Debunking Narratives on "Wealth Inequality"

It's not that people lack the means; they simply don't have the knowledge or the background.

They simply don't have the means to hire someone to manage their money for them professionally full-time.

 

this op is about the frivolous definition of wealth rather than the all encompassing, broad scope definition that is actual wealth...

your ilk want to redistribute enzo's fortune/factory just because you can't afford a ferrari, all the while not concerned with all the thousands of employees, thousands of suppliers and their employees, which include the thousands of manufacturers of packing materials and their thousands of employees... one man with a vision, made it possible for 100's of thousands of people to earn a good living & provide for their families... yet your ilk think you deserve his share of it all...

 

Red herring wattabout, but we can get rid of that too. Next.

Doesn't matter whether they are large tech companies or car wash chains, this is how local economic development business is done, has been done for decades, and so long as the tax rate at all levels remains high and the Complex continues to sell regulations to crony contributors to protect them from competition, this is how it will always be done. AOC's and most other emotion-driven "deserve-not deserve" unanalysis of this is laughably naïve. The tech giants are LW due to plain self-interest. They want a government they can buy so that they can stifle competition, smother it with regulations and legal hassles, and when upstart threats finally throw in the towel, buy them out with bloated, overpriced equity. The gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex created this situation of tax forum shopping and deals over decades by selling graft, no one else. There is no chicken-egg, government is the prime mover.

Well, that's interesting to hear that's what you think. On what knowledge, experience or any rational basis whatsoever do you form that belief? Because it's dead wrong. The minute Bezos files the plan, the stock tanks, and it tanks again at every stage of the sales. And that's just due to institutional dumping AND all the thousands of less rich restricted holders and option holders, folks who may really -need- to cash in some, they'll be howling to cash some in too... then the bears come out... then the bankers' lawyers' waving contracts, et.al. who specifically and rightly tied up his stock either specifically or in highly detailed lending agreement catchall provisions strictly limiting insider selling. Then the larger amazon vendors who likely also negotiated their agreements based on the stability of top end equity positions. Trust me as someone who knows, you do not want to be facing a board as the "wealthiest" man in the country in a high flying tech stock and even -whispering- about a massive liquidation of even the portion of your stock that isn't restricted. Wheels within wheels of issues, but sure, buy what the public union newsletter fed you.

He's not gonna starve, sure, -might- be able to cash in 10% of his holdings or 1.4%, over ten years, not much more, but he most certainly does not own that wealth in remotely the same sense as you own your checking account. The Complex higher ups know this full well, but it doesn't stop them from creating a complete resentment illusion that apparently has fooled you well and good.

 

You can't be serious. A typical American family at the median household income ($60,000) can barely afford a home and a car, let alone their kid's college, let alone a health emergency that costs them thousands in deductibles and/or costs them their job, let alone investing in the stock market. Who do you think you're kidding? Don't you know we all live in the real world?

If you scrimp and save and nothing bad ever happens to you, and you never go out and have any fun, and you drive a piece of **** that you (of course) do all the repairs on, and just eat a bunch of ramen, and live in a sod house and mend all your clothes, maybe you can start a college fund AND put a little aside in a 401(k) the company will match. Until you get laid off.

Are you a trust fund baby, or something? This is the kind of idiotic nonsense you hear from people who've never actually had to work for a living.

 

Which is fine, but until there is data to examine it is just a made up recharacterization of an existimg definition.

I could afford a Ferrari, but not the maintenance. While I certainly agree that one man had vision, I disagree that only through him are the “thousands of employees, thousands of suppliers and their employees, which include the thousands of manufacturers of packing materials and their thousands of employees” are making a good living (many of them are doing quite poorly) and his vision basically did on a more digital platform what Walmart did in a physical platform — and that was to consolidate small independent businesses, shut them down, and streamline the process. We have gone from those “thousands of employees, thousands of suppliers and their employees, which include the thousands of manufacturers of packing materials and their thousands of employees” making good wages to them making less so that Bezos can make $28,000.00 a second (the average of what his warehouse workers make).

 

How is that value measured?

