How does the rich gain at the poor's loss?

God all mighty when will you liberals pickup a book and read!!?!?

You made two critical mistake:
1, in an open market place, any resources can be replenished thus maintain a dynamic balance. Water price up, profit margin high, more people shipping in water to get a share, competition intensify, water price down.

2, There is a cost to everything. If a house cost 200,000 to build, it doesn't matter even if the richest person on this planet has only 100,000 to spend. The owner of the house will live inside himself. And of course, since there is a cost to everything, investors wouldn't invest in housing in the first place should the richest person on this planet has only 100,000 to spend.

 

"For every problem, there is a solution, so quick, so simple, provided by liberals, has something — wait, everything to do with the government, yet so WRONG"

http://www.politusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/government-out-of-medicare-sign.jpg View attachment 28161




- - - Updated - - -

 

income disparity is bad for everyone

[video=youtube;q-rpkZe2OEo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-rpkZe2OEo[/video]

 

Tom gave Jim 500 bucks for a HJ. Jim took the job, but later felt really, really gay and asked Tom to give him a HJ while agreed to pay him 250 bucks back.

In the end, Tom lost 250, Jim made 250, total wealth gain = 0, GDP increased : 500 + 250 = 750 by two transactions.

That's basically what GDP is.

On a more serious note, didn't you try to say:
If America's wealth * rate of growth < Wealthy American's wealth * their rate of growth, then your point was made?

 

Using administrative power? Setting up entry barriers? Then yea, I'm against that too.

If they maintain monopoly by providing unbeatable prices and services, there isn't much point in de-monopolizing them is there?

 

gdp growth comes from a growing middle-class

 

Your point being...?

 

Robert Reich is bad for everyone.

 

so what do you do to solve your perceived problem

do you solve it by bring the poor up or do you solve it by dragging the rich down?

 

Define unbeatable prices,

Prices rise when there is no competition.

 

how is that?

you haven't been paying attention

first of all, 99% of the people need to stop voting against there own interests


There is no single solution for reversing widening inequality. Thomas Piketty&#8217;s monumental book &#8220;Capital in the Twenty-First Century&#8221; paints a troubling picture of societies dominated by a comparative few, whose cumulative wealth and unearned income overshadow the majority who rely on jobs and earned income. But our future is not set in stone, and Piketty&#8217;s description of past and current trends need not determine our path in the future. Here are ten initiatives that could reverse the trends described above:

1) Make work pay. The fastest-growing categories of work are retail, restaurant (including fast food), hospital (especially orderlies and staff), hotel, childcare and eldercare. But these jobs tend to pay very little. A first step toward making work pay is to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, pegging it to inflation; abolish the tipped minimum wage; and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. No American who works full time should be in poverty.

2) Unionize low-wage workers. The rise and fall of the American middle class correlates almost exactly with the rise and fall of private-sector unions, because unions gave the middle class the bargaining power it needed to secure a fair share of the gains from economic growth. We need to reinvigorate unions, beginning with low-wage service occupations that are sheltered from global competition and from labor-replacing technologies. Lower-wage Americans deserve more bargaining power.

3) Invest in education. This investment should extend from early childhood through world-class primary and secondary schools, affordable public higher education, good technical education and lifelong learning. Education should not be thought of as a private investment; it is a public good that helps both individuals and the economy. Yet for too many Americans, high-quality education is unaffordable and unattainable. Every American should have an equal opportunity to make the most of herself or himself. High-quality education should be freely available to all, starting at the age of 3 and extending through four years of university or technical education.

4) Invest in infrastructure. Many working Americans&#8212;especially those on the lower rungs of the income ladder&#8212;are hobbled by an obsolete infrastructure that generates long commutes to work, excessively high home and rental prices, inadequate Internet access, insufficient power and water sources, and unnecessary environmental degradation. Every American should have access to an infrastructure suitable to the richest nation in the world.

5) Pay for these investments with higher taxes on the wealthy. Between the end of World War II and 1981 (when the wealthiest were getting paid a far lower share of total national income), the highest marginal federal income tax rate never fell below 70 percent, and the effective rate (including tax deductions and credits) hovered around 50 percent. But with Ronald Reagan&#8217;s tax cut of 1981, followed by George W. Bush&#8217;s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, the taxes on top incomes were slashed, and tax loopholes favoring the wealthy were widened. The implicit promise&#8212;sometimes made explicit&#8212;was that the benefits from such cuts would trickle down to the broad middle class and even to the poor. As I&#8217;ve shown, however, nothing trickled down. At a time in American history when the after-tax incomes of the wealthy continue to soar, while median household incomes are falling, and when we must invest far more in education and infrastructure, it seems appropriate to raise the top marginal tax rate and close tax loopholes that disproportionately favor the wealthy.

6) Make the payroll tax progressive. Payroll taxes account for 40 percent of government revenues, yet they are not nearly as progressive as income taxes. One way to make the payroll tax more progressive would be to exempt the first $15,000 of wages and make up the difference by removing the cap on the portion of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes.

7) Raise the estate tax and eliminate the &#8220;stepped-up basis&#8221; for determining capital gains at death. As Piketty warns, the United States, like other rich nations, could be moving toward an oligarchy of inherited wealth and away from a meritocracy based on labor income. The most direct way to reduce the dominance of inherited wealth is to raise the estate tax by triggering it at $1 million of wealth per person rather than its current $5.34 million (and thereafter peg those levels to inflation). We should also eliminate the &#8220;stepped-up basis&#8221; rule that lets heirs avoid capital gains taxes on the appreciation of assets that occurred before the death of their benefactors.

