No obstruction? You're a vacuous f*ck.
No obstruction? You're a vacuous f*ck.
agip wrote:
I think the economic divide isn't much different than it has been in the past...but the cultural divide is growing. We used to watch the same tv shows, drink the same beer etc...but now the walls between cultures is vast.
That's why a guy like biden or mayor pete would help - to help start to bring the nation back together culturally.
What percentage of the overall wealth in this country is held by the top 1% vs 50 years ago? I keep reading that there is a very large and growing difference in these numbers. But perhaps I am missing something.
agip wrote:
never learns from mistakes wrote:
Sure, go ahead and ignore the facts.
You will back Hillary until you die. You will lead us to four more years of Trump...Biden will lose
you aren't thinking this through. You are accusing me of ignoring the facts...but I brought a bunch of new facts into the convo. Then you ignore those facts...,talk about Hillary, and make wild guesses about the future.
Tell you what. When you get home from school today, sit down and gather your thoughts. 8th grade is a tough year. Come up with a thoughtful response, and we can discuss tomorrow.
Are you referring to these as the facts that you brought into the convo?
"as for GINI...it's a problematic measurement. It is crude and doesn't take into consideration aging of populations, how healthcare is a large part of our compensation now, how households have shrunken, how inflation can be measured differently...". ???
Because I think that it is fair to point out that there are no facts presented in there. Just a list of possible issues with one measure. To help you get started - facts would involve numbers.. Try to include some meaningful numbers that show wealth is not substantially more concentrated at the top than it was 50 years ago. Then we'll have something to talk about.
How is this helping people? Inflation makes assets and income increase to keep pace with inflation to enable one to afford exactly what they could afford before the inflation. Seems like a wash to me.
What the what? wrote:
Flagpole wrote:
Inflation also helps people who own a home outright and have NO debt as long as they are invested in the market. Inflation drives the market upward, so, even in retirement (where people often say they are on a "fixed income"), inflation moves up retirement investment AND also Social Security payments (at least for now).
How is this helping people? Inflation makes assets and income increase to keep pace with inflation to enable one to afford exactly what they could afford before the inflation. Seems like a wash to me.
Nope...first of all, the market FAR outpaces inflation (I win the point just based on that alone). Even if it were the same though, for older people who own their homes and have no debt, it's a good thing. As an example, I own my home. I bought it in 1999 at 1999 prices. If I were still paying on it, I would be paying a monthly mortgage based on 1999 prices. I have no debt. When I retire for good in a few years, both of my kids will be out of college, and our expenses will drop tremendously. With a home paid for (the biggest expense that inflation affects), inflation on groceries is no big deal unless you only live on Social Security.
Example:
Let's say you have $5 million in retirement. Let's say in a year there is inflation of 2%.
Groceries were $4000 a year. A 2% inflation takes that to $4080...an $80 increase. All other expenses (for someone who is debt free in retirement as they should be) going up at 2% isn't going to equal what you have in retirement.
$5 million in retirement is now $5,100,000...a $100,000 increase (of course on average it will be MUCH higher than that).
Social Security will go up to match inflation too.
If you haven't invested and have a mortgage and live paycheck to paycheck, inflation hurts. If you did what you should have done, it makes you money.
Nothing you said counters in even the most infinitesimal way the fact that no, inflation does not make folks better off.
You have made a case for investing over time (good for you but totally obvious and not the question)
You have made a case for having a home that is paid off (good for you but totally obvious and not the question)
You have pointed out that stocks tend to outpace inflation (good for you but totally obvious and not the question)
You have NOT made a case that inflation makes folks better off.
It’s still early....but even an email scandal I don’t believe would hurt Biden’s likability....
Even FOX News has Biden up 11 pts:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-biden-up-by-double-digits-in-democratic-race
And a number of polls have Trump’s approval under 40%. This is noteworthy because there’s really not an “event” driving it as there had been in previous times he’s been under 40%. The investigations and his continued obstruction and his trade war are taking a toll.
Alan
Net Worth wrote:
agip wrote:
I think the economic divide isn't much different than it has been in the past...but the cultural divide is growing. We used to watch the same tv shows, drink the same beer etc...but now the walls between cultures is vast.
That's why a guy like biden or mayor pete would help - to help start to bring the nation back together culturally.
What percentage of the overall wealth in this country is held by the top 1% vs 50 years ago? I keep reading that there is a very large and growing difference in these numbers. But perhaps I am missing something.
Agip is a highly paid investment banker. He would rather have four more years of Trump than any of the candidates who are progressive and might actually do something about income inequality. He will just deny it is a problem. What a wanker.
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
jesseriley wrote:
Trump sez I’m taking my ball & going home! Triggered much, donny boy?
Pelosi’s balanced response? “Temper tantrum!” The truth hurts, my little snowflake president...
She accused Trump of participating in a cover up. She's a lunatic- crazy eyes, just look at her with the crazy eyes and the Botox seeping into her brains. Ha.
We know that Tiny does cover-ups. That's why he paid off two porn stars.
agip wrote:
Rigged for Hillary wrote:
She accused Trump of participating in a cover up. She's a lunatic- crazy eyes, just look at her with the crazy eyes and the Botox seeping into her brains. Ha.
Hey what do you call paying a porn star not to tell about your adulterous affair, and then lying endlessly about it? Would that be a cover up?
Or...what do you call it when your son has a meeting with russian intelligence officers offering dirt on your opponent...and then you draft a letter lying about it? Would that be a cover up?
or what do you call having a massive business project in Moscow, and lying to make it seem you...had no massive business project in Moscow? Is that a cover up?
