it?
Basically, free fairing capitalism has failed and the laws that were made to prevent the likes of Standard Oil, Rockefeller, et. al had been corrupted and eroded.
The poor and the restless can default to stick it to the man. The middle class... they have to voice their descent and pioneer champions.
Otherwise, we can either game the system (which becomes ever harder as those on top monopolize and ingrain themselves ever deeper into the system) or fail and drift down towards the poor. The middle can either claw up... or stay stagnant and drift down.
Things have to change or there won't be much of a middle class - which is at the heart of what makes America and most other Developed countries what it is. Otherwise, we can have a two class society like Mexico, or go back to the times of Kings and Queens.
Our middle class standard of living has actually fallen over the last 60 years. It has been propped up by HUGE personal debt.
Data come from the census bureau. ... this shows household income over the last 40 years. ... The bottom line: over this period the household size has declined 21% while household income has increased 31% ...combined together this shows a 65% INCREASE in income over this period. These figures leave out the improvements in quality of the products we use. For example, in 1960 if a car had 80,000 miles on it, it was considered "worn out." Today, cars typically are good for 150,000 to 240,000 miles. Factoring in the improvements in our products from quality is pretty difficult to get right. (how do you compute the economic value of a cell phone in your pocket as compared to pay phones in 1965?--I'm not sure it really be done with any accuracy.)
So from merely a monitary point of view we are 65% better off today than we were a generation ago.
One of the things people typically forget--especially as they try to make ends meet as young families--is that earnings for the average American worker peak at age 49 (census data again)...so, if you are a young family, your income could be far less than that of your neighbor down the street. But in making this comparison people forget to recognize the effect that age and experience has on earnings. So, for many if feels like they are not keeping up--when in fact they are doing much better than their parents, or their grand-parents. Look at the graph.
Oops...I forgot to point out that these income statistics were adjusted for inflation and are posted in constant 2006 dollar values.
no no no...I think you are looking at the narrow definition of wealth. Wealth doesn't simply mean "money" or "being rich", it has an alternative definition in economy. I won't get into boring Adam Smith/economic lectures, but basically wealth is the value of materials in society. You don't simply transfer resources, you convert them into product - and that's how you create wealth.
A man has a scrap of metal, value $10, builds a vacuum cleaner out of it, value $100. That is "creating wealth".
Wealth cannot be defined as anything other then basic capital resources. At the end of the day, those are the only things of value. In your example, the $100 is a representation of "capital assets", since money has been accepted as some sort of medium of exchange. You did not "create any wealth", you simply are extracting more wealth from some one else ($10 instead of $100). The vacuum is worthless until you exchange it for that medium.
To explain this in detail..... you can craft your vacuum, your crown, or your sword, and its worthless, until I give you something in exchange. Maybe I give you, some gold. In this case, Im giving you direct capital in exchange for it, transfering wealth. I could pay you in potatoes, from my capital asset, but in that exchange, you actually lost wealth, unless you can trade the potatoes for more capital then it cost you to build the vacuum. If you consume the potatoes, then you have no wealth. Since you didnt trade the potatoes for capital assets, you have no way of creating more vacuums. The guy who has the LAND to create the potatoes, well, he can continuously produce potatoes forever, because the potatoes have no real value, but he can still trade them to people who need those potatoes to live. Are those potatoes wealth? No, they arent, they are a rotting pile of produce, however, depending on what I exchange them for, I can either take others wealth (land or natural resources), or I can exchange for other things that have no value, that I believe are worth my potatoes.
Randomdude and Dd714---you are both saying the same thing....just a little differently....just in case you didn't notice that.
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.
