When did I say I have Top Secret clearance ?
You just love lying about people on ET who don't fit your agenda.
Here is my PM to you which was made public, everyone should read.
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?t=284967
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
THE Super Ultra Wealthy Man can see the future, he sees horror ahead
- Thread starter Ucan'tEatBonds
- Start date
When did I say I have Top Secret clearance ?
You just love lying about people on ET who don't fit your agenda.
Here is my PM to you which was made public, everyone should read.
http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?t=284967
Just out of curiosity, do you have any actual evidence to back up the various claims you have made?
I am going to be brutally honest with you here, don't take it as hateful.
If you are 40-50 year old guy, and you don't even know about D.U.M.B. military bases across US and Canada even, that are connected by underground rail.
The location and size of these bases/cities is COMMON KNOWLEDGE in 2014 alternative media.
But if you don't even know that, let alone an iceberg more you are not aware of, then I can't help you, too late for you to switch to other sources of information.
You might as well stick with your bookmarks of CNN, FOX, MSN, BBC, CBC and local TV news stations.
That is a weak argument imho and here is why:
Not everyone wants to get ahead in life, not everyone wants to pursue a cutting-edge career, many people are happy with what they got, their 9-5 job, their average salary, their mid-sized car,... Sure everyone wants more if you give it to them for free, no question. But a majority is not willing to bend over backwards for the additional dollar in their pockets. The problem does not lie with those people.
The problem lies with a severe lack of opportunities for those who are ambitious, those who work hard, those who do their best to get ahead. Opportunities are shrinking everywhere you look at. This I would identify as the core problem. What I call "Big Corp" (large corporates that have their thumb on everything around them) in most industrialized countries are crushing entrepreneurs, start-ups, established small-midsized businesses. Some economies, such as the US have embarked on a policy to setting very little to no ceilings for large corporates, meaning, they can pretty much get around everything they want to, either through their own pricing power, or through legal loopholes, or through lobby representation, or if nothing else works through illegal activities (which all they have to do afterwards is hire excellent lawyers and agree on a fine without admitting or denying any wrong-doing whatsoever. No criminal charges, no nothing...).
The IT sector created a whole new set of opportunities and that is what I call "disruptive technologies", basically innovation that challenges and turns the head upside-down of the status quo. But most groups in the IT sector at large are nowadays also very mature and turn into the same vultures than the brick and mortar firms they challenged and declared victory over before. Facebook does not respect the privacy concerns of regulators, nor its own consumers, and nowadays it does not even care anymore about the ways its own business partners and companies that pay them advertising dollars prefer to do business (prioritizing personal messages over corporate messages in news streams for example). They sling from one end of the spectrum to the next, appeasing one party today and kicking the very same party in the ass tomorrow to whore themselves out to a new entity all for that little extra punch on the bottom line.
Lack of opportunities: Everyone can nowadays become a millionaire with a successful iPhone app? Sorry but if you are remotely connected to this sector then you might understand that this is all but an illusion. Unless you are connected with the right channels (and I pointed out that all the way deep into the venture capital and private equity channels certain requirements in terms of ethnical heritage exist to get the foot into the door, at least nowadays. Wanna secure funding from bankers? Well same story there. The times where you get a break because you simply have a grandiose idea and convince a financial backer to take you on are over. You belong to a certain ethnic "segment" and wanna produce a shitty c-level movie? No problem. You have an absolute perfect script and are not part of that group? Good luck with that.
Bottom line is, and I entirely leave this ethnic segment behind from now, that the importance of relationships and connections is the key point to success and not your product, the idea, your efforts anymore. If you are not born into the right circles it has today become harder than EVER before to get even a very unfair but yet some sort of shot in this society.