... or telling Don McGahn to put a statement in a file saying that he never intended to have him fire Mueller.
like talking to a wall wrote:
Net Worth wrote:
What percentage of the overall wealth in this country is held by the top 1% vs 50 years ago? I keep reading that there is a very large and growing difference in these numbers. But perhaps I am missing something.
Agip is a highly paid investment banker.
He doesn't even have a WSJ subscription so I bet he's not that highly paid.
Net Worth wrote:
agip wrote:
I think the economic divide isn't much different than it has been in the past...but the cultural divide is growing. We used to watch the same tv shows, drink the same beer etc...but now the walls between cultures is vast.
That's why a guy like biden or mayor pete would help - to help start to bring the nation back together culturally.
What percentage of the overall wealth in this country is held by the top 1% vs 50 years ago? I keep reading that there is a very large and growing difference in these numbers. But perhaps I am missing something.
Looks like it's pretty severe but it's been trending aggressively up since the the 90s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_Stateslike talking to a wall wrote:
Net Worth wrote:
What percentage of the overall wealth in this country is held by the top 1% vs 50 years ago? I keep reading that there is a very large and growing difference in these numbers. But perhaps I am missing something.
Agip is a highly paid investment banker. He would rather have four more years of Trump than any of the candidates who are progressive and might actually do something about income inequality. He will just deny it is a problem. What a wanker.
I am not particularly highly paid
I am not an investment banker.
I would not prefer Trump to warren or Bernie
where do you get this stuff?
Racket wrote:
like talking to a wall wrote:
Agip is a highly paid investment banker.
He doesn't even have a WSJ subscription so I bet he's not that highly paid.
I do have a WSJ print subscription, so there's that.
Trust Racket in almost all things. Except my newspaper subscriptions.
Racket wrote:
Net Worth wrote:
What percentage of the overall wealth in this country is held by the top 1% vs 50 years ago? I keep reading that there is a very large and growing difference in these numbers. But perhaps I am missing something.
Looks like it's pretty severe but it's been trending aggressively up since the the 90s.
tes
My argument is that the US has large inequality, but it's not so different from the past. That is based on a number of academic studies that try to take the entire picture into account and not a simple number like 'income' or 'wealth.'
For example, 'wealth inequality' stats almost never take into consideration the value of social security. Which makes no sense - every worker in the US has an annuity worth a few hundred thousand dollars at a minimum. A two worker house has an annuity worth half a million. But SS is left out of inequality stats, usually. The papers I'm talking about add that SS to the numbers, and they come out pretty close to what they have always been. Add the value of SS to a household and the GINI numbers flatten out enormously.
In income (as opposed to wealth), the numbers either calculate inflation wrong, or don't count non-cash compensation like health care, or government transfers. Take a big, more accurate picture, and the numbers flatten out.
I could start posting links, but I'm sure none of youse would actually read them, so I won't subject you to the scrolling.
INCORRECT!
For people who are in the right position in their lives (own a home outright and have investments), inflation pushes up the value of both...to greater heights historically than the inflation itself. This results in real spending power with regard to the investments, and even with the house if you want it to...you can sell and move to a less-affected inflationary area, you can get a reverse mortgage if you want (I never will), you can pass on the house to relatives when you die, thus giving THEM a leg up (making them better off). Social Security keeps pace. When people have their investments go up and the value of their home go up, they SPEND more, thus helping the economy, so yet another way inflation makes "folks" better off.
When we have the opposite of inflation (Deflation), wages are stagnant or drop, people hoard their money and don't spend, thus hurting the economy and thus hurting "folks".
I'm not that big of a crusader against GINI calculations but if the GINI number has always excluded SS and gotten closer to 1 each year then that's still indicative of growing wealth inequality. It may under-report actual income but that doesn't matter as long as it's always done so.
Anyways, looks like Trump's financial records are about to come to light. That should be entertaining
Collusion wasn't presented in the Mueller Report because it was successfully covered up.
But none of Trump's financial crimes are addressed in the Mueller investigation.
They were all sent to different jurisdictions like the SDNY.
And blocking various groups from presenting his taxes and not allowing people to testify is a collusion of a cover up.
that's just one example. another, that has changed over time, is the aging of America. We have now, say, a million single 80+ year old women living on nothing but SS money. They would have been dead 30 years ago, but they are alive today, and they bring the numbers down a heck of a lot. But is longer life a bad thing? Of course not. but they make the inequality numbers look bad.
Then there's the shrinking of households, etc. apples to apples economic comparisons over decades are often useless, because of bad data and changing circumstances.
agip wrote:
For example, 'wealth inequality' stats almost never take into consideration the value of social security. Which makes no sense - every worker in the US has an annuity worth a few hundred thousand dollars at a minimum. A two worker house has an annuity worth half a million. But SS is left out of inequality stats, usually. The papers I'm talking about add that SS to the numbers, and they come out pretty close to what they have always been. Add the value of SS to a household and the GINI numbers flatten out enormously.
In income (as opposed to wealth), the numbers either calculate inflation wrong, or don't count non-cash compensation like health care, or government transfers. Take a big, more accurate picture, and the numbers flatten out.
Given that lower income people have shorter life expectancy, they also receive less Social Security benefits in their lifetime. Is that also factored into this alternative model? Also, regarding health benefits, for people who are before retirement, don't higher income people also have more generous health care benefits?
https://thinkprogress.org/poor-peoples-lives-are-getting-shorter-6ba9ff74f5e4/