Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 209

Thread: Criticism of billionairism

  1. #121
    Educator
    Conaeolos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,142

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
    If anybody wants to see the corruption of capitalism...look to Moscow. Moscow has more billionaires (per capita ?) than any other city.

    Tell me how in such a short time, that happened. Russian capitalist greed and corruption.
    You’ll have to be more specific as to what you are referring. Russia had a lot of wealth to be seized post USSR which was centralized by opportunists, by no means has an impressive amount of billionaires. Moscow, If you’re going by city and comparing the top 10. Is 3rd by number 7th per capita.

    Higher is: Dubai: 12.77. Hong Kong: 12.74. New York: 11.97, San Francisco: 10.57. Singapore:12.77. London 7.62.

    Russia also has a flat tax. By the way, if you think Sweden [very strong progressive tax] has few billionaires you'd would be wrong. Sweden's 31 billionaires make it 3.1/M higher than the US at 1.9 but with many caveats. Sweden takes advantage of many of he principles I referred. That is same rate as California. New York has 4.67. As comparable regions.

  2. #122
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    north carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,187

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
    However, it wasn't that long before Lenin felt that private markets and small business would be necessary.

    He died before he could get it done. Then Stalin took over and it the writing was on the wall.
    Stalin was like a professional atheistic politician of the west. He hated the 'deplorable' people in general but loved himself and tolerated those who supported him, whether he disrespectfully called them brain dead buffaloes or not.

  3. #123
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    north carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,187

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
    Except that American capitalism is just fine with govt, run, single-payer insurance for:

    banks FDIC, crops FCIC, pensions PBGC and overseas investors OPIC.

    When will people finally realize that the biggest most damaging part of American exceptionalism not only the lack of compensation for labor,

    but has created the richest socialists in history. See also TARP and the S&L bailout.

    The $12 billion trump requested to compensate farmers for losses due to his tariffs is even more immoral socialism for the rich.
    Trump has done more for the economy than any democrat in recent memory. Democrats do not like to admit it because that truth makes them look bad.

  4. #124
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    north carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:37 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,187

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    Sorry, the narrative that the economy was horrible all through the Obama years and then suddenly began climbing once Trump got elected, has no support in actual facts. Every measure of the economy improved under Obama -- unemployment fell to 4.7% from 10%. In fact, in 2012, Romney promised that if he were elected, he'd bring unemployment down to 6% by the end of his first term (2016.) Well, it was under 5% by then under Obama.

    Moreover, there was steady GDP growth and stocks tripled. Thus, your belief that the economy was coming apart until Trump saved it is right-wing fantasy.
    Democrats want to declare the Obama economy a huge success, when it was not. I understand. If Obama looked bad then their whole party and platform looks bad. Their whole party platform is bad. It is too bad so many Americans are not aware of that fact.

  5. #125
    Sage



    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,326

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by marke View Post
    Democrats want to declare the Obama economy a huge success, when it was not. I understand. If Obama looked bad then their whole party and platform looks bad. Their whole party platform is bad. It is too bad so many Americans are not aware of that fact.
    While I have provided metrics that prove my points, you merely repeat your narrative that proves nothing.
    Here is more of those inconvenient metrics, from 2012.

    Here Are The Charts That Should Get Obama Reelected...

    Before Obama took office, you will recall, the economy was in freefall, obliterated by tax cuts, runaway government spending, massive consumer debts, and regulation-be-damned culture of the prior administration.

    As the attached charts show, the moment Obama arrived and implemented the stimulus, the economy began to improve. And it has gotten much, much better in the past four years.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  6. #126
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    45,807

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
    I haven't quite arrived there yet but there are many (including I think, the catholic church that believes for any 1 person

    to have a net worth over $1 billion...is immoral. Certainly to have many billion$, and to make more billions

    taxed at 20%...is.
    If we taxed all income as income above a cap, that might begin to address the issue.

  7. #127
    Educator
    Conaeolos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,142

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
    That is simply not the case. 60% of labor are break even or poorer than in 1980. Reagan got it all wrong and set out to destroy labor

    and labor organizing. Unions now simply need to stay vigilant and fight just to keep what they have.
    Depends how superficially youíre looking at the numbers. Letís compare housing and income:

    The average home in 1980 was 1,740 sqft for average of $44,693 ($32,108-$111,493) Prime rate Avg 14.7%. That is $136,703 in 2018 dollars. That same sized house today runs $214,020 [$41,760-$1.4M] Prime rate 5.35%. If we are comparing the cost over 20 year payment term and monthly payments, in terms of affordability on average the house is 20% more affordable today. There are 7% of cases in that model where houses in 2018 are less affordable. E.g. San Francisco.

