DescentBB

I pointed out the great divide between the type of rhetoric used to get out the hate-the-rich vote and the reaction rich folks have when it is suggested to them they follow their leaders...
You talk about excess wealth and when it suits your rhetoric, you come up with arbitrary levels that are 'acceptable' yet when asked to accept how that would have effected you personally you break out the excuses.

"You didn't build that business"..."1%ers"...."Romney is a rich guy who's wife plays with horses and lives a country club life"..."occupy wallstreet"...on and on
Clinton, Obama, etc "we dont need this money we have" "I don't mind paying more" as they hide their millions in tax shelters...on and on...

there is no distinctions made when you are rallying the villagers to get out their pitchforks...no talk of reasonable regulation and taxes. It's all about 'Eat the Rich"!
You don't get to be the cheer leader for that team and not be reminded about your teams record slick...be immune from having your own hypocrisy rubbed in your face, etc.. Sorry, not going to let you get away with that.

Will Robinson wrote:I pointed out the great divide between the type of rhetoric used to get out the hate-the-rich vote and the reaction rich folks have when it is suggested to them they follow their leaders...

actually, a lot of old money types who I know would be perfectly fine with going back to the old rules. Younger execs, especially in finance, might not be too pleased, but the problem ISN'T whether wealthy folks go along, it's the other 95% of the voting public. You are going to upset a few people's applecarts with my suggestions, but it isn't like wealthy families didn't grow their fortunes reasonably in the 50's and 60's, nor did younger achievers fail to become significantly more wealthy. It's just that everyone in the society did better. Right now, you live in a nation in which 95% of the people working have seen a negative wealth growth over the past 20 years.

You talk about excess wealth and when it suits your rhetoric, you come up with arbitrary levels that are 'acceptable' yet when asked to accept how that would have effected you personally you break out the excuses.

I'd be more than happy to address a realistic plan, but, yes, I'll mock or simply ignore idiotic schemes such as you laid out(tongue in cheek, ostensibly) above.

"You didn't build that business"..."1%ers"...."Romney is a rich guy who's wife plays with horses and lives a country club life"..."occupy wallstreet"...on and on
Clinton, Obama, etc "we dont need this money we have" "I don't mind paying more" as they hide their millions in tax shelters...on and on...

please show me where Obama and Clinton have their vast monies sheltered. Neither is particulary weathy, by the way. As for 'you didn't build that business', you and others leave off the part about 'by yourself', as if anyone builds any business without support of government funded infrastructure, or education, and often even government financial incentives. Once again, you show yourself to be nothing but a tool for your handlers to manipulate.

there is no distinctions made when you are rallying the villagers to get out their pitchforks...no talk of reasonable regulation and taxes. It's all about 'Eat the Rich"!

not from me, or from most rational folks in politics. Elizabeth Warren may be left of me on the political scale, but is among the most prominent voices for levelling the economic playing field. She has NEVER uttered such unreasonable things. Come to think of it, I'd sort of like to hear examples from you, with real quotes from real players. I call BS, in other words.

You don't get to be the cheer leader for that team and not be reminded about your teams record slick...be immune from having your own hypocrisy rubbed in your face, etc.. Sorry, not going to let you get away with that.

you have no clue, either about the wealthy, nor Democrat proposals, nor reality in general. You are merely a crude puppet, performing as your puppetmasters wish you to behave. Now, please go and find the examples I asked for, come back with a real sense of why income disparity has gotten so out of whack, and just maybe, we can have a real debate. Right now, I'm simply trying to be patient with a childish know-nothing.

edited the two questions I'd like you to answer, Will. Please, get back to us when you find proof to back up your whacky claims.

I put this reply over here since it goes more with this thread topic Spidey and slick.

Spidey wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:What do you think of this observation, Spidey and slick. Janet Yellen made a statement during her last hearing that I think is a more accurate statement than the Dems present wealth redistribution mantra they've been pushing lately. I think she said it a lot more pithy and accurately, that the money circulating in our system is currently being moved from labor to capital. So what happens to the system when too much money is put into capital, which is under the control of the few wealthy, while far less is in labor's hands for them to spend on goods and services? Doesn't that make it top heavy and unsustainable?

I don’t know what to say really, “wealth redistribution” is and always was a myth, there never has been any “wealth redistribution” just the redistribution of money, currency etc.

I can’t address the conversion of money into capital, because I don’t really see a problem, the company right across the street just made over 150,000 in “capital” improvements to their property that put a lot of cash into people’s hands.

Maybe she was referring to a different form of capital.

But in the end, I doubt there will ever be any currency shortages in the present system.

I guess it depends on someone's definition of "capital".

