The 99%- occupy movement- lacking focus and organisation!

tomcatjones

Active Member
Retail pricing of iphone without contract is more now
and with that i'm sure the labor for creating said phones is now less than the 1 percent it used to be.

wages have stagnated here in the US for the last 40 years. CEO pay rose by 300percent, in the 90s alone!

just imagine the economic disparity between the high priced shit we buy when really.... it should be half the price (or less) if we made what we were worth and those in control didn't seize all profit from exploitation.
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
and with that i'm sure the labor for creating said phones is now less than the 1 percent it used to be.

wages have stagnated here in the US for the last 40 years. CEO pay rose by 300percent, in the 90s alone!

just imagine the economic disparity between the high priced shit we buy when really.... it should be half the price (or less) if we made what we were worth and those in control didn't seize all profit from exploitation.
Are you saying we should stop immigration so our work force can earn a higher wadge?
Are you suggesting we reduce pointless regulation and beaurcracy and and create a more buisness friendly enviornment?
Are you saying income tax and death tax should be eliminated to encourage people to strive to produce more?
Are you saying we should stop subsidising certain buisnesses?
 

Gastanker

Well-Known Member
Retail pricing of iphone without contract is more now
Really? Missing the point by a long shot.

Like Joey pointed out "moore's law w/ regard to technology" denotes that all technology is really pricey to begin with and then rapidly drops in price when adopted by the masses.

Everything now a days is technology driven and thus everything is getting cheaper and cheaper - even non technology based items. 2x4 prices dropped to the computers being able to perfectly identify the ideal cuts on every log. I can buy self ballasted CFLs for $0.25 a piece, this is what matters, not that they once cost $15 each.

Everything is a better value than it once was for everyone other than those constantly buying the cutting edge technology (which really isn't necessary - there is no reason to need the iphone g4s or whatever it is over the iphone3)
 

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
How is an increase in the money supply a bad thing without a corresponding rise in prices?
It isn't in the very short run, there is a limit to how much credit one can use before the interest payments overtake the principal payments. In the long run the new money will always devalue the money in existence, while most of the USA inflation is exported overseas, eventually other countries will stop buying treasuries and the FED will end up buying them, then within a few years they money will come flooding back and destroy capital markets with massive inflation.

The Fed doesn't create 2 trillion new dollars and then the next day all prices in the nation double, it takes time for the money to get out in the economy. Sometimes years.
 

dukeanthony

New Member
It isn't in the very short run, there is a limit to how much credit one can use before the interest payments overtake the principal payments. In the long run the new money will always devalue the money in existence, while most of the USA inflation is exported overseas, eventually other countries will stop buying treasuries and the FED will end up buying them, then within a few years they money will come flooding back and destroy capital markets with massive inflation.

The Fed doesn't create 2 trillion new dollars and then the next day all prices in the nation double, it takes time for the money to get out in the economy. Sometimes years.
Maybe centurys
 

joey555

New Member
Inflation = dollar devaluation. Inflation is not a separate metric totally removed from Inflation, they are THE SAME THING. If you have any inflation, then you are devaluing the dollar. Just thought I would make that clear.

Inflation is not rising prices, that is the Effect of inflation. Inflation is an increase in the money supply.
no but it does decrease purchase power b/c the $ is devalued that was the point i was trying to make -sorry
 

joey555

New Member
That is what I was saying - there is more money now than there was before. We are still getting paid the same as we were before. This means income has not kept up with inflation.

Even so purchasing power (the effect of inflation as you put it) has not seen a negative effect - even with inflation we are still able to buy more than we were before.

To put it a different way - cost of living is dropping faster than inflation is rising.
look GAS, just b/c purchasing is more now days, well, the consituents and the American mentality is to consume, doesn't mean it will negate the impact of inflation b/c if the countries holding our debt decide to push in their "markers" then we'd head straightway to hyper-inflation.

just like the stock market, i don't mean to jump around, but during unemployment the market generally is fine and the green arrows go up. why ppl. ask? well simple the companies are beholden to board members, common share holder and such. so lay-offs = higher profit margin= more $$$$$

the lens thru which u are looking at the standard of living is skwed, see, i live in a metropolitain area so i see what is going on, IDK if u go out much or are insulated.
 

joey555

New Member
I do not ever want to take the LSATS. Nice strawman.