    In 1980, a lower Income average was: $7,436.80[$22,744]. Middle income $21,521[$65,826] capping out at $42,000 [<$118,000]. 59% middle class, 26% lower. Today, 50% middle and 29% lower. Sounds negative, yet overall the median we use to determine that moved from $21,023[$64,303] -> $75,938. That 80% got 18% richer. The household size and numbers of earner ratio raises with income. So new a middle class average $80,674 comes from 2.6 family with 1.7 earner. Whereas the $26,540 new average of lower comes from 2.07 families with 0.89 earner. More people to divide the costs of that income make it all much more flat than it might otherwise seem. To add to that the tax burden on this population went down progressively meaning there is still more disposable income.

    So don't be so quick to take broad numbers at their face.

  8. #128
    Educator
    Conaeolos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,142

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    Sorry, the narrative that the economy was horrible all through the Obama years and then suddenly began climbing once Trump got elected, has no support in actual facts. Every measure of the economy improved under Obama -- unemployment fell to 4.7% from 10%. In fact, in 2012, Romney promised that if he were elected, he'd bring unemployment down to 6% by the end of his first term (2016.) Well, it was under 5% by then under Obama.

    Moreover, there was steady GDP growth and stocks tripled. Thus, your belief that the economy was coming apart until Trump saved it is right-wing fantasy.
    Just to be clear, although there is no doubt there is a lot of hyperbole [most policies have little effect] and yes the numbers show a recovery under Obama’s policy [recoveries are natural and we should only question if policies prolongs or shortens these periods]. We could discuss those specifics. The most telling measure though, shows that during Obama the fed had frozen an artificially low (stimulus level) rate and this was only raised in the post-trump era. This shows that all things considered it was not that healthy and has relatively for Trump presidential term been healthy enough to have the risks of negative forces low less costs of absorbing new growth to pay previously circulated money injection.

    So, it's not entirely a fantasy although certainly has its fair-tale elements.

  9. #129
    Sage



    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,326

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by Conaeolos View Post
    Just to be clear, although there is no doubt there is a lot of hyperbole [most policies have little effect] and yes the numbers show a recovery under Obamaís policy [recoveries are natural and we should only question if policies prolongs or shortens these periods]. We could discuss those specifics. The most telling measure though, shows that during Obama the fed had frozen an artificially low (stimulus level) rate and this was only raised in the post-trump era. This shows that all things considered it was not that healthy and has relatively for Trump presidential term been healthy enough to have the risks of negative forces low less costs of absorbing new growth to pay previously circulated money injection.

    So, it's not entirely a fantasy although certainly has its fair-tale elements.
    Let me address the idea of "artificially low interest rates." What exactly is "artificial" about the interest rates following the Great Recession? We had low or negative inflation' far less than full-employment and no overheating of the economy. Since the Fed's mandate is to control inflation while maximizing employment, those low rates were not artificial.

    I'll instead point you to the natural real rate of interest. If you are new to the term, the natural rate is a standard economic concept dating back a century; itís the rate of interest at which the economy is neither depressed and deflating nor overheated and inflating. And itís therefore the rate monetary policy is supposed to achieve.

    This is the graph of the natural rate during the period we are discussing, from a paper by Thomas Laubach and John C. Williams, of the Fed.



    Look, all weíre talking about is the rate of interest at which the economy would be more or less at full employment, which in turn implies that inflation will be more or less stable.

    Let me remind you that the Japanese had two decades of zero lower bound.

    Regarding the Fed raising rates under Trump, the Fed looks to raising rates when they see unemployment rising to what may be considered full employment. On December 16, 2015 the Fed increased its key interest rate, the Federal Funds Rate, for the first time since June 2006. That was under Obama. As employment moved higher, the Fed raised rates.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  10. #130
    Sage



    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,326

    Re: Criticism of billionairism

    Quote Originally Posted by marke View Post
    Trump has done more for the economy than any democrat in recent memory. Democrats do not like to admit it because that truth makes them look bad.
    This is wrong on many levels. As I have shown, all indicators were moving in a positive direction long before Trump arrived to take credit: Unemployment had been falling for years; GDP had been rising; etc.

    To credit Trump for the trend that was in place long before he arrived on the seen takes a certain kind of misguided thinking.
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

Page 13 of 21 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •