Discussion:
The Collapse of the Middle Class --- by Congressman Bernie Sanders.
(too old to reply)
RedPill
2003-11-03 15:41:39 UTC
Permalink
it ain't pretty.

--redpill.


The Collapse of the Middle Class

by Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)

THE CORPORATE MEDIA doesn't talk about it much, but the United States is
rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations. First, there are a
small number of incredibly wealthy people who own and control more and more
of our country. Second, there is a shrinking middle class in which ordinary
people are, in most instances, working longer hours for lower wages and
benefits. Third, an increasing number of Americans are living in abject
poverty - going hungry and sleeping out on the streets.

There has always been a wealthy elite in this country, and there has always
been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth and
income that currently exist in this country have not been seen in over a
hundred years. Today, the richest one percent own more wealth than the
bottom ninety-five percent, and the CEOs of large corporations earn more
than 500 times what their average employees make. The nation's 13,000
wealthiest families, 1/100th of one percent of the population, receive
almost as much income as the poorest 20 million families in America.

While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White House,
the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water. The
unemployment rate rose to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June, 2003.
There are now 9.4 million unemployed, up more than 3 million since just
before Bush became President. Since March 2001, we have lost over 2.7
million jobs in the private sector, including two million decent-paying
manufacturing jobs - ten percent of our manufacturing sector. Frighteningly,
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs is now moving into the white-collar
sector. Forrester Research Inc. predicts that at least 3.3 million
information technology jobs will be lost to low-wage countries by 2015 with
the expansion of digitization, the internet and high-speed data networks.

But understanding the pain and anxiety of the middle class requires going
beyond the unemployment numbers. There are tens of millions of fully
employed Americans who today earn, in inflation-adjusted dollars, less money
than they received 30 years ago. In 1973, private-sector workers in the
United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in real wages, they
are paid $8.33 per hour - more than 8 percent lower. Manufacturing jobs that
once paid a living wage are now being done in China, Mexico and other
low-wage countries as corporate America ships its plants abroad.

With Wal-Mart replacing General Motors as our largest employer, many workers
in the service economy not only earn low wages but also receive minimal
benefits. Further, as the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs
soar, more and more employers are forcing workers to assume a greater
percentage of their health care costs. It is not uncommon now that increases
in health care costs surpass the wage increases that workers receive -
leaving them even further behind. With the support of the Bush
Administration many companies are also reducing the pensions they promised
to their older workers - threatening the retirement security of millions of
Americans.

One of the manifestations of the collapse of the middle class is the
increased number of hours that Americans are now forced to work in order to
pay the bills. Today, the average American employee works, by far, the
longest hours of any worker in the industrialized world.

And the situation is getting worse. According to statistics from the
International Labor Organization the average American last year worked 1,978
hours, up from 1,942 hours in 1990 - an increase of almost a week of work.
We are now putting more hours into our work than at any time since the
1920s. Sixty-five years after the formal establishment of the 40-hour work
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, almost 40% of Americans now work
more than 50 hours a week.

And if the middle class is having it tough, what about the 33 million people
in our society who are living in poverty, up 1.3 million in the past two
years? What about the 11 million trying to make it on a pathetic minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour? What about the 42 million who lack any health
insurance? What about the 3.5 million people who will experience
homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them children? What about the
elderly who can't afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription
drugs they need? What about the veterans who are on VA waiting lists for
their health care?

This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The middle
class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to disintegrate.
We need to revitalize American democracy, and create a political climate
where government makes decisions which reflect the needs of all the people,
and not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need to see the middle class
expand, not collapse.

###

September 4, 2003
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only Independent in the U.S.
House of Representatives.

http://www.inequality.org/goinggoingfr.html
RedPill
2003-11-03 15:45:43 UTC
Permalink
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!


--redpill.
Post by RedPill
it ain't pretty.
--redpill.
The Collapse of the Middle Class
by Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)
THE CORPORATE MEDIA doesn't talk about it much, but the United States is
rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations. First, there are a
small number of incredibly wealthy people who own and control more and more
of our country. Second, there is a shrinking middle class in which ordinary
people are, in most instances, working longer hours for lower wages and
benefits. Third, an increasing number of Americans are living in abject
poverty - going hungry and sleeping out on the streets.
There has always been a wealthy elite in this country, and there has always
been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth and
income that currently exist in this country have not been seen in over a
hundred years. Today, the richest one percent own more wealth than the
bottom ninety-five percent, and the CEOs of large corporations earn more
than 500 times what their average employees make. The nation's 13,000
wealthiest families, 1/100th of one percent of the population, receive
almost as much income as the poorest 20 million families in America.
While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White House,
the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water. The
unemployment rate rose to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June, 2003.
There are now 9.4 million unemployed, up more than 3 million since just
before Bush became President. Since March 2001, we have lost over 2.7
million jobs in the private sector, including two million decent-paying
manufacturing jobs - ten percent of our manufacturing sector.
Frighteningly,
Post by RedPill
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs is now moving into the white-collar
sector. Forrester Research Inc. predicts that at least 3.3 million
information technology jobs will be lost to low-wage countries by 2015 with
the expansion of digitization, the internet and high-speed data networks.
But understanding the pain and anxiety of the middle class requires going
beyond the unemployment numbers. There are tens of millions of fully
employed Americans who today earn, in inflation-adjusted dollars, less money
than they received 30 years ago. In 1973, private-sector workers in the
United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in real wages, they
are paid $8.33 per hour - more than 8 percent lower. Manufacturing jobs that
once paid a living wage are now being done in China, Mexico and other
low-wage countries as corporate America ships its plants abroad.
With Wal-Mart replacing General Motors as our largest employer, many workers
in the service economy not only earn low wages but also receive minimal
benefits. Further, as the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs
soar, more and more employers are forcing workers to assume a greater
percentage of their health care costs. It is not uncommon now that increases
in health care costs surpass the wage increases that workers receive -
leaving them even further behind. With the support of the Bush
Administration many companies are also reducing the pensions they promised
to their older workers - threatening the retirement security of millions of
Americans.
One of the manifestations of the collapse of the middle class is the
increased number of hours that Americans are now forced to work in order to
pay the bills. Today, the average American employee works, by far, the
longest hours of any worker in the industrialized world.
And the situation is getting worse. According to statistics from the
International Labor Organization the average American last year worked 1,978
hours, up from 1,942 hours in 1990 - an increase of almost a week of work.
We are now putting more hours into our work than at any time since the
1920s. Sixty-five years after the formal establishment of the 40-hour work
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, almost 40% of Americans now work
more than 50 hours a week.
And if the middle class is having it tough, what about the 33 million people
in our society who are living in poverty, up 1.3 million in the past two
years? What about the 11 million trying to make it on a pathetic minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour? What about the 42 million who lack any health
insurance? What about the 3.5 million people who will experience
homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them children? What about the
elderly who can't afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription
drugs they need? What about the veterans who are on VA waiting lists for
their health care?
This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The middle
class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to disintegrate.
We need to revitalize American democracy, and create a political climate
where government makes decisions which reflect the needs of all the people,
and not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need to see the middle class
expand, not collapse.
###
September 4, 2003
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only Independent in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
http://www.inequality.org/goinggoingfr.html
scott
2003-11-03 16:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Is it a sin to have money? I know it's a sin to be lazy.
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
Post by RedPill
it ain't pretty.
--redpill.
The Collapse of the Middle Class
by Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)
THE CORPORATE MEDIA doesn't talk about it much, but the United States is
rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations. First, there are a
small number of incredibly wealthy people who own and control more and
more
Post by RedPill
of our country. Second, there is a shrinking middle class in which
ordinary
Post by RedPill
people are, in most instances, working longer hours for lower wages and
benefits. Third, an increasing number of Americans are living in abject
poverty - going hungry and sleeping out on the streets.
There has always been a wealthy elite in this country, and there has
always
Post by RedPill
been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth
and
Post by RedPill
income that currently exist in this country have not been seen in over a
hundred years. Today, the richest one percent own more wealth than the
bottom ninety-five percent, and the CEOs of large corporations earn more
than 500 times what their average employees make. The nation's 13,000
wealthiest families, 1/100th of one percent of the population, receive
almost as much income as the poorest 20 million families in America.
While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White
House,
Post by RedPill
the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water. The
unemployment rate rose to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June, 2003.
There are now 9.4 million unemployed, up more than 3 million since just
before Bush became President. Since March 2001, we have lost over 2.7
million jobs in the private sector, including two million decent-paying
manufacturing jobs - ten percent of our manufacturing sector.
Frighteningly,
Post by RedPill
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs is now moving into the white-collar
sector. Forrester Research Inc. predicts that at least 3.3 million
information technology jobs will be lost to low-wage countries by 2015
with
Post by RedPill
the expansion of digitization, the internet and high-speed data networks.
But understanding the pain and anxiety of the middle class requires going
beyond the unemployment numbers. There are tens of millions of fully
employed Americans who today earn, in inflation-adjusted dollars, less
money
Post by RedPill
than they received 30 years ago. In 1973, private-sector workers in the
United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in real wages,
they
Post by RedPill
are paid $8.33 per hour - more than 8 percent lower. Manufacturing jobs
that
Post by RedPill
once paid a living wage are now being done in China, Mexico and other
low-wage countries as corporate America ships its plants abroad.
With Wal-Mart replacing General Motors as our largest employer, many
workers
Post by RedPill
in the service economy not only earn low wages but also receive minimal
benefits. Further, as the cost of health insurance and prescription drugs
soar, more and more employers are forcing workers to assume a greater
percentage of their health care costs. It is not uncommon now that
increases
Post by RedPill
in health care costs surpass the wage increases that workers receive -
leaving them even further behind. With the support of the Bush
Administration many companies are also reducing the pensions they promised
to their older workers - threatening the retirement security of millions
of
Post by RedPill
Americans.
One of the manifestations of the collapse of the middle class is the
increased number of hours that Americans are now forced to work in order
to
Post by RedPill
pay the bills. Today, the average American employee works, by far, the
longest hours of any worker in the industrialized world.
And the situation is getting worse. According to statistics from the
International Labor Organization the average American last year worked
1,978
Post by RedPill
hours, up from 1,942 hours in 1990 - an increase of almost a week of work.
We are now putting more hours into our work than at any time since the
1920s. Sixty-five years after the formal establishment of the 40-hour work
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, almost 40% of Americans now work
more than 50 hours a week.
And if the middle class is having it tough, what about the 33 million
people
Post by RedPill
in our society who are living in poverty, up 1.3 million in the past two
years? What about the 11 million trying to make it on a pathetic minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour? What about the 42 million who lack any health
insurance? What about the 3.5 million people who will experience
homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them children? What about the
elderly who can't afford the outrageously high cost of the prescription
drugs they need? What about the veterans who are on VA waiting lists for
their health care?
This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The
middle
Post by RedPill
class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to
disintegrate.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We need to revitalize American democracy, and create a political climate
where government makes decisions which reflect the needs of all the
people,
Post by RedPill
and not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need to see the middle
class
Post by RedPill
expand, not collapse.
###
September 4, 2003
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only Independent in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
http://www.inequality.org/goinggoingfr.html
Winston Smith, American Patriot
2003-11-03 17:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by scott
Is it a sin to have money? I know it's a sin to be lazy.
What's really a sin is to be stupid when that stupidity is laziness of the
intellect.
Post by scott
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great
going with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
Post by RedPill
it ain't pretty.
--redpill.
The Collapse of the Middle Class
by Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)
THE CORPORATE MEDIA doesn't talk about it much, but the United
States is rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations.
First, there are
a
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
small number of incredibly wealthy people who own and control more and
more
Post by RedPill
of our country. Second, there is a shrinking middle class in which
ordinary
Post by RedPill
people are, in most instances, working longer hours for lower wages
and benefits. Third, an increasing number of Americans are living
in abject poverty - going hungry and sleeping out on the streets.
There has always been a wealthy elite in this country, and there has
always
Post by RedPill
been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth
and
Post by RedPill
income that currently exist in this country have not been seen in
over a hundred years. Today, the richest one percent own more
wealth than the bottom ninety-five percent, and the CEOs of large
corporations earn more than 500 times what their average employees
make. The nation's 13,000 wealthiest families, 1/100th of one
percent of the population, receive almost as much income as the
poorest 20 million families in America.
While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White
House,
Post by RedPill
the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water. The
unemployment rate rose to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June,
2003. There are now 9.4 million unemployed, up more than 3 million
since just before Bush became President. Since March 2001, we have
lost over 2.7 million jobs in the private sector, including two
million decent-paying manufacturing jobs - ten percent of our
manufacturing sector.
Frighteningly,
Post by RedPill
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs is now moving into the
white-collar
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
sector. Forrester Research Inc. predicts that at least 3.3 million
information technology jobs will be lost to low-wage countries by 2015
with
Post by RedPill
the expansion of digitization, the internet and high-speed data
networks.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
But understanding the pain and anxiety of the middle class requires
going
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
beyond the unemployment numbers. There are tens of millions of
fully employed Americans who today earn, in inflation-adjusted
dollars, less
money
Post by RedPill
than they received 30 years ago. In 1973, private-sector workers in
the United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in
real wages,
they
Post by RedPill
are paid $8.33 per hour - more than 8 percent lower. Manufacturing jobs
that
Post by RedPill
once paid a living wage are now being done in China, Mexico and
other low-wage countries as corporate America ships its plants
abroad.
With Wal-Mart replacing General Motors as our largest employer, many
workers
Post by RedPill
in the service economy not only earn low wages but also receive
minimal benefits. Further, as the cost of health insurance and
prescription
drugs
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
soar, more and more employers are forcing workers to assume a
greater percentage of their health care costs. It is not uncommon
now that
increases
Post by RedPill
in health care costs surpass the wage increases that workers
receive - leaving them even further behind. With the support of the
Bush Administration many companies are also reducing the pensions
they
promised
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
to their older workers - threatening the retirement security of millions
of
Post by RedPill
Americans.
One of the manifestations of the collapse of the middle class is
the increased number of hours that Americans are now forced to work
in order
to
Post by RedPill
pay the bills. Today, the average American employee works, by far,
the longest hours of any worker in the industrialized world.
And the situation is getting worse. According to statistics from
the International Labor Organization the average American last year
worked
1,978
Post by RedPill
hours, up from 1,942 hours in 1990 - an increase of almost a week
of
work.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We are now putting more hours into our work than at any time since
the 1920s. Sixty-five years after the formal establishment of the
40-hour
work
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, almost 40% of Americans
now
work
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
more than 50 hours a week.
And if the middle class is having it tough, what about the 33 million
people
Post by RedPill
in our society who are living in poverty, up 1.3 million in the
past two years? What about the 11 million trying to make it on a
pathetic minimum wage of $5.15 an hour? What about the 42 million
who lack any health insurance? What about the 3.5 million people
who will experience homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them
children? What about the elderly who can't afford the outrageously
high cost of the prescription drugs they need? What about the
veterans who are on VA waiting lists for their health care?
This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The
middle
Post by RedPill
class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to
disintegrate.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We need to revitalize American democracy, and create a political
climate where government makes decisions which reflect the needs of
all the
people,
Post by RedPill
and not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need to see the middle
class
Post by RedPill
expand, not collapse.
###
September 4, 2003
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only Independent in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
http://www.inequality.org/goinggoingfr.html
RedPill
2003-11-03 17:17:21 UTC
Permalink
you're wasting your time with 'scott'. he's another victim of 'public
school'. er', I mean 'public daycare'.
just be a good boy, scott, and when 'the man', or its government asks you to
bend over, just do it.(as the Nike commercial says)

---redpill.
Post by Winston Smith, American Patriot
Post by scott
Is it a sin to have money? I know it's a sin to be lazy.
What's really a sin is to be stupid when that stupidity is laziness of the
intellect.
Post by scott
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great
going with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
Post by RedPill
it ain't pretty.
--redpill.
The Collapse of the Middle Class
by Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)
THE CORPORATE MEDIA doesn't talk about it much, but the United
States is rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations.
First, there are
a
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
small number of incredibly wealthy people who own and control more and
more
Post by RedPill
of our country. Second, there is a shrinking middle class in which
ordinary
Post by RedPill
people are, in most instances, working longer hours for lower wages
and benefits. Third, an increasing number of Americans are living
in abject poverty - going hungry and sleeping out on the streets.
There has always been a wealthy elite in this country, and there has
always
Post by RedPill
been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth
and
Post by RedPill
income that currently exist in this country have not been seen in
over a hundred years. Today, the richest one percent own more
wealth than the bottom ninety-five percent, and the CEOs of large
corporations earn more than 500 times what their average employees
make. The nation's 13,000 wealthiest families, 1/100th of one
percent of the population, receive almost as much income as the
poorest 20 million families in America.
While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White
House,
Post by RedPill
the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water. The
unemployment rate rose to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June,
2003. There are now 9.4 million unemployed, up more than 3 million
since just before Bush became President. Since March 2001, we have
lost over 2.7 million jobs in the private sector, including two
million decent-paying manufacturing jobs - ten percent of our
manufacturing sector.
Frighteningly,
Post by RedPill
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs is now moving into the
white-collar
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
sector. Forrester Research Inc. predicts that at least 3.3 million
information technology jobs will be lost to low-wage countries by 2015
with
Post by RedPill
the expansion of digitization, the internet and high-speed data
networks.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
But understanding the pain and anxiety of the middle class requires
going
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
beyond the unemployment numbers. There are tens of millions of
fully employed Americans who today earn, in inflation-adjusted
dollars, less
money
Post by RedPill
than they received 30 years ago. In 1973, private-sector workers in
the United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in
real wages,
they
Post by RedPill
are paid $8.33 per hour - more than 8 percent lower. Manufacturing jobs
that
Post by RedPill
once paid a living wage are now being done in China, Mexico and
other low-wage countries as corporate America ships its plants
abroad.
With Wal-Mart replacing General Motors as our largest employer, many
workers
Post by RedPill
in the service economy not only earn low wages but also receive
minimal benefits. Further, as the cost of health insurance and
prescription
drugs
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
soar, more and more employers are forcing workers to assume a
greater percentage of their health care costs. It is not uncommon
now that
increases
Post by RedPill
in health care costs surpass the wage increases that workers
receive - leaving them even further behind. With the support of the
Bush Administration many companies are also reducing the pensions
they
promised
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
to their older workers - threatening the retirement security of millions
of
Post by RedPill
Americans.
One of the manifestations of the collapse of the middle class is
the increased number of hours that Americans are now forced to work
in order
to
Post by RedPill
pay the bills. Today, the average American employee works, by far,
the longest hours of any worker in the industrialized world.
And the situation is getting worse. According to statistics from
the International Labor Organization the average American last year
worked
1,978
Post by RedPill
hours, up from 1,942 hours in 1990 - an increase of almost a week
of
work.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We are now putting more hours into our work than at any time since
the 1920s. Sixty-five years after the formal establishment of the
40-hour
work
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, almost 40% of Americans
now
work
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
more than 50 hours a week.
And if the middle class is having it tough, what about the 33 million
people
Post by RedPill
in our society who are living in poverty, up 1.3 million in the
past two years? What about the 11 million trying to make it on a
pathetic minimum wage of $5.15 an hour? What about the 42 million
who lack any health insurance? What about the 3.5 million people
who will experience homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them
children? What about the elderly who can't afford the outrageously
high cost of the prescription drugs they need? What about the
veterans who are on VA waiting lists for their health care?
This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The
middle
Post by RedPill
class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to
disintegrate.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We need to revitalize American democracy, and create a political
climate where government makes decisions which reflect the needs of
all the
people,
Post by RedPill
and not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need to see the middle
class
Post by RedPill
expand, not collapse.
###
September 4, 2003
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only Independent in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
http://www.inequality.org/goinggoingfr.html
RedPill
2003-11-03 17:12:46 UTC
Permalink
I wouldn't know. I'm an agnostic. but I do know that its immoral and
decrepit to buy off government officials and pay for favors from a
government that , according to the Constitution, should be of the people, by
the people, and for the people. didn't say anything about special interests,
or only people with money, etc. but you already knew that, didn't you?
you're the genius from Texas. I know you're smarter than that. or maybe you
are just another corporate selfish hack who thinks he's going to take his
money with him when he takes that dirt nap. you've been living in a
dreamworld, Neo.

oh, and from what I read, ole' george is headed down the same path his daddy
did. isn't that a pity?


--redpill.
Post by scott
Is it a sin to have money? I know it's a sin to be lazy.
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
Post by RedPill
it ain't pretty.
--redpill.
The Collapse of the Middle Class
by Representative Bernie Sanders (VT)
THE CORPORATE MEDIA doesn't talk about it much, but the United States is
rapidly on its way to becoming three separate nations. First, there
are
Post by scott
a
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
small number of incredibly wealthy people who own and control more and
more
Post by RedPill
of our country. Second, there is a shrinking middle class in which
ordinary
Post by RedPill
people are, in most instances, working longer hours for lower wages and
benefits. Third, an increasing number of Americans are living in abject
poverty - going hungry and sleeping out on the streets.
There has always been a wealthy elite in this country, and there has
always
Post by RedPill
been a gap between the rich and the poor. But the disparities in wealth
and
Post by RedPill
income that currently exist in this country have not been seen in over a
hundred years. Today, the richest one percent own more wealth than the
bottom ninety-five percent, and the CEOs of large corporations earn more
than 500 times what their average employees make. The nation's 13,000
wealthiest families, 1/100th of one percent of the population, receive
almost as much income as the poorest 20 million families in America.
While the rich get richer and receive huge tax breaks from the White
House,
Post by RedPill
the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water. The
unemployment rate rose to a nine-year high of 6.4 percent in June, 2003.
There are now 9.4 million unemployed, up more than 3 million since just
before Bush became President. Since March 2001, we have lost over 2.7
million jobs in the private sector, including two million
decent-paying
Post by scott
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
manufacturing jobs - ten percent of our manufacturing sector.
Frighteningly,
Post by RedPill
the hemorrhaging of decent paying jobs is now moving into the
white-collar
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
sector. Forrester Research Inc. predicts that at least 3.3 million
information technology jobs will be lost to low-wage countries by 2015
with
Post by RedPill
the expansion of digitization, the internet and high-speed data
networks.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
But understanding the pain and anxiety of the middle class requires
going
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
beyond the unemployment numbers. There are tens of millions of fully
employed Americans who today earn, in inflation-adjusted dollars, less
money
Post by RedPill
than they received 30 years ago. In 1973, private-sector workers in the
United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in real wages,
they
Post by RedPill
are paid $8.33 per hour - more than 8 percent lower. Manufacturing jobs
that
Post by RedPill
once paid a living wage are now being done in China, Mexico and other
low-wage countries as corporate America ships its plants abroad.
With Wal-Mart replacing General Motors as our largest employer, many
workers
Post by RedPill
in the service economy not only earn low wages but also receive minimal
benefits. Further, as the cost of health insurance and prescription
drugs
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
soar, more and more employers are forcing workers to assume a greater
percentage of their health care costs. It is not uncommon now that
increases
Post by RedPill
in health care costs surpass the wage increases that workers receive -
leaving them even further behind. With the support of the Bush
Administration many companies are also reducing the pensions they
promised
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
to their older workers - threatening the retirement security of millions
of
Post by RedPill
Americans.
One of the manifestations of the collapse of the middle class is the
increased number of hours that Americans are now forced to work in order
to
Post by RedPill
pay the bills. Today, the average American employee works, by far, the
longest hours of any worker in the industrialized world.
And the situation is getting worse. According to statistics from the
International Labor Organization the average American last year worked
1,978
Post by RedPill
hours, up from 1,942 hours in 1990 - an increase of almost a week of
work.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We are now putting more hours into our work than at any time since the
1920s. Sixty-five years after the formal establishment of the 40-hour
work
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
week under the Fair Labor Standards Act, almost 40% of Americans now
work
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
more than 50 hours a week.
And if the middle class is having it tough, what about the 33 million
people
Post by RedPill
in our society who are living in poverty, up 1.3 million in the past two
years? What about the 11 million trying to make it on a pathetic minimum
wage of $5.15 an hour? What about the 42 million who lack any health
insurance? What about the 3.5 million people who will experience
homelessness in this year, 1.3 million of them children? What about the
elderly who can't afford the outrageously high cost of the
prescription
Post by scott
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
drugs they need? What about the veterans who are on VA waiting lists for
their health care?
This country needs to radically rethink our national priorities. The
middle
Post by RedPill
class is the backbone of America and it cannot be allowed to
disintegrate.
Post by RedPill
Post by RedPill
We need to revitalize American democracy, and create a political climate
where government makes decisions which reflect the needs of all the
people,
Post by RedPill
and not just wealthy campaign contributors. We need to see the middle
class
Post by RedPill
expand, not collapse.
###
September 4, 2003
Bernie Sanders of Vermont is the only Independent in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
http://www.inequality.org/goinggoingfr.html
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-04 02:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
I wouldn't know. I'm an agnostic. but I do know that its immoral and
decrepit to buy off government officials and pay for favors from a
That may be, but...
Post by RedPill
government that , according to the Constitution, should be of the people, by
the people, and for the people.
Oh, there's a whooper. One that seems to be all too commonly
repeated these days... Let's disabuse you of this notion
right now.

Exactly where in the constitution does it ever use the phrase
"of the people, by the people, and for the people", or something
so similar as to be de facto equivalent?

Be specific. Article and clause, or amendment number.


I'll even let you reference the Declaration of Independence
if you think it will help your cause.


Or, I can save you the time and tell you it NEVER says that
anywhere in our founding documents.

In the DOI they talk about "consent of the governed", but a
king can rule by consent of the governed (and does in a number
countries today, not just the UK). There is nothing democratic
implied by that statement.


http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm
Erik A. Mattila
2003-11-04 10:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
I wouldn't know. I'm an agnostic. but I do know that its immoral and
decrepit to buy off government officials and pay for favors from a
That may be, but...
Post by RedPill
government that , according to the Constitution, should be of the people, by
the people, and for the people.
Oh, there's a whooper. One that seems to be all too commonly
repeated these days... Let's disabuse you of this notion
right now.
Exactly where in the constitution does it ever use the phrase
"of the people, by the people, and for the people", or something
so similar as to be de facto equivalent?
Be specific. Article and clause, or amendment number.
“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal…. [We must] be here dedicated
to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we
take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full
measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall
not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new
birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for
the people shall not perish from the Earth.”
Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln - 1842

"This Bible is translated and shall make possible a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people."
--John Wycliffe's introduction to his translation of the Bible - 1382

I think it's quite logical to assume that somewhere between 1382 and
1842 the founders got the message, don't you. I think the sentiment is
reflected strongly in John Stuart Mill, for starters.

eam
Post by Edward Glamkowski
I'll even let you reference the Declaration of Independence
if you think it will help your cause.
Or, I can save you the time and tell you it NEVER says that
anywhere in our founding documents.
In the DOI they talk about "consent of the governed", but a
king can rule by consent of the governed (and does in a number
countries today, not just the UK). There is nothing democratic
implied by that statement.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm
RedPill
2003-11-04 19:08:03 UTC
Permalink
sorry. my bad. and it still goes. and you are correct, if the government
does not fulfill the needs of the governed, then WE WILL TAKE IT BACK. so
think about that next November. Mr.. Fascist.

--redpill.

THE GETTYSBURG ADDRESS:


Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in
a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so
conceived and so dedicated can long endure. We are met on a great
battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave their
lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and
proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot
dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground.
The brave men, living and dead who struggled here have consecrated
it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never
forget what they did here. It is for us the living rather to be
dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here
have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here
dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly
resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that
government of the people, by the people, for the people shall
not perish from the earth.
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
I wouldn't know. I'm an agnostic. but I do know that its immoral and
decrepit to buy off government officials and pay for favors from a
That may be, but...
Post by RedPill
government that , according to the Constitution, should be of the people, by
the people, and for the people.
Oh, there's a whooper. One that seems to be all too commonly
repeated these days... Let's disabuse you of this notion
right now.
Exactly where in the constitution does it ever use the phrase
"of the people, by the people, and for the people", or something
so similar as to be de facto equivalent?
Be specific. Article and clause, or amendment number.
I'll even let you reference the Declaration of Independence
if you think it will help your cause.
Or, I can save you the time and tell you it NEVER says that
anywhere in our founding documents.
In the DOI they talk about "consent of the governed", but a
king can rule by consent of the governed (and does in a number
countries today, not just the UK). There is nothing democratic
implied by that statement.
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-03 21:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
You say "richest", but talk about "wealth".
These terms are not necessarily defined to be the same thing,
depending on the source you use.

Define "rich" and define "wealth".
Does one cover only income, but the other all assets of all types?

Actually, many of the wealthiest people in the USA are democrats...

Six of the top 10 wealthiest politicians are democrats, only three
are republicans (one is independent):
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.html

Richest people on the planet?
Bill Gates, who tops the list, isn't a republican.
Go over the opensecrets.org and see who his personal donations
are going too...
Inslee, Jay R = Democrat
Murray, Patty = Democrat
Conrad, Kent = Democrat


Warren Buffet, #2 on the list, is of course well known
to be a democrat.

Democratic party supporters include lawyers and doctors,
some of the wealthier people in society.


Look at the fundraising of the two parties.
It is democrats who get the biggest checks.
Republicans rely upon getting lots and lots of small checks.

Who is giving to the democrats? Lawyers, actors, athletes,
northeastern Harvard and Yale elitists - the faux liberals.

Who is giving to the republicans? Working class folks.


If you want to trot out the Marxist class warfare, you'll
simply have to do much better :-p
RedPill
2003-11-03 22:44:36 UTC
Permalink
you can believe whatever you want. the top 1% of the Wealthiest Americans
have more total wealth than the bottom 95%. like I said, you can dream
whatever you want up. why don't you try something novel, something you've
never done before and research it online. there is a "wealth" of information
on the subject. man, you people have to be smarter than that. some of you
are masters at self-deception.

for starters, try www.epinet.org they are a non-profit, non-partisan think
tank in DC. they know alot more about it than you or I.


---redpill.
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
You say "richest", but talk about "wealth".
These terms are not necessarily defined to be the same thing,
depending on the source you use.
Define "rich" and define "wealth".
Does one cover only income, but the other all assets of all types?
Actually, many of the wealthiest people in the USA are democrats...
Six of the top 10 wealthiest politicians are democrats, only three
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.html
Richest people on the planet?
Bill Gates, who tops the list, isn't a republican.
Go over the opensecrets.org and see who his personal donations
are going too...
Inslee, Jay R = Democrat
Murray, Patty = Democrat
Conrad, Kent = Democrat
Warren Buffet, #2 on the list, is of course well known
to be a democrat.
Democratic party supporters include lawyers and doctors,
some of the wealthier people in society.
Look at the fundraising of the two parties.
It is democrats who get the biggest checks.
Republicans rely upon getting lots and lots of small checks.
Who is giving to the democrats? Lawyers, actors, athletes,
northeastern Harvard and Yale elitists - the faux liberals.
Who is giving to the republicans? Working class folks.
If you want to trot out the Marxist class warfare, you'll
simply have to do much better :-p
RedPill
2003-11-03 22:53:16 UTC
Permalink
and one more thing. Epinet.org is NOT owned by big business. there's your
hint, Sherlock.

---redpill.
Post by RedPill
you can believe whatever you want. the top 1% of the Wealthiest Americans
have more total wealth than the bottom 95%. like I said, you can dream
whatever you want up. why don't you try something novel, something you've
never done before and research it online. there is a "wealth" of information
on the subject. man, you people have to be smarter than that. some of you
are masters at self-deception.
for starters, try www.epinet.org they are a non-profit, non-partisan think
tank in DC. they know alot more about it than you or I.
---redpill.
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great
going
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
with those tax cuts, george!!!
You say "richest", but talk about "wealth".
These terms are not necessarily defined to be the same thing,
depending on the source you use.
Define "rich" and define "wealth".
Does one cover only income, but the other all assets of all types?
Actually, many of the wealthiest people in the USA are democrats...
Six of the top 10 wealthiest politicians are democrats, only three
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.html
Richest people on the planet?
Bill Gates, who tops the list, isn't a republican.
Go over the opensecrets.org and see who his personal donations
are going too...
Inslee, Jay R = Democrat
Murray, Patty = Democrat
Conrad, Kent = Democrat
Warren Buffet, #2 on the list, is of course well known
to be a democrat.
Democratic party supporters include lawyers and doctors,
some of the wealthier people in society.
Look at the fundraising of the two parties.
It is democrats who get the biggest checks.
Republicans rely upon getting lots and lots of small checks.
Who is giving to the democrats? Lawyers, actors, athletes,
northeastern Harvard and Yale elitists - the faux liberals.
Who is giving to the republicans? Working class folks.
If you want to trot out the Marxist class warfare, you'll
simply have to do much better :-p
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-03 23:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Who gives a shit? Is there some sort of force that keeps folks from being
wealthy? I hope one day I can be wealthy too.
Post by RedPill
you can believe whatever you want.
Sounds like you want to believe whatever you want. And that is your right,
even though you are wrong.
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Sounds like
--
Jim Riley
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-04 02:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
you can believe whatever you want. the top 1% of the Wealthiest Americans
have more total wealth than the bottom 95%. like I said, you can dream
whatever you want up. why don't you try something novel, something you've
never done before and research it online. there is a "wealth" of information
on the subject. man, you people have to be smarter than that. some of you
are masters at self-deception.
for starters, try www.epinet.org they are a non-profit, non-partisan think
tank in DC. they know alot more about it than you or I.
A casual look at that website leaves me with the impression
that it leans at least a little bit left, though not necessarily
rabidly so. Won't know for sure til I read more it.


But, that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest people on
the planet is not just "believing whatever I want", it's fact.
Simple bald-faced fact.

That Gates & Buffet are democrats is also simple fact.

That the majority of the richest politicans in the USA are
democrats is also fact.

Your implied contention was that Bush was cutting tax cuts
to benefit the richest people in the country. Unfortunately
for you, the richest people in the country are democrats.

I've done the research.
This is not "dreaming stuff up", it's reality.

Maybe the top 1% does control more wealth than the bottom 95%, but
if its democrats controlling the majority of that 1%'s wealth, why
do you suppose is Bush helping them, since they are his political
opponents?

Your class warfare rhetoric is making no sense.

You'll simply never convince me that Bush is in bed with Daschle
or the Kennedys or Pelosi or any other rabidly Bush-hating left
winger that is out there day in and day out constantly assaulting
Bush on every thing under the sun.


But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: one reason democrats
generally aren't afraid to increase income tax rates on the highest
income earners is because a lot of democratic politicians don't
have a whole lot of income to be taxed! Ted Kennedy, for example,
is very wealthy, but has comparatively little income. Increased
tax rates won't touch his wealth, and he doesn't need his income.

That's why I made a big deal out of how you define these things.

Now if you want to start proposing a WEALTH tax instead of increasing
income tax, you might be on to something. But to bitch and whine
about income tax just *completely* misses entirely half the "problem".
:-p
fsds18t
2003-11-05 21:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
you can believe whatever you want. the top 1% of the Wealthiest Americans
have more total wealth than the bottom 95%. like I said, you can dream
whatever you want up. why don't you try something novel, something you've
never done before and research it online. there is a "wealth" of information
on the subject. man, you people have to be smarter than that. some of you
are masters at self-deception.
for starters, try www.epinet.org they are a non-profit, non-partisan think
tank in DC. they know alot more about it than you or I.
A casual look at that website leaves me with the impression
that it leans at least a little bit left, though not necessarily
rabidly so. Won't know for sure til I read more it.
But, that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest people on
the planet is not just "believing whatever I want", it's fact.
Simple bald-faced fact.
That Gates & Buffet are democrats is also simple fact.
That the majority of the richest politicans in the USA are
democrats is also fact.
Your implied contention was that Bush was cutting tax cuts
to benefit the richest people in the country. Unfortunately
for you, the richest people in the country are democrats.
I've done the research.
This is not "dreaming stuff up", it's reality.
Maybe the top 1% does control more wealth than the bottom 95%, but
if its democrats controlling the majority of that 1%'s wealth, why
do you suppose is Bush helping them, since they are his political
opponents?
Your class warfare rhetoric is making no sense.
You'll simply never convince me that Bush is in bed with Daschle
or the Kennedys or Pelosi or any other rabidly Bush-hating left
winger that is out there day in and day out constantly assaulting
Bush on every thing under the sun.
But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: one reason democrats
generally aren't afraid to increase income tax rates on the highest
income earners is because a lot of democratic politicians don't
have a whole lot of income to be taxed! Ted Kennedy, for example,
is very wealthy, but has comparatively little income. Increased
tax rates won't touch his wealth, and he doesn't need his income.
That's why I made a big deal out of how you define these things.
Now if you want to start proposing a WEALTH tax instead of increasing
income tax, you might be on to something. But to bitch and whine
about income tax just *completely* misses entirely half the "problem".
:-p
You mentioned the richest politicians are Democrats, but then also
mentioned the richest people are also Democrats. Two seperate sets of
people. Are both true?
RedPill
2003-11-06 13:53:37 UTC
Permalink
if you research a little on Warren Buffett, he stated a year or so ago that
the bush tax cuts were designed for the Rich.


--redpill.
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
you can believe whatever you want. the top 1% of the Wealthiest Americans
have more total wealth than the bottom 95%. like I said, you can dream
whatever you want up. why don't you try something novel, something you've
never done before and research it online. there is a "wealth" of information
on the subject. man, you people have to be smarter than that. some of you
are masters at self-deception.
for starters, try www.epinet.org they are a non-profit, non-partisan think
tank in DC. they know alot more about it than you or I.
A casual look at that website leaves me with the impression
that it leans at least a little bit left, though not necessarily
rabidly so. Won't know for sure til I read more it.
But, that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest people on
the planet is not just "believing whatever I want", it's fact.
Simple bald-faced fact.
That Gates & Buffet are democrats is also simple fact.
That the majority of the richest politicans in the USA are
democrats is also fact.
Your implied contention was that Bush was cutting tax cuts
to benefit the richest people in the country. Unfortunately
for you, the richest people in the country are democrats.
I've done the research.
This is not "dreaming stuff up", it's reality.
Maybe the top 1% does control more wealth than the bottom 95%, but
if its democrats controlling the majority of that 1%'s wealth, why
do you suppose is Bush helping them, since they are his political
opponents?
Your class warfare rhetoric is making no sense.
You'll simply never convince me that Bush is in bed with Daschle
or the Kennedys or Pelosi or any other rabidly Bush-hating left
winger that is out there day in and day out constantly assaulting
Bush on every thing under the sun.
But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: one reason democrats
generally aren't afraid to increase income tax rates on the highest
income earners is because a lot of democratic politicians don't
have a whole lot of income to be taxed! Ted Kennedy, for example,
is very wealthy, but has comparatively little income. Increased
tax rates won't touch his wealth, and he doesn't need his income.
That's why I made a big deal out of how you define these things.
Now if you want to start proposing a WEALTH tax instead of increasing
income tax, you might be on to something. But to bitch and whine
about income tax just *completely* misses entirely half the "problem".
:-p
You mentioned the richest politicians are Democrats, but then also
mentioned the richest people are also Democrats. Two seperate sets of
people. Are both true?
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 14:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
if you research a little on Warren Buffett, he stated a year or so ago that
the bush tax cuts were designed for the Rich.
That is good. Good indeed!

They have the largest tax burden, and as such, when there is a tax break,
they should get the biggest tax break.
Post by RedPill
--redpill.
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
you can believe whatever you want. the top 1% of the Wealthiest
Americans
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
have more total wealth than the bottom 95%. like I said, you can
dream
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
whatever you want up. why don't you try something novel, something
you've
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
never done before and research it online. there is a "wealth" of
information
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
on the subject. man, you people have to be smarter than that. some
of you
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
are masters at self-deception.
for starters, try www.epinet.org they are a non-profit,
non-partisan
Post by RedPill
think
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
tank in DC. they know alot more about it than you or I.
A casual look at that website leaves me with the impression
that it leans at least a little bit left, though not necessarily
rabidly so. Won't know for sure til I read more it.
But, that Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest people on
the planet is not just "believing whatever I want", it's fact.
Simple bald-faced fact.
That Gates & Buffet are democrats is also simple fact.
That the majority of the richest politicans in the USA are
democrats is also fact.
Your implied contention was that Bush was cutting tax cuts
to benefit the richest people in the country. Unfortunately
for you, the richest people in the country are democrats.
I've done the research.
This is not "dreaming stuff up", it's reality.
Maybe the top 1% does control more wealth than the bottom 95%, but
if its democrats controlling the majority of that 1%'s wealth, why
do you suppose is Bush helping them, since they are his political
opponents?
Your class warfare rhetoric is making no sense.
You'll simply never convince me that Bush is in bed with Daschle
or the Kennedys or Pelosi or any other rabidly Bush-hating left
winger that is out there day in and day out constantly assaulting
Bush on every thing under the sun.
But I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: one reason democrats
generally aren't afraid to increase income tax rates on the highest
income earners is because a lot of democratic politicians don't
have a whole lot of income to be taxed! Ted Kennedy, for example,
is very wealthy, but has comparatively little income. Increased
tax rates won't touch his wealth, and he doesn't need his income.
That's why I made a big deal out of how you define these things.
Now if you want to start proposing a WEALTH tax instead of increasing
income tax, you might be on to something. But to bitch and whine
about income tax just *completely* misses entirely half the "problem".
:-p
You mentioned the richest politicians are Democrats, but then also
mentioned the richest people are also Democrats. Two seperate sets of
people. Are both true?
Roger R
2003-11-06 17:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by RedPill
if you research a little on Warren Buffett, he stated a year or so ago
that
Post by RedPill
the bush tax cuts were designed for the Rich.
That is good. Good indeed!
They have the largest tax burden, and as such, when there is a tax break,
they should get the biggest tax break.
why?

Why shouldn't they get any tax break merely proportional to what they get
out of society?
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 21:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by RedPill
if you research a little on Warren Buffett, he stated a year or so ago
that
Post by RedPill
the bush tax cuts were designed for the Rich.
That is good. Good indeed!
They have the largest tax burden, and as such, when there is a tax break,
they should get the biggest tax break.
why?
Why shouldn't they get any tax break merely proportional to what they get
out of society?
I would argue that currently, those who AREN'T wealthy benefit from society
much more than wealthy people do. Quick! Let's raise their taxes!
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-06 22:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
if you research a little on Warren Buffett, he stated a year or so ago that
the bush tax cuts were designed for the Rich.
That doesn't contradict anything I said. If you read it carefully,
I was just saying that many among the rich are democrats and leftists...
Warren Buffet included.
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-06 22:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
You mentioned the richest politicians are Democrats, but then also
mentioned the richest people are also Democrats. Two seperate sets of
people. Are both true?
Neither Bill Gates nor Warren Buffet hold elected office, do they?
Two separate sets of people.
Both statements are true.
ZenIsWhen
2003-11-03 23:58:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
You say "richest", but talk about "wealth".
These terms are not necessarily defined to be the same thing,
depending on the source you use.
Define "rich" and define "wealth".
Does one cover only income, but the other all assets of all types?
Actually, many of the wealthiest people in the USA are democrats...
Six of the top 10 wealthiest politicians are democrats, only three
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.html
Richest people on the planet?
Bill Gates, who tops the list, isn't a republican.
Go over the opensecrets.org and see who his personal donations
are going too...
Inslee, Jay R = Democrat
Murray, Patty = Democrat
Conrad, Kent = Democrat
Warren Buffet, #2 on the list, is of course well known
to be a democrat.
Democratic party supporters include lawyers and doctors,
some of the wealthier people in society.
Look at the fundraising of the two parties.
It is democrats who get the biggest checks.
Republicans rely upon getting lots and lots of small checks.
Who is giving to the democrats? Lawyers, actors, athletes,
northeastern Harvard and Yale elitists - the faux liberals.
Who is giving to the republicans? Working class folks.
Corporations are NOT, nor do they represent, "working class folk"
All the major corporate donations go, either totally - or to a greater
extent, to republcans.

Unions, who DO represent the working class, give more to Democrats!
Post by Edward Glamkowski
If you want to trot out the Marxist class warfare, you'll
simply have to do much better :-p
If you want to troll out republican bull shit - you better make sure the
facts are well hidden!
RedPill
2003-11-04 19:11:01 UTC
Permalink
you are correct. Democrats have a better track record for "working folks"
and Republicans have a better track record with Big Business. I'm going with
the middle class, myself. the backbone of this country. without which there
is no stability and no America.

--redpill.
Post by ZenIsWhen
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great
going
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by RedPill
with those tax cuts, george!!!
You say "richest", but talk about "wealth".
These terms are not necessarily defined to be the same thing,
depending on the source you use.
Define "rich" and define "wealth".
Does one cover only income, but the other all assets of all types?
Actually, many of the wealthiest people in the USA are democrats...
Six of the top 10 wealthiest politicians are democrats, only three
http://www.forbes.com/2002/10/29/cx_dd_richpols.html
Richest people on the planet?
Bill Gates, who tops the list, isn't a republican.
Go over the opensecrets.org and see who his personal donations
are going too...
Inslee, Jay R = Democrat
Murray, Patty = Democrat
Conrad, Kent = Democrat
Warren Buffet, #2 on the list, is of course well known
to be a democrat.
Democratic party supporters include lawyers and doctors,
some of the wealthier people in society.
Look at the fundraising of the two parties.
It is democrats who get the biggest checks.
Republicans rely upon getting lots and lots of small checks.
Who is giving to the democrats? Lawyers, actors, athletes,
northeastern Harvard and Yale elitists - the faux liberals.
Who is giving to the republicans? Working class folks.
Corporations are NOT, nor do they represent, "working class folk"
All the major corporate donations go, either totally - or to a greater
extent, to republcans.
Unions, who DO represent the working class, give more to Democrats!
Post by Edward Glamkowski
If you want to trot out the Marxist class warfare, you'll
simply have to do much better :-p
If you want to troll out republican bull shit - you better make sure the
facts are well hidden!
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:07:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 18:58:33 -0500, "ZenIsWhen"
Post by ZenIsWhen
If you want to troll
--
Jim Riley
SDG&E
2003-11-04 15:30:40 UTC
Permalink
Christ! You hit him so hard, he shit out TWO posts!
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:08:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by SDG&E
Christ!
--
Jim Riley
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Define
--
Jim Riley
Jon Cornell
2003-11-03 22:22:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
The tax cuts aren't really the problem. Those fell just short of
insignificant. I don't even remember what I did with my 300
Bush-bucks. I think I put most of it on 14, red.

I think we made a major mistake by doing away with the inheritance
tax. The idea of 1% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth
doesn't really bother me that much, if they're the 1% of the country
that worked the hardest, made that money, and is best equipped to put
that capital to use.

If they're the *great-grandchildren* of the people who worked the
hardest - then basically that means America is largely being
controlled by an aristocracy who have no merit other than their family
name.

Essentially, it means that the entrenched royalty and nobility that we
fought so hard to rid ourselves of in 1776 are coming back in a big
way. These are people who rule through tradition, not merit - and for
that reason, history shows that every aristocracy ends in a
particularly violent and bloody fashion.

The inheritance tax can be ridiculously high. I wouldn't have a
problem with a law that allowed you to pass, say, 20 million dollars,
untaxed, to each of your children. That guarantees that, unless
they're morons, they can enjoy a life free of financial trouble.

It's when people are allowed to pass 100 billion dollars to each of
their children that the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition
in America becomes a joke.

Jon
RedPill
2003-11-03 22:47:20 UTC
Permalink
the whole point of the Estate Tax was to prevent an Aristocracy from gaining
a foothold in this country as it has in other countries. but I guess bush
and his oil thugs felt that a Plutocracy is a good thing. the morons. easily
the most ignorant, mind numbingly pimple headed moron ever to grace the
Whitehouse.

--redpill.


"Jon Cornell"
Post by Jon Cornell
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
The tax cuts aren't really the problem. Those fell just short of
insignificant. I don't even remember what I did with my 300
Bush-bucks. I think I put most of it on 14, red.
I think we made a major mistake by doing away with the inheritance
tax. The idea of 1% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth
doesn't really bother me that much, if they're the 1% of the country
that worked the hardest, made that money, and is best equipped to put
that capital to use.
If they're the *great-grandchildren* of the people who worked the
hardest - then basically that means America is largely being
controlled by an aristocracy who have no merit other than their family
name.
Essentially, it means that the entrenched royalty and nobility that we
fought so hard to rid ourselves of in 1776 are coming back in a big
way. These are people who rule through tradition, not merit - and for
that reason, history shows that every aristocracy ends in a
particularly violent and bloody fashion.
The inheritance tax can be ridiculously high. I wouldn't have a
problem with a law that allowed you to pass, say, 20 million dollars,
untaxed, to each of your children. That guarantees that, unless
they're morons, they can enjoy a life free of financial trouble.
It's when people are allowed to pass 100 billion dollars to each of
their children that the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition
in America becomes a joke.
Jon
ZenIsWhen
2003-11-04 00:04:31 UTC
Permalink
"Jon Cornell"
Post by Jon Cornell
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
The tax cuts aren't really the problem. Those fell just short of
insignificant. I don't even remember what I did with my 300
Bush-bucks. I think I put most of it on 14, red.
I think we made a major mistake by doing away with the inheritance
tax. The idea of 1% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth
doesn't really bother me that much, if they're the 1% of the country
that worked the hardest, made that money, and is best equipped to put
that capital to use.
That is arguable!
All they are showing (regardless of politics) is an ability to make money.
In making that money, there is NO assurance that it was done legally,
honorably or in the best interest of the nation.
Post by Jon Cornell
If they're the *great-grandchildren* of the people who worked the
hardest - then basically that means America is largely being
controlled by an aristocracy who have no merit other than their family
name.
Which is what they (and their fellow republicans) seem to want!
Post by Jon Cornell
Essentially, it means that the entrenched royalty and nobility that we
fought so hard to rid ourselves of in 1776 are coming back in a big
way. These are people who rule through tradition, not merit - and for
that reason, history shows that every aristocracy ends in a
particularly violent and bloody fashion.
and history is showing that even if you start a new nation where everyone is
exactly equal - eventually those more in tune with greed, ego, and a need
for power will attain it.

I tis NOt the "best" that wins ... but the one that is most driven to the
goals. (good or bad).
Post by Jon Cornell
The inheritance tax can be ridiculously high. I wouldn't have a
problem with a law that allowed you to pass, say, 20 million dollars,
untaxed, to each of your children. That guarantees that, unless
they're morons, they can enjoy a life free of financial trouble.
It's when people are allowed to pass 100 billion dollars to each of
their children that the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition
in America becomes a joke.
Why have a separate tax?
Why not just label it as income, and tax it as such?
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-04 02:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Cornell
It's when people are allowed to pass 100 billion dollars to each of
their children that the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition
in America becomes a joke.
Your point is well taken, but I would just like to point out that
nobody
on the planet has $100 billion. Bill Gates, the world's richest
person,
is worth "only" $40 billion:
http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=BH69&datatype=Person

Otherwise good post :)
fsds18t
2003-11-04 16:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jon Cornell
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
The tax cuts aren't really the problem. Those fell just short of
insignificant. I don't even remember what I did with my 300
Bush-bucks. I think I put most of it on 14, red.
I think we made a major mistake by doing away with the inheritance
tax. The idea of 1% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth
doesn't really bother me that much, if they're the 1% of the country
that worked the hardest, made that money, and is best equipped to put
that capital to use.
If they're the *great-grandchildren* of the people who worked the
hardest - then basically that means America is largely being
controlled by an aristocracy who have no merit other than their family
name.
Essentially, it means that the entrenched royalty and nobility that we
fought so hard to rid ourselves of in 1776 are coming back in a big
way. These are people who rule through tradition, not merit - and for
that reason, history shows that every aristocracy ends in a
particularly violent and bloody fashion.
The inheritance tax can be ridiculously high. I wouldn't have a
problem with a law that allowed you to pass, say, 20 million dollars,
untaxed, to each of your children. That guarantees that, unless
they're morons, they can enjoy a life free of financial trouble.
It's when people are allowed to pass 100 billion dollars to each of
their children that the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition
in America becomes a joke.
Jon
I agree except for the amount. Anything over $100,000 should be taxed.
That would take care of the huge deficits and it would also stimulate
the economy quite a bit. All these rich families holding on to money
only creates poor people. In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
Douglas Otis
2003-11-04 17:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by Jon Cornell
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
--redpill.
The tax cuts aren't really the problem. Those fell just short of
insignificant. I don't even remember what I did with my 300
Bush-bucks. I think I put most of it on 14, red.
I think we made a major mistake by doing away with the inheritance
tax. The idea of 1% of the country controlling 95% of the wealth
doesn't really bother me that much, if they're the 1% of the country
that worked the hardest, made that money, and is best equipped to put
that capital to use.
If they're the *great-grandchildren* of the people who worked the
hardest - then basically that means America is largely being
controlled by an aristocracy who have no merit other than their family
name.
Essentially, it means that the entrenched royalty and nobility that we
fought so hard to rid ourselves of in 1776 are coming back in a big
way. These are people who rule through tradition, not merit - and for
that reason, history shows that every aristocracy ends in a
particularly violent and bloody fashion.
The inheritance tax can be ridiculously high. I wouldn't have a
problem with a law that allowed you to pass, say, 20 million dollars,
untaxed, to each of your children. That guarantees that, unless
they're morons, they can enjoy a life free of financial trouble.
It's when people are allowed to pass 100 billion dollars to each of
their children that the idea of equal opportunity and fair competition
in America becomes a joke.
Jon
I agree except for the amount. Anything over $100,000 should be taxed.
That would take care of the huge deficits and it would also stimulate
the economy quite a bit. All these rich families holding on to money
only creates poor people. In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
As progressive taxes are replaced with regressive, the US itself
becomes a dynasty for the ultra-wealthy and a feudal state for the
poor. While the wealthy may pay a substantial portion of the taxes,
it should not be surprising as this group receives an even more
substantial portion of the wealth. As a percentage of their income
however, the wealthy pay less than do the poor.

As of 1996 in the US, the bottom 40 percent of all households held
only 1% of all the wealth. The top 1% of all households held 30% of
all the wealth. The top 5% held 55% of the wealth and the top 20%
held 80% of the wealth. The wealthy accumulate wealth to care for
their descendants, whereas for others, the motive for saving, aside
from insuring against shocks to earnings, is to improve retirement.

According to the Forbes 400 Group data, between 1995-98, there has
been a significant jump in the level of wealth for the wealthiest
families. The total net worth rose in real terms from about $379
billion to about $740 billion, a 95% increase. The number of
billionaires increased during that period from 97 to 191 for a 97%
increase. The largest gains were at the very top, but quickly tapered
off at lower levels.

In particular, while the average and maximum level of wealth of the
top 10 members of the list increased 270%, the minimum level of wealth
to qualify for the Forbes list rose by 39%. From 1998-99, there was
a 36% wealth growth of the Forbes group and 40% increase in the number
of billionaires. Reflecting the disproportionate advantages to the
wealthy, even in this group, the cutoff for membership continued to
grow less rapidly at 22%.

The presence of borrowing constraints has the effect of generally
limiting entrepreneurs to be from wealthy families. Entrepreneurs’
wealth is almost five times that of workers putting the average
entrepreneur in the top 10% of the wealth distribution, while the
earnings of entrepreneurs are less than double those of workers. The
burden of regressive taxation is placed on workers and on smaller
corporations of fledgling entrepreneurs.

In addition to the advantage of wealth, the portfolio of wealthy
households typically includes assets yielding higher returns than the
assets of poorer households and benefit from random capital gains.
With these higher rates of return, there is more incentive in delaying
consumption, which gives the wealthy a motive for saving that poorer
households do not have. Poorer people, in contrast, are more likely
to be affected by government support policies, by changes in health,
marital status, and never see a capital gain.

If the government has a policy that guarantees a minimum level of
income, then those households with consumption below the government's
minimum have no incentive to accumulate assets. If these people do
accumulate assets, and their earnings drop, they will not receive what
the government would otherwise have given them. In other words, this
policy implies that, for the poor, the effective tax rate on savings
can be above 100%. Consequently, once a household achieves a very low
asset level, and if its earnings are not expected to grow much, the
optimal strategy for that household may be to not accumulate assets
and remain poor forever.

Fixed costs are regressive in nature and abound in the US. Compare
health care in Europe to that in the US. The typical European country
has a comprehensive universal health care system that consumes 6.7% of
GDP, while in the United States, the public sector alone spends 6.3%
of GDP on health care, and employers and private insurance cover
another 7%. The total provision of health care in the US is twice
that in European countries as a portion of a GDP, that is itself 30%
higher in the US. There remains 43 million individuals in the US not
covered where 9 million are children and another 47 million with
inadequate coverage.

Health care should be provided by private care givers working through
uniform contracts of a single payer. This single payer should be the
US government with funding coming from the general fund and not a
payroll tax or yet another regressive fee placed on the backs of
workers. With health care under control, other regressive items out
of control can also be curbed. This would boost the economy and
enable competition with other nations that also have taken this
insightful humanitarian path. As with everything, there can be
private extensions to basic care offered by the universal plan and
allows a transition to a universal scheme as the private and
government offerings move to meet similar criteria.

With various capped payroll taxes and fixed fees that are not
reflective of income such as sales tax, the regressive nature of these
taxes becomes an even greater burden on the poor. In the 1950-60, the
income taxes were much more progressive and helped offset many of the
other regressive taxes. Since then however, the progressive nature of
the income tax system has been substantial reduced, and the number of
regressive taxes have substantially climbed. This places an ever
increasing burden on the poor.

Providing government income assistance only acts to create a
substantial tax on saving or, in some cases, even working with the
loss of medical coverage. Without some form of assistance however,
there will be large populations unable to obtain necessities and will
likely resort to crime or civil unrest. At the same time housing,
feeding, and caring for this population becomes a millstone for
government budgets.

The simple solution to this problem of wealth disparity is to remove
regressive forms of taxation and restore the progressive nature of the
income tax system. This will avoid, as much as possible, direct
individual assistance programs. Universal education and health care
should be a benefit paid out of the general fund. A healthy and
educated populous is economically beneficial. Workman's compensation
insurance and retirement fees should also come out to the general fund
paid by a progressive income tax. To help defray the cost of
education, a single private class should be allowed in an adjunct
facility rented by private funds as an option to all parents. This
would become an alternative to Released Time.

Wages of a worker then would provide greater affluence if not being
consumed by fixed costs that do not reflect upon elective services.
Basic health care should not be seen as an elective service. Cosmetic
surgery to augment normal appearance would be elective, as example.
With the government taking over many of the expenses that a company
must endure, the burden on the company is greatly reduced. These
companies can employ labor and be more competitive in the world
market. This would spur entrepreneurs from families with less wealth
as the associated overheads are reduced. This will simulate jobs
producing wealth for the nation and reducing the trade deficit. This
would also reduce the advantage enjoyed by giant corporations. Allow
sheltered savings accounts that can not be used as collateral for a
loan. Use of stocks as collateral should also be taxed.


Rather than allowing the US to become a dynasty for the wealthy and a
feudal state for the poor, by removing regressive taxes and
reinstating progressive taxes, the wealth distribution would turn
around with more jobs becoming available. The CEO of a company would
not want to pay high levels of income tax and therefore would not vote
themselves a high salary as that money would be better used growing
the company. The progressive tax system would act to apply the brakes
on greed and get people out from being under government assistance
programs.

The Republican strategy is exactly the opposite of this goal which
fosters corporate hegemony. By dramatically curtailing tax on capital
gains, inheritance, higher income brackets, the nation is suffering
ever greater deficits. These deficits will lead to further cuts in
social services and increases in regressive fees. This is driving the
US into the dark ages of giant corporate greed and a looming financial
and humanitarian disaster.
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:09:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 17:06:40 GMT, Douglas Otis
the
poor.
--
Jim Riley
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-04 23:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
fsds18t
2003-11-05 21:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-05 22:17:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.

My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x dollars
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.

If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a startup
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c most
liberals don't.
Gary Forbis
2003-11-06 03:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x dollars
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a startup
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c most
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.

What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 13:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x dollars
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a startup
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c most
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.
What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
I disagree, but take any company that grew out of nothing via
innovation/invention/meeting a market need. Wealth was created, jobs were
created, and money grew. That is how our GDP has gone from a few trillion to
almost 11 trillion dollars today. Money grows. It isn't static, or zero sum.
This is the big achilles heel in the stalinist/marxist economic arguments
and how when folks actually understand this and can participate in
capitalism, that the emotional element of rich vs poor falls by the wayside.
fsds18t
2003-11-06 19:00:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x
dollars
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a
startup
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c
most
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.
What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
I disagree, but take any company that grew out of nothing via
innovation/invention/meeting a market need. Wealth was created, jobs were
created, and money grew. That is how our GDP has gone from a few trillion to
almost 11 trillion dollars today. Money grows. It isn't static, or zero sum.
This is the big achilles heel in the stalinist/marxist economic arguments
and how when folks actually understand this and can participate in
capitalism, that the emotional element of rich vs poor falls by the wayside.
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 19:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
fsds18t
2003-11-06 22:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which is what everyone on these groups does. Ignoring what I say
doesn't make you right. If you can refute what I say and it makes
sense I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 23:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which is what everyone on these groups does. Ignoring what I say
doesn't make you right. If you can refute what I say and it makes
sense I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.
Arguing with you about this is like trying to convince you water is wet.
Sorry. No dice.
fsds18t
2003-11-07 16:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which is what everyone on these groups does. Ignoring what I say
doesn't make you right. If you can refute what I say and it makes
sense I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.
Arguing with you about this is like trying to convince you water is wet.
Sorry. No dice.
In other words you can't think of an example. That's all you had to say.
Scott and/or Janet Storm
2003-11-08 15:06:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
In other words you can't think of an example. That's all you had to say.
Money is created and destroyed every day as a consequence of bankers
conducting their business. Wealth creation is not a zero sum game as you
were told once before. Obviously you have an interest in the subject or you
wouldn't be posting. I suggest stopping your "argument for arguments sake"
and check out what your being told by those replying. If it's bullshit then,
call it bullshit. If it is not, you may learn something. I suggest doing a
little web research on the history of the banking system.

Regards,
Scott S.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-08 16:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which is what everyone on these groups does. Ignoring what I say
doesn't make you right. If you can refute what I say and it makes
sense I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.
Here are the facts to dispute that GDP is purely a result of inflation and
population growth:

Population:

-Population of US in 1982: 232 million
-Population of US in 2003: 290 million

% Increase in population: 20%

GDP:
(with inflation/CPI taken into account...actual GDP in 1982 was ~ 4
trillion)

11 trillion in 2003 = 5.5 trillion in 1982

http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

GDP Increased 50% from 1982 to 2003 (in terms of 2003 dollars).

20% does not = 50%
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 19:56:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
Nonsense.
fsds18t
2003-11-06 22:26:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
Nonsense.
None of what I just wrote is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, but
please explain why.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-08 15:05:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Nonsense.
None of what I just wrote is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, but
please explain why.
No. You will find anything I say to argue with, and I know you personality
type. I could say "water is wet" and you would say, "yeah but what if it
were frozen..."

If you can't see that money grows without "taking away" from someone else,
than that is just something you will have to live with.

Just curious: What economic background are you from? Did you ever take at
least any college level economics classes? Do you have any investments or at
least a 401K? Do you work for a large corporation that is publicly traded? I
am just curious where one with your opinion gets their information from, b/c
it isn't real world.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-08 16:45:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
Nonsense.
None of what I just wrote is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, but
please explain why.
Here are the facts to dispute that GDP is purely a result of inflation and
population growth:

Population:

-Population of US in 1982: 232 million
-Population of US in 2003: 290 million

% Increase in population: 20%

GDP:
(with inflation/CPI taken into account...actual GDP in 1982 was ~ 4
trillion)

11 trillion in 2003 = 5.5 trillion in 1982

http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

GDP Increased 50% from 1982 to 2003 (in terms of 2003 dollars).

20% does not = 50%
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-08 20:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
Nonsense.
None of what I just wrote is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, but
please explain why.
Here are the facts to dispute that GDP is purely a result of inflation and
-Population of US in 1982: 232 million
-Population of US in 2003: 290 million
% Increase in population: 20%
(with inflation/CPI taken into account...actual GDP in 1982 was ~ 4
trillion)
11 trillion in 2003 = 5.5 trillion in 1982
http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
GDP Increased 50% from 1982 to 2003 (in terms of 2003 dollars).
20% does not = 50%
The silent reponse is deafening FSDS18T. What happened?

What?
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-09 03:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
None of what I just wrote is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, but
please explain why.
Here are the facts to dispute that GDP is purely a result of inflation and
-Population of US in 1982: 232 million
-Population of US in 2003: 290 million
% Increase in population: 20%
(with inflation/CPI taken into account...actual GDP in 1982 was ~ 4
trillion)
11 trillion in 2003 = 5.5 trillion in 1982
http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
GDP Increased 50% from 1982 to 2003 (in terms of 2003 dollars).
20% does not = 50%
The silent reponse is deafening FSDS18T. What happened?
What?
Still no response?

LOL
Gary Forbis
2003-11-09 06:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
Nonsense.
None of what I just wrote is nonsense. If you disagree, fine, but
please explain why.
Here are the facts to dispute that GDP is purely a result of inflation and
-Population of US in 1982: 232 million
-Population of US in 2003: 290 million
% Increase in population: 20%
(with inflation/CPI taken into account...actual GDP in 1982 was ~ 4
trillion)
11 trillion in 2003 = 5.5 trillion in 1982
http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html
GDP Increased 50% from 1982 to 2003 (in terms of 2003 dollars).
20% does not = 50%
Why do you guys continue to conflate wealth with money?

Productivity gains happen.

Wealth needn't acrue to those whose productivity has increased.

The money needed to finance a startup can come from thin air but if
it is not matched by productivity gains or removed from the economy
by some means then the result is inflation.

Ideally money is just an accounting of readily transferable wealth but
because it can be created out of thin air it doesn't quite live up to
that standard.

Wealth reduces to the goods and services one has or commands. We can
all be more wealthy. It's too bad so many play for relative gains.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-09 13:32:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
Wealth reduces to the goods and services one has or commands. We can
all be more wealthy. It's too bad so many play for relative gains.
I agree. All I was trying to do was talk on fsds18s's level and show him
that population and inflation aren't the only things that contribute to GDP
expansion.
Mark Neglay
2003-11-07 01:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x
dollars
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a
startup
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c
most
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.
What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
I disagree, but take any company that grew out of nothing via
innovation/invention/meeting a market need. Wealth was created, jobs were
created, and money grew. That is how our GDP has gone from a few trillion to
almost 11 trillion dollars today. Money grows. It isn't static, or zero sum.
This is the big achilles heel in the stalinist/marxist economic arguments
and how when folks actually understand this and can participate in
capitalism, that the emotional element of rich vs poor falls by the wayside.
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere.
Nope. We can and do create money every day to finance new ventures.
Post by RedPill
If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft.
You are confusing investment capital with income.
Post by RedPill
If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter.
You are confusing investment capital with income.

However you are correct, if you hire Scotty to design a transporter
for you, sales for automobiles and other means of transportation will
probably drop. Wealth is still created. Where people used to have to
sit in cars for long rides, getting frustrated by traffic, degrading
the air quality, and endangering their lives, now they can travel
instantly and safely. Good job. Society is now more wealthy because
of you.
Post by RedPill
Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The supply of money is not fixed, nor is wealth. You have a decidedly
closed-world point of view of economics that is completely false.
Post by RedPill
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have.
I don't have to take anything away from anyone to become more wealthy
myself.
Post by RedPill
Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
Sure it is, I just have to create something. People can create stuff
you know. We have been doing it for millenia.

You need to think about this some more. According to you, we are no
more wealthy now, gross or per capita, then hunter-gatherers were
50,000 years ago.
fsds18t
2003-11-07 17:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x
dollars
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a
startup
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c
most
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.
What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
I disagree, but take any company that grew out of nothing via
innovation/invention/meeting a market need. Wealth was created, jobs were
created, and money grew. That is how our GDP has gone from a few trillion to
almost 11 trillion dollars today. Money grows. It isn't static, or zero sum.
This is the big achilles heel in the stalinist/marxist economic arguments
and how when folks actually understand this and can participate in
capitalism, that the emotional element of rich vs poor falls by the wayside.
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere.
Nope. We can and do create money every day to finance new ventures.
When you say create, can you tell me how? Where does it come from?
Post by RedPill
Post by fsds18t
If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft.
You are confusing investment capital with income.
Post by fsds18t
If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter.
You are confusing investment capital with income.
However you are correct, if you hire Scotty to design a transporter
for you, sales for automobiles and other means of transportation will
probably drop. Wealth is still created. Where people used to have to
sit in cars for long rides, getting frustrated by traffic, degrading
the air quality, and endangering their lives, now they can travel
instantly and safely. Good job. Society is now more wealthy because
of you.
Post by fsds18t
Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The supply of money is not fixed, nor is wealth. You have a decidedly
closed-world point of view of economics that is completely false.
Post by fsds18t
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have.
I don't have to take anything away from anyone to become more wealthy
myself.
If it doesn't come from someone else, where does it come from? That is
all I am asking.
Post by RedPill
Post by fsds18t
Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
Sure it is, I just have to create something. People can create stuff
you know. We have been doing it for millenia.
Creating stuff doesn't give you money. Selling stuff does. When you
sell something, someone else has to buy it.
Post by RedPill
You need to think about this some more. According to you, we are no
more wealthy now, gross or per capita, then hunter-gatherers were
50,000 years ago.
I am talking comparatively, i.e. what you are worth compared to
everyone else. I agree, things keep improving etc etc, but that is not
what I am talking about. I am talking about improving you status
compared to others. Lets say you are the # 11 wealthiest person in the
world, how do you become #10 without #10(or anyone above him) dropping
out of the top 10?
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-07 22:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
Sure it is, I just have to create something. People can create stuff
you know. We have been doing it for millenia.
Creating stuff doesn't give you money. Selling stuff does. When you
sell something, someone else has to buy it.
You can sell for something other than money.
Property or shares of stock are fairly common these days.
Either of which could increase your net worth in terms of dollar
amount, even though you didn't actually exchange dollars.
Post by fsds18t
Post by Mark Neglay
You need to think about this some more. According to you, we are no
more wealthy now, gross or per capita, then hunter-gatherers were
50,000 years ago.
I am talking comparatively, i.e. what you are worth compared to
everyone else. I agree, things keep improving etc etc, but that is not
what I am talking about. I am talking about improving you status
compared to others. Lets say you are the # 11 wealthiest person in the
world, how do you become #10 without #10(or anyone above him) dropping
out of the top 10?
Sure he has to drop out, but you don't have to take any of his
money to do it.

If, at the end of this year, you were at #11 with 10 billion, and
the #10 person had 11 billion, and then at the end of next year you
have $12 billion while he's still at $11 billion, you have surpassed
him without taking his money. His wealth remains the same, but you
have moved up.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-08 15:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Here are the facts to dispute that GDP is purely a result of inflation and
population growth:

Population:

-Population of US in 1982: 232 million
-Population of US in 2003: 290 million

% Increase in population: 20%

GDP:
(with inflation/CPI taken into account...actual GDP in 1982 was ~ 4
trillion)

11 trillion in 2003 = 5.5 trillion in 1982

http://www.halfhill.com/inflation.html

GDP Increased 50% from 1982 to 2003 (in terms of 2003 dollars).

20% does not = 50%
Mark Neglay
2003-11-08 09:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x
dollars
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a
startup
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c
most
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.
What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
I disagree, but take any company that grew out of nothing via
innovation/invention/meeting a market need. Wealth was created, jobs were
created, and money grew. That is how our GDP has gone from a few trillion to
almost 11 trillion dollars today. Money grows. It isn't static, or zero sum.
This is the big achilles heel in the stalinist/marxist economic arguments
and how when folks actually understand this and can participate in
capitalism, that the emotional element of rich vs poor falls by the wayside.
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere.
Nope. We can and do create money every day to finance new ventures.
When you say create, can you tell me how? Where does it come from?
Privately owned banks as well as the Federal Government.
Post by RedPill
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft.
You are confusing investment capital with income.
Post by fsds18t
If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter.
You are confusing investment capital with income.
However you are correct, if you hire Scotty to design a transporter
for you, sales for automobiles and other means of transportation will
probably drop. Wealth is still created. Where people used to have to
sit in cars for long rides, getting frustrated by traffic, degrading
the air quality, and endangering their lives, now they can travel
instantly and safely. Good job. Society is now more wealthy because
of you.
Post by fsds18t
Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The supply of money is not fixed, nor is wealth. You have a decidedly
closed-world point of view of economics that is completely false.
Post by fsds18t
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have.
I don't have to take anything away from anyone to become more wealthy
myself.
If it doesn't come from someone else, where does it come from? That is
all I am asking.
My brain and my own two hands.
Post by RedPill
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by fsds18t
Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
Sure it is, I just have to create something. People can create stuff
you know. We have been doing it for millenia.
Creating stuff doesn't give you money.
You are confusing money with wealth. Creating something of value
creates wealth, even if you create it for yourself, and even if you
create it for someone who pays you in oranges or gasoline.
Post by RedPill
Selling stuff does. When you
sell something, someone else has to buy it.
Post by Mark Neglay
You need to think about this some more. According to you, we are no
more wealthy now, gross or per capita, then hunter-gatherers were
50,000 years ago.
I am talking comparatively, i.e. what you are worth compared to
everyone else. I agree, things keep improving etc etc, but that is not
what I am talking about.
Yet that is what makes people more wealthy. That is what allows
someone to become more wealthy without having to take something from
someone else.

What you are really trying to discuss is distribution of income or
wealth, which has nothing to do with whether or not one person has to
lose for another person to win.
Post by RedPill
I am talking about improving you status
compared to others. Lets say you are the # 11 wealthiest person in the
world, how do you become #10 without #10(or anyone above him) dropping
out of the top 10?
You don't. But that doesn't mean that number 11 is less wealthy.
Thom
2003-11-09 00:10:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by RedPill
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x
dollars
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a
startup
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c
most
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by GENOMEMAN
liberals don't.
Stock and mutual fund holdings aren't money.
What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
I disagree, but take any company that grew out of nothing via
innovation/invention/meeting a market need. Wealth was created, jobs were
created, and money grew. That is how our GDP has gone from a few trillion to
almost 11 trillion dollars today. Money grows. It isn't static, or zero sum.
This is the big achilles heel in the stalinist/marxist economic arguments
and how when folks actually understand this and can participate in
capitalism, that the emotional element of rich vs poor falls by the wayside.
I disagree. Companies don't grow out of nothing. Money is used to
start these companies, money that would otherwise have been used
elsewhere. If I create a company like microsoft but better, I will
start taking money that used to go to microsoft. If I invent and sell
something new, like a magic transporter, people will stop buying cars
and planes and buy my transporter. Money HAS to come from somewhere.
The "market growth" you are talking about is because of population
growth, expanding markets, and inflation.
The wealth I am talking about is comparative wealth, i.e. what % of
the worlds wealth you have. Another way to look at it is to say if you
have 1% of the wealth, how can you get to 2% without taking 1% from
the remainding 99%. You can't. It's not possible.
Money is a myth or a belief system. Its nothing more than funny
pieces of paper that people believe have value. Its much like Bill
Gates wealth, 90% of it is his MS stock, another myth which can be
worthless tomorrow.

THOM
redclay
2003-11-06 14:04:06 UTC
Permalink
"> What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
Actually the guy holding the asset has to pay a premium to cover the
handling charge just like the fellow selling the asset. The moneychanger is
the one making the money regardless of the situation. It is the only
certainty in any economic system.
Gary Forbis
2003-11-07 04:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by redclay
"> What grows (or doesn't) is the value of the holdings. The value of the
holding is measured by the market, that is the settling price between
a buyer and a seller. So there it is, the holding is transfered and
the money is transfered, no money is lost or gained in the transaction.
Actually the guy holding the asset has to pay a premium to cover the
handling charge just like the fellow selling the asset. The moneychanger is
the one making the money regardless of the situation. It is the only
certainty in any economic system.
No, the moneychanger is just taking a bit from both parties.

The only one making money in any economic system is the one making the
money. Sometimes this goes under "seigniorage". The federal reserve
buys coin at face value from the Treasury. The federal reserve buy
cash from the Treasury at printing costs.

Now you can walk into a bank and say "My house is worth $250,000. Can
I borrow $100,000 against it?" and the bank can say "Sure, as long as
you let me hold the title until you pay off the loan." If you accept
this the bank takes title of a $250,000 asset and sets up legal
arangements
where the borrower can get it back for $100,000 plus interest and
fees. The borrower gets a $100,000 credit. If the borrower wants to
take cash out of
the vault then this money gets counted in M1 and the credit
disappears. If the borrower never pays back the loan the bank can
take posession of the
house, though under certain conditions the borrower can force the bank
to
sell the house on the open market and let the borrower take any over
that
needed to pay back the loan and to pay the fees and interest. The
bank isn't
obligated to get top dollar for the house.
fsds18t
2003-11-06 17:21:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x dollars
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a startup
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c most
liberals don't.
Sorry, try again. According to you if everyone invested in the stock
market everyone would be rich. For any stock you buy there is a
seller. The market goes up and down, with winners and loosers. The
reason the market has an overall upward trend is due to expanding
markets, i.e. population growth. I am talking about comparative
wealth, which is realy the only way to talk about wealth. If I give
you a million but everyone else 10 million do you think you are
"richer" than before?
Please tell me where you think your increase in your funds value comes
from? Money tree?
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 17:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x dollars
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a startup
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c most
liberals don't.
Sorry, try again. According to you if everyone invested in the stock
market everyone would be rich. For any stock you buy there is a
seller. The market goes up and down, with winners and loosers. The
reason the market has an overall upward trend is due to expanding
markets, i.e. population growth. I am talking about comparative
wealth, which is realy the only way to talk about wealth. If I give
you a million but everyone else 10 million do you think you are
"richer" than before?
Please tell me where you think your increase in your funds value comes
from? Money tree?
Surely, you can't be this stupid.
fsds18t
2003-11-07 17:12:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x
dollars
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a
startup
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c
most
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
liberals don't.
Sorry, try again. According to you if everyone invested in the stock
market everyone would be rich. For any stock you buy there is a
seller. The market goes up and down, with winners and loosers. The
reason the market has an overall upward trend is due to expanding
markets, i.e. population growth. I am talking about comparative
wealth, which is realy the only way to talk about wealth. If I give
you a million but everyone else 10 million do you think you are
"richer" than before?
Please tell me where you think your increase in your funds value comes
from? Money tree?
Surely, you can't be this stupid.
Still waiting for an example... Guess you can't think of one.
Larry Kessler
2003-11-06 21:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
The market goes up and down, with winners and loosers.
My pants are LOOSER than they were a year ago because I've lost
weight.

You, sir, are a LOSER for not knowing the difference.
Mark Neglay
2003-11-07 01:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I will.
My 401 K. I am deducting a certain amount from my paycheck. I have x dollars
in my mutual fund. When the market does well, that fund grows in value.
Noone gets hurt.
If you can't see the MILLIONS of examples of how money grows through
investments in the form of securities, etc, or pure investment for a startup
business, you obviously don't understand economics, which is ok, b/c most
liberals don't.
Sorry, try again. According to you if everyone invested in the stock
market everyone would be rich.
That does not follow.
Post by fsds18t
For any stock you buy there is a
seller. The market goes up and down,
But the part you missed is that it goes up more than it goes down.
Post by fsds18t
with winners and loosers. The
reason the market has an overall upward trend is due to expanding
markets, i.e. population growth.
No, companies really are just plain worth more than they used to be.
You obviously don't even know what it means when you say that the
stock market is up or down.
Post by fsds18t
I am talking about comparative
wealth,
Maybe you are changing the subject to comparative wealth now. Until
now you were discussing in absolutes.
Post by fsds18t
which is realy the only way to talk about wealth. If I give
you a million but everyone else 10 million do you think you are
"richer" than before?
A million what? If you give him a million gallons of oil and everyone
else 10 million gallons of oil, then everyone is indeed richer,
including him. If you intentionally limit the discussion to the
inflationary distribution of massive amounts of money, then no one
necessarily becomes more wealthy. But of course when you do this, you
have completely ignored what happens in the real world and how it is
that one person becomes more wealthy while the rest of the world also
becomes more wealthy.
Post by fsds18t
Please tell me where you think your increase in your funds value comes
from? Money tree?
It occurs because people think the underlying assets are worth more.
The stock market historically gets a 10% return each year. It has
managed to do this for quite a long time. According to you, this is
because of inflation, which historically has run around 2-4% annually?
Jim Riley
2003-11-08 06:46:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
You obviously don't
--
Jim Riley
Mark Neglay
2003-11-08 20:41:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
You obviously don't
What is this? Why are you creating all these little messages under
the same subject. They appear to be meaningless fragments.
Gary Forbis
2003-11-09 06:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Neglay
Post by Mark Neglay
You obviously don't
What is this? Why are you creating all these little messages under
the same subject. They appear to be meaningless fragments.
They are an indication that your response included the news group
alt.politics.celebrity-poster.torresd which is used by at least Jim
Riley to indicate a line that can be ignored.
Roger R
2003-11-06 13:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I. Assume that Party A buys a $1 widget from Party C. Party C has made
whatever profit he was going to make on the Widget.

II. Now assume that Party A buys a Neo-widget from Party B for $1, who
then turns around and spends the $1 on an old fashioned widget from party C
for $1.

If both transactions of situation II occur in the same year, the GDP is
higher in that year by $1 in situation II over situation I. No one's income
was reduced, and party B's income was clearly increased by $1.

The dollars don't matter as much as the number of transactions times the
average dollar amount of each transaction.

To put it another way, an increase in the economy increases the number of
transactions, not the number of dollars in the economy. That is because the
economy is ~measured~ in dollars, but is ~actually~ the production,
transportation and sale of goods and services.

Roger R.
Jon Cornell
2003-11-06 18:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I. Assume that Party A buys a $1 widget from Party C. Party C has made
whatever profit he was going to make on the Widget.
II. Now assume that Party A buys a Neo-widget from Party B for $1, who
then turns around and spends the $1 on an old fashioned widget from party C
for $1.
If both transactions of situation II occur in the same year, the GDP is
higher in that year by $1 in situation II over situation I. No one's income
was reduced, and party B's income was clearly increased by $1.
What are you talking about??

Party A bought two widgets for $2.
Party B traded a Neo-widget for an old fashioned widget.
Party C sold two widgets.

Now, I don't know what the value of the two different widgets are -
but it seems obvious that Party A has spent money, Party C has sold a
product, and Party B has just traded a new widget for an old one.
Without more data, that adds up to absolutely nothing.

I'm not saying wealth can't be created - it can - but your example
doesn't make any sense.
Post by Roger R
To put it another way, an increase in the economy increases the number of
transactions, not the number of dollars in the economy. That is because the
economy is ~measured~ in dollars, but is ~actually~ the production,
transportation and sale of goods and services.
Ah, there you go. It makes sense in the abstract.

What it boils down to is that money can be created, and it can also be
transferred from others. And when a person becomes rich, it's usually
safe to say that some of their money was created, and some of it was
transferred from others.

Anyone who doesn't believe that one class can take too much capital
from another class doesn't understand economics. In fact, this was
one of the causes of the Great Depression - so much money had been
taken from the working class that there was actually a shortage of
money, which made money more valuable, which caused deflation. And
this actually caused the capitalist class to become even richer in
comparison to the working class.

The Estate Tax is one important safeguard to make sure that the
majority of wealth transferred to an individual from others doesn't
stay in that individual's family. It's one thing to create wealth;
it's quite another to hoard it.

Jon
fsds18t
2003-11-06 21:09:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
I. Assume that Party A buys a $1 widget from Party C. Party C has made
whatever profit he was going to make on the Widget.
II. Now assume that Party A buys a Neo-widget from Party B for $1, who
then turns around and spends the $1 on an old fashioned widget from party C
for $1.
If both transactions of situation II occur in the same year, the GDP is
higher in that year by $1 in situation II over situation I. No one's income
was reduced, and party B's income was clearly increased by $1.
The dollars don't matter as much as the number of transactions times the
average dollar amount of each transaction.
To put it another way, an increase in the economy increases the number of
transactions, not the number of dollars in the economy. That is because the
economy is ~measured~ in dollars, but is ~actually~ the production,
transportation and sale of goods and services.
Roger R.
Party A would be out $2, part B would be even, and party C would be up
$2.
2+0-2=0
Follow the logic, and you'll get the same answer. Trying to split it
up in different years doesn't count. That is why there are standards
for accounting practices. What you just described is Enron style
accounting
RedPill
2003-11-06 13:54:23 UTC
Permalink
you're right. Congressman Sanders just made it all up. LOL


--redpill.
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 14:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Sanders is a commie pig. It makes sense he would say that kind of thing.
Post by RedPill
you're right. Congressman Sanders just made it all up. LOL
--redpill.
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-06 15:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.

What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?

If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 15:12:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Well you see, the liberal will argue that some country took money from a
tribe in Africa that never used currency to begin with. Of course, that is
total bullshit.
Roger R
2003-11-06 17:38:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Well you see, the liberal will argue that some country took money from a
tribe in Africa that never used currency to begin with.
Don't be stupid. The economy may be ~measured~ in dollars, but the real
economy is good and services, not dollars.

But that is so typical. Conservatives have no clue about economics or the
relationhip of economics to human society.

Roger R.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-06 21:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
Don't be stupid. The economy may be ~measured~ in dollars, but the real
economy is good and services, not dollars.
But that is so typical. Conservatives have no clue about economics or the
relationhip of economics to human society.
I see. That is why millions have been slaughtered, and countries have fallen
due to failed liberal economic programs. You don't have the track record to
back up what you are saying.
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-06 22:58:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Roger R
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Well you see, the liberal will argue that some country took money from a
tribe in Africa that never used currency to begin with.
Don't be stupid. The economy may be ~measured~ in dollars, but the real
economy is good and services, not dollars.
But that is so typical. Conservatives have no clue about economics or the
relationhip of economics to human society.
Well duh, go look up GDP.

I did use GDP as my comparison, not dollar bills in circulation.

Then go back and actually answer my questions and explain the
rise in GDP over time. Since you seem to believe that it is
a zero sum game, I look forward to hearing your explanation...
fsds18t
2003-11-07 17:15:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by Roger R
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Well you see, the liberal will argue that some country took money from a
tribe in Africa that never used currency to begin with.
Don't be stupid. The economy may be ~measured~ in dollars, but the real
economy is good and services, not dollars.
But that is so typical. Conservatives have no clue about economics or the
relationhip of economics to human society.
Well duh, go look up GDP.
I did use GDP as my comparison, not dollar bills in circulation.
Then go back and actually answer my questions and explain the
rise in GDP over time. Since you seem to believe that it is
a zero sum game, I look forward to hearing your explanation...
That's not going to work. Everyone knows an increase in population
will cause an increase in GDP.
Edward Glamkowski
2003-11-07 22:10:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by Roger R
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Well you see, the liberal will argue that some country took money from a
tribe in Africa that never used currency to begin with.
Don't be stupid. The economy may be ~measured~ in dollars, but the real
economy is good and services, not dollars.
But that is so typical. Conservatives have no clue about economics or the
relationhip of economics to human society.
Well duh, go look up GDP.
I did use GDP as my comparison, not dollar bills in circulation.
Then go back and actually answer my questions and explain the
rise in GDP over time. Since you seem to believe that it is
a zero sum game, I look forward to hearing your explanation...
That's not going to work. Everyone knows an increase in population
will cause an increase in GDP.
So how does adding more people add to the GDP?
You're assertion is that if someone making money, someone else is
losing money. Even adding people in this scenario could not increase
the GDP.

So, you admit that it is possible to increase the GDP, at the very
least by simply adding more people, so therefore the economy is NOT
a zero sum game. The economy grows, at minimum, relative to the
number of people in that economy.
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by Roger R
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
GENOMEMAN
2003-11-08 16:42:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
So, you admit that it is possible to increase the GDP, at the very
least by simply adding more people, so therefore the economy is NOT
a zero sum game. The economy grows, at minimum, relative to the
number of people in that economy.
And even THAT isn't guaranteed. This is why a communist country typically
has less GDP per capita than a capitalist one.
fsds18t
2003-11-06 20:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by GENOMEMAN
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Well you see, the liberal will argue that some country took money from a
tribe in Africa that never used currency to begin with. Of course, that is
total bullshit.
Ummmm THIS is quite trivial to demonstrate...

What was the population 1000 years ago?
What was it 100 years ago?
What is it now?
Jon Cornell
2003-11-06 18:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
Post by Edward Glamkowski
Post by fsds18t
In any economy for someone to make money
someone HAS to loose money.
That's completely wrong.
You assume a zero sum game, but economics is NOT a zero sum game.
Give me an example of how you think you can make money that doesn't
decrease someone elses.
This is quite trivial to demonstrate.
What is the global GDP today?
What was it 100 years ago?
What was it 1000 years ago?
If economics was a zero sum game, the GDP could never grow.
It does.
Of course you're absolutely right.

However, the original statement that you're disputing is really only
wrong in that it is too absolutist. It is probably accurate to say
the following:

"In any economy, for someone to make money, someone else nearly always
loses money."

No, it's not a zero-sum game. We're not looking at a situation where
"Person A becomes 6 dollars richer and Persons B-Z become,
collectively, six dollars poorer." However, we often *are* looking at
a situation where "Person A becomes 6 dollars richer and Persons B-Z
become, collectively, five dollars poorer."

The GDP grows, but it never grows at anything resembling the rate of
the personal wealth of the wealthiest Americans. Since they are
obviously outpacing the GDP, the extra money has to be coming from
somewhere.

Jon
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:08:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by fsds18t
I agree
--
Jim Riley
Daniel Kolle
2003-11-04 22:19:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
The richest one percent also pay more in taxes a year than you earn
your entire lifetime.

--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
RedPill
2003-11-04 22:33:48 UTC
Permalink
you'll have to pardon your own stupidity. the Middle Class pays the majority
of the taxes in this country, redneck cretin. by the way, who told you
'that one'.

--redpill.
Post by Daniel Kolle
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
The richest one percent also pay more in taxes a year than you earn
your entire lifetime.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
Neal Atkins
2003-11-04 23:31:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
you'll have to pardon your own stupidity. the Middle Class pays the majority
of the taxes in this country, redneck cretin. by the way, who told you
'that one'.
Try again LIAR. The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income
taxes. That is a "majority" of income taxes.
RedPill
2003-11-04 23:50:12 UTC
Permalink
horsehockey. who sold you that rubbish. my god. hint: Enron didn't pay
federal income taxes for 4 years.

PS ---the top 5% are sending their money to Bermuda, one of the best tax
shelters going. ever heard of Tax Expatriation??

--redpill
Post by Neal Atkins
Post by RedPill
you'll have to pardon your own stupidity. the Middle Class pays the majority
of the taxes in this country, redneck cretin. by the way, who told you
'that one'.
Try again LIAR. The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income
taxes. That is a "majority" of income taxes.
Neal Atkins
2003-11-05 00:43:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
horsehockey. who sold you that rubbish. my god. hint: Enron didn't pay
federal income taxes for 4 years.
Hint; top posting moron: Enron is not an individual.
Post by RedPill
PS ---the top 5% are sending their money to Bermuda, one of the best tax
shelters going. ever heard of Tax Expatriation??
No, LIAR, the top 5% paid MOST of the Federal income taxes. SOURCE:
IRS.
Gary Forbis
2003-11-05 11:09:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neal Atkins
Post by RedPill
you'll have to pardon your own stupidity. the Middle Class pays the majority
of the taxes in this country, redneck cretin. by the way, who told you
'that one'.
Try again LIAR. The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income
taxes. That is a "majority" of income taxes.
OK, The title of the thread is:
Re: The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America.

If I access this as fact and "The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income
taxes" then the issue is one of class distinction rather than fairness.

I'd prefer a wealth tax to an income tax. If we did this then there
would be a huge shift in taxes towards the wealthy.

On the other hand, since I really favor fee for service I'd like to
get rid of taxes altogether and assess market based fees on what are
currently government services such as land, copyright, property protection,
etc. Insurance companies could work out the details for those wanting
insurance for reasons of risk sharing. Those wanting to inforce their
own justice could do so, knowing others could do likewise.
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
OK, The title
--
Jim Riley
Gary Forbis
2003-11-06 02:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
OK, The title
Got it.

Wish you would follow up with a standard tag saying what you mean.
I wouldn't have had to research google to find out what you were saying.
MSN doesn't respond to a search for the offending fake group.
Marcus Taliaferro
2003-11-10 16:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Forbis
Post by Neal Atkins
Post by RedPill
you'll have to pardon your own stupidity. the Middle Class pays the majority
of the taxes in this country, redneck cretin. by the way, who told you
'that one'.
Try again LIAR. The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income
taxes. That is a "majority" of income taxes.
Re: The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America.
If I access this as fact and "The top 5% of wage earners pay 53.25% of income
taxes" then the issue is one of class distinction rather than fairness.
I'd prefer a wealth tax to an income tax. If we did this then there
would be a huge shift in taxes towards the wealthy.
On the other hand, since I really favor fee for service I'd like to
get rid of taxes altogether and assess market based fees on what are
currently government services such as land, copyright, property protection,
etc. Insurance companies could work out the details for those wanting
insurance for reasons of risk sharing. Those wanting to inforce their
own justice could do so, knowing others could do likewise.
OK, for this class lets assume (there's that word) there is 100,000,000 in
income to be spread around.
And for this class there will be NO deductions in income just to keep the
math simple. You guys know, KISS.
OK, here goes:

100,000,000 X 1% = 1,000,000
100,000,000 X 99% = 99,000,000
So far so good, everybody agree?

1,000,000 X 54% = 540,000
99,000,000 X 33% = 32,670,000

If my math is correct, the rich guys pay 540,000 and the rest of us shoulder
32,670,000. The actual population doesn't matter other than water down the
individual income amount. It is the percentage that counts. Plug in a lower
percentage (say 20) and you get 19,800,000. Even if we paid only 5% of our
income we still pay 4,950,000.

Oh well, life is a bitch sometimes, then we marry one, then we pay taxes,
then we die.

Marcus

Daniel Kolle
2003-11-04 23:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
you'll have to pardon your own stupidity. the Middle Class pays the majority
of the taxes in this country, redneck cretin
Your ad hominem is noted.

--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
RedPill
2003-11-04 22:37:49 UTC
Permalink
Daniel Kolle needs your help in explaining to him/her/it that the majority
of the taxes in this country are paid for by the largest group of
taxpayers---The Middle Class.

don't believe, do some online research and learn something.

--redpill.
Post by Daniel Kolle
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great going
with those tax cuts, george!!!
The richest one percent also pay more in taxes a year than you earn
your entire lifetime.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
Daniel Kolle
2003-11-04 23:45:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by RedPill
Daniel Kolle needs your help in explaining to him/her/it that the majority
of the taxes in this country are paid for by the largest group of
taxpayers---The Middle Class.
don't believe, do some online research and learn something.
I did. http://www.taxfoundation.org/prtopincome.html
Fool.
Post by RedPill
--redpill.
Post by Daniel Kolle
Post by RedPill
The Richest 1% own more wealth than the bottom 95% in America. Great
going
Post by Daniel Kolle
Post by RedPill
with those tax cuts, george!!!
The richest one percent also pay more in taxes a year than you earn
your entire lifetime.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 15 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, and Gustav Mahler are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
Jim Riley
2003-11-05 13:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Kolle
your entire lifetime.
--
Jim Riley
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...