• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The 1% will own more than the 99% by 2016, report says

So what? I didn't say anything about 80% of millionaires.

I am still befuddled by those who believe that inheritance is a merit based accomplishment.

because most of those people didn't inherit it. they earned it.

since all it takes to be in the top 1% is an AGI of like 430k or more you are painting a lot of people with wide brush.
 
because most of those people didn't inherit it. they earned it.

since all it takes to be in the top 1% is an AGI of like 430k or more you are painting a lot of people with wide brush.
Is $430K "rich" in say NYC, or Los Angeles? I'd guess no.
 
Is $430K "rich" in say NYC, or Los Angeles? I'd guess no.

that has absolutely nothing to do without the federal government divides it's tax brackets.
the top 1% consists of anyone that makes an AGI of 430k dollars or more.

those are the people you are complaining about when you rant about the 1%
 
do you not understand how the federal reserve works? they control the money supply in the system. as the system needs more money or the economy expands. they add that money into the system.

hence no 1 group of people can own it all. it simply isn't possible.

Exactly what I referred to, quantitative easing.

And, of course you're right that no one can possibly control all of the wealth. If just a few control half of it, is that a problem or not?
 
What do you think? The middle class is disappearing. At one time increases in productivity equated to wage increases.
https://fortune.com/2015/01/19/the-1-will-own-more-than-the-99-by-2016-report-says/
The richest 1% of the population will own more than half of the world’s wealth by next year as inequality continues its relentless rise across the globe, a new report out Monday says.

The report, by the U.K.-based charity Oxfam, shows that the top 1% have grown their share of global wealth constantly since 2010. After dipping at 44% in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, it rose to 48% by the end of last year and is poised to top 50% by the end of next year.

The dip in 2008 put them behind schedule. They're making up for lost time. No problem.
 
Exactly what I referred to, quantitative easing.

And, of course you're right that no one can possibly control all of the wealth. If just a few control half of it, is that a problem or not?

Not to me. I don't have any wealth.
 
Is $430K "rich" in say NYC, or Los Angeles? I'd guess no.

Probably not. $430K in my little burg would be like 17-18 years of average worker pay.
 
Exactly what I referred to, quantitative easing.

And, of course you're right that no one can possibly control all of the wealth. If just a few control half of it, is that a problem or not?

that isn't quantitative easing. that is something completely different.
quantitative easing is the buying of assets by the federal reserve.

when the economy has need of expansion and more money the federal reserve simply lets money come out of the reserve into the system.
they are not the same thing.

again define wealth. so far it seems to be thrown out there arbitrarily.
 
You realize I guess that the First Amendment exists in part to PROTECT liberals' right to "shout you down" in a debate (to the extent that can even occur in a written debate forum).

Maybe I should have said, "Missing the entire point of the First Amendment Alert!!"

LOL. The point of you libs shouting down anyone with an opposing viewpoint is so that maybe theirs DOESN'T get heard. But I think people see that for what it is; an attempt to silence opposition. It's pretty transparent.
 
BFD-the wealthy receive THE LEAST value for each tax dollar they pay. The wealthy pay more actual dollars and get NOTHING extra in return

You all forget about that all the time

They have an educated work for available to them through those tax dollars, without which, they would not be wealthy.

They have subsidized poverty, without which, they would have to pay higher wages, or face violent revolt at some point.
 
LOL. The point of you libs shouting down anyone with an opposing viewpoint is so that maybe theirs DOESN'T get heard. But I think people see that for what it is; an attempt to silence opposition. It's pretty transparent.

Still has nothing to do with the First Amendment....

Attempting to "silence opposition" - LOL. If that's our attempt, it's failing miserably. I can turn on my radio any time of the day and on talk radio all I hear is right wing viewpoints, right wing callers agreeing with that viewpoint, Fox News does pretty well, last I heard GOPers still had town hall meetings, lots of right wing blogs, conservative newspapers, etc. Conservative candidates are extremely well funded. Winning plenty of elections too! Doesn't SEEM to be a problem for conservatives to get their message out there....

But I get it. Conservatives are the victims... poor things. Liberals are just meanies!
 
