Closing the wealth gap

22,080 Views | 526 Replies | Last: 2 mo ago by DiabloWags
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In 1986, I had networked my way to Paul Tudor Jones (via a friend of mine that was the head of global bond, currency, and stock-index trading for George Soros). Paul was just starting to build out a small commodity fund with $30 million at the time. He was hiring a handful of guys to put on various commodity exchanges to fill his orders and also be his "eyes and ears" and I became his floor broker on the COMEX in #4 WTC.

In any event, in 2015 Paul came up with an idea to try and solve the Wealth Gap with Deepak Chopra. It was a non-profit organization called JUST CAPITAL. It would rank corporations on how well, or "justly" they treat employees, society and the environment. He felt that if America doesnt address the Wealth Gap there are essentially 3 ways to change our income inequality: "By revolution, higher taxes or wars."

"Mr. Jones argues that income inequality is being driven by what he calls "shareholder hegemony," the principle that companies first and foremost should satisfy investors. The solution is for companies to make social responsibility as important as profits and share price."

Critics of Paul's idea argue that inequality has been driven not just by bloated executive compensation or the single-minded pursuit of profit, but also by what they would call a two-tiered economy in which some industries, like high-tech, finance, and health care, soared ahead and left the rest behind.

Sam Wilkin, an economist maintains that Jones' plan was "wishful thinking that there is a market solution to income inequality that doesnt involve increasing taxes."

A Plan to Rank 'Just' Companies Aims to Close the Wealth Gap - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

LudwigsFountain said:

Unit2Sucks said:


Medicare is actually a pretty well run organization which has a lower administrative burden than private health insurance. If our whole government was that efficient, we might actually be able to fix some problems without confiscatory taxation but alas you will never get legislators to actually address government waste because they rely on it.
I've enjoyed reading this thread and the many thoughtful posts. But when I see the often expressed notion that Medicare is efficient I feel compelled to add my two cents, based on a career spent in health care finance.

The lower administrative burden typically quotes Medicare's 5% admin costs vs 20% in private insurance. I find this misleading for the following reasons.

1. Some private insurance outfits may have 20% overhead but the large ones don't. 12 to 15% is more typical. At least it was a few years back when I was still working and negotiating against them.

2. Most importantly, the percentage is determined by using the 'cost of care' (spending on medical care) as the denominator. The Medicare cohort has a cost of care that is 4 to 5 times that of the remaining population. If you use the more relevant metric of per capita administrative burden Medicare has a higher burden. If anyone's interested I can tell you why my experience has led me to believe that's the more appropriate measure.

3. As best as I could determine, the 5% figure is derived only from the direct Medicare portion of the HHS spending. I have to believe that there is substantial overhead spending in the remainder of the HHS budget that relates to Medicare.

4. A lot of Medicare overhead is spent in other parts of the government. Part B premiums, for example, are collected through Social Security deductions. There has to a cost associated with administrating that.

5. Finally, and this is small potatoes, but it just always irritated me, Medicare imposes costs on providers that other payers don't. The third highest paid employee in our hospital's finance department (after me, the CFO, and our controller) spent 100% of her time preparing Medicare reports and doing the complex accounting necessary to ensure that we recording our Medicare revenue accurately.

I also found much more waste and outright fraud associated with Medicare.
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I don't disagree with any of this. One of my good friends was a medicare fraud prosecutor for the government and we talked a bit about some of the numerous scams that people used so I was aware of that issue but I didn't know about a lot of the other points. I would still think that medicare inefficiency pales in comparison to the military and other government agencies/orgs. I suppose it's possible that if we had the government more involved in healthcare it wouldn't actually reduce the per dollar administrative burden and that it could make our health care even less efficient but I don't know enough.

What I do know is that medical billing is a disaster in this country. The unknowable nature of costs and unpredictability of benefits makes it so difficult to make informed healthcare decisions and I can't even imagine how less fortunate people deal with health problems in this country. The rise of high deductible plans has only exacerbated the situation. I got hit with a $4400 bill last year for a 5 minute ER visit which included $1300 in x-ray fees. All of the urgent care facilities were full so we had no choice but to go to urgent care. Still getting random bills here and there for different providers who were apparently involved in the visit. It's infuriating but fortunately we are able to pay for it.
Great post.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"According to Sitaraman, in an epically unequal society, with a constitution built for equality, we won't last long. Unless something changes quickly, we may experience revolution, instability, coup attempts and violence, common fates of unequal societies. More likely, he writes, "either the republic will transform into an oligarchy, or the people will be seduced by an authoritarian demagogue….

Sitaraman, who is a policy adviser to Elizabeth Warren and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, brings a fresh eye and an impressive range of historical thinking to an ageless question: What are the conditions for freedom? He tours the intellectual struggles of the 19th and early 20th centuries, as progressives worked to reconcile industrialization and democracy. He gives us a glimpse of episodes that led to the progressive creation of the income tax, the development of antitrust laws and enforcement, the creation of a welfare state … and through the demise of those achievements a generation in which we've reduced taxes, stopped investing in public infrastructure, and stopped enforcing antitrust. According to Sitaraman, we've lost the policies essential to the preservation of the middle class."

Here's Why Economic Inequality Threatens Our Republic


https://billmoyers.com/story/american-inequality-threatens-republic/
Political candidates have leapt on the wealth inequity issue for political capital. There supporters claim economists have documented how the share of income and wealth going to those at the very top, not just the top 1 percent but the top 0.1 percent, the 0.01 percent of the population, has risen sharply over the last generation, calling it a throwback to the Gilded Age. I'm suggesting there is no real data to prove that particularly with inflation. Nevertheless this has not just come from the left, Trump's appeal has been an implicit criticism of an "unfair" system that has enriched some while leaving the broad middle class behind. It's a compelling political narrative, one that can be used to advance any number of policy agendas, from higher taxes, to trade barriers and even immigration restrictions.

That said all economists believe the US historically has the highest rate on income inequality than most if not all major economies.. Piketty (since Bearsiter is so enamored) has said in more recent times, it generally was higher than today until the late 1930s where military speeding, redistributionist policies of Franklin Roosevelt, high tax rates on capital, and the strength of the labor movement, among other things, reduced inequality. He then says these pillars of the modern welfare state have eroded, and inequality has risen in the US. There have, of course, been many critiques of Piketty's methodology (including by some Cal economists that don't follow Saenz), but let's say what Pikkety says is accurate for the moment. That inequality is on the rise - how bad is it?

Most claims that income inequality is at a record high in the United States, are based on a measure of "market income," which does not take into account taxes or transfer payments (or changes in household size or composition). The failure to consider those factors considerably overstates effective levels of inequality. Lowerincome earners benefit disproportionately from a variety of wealth transfer programs. The federal government alone, for example, currently funds more than 100 antipoverty programs, dozens of which provide either cash or inkind benefits directly to individuals. C-19 has provided "paid vacations " for many (admittedly, it may not be a vacation to be basically stuck in your house during C-19) and a record number of employees quite their job starting with the November Resignation, mostly for better jobs. Moreover, there is also a volatility in wealth the economist don't reflect because they lack real data. There is greater exposure that the wealthy face to risks associated with investment income. The stock market, for example, declined sharply during the last recession, as did, obviously, the value of real estate. If inequality is your big concern, you should be delighted by recessions. Finally, Inequality may not be as big a problem as commonly portrayed. After considering wealth transfers, government payments and other factors, the gap between rich and poor is likely neither as large nor growing as rapidly as Piketty and others have alleged. But even if it were, the question arises as to why that should be condemned? My responses to come.



wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Moving on to respond to why does everyone think wealth inequality is "sooo" bad.

The debate over inequality is tied together with notions of fairness. Most people in this country don't resent other people success, at least in our capitalistic society, though there certainly seems disdain here for those who inherit their wealth or obtain it from disruptive financial trading just look at portrayals in movies or TV. This gets into a couple things Unit 2 said. One was about who the new rich were.

In the US, the overwhelming majority of the rich did not inherit their wealth. For example, a study of billionaires around the world finds that fewer than 3 in 10 American billionaires got to that position by inheriting their wealth, and that "the share of selfmade billionaires has been expanding most rapidly in the United States." Caroline Freund and Sarah Oliver, "The Origins of the Superrich: The Billionaire Characteristics Database," Peterson Institute for International Economics, Working Paper 161, February. Roughly 20 percent of the Forbes 400 actually grew up poor, roughly the same percentage today as it was in 1982. Nor did most individuals on the Forbes 400 list (yes, but it is the best we have) inherit the family business. Furd and Cal researchers found that 69 percent of those on the list in 2021 started their own business, compared with only 40 percent in 1982. But this does represent a greater mobility to join the super wealthy not exactly consistent with the narrative. Overall, the rich get rich because they work for it, and our economic system rewards them. Looking again at the Forbes list, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance. Roughly a third were entrepreneurs. Nearly 16 percent were professionals like engineers, scientists, and computer professionals that went into busines. Sports and entertainment figures comprised almost 2 percent. I looked at the list Bearister posted and the heirs of great fortunes have done especially poorly. For example, we might think of the du Ponts or Rockefellers as personifying multigenerational wealth. Thirty eight people from those two families appeared on the 1982 list but none of the 16 du Pont heirs are currently on the Forbes 400 list nor a Rockefeller (unless I missed them due to name changes). Nor are there any heirs to the Hearst fortune. The Mellons are out too, as are the Dursts and the Searles. The rich are not staying rich?

But wait, Bearister says that economic inequality has to be associated with poverty. The sky is falling and he has the quotes to prove it. His view seems to be poverty has to be the flip side of wealth, as he sits in his Bay Area splendor.

But getting to another Unit 2 point, poverty and inequality are not the same thing. As he points out, reducing wealth through taxation or otherwise doesn't eliminate poverty. Poverty rates have sometimes risen during periods of relatively stable levels of inequality and declined during times of what Piketty shows are rising inequality. The idea that gains by one person necessarily mean losses by another reflects a zero sum view of the economy that is simply not consistent with history or economics. The premise behind capitalism is that the economy is not fixed in size, with the only question being one of wealth distribution. Rather, the entire pie can grow, with more resources available to all. We give people incentive and thus we have the world's largest economy. The relationship between poverty and inequality remains unclear, in part because the number of variables, such as economic growth, social payments, racial discrimination, international competition, immigration, technology changes, etc. That said, the official poverty rate in the United States has been relatively stable since the mid1970s, though there is greater income inequality (which is different than wealth inequality).

Finally, there is from Bearsiter and his others quotes that inequality skews the political process in ways that benefit the wealthy and penalizes the poor. There is certainly some merit to this argument. The federal and local government can and does dispense favors to those with connections to the levers of power, whether they be unions, business or wealthy donors. THEY ALWAYS HAVE HAD ACCESS REGARDLESS OF RELATIVE WEALTH. There is far less evidence that the wealthy are able to use their political power to enact a broad agenda that favors the wealthy or penalizes the poor, unless that is what the Democratic President and Democratic majorities (using this term loosely for the Senate) represent. According to a Gallup Poll, about one-third of the top 1 percent of wealthiest Americans self identify as Republicans, compared to roughly a quarter who self identify as Democrats, a statistically significant, but far from overwhelming move towards the party that is more conservative on social spending. When you look at wealthy activists: Soros, Kochs, Jobs, the Gates, Mackenzie Bozos, Alderson's widow, etc. they are all over the place politically. And while some wealthy individuals are politically active, that activism is often offset by groups that trend for representing lower income individuals, or groups whose politics cut across the socioeconomic spectrum. And it not just the wealthy. The Kennedy's are no where near the Forbes list anymore, but if Caroline Kennedy is on the phone, Biden takes the call. The quotes presented by Bearister that every thing is controlled by these invisible sources seems highly ignorant of the political process and more like rants. That said, individuals and businesses are able to secure favors and privileges from the government, often to the detriment of their competitors. And I would also think most of the very wealthy, despite their overall political views would object to tax changes that would harm them, but most of the very wealthy are insulated from income tax.

This also ignores that a key component in this equation is whether the inequality results from market forces or from government dispensed favors. Regulation often provides monopoly power to the biggest players in an industry. And then consider people using the government subsidies or benefits to make money, particularly and the State and local levels. By most measures, government cronyism is a far smaller contributor to inequality in the United States than in many other countries, such as say Russia, Malaysia, or Ukraine. U.S. industries, and therefore some fortunes, benefit from government action that most voters want. And it is undeniable that politically derived benefits are far more likely to go to those who already have wealth, power, and the connected. But there is little to suggest that wealth inequality is the cause. Elites in society will always have access to the government like Caroline Kenndy, regardless of the level of wealth inequality. In a way, that is how representative government works, even in other countries. Elites have access to the political apparatus.


DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Bingo!
I could not have said it any better.
It's early. But I vote your last 2 posts as POST OF THE YEAR!
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yes, largely agree with what WIAF is saying.

Not sure how familiar people are with John Rawls' A Theory of Justice but in short he proposes that the best society is one that seeks to maximize the position of the worst off people in society. I'm not claiming that the increase in wealth by the winners is best for our society, but it's not clear to me why so many feel it is obviously bad. I'm not going to pretend that I believe in trickle down or any of the numerous other justifications that people go to in order to help the wealthy, but I do think it's worth considering what we are actually trying to do and how our policies will accomplish it.

That's why I am so focused on reducing military spend. Apart from the stimulatory effects of the massive spend (both domestically and abroad), there is very little marginal benefit to the growth in spending.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No no no

No more wire hangers lol

GTFOH
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Just curious, when the world's richest person adds $28 billion to his/her fortune, in what ways am I negatively impacted? What money was taken from my pocket and given to him/her?
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Maybe over 20 or 30 years fine but in such a short span that amount of wealth means more children will have to starve more people will suffer from lack of substance.

If the top does better (when they don't have a need) the bottom will do even worse. And middle has been shifted to the bottom.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich Richer


https://www.ambassadorsbrief.com/posts/w3qren3Wy2b9JkATB?escaped_fragment=
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This information (reality) is not a secret but so many rich people that know better but act/lie as if it doesn't exist.

Just because one is not effected by it does NOT it doesn't exist.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Who sees at problem? And who doesn't?

Why ?
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"Walmart brought in $559 billion in 2021. So why the hell are they price gouging the cost of COVID tests during a freaking pandemic?!?"

But I guess to some they see nothing wrong whatsoever
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

"Walmart brought in $559 billion in 2021. So why the hell are they price gouging the cost of COVID tests during a freaking pandemic?!?"



Because they have an ethical obligation to the shareholders to maximize profits and……

The upkeep of Rob Walton's $20M Shelby Cobra Daytona (1 of 6 made) don't come cheap.



…especially when you crash it.



Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Upkeep 20 mil geez us
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thank you. It appears that your view is that wealth is finite. That wealth is a 'zero sum' game and for someone to gain, someone else has to lose. My view is that wealth is abundant and the opportunities for wealth creation are infinite.

The fundamental problem, in my opinion, is financial illiteracy. How money works isn't taught in school. And because it's not taught in school most people are financially illiterate. They have no idea how money really works and end up making a bunch of mistakes. Mistakes costly to their wealth and health. Mistakes like endless debt, foolish spending, and financial cluelessness.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"That inequality and immobility are intimately linked and that we can't effectively reduce the latter without also reducing the former should not be surprising. As more of the benefits of growth flow to a narrower slice of households at the top of the wealth scale, it becomes increasingly more challenging for the majority on the wrong side of the inequality divide to make the investments in themselves, their children, and their neighborhoods that can foster their mobility. Once political power is added to the mixthe established fact that the beneficiaries of high inequality are disproportionately influencing public policy on their behalf the opportunities for the middle class and poor to build better lives become even more limited.

Attacking immobility means attacking inequality. To pretend otherwise will only preserve the unfairness that's at the heart of the American economy today."

Why Inequality Matters - The Atlantic


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/what-matters-inequality-or-opportuniy/393272/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.
Wait, is this from the guy who posted about the cost of the apartment in the tony (read white liberal artsy) gentrified East Village? Holy crap. Hey get your butt over to East Queens to live with the brothers for far less.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"That inequality and immobility are intimately linked and that we can't effectively reduce the latter without also reducing the former should not be surprising. As more of the benefits of growth flow to a narrower slice of households at the top of the wealth scale, it becomes increasingly more challenging for the majority on the wrong side of the inequality divide to make the investments in themselves, their children, and their neighborhoods that can foster their mobility. Once political power is added to the mixthe established fact that the beneficiaries of high inequality are disproportionately influencing public policy on their behalf the opportunities for the middle class and poor to build better lives become even more limited.

Attacking immobility means attacking inequality. To pretend otherwise will only preserve the unfairness that's at the heart of the American economy today."

Why Inequality Matters - The Atlantic


https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/06/what-matters-inequality-or-opportuniy/393272/
Given how disproportionately the folks in the Fortune wealthiest came from modest backgrounds, I would say those smart enough to advance choose to the advance, and those that can't write for the Atlantic.
going4roses
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm sorry I am not following your rules.
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.

Yours is a family history about which I have no experience.

What comes to mind is that perspective matters. What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

"That inequality and immobility are intimately linked and that we can't effectively reduce the latter without also reducing the former should not be surprising. As more of the benefits of growth flow to a narrower slice of households at the top of the wealth scale, it becomes increasingly more challenging for the majority on the wrong side of the inequality divide to make the investments in themselves, their children, and their neighborhoods that can foster their mobility."



That's gotta be the biggest BS that Ive ever read.

Its troubling that you cant even see how twisted that reads. No Facts. No Data. Just a bunch of drivel from someone at The Atlantic throwing crap against the wall, and hoping something "sticks".

DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
going4roses said:

Maybe over 20 or 30 years fine but in such a short span that amount of wealth means more children will have to starve more people will suffer from lack of substance.



You really have no clue how the financial markets work do you?

Wealth is not finite.

Its not like someone getting a larger piece of the pie means that others get a smaller slice.


bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pope Francis: Catholics should combat 'dismal' economic inequality with hope


https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/45602/pope-francis-catholics-should-combat-dismal-economic-inequality-with-hope

Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis


http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

Just curious, when the world's richest person adds $28 billion to his/her fortune, in what ways am I negatively impacted? What money was taken from my pocket and given to him/her?

No money was taken from your pocket, but that might not be the point. The point might be... let's take half of that $28 billion and spend it on the common good. Why get $14 billion from that source? Because the world's richest person is still left with $14 billion of it (plus the fortune they already had).

Now, is the world's richest person already paying 50% on everything they make? Fine then, they can keep the rest.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some people are very obtuse

The gap between the two lines (productivity vs. median income since 1979) in the chart at the link (I'm having trouble posting charts that I did not used to have) is what the rich owe the poor. That is the amount of productivity the rich have kept for the sole reason that they have market power.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png

That gap manifests itself in the following ways:
- $30 trillion national debt
- $1.7 trillion student loan debt
- $804 billion credit card debt
- 2/3's of bankruptcies have medical causes
- 1/4 of U.S. bridges are deficient
- $14 billion spent on the 2020 election
- 2 billionaires flew in space in 2021
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

going4roses said:

When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.
Wait, is this from the guy who posted about the cost of the apartment in the tony (read white liberal artsy) gentrified East Village? Holy crap. Hey get your butt over to East Queens to live with the brothers for far less.


Wife,
Not a good look, man.
Kinda ugly, actually.
Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?
It depends. Do you have assets above $50 million?

https://2020.elizabethwarren.com/toolkit/umt
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

wifeisafurd said:

going4roses said:

When your great great grandparents/grandparents were legally considered as property(chattel slaves) that directly shapes ones outlook on a lot of things.
Wait, is this from the guy who posted about the cost of the apartment in the tony (read white liberal artsy) gentrified East Village? Holy crap. Hey get your butt over to East Queens to live with the brothers for far less.


Wife,
Not a good look, man.
Kinda ugly, actually.
Tom, coming from you that is really rich. Who you looking to have die today?

The bizarro guy starts talking about F-ing people and then is a complete hypocrite on the housing thing and gets called out and you of all people say its a bad look.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?

Bingo!

It's embarrassing that there are Cal grads on this thread that still havent figured out yet what an unrealized gain is. Meanwhile, there continues to be an assumption by the Dajo's and socialists in America (Senator Warren) that being able to calculate wealth is a fairly simple and straight-forward process. I would argue that that couldnt be further from the truth.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?

Bingo!

It's embarrassing that there are Cal grads on this thread that still havent figured out yet what an unrealized gain is. Meanwhile, there continues to be an assumption by the Dajo's and socialists in America (Senator Warren) that being able to calculate wealth is a fairly simple and straight-forward process. I would argue that that couldnt be further from the truth.

I'm sure Dajo can evolve past those pesky details. Maybe Bearsiter and him can post a few more articles from Politico about how the top 1% control every decision the rest of us make.
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Some people are very obtuse

The gap between the two lines (productivity vs. median income since 1979) in the chart at the link (I'm having trouble posting charts that I did not used to have) is what the rich owe the poor. That is the amount of productivity the rich have kept for the sole reason that they have market power.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Productivity_and_Real_Median_Family_Income_Growth_1947-2009.png

That gap manifests itself in the following ways:
- $30 trillion national debt
- $1.7 trillion student loan debt
- $804 billion credit card debt
- 2/3's of bankruptcies have medical causes
- 1/4 of U.S. bridges are deficient
- $14 billion spent on the 2020 election
- 2 billionaires flew in space in 2021

Ahhhhh.... I see a lovely debate brewing between the left-leaning likes of Josh Bivens and Robert Reich at the Economics Policy Institute vs the globalists at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Cant wait.




Cal_79
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

Cal_79 said:

And when the $28B increase occurred, how much of it is a realized gain that shows up as cash in a bank account? How much of it is an unrealized gain that exists only on paper? When the value of my house fluctuates does my bank account fluctuate, too? When my house appreciates, how much of that gain in value should be taken from me and given to someone else?
It depends. Do you have assets above $50 million?

https://2020.elizabethwarren.com/toolkit/umt

When it's an unrealized gain it's all Monopoly money, a made up number that may or may not reflect actual value.

But because you or someone else thinks a person's estate is worth 'too much' it's okay to take part of that estate based on perceived value? Why? Just because someone has something you don't have, you think it's okay to take it from them? Why?

BTW, how did they amass this fortune? Was it from robbing banks? Or was it from solving problems? Did Musk's estate have such a huge increase in value because nobody wants a Tesla?

When an entrepreneur creates something that lots of people want, and purchases of this product makes the entrepreneur wealthy, why do you feel it's appropriate to go back to the entrepreneur and say, "Gee, now you're too successful"?
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.