Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

Alas.

But no matter who you vote for, Goldman Sachs wins.

 

It's their money that they or their parents earned. If you want that money, you go work hard like they did.

 

So you want to move the goal post now since your land analogy failed?

 

I would argue that's quite backwards as much of technology and innovation revolves around sustainability.

 

Please, try to educate yourself on zero sum economic fallacy. You just used the exact metaphor about monopoly game that most people do to dispute zero sum.

You don realize that our economy is like altering players to constantly get money out of the bank, injecting new wealth, with every invention and innovation, right?

Our economy is nothing like a game of monopoly.

Please google and learn.

 

Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Warren Buffett - all 3 democrats.

The Prescriptions offered:

• Enacting higher marginal tax rates on individuals earning above $250,000 and $1 million;

• "Addressing the problem of hidden wealth," which often leads to an underestimation of the level of wealth inequality;

• Instituting a tax on Wall Street financial transactions, which could bring in an estimated $350 billion in federal revenue over a decade;

• Eliminate the carried interest loophole, which allows hedge fund managers to "reclassify wage income as capital income" and pay less in taxes as a result; and

• Bolstering, rather than eliminating, the estate tax, which only affects a tiny number families.

Gates and Buffett have their vast wealth locked up in non-profit "Foundations", so none of your "solutions" will even touch them.

If you want this money taxed we need to end this cesspool of interlocking "non-profits". These clowns put their wealth in non-taxable vehicles and then lecture us on how we really need to tax everyone else in order to "fix" wealth disparity.

 

if the rich horde all the money, they economy comes to a stop unless the government prints more or the rich start spending

used to be the rich felt it was their duty to spend to make society better

the rich also used to pay a much much higher percent in taxes then they do now

 

what sollution do you offer that would fairly tax their income and help the economy?

 

And that is the over simplification we've seen from class warfare hawks over the last 35 years.

 

This is a terrible analogy. It's as if services being supplied and demanded never entered your mind.

 

Sounds like someone didn't take many econ classes.

 

Jon(MF Global)Corzine , been there done that. Dumb asses

 

You ever heard of the term velocity of money? You are making yourself look foolish with this entropy theory pertaining to economics.

 

Amen to this.

Not saying we need more regulation.

But EVERY SINGLE TIME the government gets involved, things get worse.

The banks (and bankers) who made the bets based on the toxic assets that OUR GOVERNMENT CREATED should have been allowed to let their companies stock drop and companies fail.

I am not one of the people who thinks this would have ended the world

 

Wait, so the exact year it happened, it went up, and you are blaming (obviously) Regan for it?

So the posts of people here who have been saying this new Bump is from Obama, not Trump have it backwards then according to you, right?

Becauese you only get to have it one way or the other, did Carter create that before Regan? Or did Obama create this now before Trump?

Again, you do not get to have it both ways. Is it lagging, or leading?

 

At the turn of the century we had crony capitalism and we broke that up. We didn't have the defenses we do today against monopolies and the downsides of capitalism. But today with so many anti-trust law for some reason a new crop of robber barons has emerged. Why??? Oh thats right they are all big democrats and give heavily to the democratic party so the party government workers who live in a city that votes 90%+ democrat give them a pass.

There is no need to fight the anti-trust wars agian. Just tell the democrat bureaucrats in DC to start enforcing the law on the new democrat robber barons.

 

Bezos in particular is mega-scum; dangerous mega-scum.

The whole extortion of communities for Amazon jobs is an indication of what a black hearted troll he is.

 

The middle class died around 1975.

Since then, it's just been the zombie apocalypse in slo-mo.

 

Surely not all aspects of resources are infinite. Some resources are extremely limited.

 

No I didn't take econ classes, but I did quite a lot of reading on economics. I came to the conclusion that economists basically do not understand the laws of Physics -- well except for the small fraction that work in a field called biophysical economics. That's why economics is called the dismal science.

It is beyond me that economists and politicians have the population snookered that exponential GDP growth can continue forever in a finite system. Second, they even have convinced people that more growth is better. Third, they treat energy just as another commodity when it is energy as the capacity to do work that is at the center of every process and, thus, the whole economic system. It is like putting the cart in front of the donkey.

So, yes, I did not receive a formal education in economics and I am proud of it. I, however, have the ability to analyze processes logically and with an open mind. On the other hand, many of our self-professed forum "experts" on economics only understand money in their pocket and the law of supply and demand. That does not make one an expert in economics.

 

While I appreciate the argument, I think those who make it can forget the massive role that investment plays in the economy. The rich don't just stuff it all under their mattress, the vast majority is invested in companies.

Only those willing to lose 3% of their fortune per year stash it under their mattress. Not many people are willing to accept that, especially when the stock market averages a 7% return per year.

 

Like any field of study, economics is responsive to criticism. All of your opinions have been thoroughly discussed by the economics community, and yet most of them disagree. That isn't a reason to change your opinion, all the power to you, but I wouldn't dismiss the field too quickly. They think what they do for a reason.

If you have significant discoveries not yet known to economics I strongly advise you to do a 3 year degree in the subject and to present your views to the faculty. If they are truly revolutionary you would will make millions and be a leader in the field, respected by all. You might even change the world.

Cheers.

 

Unfortunately, little of that investment actually results in job creation.

http://fortune.com/2012/07/24/jack-bogle-has-capitalism-lost-its-soul/?section=magazines_fortune

Jack Bogle, founder of Vanguard, shows numbers that 99.8% of stock market trading is speculation rather than investment. What does this do? Blow up asset bubbles making the stock owners richer, but it doesn't lead to investment in goods and services, which would actually require hiring.

So, yes, FreshAir's argument that the rich in effect horde money is quite correct.

 

Haha, I am a faculty member in Chemistry. Economics reading is sort of a hobby of mine, but I have other things to do in my real life that are more important.

I actually don't have a problem with many economists, I have met many at my own university and they are very competent people in their field. What I have a problem with is the self-professed economics experts on the internet who talk down on everyone else because they think they understand the law of supply and demand.