If as a middle class person with a median income in the US you find it hard to impossible to maintain an average life even when you have two income earners then there is something seriously wrong with this system. When you have spiraling out of control health care expenses (and I seriously challenge that the American quality of health care for your average insurance policy holder even reaches the standards of Germany, Hong Kong, and many other European nations) and cannot even afford checkups anymore because powerful lobby groups that represent big corp then there is something seriously wrong. If illegal immigrants can cross the border and be tolerated and can even hope to get amnesty while highly talented European engineers, researchers, experienced employees cannot get a US visa because the quota has already been reached then something is seriously wrong with this system. If you spend billions of dollars on defense and yet lose pretty much every major military intervention over time (for sake of intelligent after-math planning and execution) then something is seriously wrong. Bottom line is that opportunities have become less, I never claimed there ever were equal opportunities but opportunities nowadays are shrinking for someone from the middle to rise to the top because those at the top defend their spots much more vigorously and most importantly because the top has advanced at such insane, ridiculous, mind-numbing speed not because they really do so much better but because they are so good at exploiting loop holes and because regulators do not care anymore or are incapable of caring. Why is capital taxed at much lower rates than income? How can large corporates hardly pay a penny in taxes? What the crap is that? How come success at the top is privatized and failure is not only socialized but rewarded with millions in golden handshakes and parachutes.
The article is crap by someone who is hallucinating and has serious problems with identifying the real problems. I guess if you live so far removed from reality in some jet set stratosphere you lose sight of the true problems that plague this world. I recommend the author to continue focusing on what he does best: Ignore true needs and reward hording, favoritism, and indulgence.
Not everyone wants to get ahead in life, not everyone wants to pursue a cutting-edge career, many people are happy with what they got, their 9-5 job, their average salary, their mid-sized car,... Sure everyone wants more if you give it to them for free, no question. But a majority is not willing to bend over backwards for the additional dollar in their pockets. The problem does not lie with those people.
The problem lies with a severe lack of opportunities for those who are ambitious, those who work hard, those who do their best to get ahead. Opportunities are shrinking everywhere you look at. This I would identify as the core problem. What I call "Big Corp" (large corporates that have their thumb on everything around them) in most industrialized countries are crushing entrepreneurs, start-ups, established small-midsized businesses. Some economies, such as the US have embarked on a policy to setting very little to no ceilings for large corporates, meaning, they can pretty much get around everything they want to, either through their own pricing power, or through legal loopholes, or through lobby representation, or if nothing else works through illegal activities (which all they have to do afterwards is hire excellent lawyers and agree on a fine without admitting or denying any wrong-doing whatsoever. No criminal charges, no nothing...).
The IT sector created a whole new set of opportunities and that is what I call "disruptive technologies", basically innovation that challenges and turns the head upside-down of the status quo. But most groups in the IT sector at large are nowadays also very mature and turn into the same vultures than the brick and mortar firms they challenged and declared victory over before. Facebook does not respect the privacy concerns of regulators, nor its own consumers, and nowadays it does not even care anymore about the ways its own business partners and companies that pay them advertising dollars prefer to do business (prioritizing personal messages over corporate messages in news streams for example). They sling from one end of the spectrum to the next, appeasing one party today and kicking the very same party in the ass tomorrow to whore themselves out to a new entity all for that little extra punch on the bottom line.
Lack of opportunities: Everyone can nowadays become a millionaire with a successful iPhone app? Sorry but if you are remotely connected to this sector then you might understand that this is all but an illusion. Unless you are connected with the right channels (and I pointed out that all the way deep into the venture capital and private equity channels certain requirements in terms of ethnical heritage exist to get the foot into the door, at least nowadays. Wanna secure funding from bankers? Well same story there. The times where you get a break because you simply have a grandiose idea and convince a financial backer to take you on are over. You belong to a certain ethnic "segment" and wanna produce a shitty c-level movie? No problem. You have an absolute perfect script and are not part of that group? Good luck with that.
Bottom line is, and I entirely leave this ethnic segment behind from now, that the importance of relationships and connections is the key point to success and not your product, the idea, your efforts anymore. If you are not born into the right circles it has today become harder than EVER before to get even a very unfair but yet some sort of shot in this society.
If as a middle class person with a median income in the US you find it hard to impossible to maintain an average life even when you have two income earners then there is something seriously wrong with this system. When you have spiraling out of control health care expenses (and I seriously challenge that the American quality of health care for your average insurance policy holder even reaches the standards of Germany, Hong Kong, and many other European nations) and cannot even afford checkups anymore because powerful lobby groups that represent big corp then there is something seriously wrong. If illegal immigrants can cross the border and be tolerated and can even hope to get amnesty while highly talented European engineers, researchers, experienced employees cannot get a US visa because the quota has already been reached then something is seriously wrong with this system. If you spend billions of dollars on defense and yet lose pretty much every major military intervention over time (for sake of intelligent after-math planning and execution) then something is seriously wrong. Bottom line is that opportunities have become less, I never claimed there ever were equal opportunities but opportunities nowadays are shrinking for someone from the middle to rise to the top because those at the top defend their spots much more vigorously and most importantly because the top has advanced at such insane, ridiculous, mind-numbing speed not because they really do so much better but because they are so good at exploiting loop holes and because regulators do not care anymore or are incapable of caring. Why is capital taxed at much lower rates than income? How can large corporates hardly pay a penny in taxes? What the crap is that? How come success at the top is privatized and failure is not only socialized but rewarded with millions in golden handshakes and parachutes.