Wikipedia wrote:In economics, capital goods, real capital, or capital assets are already-produced durable goods or any non-financial asset that is used in production of goods or services.
.........In a fundamental sense, capital consists of any produced thing that can enhance a person's power to perform economically useful work—a stone or an arrow is capital for a caveman who can use it as a hunting instrument, and roads are capital for inhabitants of a city. Capital is an input in the production function. Homes and personal autos are not usually defined as capital but as durable goods because they are not used in a production of saleable goods and services.

But I get the sense that Yellen was thinking more along the lines of a Marxist political economy.

Wikipedia wrote:In classical economic schools of thought, particularly in Marxist political economy,[1] capital is money used to buy something only in order to sell it again to realize a financial profit. For Marx capital only exists within the process of economic exchange—it is wealth that grows out of the process of circulation itself, and for Marx it formed the basis of the economic system of capitalism. In more contemporary schools of economics, this form of capital is generally referred to as "financial capital" and is distinguished from "capital goods".

Which describes "capital" best in our system? If it's just money, then money is being funneled into the hands of the wealthy few to build up their financial capital, which has to be money taken from sales to consumers and wage concessions in the labor market. If it's capital goods or assets, that makes it more murky as to where all the wealth is going. If it's going into capital goods or non-financial assets, it's still being taken out of the labor market or from the consumer and is being locked up as a capital asset. So what money is left to buy those goods when the vast majority of the labor market doesn't have very much left over disposable income?

I don't know what other people are using for a definition, but I view capital as all goods and assets wholly owned by an individual or shared via ownership of corporate stockholdings or partnerships.

Slick, there was an article in the news just a week ago about the Clinton's talking up estate tax on the campaign trails yet using tax shelters to hide their estate as much as possible from the tax rates.

As for Obama himself, his finances are not available, nor his medical, or his scholastic grades, etc. so it will be a number of years before anyone can get to see...
But he is a rich lawyer so I'm confident in including him.

It is remarkable that you choose to try and refute the point I raised, that the democrats rhetoric is dripping with anti-wealth verbiage. I don't really need to document the glaring obvious.
I don't mind you getting all puffed up and declaring there is no proof when I know everyone reading this (perhaps with the exception of Sigma) will know this to be true from their own exposure to it.

Hell he just let his inner socialist shine again while we had this discussion! He has given us a new battle cry 'Economic Patriotism'

Why you feel compelled to try and refute it is an interesting topic. It must have hit a nerve. You should definitely try a little quiet introspection before your knee jerks again and you hurt yourself.

Will Robinson wrote:Slick, there was an article in the news just a week ago about the Clinton's talking up estate tax on the campaign trails yet using tax shelters to hide their estate as much as possible from the tax rates.

any fool with half a brain does that. My dad does, my mom did, I do. The rules are so generous that you have to have a 25 million dollar estate or no beneficiaries for that tax(Fed Estate tax--40%) to kick in.

As for Obama himself, his finances are not available, nor his medical, or his scholastic grades, etc. so it will be a number of years before anyone can get to see...
But he is a rich lawyer so I'm confident in including him.

given the conservative shelters Presidents are forced by law to pay into, and the status of his bank account in 2008(public record), I'd bet Obama isn't worth more than 2 million bucks. Hardly anything which you'd have to shelter. His tax records during his Presidency indicate that he pays a fair share of taxes.

It is remarkable that you choose to try and refute the point I raised, that the democrats rhetoric is dripping with anti-wealth verbiage. I don't really need to document the glaring obvious.
I don't mind you getting all puffed up and declaring there is no proof when I know everyone reading this (perhaps with the exception of Sigma) will know this to be true from their own exposure to it.

YOU choose to call it 'anti-wealth', because your handlers feed you that BS and you dutifully regurgitate it. It is utter nonsense. They are pointing out just what I've pointed out, to rich people, for years: our system has gotten out of whack, favoring inherited wealth and short term cap gains at the expense of labor and wages. That isn't really anti-wealth, it's really true, and the fact that SOME wealthy people don't like it is too freaking bad.

callmeslick wrote:...
YOU choose to call it 'anti-wealth', because your handlers feed you that BS and you dutifully regurgitate it. It is utter nonsense. They are pointing out just what I've pointed out, to rich people, for years: our system has gotten out of whack, favoring inherited wealth and short term cap gains at the expense of labor and wages. That isn't really anti-wealth, it's really true, and the fact that SOME wealthy people don't like it is too freaking bad.

slick, I, and most people reading this here today, have read the rhetoric, we have heard the rhetoric. We have seen the effect it has on the dumbmasses and heard them respond with vengeful support for the rhetoric at every campaign cycle, to every pop culture manifestation of of the message, etc. etc.
And you know what we have seen/heard?

Well, here's a clue: There are no campaign posters or bumper stickers by pro-democrats that have the words "favoring inherited wealth and short term cap gains at the expense of labor and wages"!

No, what we have all seen and heard for decades now is Eat the Rich....1%'ers ruining everything, rich republicans, etc. type rhetoric.

