Billionaire video most uber rich don't want you to see.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Billionaire video most uber rich don't want you to see.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 Lol, I doubt there is a

 Lol, I doubt there is a single "uber rich" person in the world who gives a flying fuck if you watch the video or not. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: Lol, I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Lol, I doubt there is a single "uber rich" person in the world who gives a flying fuck if you watch the video or not. 

If you were any more predictable you could cure my jock itch.

You masturbate about business ownership which has never been my argument, while pining after the same paycheck as Nick Hanour, but when he doesn't agree with you, quite predictably you get your panties in a bunch.

So when Warren Buffet says his tax rate is absurd compared to his secretary.

So I guess Suzie Orman is a bitch because she being rich who thinks the poor are getting screwed with the middle class. All these people must be out of their mind, despite that THEY MAKE MORE MONEY THAN YOU!

Oh and Obama is a secret Muslim.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Beyond Saving

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 Lol, I doubt there is a single "uber rich" person in the world who gives a flying fuck if you watch the video or not. 

If you were any more predictable you could cure my jock itch.

Lol, as you cut and paste response #3- name the three rich people you like and claim that I should agree with whatever they say because they are richer than me. I'm sure everyone on this site could name your 3 favorite rich people. Oh yeah, and you like Bill Maher too, but I imagine he is on your shit list since he flipped out over his taxes being too high. I'm actually quite surprised that you haven't proclaimed your love for George Soros yet. Poor George, sitting over there in the corner and being ignored by you. Or how about George Kaiser? He agrees with you too. Do you have something against people named George? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You masturbate about business ownership which has never been my argument, while pining after the same paycheck as Nick Hanour, but when he doesn't agree with you, quite predictably you get your panties in a bunch.

I have no desire for the same paycheck Nick has. If I did, I would work harder. I am content with what I make and don't resent anyone for making more than me. If I ever decide I need more, I will do something to get more. Until then, I will stick with what I have.

Do you know how Nick made his money?

 

Brian37 wrote:

So when Warren Buffet not only says his tax rate is absurd compared to his secretary, I guess your head would explode about his recent admission that the pay gap is too big.

Warren should pay his secretary more. You know, he can raise her salary unilaterally, I'm sure she would accept it and I think he should. If she isn't a multi-millionaire, he is a cheap fuck. Liberals usually are when it comes to spending their own money, they are only generous with taxpayer money. Rather than whining about the problem, he should fix it inside his own company, after all, he has absolute control over deciding what he pays his employees.

 

Brian37 wrote:

So I guess Suzie Orman is a bitch because she being rich who thinks the poor are getting screwed with the middle class. All these people must be out of their mind, despite that THEY MAKE MORE MONEY THAN YOU!

So the quality of your political opinions is dependent upon how much money you make? We should all just automatically believe and agree with anything said by someone simply because they are rich?? 

 

Go ahead and watch the video of your latest love interest. Anyone who puts the least bit of thought into it can see that his arguments are incredibly weak and anyone who does the smallest bit of research can see that his graphs are outright lies. (For example, his unemployment rate graph is nowhere near accurate in showing what the unemployment rate did in the 90's). I don't agree with his conclusion at all, but I sure as hell could create a much stronger argument supporting it, as could any freshman in highschool debate class.   

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Look you are the one who

Look you are the one who like a child shouts "robbery" and ignore the rich whom I quote. I'd say you are a hypocrite.

Dude you doge as well as a theist when you get called out. You attack me but if you think they are wrong as well then your beef should be with them, not me.

No, your attitude economically is just as childish and spoiled brat mentality as a theist who wants a social pecking order.

 

You read like a bad novel. It still boils down to "It is fair when I get what I want, but not fair when I don't always get what I want".

Now, you DON'T have to listen to me, but when rich people say your attitude is the problem, then maybe you have a problem. Go argue with Nick buddy and see how far you get with him.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Look you are

Brian37 wrote:

Look you are the one who like a child shouts "robbery" and ignore the rich whom I quote. I'd say you are a hypocrite.

How am I a hypocrite?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Dude you doge as well as a theist when you get called out. You attack me but if you think they are wrong as well then your beef should be with them, not me.

I didn't attack you. Show me one argument that I have dodged or one question leveled at me that I ignored. I don't ignore the people you quote, I have directly addressed all of their arguments, just like I address any other argument. If any of them want to come on here and debate me they are more than welcome to. I love how you constantly tell me to go debate people who are not here, as if I should somehow travel around the country picking out people to debate with. Talk about dodging; what could possibly be more of a dodge than saying "don't argue with me, go argue with ______"

 

Brian37 wrote:

You read like a bad novel. It still boils down to "It is fair when I get what I want, but not fair when I don't always get what I want".

Where have I ever advocated that anything be done on the basis of fairness? In general, I don't support fairness for the sake of fairness. I hate to break it to you, but life isn't fair and it is never going to be. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, you DON'T have to listen to me, but when rich people say your attitude is the problem, then maybe you have a problem. Go argue with Nick buddy and see how far you get with him.

Why should I listen to rich people more than I listen to you? Are they somehow better or smarter than you simply because they have money? I prefer to listen to arguments on their own merits regardless of the person making the argument. As I pointed out, this particular argument from Nick is riddled with flat out falsehoods which anyone can discover with the slightest bit of research. It is simply a pathetic and weak argument whether you make it, he makes it or I make it.

If I thought there was a one in a million chance you would actually read it, I would create a post providing numerous references proving that Nick's factual assertions upon which his argument is based are flat out false. Since I know you ignore facts and no one else has shown any interest in this thread, I feel too lazy to do so. It is crystal clear that you have no interest in a serious discussion or of learning in areas where you are ignorant. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Look you are the one who like a child shouts "robbery" and ignore the rich whom I quote. I'd say you are a hypocrite.

How am I a hypocrite?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Dude you doge as well as a theist when you get called out. You attack me but if you think they are wrong as well then your beef should be with them, not me.

I didn't attack you. Show me one argument that I have dodged or one question leveled at me that I ignored. I don't ignore the people you quote, I have directly addressed all of their arguments, just like I address any other argument. If any of them want to come on here and debate me they are more than welcome to. I love how you constantly tell me to go debate people who are not here, as if I should somehow travel around the country picking out people to debate with. Talk about dodging; what could possibly be more of a dodge than saying "don't argue with me, go argue with ______"

 

Brian37 wrote:

You read like a bad novel. It still boils down to "It is fair when I get what I want, but not fair when I don't always get what I want".

Where have I ever advocated that anything be done on the basis of fairness? In general, I don't support fairness for the sake of fairness. I hate to break it to you, but life isn't fair and it is never going to be. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now, you DON'T have to listen to me, but when rich people say your attitude is the problem, then maybe you have a problem. Go argue with Nick buddy and see how far you get with him.

Why should I listen to rich people more than I listen to you? Are they somehow better or smarter than you simply because they have money? I prefer to listen to arguments on their own merits regardless of the person making the argument. As I pointed out, this particular argument from Nick is riddled with flat out falsehoods which anyone can discover with the slightest bit of research. It is simply a pathetic and weak argument whether you make it, he makes it or I make it.

If I thought there was a one in a million chance you would actually read it, I would create a post providing numerous references proving that Nick's factual assertions upon which his argument is based are flat out false. Since I know you ignore facts and no one else has shown any interest in this thread, I feel too lazy to do so. It is crystal clear that you have no interest in a serious discussion or of learning in areas where you are ignorant. 

 

YOU claim it is all about YOU, and YOU think it is robbery when the middle class and poor vote. YOU stupidly think that nothing you do affects anyone but you.

 

Nick has done much better than you have financially. And I am quite sure he has the same business experience you claim to have.

You simply don't like it when someone within the business community disagrees with you. Too bad, take it up with Nick.

 

I think Nick has it right. I think he knows that when his workers do better financially it is good for the entire economy which WOULD create that "less dependency" you claim we should have.

If the worlds uber rich thought like him, there would be more prosperity and less poverty and less social ills.

It never occurs to you that "fuck you I got mine" is a failed policy. It is that mindset that caused the great depression and our current global Ponzy scheme. Unless the climate mentality changes and becomes more like Nicks, less government will merely become more gas on the fire.

You keep thinking the way you do and eventually even you will be affected. Nick understands that there is more than one class in an economy and you cant simply shit in the yard and not have the stench bite you in the ass.

Now, you want "less government", again I keep saying that has to come with self policing and caring and the responsibility of knowing when you get up that high you are standing on the shoulders of those who work for you. If all you care about is yourself, you can do that, but that does not mean those around you will value that when they keep sinking further down.

 

This is a THREE CLASS SYSTEM not a one class system. A bit of inequity is needed, but what we have between the top and the bottom is lopsided and will eventually kill our economy long term. We have record stock market reports and wages HAVE NOT kept up with the cost of living.

India and China's slave wage mentality may be your idea of global competition but it will never be mine. I do not find a race to the bottom moral at all.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:YOU claim it

Brian37 wrote:

YOU claim it is all about YOU, and YOU think it is robbery when the middle class and poor vote. YOU stupidly think that nothing you do affects anyone but you.

 

No I don't claim that at all. I am well aware that what I do has an effect on people, and it has a mostly positive effect, that is why I make money instead of losing it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Nick has done much better than you have financially. And I am quite sure he has the same business experience you claim to have.

Me and Nick have completely different experiences in completely different types of businesses. "Business" is hardly monolithic and there are thousands of different fields which can be dramatically different, just like someone who is an expert in football might not have a clue about hockey. 

Nick grew up a millionaire and took over his family owned business. He made his billions as a venture capitalist investing in Amazon.com, a company whose business model, ironically, is based on reducing as many jobs as possible in the book retail field.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You simply don't like it when someone within the business community disagrees with you. Too bad, take it up with Nick.

On the contrary. I love it when people disagree with me and have spirited arguments with my peers all the time. I really love it when the person I am disagreeing with is as well informed or better informed than me on the topic. It would be pretty cool if Nick came on here and had a debate with me. I'm pretty sure I would clean his clock because he is clearly ignorant on tax issues. Hardly a surprise since he has probably never done his own taxes, he has always had accountants for that.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

I think Nick has it right. I think he knows that when his workers do better financially it is good for the entire economy which WOULD create that "less dependency" you claim we should have.

Then why is his business model to have as few employees as possible? I quit working last year and hired an extra worker to do my job, taking less profit and supporting a larger work force. I don't pretend I did it for any noble reasons, I simply didn't want to do the job anymore and it is worth the reduced income to not have to work. I think either model is perfectly acceptable depending on what the goals of the investor are. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If the worlds uber rich thought like him, there would be more prosperity and less poverty and less social ills.

Thoughts don't mean a thing if they are not translated into action. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It never occurs to you that "fuck you I got mine" is a failed policy. It is that mindset that caused the great depression and our current global Ponzy scheme. Unless the climate mentality changes and becomes more like Nicks, less government will merely become more gas on the fire.

People aren't going to change because we are a product of EVOLUTION. It is ridiculous to think that people are suddenly going to stop being selfish. People will tend to do what is in their personal best interests and/or preferences. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You keep thinking the way you do and eventually even you will be affected. Nick understands that there is more than one class in an economy and you cant simply shit in the yard and not have the stench bite you in the ass.

Now, you want "less government", again I keep saying that has to come with self policing and caring and the responsibility of knowing when you get up that high you are standing on the shoulders of those who work for you. If all you care about is yourself, you can do that, but that does not mean those around you will value that when they keep sinking further down.

I don't care what those around me value. They will value whatever they decide to value. If their values happen to work in concert with mine, we will have a mutually beneficial relationship. If their values do not, than we will go our separate ways and do business with other people. I'm cool either way. What does any of this have to do with Nick's speech on taxes? Did you even watch the video?

 

Brian37 wrote:

This is a THREE CLASS SYSTEM not a one class system. A bit of inequity is needed, but what we have between the top and the bottom is lopsided and will eventually kill our economy long term. We have record stock market reports and wages HAVE NOT kept up with the cost of living.

The three class idea is completely arbitrary. You could just as easily say we have a two class or five class system. In fact, as far as taxes are concerned, which is in theory the topic at hand, most economists look at it as five quintiles. I already did a detailed post on why the stock market is so artificially high, it is called quantitative easing and is a policy I do not support.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

India and China's slave wage mentality may be your idea of global competition but it will never be mine. I do not find a race to the bottom moral at all.

I don't support an economic system like India or China. Both have systems where the government is highly involved at all levels. I support a system where the government is not involved. You are the one who supports a system more similar to those countries. I don't support working for low wages. If I was you, I would quit my job and go do something else. But again, all of this has nothing to do with Nick's speech, which as I pointed out is factually inaccurate.

One can look at the facts and think that we ought to have different goals, for example, you might argue that giving people who are not working enough money to live comfortably is more important than having full employment, while I argue that people shouldn't get handouts and be forced to produce something valuable. That is a difference in values. 

When Nick says there is a correlation between lowering top income tax rates and increasing unemployment, he is flat out wrong. That correlation does not exist, no matter how you twist that data. Our unemployment rate throughout the 90's was at record lows, the only people not working were people who didn't want to work. I remember the 90's, I was an employee myself at the time and companies were begging for anyone who could show up at work every once and awhile. Very different from what we have today where employees apply for jobs by the thousands and employers can be choosy. Yet Nick asserts that through the 90's the unemployment rate went up gradually, it did not. The unemployment rate spiked rapidly at the end of his graph with the recession after declining fairly consistently through the 90's.