8] Constrain Wall Street. The financial sector has added to the burdens of the middle class and the poor through excesses that were the proximate cause of an economic crisis in 2008, similar to the crisis of 1929. Even though capital requirements have been tightened and oversight strengthened, the biggest banks are still too big to fail, jail or curtail&#8212;and therefore capable of generating another crisis. The Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial- and investment-banking functions, should be resurrected in full, and the size of the nation&#8217;s biggest banks should be capped.

9) Give all Americans a share in future economic gains. The richest 10 percent of Americans own roughly 80 percent of the value of the nation&#8217;s capital stock; the richest 1 percent own about 35 percent. As the returns to capital continue to outpace the returns to labor, this allocation of ownership further aggravates inequality. Ownership should be broadened through a plan that would give every newborn American an &#8220;opportunity share&#8221; worth, say, $5,000 in a diversified index of stocks and bonds&#8212;which, compounded over time, would be worth considerably more. The share could be cashed in gradually starting at the age of 18.

10) Get big money out of politics. Last, but certainly not least, we must limit the political influence of the great accumulations of wealth that are threatening our democracy and drowning out the voices of average Americans. The Supreme Court&#8217;s 2010 Citizens United decision must be reversed&#8212;either by the Court itself, or by constitutional amendment. In the meantime, we must move toward the public financing of elections&#8212;for example, with the federal government giving presidential candidates, as well as House and Senate candidates in general elections, $2 for every $1 raised from small donors.

Building a Movement

It&#8217;s doubtful that these and other measures designed to reverse widening inequality will be enacted anytime soon. Having served in Washington, I know how difficult it is to get anything done unless the broad public understands what&#8217;s at stake and actively pushes for reform.

That&#8217;s why we need a movement for shared prosperity&#8212;a movement on a scale similar to the Progressive movement at the turn of the last century, which fueled the first progressive income tax and antitrust laws; the suffrage movement, which won women the vote; the labor movement, which helped animate the New Deal and fueled the great prosperity of the first three decades after World War II; the civil rights movement, which achieved the landmark Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts; and the environmental movement, which spawned the National Environmental Policy Act and other critical legislation.

Time and again, when the situation demands it, America has saved capitalism from its own excesses. We put ideology aside and do what&#8217;s necessary. No other nation is as fundamentally pragmatic. We will reverse the trend toward widening inequality eventually. We have no choice. But we must organize and mobilize in order that it be done.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/13/robert_reich_10_ways_to_close_the_inequality_gap_partner/

 

How 'bout ah... you admit you know as much about GDP as I do?

 

Hey, I know absolutely jack about GDP so I stay out.

 

i have an advanced degree in economics and decades of business experience

 

Joe the furniture shop owner buy 15 beds at 300 dollar each (just an example)

Bed bath and beyond buy the same bed at 220 dollars with the quantity of 1000 items, distributed to chains all over America.

Joe sayz: "F this S, I can't possibly compete".

 

You see, that's the thing. Joe the individual can't compete, but Joe the corporation can. But only if there's no monopoly.

 

Mod edit,,flounder, 2

Founded in San Francisco in 1899, McRoskey Mattress Company has enjoyed longstanding success as a local manufacturer and retailer. By employing hundreds of Bay Area residents who have built tens of thousands of mattresses and box springs that provide countless comfortable nights of sleep, McRoskey is truly &#8220;embedded&#8221; in the community. Using only the finest materials and hand-crafting techniques that have achieved a worldwide reputation, McRoskey has served generation after generation of loyal customers who appreciate a sumptuous night&#8217;s sleep.

http://www.mcroskey.com/about-us.html

 

The former of course. It requires work. The later however, requires only tax.

 

So? What's the point?

 

that you were wrong

 

No I'm not.

By the way, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Monty Pythoin style arguing and I can do it all day.

Even if it will accomplish nothing.

 

I disagree.

 

with what?

mcrosky says you are


Middle-class squeeze

The middle-class squeeze is the situation where increases in wages fail to keep up with inflation for middle-income earners, while at the same time, the phenomenon fails to have a similar impact on the top wage earners. Persons belonging to the middle class find that inflation in consumer goods and the housing market prevent them from maintaining a middle-class lifestyle, making downward mobility a threat to counteract aspirations of upward mobility. In the United States for example, middle-class income is declining while many staple products are increasing in price, such as energy, education, housing, and insurance.

Charles Weston summarizes the middle-class squeeze in this way: "Being middle class used to mean having a reliable job with fair pay; access to health care; a safe and stable home; the opportunity to provide a good education for one&#8217;s children, including a college education; time off work for vacations and major life events; and the security of looking forward to a dignified retirement. But today this standard of living is increasingly precarious. The existing middle class is squeezed and many of those striving to attain the middle-class standard find it persistently out of reach." This squeeze is also characterised by the fact that, since the early 1980s, when European integration got into full swing, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom have experienced strong real wage growth, while real wage growth in the United States has remained sluggish for the most part. From 1979 to 1995, hourly wages declined among men in almost every occupational category apart from the highest paid white-collar professions.

As noted by the British historian and journalist Godfrey Hodgson,

"On the basis of such evidence I myself have written that &#8220;by all statistical measures . . . the United States, in terms of income and wealth, is the most unequal country in the world. While the average income in the United States is still almost the highest in the world . . . the gap between wealth and poverty is higher than anywhere else, and is growing steadily greater&#8221;."

As noted by another historian,

&#8220;Not long ago, unskilled US workers enjoyed what might have been called an &#8220;American premium.&#8221; They were paid more than labourers with the same skills in other parts of the world simply because, as unskilled Americans, they would work with higher capital-to-labor ratios, better raw materials, and larger numbers of highly skilled fellow workers than their foreign counterparts. As a result, America&#8217;s unskilled workers were relatively more productive and thus earned higher wages than similar unskilled workers elsewhere in the world.&#8221;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle-class_squeeze

 

This is something completely different that what we were discussing.