The article is crap by someone who is hallucinating and has serious problems with identifying the real problems. I guess if you live so far removed from reality in some jet set stratosphere you lose sight of the true problems that plague this world. I recommend the author to continue focusing on what he does best: Ignore true needs and reward hording, favoritism, and indulgence.
The main problem is not the government, the CEOs, the Fed, or any of that. I am not defending any of those, mind you, but the main problem is us. As mentioned above, for most people, it takes effort and sacrifice to get ahead. One has to give up their comfortable evenings on the couch drinking beer and watching Dancing with the Stars or whatever people watch now, or going out with their friends. And most people are just not willing to do any of that. There will be no serious revolt as long as people can procreate (which keeps them tied to their crummy jobs or government payments), get high, and watch television. Anesthesia will trump ambition for most.
For those who are ambitious--well, they don't sit around bitching about CEOs, immigration, government incompetence, and so forth--they just get on with it and figure out how to better their own lives. Personally, at different times in my life I (and many people I know) have worked 2 jobs, worked and gone to school full time at the same time, studied till midnight, worked at a job and run a business on the side, worked for assholes, lived in crappy places with cockroaches, etc., all so that I would never have to do any of those things again. There is nothing unique or special in what I have done. Thousands of people have done these things, and pulled themselves up just the same way, some against much greater odds than I ever faced. There is no reason that others cannot do the same, except that reproducing, drinking, toking, watching sports, and sitcoms are maybe more fun.
People are making their own choices. As long as they are content to keep watching TV and complaining about everything, the TV will be deciding who wins the elections. And the people who fund the TV will make sure that Facebook, TV, booze, dope, and making babies remain cheap and easy, and that getting an education, saving money, and succeeding in business remain difficult. They will make sure that all restless, angry young people with no education and few good prospects have an opportunity to join the military, or at least maybe go to prison, so they can't bother the 0.1%.
of course I can know that, and you can know that as well if you looked at public records because most significant giving is publicized either by the recipients unless otherwise instructed or it is reflected in tax records or the like. Often it is openly mentioned by the benefactor him/herself. Google is your best friend. There are several statistics out there where known individuals in the 1% bracket are profiled, including their giving and donation records.
Please do not claim that a certain ethnic/racial group donates anonymously while everyone else announces their gratuities.
Please do not claim that a certain ethnic/racial group donates anonymously while everyone else announces their gratuities.
There is no way you can know who donates to what. When I donate money, no one asks me about my ethnic background.
I think wealth accumulating at the top is a natural phenomenon. Those at the top are good at accumulating wealth so they will continue to do so. Further, as they accumulate wealth, its gets even easier to do so. You see this in developing countries as they privatize sectors and it's generally happened throughout history.
However, there are some very positive trends in the US. It's easier than ever to start a small business and succeed. And there is a trend by the uber-wealthy to not create dynastic wealth: the Giving Pledge. Finally disruptive technologies ensure that no one can get a lock on the economy the way the oil companies and the railway barons did in the late 1800's.
Finally, I'm surprised at EliteTraders would be concerned about wealth accumulation and current fed policy. The system that the author in the OP describes, is designed for financial investor/trader; especially given that a professional retail trader should be good at accumulating wealth. And with the fed policy adding long term volatility to the markets, the typical elitetrader should be happy with his current profits and salivating at the profits he will enjoy when the Unwind happens.
However, there are some very positive trends in the US. It's easier than ever to start a small business and succeed. And there is a trend by the uber-wealthy to not create dynastic wealth: the Giving Pledge. Finally disruptive technologies ensure that no one can get a lock on the economy the way the oil companies and the railway barons did in the late 1800's.