As is usual in political hack speeches, Nick took a single variable and tried to attribute it as being solely responsible for employment. The reality is that the economy is far more complex than a single variable. This is an error made on both sides in political arguments, because having a real discussion on the issue requires a lot of numbers, math and is really tedious. Not the stuff of political commercials. To top it all off, Nick lied about the variable he decided to single out as all important.

That is why TED decided not to post it. Then he decided to hire a PR firm to make a big deal out of it and smear TED because he didn't get his way. A great organization that provides many thought provoking speeches and hardly one that is partisan towards right wing extremists or the rich. Because of that, I think the man is a douche and isn't deserving of any respect. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

YOU claim it is all about YOU, and YOU think it is robbery when the middle class and poor vote. YOU stupidly think that nothing you do affects anyone but you.

 

No I don't claim that at all. I am well aware that what I do has an effect on people, and it has a mostly positive effect, that is why I make money instead of losing it. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Nick has done much better than you have financially. And I am quite sure he has the same business experience you claim to have.

Me and Nick have completely different experiences in completely different types of businesses. "Business" is hardly monolithic and there are thousands of different fields which can be dramatically different, just like someone who is an expert in football might not have a clue about hockey. 

Nick grew up a millionaire and took over his family owned business. He made his billions as a venture capitalist investing in Amazon.com, a company whose business model, ironically, is based on reducing as many jobs as possible in the book retail field.

 

Brian37 wrote:

You simply don't like it when someone within the business community disagrees with you. Too bad, take it up with Nick.

On the contrary. I love it when people disagree with me and have spirited arguments with my peers all the time. I really love it when the person I am disagreeing with is as well informed or better informed than me on the topic. It would be pretty cool if Nick came on here and had a debate with me. I'm pretty sure I would clean his clock because he is clearly ignorant on tax issues. Hardly a surprise since he has probably never done his own taxes, he has always had accountants for that.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

I think Nick has it right. I think he knows that when his workers do better financially it is good for the entire economy which WOULD create that "less dependency" you claim we should have.

Then why is his business model to have as few employees as possible? I quit working last year and hired an extra worker to do my job, taking less profit and supporting a larger work force. I don't pretend I did it for any noble reasons, I simply didn't want to do the job anymore and it is worth the reduced income to not have to work. I think either model is perfectly acceptable depending on what the goals of the investor are. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If the worlds uber rich thought like him, there would be more prosperity and less poverty and less social ills.

Thoughts don't mean a thing if they are not translated into action. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It never occurs to you that "fuck you I got mine" is a failed policy. It is that mindset that caused the great depression and our current global Ponzy scheme. Unless the climate mentality changes and becomes more like Nicks, less government will merely become more gas on the fire.

People aren't going to change because we are a product of EVOLUTION. It is ridiculous to think that people are suddenly going to stop being selfish. People will tend to do what is in their personal best interests and/or preferences. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You keep thinking the way you do and eventually even you will be affected. Nick understands that there is more than one class in an economy and you cant simply shit in the yard and not have the stench bite you in the ass.

Now, you want "less government", again I keep saying that has to come with self policing and caring and the responsibility of knowing when you get up that high you are standing on the shoulders of those who work for you. If all you care about is yourself, you can do that, but that does not mean those around you will value that when they keep sinking further down.

I don't care what those around me value. They will value whatever they decide to value. If their values happen to work in concert with mine, we will have a mutually beneficial relationship. If their values do not, than we will go our separate ways and do business with other people. I'm cool either way. What does any of this have to do with Nick's speech on taxes? Did you even watch the video?

 

Brian37 wrote:

This is a THREE CLASS SYSTEM not a one class system. A bit of inequity is needed, but what we have between the top and the bottom is lopsided and will eventually kill our economy long term. We have record stock market reports and wages HAVE NOT kept up with the cost of living.

The three class idea is completely arbitrary. You could just as easily say we have a two class or five class system. In fact, as far as taxes are concerned, which is in theory the topic at hand, most economists look at it as five quintiles. I already did a detailed post on why the stock market is so artificially high, it is called quantitative easing and is a policy I do not support.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

India and China's slave wage mentality may be your idea of global competition but it will never be mine. I do not find a race to the bottom moral at all.

I don't support an economic system like India or China. Both have systems where the government is highly involved at all levels. I support a system where the government is not involved. You are the one who supports a system more similar to those countries. I don't support working for low wages. If I was you, I would quit my job and go do something else. But again, all of this has nothing to do with Nick's speech, which as I pointed out is factually inaccurate.

One can look at the facts and think that we ought to have different goals, for example, you might argue that giving people who are not working enough money to live comfortably is more important than having full employment, while I argue that people shouldn't get handouts and be forced to produce something valuable. That is a difference in values. 

When Nick says there is a correlation between lowering top income tax rates and increasing unemployment, he is flat out wrong. That correlation does not exist, no matter how you twist that data. Our unemployment rate throughout the 90's was at record lows, the only people not working were people who didn't want to work. I remember the 90's, I was an employee myself at the time and companies were begging for anyone who could show up at work every once and awhile. Very different from what we have today where employees apply for jobs by the thousands and employers can be choosy. Yet Nick asserts that through the 90's the unemployment rate went up gradually, it did not. The unemployment rate spiked rapidly at the end of his graph with the recession after declining fairly consistently through the 90's.

As is usual in political hack speeches, Nick took a single variable and tried to attribute it as being solely responsible for employment. The reality is that the economy is far more complex than a single variable. This is an error made on both sides in political arguments, because having a real discussion on the issue requires a lot of numbers, math and is really tedious. Not the stuff of political commercials. To top it all off, Nick lied about the variable he decided to single out as all important.

That is why TED decided not to post it. Then he decided to hire a PR firm to make a big deal out of it and smear TED because he didn't get his way. A great organization that provides many thought provoking speeches and hardly one that is partisan towards right wing extremists or the rich. Because of that, I think the man is a douche and isn't deserving of any respect. 

 

Ok and Buffet is wrong too and  and Suzie Orman is too and Robert Reich is too, COSTCO?

 

Keep proving my point. Look if reality worked the way you said the past 30 years of policy would make things better for all of us, not push more people down which it has.

 

Just face it, this merely amounts to you being a crybaby. You think Nick is a Douche not because he is wrong, but because he is putting a moral mirror to your face and you cant stand the cognitive dissonance. They took his video down because he exposed the majority climate for the greedy fuckers they were. Like I said, if the worlds uber rich had been like Nick and not the majority climate we have now, the world would not be in the mess it is in now.

You simply cant stand being competed with. Same narcissism of a god and just as selfish.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok and Buffet

Brian37 wrote:

Ok and Buffet is wrong too and  and Suzie Orman is too and Robert Reich is too, COSTCO?