My preferred troll tool:

btw- a stawman is ur term fine, but i have a degree, albeit undergrad, in political science and iam acutely aware of the political climate. here b/c i don't feel like whipping out my books.

type world debt CLOCK, AND NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK. financial_wealth_pie_chart_income inequality.jpg
 

tomcatjones

Active Member
Are you saying we should stop immigration so our work force can earn a higher wadge?
Are you suggesting we reduce pointless regulation and beaurcracy and and create a more buisness friendly enviornment?
Are you saying income tax and death tax should be eliminated to encourage people to strive to produce more?
Are you saying we should stop subsidising certain buisnesses?
No.
No.
Perhaps.
Yes.
 

Gastanker

Well-Known Member
look GAS, just b/c purchasing is more now days, well, the consituents and the American mentality is to consume, doesn't mean it will negate the impact of inflation b/c if the countries holding our debt decide to push in their "markers" then we'd head straightway to hyper-inflation.

just like the stock market, i don't mean to jump around, but during unemployment the market generally is fine and the green arrows go up. why ppl. ask? well simple the companies are beholden to board members, common share holder and such. so lay-offs = higher profit margin= more $$$$$

the lens thru which u are looking at the standard of living is skwed, see, i live in a metropolitain area so i see what is going on, IDK if u go out much or are insulated.
I'm not claiming that the US is in a good financial position nor that inflation is not taking place. I'm saying that the protesters are hurting hard working people far more than they are hurting the top 0.01% they are angry at. In just Oakland do you know how many small businesses are suffering because they can't get their merchandise out of the shipping containers at the port? Do the protesters believe that by increasing port fines, delaying product delivery, and letting product expire that they are hurting the multi billionaires? No... It's just causing small businesses to close and more layoffs...

"Lets hurt the small guys but them run out and buy brand new iPhones so we can organize the next destructive flashmob!" The people of America vote more with their $ than anything else - I find it hard to be compassionate with people mad at the people they essentially voted into wealth. You don't want corporate America? Then don't buy corporate America. Live simple, buy local, go without all the flashy new garbage constantly hitting the shelf. The problem is that people want both. They want every new high tech gadget at rock bottom prices but don't understand what comes with it.

But aside from everything else what do you think we should do about corporate wealth? Once a company makes over a certain profit should the government take it over? Or should we just dissolve the company? Lets say some guy just happens to pick the correct stocks to invest in but doesn't own a company nor is a CEO. Lets say he makes a couple billion through just good investments - should we slap him on the wrist at a certain point and take it all away? Punish him for being smarter than the rest? What about big buildings? Should we demolish most of the sky scrapers? No company/individual should be able to own a tower worth many many millions right? What about transportation - a fleet of planes is really really expensive, if no one is allowed to have a ton of money then no one/corporation can own a fleet or airplanes... Nuclear power plants are really expensive...

Keep in mind that the majority of the wealthiest peoples assets are not liquid - they are the buildings you frequent, the food on the shelves of the grocery store, the boats that transport gasoline from port to port, hell the ports themselves...

I'm from San Fransisco - Do you consider that a metropolitan area? I've been to New York, Delhi, Hamberg, Munich, Frankfurt, Mexico City, Jakarta, London, Paris, Prague, Barcelona, Madrid, and a few other major business locations so I am familiar with metropolitan areas and understand San Fransisco not to be a huge one - but I wouldn't consider it being "insulated". In my opinion quality of living is what inflated too quickly and we are just noticing the effect.

Do you know any billionaires - or what their daily life style is actually like? I do - and I would never trade my 20K a year and my lifestyle for their billions and their lifestyle.
 

joey555

New Member
@ gas: I agree w/ this -
i'm not claiming that the us is in a good financial position nor that inflation is not taking place. I'm saying that the protesters are hurting hard working people far more than they are hurting the top 0.01% they are angry at. In just oakland do you know how many small businesses are suffering because they can't get their merchandise out of the shipping containers at the port? Do the protesters believe that by increasing port fines, delaying product delivery, and letting product expire that they are hurting the multi billionaires? No... It's just causing small businesses to close and more layoffs...

