Printable View
Interesting reading. Most economists/political scientists study concentration of wealth, not earned income. Maybe professor dickhead can comment on the differences.
[URL]http://www.thestreet.com/story/12916499/10/23-countries-where-income-inequality-has-become-the-worst-ever.html[/URL]
Wealth inequality is a superior measure to income inequality, and if you [B]are[/B] going to look at income inequality, you need to look at [B]after tax[/B] income which they did not. Those Scandanavian countries have high tax rates, so if you look at after tax income, the inequality is much less. Income inequality is less pronounced always and everywhere, and is more volatile. However, if you read the study and not just the article about it, you can see the author of the article is a bit confused because there is very little in the study about income inequality and a whole bunch about wealth inequality.
I thought the best part of the study was Figure 2 on page six. Who would have thought that the ratio of wealth to income would have risen so nicely under a foreign born, communist, anarchist wealth distributing president completely devoid of leadership skills? Just look at the graphs, righties! Oh, and the US produced a [B]30.8% increase in millionaires in just the past year[/B] under the tender stewardship of the mulatto prince. How did that ever happen with his socialistic leanings and job stifling health care plan?
[URL]https://publications.credit-suisse.com/tasks/render/file/?fileID=60931FDE-A2D2-F568-B041B58C5EA591A4[/URL]
The original article. A swiss investment bank issues a warning hidden in the text that the uber high periods of concentration of wealth as compared to the average ratio tends to signal recession/depression. The invisible hand of the marketplace will cause a reversion to the mean or a crash.
Pig get fat and hogs get slaughtered.
For those who think he was the best President, think again.
[URL]http://www.examiner.com/article/8-reasons-why-ronald-reagan-was-the-worst-president-of-our-lifetime[/URL]
It's really funny when the lefties and righties cite their lefty and righty newspapers and TV shows as "proof.".
[QUOTE=Dickhead;442382]
I thought the best part of the study was Figure 2 on page six. Who would have thought that the ratio of wealth to income would have risen so nicely under a foreign born, communist, anarchist wealth distributing president completely devoid of leadership skills? Just look at the graphs, righties! Oh, and the US produced a [B]30.8% increase in millionaires in just the past year[/B] under the tender stewardship of the mulatto prince. How did that ever happen with his socialistic leanings and job stifling health care plan?[/QUOTE]You're being too harsh on Obama. Just as he wasn't responsible for strength in the stock market and the dollar, he's also not responsible for globalization and technology, which are the primary drivers of increasing inequality. That said, some of his policies have played a part. You've already brought up the effect of Obamacare on employment. There have been large increases in the number of people on social security disability during his administration. And a lower labor force participation rate. In other words Obama and Democrats have a bias towards dependency on government, instead of people working and saving and building wealth. Both parties have encouraged debt over equity with things like the mortgage interest deduction and encouraging people to buy more expensive houses than they can afford, and encouraging banks to loan them the money to do it.
It's great that the number of millionaires has increased 30.8%. A person needs about a million dollars for a comfortable retirement. Unfortunately that's probably a result of fluctuations in the stock market, and not repeatable over a number a years.
[QUOTE=Tiny12;44239] Both parties have encouraged debt over equity with things like the mortgage interest deduction and encouraging people to buy more expensive houses than they can afford, and encouraging banks to loan them the money to do it.[/QUOTE]You can add the non-deductibility of dividends to the encouragement of debt over equity. I think we all know deep down that presidential administrations get too much credit when things go right and too much blame when things go wrong. Now might be a good time to go back and review what I posted around the time of the last election about the economic results under Democratic vs. Republican presidential administration. Me, personally, I don't care about [I]policies[/I]; I only care about [I]results[/I].
The mortgage interest deduction does a bit more than simply encourage debt versus equity; it helps perpetuate the wealth gap.
Purely speculative on my part. I might not be around, then maybe I will.
Instant gratification, the American Way. The Pac-Man, aka the Money Man has arrived. Grabbing, swallowing everything in its path.