Yes, Buffett is wrong. I don't listen to Orman, and Reich is the most influential economist on policy for the last 30 years. Do you think it worked well? And what about Costco? What do they have to do with anything?

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Keep proving my point. Look if reality worked the way you said the past 30 years of policy would make things better for all of us, not push more people down which it has.

For the last 30 years, your side has won far more often than those who agree with me. How do you like it? Our economic policy for the last 30 years has been overwhelmingly Keynesian. The only President we had that wasn't Keynesian was Reagan. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Just face it, this merely amounts to you being a crybaby.

Name calling is a very effective debate tactic. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You think Nick is a Douche not because he is wrong, but because he is putting a moral mirror to your face and you cant stand the cognitive dissonance. They took his video down because he exposed the majority climate for the greedy fuckers they were. Like I said, if the worlds uber rich had been like Nick and not the majority climate we have now, the world would not be in the mess it is in now.

So you are claiming that his graph is an accurate representation of reality?

Note the unemployment line in Nick's graph. (As if any 2 year old can't see that it is absurd to have 22.3% be less than 5.6%) Now lets look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say about unemployment over the same period.  

 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Do they look the same to you? Nick lied. 

Do you seriously believe that TED has some kind of right wing bias? They have left wing speakers featured all the time. They simply are an organization that is looking for serious conversation about important topics. They don't want to become a soapbox for partisan politics. It isn't that a sound argument can't be made for Nick's conclusion, it is that Nick failed to make a sound argument. There have been people who have argued persuasively for higher taxes on the rich without lying and without fabricating facts. Unfortunately, Nick felt the need to make shit up and apparently you are equally incapable of coming up with a decent argument for your position. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You simply cant stand being competed with. Same narcissism of a god and just as selfish.

Lol, I can't stand to not be competed with. When I run out of competition I get bored and quit. You should pay more attention to the uber rich that you have love affairs with like Buffett who uses government to drive his competition out of business like when he shut down the Keystone pipeline to protect his railroad. You are completely blind to reality and everything in your head is "my team" and "their team". You are completely incapable of judging any issue on its own merits, all that matters to you is what your team thinks and you are automatically on their side, regardless of what the facts are. It is comedy gold that you accuse me of being "just like a theist". I will drown your ass in facts about any of my assertions. Do you have any facts to support any of your assertions?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ok and Buffet is wrong too and  and Suzie Orman is too and Robert Reich is too, COSTCO?

Yes, Buffett is wrong. I don't listen to Orman, and Reich is the most influential economist on policy for the last 30 years. Do you think it worked well? And what about Costco? What do they have to do with anything?

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Keep proving my point. Look if reality worked the way you said the past 30 years of policy would make things better for all of us, not push more people down which it has.

For the last 30 years, your side has won far more often than those who agree with me. How do you like it? Our economic policy for the last 30 years has been overwhelmingly Keynesian. The only President we had that wasn't Keynesian was Reagan. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Just face it, this merely amounts to you being a crybaby.

Name calling is a very effective debate tactic. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You think Nick is a Douche not because he is wrong, but because he is putting a moral mirror to your face and you cant stand the cognitive dissonance. They took his video down because he exposed the majority climate for the greedy fuckers they were. Like I said, if the worlds uber rich had been like Nick and not the majority climate we have now, the world would not be in the mess it is in now.

So you are claiming that his graph is an accurate representation of reality?

Note the unemployment line in Nick's graph. (As if any 2 year old can't see that it is absurd to have 22.3% be less than 5.6%) Now lets look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say about unemployment over the same period.  

 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Do they look the same to you? Nick lied. 

Do you seriously believe that TED has some kind of right wing bias? They have left wing speakers featured all the time. They simply are an organization that is looking for serious conversation about important topics. They don't want to become a soapbox for partisan politics. It isn't that a sound argument can't be made for Nick's conclusion, it is that Nick failed to make a sound argument. There have been people who have argued persuasively for higher taxes on the rich without lying and without fabricating facts. Unfortunately, Nick felt the need to make shit up and apparently you are equally incapable of coming up with a decent argument for your position. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You simply cant stand being competed with. Same narcissism of a god and just as selfish.

Lol, I can't stand to not be competed with. When I run out of competition I get bored and quit. You should pay more attention to the uber rich that you have love affairs with like Buffett who uses government to drive his competition out of business like when he shut down the Keystone pipeline to protect his railroad. You are completely blind to reality and everything in your head is "my team" and "their team". You are completely incapable of judging any issue on its own merits, all that matters to you is what your team thinks and you are automatically on their side, regardless of what the facts are. It is comedy gold that you accuse me of being "just like a theist". I will drown your ass in facts about any of my assertions. Do you have any facts to support any of your assertions?

Nice doge, which completely misses RATIO as an individual impact to the INDIVIDUAL. Work on understanding what a dollar means to the rich vs what it means to the poor. Doubt you can or ever will do that.

Now there was a time in our history when the rich had a HIGHER TAX RATE, at one point 90%, which meant like it does today, that maybe at best they paid 50% after all the loopholes. That was right after WW2 and that rate HELPED build the middle class, our electric grid and highway system. But if idiots like you were the majority back then, those things never would have gotten done.

 

Stop your fucking crying about taxes seriously. If you own a business, shut the fuck up, you have it good.

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=tax+rates+since+ww2&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&hs=y6z&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tb...

 

Now notice the SPIKE in spending at the END of WW2, sure it did go down but ONLY because it got people on their feet first. You don't fucking kick people while they are down. That spike built our highways and electric grid and built our middle class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Quote:
A 2011 study by the CBO[18] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[18]

 

So do not tell me that the top is not increasing it is and the gap isn't  getting bigger. The stock market is continuing to make record gains without any increase in pay for workers.

 

If you want to argue "redistribution" I agree, but it is going bottom up, not top down.

 

Forbes magazine is not a left wing rag. Care to know what they think?

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/essay-the-growing-income-gap-in-the-u-s-harms-the-economy-20120927?page=1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
None of my co workers who

None of my co workers who are on food stamps want to be on them. None of my co workers are lazy. All of them would love to be able to work a 40 hour a week job and have their bills paid and have time with their families.  And even my middle class co workers are hurting, meanwhile my boss lives in two houses and drives an Audi.

If people like him and people like you really want to help pull your fucking head out of your ass and stop blaming us. But do not blame us for the dependency the 1% created by making that gap bigger.

 

You want us to stop crying help? Who has more power to influence politics and tax policy, me or the Koch Brothers? Who has more means to help others? Me or Nick Hanour? Now if the 1% wont help directly and cut out the middle man and simply want to say "fuck you I got mine", you forget that evolution kicks in and people will survive by any means they can. I'd like less of that middle man too, but the only way that is going to happen is for the top to stop exploding the pay gap and INVEST!