Lets hurt the small guys but them run out and buy brand new iphones so we can organize the next destructive flashmob! The people of america vote more with their $ than anything else - i find it hard to be compassionate with people mad at the people they essentially voted into wealth.
BUT they have to make a point and that could mean disrupting the flow of business, big or small. ur right about that 1 point. i conceed that.
but LEST WE FORGET THE UNIONS (MIDDLE AMERICA) ARE SUPPORTING THEM.....some of their views:peace:

as far as wealth accumulation they need to pay their fair share no.1.
no.2 they need in times like this to help out.....IT IS THIS VERY NATION THAT ALLOWED THEM TO ACCUMULATE SO MUCH WEALTH, IT'S ONLY RIGHT THAT THEY PAY MORE IN TAXES WHEN HELP IS NEEDED- they sure LIKE IT WHEN CORPARATE WELFARE IS ON THE TABLE!

THEY like some of their employees that work hard and might have graduated college but used PELL-GRANTS. and they might have went to public schools- again taxes (property....creates a dichotomy effect btwn how marketable a child is) BUT NEVERTHELESS IT'S THE GOVERNMENT TAX ( THE PPL.'S MONEY) THAT PAYS FOR THIS. u have RON PUAL LAST NITE ON CNBC DEBATING; SAYING HE WOULD ABOLISH DEPT. OF EDUCATION! THATS FUCKING NUTZ!

I RESPECT HIM AND HE MAKES GOOD POINTS, HE DOESN'T EXPECT TO GET ELECTED; HE IS USING THE DEBATES AS A PLATFORM FOR HIS ISSUES WHICH, SOME, ARE VALID AND SOUND!

THERE NEEDS TO BE A REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH- it happens globally all the time. so congress should tax the top 1% of earners at a higher rate. :peace:
 

Gastanker

Well-Known Member
Again, the top 1% just means you make more than $380,000 - they currently pay 35%. So lets say we bump this to 50%? So I earn $400,000 and take home $200,000, or I can earn $300,000 and take home $201,000. What is the incentive here to earn the extra $100,000? $100,000 to an individual owning a small business is the same as quite a bit more inventory, an additional employee, a new vehicle, all stimulus to the local economy.

Do you propose to just raise the top bracket? The top two? Top three? Add more?

I think it would be great if the super rich (top 0.001) gave back of their own free will - and many many of them do on very very large scales. But to demand it? I don't know...
 

joey555

New Member
Again, the top 1% just means you make more than $380,000 - they currently pay 35%. So lets say we bump this to 50%? So I earn $400,000 and take home $200,000, or I can earn $300,000 and take home $201,000. What is the incentive here to earn the extra $100,000? $100,000 to an individual owning a small business is the same as quite a bit more inventory, an additional employee, a new vehicle, all stimulus to the local economy.

Do you propose to just raise the top bracket? The top two? Top three? Add more?

I think it would be great if the super rich (top 0.001) gave back of their own free will - and many many of them do on very very large scales. But to demand it? I don't know...
$300k...wtf it is not the top 1%. see definitions and logic will be employed now. START!
 

joey555

New Member
U DEFINE TOP 1% AS 300K? right?

well that is not.

1. "US Census Bureau, Median household income 1990": states that as households tend to share a similar economic context, the use of household income remains among the most widely accepted measures of income. That the size of a household is not commonly taken into account in such measures may distort any analysis of fluctuations within or among the household income categories, and may render direct comparisons between quintiles difficult or even impossible........

One half, 49.98%, of all income in the US was earned by households with an income over $100,000, the top twenty percent. Over one quarter, 28.5%, of all income was earned by the top 8%, those households earning more than $150,000 a year. The top 3.65%, with incomes over $200,000, earned 17.5%. Households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $75,000, 18.2% of households, earned 16.5% of all income. Households with annual incomes from $50,000 to $95,000, 28.1% of households, earned 28.8% of all income. The bottom 10.3% earned 1.06% of all income- http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/macro/032008/hhinc/new06_000.htm

again look at this chart View attachment 1880901
 

joey555

New Member
By 1% you mean the top wealthiest 1% of Americans right?

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102886,00.html

Top 1-percent Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) $380,354

I'm going by AGI - please don't argue tax exemptions because that is a completely different extremely complicated topic of it's own.


Here are the current tax brackets:
http://www.bargaineering.com/articles/federal-income-irs-tax-brackets.html
Should we add more to the end of the list?
tax exemptions a very important b/c it allows some industries ro get thru loop-holes via their lobbiest of an army of NINJA TAX LAWYERS
 
Top