Does the GOP need to fear the 99% Movement?

Harry Guerrilla said:

Your chart fails to include institutions, like mutual funds and pensions, which own a large shares of stock, which is further owned by people of all stripes.
Is the chart also including shares float, as being "controlled" by the top 10% too?

Click to expand...

Okay well how much do they own and how would that effect that chart?

TurtleDude said:

btw your claim is a lie-stocks are not all the wealth-that ignores real estate and homes-your claim is misleading

Click to expand...

I never said all the wealth.

From the study referenced above:

"The only way to understand finance is to get educated but the cost of that is going up. So you have an enormous serfdom of those who have very little understanding of finance being subjected to the whims of the banking sector. In the end, the banks have managed to calm the masses and numb their ability to reason because what has occurred over the last few years is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of our nation. It didn’t take a war or coup but simply happened by pure momentum and sheer inactivity. They system is in a deep capture.

Even being in the industry does not keep you from buying into the delusional propaganda of Wall Street:

“I studied finance… I learned about stock investments when I was 18 or 19. I took money that I saved since I was a kid and invested in stocks. It was $10,000. I made it into $80,000 in 2 years in stocks. But I had $150,000 invested because of margin and I lost all of it. Now I’m looking at the real estate market. I’m like, huh. I learned my lesson in the stock market. Should I sell my real estate that has gone up in value by 80 percent?”

This quote was taken at the height of the housing bubble. How many people do you think lost money in the stock market and the real estate bubble? Trillions of dollars were lost yet somehow, the top 1 percent came out ahead. They will argue that they are not as wealthy as before but keep in mind even if you lost money, the cost of other items has also fallen. Money is only as valuable as what you can buy with it. And this tiny group has become all the richer in this crisis. You can now by the yacht for half off while your stock portfolio fell by 15 percent."

winston53660 said:

Okay well how much do they own and how would that effect that chart?

Click to expand...

Institutions "own" approximately 20% of all outstanding shares.
If they're "owning" it in trust for people with 401ks and pensions, then other people actually own it and they take a small cut for management.

Shares float is the amount of shares a company has not issued but can issue.
Technically, they "control" it but no one actually owns or benefits from it.

Catawba said:

I never said all the wealth.

From the study referenced above:

"The only way to understand finance is to get educated but the cost of that is going up. So you have an enormous serfdom of those who have very little understanding of finance being subjected to the whims of the banking sector. In the end, the banks have managed to calm the masses and numb their ability to reason because what has occurred over the last few years is the greatest wealth transfer in the history of our nation. It didn’t take a war or coup but simply happened by pure momentum and sheer inactivity. They system is in a deep capture.

Even being in the industry does not keep you from buying into the delusional propaganda of Wall Street:

“I studied finance… I learned about stock investments when I was 18 or 19. I took money that I saved since I was a kid and invested in stocks. It was $10,000. I made it into $80,000 in 2 years in stocks. But I had $150,000 invested because of margin and I lost all of it. Now I’m looking at the real estate market. I’m like, huh. I learned my lesson in the stock market. Should I sell my real estate that has gone up in value by 80 percent?”

This quote was taken at the height of the housing bubble. How many people do you think lost money in the stock market and the real estate bubble? Trillions of dollars were lost yet somehow, the top 1 percent came out ahead. They will argue that they are not as wealthy as before but keep in mind even if you lost money, the cost of other items has also fallen. Money is only as valuable as what you can buy with it. And this tiny group has become all the richer in this crisis. You can now by the yacht for half off while your stock portfolio fell by 15 percent."

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but your link uses tons of loaded language and is anything but objective.

Harry Guerrilla said:

Institutions "own" approximately 20% of all outstanding shares.
If they're "owning" it in trust for people with 401ks and pensions, then other people actually own it and they take a small cut for management.

Shares float is the amount of shares a company has not issued but can issue.
Technically, they "control" it but no one actually owns or benefits from it.

Click to expand...

So you don't know if it affects the chart or not.

Catawba said:

You can't win a rigged game, that is what the protests are about.

Click to expand...

sure you can.
I did.
it's tough to go from dirt poor to wealthy... but it's doable... very doable.


defeatists, pessimists, and cynics will never win the game, though.

winston53660 said:

So you don't know if it affects the chart or not.

Click to expand...

Institutional ownership would change the chart to a degree.
The fact is, using half assed information as a means of making a point is nothing but terrible.

Incomplete information doesn't paint a complete picture.