But here I sit in Bangkok, the air condition on up to 20 hours a day. What is the solution? Moving to a more breezy locale. Perhaps, escaping the hot season to Cape Town or Bariloche? I don't have any answers, but down the road, a lot of hurt & pain awaits.
[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/11/23/us/north-dakota-oil-boom-downside.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0[/URL]
[QUOTE=Tiny12;442390] Both parties have encouraged debt over equity with things like the mortgage interest deduction and encouraging people to buy more expensive houses than they can afford, and encouraging banks to loan them the money to do it.[/QUOTE][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/opinion/a-house-is-not-a-credit-card.html?_r=0[/URL]
I get your sentiments, but do you really believe the banks need encouragement? How did "instant gratification" come about? There were some evil geniuses at work there.
I check it out with the soapies in Bangkok, and they said they never heard of it. So no deals.
Here in my tiny nation-state we will be having Green Friday. Our nation-state is awash in tax dollars and running an enormous surplus after four years of a moderate Democratic regime, completely eliminating the deficit that arose under the two previous Republican governors. Obviously this is cause for celebration and our newest fledgling industry, recreational marijuana, is leading the way. Folks will be eschewing Kohl's and its ilk and instead lining up for $50 ounces, $2 "medibles," and similar delights that can be enjoyed by even the most impecunious.
Now what we need to do is establish something similar to the Alaska Permanent Fund, only based on weed and not oil and gas. Think about it: in Alaska they had the Exxon Valdez disaster. Suppose, instead, that the spill had been marijuana. The cleanup could have been handled entirely by volunteers. I was thinking we would have to build a big wall around the state but now that OR and (I forget which other state because I'm kind of baked) have joined up, maybe we won't get overrun.
I predict that very quickly, greed will kick in and our pols will eliminate the distinction between non-residents (can buy and possess .25 oz) vs resident (can buy and possess 1.0 oz). The amendment stated that marijuana should be regulated like alcohol and of course they banned advertising, selling weed related T-shirts, and all kinds of bullshit that goes way beyond how alcohol is regulated. But for sure they do not limit out of staters to a six pack of beer while allowing residents a case, so they have a built-in excuse.
The big unknown, of course, is whether highway fatalities will go up or down. I submit they will go down. It's just straight math. You drive twice as bad when you're stoned, but you're three times as likely not to bother to leave the house, so they should go down by one third. One issue, of course, is you need to wait two to three hours after your last beer or you will blow over the limit for alcohol, but you have to wait two or three weeks before you don't test positive for THC. I think there will be a lot of DWBs (driving while baked) and that will prove lucrative for municipalities, and will be a pain in the ass. I saw some dudes vaping in their car tonight and that is like three times as visually obvious even if it does stink up your car a lot less.
[URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/102181913[/URL]#.
So now the rush to approve the passage of the pipeline goes into the gear as the GOP gains control of Congress. As in Obama rushing ObamaCare! Remember!
Oil prices is pissing down the urinal. And electric transportation are gaining footholds everywhere.
[QUOTE=RevBS;442962][URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/102181913[/URL]#.
So now the rush to approve the passage of the pipeline goes into the gear as the GOP gains control of Congress. As in Obama rushing ObamaCare! Remember!
Oil prices is pissing down the urinal. And electric transportation are gaining footholds everywhere.[/QUOTE]A. They've been "studying" the Keystone Pipeline for more than 6 years. How nice it would have been if we had benefitted from such a gestation period to consider Obamacare, instead of the 24 hours we were actually given before the bill was rushed to the Senate and House floors.
B. You can't wait until you need energy infrastructure before you start building it, because by then it's too late. We need to start building these assets now so that they're in place and functioning the NEXT time we find ourselves in a position to really need them.
Of course, I'm sure that both of these arguments will be lost on our liberal friends and their LIV sycophants.
Thanks,
Jax.
[URL]http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-is-the-oil-crash-about-to-snuff-out-the-texas-miracle-20141222-column.html[/URL]
Maybes yes, maybe no. We shall see.
Did not want to start a new thread, so I'll use the platform here and wish everybody a Merry X'mas & Happy New Year. A more jolly group I have yet to meet, full of good cheer & kind intentions. God bless America.
Rev bs.