Finally, I'm surprised at EliteTraders would be concerned about wealth accumulation and current fed policy. The system that the author in the OP describes, is designed for financial investor/trader; especially given that a professional retail trader should be good at accumulating wealth. And with the fed policy adding long term volatility to the markets, the typical elitetrader should be happy with his current profits and salivating at the profits he will enjoy when the Unwind happens.
I am not arguing with your statements regarding the ideas that the author of the original article discusses. You're certainly entitled to your opinions.so, you are telling us that my pointing out that the article reflects a very distorted view by the author in that he
* Has a very questionable track record of giving, volunteering, basically caring for those in need and providing opportunities for the needy and those who lack opportunities (he in fact focused his entire life on providing opportunities to the top tier rather than the needy)
* makes a pretty dumb argument saying that his adversaries claim the top 1% are good for America because they consume more than the average person, while nobody actually ever built a core argument on top of such assumption while he completely omits why in actuality the top 1% benefit the average American consumer through providing employment and through higher absolute tax payments
* provides zero backup for his assumption that increasing minimum wage by 50%+ will not drive away more blue collar jobs, completely ignoring that the wage gap between the US and China was the PRECISE reason why Detroit is what it is today, and ignoring the fact that not every American is educated enough and ambitious enough (and neither is everyone in any nation) to pursue a white collar career
and
* stating the fact that the historical reasons for anti-semitism are completely distorted by powerful Jewish factions in media, politics, finance, education in that they attack anyone who dares to look at faults and behaviour by Jewish individuals, families, conglomerates that for centuries disadvantaged those around them in any civilization they chose to live and benefit from, while all cannot spend enough efforts to time and again emphasize the Holocaust (which I fully acknowledge along with all other crimes committed against Jewish communities in many parts of the world); pointing out that there is a very distorted picture drawn in history books, movies, documentaries, articles in journals, educational literature, TV, internet about the origin of anti-semitism
and
* that I linked up this article and the open admission of the author's Jewish roots with the fact that statistically those in the top 1% bracket in the US who claim Jewish roots are the least generous givers who have very little intent to give back to society what they benefitted from relative to other racial groups
If you think that is bizarre then I cannot help it. If you merely were startled at someone daring to use the term "jewish/jew/judaism" then just ignore and move on, but just accusing someone to be bizarre and having nothing to add of value does not reflect too well on your discourse qualities or ability to accept others hold views you may not value or appreciate much.
My point is solely that, like every anti-Semite out there, you make unsubstantiated statements and fallacious arguments like "if people don't like Jews, it must be the Jews' fault". If you care to offer any actual statistical data that corroborates any of the statements you have made about the "people with Jewish roots", pls do not hesitate. Similarly, if you have any evidence whatsoever of the "distortions" in the public perceptions that you have mentioned, pls also feel free. And yes, I AM asking, as you suggested to drcha. One of the reasons I am asking is that, with my mad Google skillz, I have managed to locate quite a bit of evidence that leads me to conclude that the exact opposite of what you have stated is true. But let's not jump the gun. I await your response with bated breath.
I am really curious... How do "death taxes" create income inequality, jem? What's the exact mechanism?massive inflation... even conservatively at least 700 percent in the last 50 years, progressive income taxes, state taxes and a death taxed are designed to create income inequality. now obamacare just ripped another 5 grand a from tax payers.
I am really curious... How do "death taxes" create income inequality, jem? What's the exact mechanism?
I don't want to speak for him so my opinion to that would be the idea that some think that tax dollars taken from whoever don't actually go to the poor but to the oligarchs. So money actually flows up, not down. Thereby making the rich richer and widening the spread between the rich and the poor.
the thing about trading, is one can not dismiss anybody's opinion, views, statements without really:
- finding out about it , even if it is to disqualify the statement
- not shooting the messenger. I have known many people being labelled anti-semitic, racist, and all type of names, when the "messenger" was shedding lights on some aspects AND the person was absolutely not anti-semitic. If the person turned out to have jewish ancestry, the person was labelled "self-hating" jew.
It is best to discuss facts and statements.
The problem with messengers is the language. Now, in third world countries, usually when an ethnic group arrives in power, they silence all criticism, remove all people in key positions ( all government, media, ...) to put in their ethnic village. We are lucky in the West to not accept this type of tribalist mindset with all the attitudes that entails ( group mobbing, etc...), in the same vein it took a lot of work to have "anti-trust" laws, laws against children under 12 working 16hours/day. Those who asked for these clarifications were at the time "labelled".
