Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
uziq
Member
+300|2136
if these schemes were working for the majority of americans, then why is the proportion of wealth owned by the top 1%/5% increasing hugely, and the bottom 90% possessing less and less wealth?

all it does is contribute to the wealth gap. the middle-class and majority of americans' life standards are deteriorating, and it is directly correlative with the concentration of wealth at the top. that 'wealth' is not being put to any productive use whatsoever. it's evaporating off into the upper atmosphere (located normally somewhere near belize or trinidad).
uziq
Member
+300|2136

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes, it is a wealth transfer, but I see it as a one off event necessitated by a massive government shutdown of the economy.

The loans are a separate issue from the extremely low interest rates we've had for over a decade. You could point at the low interest rates and say they were a bad thing because they allowed stock buybacks, but they also kept credit card rates and mortgage rates low. How can you say jobs were not being added when unemployment was so low? Trump was doing the wrong thing when he pressured the Fed to stop raising rates, as we were in fact overheating a bit with record employment levels, but the buybacks didn't preclude job creation. They're just a nice whipping boy for the Sanders/Warren people.
We had a wealth transfer 11 years ago. We had one during the Savings and Loan Scandal. That's 3 in 40 years. It's not a one-off solution.
This was one not of their own making. I was against the 2008 bailouts. This is different.
it's a political decision to use the fed and public money in this way. it could have been used for the benefit of all. instead congress wrapped up another unregulated trillion-dollar tranche to corporations.

the equivalent of $22,000 dollars for every single american has been given to financial corporations. how much did furloughed workers get by way of aid? $1600 for 3 months or something?

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-29 14:48:25)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2404

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


We had a wealth transfer 11 years ago. We had one during the Savings and Loan Scandal. That's 3 in 40 years. It's not a one-off solution.
This was one not of their own making. I was against the 2008 bailouts. This is different.
it's a political decision to use the fed and public money in this way. it could have been used for the benefit of all. instead congress wrapped up another unregulated trillion-dollar tranche to corporations.

the equivalent of $22,000 dollars for every single american has been given to financial corporations. how much did furloughed workers get by way of aid? $1600 for 3 months or something?
"you are unimaginably stupid" was what I was told when I suggested we should have used the money to fix infrastructure and rebuild domestic manufacturing.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

uziq wrote:

if these schemes were working for the majority of americans, then why is the proportion of wealth owned by the top 1%/5% increasing hugely, and the bottom 90% possessing less and less wealth?

all it does is contribute to the wealth gap. the middle-class and majority of americans' life standards are deteriorating, and it is directly correlative with the concentration of wealth at the top. that 'wealth' is not being put to any productive use whatsoever. it's evaporating off into the upper atmosphere (located normally somewhere near belize or trinidad).
Because the top 1%-5% are invested heavily in the stock market and everyone else isn't? It's not their salaries running wild.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+300|2136
really? they don't financially benefit from stock buy-backs and executive bonuses based on performance? O K.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
CEO compensation has grown 940% since 1978

The increased focus on growing inequality has led to an increased focus on CEO pay. Corporate boards running America’s largest public firms are giving top executives outsize compensation packages. Average pay of CEOs at the top 350 firms in 2018 was $17.2 million—or $14.0 million using a more conservative measure. (Stock options make up a big part of CEO pay packages, and the conservative measure values the options when granted, versus when cashed in, or “realized.”) CEO compensation is very high relative to typical worker compensation (by a ratio of 278-to-1 or 221-to-1). In contrast, the CEO-to-typical-worker compensation ratio (options realized) was 20-to-1 in 1965 and 58-to-1 in 1989. CEOs are even making a lot more—about five times as much—as other earners in the top 0.1%. From 1978 to 2018, CEO compensation grew by 1,007.5% (940.3% under the options-realized measure), far outstripping S&P stock market growth (706.7%) and the wage growth of very high earners (339.2%). In contrast, wages for the typical worker grew by just 11.9%.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-29 15:05:35)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:


We had a wealth transfer 11 years ago. We had one during the Savings and Loan Scandal. That's 3 in 40 years. It's not a one-off solution.
This was one not of their own making. I was against the 2008 bailouts. This is different.
it's a political decision to use the fed and public money in this way. it could have been used for the benefit of all. instead congress wrapped up another unregulated trillion-dollar tranche to corporations.

the equivalent of $22,000 dollars for every single american has been given to financial corporations. how much did furloughed workers get by way of aid? $1600 for 3 months or something?
$600/week + their state unemployment check. In New York it worked out to $26/hour which is above the median national wage. Corporations have to pay rent, licenses and benefits too, not just salaries.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+300|2136
i'm sure the reason why corporations needed $7 trillion dollars was because the rent prices are high in manhattan.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,865|5316|949

Rising rent prices are a direct byproduct of the concentration of wealth. Even mentioning rent in that sentence is a very good indicator that Jay has a very rudimentary understanding of what economic inequality leads to.
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,865|5316|949

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

if these schemes were working for the majority of americans, then why is the proportion of wealth owned by the top 1%/5% increasing hugely, and the bottom 90% possessing less and less wealth?

all it does is contribute to the wealth gap. the middle-class and majority of americans' life standards are deteriorating, and it is directly correlative with the concentration of wealth at the top. that 'wealth' is not being put to any productive use whatsoever. it's evaporating off into the upper atmosphere (located normally somewhere near belize or trinidad).
Because the top 1%-5% are invested heavily in the stock market and everyone else isn't? It's not their salaries running wild.
Jay simultaneously believes both pensions and the richest 5% are the most heavily invested in the stock market. I guess it depends on who deserves a whipping as to which one he chooses is in the majority on any given day. Pensions are bad, rich people good.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Rising rent prices are a direct byproduct of the concentration of wealth. Even mentioning rent in that sentence is a very good indicator that Jay has a very rudimentary understanding of what economic inequality leads to.
No, rising rents are a byproduct of low supply and high demand. If you look at your own state, you have plenty of land but your zoning and environmental laws, coupled with NIMBYism, your state has an annual housing deficit of hundreds of thousands of homes. That's why your rents and mortgages are skyrocketing. That's why you have what? 80,000 homeless? New York City has similar problems. But you know what? It's also self inflicted. You can buy land in much of the country for dirt cheap. An acre of land could cost you $1500 in Texas. People don't NEED to live in the most popular cities, they choose to, which is shy rents skyrocket in them. I bet rent is still pretty low in Detroit.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

if these schemes were working for the majority of americans, then why is the proportion of wealth owned by the top 1%/5% increasing hugely, and the bottom 90% possessing less and less wealth?

all it does is contribute to the wealth gap. the middle-class and majority of americans' life standards are deteriorating, and it is directly correlative with the concentration of wealth at the top. that 'wealth' is not being put to any productive use whatsoever. it's evaporating off into the upper atmosphere (located normally somewhere near belize or trinidad).
Because the top 1%-5% are invested heavily in the stock market and everyone else isn't? It's not their salaries running wild.
Jay simultaneously believes both pensions and the richest 5% are the most heavily invested in the stock market. I guess it depends on who deserves a whipping as to which one he chooses is in the majority on any given day. Pensions are bad, rich people good.
Pensions are fine. There's just a world of difference between dumping in 8% of your 50k salary into a 401k vs having a million dollars a year in stock options. Most people don't save a penny. They never take advantage of compound interest.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+300|2136
so it's most people's fault that the wealth of the bottom 90% has nose-dived since ~2000, and continues to do so with each new financial crisis, and the ones at the top are just 'saving prudently'?

why have executives salaries and stock options increased by 1000% since the 1970s, whilst your average worker's salary has increased by 11% in that time?

who creates all the 'value' in the american economy? whose labour? whose production?

why do you even identify so much with a class of people to which you will never, not in 10,000 years of checking school air-con systems, ever belong?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4790|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I rather have had the money go to producing stuff, repairing things, and building new infrastructure than propping up a fake consumer/service economy. Does America need so many chain restaurants, fast food places, movie theaters, bars, and nightclubs? Not really. Could most of those workers be retrained to do other stuff like installing drywall, agriculture, collecting garbage, working PPE factory machines? During the New Deal/World War 2, we produced a new tank every few seconds. There is no reason why we can't do big stuff like that again.
you are unimaginably stupid
You know what would be great? If government could just give money directly to corporations with no strings, like $10m/yr per VP. Then they wouldn't have to go through the tedious business of employing people to provide products or services.

It would save bigly on pensions, administration and healthcare costs and EBITDA would be like 100%.

The share prices would skyrocket which would be great for everyone's 401k.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2020-06-30 01:36:24)

Epstein didn't kill himself
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

uziq wrote:

so it's most people's fault that the wealth of the bottom 90% has nose-dived since ~2000, and continues to do so with each new financial crisis, and the ones at the top are just 'saving prudently'?

why have executives salaries and stock options increased by 1000% since the 1970s, whilst your average worker's salary has increased by 11% in that time?

who creates all the 'value' in the american economy? whose labour? whose production?

why do you even identify so much with a class of people to which you will never, not in 10,000 years of checking school air-con systems, ever belong?
Because the world is not zero sum, and one guy making $6,000,000 a year to run a company isn't really taking anything away from a company with 10,000 employees and billions in revenue. If you want to split up his salary, it's $600 per worker, or $50/month per worker. It's not egregious, and it's not like he's not adding value.

It's not that hard to reach escape velocity if you invest correctly and let compound interest do the work for you. Discipline, sure. By escape velocity I mean you reach a point where you earn more money in interest than you annually spend. That's where all these rich 0.1% are at and why their wealth keeps growing at such a higher rate than your average joe.

Will I make entertainer money in my lifetime? No, but I don't begrudge them their wealth either. For someone that "chose not to chase money" you sure do have a lot of jealousy and insecurity, but it's easily remedied if you learn simple math and see that there is no conspiracy, just the beauty of compound interest.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2404
It's 430 AM Tuesday in NYC. Why are you even awake, Jay? Don't you have work in the morning?
uziq
Member
+300|2136
capital is now hugely more profitable than labour, which is leading to the greatest levels of inequality in western society since the time of the robber barons. jay, who is still a labourer, continually speaks out on behalf of the capitalists' right to suddenly become $30 billion richer in a week because of covid-19 and government bailouts.
uziq
Member
+300|2136

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

so it's most people's fault that the wealth of the bottom 90% has nose-dived since ~2000, and continues to do so with each new financial crisis, and the ones at the top are just 'saving prudently'?

why have executives salaries and stock options increased by 1000% since the 1970s, whilst your average worker's salary has increased by 11% in that time?

who creates all the 'value' in the american economy? whose labour? whose production?

why do you even identify so much with a class of people to which you will never, not in 10,000 years of checking school air-con systems, ever belong?
Because the world is not zero sum, and one guy making $6,000,000 a year to run a company isn't really taking anything away from a company with 10,000 employees and billions in revenue. If you want to split up his salary, it's $600 per worker, or $50/month per worker. It's not egregious, and it's not like he's not adding value.

It's not that hard to reach escape velocity if you invest correctly and let compound interest do the work for you. Discipline, sure. By escape velocity I mean you reach a point where you earn more money in interest than you annually spend. That's where all these rich 0.1% are at and why their wealth keeps growing at such a higher rate than your average joe.

Will I make entertainer money in my lifetime? No, but I don't begrudge them their wealth either. For someone that "chose not to chase money" you sure do have a lot of jealousy and insecurity, but it's easily remedied if you learn simple math and see that there is no conspiracy, just the beauty of compound interest.
what are you talking about? you have no idea how value is generated in 90% of businesses, do you?

'the beauty of compound interest', lmao. yeah, economists from left and right think that runaway inequality is a bad thing for society, jay.

Last edited by uziq (2020-06-30 01:36:39)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,697|4790|eXtreme to the maX
The real beauty is in the beauty of not paying tax on your earnings or investment income.
Epstein didn't kill himself
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

uziq wrote:

capital is now hugely more profitable than labour, which is leading to the greatest levels of inequality in western society since the time of the robber barons. jay, who is still a labourer, continually speaks out on behalf of the capitalists' right to suddenly become $30 billion richer in a week because of covid-19 and government bailouts.
Have you not noticed the stock market over the past 11 years?

2019    31.10%    $4,510.10
2018    -4.41%    $3,440.19
2017    21.94%    $3,598.91
2016    11.93%    $2,951.38
2015    1.31%    $2,636.80
2014    13.81%    $2,602.71
2013    32.43%    $2,286.89
2012    15.88%    $1,726.87
2011    2.07%    $1,490.22
2010    14.87%    $1,460.00
2009    27.10%    $1,271.00
        $1,000

If you had started with $1000 going into 2009 your wealth would've increased 451% over 11 years if you had invested it. This conspiracy theory stuff really is amazing!
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+300|2136
i think jay's talk of 'reaching escape velocity' says it all, really. he sounds like one of those simps who attend motivational seminars on 'how to become a millionaire in 10 easy steps'. jay watches the condition of the middle-class deteriorate, the rising cost of living, the reduced affordability of and access to healthcare, education, etc, and grits his teeth ... he's outta there! nearing escape velocity to the ruling class!

but anyone concerned with the health of a democracy's majority, and of the dynamics of inequality, is, of course, 'jealous'.

i'm not personally worried at all about these things, jay. i thought you kept caricaturing me as a trust-fund baby? now i'm a jealous beggar? make up your mind
uziq
Member
+300|2136

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

capital is now hugely more profitable than labour, which is leading to the greatest levels of inequality in western society since the time of the robber barons. jay, who is still a labourer, continually speaks out on behalf of the capitalists' right to suddenly become $30 billion richer in a week because of covid-19 and government bailouts.
Have you not noticed the stock market over the past 11 years?

2019    31.10%    $4,510.10
2018    -4.41%    $3,440.19
2017    21.94%    $3,598.91
2016    11.93%    $2,951.38
2015    1.31%    $2,636.80
2014    13.81%    $2,602.71
2013    32.43%    $2,286.89
2012    15.88%    $1,726.87
2011    2.07%    $1,490.22
2010    14.87%    $1,460.00
2009    27.10%    $1,271.00
        $1,000

If you had started with $1000 going into 2009 your wealth would've increased 451% over 11 years if you had invested it. This conspiracy theory stuff really is amazing!
the stock market and a failure to invest is not the reason why the middle-class are getting poorer and the rich are getting much, much richer.

levels of home ownership are dropping and you're berating people for not having stock portfolios?
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+358|2404

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

capital is now hugely more profitable than labour, which is leading to the greatest levels of inequality in western society since the time of the robber barons. jay, who is still a labourer, continually speaks out on behalf of the capitalists' right to suddenly become $30 billion richer in a week because of covid-19 and government bailouts.
Have you not noticed the stock market over the past 11 years?

2019    31.10%    $4,510.10
2018    -4.41%    $3,440.19
2017    21.94%    $3,598.91

2016    11.93%    $2,951.38
2015    1.31%    $2,636.80
2014    13.81%    $2,602.71
2013    32.43%    $2,286.89
2012    15.88%    $1,726.87
2011    2.07%    $1,490.22
2010    14.87%    $1,460.00
2009    27.10%    $1,271.00

        $1,000

If you had started with $1000 going into 2009 your wealth would've increased 451% over 11 years if you had invested it. This conspiracy theory stuff really is amazing!
The worst president we ever had Barack Obama was good for the stock market?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,003|4042|London, England

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

capital is now hugely more profitable than labour, which is leading to the greatest levels of inequality in western society since the time of the robber barons. jay, who is still a labourer, continually speaks out on behalf of the capitalists' right to suddenly become $30 billion richer in a week because of covid-19 and government bailouts.
Have you not noticed the stock market over the past 11 years?

2019    31.10%    $4,510.10
2018    -4.41%    $3,440.19
2017    21.94%    $3,598.91
2016    11.93%    $2,951.38
2015    1.31%    $2,636.80
2014    13.81%    $2,602.71
2013    32.43%    $2,286.89
2012    15.88%    $1,726.87
2011    2.07%    $1,490.22
2010    14.87%    $1,460.00
2009    27.10%    $1,271.00
        $1,000

If you had started with $1000 going into 2009 your wealth would've increased 451% over 11 years if you had invested it. This conspiracy theory stuff really is amazing!
the stock market and a failure to invest is not the reason why the middle-class are getting poorer and the rich are getting much, much richer.

levels of home ownership are dropping and you're berating people for not having stock portfolios?
Ok. This is like talking to a stick. You should've spent less time in reading class and more time with a calculator and an excel spreadsheet. It's not hard.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+300|2136
remember, jay was 'against' the 2008 bail-out and the rescuing of wall street by the government and, ultimately, taxpayer.

but look at how good the stock market performed! if only those stupid taxpayers had been playing the stock market!

you can't make up this sort of stupid.
uziq
Member
+300|2136

Jay wrote:

uziq wrote:

Jay wrote:


Have you not noticed the stock market over the past 11 years?

2019    31.10%    $4,510.10
2018    -4.41%    $3,440.19
2017    21.94%    $3,598.91
2016    11.93%    $2,951.38
2015    1.31%    $2,636.80
2014    13.81%    $2,602.71
2013    32.43%    $2,286.89
2012    15.88%    $1,726.87
2011    2.07%    $1,490.22
2010    14.87%    $1,460.00
2009    27.10%    $1,271.00
        $1,000

If you had started with $1000 going into 2009 your wealth would've increased 451% over 11 years if you had invested it. This conspiracy theory stuff really is amazing!
the stock market and a failure to invest is not the reason why the middle-class are getting poorer and the rich are getting much, much richer.

levels of home ownership are dropping and you're berating people for not having stock portfolios?
Ok. This is like talking to a stick. You should've spent less time in reading class and more time with a calculator and an excel spreadsheet. It's not hard.
the ratio of capital income to labour income is way unbalanced. it's about more than 'compound interest' ticking over, you dolt.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2020 Jeff Minard