The pay gap is killing us and investment in better pay and lower pay gap is the only thing that will get government off your back. Behave do the right thing and others wont need the help. Nick Hanour gets that.

 

I don't know what you make but I am sure if I merely made half of that with where I live I could live like a king. I am tired of your poor Daddy Warbucks crybaby tears.

 

1. Lower pay gap

2. Better pay

3. INVESTMENT

4. Lower cost of living ratio

5. Lower health care costs

6. Cheaper higher education

 

Now if you wont do that on your own, WE still means WE as far as voting and you cannot and will not stop the rest of us from voting and that list above is what is needed to cure our economic ills. Trickle down was a failed policy and never worked.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
From that same

From that same article;

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/essay-the-growing-income-gap-in-the-u-s-harms-the-economy-20120927?page=1

Quote:
As Christopher Brown, an economist at Arkansas State University, put it in a pioneering 2004 paper, “Income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.” Looking back on the two decades before 1986, Brown found that if the gap between rich and poor hadn’t grown wider, consumption spending would have been almost 12 percent higher than it actually was. That was a big enough number to have produced a noticeable macroeconomic impact. Stiglitz, in his book, argues that an inequality-driven shift away from consumption accounts for “the entire shortfall in aggregate demand—and hence in the U.S. economy—today.”

 

DEMAND which Nick was saying is created by US not him.

 

If we don't have enough money we don't spend if we don't spend business owners have no drive to hire more people.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://oregonstate.edu/instru

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth484/minwage.html

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa%3Dview...

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3220

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120920/GRAPHICS02/120919572&template=graphics

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/earnings%2520growth%2520mishel.png&imgref...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/economy/income-inequality-may-take-toll-on-growth.html?ref=incomeinequality&_r=0

Quote:

In the last few years, research by the Brookings Institution, the I.M.F. and dozens of economists at top research universities has started to coalesce into a compelling narrative.

Starting in the 1970s, earnings were squeezed for low- and middle-income households. They borrowed to improve their standards of living — buying bigger houses than they could afford and using those houses as piggy banks. Families bet that housing prices would keep rising, making a three-bedroom outside Phoenix a safe store of wealth. But the housing bubble collapsed, and took the rest of the economy with it.

Research by Raghuram Rajan of the University of Chicago has also underscored the importance of deregulation. “Starting in the early 1970s, advanced economies found it increasingly difficult to grow,” he wrote this year. “The shortsighted political response to the anxieties of those falling behind was to ease their access to credit. Faced with little regulatory restraint, banks overdosed on risky loans.”

 

NOW all I have argued is that "DEREGULATION" depends on RESPONSIBILITY. I see absolutely none at all by the top.

 

The pay gap was not set by the voting habits of the middle class or working poor. It was set by money influence on politics in search for cheaper labor. That cycle set the middle class and working poor to depend on cheap credit and crushing dept, even for the middle class.

Big money influence on politics caused this.

 

When you compare the cost of living index and pay gap in 1970 compared to today, the floor back then was much higher. So there was not as much of a need for dependency on cheap money. But big banks and corporate America love the rest of us not being able to make ends meet because that puts us in the position of being that desperate labor being dependent on them and government.

 

Nick Hanour gets this and so does Robert Reich and Warren Buffet and Suzie Orman who all are RICHER THAN YOU.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://www.commondreams.org/h

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Nice doge,

Brian37 wrote:

Nice doge, which completely misses RATIO as an individual impact to the INDIVIDUAL. Work on understanding what a dollar means to the rich vs what it means to the poor. Doubt you can or ever will do that.

????? A dollar doesn't mean the same thing to any two individuals even if they both have the same income. That is why money works. If $1 meant the same thing to everyone there would be no trade. You don't buy something because you think it has the same value as the seller thinks, you buy something because it has more value to you than it has to the seller. Value is completely subjective. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now there was a time in our history when the rich had a HIGHER TAX RATE, at one point 90%, which meant like it does today, that maybe at best they paid 50% after all the loopholes. That was right after WW2 and that rate HELPED build the middle class, our electric grid and highway system. But if idiots like you were the majority back then, those things never would have gotten done.

Are our current taxes going to build something equivalent to our interstate or electric systems? If you ever actually read my posts, you would know that I support higher taxes, I just support higher taxes on everyone including you instead of higher taxes on certain groups. To cover our current bills, everyone, including you, needs to pay roughly 40% of their income. As you know, I support cutting spending significantly so we don't have to pay that much, but it is more important to me that we balance the budget and everyone needs to pay 40% to be paying their "fair share". I suspect that if everyone paid 40% there would be a lot more people interested in trimming the federal budget. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Stop your fucking crying about taxes seriously. If you own a business, shut the fuck up, you have it good.

 

Oh, now we go for attempting to silence your opponents by telling them to shut the fuck up. Great debate strategy. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now notice the SPIKE in spending at the END of WW2, sure it did go down but ONLY because it got people on their feet first. You don't fucking kick people while they are down. That spike built our highways and electric grid and built our middle class.

No, that spike did not build our highways or electric grid. The highway system wasn't funded significantly until 1956, 10 years after the spike in spending. The spike occurred from 1943-1945. Do you know what was happening? WW2. By far the largest expense at that time was the military at almost $94 billion out of a $107 billion budget in 1945. 

During the Eisenhower administration, when we built the highway system, government spending was 16-19% of GDP. Most of the electric grid was built in the 1920's and was funded primarily by evil capitalists who made a shitload of cash investing in electricity. It was the 1930's when electricity became highly regulated, mostly due to a public perception that electric monopolies were driving up prices. The federal budget never spent a significant amount of money on building the electric grid, most of the money spent on electricity has been spent on regulating it, not building the infrastructure. What government investment that did occur on the electric grid was done by state and local governments. 

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/year_spending_1945USbn_14bs1n_30#usgs302

http://burnanenergyjournal.com/the-electricity-grid-a-history/

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States

Quote:
A 2011 study by the CBO[18] found that the top earning 1 percent of households gained about 275% after federal taxes and income transfers over a period between 1979 and 2007, compared to a gain of just under 40% for the 60 percent in the middle of America's income distribution.[18]

 

So do not tell me that the top is not increasing it is and the gap isn't  getting bigger. The stock market is continuing to make record gains without any increase in pay for workers.

 

I never denied that the pay gap increased in the 90's. It has shrunk since the recession, is your life better?

 

Brian37 wrote:

Forbes magazine is not a left wing rag. Care to know what they think?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/10/02/how-income-inequality-is-damaging-the-u-s/

It wasn't a Forbes commentator, rather Forbes was pointing out an article written in National Journal. 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/essay-the-growing-income-gap-in-the-u-s-harms-the-economy-20120927?page=1

Now as opposed to Nick, Rauch makes a strong and educated argument. He also points out the real problem

Jonathan Rauch wrote:

So inequality might suppress growth. It might also cause instability. In a democracy, politicians and the public are unlikely to accept depressed spending power if they can help it. They can try to compensate by easing credit standards, effectively encouraging the non-rich to sustain purchasing power by borrowing. They might, for example, create policies allowing banks to write flimsy home mortgages and encouraging consumers to seek them. Call this the “let them eat credit” strategy.

“Cynical as it may seem,” Raghuram Rajan, a finance professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, wrote in his 2010 book, Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy, “easy credit has been used as a palliative throughout history by governments that are unable to address the deeper anxieties of the middle class directly.” That certainly seems to have happened in the years leading to the mortgage crisis. Marianne Bertrand and Adair Morse, also of Chicago’s business school, have found that legislators who represent constituencies with higher inequality are more likely to support the easing of credit. Several papers by International Monetary Fund economists comparing countries likewise find support for the “let them eat credit” approach. And credit splurges, they find, bring on instability and current-account deficits.

IOW, the problem isn't the inequality itself, the problem he points out is government's reaction to inequality and this is a point I have made many times on this site. I think it is virtually indisputable that our current recession was created by our governments policies that encouraged the easing of credit. Left alone, the economy would have experienced a recession much earlier because people would not have had the money to consume, reducing demand and reducing production, but the recession would have been much smaller and shorter. By easing credit and maintaining ridiculously low interest rates, the government was able to encourage loose credit which led to higher levels of consumption and a boom. However, credit has to be paid back sooner or later and it created a climate where a massive recession was inevitable.

The fortunes of the top 1% closely mirror the economy. When the economy grows, they get richer faster than everyone else, when it retracts, they lose money faster than everyone else. So as the economy grows, the pay gap increases, when it shrinks it decreases. Through the 80's and 90's we had sustained growth with only a few small bumps, so the rich got really rich. The reason is simple, rich people invest, poor people don't. So when those investments do well, the rich benefit. When investments do well, the economy grows since GDP is a measure of all production. When investments fail and production stops, the rich lose their money while the poor stay more or less where they are. The middle class benefits from booms because they are primarily employees, but generally, employers gain or lose more than their employees. We get the benefit of excess profits, and we suffer more when the company isn't profitable because generally, employees are paid regardless of whether a company is profitable. So the pay gap between employer and employee is directly correlated with the success of the company. The more successful the company, the larger the gap.  

When Rauch attempts to draw a causal connection between banks failing and the pay gap I think he is making an error. Correlation does not equal to causation. He overlooks the obvious explanation that recessions tend to follow booms and the bigger the boom, the worse the recession. If the pay gap increases during booms, it is natural that the pay gap will be larger shortly before a recession compared to after a recession. The pay gap is a side effect of the economy, not a variable that effects the direction of the economy.  

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:None of my co

Brian37 wrote:

None of my co workers who are on food stamps want to be on them. None of my co workers are lazy. All of them would love to be able to work a 40 hour a week job and have their bills paid and have time with their families.  And even my middle class co workers are hurting, meanwhile my boss lives in two houses and drives an Audi.

Is someone forcing them to be on food stamps? From your comments, I wouldn't be surprised if your boss is overextended and will eventually lose everything. Either he is incredibly successful as a restaurateur or he is living on credit. I have seen many people with modestly successful businesses do the same thing. Often, what you see doesn't tell the whole story.

 

Brian37 wrote:

If people like him and people like you really want to help pull your fucking head out of your ass and stop blaming us. But do not blame us for the dependency the 1% created by making that gap bigger.

I don't blame you for anything. I blame the government.

 

Brian37 wrote:

The pay gap is killing us and investment in better pay and lower pay gap is the only thing that will get government off your back. Behave do the right thing and others wont need the help. Nick Hanour gets that.

 

Apparently he doesn't. According to you, people like him are the problem. The pay gap between me and Nick is huge, yet you blame me. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't know what you make but I am sure if I merely made half of that with where I live I could live like a king. I am tired of your poor Daddy Warbucks crybaby tears.

Lol. People always overestimate what they could do on an income. That is why so many lottery winners and sports stars end up bankrupt. The secret to having wealth is to live like a cheapskate.

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

1. Lower pay gap

How?

 

Brian37 wrote:

2. Better pay

Forced?

 

Brian37 wrote:

3. INVESTMENT

Who should invest in what? Government investing? Or me investing? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

4. Lower cost of living ratio

How?

 

Brian37 wrote:

5. Lower health care costs

How? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

6. Cheaper higher education

How?

I support 2-6, but we disagree heavily on how those things can be achieved. Costs are minimized by letting the market be free, government involvement always increases costs. You might argue that sometimes those extra costs are worth it, for example, you might argue that the cost that is added to beef by government inspections and standards are worth the price because it improves the quality and safety of our food supply. However, it is completely irrational to argue that government involvement makes things cheaper. The more parties involved in any transaction, the more expensive the transaction because everyone along the way is getting paid. Every time you have a regulation, a company has to pay someone to ensure it is following the regulation and to fill out the required paperwork, that is time and money that isn't being spent on production, so for every regulation you have less potential production.  

For things like healthcare and education, you can lower the costs for particular people through things like subsidies, however the combined costs will go up. It costs money to collect taxes and redistribute them to people. You have to hire employees who do nothing but decide which people qualify for subsidies and which don't. You need people to push all the paperwork around and you need supervisors to make sure the system is working. Overall, all those things cost more money than not having them at all. 

It would be far cheaper for me to simply mail you some money for food than to send it to the IRS and have it filtered through layers of bureaucrats and only a portion of it eventually getting to you in the form of food stamps. You might argue that a system like food stamps is worth the costs because it ensures that everyone who needs the assistance gets it, whereas if you relied on voluntary donations some people might not get help. However, it is completely irrational to argue that food stamps lower the costs of food in the economy. The reality is that subsidies always increase the total costs of whatever product is being subsidized. 

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Now if you wont do that on your own, WE still means WE as far as voting and you cannot and will not stop the rest of us from voting and that list above is what is needed to cure our economic ills. Trickle down was a failed policy and never worked. 

Is the majority automatically right simply because they have a majority?  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:From that same

Brian37 wrote:

From that same article;

http://www.nationaljournal.com/next-economy/essay-the-growing-income-gap-in-the-u-s-harms-the-economy-20120927?page=1

Quote:
As Christopher Brown, an economist at Arkansas State University, put it in a pioneering 2004 paper, “Income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.” Looking back on the two decades before 1986, Brown found that if the gap between rich and poor hadn’t grown wider, consumption spending would have been almost 12 percent higher than it actually was. That was a big enough number to have produced a noticeable macroeconomic impact. Stiglitz, in his book, argues that an inequality-driven shift away from consumption accounts for “the entire shortfall in aggregate demand—and hence in the U.S. economy—today.”

 

DEMAND which Nick was saying is created by US not him.

 

If we don't have enough money we don't spend if we don't spend business owners have no drive to hire more people.

 

Yes, but is unending demand a good thing? Is it even possible? My main disagreement with Keynesian economists is their obsessive focus on demand. I don't think it is healthy, possible or desirable to expect demand to consistently increase. It is ok and necessary for an economy to occasionally retract and for production to decrease. There is no reason to produce for the sake of producing. If we don't need a product, we shouldn't make it just because we want people to work. I think recent history has illustrated the folly of artificially increasing demand out of a desire for economic growth. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15761
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/08/historical-tax-rates-poster-on-sale-for-10/

http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates?op=1

Quote:
When the economy grows, they get richer faster than everyone else, when it retracts, they lose money faster than everyone else. So as the economy grows, the pay gap increases, when it shrinks it decreases. Through the 80's and 90's we had sustained growth with only a few small bumps, so the rich got really rich. The reason is simple, rich people invest, poor people don't.

Yea but the rich DONT do the physical labor that the poor do to make their investments work. So again all it is is legalized gambling on the backs of the workers.

Investing that lead to the middle class was NOT hollow simply using money to make money. It went into the hands of the workers, investing today is simply a betting parlor having nothing to do with increasing the pay of the workers. You masterbate over people coming into your office appling for a job and take the person who will work the most for the least. That isn't bad by itself as a concept, inequity is needed, but what we have is LOPSIDED which makes the workers over all slaves to your dictates.

You stupidly think that simply handing money over to what amounts to a legallized booky makes everything better for everyone. No, it is NOT just about investment, it is about improving and building. And if all you do is hollow out the buying power of those who do the physical work you long term hollow out the middle and the floor for more people drop.

The pay gap is not a "side affect" that's like saying bleeding is ok because it is just a side affect of the bullet going into into your chest.

Fine if pay does not matter then cut your employees pay in half right now, they should understand after all it is "just a side affect".

Just say what you really mean which you have said before but don't lie about economics.

"FUCK YOU I GOT MINE" but don't blow smoke up my ass to try to justify greed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NOW all I have

Brian37 wrote:

NOW all I have argued is that "DEREGULATION" depends on RESPONSIBILITY. I see absolutely none at all by the top.

How do you suggest we change that?

 

Brian37 wrote:

The pay gap was not set by the voting habits of the middle class or working poor. It was set by money influence on politics in search for cheaper labor. That cycle set the middle class and working poor to depend on cheap credit and crushing dept, even for the middle class.

Big money influence on politics caused this.

 

Clearly the 99% is a much larger voting block than the top 1%. No one forced the middle class to borrow money and live above their means. Some in the middle class did not, and they are now the rich. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

When you compare the cost of living index and pay gap in 1970 compared to today, the floor back then was much higher. So there was not as much of a need for dependency on cheap money. But big banks and corporate America love the rest of us not being able to make ends meet because that puts us in the position of being that desperate labor being dependent on them and government.

In the 70's it was virtually impossible to get credit unless you were rich. The cheap money phenomenon was created in the 90's and was a direct result of intentional government policy. Our government's GOAL was to make credit cheap. A goal which they achieved and I was one of the very few people screaming about it. We were made fun of, called crazy and laughed at as doomsayers when we said "this can't go on forever" "we are headed for a major collapse", "the housing market is going to collapse".  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Nick Hanour gets this and so does Robert Reich and Warren Buffet and Suzie Orman who all are RICHER THAN YOU.

Robert Reich was the most influential economist in the 90's. He headed Bill Clinton's economic team and it was his economic policy ideas that were implemented during Clinton's administration- the period where the pay gap increased the fastest. They were also policies that were continued by GW Bush and now Obama. The only real change we have seen in economic policy is the marginal tax rates, which are not nearly as significant a factor on the economy as we like to pretend. Things like regulations, monetary policy and government spending play a much larger role than tax policy. 

If your problem is the pay gap, he hardly seems like a person to look to for the solution. All the people you named are richer than me, and therefore contribute more to the pay gap than me. So when looking for a solution to your problem, why do you look to the people who are causing it? Nick, Warren and Suzie all have the power to reduce the pay gap inside their own companies, none of them have. The pay gap in my company is comparatively very low. Yet you accuse me of being the problem?!?! They are all hypocrites. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yea but the

Brian37 wrote:

Yea but the rich DONT do the physical labor that the poor do to make their investments work. So again all it is is legalized gambling on the backs of the workers.

Investing is a gamble and the person putting out the money gets both the risk and the reward in our system. Who do you propose should take the risk of investing in a business? Do you expect people to do it without profit? It is hardly "on the backs" of laborers. Employees don't take on any of the risk. When the business losses money, the employee still gets paid. You act like every business makes this huge profit. Statistically, most businesses fail and you are more likely to lose your investment than to make a profit. It is the large benefit of having a successful business that leads people like me to continue to invest. You go to work everyday and know how much money you will get paid, entrepreneurs don't have that luxury. They work without knowing whether they will get paid or not. The worst thing that could happen to you if a company fails is you lose your job. The worse thing that could happen to me is that I lose everything and owe a lot of people money. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Investing that lead to the middle class was NOT hollow simply using money to make money.

Of course it was. Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller etc. were all about shamelessly trying to make money. The way they treated their employees is illegal today. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

It went into the hands of the workers, investing today is simply a betting parlor having nothing to do with increasing the pay of the workers.

You obviously know nothing about history. If it went to the hands of the workers, why were unions necessary? Working conditions today are substantially better than when the middle class was built. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You masterbate over people coming into your office appling for a job and take the person who will work the most for the least. That isn't bad by itself as a concept, inequity is needed, but what we have is LOPSIDED which makes the workers over all slaves to your dictates.

Masturbating over employees is sexual harassment. How are employees slaves? They can leave anytime they want. Your hysterical rhetoric is absurd. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

You stupidly think that simply handing money over to what amounts to a legallized booky makes everything better for everyone. No, it is NOT just about investment, it is about improving and building. And if all you do is hollow out the buying power of those who do the physical work you long term hollow out the middle and the floor for more people drop.

You improve and build by investing. Investing in businesses that are not productive can provide you short term profit, but long term you will lose everything, ask the people who got caught up in the housing bubble. When you make foolish investments, you will lose your money eventually and the market can be very brutal to those who don't pay attention to the fundamentals. Now if we would just get the government the fuck out of the way and let the fools go bankrupt rather than use taxpayer money to support their moral hazards. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Fine if pay does not matter then cut your employees pay in half right now, they should understand after all it is "just a side affect".

