The growing divide between have and have not may cause civil unrest according to Brezinski….
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
© Copyright 2007-2024 iBankCoin All rights reserved under penalty of bodily harm. DISCLAIMER: This is a personal web site, reflecting the opinions of its author(s). It is not a production of my employer, and it is unaffiliated with any FINRA broker/dealer. Statements on this site do not represent the views or policies of anyone other than myself. The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only, and are not investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities. DATA INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE USERS "AS IS." NEITHER iBankCoin, NOR ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY THIRD PARTY DATA PROVIDER MAKE ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND REGARDING THE DATA INFORMATION, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR USE. Privacy Policy
An Idiot on MSIdiots.com. Not worthy of a post.
@ flyleech. open your eyes,and get off the mindset like a sheeple.i dont stick up for lame stream media.but dont look at Brezinskis’ view as bullshit, because it comes from a bullshit outlet. yes, we all hate cnbc,msnbc,cnn,and the rest,but they do put people on that, sometimes have a brain, and are right.
well said drummerboy. news is news no matter the outlet. plus the brezinski is not crackpot.
Well written JG. You summed it up perfectly. “Nation-wide innumeracy” is at the heart of our economic and social ills.
Brezinski is a total crackpot. Almost as discredited now as his former boss, Jimmah Carter, who has completely lost his mind.
I was just having this discussion with a colleague– the “Wealth gap” is a total Marxist concept and its profligation the result of nation-wide inummeracy. Of course the “highest of the high” is going to accelerate its wealth at a faster pace than the lowest of the low — you don’t have to be a math major to understand that. And due to the laws of mathematics and the machine of wealth creation we’ve got available to us in the States, that’s pretty much always going to be the case. What you have to remember is that increasing wealth (at all levels) drives NATIONAL (and global too) increasing standards of living. That’s what’s important.
What the Marxists pushing this meme don’t realize is the alternative is FAR worse. If you destroy the engines of wealth creation in this country in order to “make things fair” (whatever that means), you hurt the lowest of the low FIRST and WORST. Because you destroy jobs, close down opportunities, and worst of all DRIVE CAPITAL AWAY. Disaster that can be wholly avoided if we turn from that siren song of envy promulgated by those seeking authoritarian power in this country.
That was epic JIG.
I don’t know whether Cronk or drummer have the patience to have just read that and understand with minimal reading comprehension, but we can “hope” (haha).
If it were up to liberals, they would suspend the 8th wonder of the world, which is the effect of compounding interest over time.
puh-lease
The wealth gap is indicative of a rigged game. Money buys power, and power rewards money for its patronage. Just take an honest look at the last financial crisis for the evidence of that. Dismissing the concept as a Marxist orthodoxy is not a robust analysis.
The black and white answers we read here are always going to be unsatisfactory. A more balanced and nuanced approach is required.
The rules should reward the entrepreneur who creates value, but not the corporate parasites who expect governments to correct their mistakes.
Likewise, at the other end of the spectrum, individuals who make no effort to support themselves and want to live entirely off of entitlements should not be rewarded either.
This is easier said than done, and your “epic” prescriptions are just too facile.
Where in the world did you see in my explanation of a strictly mathematical concept that I supported “Too Big to Fail” for corporate parasites?
One of the most important tenets of true capitalism is the reality of capital destruction. I am vehemently against the moral hazard of taking the “risk” out of risk capital by insuring certain capital projects or firms.
But again, my rag agains the Marxist concept of a a wealth gap had absolutely nothing to do with that. Your complaint is a red herring.
___________
You say that the wealth gap is a mathematical imperative, and dismiss concern about it as a Marxist meme.
I say that the corruption of some at both ends of the continuum makes it easy to draw politically motivated conclusions that paint the other point of view as ‘crackpot.’ You paint with a wide brush, and I’m not convinced.
What evidence do you have that the wealth gap is mathematically inevitable, and not, say, the result of organized crime? (Those with money buy the power they need to reserve even more for themselves.)
Very simple answer. Compounding interest. Even people with modest incomes invest. Their modest wealth compounds annually.
The poor do not. Therefore, the wealth gap persists.
And yet, even the “poor’s” standard of living increases every year! We have “poor” with throwaway cell phones, cars, multiple tv’s, air conditioners.
Stuff that the Beav and his fellow middle classs inmates of the 50’s never even dreamed of having.
But Marxists CAN change that flow, and start it running the other way by making the wealthy HIDE their wealth due to fear of confiscation.
What happens when wealth is hidden in passive savings accounts and other low profile vehicles? It grows much more slowly…
And whom do you think that hurts the most, innumerate Marxists?
_______
Wow – such drama! Such emotion! Just stopped by to see what was going on over here. I will go back to my cave now.
“Poor people typically do not scrimp and save to invest. I’m not blaming them. Living hand to mouth is not fun, and seeing beyond the day to day existence is not easy. However, it is not the fault of those who have invested that there are people who are poor.”
How can they … they subsidize those that are getting interest free checking and 0% credit cards via late fees, overdraft charges and usurious interest rates that keep them on the teet of the govt or working under the table or for minimum wage whereas the rich try to avoid taxes either via tax shelter or off-shore bank acct … our entire personal financial system is regressive and the poor have less chance now with savings rates so low … C’mon, just cause you’re educated and employed you don’t have to step on all the plebs do ya and help to incite civil unrest?
Tea, those folks are subsidized. Most have a negative tax rate, meaning we are paying them to live in the U.S. Over half do not pay any income tax. Many receive gov’t assistance in addition to not paying any taxes. The gov’t has created this problem, and more gov’t will only make it worse.
The wealth gap is the primary creation of Government. Government/politicians have set forth the policies, laws, and regulations that have made a wealth gap possible. So what is a liberal’s solution to the wealth gap? More government, more regulations, more laws. I’m amazed that the majority of liberals do not understand that this is a government problem.
Secondly, the wealth gap occurs because people with money typically invest it, and if done correctly, they earn a compound return for their investment. Therefore, their wealth, even meager amounts, can grow very quickly, allowing someone who makes a modest, middle income salary to be a millionaire by retirement.
Poor people typically do not scrimp and save to invest. I’m not blaming them. Living hand to mouth is not fun, and seeing beyond the day to day existence is not easy. However, it is not the fault of those who have invested that there are people who are poor.
The government (again, it always comes back to the government) has thrown hundreds of billions of dollars at the War Against Poverty, and guess what? People are still poor, and getting more poor, and the rich get richer.
This is a government problem, and the problem is that as government increases, so do the problems that the government was supposed to fix.
Perhaps our problems are the result of bad government, not government per se.
I am amazed that the majority of Conservatives lose the power to differentiate between the thing in itself, and a badly executed version of it, vis-a-vis government.
I submit to you that a lack of government (anarchy) is bad. Human nature will resort to organized crime (gangs as a means to survive) when confronted with it. I also submit to you that totalitarianism falls in on itself because self-interest is suffocated, and nothing good gets done.
So, somewhere between the Lord of the Flies and Animal Farm is and should be our target. Pejorative labels and mis-characterizing differing points of view does not help sharpen our aim.
I say that good government should be concerned when the poor become so poor, and in large enough numbers, that they become desperate.
I think that last statement was the point that Brezinski was making, and thus I don’t think he is a crackpot at all. Even if he is a Liberal.
The poor are poor and in large numbers primarily because the gov’t has enabled them to be so. Again, we have had a War on Poverty and thrown billions in bones to the poor. The result? Greater poverty. If I paid you to be poor, are you more or less likely to stay poor?
And yes, we have to make a distinction between good and bad government. Right now, we have a BIG and BAD government. The worst of both worlds.
I have not seen anyone argue for anarchy. How about we just live within our means?
To you as well Woodshedder, excellent synopsis. You and JGint are on fire. I do love this site…..
Not buying it: I think the primary flaw in your argument is that you believe ANY gov’t — good or bad — can somehow alleviate the plight of the poor.
Govt’s can only redistribute, and very poorly and inefficiently at that. They cannot create wealth, save for perhaps through a corrupt few (see the Wall Street -DC “never fail” nexus for that).
It’s far better that the poor benefit from the rising tide created by the weathy investing in their infrastructure in a natural wealth creating (and destroying) risk-based environment. That is where you find the fastest growth and the greatest benefit to ALL the citizenry. Every single one of us, undifferentiated by “rich or poor.” That construct is for POWER GRABBERS only.
Once the scales are lifted from the eyes of those who believe (and sincerely believe, I’ve no doubt) that they are “doing good” by empowering the gov’t to allocate capital rather than allowing the free market to do so, we will have a prosperous and wealthy country once again.
And yes, we will ALWAYS have “greed,” the watchword of the left. And we will always have “envy” the weapon of the left. But we cannot construct a fair system of gov’t by trying to ameliorate human nature beyond lawful governance. That way lies only tyranny, and destruction. See the Soviet Union and any Eastern Block country for reference.
“It’s far better that the poor benefit from the rising tide created by the weathy investing in their infrastructure in a natural wealth creating (and destroying) risk-based environment. That is where you find the fastest growth and the greatest benefit to ALL the citizenry.”
You can’t have it both ways … your endless statement that “capital is mobile” flys in the face of the above statement and contributes directly to the problem facing the US now. As capital seeks faster growth and higher ROI it is benefiting the emerging nations and not our own. Hence tax cuts for the wealthy do not support the poor via job creation as evidenced by the failure of the Bush Tax Cuts extension so far.
That’s why it’s only fair that the deficit be cut with both cuts and taxes 50/50 … that mobile capital needs to pay this country for the privilege and protection their capital and person receives from this country’s domestic and foreign defenses.
Tea, those same emerging countries that you reference, have a lower corp. tax than the U.S.
So actually, if you raise taxes, you are giving even more of a reason for money to be mobile.
The REAL reason though about raising taxes is that EVERY TIME taxes have been raised, gov’t has increased spending to more than the revenue increased. Google it. You’ll find the research. It’ll happen again. The Dems will never use that tax increase to pay down the deficit.
There are always going ot be people with nothing, and less than nothing. People who even make good money but blow it all and go banko. And sad poor needy people through not fault of their own as well. Many productive people earn good incomes and save/invest and build wealth. They get wealthier, some still have -0-. The effect is the ‘wealth gap’ gets bigger. But it’s okay to be productive and build wealth, nothing wrong with that. Stealing that wealth away and giving it to the poor would be socialist/marxist. Of course, some taxation and a social safety net is fine, but it runs along the lines of a socialist/capitalist hybrid economy.