American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Esten;435702]There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the wealthiest individuals and corporations continue to amass more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% receiving 81.7% of the new wealth created over the past three decades.[/QUOTE]I just love Esten's choice of words such as "amass" and "receiving", each one designed to inflame the sensitivities of the LIV (Low Information Voter) by invoking images of wealth falling from the sky unfairly onto the hands of a few selected individuals.

Nevertheless, because I do not live my life in envy of the success of others, I read his comments differently, to wit:

[I]There is absolutely a system in place, both in the US and worldwide, where the [strike]wealthiest[/strike] [b]most[/b] [b]successful[/b] individuals and corporations continue to [strike]amass[/strike] [b]create[/b] more wealth and power. I've posted such facts and figures before, like the top 5% [strike]receiving[/strike] [b]creating[/b] 81.7% of the new wealth [strike]created[/strike] over the past three decades.[/I]

Esten, I've got some news for you: Wealth is not something that falls from the sky. Wealth is created as a result of human endeavors. I worked my whole life and I created some wealth for myself. If your lazy, clueless, crybaby LIV's would get of their collective asses and get to work, they too could create some wealth for themselves.

Wealth is not a zero sum game. There is no limit to the wealth we could all create for ourselves. If everybody worked, we could all be "rich" in whatever way each of us may define that word. We could all live in better houses, drive nicer cars, eat better food, enjoy better medical care, etc., etc., etc.

Thanks,

Jackson.

[QUOTE=Jackson;435707]Wealth is not a zero sum game. [/QUOTE]I just took a look at the Russell 3000 index, which represents 98% of the investable USA Equity market. Here are some trailing 12 month figures:

Sales: 13 trillion dollars (Compare to GDP of 16 trillion dollars).

Earnings: 1.13 trillion dollars (8.4% of Sales).

Dividends: 400 billion dollars (3% of Sales).

For every dollar in sales, 3 cents are paid as dividends to owners. Of this 3 cents received by shareholders, how much is re-invested in the economy? My guess would be north of 2/3 rds. This would mean maybe a penny out of every dollar of revenues gets spent by the owners, and is not re-invested.

So around 1% of any increase in revenues of business goes into the pockets of the owners of the private sector, money that they spend as they choose. The rest goes into growing the economy, and helps everyone. Wealth indeed is not a zero sum game in a capitalist "neoliberal" economy. Unfortunately, as Esten says, Obama is not a neoliberal. He believes in putting more and more money into government, which does not grow the economy.

You can argue about my assumptions, what percentage of dividends are re-invested and whether financials of public companies are representative of the private sector as a whole. But any way you slice or dice it, most of the benefits of wealth creation are not accruing to the holders of the wealth.

[URL]http://www.drhurd.com/index.php/Daily-Dose-of-Reason/Politics-Government/The-Post-American-Economy.html[/URL]

More reality that the progressives will deny.

Don B.

Not getting involved in the left right thing, still think they both suck.

[QUOTE] "There's this Fukuyamaist idea that history had ended after the Cold War and that if we could just tweak neoliberal democracy, everything's going to be fine forever; that somehow, this is like the final political form. I mean, this is ridiculous. And you can see it. There's no evidence of a political program anymore - in the world; in America. There aren't genuine politics. There's the media telling you that Barack Obama versus Mitt Romney is the epic clash of ideology when we both know they're globalist neoliberals. I mean, they both exist to preserve the interests of this relatively autonomous class of Goldman Sachs bankers." [/QUOTE]What I know is they are buying shit loads of this [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/[/URL].

And doing this [URL]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-new-steps-gun-control-article-1.1440413[/URL].

In my fevered brain it looks like preparing to suppress an insurgency. I'm afraid Jefferson was right;

[quote]Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.[/quote] I know he was specifically talking about education in the above quote but it's germane. There is simply no question that the US government is preparing for a much more invasive state given the powers under the NDAA and other legislation, the build up of surveillance infrastructure, and the preparation for domestic oppression by force.

See what he said by "slow operation?" I won't argue that limiting gun access to convicted felons is a bad thing but what if the conviction was for growing weed twenty years ago? What about embezzlement, or other non-violent convictions? Then we continue to magazine capacity? What about styles of guns? The question is always the same, "What do you need X for?" Then Y, then Z? I'm telling you if something doesn't happen to change this trend, those of us that are 50+ won't even recognize the USA that our great grandchildren live in.

I maintain that the kid is correct, it's not a left / right thing, that's a distraction. It's a Goldman Sacs / Hunt Brothers thing, which eventually will include all the people like the guys here that have done "well" for themselves and generally argue for the conservative side.

Disclaimer; I'm not saying that making money and being successful are evil and agree with Cheese that people who have done "well" should be willing to do some good with it but in a manner that they see fit, rather than through legislation. I'm not saying that they have to, nor should be compelled to, I said I think they should. I think Gates and Buffet are great examples of this thinking and personally admire it. I do not wish to, nor will I debate it, it's my opinion and is unlikely to change.
Mis dos centavos.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435710]Not getting involved in the left right thing, still think they both suck.


Disclaimer; I'm not saying that making money and being successful are evil and agree with Cheese that people who have done "well" should be willing to do some good with it but in a manner that they see fit, rather than through legislation. I'm not saying that they have to, nor should be compelled to, I said I think they should. I think Gates and Buffet are great examples of this thinking and personally admire it. I do not wish to, nor will I, debate it, it's my opinion and is unlikely to change.
Mis dos centavos.[/QUOTE]There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435711]There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Don B.[/QUOTE]But not nearly as much as the Objectivist's claim. If you read their stuff, one is good and the other terrible, I don't agree. I believe they have similar appearance through different motivations.

Some people have a natural altruism, they are rare, St Francis, this new Pope (I think, time will tell), are examples. They are driven to sacrifice to improve the circumstances of others. They are not bad people who are doing terrible which cause them to develop huge resentments and hate the people they helpt as Ayn would have us believe.

Benevolence is more of a choice, one chooses to develop the quality of compassion and help others. This is Gates and Buffet, they will never skip meals or make their children suffer from a desire to find the cure for malaria. Andrew Carnegie was certainly one of these men as well. I don't like it though when people say that one is better, that benevolent people are more moral. All of those guys are or were fiercely competitive people, Carnegie knew what an ABSOLUTE dick and brutal tyrant Frick was and did nothing until public sentiment after the Homestead massacre forced him. They do what they need to do to be able to look at themselves in the morning when they shave. If they didn't then the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation would have different names.

[QUOTE=DonB;435711]There is a difference between benevolence and altruism.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Just think Silvo Berlusconi (I am innocent, I am a victim). Sounds familiar?

And not too far behind, Jamie Dimon (not as sensational), but of the same DNA. JP Morgan, fined again $920 million, but laughing all the way to the boardroom. Like Kobe getting a technical foul, a $5,000 hamburger, that's all to it. Tax deductible, I believe.

Big contributors to the economy? As if the table is not pre-set up for them by the legislators. And we keep talking about a level playing field.

Not talking about your struggling mom-pop shop selling home-made guacamole dip or your start-ups. Detroit can take a lesson from Singapore about a business investment zone, look at Subic Bay's comeback from the dead.

No complaints from me, the ride on Wall Street has been very rewarding since 2008. Up for this year at 20%. Not sure who to thank, the AP Investor Board? Of course, Obama had nothing to do with it. Yes, it could all end tomorrow, World War III is just around the corner. Then I would have to make do with a ride on the Chao Praya Express Boat instead of my own yacht. But that's what life is all about, adjusting, mixing and changing as the world evolves and revolves. Nothing ever stays the same. (A BIG SIGH).

Really looking forward to it, big time. Kamakazi style tactics by the Tea Party.

[QUOTE=DaddyRulz;435710]What I know is they are buying shit loads of this [URL]http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/[/URL].[/QUOTE]Please realize that Forbes is a right wing media outlet, just like the Wall Street Journal. Steve Forbes is a long time outspoken Republican with a very pro-Wall Street bias, and WSJ is owned by the same company as Fox News.

I'm afraid the Forbes article you linked is pure conspiracy-mongering, which is actually a surprise to me that Forbes would stoop so low. Notice how smoothly the article goes from describing an ammunition purchase to statements like "stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland"? Doesn't that strike you as odd? When even another right-wing media outlet (Breitbart) calls the Forbes article a myth, you know something is not right.

[QUOTE]
MYTH: The estimated 1.6 billion rounds purchased by DHS would sustain the military for over 20 years.
FACT: This myth was even reported by Forbes. While this number is comparable to rounds expended at the height of combat in Iraq, the actual ammunition produced for the military annually is, quite ironically, 1.6 billion rounds. Many conspiracy theorists are not accounting for ammunition expended in training.
A well-trained police officer will expend a minimum of 2,000 to 5,000 rounds per year, yet may never fire their weapon in defense. There is a significant disparity between rounds fired for training and those fired in a real world scenario.
Similarly, DHS agencies train quarterly, with an expectation of using 1,000 rounds per year per firearm for training and qualifications, while an officer may never fire a single round from their firearm on duty.

THE GREAT DHS AMMUNITION STOCKPILE MYTH
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/04/The-Great-DHS-Ammunition-Stockpile-Myth
[/QUOTE]

"[I]Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.[/I]"

The children in the US are subjected to 12 years of leftist brainwashing, altruism, etc.

Lenin would be proud.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435721]"Give me four years to teach the children and.

The seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

The children in the US are subjected to 12 years of leftist brainwashing, altruism, etc.

Lenin would be proud.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Marching with the Salvation Army at the Rose Parade?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;435722]Marching with the Salvation Army at the Rose Parade?[/QUOTE]Nothing like a well thought out intellectual response.

I think you are proof of my point.

Don B.

[QUOTE=DonB;435724]Nothing like a well thought out intellectual response.

I think you are proof of my point.

Don B.[/QUOTE]Just trying to say that in the end, our lives will reflect how we treat our family members, friends & neighbors. That's all that really counts. Nothing ever really changes, at most, only for a short time. Civilizations come, and then, they go.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;435708]I just took a look at the Russell 3000 index, which represents 98% of the investable USA Equity market. Here are some trailing 12 month figures:

Sales: 13 trillion dollars (Compare to GDP of 16 trillion dollars).

Earnings: 1.13 trillion dollars (8.4% of Sales).

Dividends: 400 billion dollars (3% of Sales).[/QUOTE]It bears repeating: Democrats support capitalism, business, making money and getting rich. But we think there need to be some rules and regulations in place so the workers who also play a vital role in wealth creation get a fair shake, and that people have a reasonable shot (not a long shot) at getting ahead if they work for it. As far as small businesses, like Jackson's or Doppel's, we respect, admire and support them. If you find that laughable, that's only because you've been lied to by Republicans and right wing media to believe otherwise. Our critiques of capitalism are mainly reserved for big business and Wall Street.

Look at Tiny's numbers. He tries to downplay the dividends, saying they're only 3% of sales and they go to the owners. What's really going on is this: [B]35% of profits go to Wall Street. $400 billion a year.[/B] The vast majority of the "shareholders" are Wall Street financial firms and the very wealthy individuals they represent. Do they "earn" their dividend payments? Not really, they park huge sums of cash in investments with little risk (it's an insider's game, and these companies aren't start-ups anymore) and basically extract free money from the system. They make financial transactions on their computers, and collect regular 6 and 7-figure payments from corporations. Nice "work" if you can get it. The real work comes from the sweat and ingenuity of the company's workers and management.

And this folks, is how Wall Street leeches off the American worker. When you buy gas, when you buy an I-Phone, when you buy a computer, when you buy skin care products, toilet paper, cereal, when you get a loan or mortgage, etc etc (the list goes on and on), you are paying into a system where millionares and billionaires receive 35% of the profits generated. $400 billion a year, for basically doing nothing.

[QUOTE=Esten;435726]Wall Street Leeches[/QUOTE]I agree with part of your post. While Wall Street's share of corporate profits would be in single digits, in the middle of the last decade profits from the entire US financial sector peaked at something like 35% to 40% of total corporate profits. See Figure 1:

[URL]http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=intl[/URL]

Banks, insurance companies and brokers don't make cars, construct houses, etc. They're the grease that lubricates the machine, not the machine. After the crisis of 2008/2009, their percentage of total profits plummeted. It may have been negative. Financial profits have since risen to about 20% of corporate profits, which still seems high. It's not as bad as the health care sector, which eats up 17% of GDP -- profits are only a small percentage of revenues -- but still 20% seems like an outsized percentage of the profits for the "grease".

Why? I'm not an expert on the industry so am not sure. Some of it is because of moral hazards created by government. For example, the government provides implied guarantees of derivative contracts. Then it allows a company like Bear Stearns that buys and sells these contracts to operate with equity that's only 3% of its capitalization. Actually, I remember looking at Citibank in 2008, and their tangible book value as a percentage of capitalization was 1.5%. And the government was supplying an explicit guarantee for Citibank's depositors and also an implied "too big to fail" guarantee to the stock and bondholders. The Fed's policies, keeping interest rates low, under Greenspan and Bernanke probably also had something to do with large financial profits. But, of course, low rates are also required to avoid bankrupting the government, now that the debt is north of 16 trillion.

There are fallacies in your post besides "35% of profits go to Wall Street". Democrats support small business with words and do the opposite with actions. Top marginal tax rates on successful small businesses range from 43.4% to 56.7%, depending on the state. Democrats fought tooth and nail to make that happen. For large corporations, the rates are lower, from 35% to 45%. Democrats are also more responsible than Republicans for making the tax and regulatory systems complicated. A complicated system is bad for everyone, but worse for small business, that doesn't have the legions of lawyers and accountants to take advantage of special write- offs and comply with thousands of regulations. Some Republicans are trying to do something about this, but no Democrats.

The last half of your post is riddled with misconceptions. I'll say the same thing you've said about some of my posts, maybe with good reason – it's so screwed up it really doesn't merit a reply. I'm not sure, but suspect pension funds and mutual funds own the largest percentage of corporate America. The fact that profits are a small percentage of revenues, and that most profits are reinvested, means zip to you. You don't like profits, if they have any association with a "millionaire or billionaire". All I can figure out is that you want the government to own the means of production, that is, you're a communist, but you won't admit it to yourself. Come out of the closet Esten. I wear the neoliberal badge you pinned on me with pride. It feels good.