Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, October 11, 2020

The 50 richest Americans increased their net worth this year to an amount nearly equal to the combined money and assets of the poorest 165 million Americans, which is half of the U.S. population, according to new data from the first half of the year collected by the Federal Reserve. The rich got richer this year despite the COVID-19 pandemic - while people struggling financially found themselves in even more dire straits.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The 50 richest people increased their wealth since the beginning of 2020 by nearly $339 billion to almost $2 trillion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

The poorest 50% of Americans - about 165 million people - hold just $2.08 trillion of net worth, or 1.9% of all household wealth, according to Federal Reserve statistics.

More broadly, the top 1% of Americans currently have a combined net worth of $34.2 trillion. They hold 30.4% of all U.S. household wealth and more than half of the equity in corporations and in mutual fund shares, according to the data.

Hard to argue against a wealth tax or other equifying remedies with unimaginable disparity like this.

But just watch and see how many will post on this thread doing exactly that.

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-10 10:40 PM | Reply

People support corporate sell outs then complain that the rich get richer and poor are pooreq and then they throw a tizzy fit over anyone who refuses to play that game. Same as it ever was.

#2 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-10 10:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Madbomber will be along shortly to once again explain how the poorest Americans are in the 1%.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-10 10:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is a feature, not a bug.
Thanks, Capitalism!

#4 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-11 12:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

This is crony capitalism, aka a poker game where one person sits at the table with a billion dollars, plus pays to have the rules changed in their favor, and all the other players have $100 dollars.

Guess who wins?

It's certainly not the dopes who vote for the billionaire's candidates who write the rules. Or anyone else for that matter.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-11 12:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Well apparently by YOUR definition Corky. You're a dope.

#6 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-11 12:41 AM | Reply

Perhaps we need a wealth cap at 2 billion which can be adjust for inflation every 80 years.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2020-10-11 12:51 PM | Reply

#6

You keep saying all this crap, but the truth is that every time a measure to curtail runaway capitalism is attempted it is stonewalled by an obstructionist Republican party, leading to necessary compromise to avoid a deadlock. Don't tell me the CFPB (That Trump destroyed) or the SDNY (which he is trying to destroy) "cater to Wall Street."

It would be WAY better if stubborn Progressives would jump on board to create stronger blocs to override the people who are in the way, instead of nipping at the heels of those that try.

WAY better.

#8 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-11 12:54 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Well obviously those 165,000,000 Americans contribute less to our society than those 50 billionaires.
we have a truly twisted society.

#9 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-10-11 01:27 PM | Reply

#6 |

Trump and his billionaire friends appreciate your non-vote.

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-11 01:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"the billionaire's candidates who write the rules"

Yep. Billionaires are shut out of govt when their candidate loses.

They lose all influence when their guy loses.

Take next year for example...:billionaires will be ------ royally with Biden as president.

LOL

#11 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-11 01:52 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The billionaires did fine under Obama.

Yet when he said "you didn't build this " the weeping and gnashing of teeth was pathetic.

#12 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-11 02:22 PM | Reply

"The billionaires did fine under Obama."

Of course they did. They will under Biden as well.

#13 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-11 02:28 PM | Reply

A vote isn't a confession of love for a candidate.

It's a chess move for the world we want to live in.

If Biden wins. Bernie become Budget Committee Chairman.

My vote still makes no difference. But I'm going to hope Biden gets the win.

#14 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-11 02:39 PM | Reply

Billionaires will be fine regardless of which party is in office.

They own both parties.

But, regular Americans do better under Democrats.

At the moment. That's a good enough win.

#15 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-11 02:40 PM | Reply

#15 I hope you're right but in my travels trump is gonna win . Can't understand it,but

#16 | Posted by bruceaz at 2020-10-11 02:47 PM | Reply

#6
You keep saying all this crap, but the truth is that every time a measure to curtail runaway capitalism is attempted it is stonewalled by an obstructionist Republican party, leading to necessary compromise to avoid a deadlock. Don't tell me the CFPB (That Trump destroyed) or the SDNY (which he is trying to destroy) "cater to Wall Street."
It would be WAY better if stubborn Progressives would jump on board to create stronger blocs to override the people who are in the way, instead of nipping at the heels of those that try.
WAY better.
#8 | POSTED BY BOCAINK AT 2020-10-11 12:54 PM | FLAG: (CHOOSE) | NEWSWORTHY 2

#METOO the investor class.

Responsible companies will select their investors rather than allow just anyone to own their stock. Naturally we should allow a divestment period.

Otherwise, pretending like you do that they would "listen", how do you believe a bloc can curtail the ownership society? Their transactions are all done in milliseconds at the beginning of every trading day. How can anyone or anything not transferring billions compete? Not in good faith, you say? No kidding..

And you are right, since the inception of the privatized monetization system laws are looooong since required to limit their obstruction to responsible economic fluidity operating not to impoverish fellow citizens. How kooky that inflation hasn't ever been adjusted for the 99% paying us "what we are worth". The poorest are such a vast majority that the disservice to democracy historically describes billionaires as more a hostile alien economic force. Well, whatever they hope to be doesn't appear to include the "for all" part of any Constitutional value whatsoever. I have a squirrel helping me type, so forgive if this is redundant.

#17 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2020-10-11 06:56 PM | Reply

#17

Honestly, I'm gonna have to re-read that a few times to digest it...

#18 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-11 07:07 PM | Reply

People support corporate sell outs then complain that the rich get richer and poor are pooreq and then they throw a tizzy fit over anyone who refuses to play that game. Same as it ever was.

POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2020-10-10 10:41 PM | REPLY | FLAGGED FUNNY BY ANGRYDAD

You laugh but deep down you know I'm correct.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-11 08:15 PM | Reply

We are on the cusp of great change. Biden won't stop that. The fact is that 50 people are more wealthy than hundreds of millions, and more importantly, are able to use that wealth to buy policy that augments their reach.

Means that something has got to give. The oligarchs Never surrender their piles without a fight.

In the end they always do, often over their dead bodies.

Then new oligarch wannabes see openings and the process begins again.

The whole economic system is tainted.

#20 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-11 08:50 PM | Reply

The result of almost 50 years of
TRICKLE DOWN (RACE UPWARDS) ECONOMICS...

Wtg GOP! You Russia loving Commies!

#21 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-11 09:26 PM | Reply

Eff,

"Means that something has got to give"

I believe excessive debt will be the catalyst when even the government can't borrow enough to pay the bills.

Like it or not Trump is correct that we just reopen businesses.

People must get back to work and hope for the best.

Keeping businesses closed and not earning money is bankrupting businesses and families.

Trump has the right idea.

It just sucks it has to be this way.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-11 09:59 PM | Reply

What to do about the super rich hoarding money is another issue.

Like Eff said, it's a systematic problem.

#23 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-11 10:11 PM | Reply

Trump is dead wrong Bill. You can't economy the economy when you're in the grave. Had we shut everything down except your bearest of ecentuals we could have nipped a lot of this in the bud much quicker.

#24 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-10-11 10:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"it's a systematic problem."

It's the tax code.

A 25 yr old Trust Fund Baby can get $50,000 in dividends from Proctor & Gamble and owe ZERO federal taxes. Meanwhile, a janitor profiting $50,000 via sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10,000 in federal taxes.

Similarly, if you give $20,000 to your daughter, you could be liable for gift taxes. Meanwhile, an estate can pass over $22 million to the kids, tax-free...but that's only for pikers. The fat cats use GRATs, where you can pass unlimited amounts to your kids, tax-free. Sheldon Adelson passed $8 Billion to his kids that way, and avoided $2.3 Billion in taxes.

Guess whose portion of the debt gets larger every time that happens? The person in your mirror.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-11 10:29 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The rich in America are not afraid of the poor. The rich in Europe and Asia are.

Meaning,that the poor have got to shake up the system. BLM has the right idea,but the wrong cause.

Unified opposition to the corporations. Something that Americans never do. Standing up to the Boss. Boycotts, strikes, blocking traffic en masse. Like the French yellow helmets.

Make the government regulate industry.

Never happen here. Every one thinks their gonna be rich too. Americans are so dumb.

If we wise up,we can have nice things too.

#26 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2020-10-11 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- It's the tax code.

The best tax code money can buy!

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-11 10:50 PM | Reply

"People support corporate sell outs then complain that the rich get richer and poor are pooreq"

Except that the poor aren't getting poorer.

It's good for memes though.

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 04:31 AM | Reply

"Madbomber will be along shortly to once again explain how the poorest Americans are in the 1%."

Probably not the poorest Americans.

They would likely only be in the top 5%.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 04:32 AM | Reply

The righty tightys are like the feeders on a 600lb life episode... feeding this self-destructive whale to avoid listening to it cry... because when it cries it means the feeder is a failure. The feeders not only hold the whale hostage but everyone else as well.

Republicl0wns are disgusting people doing disgusting things to the country... all to feed the pigs.

#30 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-10-12 04:32 AM | Reply

"Well obviously those 165,000,000 Americans contribute less to our society than those 50 billionaires."

If you've used Amazon or googles anything today, you've already answered your own question.

#31 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 04:33 AM | Reply

"Perhaps we need a wealth cap at 2 billion which can be adjust for inflation every 80 years."

Are you sure you want to tell high income earners they're not allowed to engage in wealth creating activities once they've amassed $2 billion?

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 04:34 AM | Reply

"You keep saying all this crap, but the truth is that every time a measure to curtail runaway capitalism is attempted it is stonewalled by an obstructionist Republican party, leading to necessary compromise to avoid a deadlock."

Just so that we're clear...t's not capitalism that's creating inequality. That's a function of the free market. Capitalism may be the enabler, so long as individuals have the freedom to manage their wealth and resources in whatever manner befits them best, you're going to have inequality. The only way to counter that is through force. By the government preventing it from happening.

If you wanted to put a dent in income inequality today, the easiest, least painful method would be to impose restrictions availability of credit. But I think you would get a lot of complaints, from both lenders and borrowers.

#33 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 04:40 AM | Reply

If you've used Amazon or googles anything today, you've already answered your own question.

#31 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-12 04:33 AM | FLAG: EYE ROLL

Fine... so where are Amazon and Ebay if everyone stopped using them?

The reason people are so upset about the rabble not going back to work ... is because... Amazon and Ebay don't exist without consumers. Amazon Ebay and Wall Street need to come to terms with the fact that the rabble wants more... and will get it... one way or the other... always do.

You do know this kind of socio-economic attitude and climate is how it started in Russia, China, and even Mexico before they were reduced to rubble from within for decades... indeed all of Europe.

add to that 75 years of US war losses... no one thinks we are a superpower anymore... leader of the free world my @$$

#34 | Posted by RightisTrite at 2020-10-12 08:01 AM | Reply

"Probably not the poorest Americans.
They would likely only be in the top 5%.

#29 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER AT 2020-10-12 04:32 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)"

Two things on that: 1) youre made up stat is flat out incorrect nominally as the world's average salary is $1,480 per month, well above the US poverty rate and 2) you don't even understand PPP, or include it into any equation about comparative global economic status.

www.bbc.com

Stop it, just stop. You are so wrong about this stuff. I know you want the rest of the world to live in abject poverty like you want poor Americans to do, but you ignore all the data that shows that the U.S. getting left behind.

As far #33, just stop again. Your declaration that capitalism doesn't create inequality is as accurate as anything you've said about the subject.

You are so wrong about everything man. I even think you mean well, but you believe absolute BS and then try to preach to everyone. We have enough idiots occupying lanes that they have no business occupying. Go back to blowing things up, it's probably less destructive than spewing economic misinformation.

#35 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-12 08:11 AM | Reply

Laura,

"Trump is dead wrong Bill. You can't economy the economy when you're in the grave. Had we shut everything down except your bearest of ecentuals we could have nipped a lot of this in the bud much quicker."

At the risk of being too personal, when did you last hold a full time job?

From your history your posting seems like you dont have a job.

Personally I think anyone who lives perpetually on the dole is disqualified from participating in discussions about when businesses should reopen and people return to working fulltime.

I mean...they don't really care if anyone ever goes back to work ever.

#36 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 09:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

....and would prefer everyone stay home until this thing is over.

They are overly biased.

#37 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 09:56 AM | Reply

Don't get me wrong.

People who actually need financial assistance shouldn't be shamed.

It's just that some opinions about reopening the economy carries less weight as far as I'm concerned.

They are too baised in favor of people staying home.

#38 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 10:10 AM | Reply

"spewing economic misinformation."

He's not doing that. You may disagree with his lack of empathy for poor and middle class Americans but it's not misinformation.

I think one of the big disconnects on this issue is trying to tie the wealthy to everyone else here in the United States.

The wealthiest 50 Americans own global companies with income sourcing from all over the globe.

It's not the same trade territory we're comparing things to.

I fully agree with our problem with wealth disparity and how it impacts our govt. and I'm fine with a tax code that helps middle class and poor Americans.

Perhaps with some people showing up on election day and voting accordingly, we can see some changes.

#39 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 10:32 AM | Reply

#39

No Eberly, his facts are statistically false.

