Plutocrats

[callmeslick]

Jeff,
The intellectual property thing, as I tried to point out at the outset, brings value at the expense of other's wealth. I used the example of Microsoft.
Gate's ideas brought him and his corporations backers and workers great amounts of wealth. But, they did so at the great expense of competitors and whole industries that were rendered obsolete, and at the expense of labor forces no longer needed in a more efficient system of production.

[flip]

There's only a certain amount of money in print. Everyone talks about how good the 50's were and the main reason was because the money was circulated to a much wider range than it is now. They are hoarding the money now, no doubt about that.

and, do you think the fact that the Federal tax rate on all income over $150,000 was 92% might have aided that circulation?

Absolutely. I don't claim to know much about economics, I usually let others do all the leg work, then I take all their findings and look at the big picture. I can see though that in our current system, for it to thrive for everyone, the money must be kept moving. The whole system we live under now was derived by very insightful and far-visioned people. Anyone who would think it through could see that if you took control of the issuing of money, you could also eventually keep the bulk of it to yourself. The end result being total control.

Since the 50's, the divide between management and labor has continually increased. There is no way in my opinion that a single CEO deserves to be paid an amount equal to the sum dispersed out to the rest of the company. You can't do that and preserve our way of life here. It's shameful.

[snoopy]

Maybe you think that one's own time is one's own wealth, and so that's why one cannot create wealth, because it still takes at least their time? Well, OK, I don't think that that jives with most people's understanding of the word wealth. But let's say you're right and one's own time is one's own wealth. You still agree that one can waste their time, and one can use it productively, right? For that to make any sense, you have to be able to get more or less out of your time than what it's worth.

I'd state it in terms of more or less waste in the process of converting time into wealth.

[callmeslick]

converting time into wealth is akin to supposing that you can turn dog feces into crystal stemware.

[Spidey]

Flip, did you see my post over in that Hostess thread, regarding how much money could be given to the employees if the bonuses of managers were divided amongst the employees?

Do the math dude, use a nominal figure like 25k and times it by the numbers of employees at Hostess…no CEO makes that kind of money.

Top CEO makes like 100 million. (Hemsley)

Dude I understand what you are trying to say…just a little facts.

[flip]

100 million in one year?!? For what? They take 100 million a year in good times and bad at the expense of the company and the workers. That's too much in my opinion, especially if the company you are supposed to be managing is going under. Plus, spread that money out over 20 years, and it starts to add up.

Plus, it just seems like good business practice, good for the economy, and good for all involved to keep the money invested in the company, not letting the company go under while the CEO moves to his next future failure with a huge severance package to boot!!
I don't agree with Slick's method but alot of what he says is true. I think Cuda is more central to the issue. If your in trouble, you cut costs and increase revenue, simultaneously. Once they created the Federal Note and the ability to control the distribution of it, it became exactly like the game Monopoly. Anyone who has played that game knows, it drags on and on until at the end one person ends up with everything. It's really as simple as that.

[Top Gun]

Or more likely, until the remaining players say "screw it" and decide to stop playing.

[Jeff250]

The intellectual property thing, as I tried to point out at the outset, brings value at the expense of other's wealth. I used the example of Microsoft.
Gate's ideas brought him and his corporations backers and workers great amounts of wealth. But, they did so at the great expense of competitors and whole industries that were rendered obsolete, and at the expense of labor forces no longer needed in a more efficient system of production.

So you're arguing that even if I can create a house out of thin air in zero time, I'm still not creating wealth, because that is making other houses worth less? i.e., you believe in some kind of wealth inflation?

Surely this is true of money. If I make money out of thin air, this doesn't create wealth. But money has no instrinsic value. But a lot of the stuff that people make, like houses or software, does.

If you believe that you cannot create make wealth, then you must also believe that you cannot destroy wealth. If I take away everyone's cars, nothing is lost--simply people with horses are now richer. If I take away everyone's computers, nothing is lost--other industries are now richer. And so on. But of course we are better off for these things, and we've become increasingly better off over time.