TurtleDude said:

losers, failures and those too lazy to compete always make that pitiful excuse

and those scumbags aren't just whining about the few uber rich who probably do rig the game

most of us in the top one percent aren't responsible at all for their lack of success yet they blame all of us

Click to expand...

That should calm the masses and make you safer! :fueltofir

Camlon said:

Did you know US had nearly the same wealth inequity as Sweden? And Sweden has one of the lowest income inequalities in the world. Rich people are always going to control more wealth because they save more of what they earn.

Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but US protesters in the US don't seem to be demonstrating about conditions in Sweden. However:

"Income and wealth inequality reached a new peak in 2007, the highest level of inequality since 1929. William Domhoff details this inequality in the following terms:

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%

Real median household income in the U.S. is $49,777 today. It was $52,388 in 1999 before George Bush took office. This is a 5% decline over ten years. Even more disturbing is the fact that the top 20% of households showed real increases in income. The bottom 50% lost income during the last ten years, with the bottom 20% losing 8% of income over this time frame. No wonder there is so much anger among the working middle class in the country regarding the bailout for the top 1%. Sixty million households make less today than they made 10 years ago. The policies of the Federal Reserve over the last ten years have benefitted speculators and punished seniors, savers and the working middle class. Every policy, program and regulation rolled out by the Federal Reserve in the last three years has been to prop up, enrich, and support their Too Big To Fail Wall Street owners. The middle class American working family is Too Small To Matter"

Grapes Of Wrath 2011 - Wealth inequality highest since 1929 - International Business Times

Thrilla said:

sure you can.
I did.
it's tough to go from dirt poor to wealthy... but it's doable... very doable.


defeatists, pessimists, and cynics will never win the game, though.

Click to expand...

So your opinion is that 1/3 of the country just isn't trying hard enough. Got it, I'll pass that on the the protesters and the voters in next year's election.

Catawba said:

So your opinion is that 1/3 of the country just isn't trying hard enough. Got it, I'll pass that on the the protesters and the voters in next year's election.

Click to expand...

no, that's not my opinion.

want another try at it?

Thrilla said:

no, that's not my opinion.

want another try at it?

Click to expand...

defeatists, pessimists, and cynics will never win the game, though.

Click to expand...

You mean you have more???

Catawba said:

I could be wrong, but US protesters in the US don't seem to be demonstrating about conditions in Sweden. However:

Click to expand...

Sweden has one of the lowest income inequalities in the world, and is normally described as paradise by the protesters. Still wealth inequality is massive.

My point is, your figures are misleading. The figures you should be using is income inequality, not wealth inequality.

"Income and wealth inequality reached a new peak in 2007, the highest level of inequality since 1929. William Domhoff details this inequality in the following terms:

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%

Real median household income in the U.S. is $49,777 today. It was $52,388 in 1999 before George Bush took office. This is a 5% decline over ten years. Even more disturbing is the fact that the top 20% of households showed real increases in income. The bottom 50% lost income during the last ten years, with the bottom 20% losing 8% of income over this time frame. No wonder there is so much anger among the working middle class in the country regarding the bailout for the top 1%. Sixty million households make less today than they made 10 years ago. The policies of the Federal Reserve over the last ten years have benefitted speculators and punished seniors, savers and the working middle class. Every policy, program and regulation rolled out by the Federal Reserve in the last three years has been to prop up, enrich, and support their Too Big To Fail Wall Street owners. The middle class American working family is Too Small To Matter"

Grapes Of Wrath 2011 - Wealth inequality highest since 1929 - International Business Times

Click to expand...

No one likes massive income inequality. But people seem to not understand the causes of income inequality. US already have one of the most progressive tax systems in the world. That is not what is causing the income ineuality. Also bank regulation is more than many other countries in the world.

Take a look at the chart below, to see what income inequality was. The caption, is a little bit off, because both the house and the senate was democratic from 1987 - 1995. Also, republicans were the most dominant political force from 1995 - 2007. That's a period income inequality hardly increased. So both Democrats and Republicans have overseen periods of larger increases in income inequality. You can't blame one party.

What are the causes of income inequality?
1. Immigration.
2. Lack of proper schooling for the poor in America
3. Globalization

If you realize the causes of income inequality, then you will realize that reducing the income inequality is a little bit more complicated than what the Wall Street Protestors are thinking.

Catawba said:

You mean you have more???

Click to expand...

huh?

