The richest 1 percent have more financial wealth than the bottom 95 percent combined

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
We all know the names -- that seem to be able to manipulate our political system to their end, no matter which party is in power....

Citigroup. ExxonMobil. Pfizer. ConocoPhillips. GlaxoSmithKline. JPMorgan Chase & Co. Shell/Royal Dutch Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. ING Group Dow Chemical McDonalds Procter & Gamble Capital One KPMG Novartis Chevron The Coca-Cola Company UBS Halliburton Virgin Group. Johnson & Johnson. The Walt Disney Company. American Express. Boeing.

etc etc etc etc


We no longer live in the age of Mom and Pop shop capitalism. This is Corporate Capitalism. A socialistic approach of breaking up some of that 1% wealth -- and re-distributing it among the lower 95% is now in order I think.

-----


I am not here to write a simple polemic on the evils of our current capitalist system (I think I've done that elsewhere). I am here to try to honestly figure the damned thing out -- and if this system is really a just and equitable one.


another pile of horseshit from our resident horse rectum.

Trinitom, i find it amusing how you decry the "evils" of our corporate and capitalist system...you then go on to list a variety of companies, supposedly representative of our evil system...interesting, how you failed to note, that several of those companies "whose names you know" (well obviously you know their names, but not who they are) are not even American companies, but i guess are emblems of other evil capitalist systems around the world.

for example:

Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum is of Dutch and British extraction
Glaxo - is British
ING is dutch
KPMG is dutch/british in origin
Novartis is Swiss
UBS is Swiss
Virgin is British



the age of "pure" mom and pop capitalism have been over for decades. corporate capitalism has been around for ever, and of course, in your predictably usual slipshod manner, you manage to completely ignore "small business" and "midsize business" two massively important sectors of our economy.

mom and pop stores are generally described as having under 10 employees.
small business in the USA is described as being under 100 employees.

mid size is under 500 in the USA

small business as of 2005, employed fully *HALF* of all american workers, or roughly 116.3 million people.

as for your absurd notion of mom and pop stores, here is another tidbit you of course did not know.

in 2003, “mom and pop” corner stores or home-based businesses, comprised more than 70 percent of all businesses in the USA.

there are 18.6 million "nonemployer" businesses in this country and they are the backbone of this country.


5.3 million is the Number of business establishments with fewer than 10 employees in 2003. Among those, 3.9 million employed fewer than 5 people.

mom and pop stores are still doing just fine.

every day i start my day with a bagel from the same mom and pop deli here in NYC in my neighborhood. they have been here for 55 years.


the fact is, that even all those naughty and evil corporations you seem to hate so much, have a purpose. none of the many luxuries you enjoy today can be achieved in areas without massive budgets for invention, production and R&D.

A mom and pop store cannot drill for oil, or run and maintain a continental wireless network...or produce lifesaving drugs, or heat a city. it cannot insure cities against disaster. it cannot produce movies, music, etc on a massive scale. it cannot build airplanes or automobiles.


so once again you show your myopic view Trinitom...just like your blinkered pal on the far right. you two are a match made in heaven.

oh and you "socialistic approach" to "breaking up some of that wealth and redistributing it"....is really a cute way of saying you want the government to seize, by force, that which is not yours, and give it you, because you think "it is in order".

as for you trying to honestly "figure this damned thing out", don't bother...it is clearly beyond your mental grasp.

and whoever told you this system was supposed to be a "just and equitable one"?

equitable can be defined as "Just to all parties"

and that is not at all what capitalism is or what it is designed to be, nor was it the principle that the USA was founded on.

"Equal and Just" economic or material outcomes are nowhere guaranteed, or even implied when you enter into the United States.

if you want that, move to a commune, where everyone shares everything equally.

as of now, you earn more money than most of the working and non-working poor.

that is not "equitable" is it? i think, you should give away your money to 3 other people who have less than you, so you all have the same amount.
sound good?

of course not...because it is *YOURS*. what you earn, you deserve to keep after you have paid a reasonable taxation.

the "rich" already pay far more in taxes then anyone else....and guess what?

the rich *ALWAYS* get richer. for a variety of reasons....most not having to do with things that are unjust. the rich can afford to invest more, hire investment professionals, are usually better educated and in many cases, simply more driven to earn and continue to perpetuate that wealth.

this system is not equitable...but it is just. you only receive in compensation what you are worth in terms of your replacement value in the system.

a person who takes tickets at a movie theater is a drone. easily trained, easily maintained, easily replaced. In pure economic terms, that person simply does not matter in the grand scheme of things. that job can be done by a 10 year old or less with adequate training.

a lawyer, requires significant time investment, intelligence, training, schooling, and produces far more for society.

that is just the way it is.

too bad.

the fact is, you do not want "justice"...you want equal or near equal outcomes....that is neither equitable or just to the smarter, or harder working, or more innovative etc.


you do not pay a benchwarmer the same amount of money you pay LeBron James....and you also do not expect them to score the same amount of points.

you do not want justice...you want economic vengeance.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Interest is not EARNED money, it is paid for by banks who reap the cash from the less well off in bank charges and interest on loans which the rich don't generally need. Result....the poor finance the rich.

not necessarily true at all, mitch.

because all loans are not made by banks.

corporations, state and municipal governments.

interest is earned when somebody loans their capital to another in order to be put to work for an investment of some type by the borrower.

that is the essence money "put to work"...it is the essence of capitalism at its heart...the availability of capital by entrepeneurs, investors, speculators, etc...

interestingly, perhaps the first ever use of uniform "global credit" was initiated by the Templars...(who were literally the first pan european banking system, in addition to their military and religious commitments) you could literally deposit gold with the templars in england, in exchange for a "credit" slip for a fee (or scroll with a seal in this case) and when you travelled to say Italy, you could exchange it for gold with the templar "bank" there.
 

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
Flashy --

The fact that, as you say, "in 2003, 'mom and pop' corner stores or home-based businesses, comprised more than 70 percent of all businesses in the USA" --- why are you NOT angry these hard-working businesses are not making a bigger slice of the pie?


The entire POINT of the statistics in this thread is to show that mom and pop joints and mid-sized businesses are getting shafted by that 1% elite who owns more financial wealth than most everybody at the bottom combined (which includes YOU).


You are part of the status quo, Flashy. As you purport to "defend" the mom & pop shops merely by quoting a statistic that shows they're 70% of all businesses... yes?... and?... thanks for another "stat", but....you're so helpful with stats, but... aren't you outraged that these businesses are getting only one or two percent of the pie?



You really should become a shill lobbyist for ExxonMobil or Bank of America, Flash. You are so great at shafting the middle class on the one hand, then pointing to your selected stats and "facts" to justify this shafting on the other, telling mom and pop shops, basically, that the rich will always get richer and there's nothing to be done about it.
 

Gl3nn

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Posts
1,411
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
123
Location
Somewhere in the universe
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
And what's wrong with rich people getting richer? You want to be richer as well, don't you? So why can't they become richer as well? Just because they're already rich?

Why should I be outraged that 95% of the people don't have as much money as the top 1%? That's how it is. You can whine about it or deal with it and move on. This 'us against the rich' attitude is getting boring.
 

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,402
Media
0
Likes
301
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
You really should become a shill lobbyist for ExxonMobil or Bank of America, Flash. You are so great at shafting the middle class on the one hand, then pointing to your selected stats and "facts" to justify this shafting on the other, telling mom and pop shops, basically, that the rich will always get richer and there's nothing to be done about it.

Will, I have to come out as someone who likes Flashy, although he drives me to distraction and I rarely agree with him on anything. And, although I had the misfortune to be born into the "rich", I can't do much about that except pay huge quarterly taxes and continue to vote Democratic.

One thing I have to stress, buddy, is that all is not quite as black and white as you sometimes make it although you would be inclined to think so if you were to attend a function with my massively blond, blue-eyed family. It is very easy to feel like a salmon swimming upstream and I often do, particularly with the black marks I seem to have on entering these debates. Please understand that I'm one of the greyest of trust-fund babies; much more on paper than in reality. But nonetheless. You come from where you come from and you fight for where you belive you should go. It can be difficult.

Truffle-stuffed brie aside, and we jest, I hope you know where I'm coming from.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Please, let's not fall into the trap of "redistributing" your neighbor's wealth, the guy who makes perhaps $100,000 a year.

Nobody's talking about him.

We're talking about the CEO who owns 5 billion dollars of financial wealth... and redistributing some of that wealth back into the country's infrastructure and to the have-nots in the form of a healthcare system... I know, I know. SO Marxist! So unreasonable. That CEO can survive on just one billion, I'll bet.


let's not fall in to the trap eh, Trinitom? well tell me this...

where does it end?

the wealthiest 1% as you railed on about, means roughly 3 million people.

the actual number of billionaires, is under 500. the actual huge numbers when you made this idiotic statement:
"CEO who owns 5 billion dollars of financial wealth"...

(I will assume you were using hyperbole)

since all that wealth is not just sitting in gold bullion in a swimming pool like Richie Rich, how do you propose to simply confiscate it from the few that actually have that type of cash?

most of the wealth these people own is concentrated in the stocks of the businesses they own, the value of their private companies, etc.

so you are just going to confiscate all of Michael Dell's shares in Dell Computer and hand them out? or are you going to liquidate them?

are you going to take away, say the New YOrk Yankees from George Steinbrenner? Sell his stadium, and just give the team to the people?

the fact is, people like you, understand nothing about money....the simple fact that you could come up with something this absurd:

"redistributing some of that wealth back into the country's infrastructure and to the have-nots in the form of a healthcare system"

says it all really.

so here is a fact for you. the Forbes 400 as of last October was worth a combined 1.57 trillion dollars.

you could confiscate 90% of their wealth... roughly 1.40 trillion dollars.

You know what that would get you for your little health care system? roughly 6 years of coverage for all the uninsured in this country.

that's it....what happens when the 5-6 years are up?

Now, what you wouldn't get...1.4 trillion dollars worth of capital spent, growing, and invested efficiently.

-tax receipts for the profits and capital gains on all that wealth every year for as long as it would have been in those hands, growing, investing.
-investments in countless businesses, charities, communities, consumer spending on everything that comes with that type of wealth.

instead, you would hand 1.4 trillion dollars extra to a government that cannot manage anything to the point of near competency.

or you could just take that 1.4 trillion dollars and wipe out 2/3rds of the budget deficit...for just this year.

the fact is, that you, like so many others simply do not realize, that the rich can only pay for so much. even the super rich, simply do not have enough to carry this country.

Al Gore said the "rich" in 2000, were people who were making $500,000 a year...

now, in 2008, Obama says that $250,000 a year is the line when you become rich.

wonder what that line will be in 2016. :rolleyes:

you talked about not "falling into the trap of redistributing your neighbor's wealth who makes perhaps $100,000 a year"

that's funny...you were probably the guy who when Gore said that $500,000 a year was rich, said let's not "fall into the trap of redistributing your neighbor's wealth who makes perhaps $250,000 a year".

and look where we are now.

and the fact is, those people making $300,000 per household are not some super rich jet setters.

they are hard working, white collar types usually both spouses working...doctors, lawyers, senior VP's...or small business owners.

they are "The Rich" now...

so who is next on your rich list?

you tried to joke about it being "So Marxist".

Marxism is a slippery slope.

and you still have no clue what you are talking about, Trinitom
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
We're talking about the CEO who owns 5 billion dollars of financial wealth... and redistributing some of that wealth back into the country's infrastructure and to the have-nots in the form of a healthcare system... I know, I know. SO Marxist! So unreasonable. That CEO can survive on just one billion, I'll bet.

Don't be silly. He wouldn't bother working for a lousy billion dollars.
 

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
There's a huge difference between being a doctor or lawyer or any other professional making a few hundred thousand a year...

And a capital owner who does nothing at all but sits on capital charging interest. We aren't talking about taking money out of someone's pocket putting it into another's. We are talking about the means of production for an entire nation.
 

Gl3nn

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2008
Posts
1,411
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
123
Location
Somewhere in the universe
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
In the end, money is money. It doesn't matter where it came from, whether you earned it by hard working or not. Is money worth more because you worked for it? Absolutely not, it's worth the same amount. So does it matter where it came from? I don't think so.
 

javyn

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2008
Posts
1,015
Media
4
Likes
14
Points
123
Also note, the 'socialism' we are seeing today are redistributions from the poor towards the rich, not vice versa. For instance, the bailouts of last year.

Funny how the right supports socialism in these cases, but cries foul when tax money is proposed to be used for our own citizens benefit.
 

D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2007
Posts
1,511
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
123
Dearest Flashy,


A brief note on literary aesthetics as pertaining to forum-posting; and I'm not just saying this to bash your style.


While beginning to read one of your responses to one of my posts, I was delighted at the sharp writing, the informed commentary, the focused opinion. So far, so good. We all enjoy differences of opinion, beautifully stated .


However, after reading about 6 inches of your fine commentary I realized, scrolling down, to my chagrin, with a sense of dread, that the actual Flashy commentary was going to be about 8 times longer than I had anticipated - and that the comment was in danger of becoming a novella.


As Karl Marx so adroitly pointed out, quantity changes quality.
 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In the end, money is money. It doesn't matter where it came from, whether you earned it by hard working or not. Is money worth more because you worked for it? Absolutely not, it's worth the same amount. So does it matter where it came from? I don't think so.

I'll go start drug dealing and pimping my teenage cousin then! :rolleyes:
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Flashy --

The fact that, as you say, "in 2003, 'mom and pop' corner stores or home-based businesses, comprised more than 70 percent of all businesses in the USA" --- why are you NOT angry these hard-working businesses are not making a bigger slice of the pie?


The entire POINT of the statistics in this thread is to show that mom and pop joints and mid-sized businesses are getting shafted by that 1% elite who owns more financial wealth than most everybody at the bottom combined (which includes YOU).


You are part of the status quo, Flashy. As you purport to "defend" the mom & pop shops merely by quoting a statistic that shows they're 70% of all businesses... yes?... and?... thanks for another "stat", but....you're so helpful with stats, but... aren't you outraged that these businesses are getting only one or two percent of the pie?



You really should become a shill lobbyist for ExxonMobil or Bank of America, Flash. You are so great at shafting the middle class on the one hand, then pointing to your selected stats and "facts" to justify this shafting on the other, telling mom and pop shops, basically, that the rich will always get richer and there's nothing to be done about it.

1. Obviously, you do not understand the pie.
2. Those small businesses *ARE* in fact making a great deal of the pie. You cannot differentiate between the *OWNERS* of those small businesses, and those who *WORK* for them. the funny thing you left out in your little screed between the "1%" of the mean super rich, and then the 95% of the rest, was a number you did not mention...

the 4% *BETWEEN* the 1% and the 95%. most of those people are professionals and small business owners, and they hold the remainder of the percentage of financial wealth that you did not mention. these are the people that make $100,000-$250,000 or so.

3. no, mom and pop joints are not getting shafted, since, as i pointed above, you left out a very important 4%, and the amount of wealth they own. Mom and pop/small businesses, own their business, make a good salary, usually own a valuable home, sometimes two and a couple of cars. They own a very substantial part of the pie.

The poor and the working poor own virtually nothing...for obvious reasons. why are you not angrier, that they, who are part of the 95% you mentioned, are not getting a bigger part of the pie from the 95% of the country as well?

4. LOL...I am not in the bottom 95%...i am in the 1% elite that you hate so much. I make a sizeable salary. i am a partner in a private Wall Street Trading business, in which we have built up considerable value and reserves, i have significant investments, and i am fortunate enough to have had very successful parents and grandparents, who all fell in to the 1% category as well....but thanks for your concern, communist. I am part of that 1%, and i am not shafting anybody.

We pay our corporate taxes, i pay my income taxes, i pay my property taxes, i pay my capital gains taxes, and i donate to charity. I do not owe you or anyone else a thing.

so get over it.

5. your stats about the mom and pop shops is completely stupid and incorrect...how did you come up with them getting only "1-2% of the pie"?

as for being part of the status quo, i don't care...i like the status quo fine.

6. Please tell me why i should become a lobbyist for Exxon...i am a passionate environmentalist, and have long advocated the move to alternative energy sources.

7. Please point out again how i am "so great at shafting the middle class"...just a general example...from your personal knowledge of me, the status quo, and how i am shafting people :rolleyes:

8. just because you do not like the fact that the rich will always get richer, does not mean there is anything wrong with me stating the fact. You cannot do anything about it....personal wealth, properly managed, will always grow over the long term, through investments, intelligent budgeting, smarts, foresight and competent advice.

sorry if you don't like it, but a janitor, or a movie theater ticket taker, no matter your whining about the injustice of it all, will never do as well as someone who performs a service that is inherently more valuable, that requires more intelligence and education, who earns more because of it, and takes advantage of the advice, connections, and long term stability that all that affords.

your problem is that you demand near equal outcomes, which is foolish in the extreme.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Dearest Flashy,


A brief note on literary aesthetics as pertaining to forum-posting; and I'm not just saying this to bash your style.


While beginning to read one of your responses to one of my posts, I was delighted at the sharp writing, the informed commentary, the focused opinion. So far, so good. We all enjoy differences of opinion, beautifully stated .


However, after reading about 6 inches of your fine commentary I realized, scrolling down, to my chagrin, with a sense of dread, that the actual Flashy commentary was going to be about 8 times longer than I had anticipated - and that the comment was in danger of becoming a novella.


As Karl Marx so adroitly pointed out, quantity changes quality.


dearest Trinitom...

you still make as little sense as your right wing alter ego...

you post usually blinkered partisan googly-eyed worship, or unrealistic and absurd pie in the sky nonsense, and when cornered and beaten by facts and reality, you shrink back into desperate attacks to cover your hasty retreat and embarrassing naivety.

well done as usual.
 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
not necessarily true at all, mitch.

because all loans are not made by banks.

corporations, state and municipal governments.

interest is earned when somebody loans their capital to another in order to be put to work for an investment of some type by the borrower.

that is the essence money "put to work"...it is the essence of capitalism at its heart...the availability of capital by entrepeneurs, investors, speculators, etc...

interestingly, perhaps the first ever use of uniform "global credit" was initiated by the Templars...(who were literally the first pan european banking system, in addition to their military and religious commitments) you could literally deposit gold with the templars in england, in exchange for a "credit" slip for a fee (or scroll with a seal in this case) and when you travelled to say Italy, you could exchange it for gold with the templar "bank" there.

True that i speak from personal experience, i've never had loans off any other source than a bank and my employer the latter of which did not charge interest.

If governments need money they borrow from banks at interest which means they can never pay back what they borrow, while interest exists the world is just getting globally more in debt every time it borrows and it does'nt matter how much money the governments save or accrue in extra taxes, the total sum borrowed will always be more than what exists.

Eventually the whole world will be in so much debt that there will be a huge collapse which will lead nowhere good. Widespread poverty, crime rates up, utility provision ceases, anarchy, death etc etc etc.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
There's a huge difference between being a doctor or lawyer or any other professional making a few hundred thousand a year...

And a capital owner who does nothing at all but sits on capital charging interest. We aren't talking about taking money out of someone's pocket putting it into another's. We are talking about the means of production for an entire nation.

so a capital owner, who funds ventures, startups, buys property, invests in the stock market, buys bonds of all types, is not contributing to the means of production for an entire nation?

it is one of the key elements at the very essence of capitalism.

Capitalism -
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
 

Flashy

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2007
Posts
7,901
Media
0
Likes
27
Points
183
Location
at home
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
True that i speak from personal experience, i've never had loans off any other source than a bank and my employer the latter of which did not charge interest.

If governments need money they borrow from banks at interest which means they can never pay back what they borrow, while interest exists the world is just getting globally more in debt every time it borrows and it does'nt matter how much money the governments save or accrue in extra taxes, the total sum borrowed will always be more than what exists.

Eventually the whole world will be in so much debt that there will be a huge collapse which will lead nowhere good. Widespread poverty, crime rates up, utility provision ceases, anarchy, death etc etc etc.

while being the fatalist i am, mitchy, i do not necessarily disagree with your "we are going to hell in a handbasket" approach in the last paragraph, even if i disagree with exactly how it will happen. :smile::wink:

when governments need money, banks are not always who they borrow from. all types of people buy government securities, from corporations, to banks, to individuals, to other countries, to states within the country...hell, my crazy aunt even bought US Treasury Bonds for her cats. :redface: granted, i do not if the moggies ever decided to cash them in, or simply decided to line their litter box with them. :smile:
 

mitchymo

Expert Member
Joined
May 11, 2008
Posts
4,131
Media
0
Likes
100
Points
133
Location
England (United Kingdom)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
while being the fatalist i am, mitchy, i do not necessarily disagree with your "we are going to hell in a handbasket" approach in the last paragraph, even if i disagree with exactly how it will happen. :smile::wink:

when governments need money, banks are not always who they borrow from. all types of people buy government securities, from corporations, to banks, to individuals, to other countries, to states within the country...hell, my crazy aunt even bought US Treasury Bonds for her cats. :redface: granted, i do not if the moggies ever decided to cash them in, or simply decided to line their litter box with them. :smile:

You are right about that but the world's governments are in deep debt no matter who they are borrowing from, only 3 nations in the world are believed to actually have more money than their debt equates to whereas every other country owes big. I know from experience that when you are struggling for cash it is easy to let your morals slide and give in to corruption.