If you think that somebody making $20k/year (inflation-adjusted) 100 years ago is no more wealthy than someone making $20k/year today, then your concept of wealth isn't useful for political discourse. We're much better off than people living 100 years ago, so if your concept of wealth fails to capture this, then we should reject it.

[Tunnelcat]

If work has intrinsic value, why does it have so little value in pay? If manual work can be so strenuous and hard on the body through the years, why are the rich politicians, who sit on their butts all day and lift something no heavier than a pencil, keep trying to raise the age of retirement for those workers? Why does a person, ie., a hedge fund manager, who sits at a computer all day, and which all he does for a living is move around money from place to place that's not even his own, deserve so much more in pay?

Geez, TC. That's a stubborn, dumb question. He "deserves" it because none of your manual laborers know how to do it (or if they could, not enough have decided to do it). It's actually feasibility. Entitlement has absolutely nothing to do with it. I'm not defending any particular field, but you should be working toward making a killing by lifting a pencil, not whining about people who do. That does nothing but make them smarter and you bitter...er It ain't wrong until it's dishonest or harmful. You can make money by breathing if you can figure out a way to "monetize" it, and that would not be unfair to any manual laborers! (welcome to America, come on in)

It's not just the fact these managers are smarter and deserve more money, that much is true. But the pay disparity has gotten much more vast between those who own and captain the ship and those who run and maintain that ship. It's getting to the point that so much resentment is forming at those lower levels that the laborers are willing to sink the damn ship just to screw the owners and show them what it's like to actually live at their level. That's what happened at Hostess and I'm willing to bet you'll start seeing more of it going on in the future. It may not make sense, but revenge and resentment are not logical in the long run, just ultimately satisfying in the short term.

Also, tell me why a hedge fund manager is worth so much. All these bastards do is take someone else's hard earned money, peel off some for themselves as a fee, then they gamble in the markets with the rest.

[Spidey]

Ok you’re exactly right, so the same applies at the low end as well, why should I pay some fool with their pants hanging down around their ass, and can’t even spell their own name, or fill out a resume, a living wage?

[callmeslick]

So you're arguing that even if I can create a house out of thin air in zero time, I'm still not creating wealth, because that is making other houses worth less? i.e., you believe in some kind of wealth inflation?

but, you cannot create a house out of thin air, in zero time, and no one else can, either. Odd analogy.

Surely this is true of money. If I make money out of thin air, this doesn't create wealth. But money has no instrinsic value. But a lot of the stuff that people make, like houses or software, does.

of course money has intrinsic value. It trades, daily, on worldwide markets. People buy it, and sell it. People exchange it for commodities, goods and serivces. Once again, a house has intrinsic value to the person who lives in it, but none on a broader market until it is put up for sale.

If you believe that you cannot create make wealth, then you must also believe that you cannot destroy wealth.

that is correct, I stated so earlier in this thread.

If I take away everyone's cars, nothing is lost--simply people with horses are now richer. If I take away everyone's computers, nothing is lost--other industries are now richer. And so on. But of course we are better off for these things, and we've become increasingly better off over time.

you are confusing the advancement of quality of life with advancement of wealth. Not the same thing. Surely, the average US middle class citizen lives with 'luxuries' that were not even imaginable by Andrew Carnegie or Eluthere DuPont, even though both of those individuals had vastly more real wealth than virtually anyone on the planet today. Progress in standards of living is based on advancements of knowledge and the ongoing development of previously untapped resources. That is a good thing(most of the time), but different than a purely economic consideration of wealth.

If you think that somebody making $20k/year (inflation-adjusted) 100 years ago is no more wealthy than someone making $20k/year today, then your concept of wealth isn't useful for political discourse. We're much better off than people living 100 years ago, so if your concept of wealth fails to capture this, then we should reject it.

economics is not politics, nor visa versa

[Spidey]

Ok slick, I think it’s about time you defined wealth.

[Jeff250]

but, you cannot create a house out of thin air, in zero time, and no one else can, either. Odd analogy.

Writing a book or writing software is creating something out of nothing modulo time, and if you really think that time is the crucial factor in why you're not creating wealth in this case, I will further expound on why it isn't.

of course money has intrinsic value. It trades, daily, on worldwide markets. People buy it, and sell it. People exchange it for commodities, goods and serivces. Once again, a house has intrinsic value to the person who lives in it, but none on a broader market until it is put up for sale.