And that you are so head-up-their-butt loyal to the democrats to try and tell us all that we haven't seen that...haven't heard that...that we don't get that kind of rhetoric driven by your Party constantly is completely pathetic.
I think it may be beyond typical partisan denial on your part. Because to choose this as a 'hill to defend' you are exhibiting borderline mental illness grade characteristics here! Or...am I really living in your head so much that it is me? You just can't bear to see me say a single unflattering thing about your fraternity of hucksters and pimps? Oops, I did it again!...you will never recover at this rate.

I'll leave you alone, no sport left in it. It's getting to be like fishing from a stocked pond.

dammit guys, don't turn this into a conservative/liberal slugfest.

Will Robinson wrote: Well, here's a clue: There are no campaign posters or bumper stickers by pro-democrats that have the words "favoring inherited wealth and short term cap gains at the expense of labor and wages"!

really. Try listening to Elizabeth Warren. Or, for that matter, a host of other economic experts. Sure, it makes poor bumper stickers and sound bites on your cable news of choice, but there have been plenty of detailed speeches and policy papers that lay that exact thing out.

No, what we have all seen and heard for decades now is Eat the Rich....1%'ers ruining everything, rich republicans, etc. type rhetoric.

no, you haven't. What you've heard is heavily, selectively edited sound bites that some simpleminded commentator turns into 'Eat the Rich' and feeds back to you, to get you all riled up. It clearly has worked, propaganda often does. Doesn't mean you have a clue about the real issues, nor the basic, easy solutions(which will take a long time to reverse the trend).

And that you are so head-up-their-butt loyal to the democrats to try and tell us all that we haven't seen that...haven't heard that...that we don't get that kind of rhetoric driven by your Party constantly is completely pathetic.

personalize it to me all you want. The fact is that you haven't been paying close enough attention and lap up what you're fed like a puppy.

I think it may be beyond typical partisan denial on your part. Because to choose this as a 'hill to defend' you are exhibiting borderline mental illness grade characteristics here!

so, my looking at a VERY serious issue for 20 years makes me mentally ill? Nice touch. You're an simpleton, thanks for showing everyone.

Or...am I really living in your head so much that it is me? You just can't bear to see me say a single unflattering thing about your fraternity of hucksters and pimps? Oops, I did it again!...you will never recover at this rate.

I'll leave you alone, no sport left in it. It's getting to be like fishing from a stocked pond.

more like swimming in the pond of sewage you've been fed, and thinking you're fishing, it sounds like to me......

Ferno wrote:dammit guys, don't turn this into a conservative/liberal slugfest.

it really ought not be. It's a matter of what type of economy you wish to have, and I don't think either liberals or conservatives really want to see a sort of Neo-Feudal economy. HOWEVER, some in our nation DO want that sort of setup, and they'll use whichever side they can to promote it. The liberal/conservative fingerpointing that I've been trying not to engage in is PRECISELY the sort of diversion from the real topic that has been used for a couple, three decades.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: Well, here's a clue: There are no campaign posters or bumper stickers by pro-democrats that have the words "favoring inherited wealth and short term cap gains at the expense of labor and wages"!

really.

Yes. Really...truthfully...absolutely...with no doubt: "REALLY".

callmeslick wrote:Try listening to Elizabeth Warren. Or, for that matter, a host of other economic experts. Sure, it makes poor bumper stickers and sound bites on your cable news of choice, but there have been plenty of detailed speeches and policy papers that lay that exact thing out.

Could you possibly make a more dishonest argument?!?

I'm pointing at decades of your party's national mantra of: 'It's the evil rich peoples fault' and you want suggest one person, Elizabeth Warren, elected way back in....uh...well.. in 2012, is proof those decades of nation wide, party wide class warfare, vengeful rhetoric never happened?

'Oh but there are policy papers written on the subject!' Lol!

No one suggested those concepts are not discussed by people or that papers were not written on them. What we all know however is that isn't the content that your party uses to drive the dumbmasses to vote for them. As if your voters are reading policy papers. Yea, they download them all the time on their Obamaphones huh? And that's what motivates them, right?!?

Sorry Ferno, I am done, wont stir the pot any more.

Ferno wrote:dammit guys, don't turn this into a conservative/liberal slugfest.

Why not? Isn't that what this country's leadership is all about?

The idea that there are “easy solutions” that will take us back to the dynamic economy of the 50s is wishful thinking or a delusion at worst.

There were way too many conditions back then that can never be duplicated.

So no…there are no “easy solutions” as stated.

Not that there aren’t things that can be done to help, that’s not my point here, just that there are no easy solutions, and we are never going back.

I disagree, Spidey, but only to this extent: You could go back to 50's conditions, but it wouldn't be easy, and would take decades to fine tune things to work in a very different(global) economic reality. I really doubt that people would have that sort of patience. As you seem to indicate, though, there are things that can be done, and more that have yet to be figured out, that will address the growing disparities in some fashion.