Tsunami of wealth didn't trickle down...it surged upward...yep news to me!!!

[S2007S]

Is that so....well thanks for letting us know....like we didn't know this occurrence happening for last how many decades???? Come on wake the Fu$k up we know this is reality, that the wealthy will continue to become even more wealthier while all those hundreds of millions of others are going absolutely no where in terms of prosperity....the rich get richer widening the gap continuously...this has been known...it's not going to change...it will never change....that's a fact...anyone talking about closing that gap is lying. The gap will never close. The "market system" was built to leave people hopelessly behind, that's the truth.....



He points to the Forbes 400, which lists the wealthiest Americans. "Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold — from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion — while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn't trickle down. It surged upward."


America's capitalist economy requires its winners not ignore the system's faults, says Buffett.

The market system has "left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace," writes Buffett.



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html

 

[noddyboy]

Is that so....well thanks for letting us know....like we didn't know this occurrence happening for last how many decades???? Come on wake the Fu$k up we know this is reality, that the wealthy will continue to become even more wealthier while all those hundreds of millions of others are going absolutely no where in terms of prosperity....the rich get richer widening the gap continuously...this has been known...it's not going to change...it will never change....that's a fact...anyone talking about closing that gap is lying. The gap will never close. The "market system" was built to leave people hopelessly behind, that's the truth.....



He points to the Forbes 400, which lists the wealthiest Americans. "Between the first computation in 1982 and today, the wealth of the 400 increased 29-fold — from $93 billion to $2.7 trillion — while many millions of hardworking citizens remained stuck on an economic treadmill. During this period, the tsunami of wealth didn't trickle down. It surged upward."


America's capitalist economy requires its winners not ignore the system's faults, says Buffett.

The market system has "left many people hopelessly behind, particularly as it has become ever more specialized. These devastating side effects can be ameliorated: a rich family takes care of all its children, not just those with talents valued by the marketplace," writes Buffett.



https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/warren-buffett-on-the-failure-of-trickle-down-economics.html

Well that is the reality we live in.

 

[toc]

While not arguing with the topic, but S&P500 was 122 in Jan-82 and is 2723 in Jan-18. That is roughly 22 times the value.

Right figure would be the percent of wealth owned by Top 400 vrs rest of the population. Numbers can be manipulated easily and politicians love it.

 

[LacesOut]

Well this is simply just not true.

The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006

Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. What is even more incredible is that the global poverty rate was 53 percent in 1981, causing the decline from 53 percent to 17 percent to be "the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history."

Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1452...g-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler

 

[toc]

Well this is simply just not true.

The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006

Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. What is even more incredible is that the global poverty rate was 53 percent in 1981, causing the decline from 53 percent to 17 percent to be "the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history."

Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1452...g-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler

Lots of these numbers have to do with China, India and nearly a lot of third world adopting market economies. Given they were in the "dirt poverty" levels i.e. very low base, any improvement numbers would look really good.

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview

Am not opposing the market economy principles at all. The main topic was US demographics not the global. The global levels are way behind the US. Even western Europe looks raw middle class in comparison to North America (US & Canada).

Also average inflation of 3%/year should have income levels rise by 60% in 20 years since 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealt...Family_Income_Growth_in_the_United_States.png

 

[piezoe]

Well this is simply just not true.

The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006

Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. What is even more incredible is that the global poverty rate was 53 percent in 1981, causing the decline from 53 percent to 17 percent to be "the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history."

Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/1452...g-how-capitalism-solves-poverty-aaron-bandler

The folks in line at the soup kitchen are going to be cheered by this. If only they were able to read what you have written, they would blow you a big kiss. Thanks for posting.

 

[piezoe]

Guys, there is a comprehensive study of this topic and the findings are summarized in a new book, "Capital in the 21st Century" , by Thomas Piketty. Wealth disparity is a normal consequence of the return on capital being greater than the economic growth rate. Some policies accelerate the rate of growth in wealth disparity, some decelerate it, and some are more or less neutral in that respect. Collapsing many brackets in a progressive income tax into a few and/or lowering the top marginal rate accelerates; adding more brackets and/or raising the top marginal rate decelerates. Taxing unearned income at lower rates than earned accelerates; taxing unearned income at the same or higher rates than earned is neutral or decelerates. Supply side economic stimulus accelerates; demand side stimulus is closer to neutral or slightly decelerating. Republican politicians favor policies that accelerate; Democrat politicians favor policies that are neutral or slightly decelerating. The initial Reagan tax cuts were highly accelerating; the current tax legislation just passed is highly accelerating.

The United States has by far the greatest wealth disparity of any industrialized nation and it is accelerating. The reason for this is very well-known among economists. Rapidly growing wealth disparity is socially destabilizing, not because some have much more than others but because the money at the top comes from those at the bottom. This is an unfortunate reality. Pumping more fiat money into an economy via deficit spending so that those at the top and bottom can all have more money does not solve the problem, because inflation prevents those at the bottom from having substantially more buying power. There are humane solutions to this problem that benefit rich and poor alike but they are unpopular among the rich who are the policy makers.

That the dangers of rapidly growing wealth disparity can be avoided for many decades is proven by the economic paths taken in the industrialized countries, including in the U.S. The process of wealth gaining at the top is inherently exponential (it follows the mathematical form of compound interest laws) ; yet it is not, in principle, unavoidable. Nevertheless practical experience may be telling us that conditions can arise that make the process irreversible until there is a collapse at the point where the poor can give no more. In the past, this has resulted in painful revolution. When conditions leading to irreversibility occur, is it human nature that stymies rational resolution. Has the U.S. entered the irreversible phase?

 

[Trader200K]

The validity of Pikety's thesis depends on focusing simply on capyield and growth 'only' ... as one more prop for his clearly academ-nemic, anti-capital leaning.

Thousands of other parameters impact this and thus make his thesis as dismal as his field. (And if that doesn't square with your personal deductive analysis, I have a grail trading system to sell you for only $9,999 that wins 98% of the time trading any instrument with only the simplicity of an SMA 11 & 46 crossover using biweekly data).

IMHO, the total misdirection, bureaucratization and destruction of our K-BS educational systems is the simplest example of a systemic problem that has a far more deleterious absolute dollar-in-the-pocket impact than the race between Chuck Chuck Bobuck that saved up for 300 XOM and Johnny Fryboi that can barely make change with the help of a cash register, knows 'capital' only as a form of punishment because of his Uncle Bob and thinks The Federalist Papers are cool weed rollers from the District of Columbia.

I see this . every . stinkin' . day.

'Trickle Down' is just one of many pointless, time consuming distractions to keep us from discussing and addressing the 'untouchable' underlying problem systems that need dismantled/rebuilt from ground zero.

/rant off
T

 

[toc]

That the dangers of rapidly growing wealth disparity can be avoided for many decades is proven by the economic paths taken in the industrialized countries, including in the U.S. The process of wealth gaining at the top is inherently exponential (it follows the mathematical form of compound interest laws) ; yet it is not, in principle, unavoidable.

Good insight and inputs Mr. Piezoe !!

Free healthcare for all even at the cost of slightly higher taxes should be among the main responses towards seeking wealth parity.

When productivity rises and incomes/wages do not keep up, then the entities holding the "production enterprises" will constantly benefit. More so, when inflation does not seem to be declining vis-a-vis historical numbers.

 

[piezoe]

Free healthcare for all even at the cost of slightly higher taxes should be among the main responses towards seeking wealth parity.

I completely agree that this, specifically in the U.S., would be an effective means of partially ameliorating the ill effects of extreme wealth disparity. It would have relatively negligible effect on the wealthy, a large beneficial effect on the middle class, and be simplifying with regard to the poor, as the separate medicaid programs which vary State to State could be eliminated. Of course by "Free" you meant some form of Single Payer with effective price control such as medicare for all with prescribing pharmacists. The latter feature is implemented in virtually all other industrialized nations and has a major effect on costs and beneficial secondary effect. But, as always, the devil is in the details, and if medical providers are allowed to continue using regulatory capture to maintain their Cartel, then Single Payer would not save nearly what it could.

It seems we are doomed to proceed headlong into crisis before we can expect truly effective measures to pass through Congress. There are many options, and everyone knows what they are. Each has its advocates. They are all, according to the WHO, much better than what the U.S. offers. Our problems are not for lack of solutions, they are for lack of desire to implement them among those in control who benefit from the status quo.