Intrinsically, money can be used for paper airplanes and toilet paper. It's only valuable insofar as it is perceived to have value. This is what I mean by intrinsic value vs. perceived value.

you are confusing the advancement of quality of life with advancement of wealth. Not the same thing. Surely, the average US middle class citizen lives with 'luxuries' that were not even imaginable by Andrew Carnegie or Eluthere DuPont, even though both of those individuals had vastly more real wealth than virtually anyone on the planet today. Progress in standards of living is based on advancements of knowledge and the ongoing development of previously untapped resources. That is a good thing(most of the time), but different than a purely economic consideration of wealth.

We can argue what the true (whatever that means) definition of wealth is all day long, but it doesn't matter. If you think that you can take away from every person in the world their favorite possession and the world will still be just as wealthy, then fine, that's a self-consistent definition of wealth, but it's completely irrelevant to what anyone actually cares about, because the world will be much worse off if you do that.

Since you object to my use of the word "wealth," let's just invent an entirely new term, say, "wealf," which I define as quality of life, betterment of life, stuff people like, and so on. Wealf is not a fixed pie. Now if you want to make some inflation argument about wealth that impacts no one's quality of life, then continue to do so, but it will have no bearing on wealf, the stuff that can be created and destroyed and that people actually care about.

[Foil]

Here's my problem:

Whether you define wealth slick's way or not (I'm personally with Spidey and Jeff on this, as I lean toward a definition that allows creation of wealth, though I understand the constant-wealth metric can be useful), we still haven't addressed what I think is the root question, namely:

However you define wealth, is the diverging (top getting richer, bottom getting poorer) distribution:

• A causal thing, i.e. increasing top-end wealth actually causes the drop at the low-end?
• A correlation, i.e. a single economic force which causes both the top-end increase and the low-end decrease?
• Independent, i.e. one force causing the top-end increase, another separate force causing the low-end decrease?

The different wealth metrics will favor one over the other, but I think this is really what the question boils down to.

[callmeslick]

Jeff, you fail to see that if you take away everyones property, YOU HAVE IT. It didn't disappear.
As for my definition of wealth, that would be, for practical purposes:
The possession of property and resources with intrinsic worth within human society. These would include not only commonly accepted currency and securities, but also utilized and non-utilized resources, real estate(land, not the buildings largely, because they depreciate rapidly) ,livestock and foodstuffs. Most other 'things', like buildings, depreciate rapidly, and while they can add to real wealth in minute ways, they contribute little to the total
of wealth worldwide. Those latter 'things', however, entail the reason I stated that wealth isn't COMPLETELY static, but largely so.

A quick look with a personal spin around wealth vs. quality of life:
My Great-Grandfather owned a car, but couldn't drive more than around 60 miles without having to change a tire. He had to use coal and wood to heat his home, and all his communication was done via postal mailings. He had a radio, but no television. In short, while he lived well for his time, my quality of life is vastly superior, in most ways you view things. Am I wealthier than my Great-Grandfather? Hell, no, the man owned a bank, two small factories
and around 12,000 acres of land.

[callmeslick]

However you define wealth, is the diverging (top getting richer, bottom getting poorer) distribution:

• A causal thing, i.e. increasing top-end wealth actually causes the drop at the low-end?
• A correlation, i.e. a single economic force which causes both the top-end increase and the low-end decrease?
• Independent, i.e. one force causing the top-end increase, another separate force causing the low-end decrease?

sorry for breaking this round of response into two parts.....had a phone call interrupt my thoughts and typing.
IMO, the divergence is both causal, and correlation. By this, I mean that a complex set of economic forces(can be called the rise of a global economy,
for an oversimplified terminology) and the politics that have grown up around those have led to a massive shift of the economic playing field. Not that that 'field' was ever level in the least, but the cant in favor of the wealthy has been made more severe. This has caused wealth to flow to the top end and as my definition of wealth defines economics, it comes from lower down. Not, however, from the true bottom of the ladder, but the wealth is being sucked specifically from the middle classes in developed nations.