I don't think you understand what really happened. The bad "securities" were homes they couldn't sell for enough to cover the defaults. And AIG insured them and those swaps were all over the world. If AIG was allowed to go bankrupt, the swaps would have become worth exactly zero and then the damage is global and unrecoverable. Loan AIG and other institutions enough to cover their obligations and the crash doesn't hit the whole world (and pensions and retirement plans for everyone). And the thing is.... All those financial instruments made sense and would never have been a problem in any normal circumstances.

But circumstances weren't normal. People bought into the idea that a home will only go up in value and so they bought whatever they could at any price asked and felt all fat and happy. The market overheated and housing prices dropped and now they're not so happy and figure that since they paid more than the house is worth, they just walk, take the credit hit and stick the banks (and ultimately, all the rest of us) with the losses. THAT was the basis of the crash.

Right, but it wasn't the homes that caused it (mostly) - it was the leveraging via securities that did it. As I recall:

1) You have the loan
2) Then you have an insurance against that loan
3) Then you have a security that essentially betting on that insurance

Yes, it sucks for the bank if the loan wasn't paid back, but they are insured against failure via #2. Yes, it sucks to have to pay the insurance to the banks, and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG may have still been in trouble. However, the mortgage backed security that bet on the insurance that could be leveraged as many times as the market was willing... that's where the damage was done.

If you take a loan and insurance on those loans, they are easily calculatable maximum losses. That means you can easily hedge it or keep enough equity to pay off losses. However, the mortgage-backed securities had unlimited loss and profit potential. And those who were long on those securities ****ing lost their asses. They were supposed to be AAA-rated, near guaranteed return on investment, so you can go long as **** on those, not be terribly hedged, leverage the **** out of it, and feel good about getting a nice ROI.

Except they didn't. They lost everything. Everyone went under. The stock market plunged. Banks stopped lending. It was a **** show. I could be wrong, Papa Bull, but I would bet the actual money lost on housing was a small percentage of the money compared to that which was lost on the mortgage-backed securities.
 
Last edited:
sure it is. he is funding a program he can't use. that the end of it.
it has no benefit to him other than taking his money and giving it to someone else that did nothing for it.

no you just don't care other people that like to keep what they earn do care.

I can't use the schools in Montana either. I can't use the VA benefits that are paid to veterans. I can't use the ****ing space shuttle either.

But I am a grown ass man who doesn't moan and bitch about it. It's called life, get over it. If you don't want to be a part of society, go live in the ****ing woods!
 
Your President sure did.

It's like talking to a wall. J-mac, did you have something relevant or actually though out that you wanted to add, or should we just keep going in circles where you make a random accusation that is off topic and incorrect and I refute it?
 
that isn't quantitative easing. that is something completely different.
quantitative easing is the buying of assets by the federal reserve.

when the economy has need of expansion and more money the federal reserve simply lets money come out of the reserve into the system.
they are not the same thing.

again define wealth. so far it seems to be thrown out there arbitrarily.

Good point. Before we can have an intelligent discussion of wealth, first we must define just what it is.

To me, wealth is an accumulation of income producing property, whether that is in t he form of real property, or part ownership in the means of production (stocks) or money that has been lent to others (bonds), all of it together is "wealth."

That's just off the top of my head. Anything to add?
 
Good point. Before we can have an intelligent discussion of wealth, first we must define just what it is.

To me, wealth is an accumulation of income producing property, whether that is in t he form of real property, or part ownership in the means of production (stocks) or money that has been lent to others (bonds), all of it together is "wealth."

That's just off the top of my head. Anything to add?

If that's how you want to define wealth, then that's fine, but my definition would be much more broad.

The best definition I have seen is something to the effect of "anything which reduces discomfort"

So there could be two economies which were identical, except that one had a more effective pain killer, or better tasting food, and that economy would be slightly more wealthy. Even the ability to get a haircut or a tattoo is wealth (at least to someone who desires a haircut or a tattoo).
 
If that's how you want to define wealth, then that's fine, but my definition would be much more broad.

The best definition I have seen is something to the effect of "anything which reduces discomfort"

So there could be two economies which were identical, except that one had a more effective pain killer, or better tasting food, and that economy would be slightly more wealthy. Even the ability to get a haircut or a tattoo is wealth (at least to someone who desires a haircut or a tattoo).

Yeah, but you could break that into two categories really:

1) Wealth of the society (availability of goods and services)
2) Wealth within the society (ability to get those goods and services which are available)
 
If that's how you want to define wealth, then that's fine, but my definition would be much more broad.

The best definition I have seen is something to the effect of "anything which reduces discomfort"

So there could be two economies which were identical, except that one had a more effective pain killer, or better tasting food, and that economy would be slightly more wealthy. Even the ability to get a haircut or a tattoo is wealth (at least to someone who desires a haircut or a tattoo).

By that definition, an aspirin tablet or a warm sweatshirt would be wealth. If that's so, then virtually everyone is wealthy.

Perhaps the ability to purchase goods and services?
 
Yeah, but you could break that into two categories really:

1) Wealth of the society (availability of goods and services)
2) Wealth within the society (ability to get those goods and services which are available)

I suspect that what many people call wealth excludes anything other than long term goods, securities, and money. I also think they are incorrect, but whadaIno.
 
I also think that money isn't really wealth. It's just a temporary story of value and an accounting tool, much like a point system.

Our government could send every American a billion dollars, but unless that money somehow resulted in the creation of more goods and services, as a nation, we wouldn't be any more wealthy. Likewise we could equally redistribute all existing wealth, but in aggregate, we wouldn't be any wealthier, unless that redistribution process resulted in the creation of more goods and services.

When I have money in the bank or in my cookie jar, I just have points, which I could potentially exchange for wealth.
 
Right, but it wasn't the homes that caused it (mostly) - it was the leveraging via securities that did it. As I recall:

1) You have the loan
2) Then you have an insurance against that loan
3) Then you have a security that essentially betting on that insurance

Yes, it sucks for the bank if the loan wasn't paid back, but they are insured against failure via #2. Yes, it sucks to have to pay the insurance to the banks, and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG may have still been in trouble. However, the mortgage backed security that bet on the insurance that could be leveraged as many times as the market was willing... that's where the damage was done.

If you take a loan and insurance on those loans, they are easily calculatable maximum losses. That means you can easily hedge it or keep enough equity to pay off losses. However, the mortgage-backed securities had unlimited loss and profit potential. And those who were long on those securities ****ing lost their asses. They were supposed to be AAA-rated, near guaranteed return on investment, so you can go long as **** on those, not be terribly hedged, leverage the **** out of it, and feel good about getting a nice ROI.

Except they didn't. They lost everything. Everyone went under. The stock market plunged. Banks stopped lending. It was a **** show. I could be wrong, Papa Bull, but I would bet the actual money lost on housing was a small percentage of the money compared to that which was lost on the mortgage-backed securities.

I think you're wrong about that because the losses from the mortgage-backed securities WERE the losses from the mortgages. The reason the securities lost their value was because they were backed by mortgages with no value that were backed by homes with no value. Literally, all the bad debt flowed from the mortgage defaults.

Here is an excellent and EXPERT non-partisan explanation: http://www.investopedia.com/university/credit-crisis/credit-crisis4.asp
 
Last edited:
Yes, it sucks for the bank if the loan wasn't paid back, but they are insured against failure via #2. Yes, it sucks to have to pay the insurance to the banks, and Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG may have still been in trouble. However, the mortgage backed security that bet on the insurance that could be leveraged as many times as the market was willing... that's where the damage was done.

I think that's exactly right in general terms. In the early days of the collapse, I read and heard many commentators putting loss numbers on the actual loans themselves - the mortgages - and the point was always, "look, half could go sour and we'd still be OK, don't panic! Losses are contained, etc." But that was just the very tip of a giant iceberg, as you summarize, and never really was the problem. The problem was, as one commenter I listen to summarizes them, bets on bets, and sometimes bets on bets on bets. So you might have a mortgage of $100,000 and bets on that mortgage, and the interest payments, and the default, totaling any number - $10 million, no limit.

Honestly I read the numbers outstanding - maybe $1,000 TRILLION (numbers beyond our capability to grasp) and just can't help but conclude we'd be better to burn it all down and start again. What is essentially a parasitic activity - finance, lending, etc. that itself produces NOTHING of value - now rules the world.
 
It's like talking to a wall. J-mac, did you have something relevant or actually though out that you wanted to add, or should we just keep going in circles where you make a random accusation that is off topic and incorrect and I refute it?

Are you saying that Obama didn't say that in the SoTU?
 
Back
Top Bottom