That is misinformation, not difference of opinion.

#40 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-12 10:48 AM | Reply

Not only are his raw numbers false, but he neglects to incorporate the most basic statistic of global economic analysis, Purchase Power Parity.

This is my lane.

#41 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-12 10:49 AM | Reply

"it's not misinformation."

It absolutely is.

MB has a bad habit of grabbing onto one statistic, and drawing a very misinterpreted conclusion.

#42 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-12 11:06 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The reason people are so upset about the rabble not going back to work ... is because... Amazon and Ebay don't exist without consumers. Amazon Ebay and Wall Street need to come to terms with the fact that the rabble wants more... and will get it... one way or the other... always do."

You're right. They generally do. Which is why there are no income quintiles that are making less money than their predecessors were 50 years ago.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 12:17 PM | Reply

"I know you want the rest of the world to live in abject poverty like you want poor Americans to do, but you ignore all the data that shows that the U.S. getting left behind."

That's not even remotely close to being true. Because of capitalism and the globalization of the marketplace, there are now more middle class people on earth than not. Really, it's the same forces that have drastically reduced global poverty are the same that have enabled increases in income.

And I'm not sure how you quantify the US being left behind. It would be difficult to measure those metrics now with the ongoing COVID problem, but leading up to the pandemic US household income was at an all-time high.

#44 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 12:22 PM | Reply

MadTroller is probably the best, current, troll on the DR.

He's not even discussing the topic of the thread.

He excels at moving goalposts and obstructing discussion.

"Socialism is Fascism!"

"There's no such thing as a poor American."

Thanks for your two cents.

#45 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 12:29 PM | Reply

"Your declaration that capitalism doesn't create inequality is as accurate as anything you've said about the subject."

I think you're conflating free markets an capitalism. Capitalism in the engine that powers the economy, but it is still driven by people. And with a few minor exceptions, this is true regardless of where you go in the world. Go ahead, pick a country.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 12:33 PM | Reply

"Go back to blowing things up, it's probably less destructive than spewing economic misinformation."

Are you a professor of economics? If you think I came up with this stuff, you give me too much credit. I'm mostly a product of my education. I have a BSBA in International Business and an MBA with a focus on economic strategy. I don't know what your academic pedigree loos like, but if you were taught something else, I'd like to hear about it. I'm kind of a nerd when it comes to econ.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 12:38 PM | Reply

"MB has a bad habit of grabbing onto one statistic, and drawing a very misinterpreted conclusion."

One statistic?

Like saying "50 Richest Americans Are Wealthier Than Poorest 165,000,000?"

#48 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 12:43 PM | Reply

"MB has a bad habit of grabbing onto one statistic, and drawing a very inconvenient truth"

FT

#49 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 12:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"his facts are statistically false."

Present your case then.

#50 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 12:46 PM | Reply

50 Richest Americans Are Wealthier Than Poorest 165,000,000?

This is true, MadTroller.

You can't disprove it.

All you can do is move goal posts and obfuscate.

#51 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 12:47 PM | Reply

Present your case then.
#50 | POSTED BY EBERLY

He has Eberly. Too bad you can't read.

All you've done is rushed in to support MB and cheerlead.

It's all you're good at.

You dumbfffk.

#52 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 12:49 PM | Reply

Mythbomber with his, "But, but.... Somalia!" nonsense yet again.

His solution? Credit restrictions on the poor.

When a much better solution is FDR-ish progressive taxation rather than a tax code that allows the rich to pay, "less than their secretary" pays.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-12 12:54 PM | Reply

"You can't disprove it. All you can do is move goal posts and obfuscate."

I totally believe it. I'm just not sure why I should care. Statistically no one in this country was getting poorer prior to COVID. And the vast majority of people were getting richer.

And there is no link between the earning potential of the highest income earner and the lowest. You could wipe the top 1% off the face of the planet and it would do little or nothing to impact the value of the labor of the bottom 50%.

#54 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 01:05 PM | Reply

"When a much better solution is FDR-ish progressive taxation rather than a tax code that allows the rich to pay, "less than their secretary" pays."

I think you've heard me say on numerous occasions that if the US wants an economy like those found in western Europe, they first need to adopt the wester European funding scheme. So...a VAT.

#55 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 01:07 PM | Reply

And tax rates aren't all that important when you can deduct much of what you owe.

When the TRA 86 was passed, it was done so largely at the expense of high income earners. The rates themselves were lowered, but so was the number of deductions you could take.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 01:09 PM | Reply

.-VAT.

Wasn't necessary from 1940's to the late '70's during the time of our highest economic growth.

Perhaps you should address the facts instead of whining about the people who supposedly will tinkle down their largess upon you....

It's the tax code.
A 25 yr old Trust Fund Baby can get $50,000 in dividends from Proctor & Gamble and owe ZERO federal taxes. Meanwhile, a janitor profiting $50,000 via sweat-of-the-brow labor owes over $10,000 in federal taxes.

Similarly, if you give $20,000 to your daughter, you could be liable for gift taxes. Meanwhile, an estate can pass over $22 million to the kids, tax-free...but that's only for pikers. The fat cats use GRATs, where you can pass unlimited amounts to your kids, tax-free. Sheldon Adelson passed $8 Billion to his kids that way, and avoided $2.3 Billion in taxes.

Guess whose portion of the debt gets larger every time that happens? The person in your mirror.

#25 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2020-10-11 10:29 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)
| NEWSWORTHY 2

#57 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-12 01:21 PM | Reply

"Wasn't necessary from 1940's to the late '70's during the time of our highest economic growth."

It's not necessary now. But if society wants things like government-provided healthcare and education, it needs to be paid for.

I'm guessing you think that bill should be sent to the top 1% or something. That's OK. I have no problems if they want to pay it...I just don't think they will. Just like Sheldon Adelson didn't.

#58 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-12 01:33 PM | Reply

This is what 50 yrs of
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS,
and the GOP's destruction
of the Labor Unions has given
us... Record Economic Disparity,
and a lack of high paying jobs...

Glad my union father didn't live
to see this.

#59 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-12 01:50 PM | Reply

- That's OK. I have no problems if they want to pay it.

I don't believe you; Ayn Rand wouldn't approve.

- I just don't think they will.

They will just like they did during the period I cited. These people are just greedy, they aren't stupid enough to go to jail.

also:
A person in Sweden making about $3500/month has an income tax of about 25-28%.
The property tax as been abolished and is now a "fee" that can never be more than $900/year.
30% of all interest paid is deducted from taxes.

There is no need for medical insurance or to save up for education as all that is included in your taxes. As is elder care.