Interesting aside is to examine the actual 'wealth' of much of middle class America. Look around you, and note that folks live in relatively modern homes(generally owned by a bank or investment group), drive nice cars(owned by finance companies frequently), but own very little actual land, and have relatively paltry balance sheets of savings to debts. I am constantly astounded at how so many people delude themselves that they have wealth when they don't, and that delusional thinking has gotten us into most of the recent economic downturns(excepting post 9.11). Americans frequently have employment income, but little tangible wealth, and, as has been seen in the burgeoning global economy, income can disappear.

[Spidey]

Thanks slick, I see that’s a fairly classic definition, and tries to define wealth as those things that are finite in nature, so you must in fact remove “currency” from the definition or modify the definition based on the changes made when the dollar went off the gold/silver standard and became fiat money. Fiat money is currency without actual commodities backing, and instead is “backed” by the goods and services of the country.

Currency is in fact not static and more is minted to represent the productivity of the country, and things like goods and services. IE:GDP

Therefore the only thing that backs money is in fact…work, so work must have intrinsic value, or the dollar is literally backed by nothing, and is in fact valueless.

Therefore either you accept the fact that work has intrinsic value, or accept that money has no value.

So in the end, one must let the definition of wealth evolve over time, or it becomes stagnant and irrelevant.

But if you wish to cling onto outdated definitions, people will just invent new words to describe things of value, as Jeff did.

[Jeff250]

Jeff, you fail to see that if you take away everyones property, YOU HAVE IT. It didn't disappear.

To clarify, my intention for that thought experiment was that after taking from the world everyone's favorite possession, then I shoot them into the sun (or what have you). If you don't see any wealth lost there, then I don't think you're using a useful definition, and it explains why you can't see the upper class being wealthier without the lower classes being wealthier too.

[Tunnelcat]

Ok you’re exactly right, so the same applies at the low end as well, why should I pay some fool with their pants hanging down around their ass, and can’t even spell their own name, or fill out a resume, a living wage?

I agree with you there. If a worker sits on his thumbs and doesn't do the job he's being paid for, he should either be fired, or not hired in the first place. If you're referring to workers who sit on their thumbs and are perfectly capable of working, but choose to take from the government larder, they're bums who should be thrown off that larder and required to get a job.

But I've got a couple of questions. What if that worker is actually disabled or sick? What do we do with that worker then? Do we just throw them out onto the street because they can't work?

And what if a person is truly lazy, refuses to work and steals for a living? Sure, throw them in jail, but we're still paying for their upkeep. Got a better solution? Put them to death?

[Spidey]

Disabled and or sick people deserve help from social services…first the family…then private charity…then if there is not enough available from those services…government.

What did you expect me to say…let them die and reduce the excess population?

As far as lazy people…I have no time for them, and really don’t care what happens to them. I don’t have all of the answers, but no, I don’t want to have to pay for lazy people with my taxes, fortunately there are not that many truly lazy people…even stealing can be hard work.

But the kind of person I described, isn’t always lazy, I just don’t have the resources to hire and habilitate these people, so there should be jobs available for the near useless…but the labor laws make this almost impossible.

[Tunnelcat]

Yes, the labor laws are restrictive. Things need refining and the unions need to modernize, or perish. But look what we get when there are NO restrictions, NO rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_S ... ctory_fire

http://www.newser.com/article/da2t3c6o0 ... chain.html

As for the lazy ones, we still have a problem. Usually lazy ones resort to crime because it's easier. Then it becomes a social and criminal problem. Fine if there aren't a lot of them around doing that. But If we get large numbers of lazy people, or even people who've lost hope of even finding a decent job, we get a BIG crime problem, which makes life difficult for those who DO perform honest work, or own and run a business. How do we deal with the inevitable anarchy? And why would the wealthy and those who work hard even want to live in a country that has fallen to anarchy?

[Spidey]

I would never propose reducing safety laws, but for me to hire a teen or uneducated adult, I need to pay minimum wage, also all of the other things such as matching payroll taxes, unemployment insurance…etc.

It’s not that I wouldn’t mind doing these things, but the return for the buck just isn’t there, and I’m not a charity.

So we have what we have…lots of teen unemployment.

[callmeslick]

Thanks slick, I see that’s a fairly classic definition, and tries to define wealth as those things that are finite in nature, so you must in fact remove “currency” from the definition or modify the definition based on the changes made when the dollar went off the gold/silver standard and became fiat money. Fiat money is currency without actual commodities backing, and instead is “backed” by the goods and services of the country.

no, not really. Note, Spidey, that I said 'commonly accepted currency'. In other words, US currency is accepted worldwide, as are most major currencies.
Now, if you or I started printing money notes in our basements and tried to get folks to accept those as currency, there would be no inherent worth, so not 'wealth' via my(or any accepted) definition.

Currency is in fact not static and more is minted to represent the productivity of the country, and things like goods and services. IE:GDP

the value of currency can be set, but really reflects exchange rates based on a lot of factors.

Therefore either you accept the fact that work has intrinsic value, or accept that money has no value.

odd logic, but no, work doesn't enter into accepted exchange rates whatsoever.

[CUDA]

Yes, the labor laws are restrictive. Things need refining and the unions need to modernize, or perish. But look what we get when there are NO restrictions, NO rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_S ... ctory_fire

http://www.newser.com/article/da2t3c6o0 ... chain.html

As for the lazy ones, we still have a problem. Usually lazy ones resort to crime because it's easier. Then it becomes a social and criminal problem. Fine if there aren't a lot of them around doing that. But If we get large numbers of lazy people, or even people who've lost hope of even finding a decent job, we get a BIG crime problem, which makes life difficult for those who DO perform honest work, or own and run a business. How do we deal with the inevitable anarchy? And why would the wealthy and those who work hard even want to live in a country that has fallen to anarchy?

are you referring to Occupy Wall street??

[woodchip]

Now, if you or I started printing money notes in our basements and tried to get folks to accept those as currency, there would be no inherent worth, so not 'wealth' via my(or any accepted) definition.

Isn't that exactly what the Govt. is doing? At one time there was a equal amount of gold backing the currency or gold was actually a physical part of the currency. Today all that is backing a dollar bill is the good name and trust in of the govt.. As the nations debt increase and the credit rating decreases, so will the trust in the Govt. and down will go the value of the dollar. Once that downward spiral occurs watch for inflation to increase. Where a dollar may have bought a cup of coffee, when out of control inflation starts that cup of coffee will need a wheel barrel of dollar bills to buy it.

[callmeslick]

Isn't that exactly what the Govt. is doing?

of course not, or else the US Dollar would not still be the benchmark international currency.

At one time there was a equal amount of gold backing the currency or gold was actually a physical part of the currency.

so what? What is inherently valuable about gold, or silver? In either case, it is simply a matter of universal acceptance.

Today all that is backing a dollar bill is the good name and trust in of the govt.

of course, that's how it always works, in some form or another.

As the nations debt increase and the credit rating decreases, so will the trust in the Govt. and down will go the value of the dollar. Once that downward spiral occurs watch for inflation to increase. Where a dollar may have bought a cup of coffee, when out of control inflation starts that cup of coffee will need a wheel barrel of dollar bills to buy it.

funny how some folks have been saying this my whole life, yet, it never seems to happen. Not to suggest it COULDN'T happen, but it is highly unlikely, so long as the US economy remains functional. And that, my good fellow, is why the re-establishment of long-term economic planning is so highly important to the US. Without a far better long-term plan, the US economy WILL become less and less relevant, and then the problems set in. In a way, this is FAR more important that actual Federal debt levels, especially at the relatively realistic levels currently extant.

[Tunnelcat]

I would never propose reducing safety laws, but for me to hire a teen or uneducated adult, I need to pay minimum wage, also all of the other things such as matching payroll taxes, unemployment insurance…etc.

It’s not that I wouldn’t mind doing these things, but the return for the buck just isn’t there, and I’m not a charity.

So we have what we have…lots of teen unemployment.

Maybe it's because teen are "picky" about jobs now as well. I see few of them wanting to work at fast food joints anymore for the pay they get. I'm actually seeing more adult immigrants. However, when I was a teen, fast food joints were usually populated by teen workers. I even worked in a fast food joint for a while. The pay and hours sucked, but hey, it was a summer job, and that was about it if you were a teen and wanted cash.

The same thing goes for newspaper carriers. The last time I had an actual teenager deliver the paper was 16 years ago. He always placed the paper on the porch and was punctual. I even tipped him generously for a job well done. Nowadays, we have an older couple that drives around in a big gas guzzling SUV and they just throw the paper on the driveway, where it gets wet and mangled in our good old Oregon rain. For a "tip", they might get out of the car, walk over and place in on the porch. Well, that tip they want costs more than the stupid paper, so I dropped the paper. What gripes me is the new expectation that one won't get a good job done unless one is given a "gratuity" beforehand, whereas in the past, a tip was given to reward good service. See the difference?

are you referring to Occupy Wall street??

Wall Street is no better. They sit around and play with other peoples hard earned money, all the while they never have to worry about losing their share of that money because of what we have have in this country, "Privatized profit, socialized risk.

[Spidey]

If teens have the right to be picky, then they also have the right to be un-employed, but I get at least a dozen kids a year looking for work during the summer, and they are mostly willing to do just about anything, for whatever I can give them…but I just can’t help.

Maybe you expect business to create special jobs for picky teens, sure I’d love to be able to do that, but there are many things I wish I could do.

[Sergeant Thorne]

so what? What is inherently valuable about gold, or silver? In either case, it is simply a matter of universal acceptance.

Both have special properties, and both are relatively rare. That's where this "universal acceptance" came from.

[callmeslick]

so what? What is inherently valuable about gold, or silver? In either case, it is simply a matter of universal acceptance.

Both have special properties, and both are relatively rare. That's where this "universal acceptance" came from.

same can be said about cesium or a couple dozen other elements. We don't base currency upon them, however.

[Top Gun]

Gold does have certain very special properties, but I rather doubt that they alone could sustain the record-high prices that gold has jumped to. In a certain sense, gold is every bit as much of a fiat currency as the dollars it once backed: more than anything else, it's the public recognition that it's been considered special and valuable for thousands of years, and the expectation that this will continue, that justifies trust in it.

[snoopy]

so what? What is inherently valuable about gold, or silver? In either case, it is simply a matter of universal acceptance.

Both have special properties, and both are relatively rare. That's where this "universal acceptance" came from.

same can be said about cesium or a couple dozen other elements. We don't base currency upon them, however.

I'd argue that this is only so because of public convention and/or history. I think the main idea behind a mineral or element being traded as currency is that it can't be just manufactured, like federal currencies can be. If you need more gold, you can't just magically make it come into existence by printing on some paper (or manipulating some numbers on a computer). That's why it's considered a standard. The same could apply for any resource with a finite availability.... then it usually comes down to a matter of convenience... carrying around, say, barrels of oil isn't particularly practical as compared to gold or silver or some other precious metal.

[Tunnelcat]

If teens have the right to be picky, then they also have the right to be un-employed, but I get at least a dozen kids a year looking for work during the summer, and they are mostly willing to do just about anything, for whatever I can give them…but I just can’t help.

Maybe you expect business to create special jobs for picky teens, sure I’d love to be able to do that, but there are many things I wish I could do.

No, I'm not advocating creating special jobs. I'm just noting that jobs that are still around today have less teens working at them. Why? The jobs are still there and don't need expensive special training, yet they are increasingly being filled by Mexican immigrants that will work for less.

Back to the plutocrats. The fact is, the wealthy top 1% are now historically making far more income than the rest of us. They are doing just fine in our present day economy, while the middle class and poor still suffer. THAT'S the problem.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/ec ... /index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/us ... -says.html

[callmeslick]

so what? What is inherently valuable about gold, or silver? In either case, it is simply a matter of universal acceptance.

Both have special properties, and both are relatively rare. That's where this "universal acceptance" came from.

same can be said about cesium or a couple dozen other elements. We don't base currency upon them, however.

I'd argue that this is only so because of public convention and/or history. I think the main idea behind a mineral or element being traded as currency is that it can't be just manufactured, like federal currencies can be. If you need more gold, you can't just magically make it come into existence by printing on some paper (or manipulating some numbers on a computer). That's why it's considered a standard. The same could apply for any resource with a finite availability.... then it usually comes down to a matter of convenience... carrying around, say, barrels of oil isn't particularly practical as compared to gold or silver or some other precious metal.

sound thinking....now, what am I going to do with those cesium coins?

[callmeslick]

If teens have the right to be picky, then they also have the right to be un-employed, but I get at least a dozen kids a year looking for work during the summer, and they are mostly willing to do just about anything, for whatever I can give them…but I just can’t help.

Maybe you expect business to create special jobs for picky teens, sure I’d love to be able to do that, but there are many things I wish I could do.

No, I'm not advocating creating special jobs. I'm just noting that jobs that are still around today have less teens working at them. Why? The jobs are still there and don't need expensive special training, yet they are increasingly being filled by Mexican immigrants that will work for less.

Back to the plutocrats. The fact is, the wealthy top 1% are now historically making far more income than the rest of us. They are doing just fine in our present day economy, while the middle class and poor still suffer. THAT'S the problem.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/11/08/news/ec ... /index.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/13/us/us ... -says.html

and why this is considered 'news' eludes me......I mean, the signs are constant: expensive homes sell well, high end retailers haven't missed a beat, even during the recession for the most part, those thoroughbred horse sales, like I reported this summer, are bringing 7 figure prices for unraced animals, and so on. Why anyone would suggest this trend is not ongoing, with all the data slapping them in the face, daily, is beyond me. Oh, pity the poor 'job creators'....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!

[Sergeant Thorne]

so what? What is inherently valuable about gold, or silver? In either case, it is simply a matter of universal acceptance.

Both have special properties, and both are relatively rare. That's where this "universal acceptance" came from.

same can be said about cesium or a couple dozen other elements. We don't base currency upon them, however.

Do you mean this cesium?

Caesium or cesium[note 1] is a chemical element with symbol Cs and atomic number 55. It is a soft, silvery-gold alkali metal with a melting point of 28 °C (82 °F), which makes it one of only five elemental metals that are liquid at (or near) room temperature.[note 2] Caesium is an alkali metal and has physical and chemical properties similar to those of rubidium and potassium. The metal is extremely reactive and pyrophoric, reacting with water even at −116 °C (−177 °F). It is the least electronegative element having a stable isotope, caesium-133. Caesium is mined mostly from pollucite, while the radioisotopes, especially caesium-137, a fission product, are extracted from waste produced by nuclear reactors.
...

[callmeslick]

yup, that's the one, ST......would work as coinage about as well as metallic sodium, although probably even more spectacular if moisture hit it.
Kind of a chemist joke going there, but I think the core meaning of what I was saying got out: gold and silver only have value due to traditional acceptablity, not some inherent value to mankind.

as a completely irrelevant aside, we used to steal chunks of metallic sodium from the chem labs in college and toss small pieces into buckets, toilets and once, a bathtub full of water. Lots of good clean fun, loud with a bright flash! Don't try this at home kids, we were professional chemists trained to do really stupid stuff and understand WHY it was really stupid.

[Spidey]

As someone who works with electronics every day, I’m pretty sure you are wrong about the value of gold and silver to mankind, unless you don’t consider highly reliable connections, on such things as military aircraft and satellites useful.

Land would be useless too, if you didn’t use sweat equity to make it into something useful, such as a farm, or a Mall…

[flip]

Seems God knew how to keep people free. This is probably the only way to save us now from certain oppression in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)

[callmeslick]

As someone who works with electronics every day, I’m pretty sure you are wrong about the value of gold and silver to mankind, unless you don’t consider highly reliable connections, on such things as military aircraft and satellites useful.

Land would be useless too, if you didn’t use sweat equity to make it into something useful, such as a farm, or a Mall…

everything has 'some' use, but no one considers basing a currency upon silicon, do they?