Let the Good Times Roll! Or, Tonight We're Gonna Party Like It's 1929

[Kuciwalker]

You, unlike fakeboris, are an unqualified idiot. Go away.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Vanguard



Feel free to make some sort of argument to go with your "QFUtterlyFalse".

It is true that my original post was somewhat simplistic. But at the same time it was also a simple, but accurate statement of (basic) economic theory. The numerical value of the wealth you own is less important than your percentage of the total wealth that exists in the world.

The best way to think of wealth is as the power to bid on stuff rather than as gold coins or paper rectangles. If someone has more of this power than you do then they can outbid you for whatever limited resource it takes to make the stuff you want ---- whether that resource be oil, labor, capital or dilithium.

Nope, LS was correct. And you should know I only step in to defend him when he is so obviously right there is no other option.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
(2) Corporate profits have been at post-depression historic highs. The rich (and the tax collector) may benefit disproportionately from this. But fear not, my communist friends. This circumstance will not last. In fact, I believe the corner to have turned last year.

I bet 10 to 1 that profits come down before wages increase.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DanS
But in any event, I don't doubt that income inequality has increased since 1980. In large part, I believe that it was a rational trade-off that U.S. policy-makers made. In 1980, the economy sucked the big suckage and was going nowhere, after all.

My God, where do you think that wealth is at? In MY bank account?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Vanguard
It is true that my original post was somewhat simplistic. But at the same time it was also a simple, but accurate statement of (basic) economic theory. The numerical value of the wealth you own is less important than your percentage of the total wealth that exists in the world.

There's the concept of "real" value and "nominal" value. It's basically the jargon when one refers to the actual stuff available, and on the other hand to the amount of money it costs.

When we are talking about GDP growth, we do so ajusted to the inflation. If the economy grows by 3%, it means the economy has actually produced 3% more stuff than in the previous year. Not that there are 3% more dollars around

"Purchasing power" is the same idea. When it increases, it means you can buy more stuff with your money. And the west has experienced a dramatic increase in purchasing power since the industrial revolution. Which is why many of us live without fear of hunger, and enjoy things such as heat, hygiene, healthcare (in civilized countries)... in comparison to 18th century peasants.

Sometimes, the purchasing power of the general population can increase despite a strong income gap, simply because the economy produces more stuff than the capitalists pilfer from the poor. And sometimes, an economy with little income gap gets everybody poorer, because there's no incentive to produce real value.

Now, I think we are at a point where income gap is way over the top, and that it becomes self-reproducing, with the increase of income from capital, and fall in income from labour. Which is why I oppose capitalism, and I spend hours every week to that effect.

However, to accuse income gap of being an inherent source of poverty is naive. The question is as much about the way you share the pie, as about the total size of the pie.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Rising corporate profits

It means stock prices and dividends go up, which benefits shareholder, and since the largest shareholders are retirement funds like CalPERG, the "workers" are the ones who benefit

Edit: Fixed, thanks to Oerdin correcting my spelling

I think the workers would benefit a lot more if they had higher wages bud.

edit: And tax credits!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Vanguard
The fact that other people are getting richer inherently means that you are getting poorer.

Only when they can raise prices or rent. It's a slow process. More often the rich just get new income. When the poor start actually having their incomes decreased there's real trouble.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor
And sometimes, an economy with little income gap gets everybody poorer, because there's no incentive to produce real value.

I think it's the case that when little income is made that the gap is smaller, not that a small gap causes people to be poorer. When the economy grows the rich get rich so you have a gap.

[Fake Boris]

Actually, I had thought that the largest shareholders were not particulars, but corporations owning stocks of each other.

Anyone knows the unbiased and honest answer to this question?

[Dauphin]

Companies can't own shares in their parent companies. Eventually someone has to own it once you get to the top tier. Be it private investor or funds eventually paying benefit to a person or persons.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I think it's the case that when little income is made that the gap is smaller, not that a small gap causes people to be poorer. When the economy grows the rich get rich so you have a gap.

I strongly disagree.

During the postwar era, welfare Europe saw one of its smallest income gaps in history, while being on the whole more rich than at any other point in the past.

OTOH, you'll see quite a few ultra-rich in third-world countries. Even a poor country creates enough wealth to distribute unjustly.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Actually, I had thought that the largest shareholders were not particulars, but corporations owning stocks of each other.

Anyone knows the unbiased and honest answer to this question?

Ultimately, when all shares are consolidated, the only owners are particulars (directly or undirectly) and states.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I strongly disagree.

During the postwar era, welfare Europe saw one of its smallest income gaps in history, while being on the whole more rich than at any other point in the past.


OTOH, you'll see quite a few ultra-rich in third-world countries. Even a poor country creates enough wealth to distribute unjustly.

There was much wealth lost during the depression and during the war. Of course the gap was smaller. I'm positive that as the wealth grew that the income inequality grew, not that the income inequality grew first.

And I'm not saying that wealth isn't distributed equally in a poor country, only that the wealthy are even more wealthy in a rich country so the gap is greater.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Actually, I had thought that the largest shareholders were not particulars, but corporations owning stocks of each other.

Anyone knows the unbiased and honest answer to this question?

Regardless the money ends up with the rich anyway.

[Velociryx]

Regardless the money ends up with the rich anyway.

...which is why they're called....the rich?

-=Vel=-