So now, coming to the posts that are 'exciting' people :
- is there a concentration of power in the US as well?
- is this concentration of power ethnicised?
- what are the effects for the rest of the population?
- what are the effects for the US country?
These are important questions when it comes to trading.
So please, focus on not shooting the messengers, and stop "labels" and the
witchhunt. Thanks.
- finding out about it , even if it is to disqualify the statement
- not shooting the messenger. I have known many people being labelled anti-semitic, racist, and all type of names, when the "messenger" was shedding lights on some aspects AND the person was absolutely not anti-semitic. If the person turned out to have jewish ancestry, the person was labelled "self-hating" jew.
It is best to discuss facts and statements.
The problem with messengers is the language. Now, in third world countries, usually when an ethnic group arrives in power, they silence all criticism, remove all people in key positions ( all government, media, ...) to put in their ethnic village. We are lucky in the West to not accept this type of tribalist mindset with all the attitudes that entails ( group mobbing, etc...), in the same vein it took a lot of work to have "anti-trust" laws, laws against children under 12 working 16hours/day. Those who asked for these clarifications were at the time "labelled".
So now, coming to the posts that are 'exciting' people :
- is there a concentration of power in the US as well?
- is this concentration of power ethnicised?
- what are the effects for the rest of the population?
- what are the effects for the US country?
These are important questions when it comes to trading.
So please, focus on not shooting the messengers, and stop "labels" and the
witchhunt. Thanks.
The problem with this debate is there seems to be at least in academic circles a distinction made between income inequality and wealth inequality. I'm more concerned with wealth inequality. Most libertarian minded people are in that camp. More center left people are concerned with income inequality. My economic background tells me that the market for wages is pretty competitive and the value of labor is derived from the cost to replace that labor. Now one might say that is sort of a "heartless" approach to the problem, but I find math does a better job of leaving out the biases created by emotion and ideology.
Wealth inequality on the other hand is a huge concern for me. People who have wealth obviously have the ability to compound it at an exponential rate over time. The poor have the inverse problem. They have debt. And debt also compounds exponentially over time. So their net worth in a way is also growing, but in the wrong direction. Raising wages does not fix this problem. And again, having studied economics, we know that simply raising the cost of labor only delivers a short term effect. Eventually the firms supply curve shifts to the left and through the marginal rate of substitution increases demand for capital (K). This results in fewer jobs and more money going into capital investment. Even most left leaning economists agree to this now.
Some of the more "progressive" leaning economists now are supporting a "wealth" tax. A very small one, but the data on it is pretty convincing. It provides a much larger impact then raising minimum wages or increasing income taxes or estate taxes.
My personal view is that whatever is taken from the populace in the form of taxes should not be distributed in the form of a check. Money does not fix poverty or reduce it. Education does. The data on that is also overwhelming. And if one were truly serious about overall wealth inequality, instead of handing out a welfare check, I would hand out an asset. Wealth is built from assets, not money. Money is simply a medium of exchange. It is not wealth.
I guess in the end, most people want the game to be fair. You will always have the have's and have nots, but at least allow people to work for it.
Wealth inequality on the other hand is a huge concern for me. People who have wealth obviously have the ability to compound it at an exponential rate over time. The poor have the inverse problem. They have debt. And debt also compounds exponentially over time. So their net worth in a way is also growing, but in the wrong direction. Raising wages does not fix this problem. And again, having studied economics, we know that simply raising the cost of labor only delivers a short term effect. Eventually the firms supply curve shifts to the left and through the marginal rate of substitution increases demand for capital (K). This results in fewer jobs and more money going into capital investment. Even most left leaning economists agree to this now.
Some of the more "progressive" leaning economists now are supporting a "wealth" tax. A very small one, but the data on it is pretty convincing. It provides a much larger impact then raising minimum wages or increasing income taxes or estate taxes.
My personal view is that whatever is taken from the populace in the form of taxes should not be distributed in the form of a check. Money does not fix poverty or reduce it. Education does. The data on that is also overwhelming. And if one were truly serious about overall wealth inequality, instead of handing out a welfare check, I would hand out an asset. Wealth is built from assets, not money. Money is simply a medium of exchange. It is not wealth.
I guess in the end, most people want the game to be fair. You will always have the have's and have nots, but at least allow people to work for it.