I asked you if you wanted another try at discerning my opinion... you failed to get it right the first time.

sooo.. do you want another try or not?

Camlon said:

Sweden has one of the lowest income inequalities in the world, and is normally described as paradise by the protesters. Still wealth inequality is massive.

My point is, your figures are misleading. The figures you should be using is income inequality, not wealth inequality.

Click to expand...

I reject your perspective.

"We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)"

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)."

"In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America."

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Catawba said:

I reject your perspective.

"We also need to distinguish wealth from income. Income is what people earn from work, but also from dividends, interest, and any rents or royalties that are paid to them on properties they own. In theory, those who own a great deal of wealth may or may not have high incomes, depending on the returns they receive from their wealth, but in reality those at the very top of the wealth distribution usually have the most income. (But it's important to note that for the rich, most of that income does not come from "working": in 2008, only 19% of the income reported by the 13,480 individuals or families making over $10 million came from wages and salaries. See Norris, 2010, for more details.)"

Click to expand...

I don't really respect your superbiased source, just so know it. You can just drop the source and say whatever you think, because your source has just as much credibility as any forum user.

If everyone was economists professors in macroeconomics, then maybe it wouldn't be misleading. But it is certainally misleading to say 1% own 31% of the wealth, when that is normal in every single country on Earth. I mean, half of the population won't really have savings. Then there is a group of superrich who save up most of their income. That is good, because we need people to invest in the US. Hence, every single country on earth has high wealth inequality. It's not a problem. That is just how markets work. The share of the poor could radically increase with forced saving schemes. Will that improve the inequality in the US?

What really matters is income. Most people earn income, and most income in the US is earned by wages, salaries, interests, bonusus, etc. Income inequality gives us a much better picture of inequaity. I think you are just using wealth inequality, because you want to create a shock effect.

Camlon said:

I don't really respect your superbiased source, just so know it. You can just drop the source and say whatever you think, because your source has just as much credibility as any forum user.

Click to expand...

You are invited to provide evidence to refute any fact stated in the study, if you can.

If everyone was economists professors in macroeconomics, then maybe it wouldn't be misleading. But it is certainally misleading to say 1% own 31% of the wealth, when that is normal in every single country on Earth.

Click to expand...

Proof with link please.

I mean, half of the population won't really have savings. Then there is a group of superrich who save up most of their income. That is good, because we need people to invest in the US.

Click to expand...

Show me where they are investing in US jobs? Last time I looked, unemployment was around 9%.

What really matters is income. Most people earn income, and most income in the US is earned by wages, salaries, interests, bonusus, etc. Income inequality gives us a much better picture of inequaity. I think you are just using wealth inequality, because you want to create a shock effect.

Click to expand...

Wealth is what determines power, not income. The shock is already reaching people, that is why they are protesting! And evidently, why you are afraid of their reaction to it - quick change the conversation away from who owns most of the wealth in this country, lets talk about income that can be hidden instead?

Catawba said:

You are invited to provide evidence to refute any fact stated in the study, if you can.

Click to expand...

No, I'm just stating your source is superbiased, and has no more credibility than your own posts, hence you don't need to link to your silly source. ok?

Proof with link please.

Click to expand...

I already have. I shown you wealth inequality in Sweden, which is about the same as United States. Sweden got one of the lowest income inequalities in the world.

Show me where they are investing in US jobs?

Click to expand...

If they are not investing in the US, even better. That means you will get income from abroad to the US. It is good to have rich people residing in your county. You will not become richer by forcing them to leave.

Wealth is what determines power, not income. The shock is already reaching people, that is why they are protesting! And evidently, why you are afraid of their reaction to it - quick change the conversation away from who owns most of the wealth in this country, lets talk about income that can be hidden instead?

Click to expand...

I'm not afraid of some dumb protestors with no goals. I'm a little bit afraid of dumb arrogant people in general, because I don't want to see US getting destroyed. I already responded to your hidden income argument. Stating that is not a major factor for income inequality. Wealth can be hidden as well, btw.

I asked you, will inequality be reduced with a forced savings scheme. Can you please respond this time?

Camlon said:

No, I'm just stating your source is superbiased, and has no more credibility than your own posts, hence you don't need to link to your silly source. ok?

Click to expand...

I see, so you can't refute any of the facts.

If they are not investing in the US, even better. That means you will get income from abroad to the US. It is good to have rich people residing in your county. You will not become richer by forcing them to leave. I'm not afraid of some dumb protestors with no goals. I'm a little bit afraid of dumb arrogant people in general, because I don't want to see US getting destroyed. I already responded to your hidden income argument. Stating that is not a major factor for income inequality. Wealth can be hidden as well, btw.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.

Davos WEF 2011: Wealth inequality is the "most serious challenge for the world"

"Wealth inequality is the most serious challenge facing the world in the years ahead, senior business figures heard at the World Economic Forum in Davos today.

The gap between the rich and the poor within both developed and developing nations needs to shrink to build a more sustainable economy that avoids the damage caused by asset bubbles.

“The increase in inequality is the most serious challenge for the world,” Min Zhu, a special adviser at the International Monetary Fund and a former deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, told delegates at the Davos gathering. “I don’t think the world is paying enough attention.”

His comments echoed an earlier warning from Sir Martin Sorrell, chief executive of media giant WPP, that “inequality, the concentration of wealth is a serious issue” and that marginal tax rates may need to rise for the best-off in society.

Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at New York University, also warned that inequality “exacerbates political instability”. "

Davos WEF 2011: Wealth inequality is the "most serious challenge for the world" - Telegraph

I asked you, will inequality be reduced with a forced savings scheme. Can you please respond this time?

Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Who is calling for a "forced savings scheme?"

TurtleDude said:

so what? winnners win and too many losers are content to whine and demand the government do something rather than getting off their asses and try to achieve

Click to expand...

I do not know where you have been but people have been trying to take your advice and achieve for a long while now. But with jobs leaving the USA in big numbers, it leaves an entire group of people without a place in our economy.

You ask so what? That has been explained to you time and time again in thread after thread. In a representative democracy, you cannot have a sustainable and healthy society should this growing gap between rich and all others continue. It is not a prescription for a healthy nation for our children and grandchildren to inherit.

Speaking or myself, I want the future America to be a better place for my grandchildren. And that does not mean they eat caviar where millions of others eat dog food.

Why is limiting campaign donations and thus limiting what some falsely call "free speech" a bad thing? I cannot go to my local elementary school on a nice day when the windows are open and stand on the public sidewalk and scream sexually tinged obscenities at the top of my voice. I cannot stand up in a movie theater and began my own political speech. I cannot take out a full page ad in the local newspaper telling lies about people in the community and destroying their reputations.

Why: because all right have limitations and boundaries.

And so should big money buying politicians and elections.

haymarket said:

Why is limiting campaign donations and thus limiting what some falsely call "free speech" a bad thing? I cannot go to my local elementary school on a nice day when the windows are open and stand on the public sidewalk and scream sexually tinged obscenities at the top of my voice. I cannot stand up in a movie theater and began my own political speech. I cannot take out a full page ad in the local newspaper telling lies about people in the community and destroying their reputations.

Why: because all right have limitations and boundaries.

And so should big money buying politicians and elections.

Click to expand...

I can't just march across a bridge blocking traffic.

I can't sleep in a public park.

I can't erect a rain structure in a public park.

I cant block entry to a building.

Theres lots of limits on free speech.

So how many of you who are cheering the protesters being arrested blocking traffic on a bridge adamantly defend campaign contributions as free speech which must not be touched?

Hmmmm?

GOP Rep Fears Wall Street Protests

"Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is upset at the growing Occupy Wall Street movement and the media's coverage of the nationwide protests. "It's really important for us not to give any legitimacy to these people in the streets," King said on Laura Ingraham's radio show Friday. "I remember what happened in the 1960s when the left-wing took to the streets and somehow the media glorified them and it ended up shaping policy. We can't allow that to happen."

GOP Rep Fears Wall Street Protests | Drudge Retort

haymarket said:

Why is limiting campaign donations and thus limiting what some falsely call "free speech" a bad thing? I cannot go to my local elementary school on a nice day when the windows are open and stand on the public sidewalk and scream sexually tinged obscenities at the top of my voice. I cannot stand up in a movie theater and began my own political speech. I cannot take out a full page ad in the local newspaper telling lies about people in the community and destroying their reputations.

Click to expand...

that's correct - political speech is considered different from obscenity.

however, if we want to start limiting it, I've got a whole host of issues of the commons arguments in the back of my mind about how public employee unions shouldn't be allowed to participate in politics, any more than active duty members of the military are...

I think that Congressman King already gave us the answer. Kudos to him for that part, at least.

"..can't let that happen again" referring to letting left-wingers shape policy...
I bet he's okay with right-wingers shaping our policy though.