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-12 01:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

MB- I have nearly the same academic credentials as you claim to have, BA in IR with a focus on MERCOSUR and other trading blocs as they relate to the Americas and Asia.

I dropped out before completing my thesis in Public Policy, focusing on FDI inflows to developing countries but I tried to analyze Cuba for my thesis when there wasn't enough info. So, I dropped out and took a job as an analyst for FedEx.

For most of the past 5 years I compile data and work quality control for a major national economic indicator.

Which is why I don't believe you. I literally studied how FDI and globalism affected the world economy... from a case by case basis. Yes, it is true that capitalism has helped raise the cumulative standard of living. It has also led to perverse income inequality.

That's why mixed markets succeed more than unregulated markets... unless you are investing in them and profiting off of the lack of equality.

Eberly-

I posted the link in #35 that proves my argument.

#61 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-12 02:39 PM | Reply

The economy is comparable to a casino, where the 1% are the owners(aka 'the house'). Anyone who understands how gambling works also understands that the odds are most always in favor of 'the house'.

The fact that very wealthy people continue to use their wealth to increase their wealth, while the less fortunate must spend their savings simply to survive during this crisis, should surprise no one.

But this is the Republican vision of a 'free market'

#62 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-12 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

-I posted the link in #35 that proves my argument.

My bad. I missed that originally.

#63 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 02:51 PM | Reply

#63

All good, it's not the best article but it was a quick Google search. A deeper dive will find more detailed info... Wikipedia will too for that matter.

#64 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-12 02:54 PM | Reply

-But this is the Republican vision of a 'free market'

Looks more like your vision of how it works than anything else.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 02:59 PM | Reply

#65

Not just my opinion. But how in your opinion is that wrong?

#66 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-12 03:32 PM | Reply

So what's the cutoff number here? I'm sure I'm richer than many Americans, so does that make me a bad person to Dems? I know for a fact many Dems are richer than a huge amount of Americans. So, what is the magic number that indicates where the line should be? Please tell us what number, in a free country, is OK for amount of wealth above others? Should someone only be able to be richer than 500 Americans? 5,000? A million? I'm all for saying there should be some way to make it more fair but Libs don't see it from that perspective. All Libs do is whine and cry about anything that isn't perfect. There are no suggestions of standards or thresholds.

#67 | Posted by humtake at 2020-10-12 03:34 PM | Reply

Beverly is such a snarky *itch.

#68 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 03:34 PM | Reply

Whats,

Lets not forget collusion.

Using your fictional casino. What if some people cheat and the casino knows it yet lets it continue until they get caught by one of the other players and makes a stink.

#69 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 03:35 PM | Reply

I'm sure I'm richer than many Americans,

Thanks for sharing.

You're the perfect representation of a Trump supporter.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 03:36 PM | Reply

What if...
#69 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

You really are dumb.

Just abysmally stupid.

#71 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 03:38 PM | Reply

-But how in your opinion is that wrong?

well, it's not that it's wrong but you have to understand the analogy.

You understand it fine...but the analogy is lost on many, if not most.

#72 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-12 03:48 PM | Reply

#72 | POSTED BY EBERLY

What cowardice.

At least answer the question to defend your own statements.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 03:50 PM | Reply

Clown,

"You're the perfect representation of a Trump supporter."

You are right. Some people are money snobs.

But...it's not just Republicans.

And there's all kinds of snobs.

You should listen to intellectual snobs trying to impress each other with their knowledge..(hey some are pretty educated...but still snobs).

Surely you've heard a few of those.

Well...maybe not in your case.

Or morality snobs espousing their wisdom how Democrats are better people....well...right after burning one.

I think the Democratic Party should use the slogan, "No one cares more than us".

#74 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 08:06 PM | Reply

You are right. Some people are money snobs.

My point seems to have sailed over your head.

#75 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-12 08:10 PM | Reply

Clown,

My point was from what I've seen a lot of the financial problems today have come from abuse of the system and lax oversight.

I mean...it was around the 80's I noticed a shift in attitude where the ends justified the means.

And you think it was only republicans enjoying this new freedom to push the limits.

#76 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 08:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-..it was around the 80's I noticed a shift in attitude where the ends justified the means.

Very observant of you, BJ.

It was better known as the Reagan admin... as detailed here by admin insiders.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

www.rollingstone.com

I may have actually posted it here before. I have a plan to have the url engraved on MB's forehead.

#77 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-12 09:36 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Corky,

Yes...Reagan.

His budget director who coined "trickle down" later called it a "trojan horse".

I never voted Republican again after Reagan until Trump and I don't have any regrets.

The drudge report has a article up about evangelical scotus voters.

I was one of them and seems just as I have said on here, I was not alone in my views.

Will I vote for Trump or Biden this time?

I'll never tell.

#78 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 10:02 PM | Reply

Evangelical SCOTUS voters of the 2016 election...to be more clear.

#79 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 10:05 PM | Reply

"Will I vote for Trump or Biden this time? I'll never tell."

You already have.

You stated you'd vote for Biden, if RBG died and Trump could nominate who he wanted.

So we all know.

You'll vote for Trump.

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-12 10:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Will I vote for Trump or Biden this time?

Trump. No question.

#81 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-10-12 10:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Corky,

It was worse than you know.

I was attending a conservative southern baptist church at the time and it seems Christianity had also found a new and improved version of the prosperity doctrine.

"God wants you to be rich".

Again...the ends justified the means.

Corky....greed is greed.

Don't be deluded into thinking only Republicans are greedy.

It's a universal problem and worse now today.

It's no longer discouraged.

Our shameless culture sings it's praises and worships the rich.

#82 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2020-10-12 10:15 PM | Reply

Yeah, Bill, how's that "conservative justices" werking out for you guys?

I hear a lot of you are highly disappointed in the picks so far.

Maybe this one will burn down 20 million people's heath care and woman's medical decisions all at once.

- deluded

Um, Dems have a much more fair policy agenda, including campaign finance reform, health care, education, and progressive taxation.

- shameless culture

Kids today get a bad rap, but they are less likely to be racist, greedy (minimalism is popular), sexist, or corporate than much of the culture.

Voting for Trump is the least "Christian" thing I can think of doing in a polling booth.

#83 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-12 10:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OK let me rephrase that last line....

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-12 10:27 PM | Reply

"Evangelical SCOTUS voters of the 2016 election"

aka, Hypocrites to the nth degree. Ignorant ones, at that: Jesus never said a word about abortion, but talked often about feeding the poor, caring for the sick, and attending to the needy.

But they'll vote for the guy who regularly breaks half the Commandments, over the guy who tries to live the Beatitudes.

And feel righteous all the way to the voting booth.

#85 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-12 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"And feel righteous all the way to the voting booth."

You know the type: the only time they'll pick up a Bible is when they want to strike someone with it.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-12 10:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Not sure about the top 50 I'm no where near that but if I recall correctly the group that pays the most in taxes by percent of income is those with incomes in the 125k ballpark (probably a bit higher now that was a couple years ago)

They pay on average 21.5% Federal then their full income in subject to FICA so 6.2% more there. They spend a large majority of their income so sales tax on that. Then add in property taxes an the average person at 125k is paying around 35% tax rate not counting state which in my state pushes that to 40%.

Frankly this is the part that frustrates me about these talks about the wealthy vs the poor. The middle always gets left out and so they always get screwed. Too rich for the democrats to care about too poor for the republicans to care about.

#87 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-10-13 06:57 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The anatomy of a communist/socialist:

Wants the wealthy to hand over their money as in "vun for all, all for vun."
Biches about Amazon, then has an Amazon Prime account.
Calls Conservatives deplorable uneducated trash, and in the next breath tell us that its the rich repubs causing all the trouble.

#88 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2020-10-13 07:47 AM | Reply

"They will just like they did during the period I cited. These people are just greedy, they aren't stupid enough to go to jail."

OK. Would your plan be to reinstate the same set of deductions that were available at the time?

"There is no need for medical insurance or to save up for education as all that is included in your taxes. As is elder care."

Yep.

And Sweden has a 25% VAT on standard goods and services. Like I said previously, if you want those things, you have to be willing to pay for them. I'm not sure why you seem so against the VAT when it's an integral part of the societies you seem to want to emulate.

#89 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 08:32 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Like it or not Trump is correct that we just reopen businesses.

People must get back to work and hope for the best.

There is a correct way to do it and a dangerous way to do it.

Hope for the best is let the disease kill off 2,000,000 or so instead of putting a piece of ------- cloth over your face.

There is a smart way to reopen and a stupid way to reopen. The GOP is consistently taking the stupid path because it is the easiest laziest way to do so.

Foolish ignorance at it's finest.

#90 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-10-13 08:49 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You know the type: the only time they'll pick up a Bible is when they want to strike someone with it.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-12 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Or hold it upside down for a photo op.

#91 | Posted by Nixon at 2020-10-13 08:51 AM | Reply

"Which is why I don't believe you. I literally studied how FDI and globalism affected the world economy... from a case by case basis. Yes, it is true that capitalism has helped raise the cumulative standard of living. It has also led to perverse income inequality."

So, this is a fact. Globalization has created a global population that now contains more middle class people than not. Do you think those people who have escaped poverty would prefer to return to a time when they were poorer, if the result was a lower gini coefficient?

But that's more of a global phenomenon. Here in the US, inequality really began with the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that Credit Card (Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp) lenders would not be subject to individual state's usury laws, but rather only to the states in which they were charted. Citibank moved it's credit card division from NYC to South Dakota for just that reason. Credit cards had existed prior to that, but had never been a profitable enterprise. In 1978, the year the ruling was made, credit card debt began to increase dramatically as more and more cards were made available to the general public as a result of the lifted restrictions.

Credit card lenders like nothing more than clients who max out their cards, providing a constant revenue stream to those lenders. Additionally, restrictions on credit for mortgages and other high dollar purchases have eased as well. At 45, I was always told that your house should cost around 3x your annual household income. Median household income is currently sitting at ~$61k per year, which means that the median house should cost around $183k. Instead, the median household cost (Sept 2020) is $313k. Again, providing more interest payments to lenders.

If you're honest about caring about income inequality...this is where you start. You limit the availability of credit.

#92 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 09:42 AM | Reply

"That's why mixed markets succeed more than unregulated markets... unless you are investing in them and profiting off of the lack of equality."

Equality is not something you, I, or anyone else can profit from. For me to profit, I have to give my money to someone else and hope they can use it to generate wealth.

If inequality were something we could profit on, we'd be investing all our money in Africa.

#93 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 09:46 AM | Reply

"You are right. Some people are money snobs. But...it's not just Republicans. And there's all kinds of snobs."

If you really wanna get a Dem fired up, get to talking about limits to the SALT deductions.

#94 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 09:49 AM | Reply

50 Richest Americans

and, most of those would be Democrats

#95 | Posted by Maverick at 2020-10-13 10:57 AM | Reply

#92

Research says you are wrong:

ourworldindata.org

#93

Research says you are wrong:

www.ft.com

#94

Was an obvious, politically motivated attempt to screw over wealthier people in Blue states to rile up the base.

#96 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Research says you are wrong:"

Not at all. You're telling me where we are...not how we got here. I'm telling you how we got there.

In order to address the problem, you first need to understand it.

"Was an obvious, politically motivated attempt to screw over wealthier people in Blue states to rile up the base."

OK?

Is that any different than politically motivated attempts by left-leaning politicians to rile up their base?

Hell, Bernie said he would do ban the availability of private healthcare and eliminate billionaires. Do you think that messaging was intended for the median household?

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 11:18 AM | Reply

And I'm not sure what your problem is. I literally listed key contributors to income inequality. It's like your arguing simply for the sake of arguing.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 11:19 AM | Reply

#98

For crying out loud, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing I'm arguing that your constant assertion that the poorest Americans are relatively wealthy globally. And as a side argument that the current system has created exponential gains for the most wealthy while leaving a large impoverished underclass.

We used to call it Colonialism, but now it's done with money.

#99 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 11:27 AM | Reply

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing

MadTroller is.

He's not even that good. Once enough time passes he just brings up prior talking points that have already been debunked.

He's gotta be lonely. Seems desperate for conversation.

#100 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-13 11:30 AM | Reply

"For crying out loud, I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing I'm arguing that your constant assertion that the poorest Americans are relatively wealthy globally."

"Poor" is a relative term, but at virtually any lower income level you're going be as well off as anyone anywhere else, especially with regards to standard of living. If you make $2,000 a month in Honduras, you're pretty fancy relative to most, but it's not like it's going to get you much more than $2k a month would get you in the US. In fact, it might get you far less depending on the market.

But maybe you could try pointing out where you would want to live as a low income earner? It seems like there are more of those trying to make their way here than there are trying to leave.

#101 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 11:42 AM | Reply

"And as a side argument that the current system has created exponential gains for the most wealthy while leaving a large impoverished underclass."

A large impoverished underclass? Are we talking about somewhere other than the US?

As of 2019, the poverty rate was 10.5%. It may be worse due to COVID...but the "system?"

And speaking of the system, what exactly does this nebulous entity to that results in poverty for those would otherwise not be impoverished?