I never claimed pay doesn't matter. I claim that pay is not determined by how profitable a company is and that is a good thing. If I cut my employees pay in half, they would all quit. The primary determinant of how much I pay my employees is how much they are willing to accept to keep working for me. When I start a new business, I determine what jobs need to get done and estimate how much I would have to pay to attract the quality of worker I want. Then, I try to calculate if the expenses will be low enough to make a profit. If you try to calculate your expected profit and then pay based on what you expect to make, your business is going to fail because unexpected expenses always arise and it is impossible to perfectly predict what your revenue will be. Since you have to pay for labor before you get revenue, you will be writing checks that your business won't be able to cash.      

I asked you a long time ago exactly how you would recommend I determine wages and you never answered. Do you care to explain to me now? Suppose you wanted to hire a secretary, exactly how would you calculate what salary to offer? 

Brian37 wrote:

Just say what you really mean which you have said before but don't lie about economics.

"FUCK YOU I GOT MINE" but don't blow smoke up my ass to try to justify greed.

I never lie about economics. I never said "fuck you I got mine", you have attributed that quote to me hundreds of times, I never said it. I feel no need to justify greed. I think people should be free to be greedy if they want to be. Do you think it should be the government's job to make people be nice?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:So you

Beyond Saving wrote:
So you are claiming that his graph is an accurate representation of reality?

Note the unemployment line in Nick's graph. (As if any 2 year old can't see that it is absurd to have 22.3% be less than 5.6%) Now lets look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say about unemployment over the same period.  

 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Do they look the same to you? Nick lied. 

I'm 4 years old and I know that you failed at interpreting the graph.

(edit)

but I will say this, the graph could have been made better. Also your graph is for unemployment rate specifically, which by the way, actually supports his graph as in "2009 the unemployment rate was around 9.3%"

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
He's one of the founders of

He's one of the founders of the "True Patriot Network".

http://www.truepat.org/


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Beyond

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
So you are claiming that his graph is an accurate representation of reality?

Note the unemployment line in Nick's graph. (As if any 2 year old can't see that it is absurd to have 22.3% be less than 5.6%) Now lets look at what the Bureau of Labor Statistics has to say about unemployment over the same period.  

 http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Do they look the same to you? Nick lied. 

I'm 4 years old and I know that you failed at interpreting the graph.

(edit)

but I will say this, the graph could have been made better. Also your graph is for unemployment rate specifically, which by the way, actually supports his graph as in "2009 the unemployment rate was around 9.3%"

 

Yeah, he took two independent data points and drew a random line to show correlation. That doesn't work. He ignores everything that occurred in the late 90's because it doesn't fit his narrative.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Yeah, he

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, he took two independent data points and drew a random line to show correlation. That doesn't work. He ignores everything that occurred in the late 90's because it doesn't fit his narrative.

While he is correct in his statement, (the tax rate for the rich has gone down, unemployment has gone up), the graph is poorly made which only causes confusion.

I suspect that he didn't make the graph. He most likely had some one with in one of his companies or maybe a personal assistant make it.

I would have used a bar graph with two columns (red and blue) in 5 year increments rather than a line graph. Line graphs are used to "PLOT" numbers showing a comparison between points.

Notice that this line graph doesn't have any tick markings or numbers at the bottom or the side? It simply says, RATE and TIME. That RATE isn't even associated with the percentage rate of the numbers given.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

 

While he is correct in his statement, (the tax rate for the rich has gone down, unemployment has gone up), the graph is poorly made which only causes confusion.

He is arguing that there is correlation, which is false because over most of the time period taxes on the rich went down and unemployment went down. A fact that he intentionally ignores by arbitrarily picking two points in time and ignoring everything that happened in between because he knows that the real numbers refute his point.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I suspect that he didn't make the graph. He most likely had some one with in one of his companies or maybe a personal assistant make it.

 

He is a saavy investor he knows that unemployment dropped to record lows. Whether he made it or not, he knew the graph was not close to accurate.

 

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I would have used a bar graph with two columns (red and blue) in 5 year increments rather than a line graph. Line graphs are used to "PLOT" numbers showing a comparison between points.

Notice that this line graph doesn't have any tick markings or numbers at the bottom or the side? It simply says, RATE and TIME. That RATE isn't even associated with the percentage rate of the numbers given.

 

And if he did so, the graph would not have supported his argument. Which is my point. He made a sloppy graph to intentionally mislead his audience. Fortunately TED has standards.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:He is

Beyond Saving wrote:
He is arguing that there is correlation, which is false because over most of the time period taxes on the rich went down and unemployment went down. A fact that he intentionally ignores by arbitrarily picking two points in time and ignoring everything that happened in between because he knows that the real numbers refute his point.

 

And if he did so, the graph would not have supported his argument. Which is my point. He made a sloppy graph to intentionally mislead his audience. Fortunately TED has standards.

So with this assumption what is his motive?


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
You are right that there are

You are right that there are no tic marks but the line changes direction slightly several times, implying that multiple data points were used. If he only used two points to make a graph the line would be perfectly straight. It is obvious that he wanted the audience to believe that unemployment increased at the same rate that taxes decreased. It was a dishonest speech.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Now be Careful

I Wanted to help out, so Here are the two graphs superimposed on each other;

Now, if you look REEEEAAAAAAALLLLLY Closely, you might notice some differences.  I Know it's kind of subtle, you might not notice it. 

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Sinphanius wrote:I Wanted to

Sinphanius wrote:

I Wanted to help out, so Here are the two graphs superimposed on each other;

Now, if you look REEEEAAAAAAALLLLLY Closely, you might notice some differences.  I Know it's kind of subtle, you might not notice it. 

Well for one, your graph is off....


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:You are

Beyond Saving wrote:

You are right that there are no tic marks but the line changes direction slightly several times, implying that multiple data points were used. If he only used two points to make a graph the line would be perfectly straight. It is obvious that he wanted the audience to believe that unemployment increased at the same rate that taxes decreased. It was a dishonest speech.

It's obvious he didn't use the bar graph, which is what he should have used, because it wasn't as "dramatic".

If we use his logic that "middle class create demand, thus, create jobs" we can also say, "currently there is low demand, thus, there is high unemployment". This would mean that the middle class is creating their own unemployment.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ok and Buffet

Brian37 wrote:

Ok and Buffet is wrong too and and Suzie Orman is too and Robert Reich is too, COSTCO?

This is hilarious to me that COSTCO is so admired by Brian and the Dems. It is COSTCO WHOLESALE! They became successful by eliminating retail workers and keeping the profit, but somehow in his twisted logic they are heroes of the workers' party. WalMart is shit because they pay retail workers low wages and COSTCO is an angel because they eliminate retail jobs, go figure.

Also in his twisted logic, he claims the rich don't create jobs. So why then can't the poor create their own job? Silence.

I think if there is any corellation between tax rates for the rich and unemployment, it is acutally the opposite cause and effect. Governments have been lowering tax rates in order to attract new investment and to keep the rich from moving away because of unemployment.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen