BTW, the S&P 500 fell by 6.66% today!

[Dr.Who]

You have to know are wrong. It is well known that wage and wealth disparity has been getting worse for years. In simple terms the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer, and the middle class is decreasing.

There is downward movement but a minority of the movement is downward. The poor economy hurts the poor the most - yes. But tha mount of change is still not so large that we could characterize the whole state of affairs as the rich getting richer ad the poor getting poorer. That is happening right now but only as a small percentage of what is happening in total. And in another cycle it will be different. After all if the rich were always getting richer and the poor were always getting poorer soon enough there would n be no more room for any more change at all.

That is screwy double-talk. I made a simple analogy. The gov still funds highway systems. Reread post #152 keeping that in mind.

For this moment I don't care that the gov funds the highways - it is irrelevant.

The gov should not do what it does not have the authority to do and it does not have the authority to give to charity. You have admitted that.

 

[Lagboltz]

Has any admirable country ever lowered wealth gaps by more than a few percent? Don't all the European socialisms have large wealth gaps too?

Why? Because wealth gaps are caused by gaps in merit. Some people are more capable of becoming wealthy and they do. And wealth gaps are caused by luck: Sometimes situations change and wealth gaps vary in cyclical ways.

For example, "the other significant factor is what has happened to the ratio between stock prices and housing prices. The major asset of the middle class is their home. The major assets of the rich are stocks and small business equity. If stock prices increase more quickly than housing prices, then the share of wealth owned by the richest households goes up. This turns out to be almost as important as underlying changes in income inequality. For the last 25 or 30 years, despite the bear market we’ve had over the last two years, stock prices have gone up quite a bit faster than housing prices. "
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

In other words the collapse of the housing bubble is causing the so-called wealth gap. In another ten years housing will recover and if stocks are failing the trend will appear to have reversed.

So is it bad if some people earn more than others? No. All people should earn just what they are worth just like all students should earn whatever grade they deserve. So is it bad that some investments do better than others? Only if the gov has been picking winners and losers by manipulating the markets. If it is random changes in markets then there will be winners and losers by chance. All the more reason to teach people to have balanced portfolios.

You totally didn't understand my simple post! I said,

Wealth gaps are to be expected and not a bad thing.​

You carried on a verbose post that says the same thing that I said, but you totally missed the point about the gap getting too large!

400 of the wealthiest Americans have more wealth than half of all other Americans combined. That is .000013% have as much wealth as 50%. This is what I consider as an enormous gap and is unhealthy for the future of America. That kind of money is what is buying politicians.

There is downward movement but a minority of the movement is downward. The poor economy hurts the poor the most - yes. But tha mount of change is still not so large that we could characterize the whole state of affairs as the rich getting richer ad the poor getting poorer. That is happening right now but only as a small percentage of what is happening in total. And in another cycle it will be different. After all if the rich were always getting richer and the poor were always getting poorer soon enough there would n be no more room for any more change at all.

The downward trend of relative wages of the majority is not a small percentage; it has been happening since 1950, and it has nothing to do with housing prices or stock prices. That is clearly shown in these graphs.


Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and the four quintiles, between 1979 and 2005.

This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2007, in 2007 dollars. The bottom quintile is almost flat since 1970.

For this moment I don't care that the gov funds the highways - it is irrelevant.

The gov should not do what it does not have the authority to do and it does not have the authority to give to charity. You have admitted that.

You are wrong wrong wrong. The fed gov can do what it wants as long as it's not forbidden by law. The highway is a counter example of your argument. You can't say a counterexample is irrelevant.

 

[GenSeneca]

However when the wealth gap gets too large as it is becoming here, it will lead to an oligarchy in a banana republic.

Exactly how does that happen?

Just because I'm a lefty, you make banal assumptions. You refused to consider my prior posts on how I wanted to significantly reduce spending.

I remember your earlier posts, you support Obama's plan of reducing spending to 22% of GDP (which isn't all that significant) and raising taxes in hopes of causing revenue to reach 22% of GDP.

The statistical probability of this plan creating a balanced budget is still 0.0%.

Let me repeat: I do not want the creation nor expansion of government programs.

Universal Health Care?

What have you been arguing for the government to do where the homeless are concerned? You certainly don't believe that private charity is capable of dealing with poverty in America, and if you don't want government to create and expand programs to deal with poverty, then what action(s) are suggesting government take to deal with the problem?

I have never said I want spending to increase.

Spending is already scheduled to increase by 12% a year. So while you may not have actually said you want spending to increase, you're also not on record as being against increases in spending, you seem to actually support it.

Government can push, but I don't count on industry doing anything. Industrial leaders are primarily interested in their compensation, their own prosperity and not the prosperity of the country -- The Enron syndrome.

That comment, in no way, addresses the point I made.

 

[GenSeneca]

The fed gov can do what it wants as long as it's not forbidden by law.

That's a very Progressive point of view...

The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution that set forth the authoritative capacity of the United States Congress. In summary, Congress may exercise the powers to which it is granted by the Constitution, and subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections found in the Constitutional text.

The 10th Amendment states that all prerogatives not vested in the federal government nor prohibited of the states are reserved to the states and to the people, which means that the only prerogatives of the Congress (as well as the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch) are limited to those explicitly stated in the Constitution.​

 

[Dr.Who]

You totally didn't understand my simple post! I said,

Wealth gaps are to be expected and not a bad thing.​

You carried on a verbose post that says the same thing that I said, but you totally missed the point about the gap getting too large!

400 of the wealthiest Americans have more wealth than half of all other Americans combined. That is .000013% have as much wealth as 50%. This is what I consider as an enormous gap and is unhealthy for the future of America. That kind of money is what is buying politicians.

You saying that I missed the point does not make it so. Another explanation is that you are missing something.

When are wage gaps too much? I do not think they are larger than in many other countries or other times in history. All governments have them so why do you think that a government that would be run by or unduly influenced by the rich would not?

The downward trend of relative wages of the majority is not a small percentage; it has been happening since 1950, and it has nothing to do with housing prices or stock prices. That is clearly shown in these graphs.


Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and the four quintiles, between 1979 and 2005.

This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2007, in 2007 dollars. The bottom quintile is almost flat since 1970.

I think your graph is wrong. Relative ages have not always been downward, sometimes the gap increases and sometimes decreases.

You are wrong wrong wrong. The fed gov can do what it wants as long as it's not forbidden by law. The highway is a counter example of your argument. You can't say a counterexample is irrelevant.

Anything else pales in comparison to the following:

We live in a country that be design has a limited government. It is absolutely and 100% positively true that the fed cannot do what it has not been authorized to do. Period.

the constitution is clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States..., are reserved to the States..., or to the people".

And here is a list of power that the fed does have:

"Congress is authorized to tax, borrow, and spend to: Regulate commerce, Establish rules for citizenship, Establish bankruptcy laws, Coin and regulate money, Standardize weights and measures, Punish counterfeiting, Establish a postal system, Pass copyright and patent laws, Establish federal courts, Punish crimes on the high seas, Declare war, Raise and finance armed forces, Establish rules for the armed forces, Call up state militias, Administer the seat of government, Administer federal lands, Pass laws for the implementation of the above."


Charity and playing with the wage gap are not on that list. Building roads may or may not fall under regulating commerce which has been greatly abused. If you beleive that they do not have the authority to build roads then you should be arguing that they should stop doing that and not using it as an excuse to do other things that they are not authorized to do. Two wrongs does not make a right.

The fed has not been authorized to spread wealth, to tinker with the wage gap, or commit charity. And it must stop.

More examples of wrong in relation to the wage gap is the result of government rather than the domain of gov to fix. Stop the meddling and the wage gap will be less of a problem.


You are making an argument against limited government and that is among the most dangerous thing to have been said on these forums ever.

 

[Dr.Who]

Government can push, but I don't count on industry doing anything. Industrial leaders are primarily interested in their compensation, their own prosperity and not the prosperity of the country -- The Enron syndrome.

Your notion that industry is not interested in the common good is completely unsupported.

I have asked people here who own companies or asked them if they did own companies if they would be interested in the common good and they have all answered yes.

I can ask you now, if you own a company or if you did would you be interested in the common good?

And of course I can point to the mission statements of just about every company in the nation and most of them will include statements about being concerned with the common good.