#102 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 11:46 AM | Reply

"He's gotta be lonely. Seems desperate for conversation."

Back to your corner, stupid.

#103 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 11:46 AM | Reply

Reading is Fundamental MB, Read the articles I posted. They get paid to rehash this ad nauseum.

I promise all your questions will be answered.

#104 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 11:51 AM | Reply

Back to your corner, stupid.
#103 | POSTED BY MADTROLLER

Don't you fret, I have zero interest in humoring you.

You're already a fat troll.

#105 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-13 11:56 AM | Reply

I would want to live in a country where despite my low income, I still have relatively stable access to food, shelter, and health care.

#106 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 11:58 AM | Reply

I honestly don't think MB is a troll, he just follows a school of economics that is based on false assumptions (as most historical economic systems are, it's an evolving science)

But MUCH to your chagrin, modified Keynesianism incorporating some Friedmanesque inflation control measures with a sight Marxist progression is the most effective economic system. It's like how Sabremetrics changed baseball.

Now don't freak out, that by definition eradicates any move towards extremism on any level, but this kind of hybrid economy works best for all (Except for those 50 billionaires, but they certainly won't go hungry either).

#107 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 12:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

* Slight not Sight

#108 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 12:08 PM | Reply

Just on a side note, however. This thread has had 109 comments on it now, and not a single comment has been deleted.

Civility may be on it's way back.

#109 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 12:21 PM | Reply

"Reading is Fundamental MB, Read the articles I posted. They get paid to rehash this ad nauseum."

Maybe the one behind the paywall. The other was a compendium of where we are, but nothing about how we got there.

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 01:34 PM | Reply

"But MUCH to your chagrin, modified Keynesianism incorporating some Friedmanesque inflation control measures with a sight Marxist progression is the most effective economic system."

I'm far more aligned when Keynesian theory than classical. Classicalists believe that markets will clear instantly as a result of changing information. Works for simpler economic analysis, but doesn't paint the full picture. Most people, left and right, conflate Keynesian theory with some sort of socialism. Not even close, but I think that many people's views on Keynes were shaped primarily by Galbraith.

And I'm not Reagan worshipper, but Reagan's investment it defense spending is a pretty classical example Keynesian theory in execution. I'm probably more critical of the Chicago school and monetarist policy because it provides the government with the ability to regulate the value of money. Most people would probably disagree with me on that, and my discomfort is not so much what has happened, but what could happen.

Marxian economic theory was predicated on the relevance of the Labor Theory of Value. And the labor theory of value has no value. Furthermore, Marxian economic theory would have only applied to utilitarian goods, not services or differentiated products. So...not much use in conducting any sort of useful economic analysis. Even philosophically, Marx prophesized that capitalism would eventually create a class of very rich and very poor. Instead, it's created the very rich and the less rich. The huddling masses have yet to revolt because they can't feed their kids. Although some may revolt if they don't get a new iPhone or something else they thing they deserve. But that's a J-curve discussion...not really an econ thing.

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 01:55 PM | Reply

"Now don't freak out, that by definition eradicates any move towards extremism on any level, but this kind of hybrid economy works best for all."

I live in Germany. I think they have a pretty solid system. But I don't think there are many in the US, left or right, who would support something like this here over there.

#112 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 01:56 PM | Reply

- Instead, it's created the very rich and the less rich.

More with the "But, but... Somalia!" BS.

In THIS country, crony capitalism since Reagan has created the very rich and the comparatively very poor, and the comparatively very, very poor, and that according to his economic advisors was The Plan:

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich
The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent

www.rollingstone.com

None of your myths change that fact.

#113 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-13 02:10 PM | Reply

"And I'm not Reagan worshipper, but Reagan's investment it defense spending is a pretty classical example Keynesian theory in execution."

What do you mean?
What did Reagan's defense spending do that showed Keynes theory in action?

#114 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 02:19 PM | Reply

"In THIS country, crony capitalism since Reagan has created the very rich and the comparatively very poor"

Absolutely.

If a person makes $61k a year, but are sitting in a room full of millionaires, they're comparatively poor.

But still a long way from poverty. Most likely. Getting close though if they have eight or more kids.

#115 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:24 PM | Reply

"What do you mean? What did Reagan's defense spending do that showed Keynes theory in action?"

Yes.

Reagan was a Keynesian. I don't think he would have admitted to it though.

#116 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:25 PM | Reply

- they're comparatively poor. But still a long way from poverty

Which is an example of the inequity of this crony capitalist economic system. Inequity doesn't require all on one side of the equation to live in abject poverty.

Your Marie Antoinette economics notwithstanding.

#117 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-13 02:29 PM | Reply

"None of your myths change that fact."

Rolling Stone huh?

Maybe that's where I would have gone for the latest economic news...when I was a teenager. Before I had ever taken an econ class.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:30 PM | Reply

"Which is an example of the inequity of this crony capitalist economic system. Inequity doesn't require all on one side of the equation to live in abject poverty."

Then what difference does it make? Does Jeff Bezos owe anything to his millionaire neighbors because they make less money than him?

"Your Marie Antoinette economics notwithstanding."

Maybe.

Maybe Bezo's neighbors will soon be rallying with pitchfork's, demanding he buy them new yachts or planes or something.

#119 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:35 PM | Reply

And since we're sharing articles, I'm going to be a dove and share one of my favorites. Originally published in The Economist. Fair warning, there probably bigger words and loftier ideas than what you'd see in your average Rolling Stone article:

"When Americans hear the words "poor" and "white", they think of someone like Mr Banks. He has half a dozen cars in varying states of disrepair parked outside his trailer, car-parts everywhere and a pile of crushed Pepsi cans below his porch.
He "draws" $521 a month in supplemental security income (a form of cash assistance for the elderly, poor and disabled). He laments that the authorities deduct $67 a month because he won $3,600 on the slot machines. Why, he asks, won't they
take account of all the money he has lost gambling? It is a fair question. If middleclass America had this problem, accountants would surely find a way round it. Mr Banks also complains that he cannot draw food stamps. In order to qualify, he would
have to sell his truck, which he cannot bear to part with.

Mr Banks would probably be surprised to hear that, thousands of miles away in central Africa, there lives a prominent surgeon whose monthly income is roughly the same as his. Mbwebwe Kabamba is the head of the emergency department at the main public hospital in
Kinshasa, the capital of the Democratic Republic of Congo. After 28 years as a doctor, his salary is only $250 a month, but by operating on private patients after hours, he ekes it out to $600 or $700. Given the lower cost of living in Congo, one might guess that Dr Kabamba is better
off than Mr Banks. But the doctor has to support an extended family of 12, whereas Mr Banks's ex-wife and three sons claim public assistance. Indeed, the reason Mr. Banks split up from his wife, he says, is because they can draw more benefits separately. She still lives in the trailer next door.

Why juxtapose the lives of a poor man in a rich country and a relatively well-off man in a poor one? The exercise is useful for two reasons. First, it puts the rich world's wealth into context. A Congolese doctor, a man most other Congolese would consider wealthy, is worse off materially than most poor people in America. That, in itself, is striking."

online.sfsu.edu

#120 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 02:38 PM | Reply

"Mr Banks would probably be surprised to hear that, thousands of miles away in central Africa, there lives a prominent surgeon whose monthly income is roughly the same as his."

Good for him.
How's the surgeon's expenses compare?
Does he too have to pay $67 a month on his winnings?

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 02:45 PM | Reply

"What do you mean? What did Reagan's defense spending do that showed Keynes theory in action?"

"Yes."

Yes is not an answer.

Show me how the effects of Reagan's defense spending fits Keynes theory.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 02:46 PM | Reply

"A Congolese doctor, a man most other Congolese would consider wealthy, is worse off materially than most poor people in America."

What does "worse off materially" mean?

#123 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 02:49 PM | Reply

"Given the lower cost of living in Congo, one might guess that Dr Kabamba is better
off than Mr Banks. But the doctor has to support an extended family of 12, whereas Mr Banks's ex-wife and three sons claim public assistance."

Sure looks to me like the doctor is much better off.

Looks like there's no way Mr. Banks could support an extended family, seeing as he can barely support himself.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 02:58 PM | Reply

Central to Keynesian policy is the notion that government spending can counteract adverse economic forces. During the great depression, FDR created programs like the New Deal to provide jobs. Reagan invested in defense spending.

#125 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:05 PM | Reply

But it was the same basic principle.

#126 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:05 PM | Reply

"Central to Keynesian policy is the notion that government spending can counteract adverse economic forces."

Say what?
Which economic theory doesn't think that?
???

#127 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:07 PM | Reply

"What does "worse off materially" mean?"

Since reading the article appears to be too much effort...

"Dr Kabamba's income fluctuates with his country's fortunes. His $250-a-month salary is a fivefold increase from last year, and the fact that it is paid only two months in arrears is an improvement too. The cause of his good fortune is that
Congo was given a huge debt write-off when the civil war ended in 2003, so there is more money around.

What do Dr Kabamba's wages buy? He has a four-bedroom house with a kitchen and living room, which would be ample if there weren't 12 people under his roof. His home would be deemed unacceptably overcrowded in America. Even among the 37m Americans officially classed as poor, only 6% live in
homes with more occupants than rooms.

Having seen how doctors live elsewhere, Dr Kabamba would quite like running water and a regular power supply. His family fetches water in jars and the electricity comes on maybe twice a week. Air-conditioning would be nice, but "that's only for VIPs," says Dr Kabamba.

In America, three-quarters of poor households have air conditioning. Dr Kabamba earns enough to feed his children, but not as well as he would like. The family eats meat about twice a month; Dr Kabamba calls it "a great luxury". In America, poor children eat more meat than the well-to-do. In fact, they get twice as much protein as their government says is good for them, which is why the Wal-Mart near Mr Banks sells such enormous jeans."

#128 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:09 PM | Reply

"Say what? Which economic theory doesn't think that?"

You may be a bit out of your league here. Corky posted Rolling Stone's version of what's what in economics. That might be more your speed.

#129 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:10 PM | Reply

"During the great depression, FDR created programs like the New Deal to provide jobs. Reagan invested in defense spending."

Those are very different.

Shovel ready high school dropout jobs vs. college grad defense contractor jobs.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Which economic theory doesn't think that?"

But to answer you question, classicalists...if they exist anymore...hold that markets will respond instantaneously to changing information.

#131 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:11 PM | Reply

"Say what? Which economic theory doesn't think that?"

"You may be a bit out of your league here."

Don't be a cutie pie.

Just answer the question, or say you don't know.

#132 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:12 PM | Reply

"Those are very different.

Those are very not different. It's all very much the government spending money to stimulate the economy. Especially within the context of the timeframes of each effort.

#133 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:13 PM | Reply

"Just answer the question, or say you don't know."

I did answer.

But you're out of your element, Theodore Donald.

#134 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-13 03:14 PM | Reply

"Those are very not different."

Uh, yeah they are. One provides public works, the other provides private profits.

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:15 PM | Reply

"I did answer."

Nope.

Which economic theory disputes that "government spending can counteract adverse economic forces."

Name names.

#136 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:17 PM | Reply

"It's all very much the government spending money to stimulate the economy."

You live to ignore magnitudes.

Electrifying the Tennesee Valley does a whole lot more to stimulate the economy, compared to spending the same amount of money to build a missile.

#137 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:39 PM | Reply

My plonk list is clearly making this thread unreadable but let me guess... this is the thread where somebody is arguing that poor people in this country fare better than the poor in the third world while ignoring that the poor in this country are forced to pay first world prices for food and shelter. Am I close to the mark?

#138 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2020-10-13 03:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

"But to answer you question, classicalists...if they exist anymore...hold that markets will respond instantaneously to changing information."

Say what?

That doesn't refute the concept that "government spending can counteract adverse economic forces."

"All models are wrong. Some models are useful." -- George E. P. Box

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 03:56 PM | Reply

Sorry, I thought this thread was done, it's off my front page but two things:

"Marxian economic theory was predicated on the relevance of the Labor Theory of Value. And the labor theory of value has no value."

This is where we differ, and facts differ with you.

Labor is gasoline, or blood. Without it the engine/body doesn't run, so of course it has much value, if not the most value.

Second: What Hagbard said in #138

If you google the title of the FT article you can read it, and yes it is exactly what I'm saying. Even the stodgy IMF is agreeing through research that public investment in the private sector has disproven a lot of assumptions about the market economy.

#140 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 06:06 PM | Reply

this is the thread where somebody is arguing that poor people in this country fare better than the poor in the third world while ignoring that the poor in this country are forced to pay first world prices for food and shelter. Am I close to the mark?
#138 | POSTED BY HAGBARD_CELINE

Bullseye.

Bet you could name the troll in one guess.

#141 | Posted by ClownShack at 2020-10-13 06:12 PM | Reply

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V)

^
Who had "Adam Smith is a Marxist?"

#142 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-13 06:22 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#111
"Although some may revolt if they don't get a new iPhone or something else they thing they deserve. But that's a J-curve discussion...not really an econ thing."

This is the part you are missing... sorry I have to do some catching up, but it's not about a new iPhone. It's about $50 a week to feed yourself and three kids.

Seriously, this shouldn't happen in America.

Why do you think lenders lend irresponsibly, because they HAVE to?

There's obviously a profit motive.

And if you are so concerned with "excess credit," why do you align with those who eliminated the CFPB? I agree lenders should be better regulated, obviously to avoid another 2008, but it's the devaluation of labor, by a rigged system that has led to the bigger problem of poverty.

#143 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 06:28 PM | Reply

#111
"Although some may revolt if they don't get a new iPhone or something else they thing they deserve. But that's a J-curve discussion...not really an econ thing."

This is the part you are missing... sorry I have to do some catching up, but it's not about a new iPhone. It's about $50 a week to feed yourself and three kids.

Seriously, this shouldn't happen in America.

Why do you think lenders lend irresponsibly, because they HAVE to?

There's obviously a profit motive.

And if you are so concerned with "excess credit," why do you align with those who eliminated the CFPB? I agree lenders should be better regulated, obviously to avoid another 2008, but it's the devaluation of labor, by a rigged system that has led to the bigger problem of poverty.

#144 | Posted by bocaink at 2020-10-13 06:28 PM | Reply

"What Hagbard said in #138"

Nuff said.

But you know what really sucks? If you decide you have had enough and you do really want to leave America behind you somehow manage to get over the Wall you still have to pay taxes here. And if you want to not even be an American citizen anymore you have to pay the US thousands of dollars for that privilege.

#145 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-10-13 10:22 PM | Reply

- Rolling Stone huh?

They quote Reagan's own Budget Directors... but hey, blindly attacking the writer rather than the Budget Dirs is a lot easier for you; you can't even man up to attacking the Budget Dirs, rofl!

- Maybe Bezo's neighbors will soon be rallying with pitchfork's, demanding he buy them new yachts or planes or something.

Maybe with a Dem President, Senate, and House, he'll actually pay some taxes.

#146 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-13 11:36 PM | Reply

- Corky posted Rolling Stone's version of what's what in economics.

Why does MB always end up resorting to lying?

The article is Reagan's own Budget Dirs discussing their economics.... of course, MB knows more about economics, particularly their own, than they do, right?

Attacking the Source is bad enough, attacking the people who quote the sources is just an obvious admission of having no argument at all.

Which is what happens when one is all myth and no facts.

#147 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-13 11:43 PM | Reply

"of course, MB knows more about economics"

My wife has larger thimbles.

#148 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-13 11:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

lol... Hagbard pantsed him without even seeing his posts.

#149 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-13 11:48 PM | Reply

"Labor is gasoline, or blood. Without it the engine/body doesn't run, so of course it has much value, if not the most value."

No, labor is a factor of production, along with capital and land. When I was in college, entrepreneurship was also included as a factor, but I think that falls more under labor.

We can turn this into a discussion on LTV versus MTV if you want to, but I don't think you're going to find a serious professor of economics teaching LTV anything other that a historical context and it's association with Adam Smith and David Ricardo.

It may be your opinion that labor is more important than the other factors...that's fine, but you could as easily ascribe that position to any other factor.

#150 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:00 AM | Reply

"Who had "Adam Smith is a Marxist?"

Um, maybe you didn't know this, but Smith was the first one to address LTV in Wealth of Nations.

So it would more accurate to say that Marx was a Smithist.

#151 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:02 AM | Reply

"This is the part you are missing... sorry I have to do some catching up, but it's not about a new iPhone. It's about $50 a week to feed yourself and three kids."

I'm sure there are some people in that position. But they are a tiny minority.

And poverty is a very different discussion than income inequality. And if you're making $2.6k per year, you're probably not going to get a credit card from even the most liberal lender.

"Why do you think lenders lend irresponsibly, because they HAVE to?"

Because borrowers are willing to borrow irresponsibly. It's not one side exploiting the other. They're conducting business that is mutually agreeable to both parties.

"And if you are so concerned with "excess credit," why do you align with those who eliminated the CFPB? I agree lenders should be better regulated, obviously to avoid another 2008, but it's the devaluation of labor, by a rigged system that has led to the bigger problem of poverty."

I'm not concerned about it, and I'm not here to tell you what right looks like. What I am here to tell you is that if the Marquette decision were repealed and usury laws reinstated, the result would be a drastic increase in the number of new credit cards. Depending on what the economy was doing, it might even result in lenders being required to cancel the cards or face massive losses. In the long term, the reduction in credit card debt would drastically reduce the interest payments going to credit card companies, thus reducing income inequality. You could relatively easily extend that across loans for high cost goods (houses, cars) and reduce that event further.

The thing is, who wants that? The lenders? The borrowers? Both seem to be benefitting from this paradigm. It seems that those would be most opposed would be doing so on ideological grounds. not unlike arguing against gay marriage.

#152 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:11 AM | Reply

"If you decide you have had enough and you do really want to leave America behind you somehow manage to get over the Wall you still have to pay taxes here."

Sort of.

The people I work with here in Germany who are US citizens are only required to pay the Payroll Taxes. Not federal or state income taxes.

#153 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:14 AM | Reply

"Which is what happens when one is all myth and no facts."

They turn out like you.

#154 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 03:14 AM | Reply

" The people I work with here in Germany who are US citizens are only required to pay the Payroll Taxes. Not federal or state income taxes."

Not exactly. They're still required to pay US income taxes; it's just that Germany, like a lot of countries, has a reciprocal agreement with the US, so the income taxes paid to Germany are credited against US income taxes owed, up to a set amount.

#155 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-14 03:42 AM | Reply

I'll defer to you Dan. This is your area of expertise...I may have misunderstood what I was hearing.

#156 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-10-14 04:03 AM | Reply

"Because borrowers are willing to borrow irresponsibly. It's not one side exploiting the other. They're conducting business that is mutually agreeable to both parties."

But that's not all they're doing.

Lenders are made whole by government power, while borrowers aren't.

You know what bailouts are, right?

#157 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 11:09 AM | Reply

"It's not one side exploiting the other."

So when someone in Anerica sells everything they have and then borrows as much as they can to pay their kid's hospital bills, they're not getting exploited?

Even as their German counterpart gets free health care?

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-10-14 11:12 AM | Reply

"borrowers are willing to borrow irresponsibly."

GTFOH. It's called the loan approval process. It's opaque on purpose. And there are folks specifically hired by the profiteers to assess the risk.

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses is not a fair equation.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-14 11:16 AM | Reply

- They turn out like you.

The response of someone with absolutely no argument.

#160 | Posted by Corky at 2020-10-14 12:24 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort