record inequality

[LargoWinch]

Re: record inequality

Hey now. I had the good fortune to take classes from two Nobel laureates, Ahmed Zewail (chemistry, 1999) and Herbert Kroemer (physics, 2000). Although the same could be said of all my professors, I can assure you that those two guys are a lot smarter than I. (Those two were both very smart, and made pioneering discoveries that other scientists found broadly useful.) Say what you will about the Peace prize or the prizes in Economics and Literature, but the guys who win in the hard sciences aren't slouches. There, at least, the merit of their ideas is objectively demonstrable.

Agreed ASH, I went a little heavy-handed on Nobel.

Allow me to qualify my previous comment to Krugman's Nobel prize...

[cjppjc]

Re: record inequality

From iTulip research in 2006:

That is some chart. I looked at it for a very long time. It is much more than just FIRE.

[medved]

Re: record inequality

rjwjr; I deeply agree with your premise that if someone works hard, takes risks [businessman/woman] then this person should be rewarded accordingly.

Having said that, I hope you realize that the game is rigged, unfair, tilted in favor of well-connected FIRE bastards at the expense of the masses [including successful entrepreneurs].

I bet you all the gold in the world that not all of these "high net worth" individuals [actually a lot of "ultra-rich crooks" ;) ] worked hard, took risks and won. No, these crook bastards, are simply in bed with governments and regulators: win or lose, they get paid. Who cares about the standard of living of the "bottom 95%"? .

First, we cannot just look at “income”. A lot of “poor” receive benefits, that middle class does not (food stamps, medical care, tuition subsidies, housing etc.). Health and human services is the biggest spending item in the federal budget (slightly bigger, than defense). Besides, there are benefits paid by the states. This is a huge transfer of wealth taken from the middle class.

Also, we need to add parasitic classes of overpaid gov’t employees and union thugs. Between California state employees (that are going to retire on the backs of taxpayers) and BART janitors/LA bus drivers/GM workers etc. overpaid by tens of thousands of dollars a year they cost taxpayers a lot of money. I am not even sure, the rich crooks as a group cost us more. It would be interesting to try to figure, which group is more expensive. I don’t care, the rich crooks are super-rich and union thugs are just overpaid, they are all bloodsuckers.

Oh and btw, Krugman is the living proof that a Nobel prize is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

I could not have said it better. Tells you how much of a ‘science’ modern economics is.

[audrey_girl]

Re: record inequality

First, we cannot just look at “income”. A lot of “poor” receive benefits, that middle class does not (food stamps, medical care, tuition subsidies, housing etc.). Health and human services is the biggest spending item in the federal budget (slightly bigger, than defense). Besides, there are benefits paid by the states. This is a huge transfer of wealth taken from the middle class.

Also, we need to add parasitic classes of overpaid gov’t employees and union thugs. Between California state employees (that are going to retire on the backs of taxpayers) and BART janitors/LA bus drivers/GM workers etc. overpaid by tens of thousands of dollars a year they cost taxpayers a lot of money. I am not even sure, the rich crooks as a group cost us more. It would be interesting to try to figure, which group is more expensive. I don’t care, the rich crooks are super-rich and union thugs are just overpaid, they are all bloodsuckers.



I could not have said it better. Tells you how much of a ‘science’ modern economics is.

regarding krugman - you mean the guy in this video - ha ha

[rjwjr]

Re: record inequality

rjwjr; I deeply agree with your premise that if someone works hard, takes risks [businessman/woman] then this person should be rewarded accordingly.

Having said that, I hope you realize that the game is rigged, unfair, tilted in favor of well-connected FIRE bastards at the expense of the masses [including successful entrepreneurs].

I bet you all the gold in the world that not all of these "high net worth" individuals [actually a lot of "ultra-rich crooks" ;) ] worked hard, took risks and won. No, these crook bastards, are simply in bed with governments and regulators: win or lose, they get paid. Who cares about the standard of living of the "bottom 95%"?

Oh and btw, Krugman is the living proof that a Nobel prize is not worth a bucket of warm spit.

I don't approve of a rigged or unfair playing field either. I've also stated on numerous occasions that all of these crooks and criminals should get their just punishment. I continue, however, to have an issue with this surprisingly (for iTulip) premise that many of the top 5% are criminals. Look, if there are 300,000,000 people in the US, then the top 5% is 15,000,000 people. Other than Madoff, Paulson, and a handful of others that you are mad at, you got a longgggg way to go to indict 14,000,000+ "rich" people for the actions of a few very bad apples.

Even if the wealth distribution data is not based on total population, but on something like "wage earners" or "heads of household", you're still talking about something like a 100,000,000 total data set which would result in 5,000,000 people in the top 5%. Do you truly believe that the majority of these people are criminals?

As I've said more than you care to hear...quit blaming "the rich", quit blaming the top 5%, blame the criminals...and quit calling these criminals "the rich" or "the top 5%" because it is a misleading and faulty label at best, while inciting class warfare at worst.

[rjwjr]

Re: record inequality

Poor wealth distribution is not a problem. It is a symptom of a problem: concentration of political power. In the 1920s it resulted from the financial influence of industrial elites on government. Since the 1980s it has resulted from the financial influence of FIRE elites on government.

I agree with you. As such, forced wealth redistribution is not the solution.

If you have a solution to the concentration of political power, I'm all ears. As I've stated 2 or 3 times on your esteemed forum, I think a terrific first step would be mandatory term limits for all Congressmen and Senators.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: record inequality

As I've stated 2 or 3 times on your esteemed forum, I think a terrific first step would be mandatory term limits for all Congressmen and Senators.

As others have noted, California has term limits. I hope the U.S. doesn't follow their example.

Once the corruption is sufficiently engrained into the fabric of an organization, then changing the figurehead on the ballot makes little difference. Many of us who once strongly preferred one of Clinton or Bush or even Obama to the other are now concluding that it no longer seems to matter all that much who sits in the Oval Office. It's business as usual.

The same problem occurs with corruption in the financial business. Once corruption is sufficiently engrained, then regulatory reform doesn't help. The regulators are owned by the financial kingpins. When that occurs, it takes defaults on debt, bankruptcies of the kingping institutions, and criminal prosecution of the financial elite to correct the system.

The requirements on the political side are similar. We will need a few sent to jail and many of them thrown out of office before there is much chance of cleaning this mess up.

[Slimprofits]

Re: record inequality

Does the threat of prison time act as a true deterrence for the average white collar criminal?

Fifteen state legislatures have term limits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_li...th_term_limits

here's a 2004 report from the Public Policy Institute of California:

How Have Term Limits Affected the California Legislature?

http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/rb/RB_1104BCRB.pdf

The effects on Sacramento’s policymaking processes have been more profound. In both houses, committees now screen out fewer bills assigned to them and are more likely to see their work rewritten at later stages. The practice of “hijacking” Assembly bills—gutting their contents and amending them thoroughly in the Senate—has increased sharply. As a body, the Legislature is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget, and its own budget process neither encourages fiscal discipline nor links legislators’ requests to overall spending goals. In addition, legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly.

a few recommedations are included in that report.

[flintlock]

Re: record inequality

I don't approve of a rigged or unfair playing field either. I've also stated on numerous occasions that all of these crooks and criminals should get their just punishment. I continue, however, to have an issue with this surprisingly (for iTulip) premise that many of the top 5% are criminals. Look, if there are 300,000,000 people in the US, then the top 5% is 15,000,000 people. Other than Madoff, Paulson, and a handful of others that you are mad at, you got a longgggg way to go to indict 14,000,000+ "rich" people for the actions of a few very bad apples.

Even if the wealth distribution data is not based on total population, but on something like "wage earners" or "heads of household", you're still talking about something like a 100,000,000 total data set which would result in 5,000,000 people in the top 5%. Do you truly believe that the majority of these people are criminals?

As I've said more than you care to hear...quit blaming "the rich", quit blaming the top 5%, blame the criminals...and quit calling these criminals "the rich" or "the top 5%" because it is a misleading and faulty label at best, while inciting class warfare at worst.

I agree. I don't think a large percentage of the top wage earners are crooks or got their money any other way that by being smart and working hard. I also agree we have a problem with how we treat those who are caught breaking the law. There are people sitting in jail for stealing a few hundred bucks worth of goods when people who have stolen millions get off with a fine and probation. Or worst case, get sent to a country club prison instead of the hell hole some burglar might get. Examples need to be made and we'd see a lot less of this crap.

[raja]

Re: record inequality

As I've said more than you care to hear...quit blaming "the rich", quit blaming the top 5%, blame the criminals...and quit calling these criminals "the rich" or "the top 5%" because it is a misleading and faulty label at best, while inciting class warfare at worst.

Are you O.K. with 5% of the population controlling almost 60% of the wealth?

Finger-pointing at the criminals does not let the rich off the hook. You know as well as I that money creates the economic rules . . . so who to blame besides the rich for this ever-increasing inequality?

As I've said before, class warfare is already happening . . . the rich are parasitizing the rest.

Of course, true equality is not achievable, nor desirable. But gross inequality will not go unpunished as the wealth distribution scale reverts to the mean, or overshoots. Are you ready for that?

Class warfare (economic, not violent) . . . bring it on !

[pescamaaan]

Re: record inequality

Are you O.K. with 5% of the population controlling almost 60% of the wealth?

your statement almost suggests that the "top 5%" are colluding to control 60% of the wealth...

i think people act in their own self interest - i truly believe that **most** of the top 5% have worked hard to get what they have...

yes, some are "crooks" and others have been born with a silver spoon in their mouth...but many others used their talents to amass wealth.

now you could argue that along the way they've exploited others (imagine a business owner not paying their employees well) but i have to draw a line somewhere when people suggest that everyone who has been successful in life somehow marginalized someone else to get there...

i simply don't believe that's the case...

[ash777]

Re: record inequality

Are you O.K. with 5% of the population controlling almost 60% of the wealth?

Finger-pointing at the criminals does not let the rich off the hook. You know as well as I that money creates the economic rules . . . so who to blame besides the rich for this ever-increasing inequality?

As I've said before, class warfare is already happening . . . the rich are parasitizing the rest.

Of course, true equality is not achievable, nor desirable. But gross inequality will not go unpunished as the wealth distribution scale reverts to the mean, or overshoots. Are you ready for that?

Class warfare (economic, not violent) . . . bring it on !

Isn't class warfare by definition violent? Or did you mean economic beg-fare?

[ASH]

Re: record inequality

Are you O.K. with 5% of the population controlling almost 60% of the wealth?

Finger-pointing at the criminals does not let the rich off the hook. You know as well as I that money creates the economic rules . . . so who to blame besides the rich for this ever-increasing inequality?

As I've said before, class warfare is already happening . . . the rich are parasitizing the rest.

Of course, true equality is not achievable, nor desirable. But gross inequality will not go unpunished as the wealth distribution scale reverts to the mean, or overshoots. Are you ready for that?

Class warfare (economic, not violent) . . . bring it on !

Are we talking top 5% of income? To get into the "top 5%" in terms of income, you need a household income of $155k, according to the paper that Largo linked. That's an income level that is readily achievable through labor alone, for working professionals -- not the ill-gotten fruits of the rentier class (to channel comrade Hudson). For instance, that's two working engineers in Oregon; in the Bay Area that's one working engineer. If you're worried about "parasites" (and I hesitate to characterize anyone who owns a profitable asset as such), then you should restrict your hostility to those whose income is primarily drawn from owning assets rather than the fruits of their labor. Of those, you might also want to exempt retirees who live off of invested wealth rather than the public dole, when they can no longer support themselves by their labor. For my part, I see most everyone else saying the same thing, but disagreeing about semantic emphasis. I've got no beef with "the rich" -- I admire success -- but I resent those whose extreme wealth results more from the structure of their industry than their personal merit (envy rears its ugly head), and I want a piece of those who have achieved wealth by deceit.

[rjwjr]

Re: record inequality

Are you O.K. with 5% of the population controlling almost 60% of the wealth?

It's not up to me, it's not up to you. Even if you and your wealth redistribution brethren got together for a "wealth equalization meeting", there would be a wide disparity of OPINION amongst you believers as to what is "fair". What's next then the Wealth Equality Czar?

Also, even if you wealth redistribution guys came up with a redistribution plan that made you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, how long do you think it will take for me and most of my fellow iTulipers to get that wealth back? And I don't mean by cheating anyone or taking advantage of anyone, I mean by making smart financial decisions, employing fiscal restraint and discipline, and being either smarter and/or more dilligent in building our wealth?

Look, friendo, I agree with you that Madoff and those types are the scum of the earth and should be sent away for life (although in reality Madoff scammed "rich" people, not poorer people), but the answer to your problem isn't to redistribute wealth from all of us that have earned it. Your efforts should be focused more on longer lasting efforts like educating those in the lower classes about financial matters, making sure that white collar criminals get proper justice, and fighting for a fair playing field with equal opportunity for everyone. I don't have an issue with legislating equal opporunity, but I have a strong objection to legislating equal outcome (like forced wealth redistribution).

Keep this in mind...

• You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
• You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
• You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
• You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
• You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

[rabot10]

Re: record inequality

i guess there are more people of truly exceptional ability lately. :rolleyes: i wonder where they all went after 1929?




http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/ via paul krugman http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/200...n-more-gilded/

Thank you - must say I agree