Some are more equal than others...

Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
"A NEW paper by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics suggests that, in America at least, inequality in wealth is approaching record levels. The authors examine the share of total wealth held by the bottom 90% of families relative to those at the very top. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America’s wealth—considerably less than that held by the top 0.1%, which controlled a quarter of total wealth just before the crash of 1929. From the beginning of the Depression until well after the end of the second world war, the middle class’s share of total wealth rose steadily, thanks to collapsing wealth among richer households, broader equity ownership, middle-class income growth and rising rates of home-ownership. From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population."



http://popist.com/s/a356785/


Are you ready for another great depression?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"A NEW paper by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics suggests that, in America at least, inequality in wealth is approaching record levels. The authors examine the share of total wealth held by the bottom 90% of families relative to those at the very top. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America’s wealth—considerably less than that held by the top 0.1%, which controlled a quarter of total wealth just before the crash of 1929. From the beginning of the Depression until well after the end of the second world war, the middle class’s share of total wealth rose steadily, thanks to collapsing wealth among richer households, broader equity ownership, middle-class income growth and rising rates of home-ownership. From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population."



http://popist.com/s/a356785/


Are you ready for another great depression?
Click to expand...
You know the only reason the trend reversed was because after the Second World War, US factories were the only ones left standing.

They could afford to pay crazy wages to even people in lower value jobs.

Now you see a return to equilibrium, even with no money in politics you're going to see wealth inequality and it's right to have wealth inequality too.

Why should a replaceable $h1t-stain get paid $40k to sweep a floor?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
You know the only reason the trend reversed was because after the Second World War, US factories were the only ones left standing.
Click to expand...
Where is your evidence for this claim?

Because it's complete bullshit.

The reason every measurable metric shows wealth inequality increasing near 1980 is because of 4 supreme court cases;

(1976) Buckley v. Valeo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo (No limits on spending in campaigns)

(1978 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti (Corporations have first amendment rights)

(2010) Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission (restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation)

(2014) McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission (All political campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional)

Harrekin said:
They could afford to pay crazy wages to even people in lower value jobs.
Click to expand...
According to the article in the OP, they can afford to do that now. Annual record breaking profits. The problem is 93% of it goes to the top 1%. The money is there, the allocation of it is the problem

Harrekin said:
Now you see a return to equilibrium, even with no money in politics you're going to see wealth inequality and it's right to have wealth inequality too.
Click to expand...
I would love to see some evidence of this. Now will you man up and provide it or backpedal and not even address it?

Harrekin said:
Why should a replaceable $h1t-stain get paid $40k to sweep a floor?
Click to expand...
Every single full time job in this country should pay a living wage, if a business can't pay that, that business shouldn't be in business because providing for your employees is part of being in business.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Where is your evidence for this claim?

Because it's complete bullshit.

The reason every measurable metric shows wealth inequality increasing near 1980 is because of 4 supreme court cases;

(1976) Buckley v. Valeo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo (No limits on spending in campaigns)

(1978 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti (Corporations have first amendment rights)

(2010) Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission (restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation)

(2014) McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission (All political campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional)



According to the article in the OP, they can afford to do that now. Annual record breaking profits. The problem is 93% of it goes to the top 1%. The money is there, the allocation of it is the problem



I would love to see some evidence of this. Now will you man up and provide it or backpedal and not even address it?



Every single full time job in this country should pay a living wage, if a business can't pay that, that business shouldn't be in business because providing for your employees is part of being in business.
Click to expand...
So now neither you nor Buck can read a chart?

#leftiescantdomath
 
desert dude

desert dude

Well-Known Member
Are today's top 1% the same ones who were the top 1% ten years ago? Has there been no mobility in the classes?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Did you just do exactly what I just said you would do because you can't defend your position?
Click to expand...
I'd post evidence, but to be honest I'm on a phone and my account is restricted.

However, can we agree to disagree for now and finish it another time when I can post properly?

The lack of "racist! racist!" means we can actually have a conversation about it, which I'd enjoy.

Troll mode is off for the foreseeable future btw.
 
SmokeyDan

SmokeyDan

Well-Known Member
Pada, Harrekin is correct, he just worded it wrong.

if I read your reply correctly, you blame the increase in the 1% starting in the 1980s on a court case from 2010. Brilliant!



They could afford to pay higher wages after WWII and still can.

Harrekin was rifht. The rest of the world's productive capacity was destroyed, and American workers could DEMAND more. They continued to do so and factories were rebuilt world wide.

He misspoke. It's slightly more complex than anyone can post here about. But I'm sure that's what he meant.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
SmokeyDan said:
Pada, Harrekin is correct, he just worded it wrong.

if I read your reply correctly, you blame the increase in the 1% starting in the 1980s on a court case from 2010. Brilliant!

They could afford to pay higher wages after WWII and still can.

Harrekin was rifht. The rest of the world's productive capacity was destroyed, and American workers could DEMAND more. They continued to do so and factories were rebuilt world wide.

He misspoke. It's slightly more complex than anyone can post here about. But I'm sure that's what he meant.
Click to expand...
(1976) Buckley v. Valeo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo(No limits on spending in campaigns)

(1978 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti(Corporations have first amendment rights)

(2010) Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission(restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation)

(2014) McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission(All political campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional)
Click to expand...
 
ginwilly

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
I'm going to attempt to profit wildly off a crash. Then profit again off the recovery.

I've decided I can't beat Em so I'll join em and pick up crumbs. If we decide we must manipulate the market, I'm learning how to capitalize.

Join me!
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
(1976) Buckley v. Valeo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo(No limits on spending in campaigns)

(1978 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti(Corporations have first amendment rights)

(2010) Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission(restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation)

(2014) McCutcheon v. Federal Elections Commission -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._Federal_Election_Commission(All political campaign contribution limits are unconstitutional)
Click to expand...
typical Rapesey Rebuttal Post format

unrelated, non-responsive copy/paste non sequiturs with no source provided

when examined more closely, the source is no lesser "authority" than wikipedia, making the reply not only irrelevant, but unreliably irrelevant.

what do US campaign regulations have to do with the global economy after ww2?

dont bother answering, everybody knows the answer is NOTHING, but youll make up some bullshit daisychain of illogical assumptions that makes it all the fault of "republicans" somehow.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
typical Rapesey Rebuttal Post format

unrelated, non-responsive copy/paste non sequiturs with no source provided

when examined more closely, the source is no lesser "authority" than wikipedia, making the reply not only irrelevant, but unreliably irrelevant.

what do US campaign regulations have to do with the global economy after ww2?

dont bother answering, everybody knows the answer is NOTHING, but youll make up some bullshit daisychain of illogical assumptions that makes it all the fault of "republicans" somehow.
Click to expand...
good preemptive defense of republicans, you're a hero.
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
good preemptive defense of republicans, you're a hero.
Click to expand...
that was not "Preemptive" that was Predictive.

rapesey's comments always wind up the same, just like yours.

Rapesey's Final Boss Level Response: Republicans R Evil (and I Luv Raep Fantasies!)
Bucklefuckle's Final Boss Level Response: That's Racist!!
AbandonIntellect's Final Boss Level Response: Repeating the same trite crypto-marxist bumper sticker over and over.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
that was not "Preemptive" that was Predictive.

rapesey's comments always wind up the same, just like yours.

Rapesey's Final Boss Level Response: Republicans R Evil (and I Luv Raep Fantasies!)
Bucklefuckle's Final Boss Level Response: That's Racist!!
AbandonIntellect's Final Boss Level Response: Repeating the same trite crypto-marxist bumper sticker over and over.
Click to expand...
republicans are great, nothing you say is racist, only "realist", and watch out for that marxism.

got it.

where have i heard that pile of shit before?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes said:
what do US campaign regulations have to do with the global economy after ww2?
Click to expand...
I didn't bring up the global economy after WW2, Harrekin did as "the only reason" economic inequality decreased from 1945-1970, but failed to address or acknowledge what changed to reverse that trend

Economic inequality increased ~1980 because the Supreme Court ruled campaign spending limits are unconstitutional in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo and ruled that corporations have first amendment rights in 1978 in the First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti

Here is the FEC Litigation page that summarizes it; http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation_CCA_B.shtml

Here are both cases in their entirety;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=424&invol=1

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=435&invol=765

You'll find the exact same information on Wikipedia

So what you get when you remove spending limits and tell multinational corporations they have first amendment rights is increased economic inequality with 93% of growth going to the top 1% from 1980-present.

Here's a handy graph that illustrates this;



Here is a graph depicting the distribution of wealth in America;



Citizens United in 2010 & McCutcheon v. FEC in 2013 compounded the issue by prohibiting the federal government from restricting independent political expenditures & ruling all political campaign contributions are unconstitutional, effectively transferring the power of the vote from the American people to multinational corporations


If you can identify the part where I'm blaming republicans for any of this, point it out. If you can spot where I'm wrong, tell me, lets have a little chat about it without your constant addition of adhoms

Why does every measurable metric show the same thing, economic inequality shooting up right at the start of the '80's and increasing ever since? What was the cause of that if not everything I just stated?
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"A NEW paper by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics suggests that, in America at least, inequality in wealth is approaching record levels. The authors examine the share of total wealth held by the bottom 90% of families relative to those at the very top. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America’s wealth—considerably less than that held by the top 0.1%, which controlled a quarter of total wealth just before the crash of 1929. From the beginning of the Depression until well after the end of the second world war, the middle class’s share of total wealth rose steadily, thanks to collapsing wealth among richer households, broader equity ownership, middle-class income growth and rising rates of home-ownership. From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America’s wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak—and almost the same share as the bottom 90% of the population."



http://popist.com/s/a356785/


Are you ready for another great depression?
Click to expand...
Leave it to a libtard to wish for another great depression
 
Dr Kynes

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
republicans are great, nothing you say is racist, only "realist", and watch out for that marxism.

got it.

where have i heard that pile of shit before?
Click to expand...
gotta get past the Reductio Ad Retardum Level where you transform the content of statements, twisting them into bizarre mutant creations which only you can slay, before we get to the Final Boss Level where you scream "That's Racist" over and over.

of course we are currently trapped in the Derailment Level, where you attempt to sidetrack the argument and drive the entire thread into an area where screaming "That's Racist!!" doesnt seem so retarded.

unfortunately, Rapesey's idiotic assumptions remain the star of the show, as he tirelessly recycles the worn out claims of the Occupytards and pretends his constant creation of "new" threads, which are indistinguishable from all his previous "New" threads isnt a direct result of his humiliating failures

this thread will circle the bowl exactly the same way observed in the previous incarnations of this selfsame "Teh 1% R Steeling Frum Mee!!" thread.

Rapesey claims X ("Teh 1% R Teh Reesun Their Is Poor Ppl", "Republicans R Teh Devil", etc.)
Rapesey's claims are refuted over and over.
Rapesey finestones his claims, moving the goalposts, and redefines his assertions until they are unrecognizable.
Rapesey declares everyone who disagrees is "Part Of Teh Cunspirahsee"
Rapesey responds to demand for evidence to support his claims with "Doo Ur Own Reeserch!!"
Rapesey declares victory
Rapesey makes another thread using the same argument and starts it all over again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top