Here is the link to a website that advises companies how to write a mission statement:

http://www.missionstatements.com/company_mission_statements.html

Here is a what they say about mission statements:

"A company's mission statement is a constant reminder to its employees of why the company exists and what the founders envisioned when they put their fame and fortune at risk to breathe life into their dreams. Woe to the company that loses sight of its Mission Statement for it has taken the first step on the slippery slope to failure. "

Here is a sample mission statement:

"It is the Mission of Advance Auto Parts to provide personal vehicle owners and enthusiasts with the vehicle related products and knowledge that fulfill their wants and needs at the right price. Our friendly, knowledgeable and professional staff will help inspire, educate and problem-solve for our customers."

Here is an actual missions statement: (notice the mention of core values)

"Guided by relentless focus on our five imperatives, we will constantly strive to implement the critical initiatives required to achieve our vision. In doing this, we will deliver operational excellence in every corner of the Company and meet or exceed our commitments to the many constituencies we serve. All of our long-term strategies and short-term actions will be molded by a set of core values that are shared by each and every associate. "

Doesn't just about every company in the counry donate to little league and other charites in contrast to what is best for its bottom line?

Even enron, which had a horrible accident, did good things for the country.

 

[Lagboltz]

Exactly how does that happen?

Through heavily financed PACs by the wealthy, lobbyists, a continuation of the wage disparity trend, education decline, continual expansion of outsourcing, etc.

I remember your earlier posts, you support Obama's plan of reducing spending to 22% of GDP (which isn't all that significant) and raising taxes in hopes of causing revenue to reach 22% of GDP.

The statistical probability of this plan creating a balanced budget is still 0.0%.

The plan I posted earlier exhibited a balanced budget by 2015, and a pay down about $281 Billion of the debt by 2030.

Universal Health Care?

What have you been arguing for the government to do where the homeless are concerned? You certainly don't believe that private charity is capable of dealing with poverty in America, and if you don't want government to create and expand programs to deal with poverty, then what action(s) are suggesting government take to deal with the problem?

The welfare, foodstamp, etc. programs we have now will have to do for the time being. I have been arguing against cutting them. Hopefully in a few years jobless rates will improve and the current programs will again suffice.

Spending is already scheduled to increase by 12% a year. So while you may not have actually said you want spending to increase, you're also not on record as being against increases in spending, you seem to actually support it.

Not true at all. I promoted lots of spending cuts earlier on in this thread -- cuts in medicare, foreign aid, earmarks, subsidies, fed employees, military programs, and others.

That comment, in no way, addresses the point I made.

I agree that the government can't manufacture a booming economy without bludgeoning the national debt. But industry generally isn't interested in doing anything about the economy either. They generally have a short term interest in their profits and stock prices, such as Enron's gluttony, and GE and others avoiding paying any taxes. So who can make the economy boom?

That's a very Progressive point of view...

....In summary, Congress may exercise the powers to which it is granted by the Constitution, and subject to explicit restrictions in the Bill of Rights and other protections found in the Constitutional text.

The 10th Amendment states that all prerogatives not vested in the federal government nor prohibited of the states are reserved to the states and to the people,... .​

Good point. It seems that the government ignores it in many different areas. It doesn't bother me that they ignore it in the welfare programs. Welfare almost literally seems to be implied in the preamble anyway.

 

[Lagboltz]

Your notion that industry is not interested in the common good is completely unsupported.

I have asked people here who own companies or asked them if they did own companies if they would be interested in the common good and they have all answered yes.

I can ask you now, if you own a company or if you did would you be interested in the common good?

And of course I can point to the mission statements of just about every company in the nation and most of them will include statements about being concerned with the common good.

Here is the link to a website that advises companies how to write a mission statement:

http://www.missionstatements.com/company_mission_statements.html

Here is a what they say about mission statements:

"A company's mission statement is a constant reminder to its employees of why the company exists and what the founders envisioned when they put their fame and fortune at risk to breathe life into their dreams. Woe to the company that loses sight of its Mission Statement for it has taken the first step on the slippery slope to failure. "

Here is a sample mission statement:

"It is the Mission of Advance Auto Parts to provide personal vehicle owners and enthusiasts with the vehicle related products and knowledge that fulfill their wants and needs at the right price. Our friendly, knowledgeable and professional staff will help inspire, educate and problem-solve for our customers."

Here is an actual missions statement: (notice the mention of core values)

"Guided by relentless focus on our five imperatives, we will constantly strive to implement the critical initiatives required to achieve our vision. In doing this, we will deliver operational excellence in every corner of the Company and meet or exceed our commitments to the many constituencies we serve. All of our long-term strategies and short-term actions will be molded by a set of core values that are shared by each and every associate. "

Doesn't just about every company in the counry donate to little league and other charites in contrast to what is best for its bottom line?

I was the co-founder of a high tech company that had a mission statement similar to what you stated. The mission statements above are geared at making customers happy which is of course a top priority. It was not geared to make everyone else happy. Your mission statements have nothing to do with creating a booming economy, and that was the subject at hand.

Even enron, which had a horrible accident, did good things for the country.

Accident? What they did was premeditated manipulation aimed at short term gain.

 

[Dr.Who]

Inflation adjusted percentage increase in after-tax household income for the top 1% and the four quintiles, between 1979 and 2005.

This graph shows the income of the given percentiles from 1947 to 2007, in 2007 dollars. The bottom quintile is almost flat since 1970.

.

Showing a starting point and an ending point does not indicate a trend nor is it contrary to the idea that there is a lot of fluctuation in beteen.

If I posted the starting point for a stock and the ending point for a stock it very well might end up higher than it started but clearly in between there was a lot of movement.

 

[Dr.Who]

I was the co-founder of a high tech company that had a mission statement similar to what you stated. The mission statements above are geared at making customers happy which is of course a top priority. It was not geared to make everyone else happy. Your mission statements have nothing to do with creating a booming economy, and that was the subject at hand.

When a company engages in honest commerce and tries its best to make happy customers that automatically is good for the economy. Most companies most of the time do exactly that.

Accident? What they did was premeditated manipulation aimed at short term gain.

Putting aside whether it was an accident or premeditated the point remains that even enron did a lot of good. All companies do. Sometimes enron did good on purpose and mostly they just did it whenever what they did was honest commerce.

The role of gov is to discover when companies do wrong and put an end to it. However any time the gov is itself competing with those companies it cannot be both the policeman and a fair competitor. It is necessary for gov to do what governments do and for business to do what businesses do.

 

[Lagboltz]

Showing a starting point and an ending point does not indicate a trend nor is it contrary to the idea that there is a lot of fluctuation in beteen.

If I posted the starting point for a stock and the ending point for a stock it very well might end up higher than it started but clearly in between there was a lot of movement.

I really don't know how you think anymore. You don't understand a very revealing graph that extends over decades. You concentrate on the ripples and ignore an obvious very statistically significant trend. I really don't know how to communicate with you.

 

[Lagboltz]

When a company engages in honest commerce and tries its best to make happy customers that automatically is good for the economy. Most companies most of the time do exactly that.

This doesn't come near to addressing the nature of the problems of the economy. I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion of happy people in a bad economy.

Putting aside whether it was an accident or premeditated the point remains that even enron did a lot of good. All companies do. Sometimes enron did good on purpose and mostly they just did it whenever what they did was honest commerce.

The role of gov is to discover when companies do wrong and put an end to it. However any time the gov is itself competing with those companies it cannot be both the policeman and a fair competitor. It is necessary for gov to do what governments do and for business to do what businesses do.

So you are going to defend Enron? It's not worth my time to educate you about Enron. You will have to look up.

 

[Dr.Who]

I really don't know how you think anymore. You don't understand a very revealing graph that extends over decades. You concentrate on the ripples and ignore an obvious very statistically significant trend. I really don't know how to communicate with you.

You are not getting it and if you spent more time trying to get it rather than saying I am not getting it you might.

If in 1947 stock for a company sold at $1000 per share and today it sold for $10,000 per share that would not mean there was any trend at all.

The trend could be general losses with one final good year. It might have been huge increases with one final bad year. Your graph does not show a trend. More likely it would show lots of ups and downs with the end just happening to be higher than the beginning. Next year that could be different.

To show a trend you must show multiple events over time. A starting point and an ending point are not enough.

Right now the rich are getting richer at a certain pace. At other times they rich are getting richer at a slower or faster pace. Sometimes the rich even get poorer - if that were not the case then by now they would have already accumulated all of the wealth.

In fact, while your data is from long ago to the present if we look at an in between number, say, 2009:

We find that the number of rich people fell from 3 million to 2.5 million. The rich were definitely getting poorer. According to the New York Times of all sources, the net worth of rich people fell 24% in 2009.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33240

Meanwhile, at that time median loss in networth for a larger demographic was only 16%
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/another-symptom-of-the-housing-bubble/

(The middle class puts their wealth in houses and the rich in stocks. When stocks go up but housing goes down the rich get richer, but when housing goes up and stocks go down the rich get poorer)

Now about those times when the rich were getting richer. If the rich got richer faster than the poor did but the poor were still becoming better off isn't that better than a situation in which the rich get poorer and the poor get even more poor? Talking about trends, despite the ups and downs, the real quality of life for all people is that it is getting better. The rich might get rich faster at times but as long as all of us are having better lives why would I covet my neighbors wealth?

As long as the trend is for all of us to get better off than before (despite temporary losses) then who cares how someone else is doing?

 

[Dr.Who]

This doesn't come near to addressing the nature of the problems of the economy. I'm not going to be dragged into a discussion of happy people in a bad economy.

Youa re demonstrating that you are not even trying to understand.

I am not saying there are happy people in a bad economy,

I am saying that companies try really hard to make happy people and that is good for the economy. Your generalization that companies are the bad guys is contrary to the facts.

So you are going to defend Enron? It's not worth my time to educate you about Enron. You will have to look up.

I admitted that enron did bad. They also did lots of good as all companies do. If even enron can do good then think about how much good most companies do.

Clearly enron and others should be stopped when they do bad. But ONLY when they do bad. It is contrary to the nature of justice to be against companies in all circumstances or to exaggerate the badness of companies. Justice demans that they be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Go ahead and show us anecdotes about when they are bad - iot will prove that they can be bad at times.

Go ahead and show us principles of how baddness can occur - it will show things in the system that need to be changed.

But characterizing industry in general as bad proves more about the bias in your thinking skills in this instance on this topic.

 

[Lagboltz]

You are not getting it and if you spent more time trying to get it rather than saying I am not getting it you might.

If in 1947 stock for a company sold at $1000 per share and today it sold for $10,000 per share that would not mean there was any trend at all.

The trend could be general losses with one final good year. It might have been huge increases with one final bad year. Your graph does not show a trend. More likely it would show lots of ups and downs with the end just happening to be higher than the beginning. Next year that could be different.

To show a trend you must show multiple events over time. A starting point and an ending point are not enough.

Right now the rich are getting richer at a certain pace. At other times they rich are getting richer at a slower or faster pace. Sometimes the rich even get poorer - if that were not the case then by now they would have already accumulated all of the wealth.

In fact, while your data is from long ago to the present if we look at an in between number, say, 2009:

We find that the number of rich people fell from 3 million to 2.5 million. The rich were definitely getting poorer. According to the New York Times of all sources, the net worth of rich people fell 24% in 2009.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33240

Meanwhile, at that time median loss in networth for a larger demographic was only 16%
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/another-symptom-of-the-housing-bubble/

(The middle class puts their wealth in houses and the rich in stocks. When stocks go up but housing goes down the rich get richer, but when housing goes up and stocks go down the rich get poorer)

Now about those times when the rich were getting richer. If the rich got richer faster than the poor did but the poor were still becoming better off isn't that better than a situation in which the rich get poorer and the poor get even more poor? Talking about trends, despite the ups and downs, the real quality of life for all people is that it is getting better. The rich might get rich faster at times but as long as all of us are having better lives why would I covet my neighbors wealth?

As long as the trend is for all of us to get better off than before (despite temporary losses) then who cares how someone else is doing?

Yes the first bar chart shows end points. I was talking about the second graph. That shows the long term trend. Look at the four higher income lines, and especially the highest. A point on each of those lines is always larger than one 5 years earlier. That is a trend. The subject here is a constantly increasing wage disparity, not happiness.