 

There are many stocks that can be had for pennies — he is correct but being flippant — the average family can own stocks but not in any amount that is significant to their overall wealth.

 

I love you schoolmarm or similar types, I really do. But you stick out like sore thumbs. You aren't in any position to "ask" for anything. You are neither in judge's robes nor in front of a classroom.

You have, however, been provided with -everything- necessary in the OP and subsequent posts, mine and others', including plenty of "data," government and other, facts, definitions, arguments, analogies, examples and other indicia of adult discussion, to formulate a direct agreement or disagreement with the topic, parts of it, or ignore the thread entirely.

Or you can continue, in transparently bad faith, in print for all to see, posting and repeating disingenuous ... like the above. Choice is yours.

 

Oh, I see. Socialism for me but nor for thee. Ok. Next.

Yes, the "gov-edu-union-contractor-grantee-trial lawyer-MSM Complex". Of course. It's a huge conspiracy involving the tech giants and the goc-edu-MSM-whatever. That's what I get for taking you seriously, I guess.

Sure. The "Complex higher ups". They always know everything.

 

I work in Finance, so I think I have a pretty good idea of what sort of financial assets people can afford. Like I said previously, this isn't the 1960's. Financial markets today are much more advanced, sophisticated, and have a significant amount of depth and access. Markets which were only available to institutional investors are now available to anyone with a smartphone (nearly everyone has).

So, yes, I think I have a pretty good idea of what sort of assets people can afford.

I don't know who you are describing. I also do work for a living. The differences in our post per day metric probably makes that clear.

 

So me asking questions so that I can discuss your reframing or a word is “schoolmarm” and I don’t have the right because I am not a judge?




Ok bub

 

In finance, that depends.

The value of an asset could be the amount of future income someone is expecting to generate from the asset (like dividends or interest payments).

The value of an asset could be derived from other similar assets of similar quality in the market (Real estate sold in the neighborhood)

The value of an asset could simply be what someone is willing to pay for it (Amazon's stake in Whole Foods).

Value can be derived many different ways. We don't always agree on the metrics, but we expect the results from these metrics to be close.

 

If his point is that the anyone can invest in penny-stocks, I won't dispute it. But if that is his point it's an utterly trivial and ridiculous one. The average American family cannot afford to put any significant money in the market.

 

I was agreeing with you, not surprised you didn't get that.

That's exactly what it is, a grisly expansion of Ike's "Military Industrial Complex" (was that a conspiracy too?) Old Ike could have never foreseen the enormous, terrifying reality of today's Complex in the days before the explosion of corrupt public unions (he was ironically part to blame for that rotten, corrupt aspect of the Complex), gov contractor culture (no one even knows how many tens of millions there are today, last Democrat estimate I saw was 30 million+ at all levels), the gov-edu industry running statist indoctrination/agitprop camps, grafty grant culture (hundreds of billions of grant domestic and foreign), the corrupt "for the people" plaintiff's bar adding 10-20% to the cost of pretty much everything, and the main propaganda arm, a MSM that feeds on redistribution and shares a "career track" with government. But sure, all those easy to count and calculate groups and their very obviously overlapping ends are a "conspiracy."

Hey I'm not the one who tried to indict basic economic development deals conducted all over the country in terms of pure "feelz." That's all you... and AOC.

 

Using the OP’s new definition, what formula would be used to calculate “wealth”, he doesn’t seem to have the slightest idea — maybe you can help him out.

 

No, your perpetual refusal, in post after post after post now, to address the things I and others have actually posted directly in favor of empty hot air such as the above is what is schoolmarmish. That's a polite way to describe it, there are many other ways that are more pointed.

 

No, I make it sound like someone wanted Amazon in their city and threw a bunch of tax incentives at them, which AOC opposes on principle. Good for her. You think it's a good idea for governments to toss "tax incentives" at companies. I think it's a terrible idea. We're not going to convince each other. But you are on the losing side right now on that one. When Tucker Carlson starts quoting Elizabeth Warren's "economic patriotism", the pitch-forks are being dusted off.

It's the game we have and, apparently, the game Republicans want to keep and Democrats want to change. We saw in the Midterms how that played out. I think we'll see again in 2020.

Did you not see the "in ten years"? Bezos could easily sell his 16% in ten years. He could do it in one year, if he wanted. It's his to sell. And even at fifty cents on the dollar, he would still be insanely, filthy rich. He might not have a yacht-in-a-yacht-in-a-yacht, and my heart would bleed for him on that one. Nobody should have to go without.

Oh, I have no problem with a bunch of millionaires fighting over the shares these billionaires would have to give up if Warren has her way. I have no problem with millionaires, either. Our system is going to produce SOME inequality. Adam Sandler can keep his $300 million. It's the billionaire class we're going to take down. And if the top .000000001% still control too much of the pie, we'll start looking at the hundred-millionaires.

 

Again, his definition isn't wrong, just broad. He includes items such as Intangible, general QOL factors, and personal property. These are resources that Corporations would own, which would be an asset. An asset, in an accounting since, is anything that provides a future benefit, but we wouldn't consider the assets of a Corporation "wealth."

I would say wealth, in a financial sense, is derived from the market value of all assets owned. This market value can be calculated a number of ways.

 

I oppose Trump's protectionism. I don't ignore it.

Producers don't pay taxes. Consumers do. High business taxes produce a high cost of entry for competitors to large companies like Amazon. Economies of scale dictate that the larger they get, the easier it is to embed the cost of taxes into the price of the product. You want lots of large monopolies? Make sure high taxes crush out the smaller competition.

AOC didn't think period. Amazon headquarters in your district brings tens of thousands of well paid consumers to your district. Not only does it generate large amounts of new tax revenue regardless of reduced tax obligation, but it also brings with it all the revenue generated from the employees who don't get any incentives. Her battle was incredibly stupid and misinformed.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's obvious.

 

While I agree much of what you have posted is “directly in favor of empty hot air”, you have to have some type of foundation metric (ie datasets) to discus something this broad in relation to income inequality.

 

You have absolutely no idea what average people can afford. You could have written that Mcdonald's budget tool that everyone laughed at:

You have no idea what it's like in the real world. Since you brought up working for a living, I would guess you're most likely a teenager who's fallen in love with "Atlas Shrugged". They are the worst.

 

Maybe she did oppose it on principle and that is fine. She is still never bothered to educate herself about the deal.

It appears that you were never educated about the deal either, which is typical. No one was being "tossed" anything. Amazon was attempting to qualify for the NY State Empire Excelsior program which provided tax incentives for businesses generating a specific amount of economic activity. The tax incentives were contingent upon Amazon generating $27 Billion in tax revenue to the State and creating 25,000 jobs. New York state really needed that revenue; I don't know why people don't seem to understand this.

I also don't know why you keep referring to these pundits and politicians as if they are an authority on anything knowledgable.

You're wrong. Democrats (most anyway) don't want to change it because they understand how the game is played. If you want to incentivize specific economic activity, you need to provide something in return. Obama knew this and New York Democrats knew this.

The only people who don't know this are ideologues who simply don't live in the real world.

You don't seem to understand, I'm referring to trading volume, not overall stake. The overall stake you would be asking Bezo to sell is 5% of all trading volume. That is more than 1.5 Billion in Amazon's market value? Again, who is going to be on the other end of that trade?

It's pretty clear you haven't attempted to think this through because you seem to approach these complex issues through an ideological, which is my main problem with the progressive and right-wing. Ideologues never test their ideas based on reality and never adjust their worldview based on reality. It's no accident that the two Presidential candidates proposing a wealth tax are trailing the frontrunner.

 

It's not lack of knowledge. It's lack of will.

 

1) Children are not compulsory. And if you can afford to have children, paying for their college is a choice (they should pay for their own). If you can't afford your home on $60k, you can't afford to live where you live. THAT is the real world. Anything else is a fool's paradise.

2) Scrimping and saving is exactly what you have to do, if you want to get ahead on $60k. Thinking otherwise is - as stated - a fool's paradise. Seems it's you who lives in the dreamworld of the rich.

 

Anyone can, if they make it their priority.

Just own that it's not everyone's priority. Stop pretending everyone wants to, but are somehow prevented from doing so.