561–570 of 898 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"consumer spending growth from the top 10% is enough to offset loses in the bottom 90%" Bold prediction - let's check back in a year or two!
It’s also Apples to oranges. Consumers in the top 10% don’t buy the same kinds of thing the bottom 90% do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, people always say "Why should I pay more in taxes? It's not fair, they should be flat and the same for everybody!" and I'm always like "Do you have just as much to lose in a French Revolution scenario? You should be happy to pay more if it leads to more social stability."
The top 1% pay something like half our taxes. What share do you think is fairer?
There is a far-left opinion that there should be no such thing as a billionaire, that a single human's marginal tax rate should hit 100% at some point. I wouldn't say "never" to the idea at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, more than half of the people at the bottom rise up out of it. And less than half of the people at the top stay at the top. What are you hoping for? Please be as specific as possible. And what does this have to do with whether a lot of effort and a sense of opportunity is available to the common person?
Most every other developed nation has greater social mobility than the US [1]. Why can't the US reach Scandinavian levels of social mobility? [1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/ranked-the-s...
Spending as percentage of GDP: Denmark - 52% of GDP Norway - 55% of GDP Finland - 53% of GDP Sweden - 50% of GDP Iceland - 42% of GDP
Average - 50.5%
USA - 22% of GDP
What does all that extra spending get them?
Poverty rates: [0] Denmark - 13% Norway - Not reported Finland - Not reported Sweden - 15% Iceland - Not reported USA - 15%
Unemployment rates (2017): [0] Denmark - 5.7 Norway - 4.2 Finland - 8.5 Sweden - 6.7 Iceland - 2.8 USA - 4.4
Household Incomein US dollars (2018) [3] Denmark - $34,712 Norway - $39,555 Finland - $34,497 Sweden - $34,301 Iceland - Not reported USA - $50,292
Household Debt as % of disposable income (2015-2018): [1] Denmark - 281% Norway - 239% Finland - 145% Sweden - 189% Iceland - Not reported USA - 105%
Household Net worth as % of net income (2014): [2] Denmark - 553% Norway - 318% Finland - 359% Sweden - 526% Iceland - Not reported USA - 601%
[0]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook [1]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-debt.htm [2]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-net-worth.htm#indicator-... [3]https://data.oecd.org/hha/household-disposable-income.htm#in...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are more or less no limits on the stimulus money, so corporations that have issued debt to buy back shares can use it to retire that debt and then issue even more debt in the current hyper-low rate environment. It's essentially a way for companies to transfer the money into the hands of their executive management.
I had a very hard time understanding why this setup was so widely accepted during the last corporate welfare program in 2008/2009 when the amount was in the $500B range. I’m now at a complete loss as to why there isn’t more of an outcry when it’s in the $3T range.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would bet that the majority of Americans do not even have 401k plans or pension plans, and those that do have very little money allocated in them.
> I would bet that the majority of Americans No need to guess. Google is just a quick click away!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strip the wealthy if their wealth and most will probably become wealthy again. If you don’t call it intelligence what would you call it.
> most will probably become wealthy again. Source?
It tracks wealth by surnames and argues that the ability to gain (or regain) wealth is inheritable. This thesis is in contradiction to some of the ways I've experienced the world, but it is a source supporting the parent's claim. For my own political inclinations I'd be happy to hear many others that support the opposite claim.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To OP: That does not make a compelling argument that the stock market rally will continue. Consumer spending is 70% of the U.S. economy. And we have an unemployment rate of over 15% on its way to 20%, the worst in 80+ years. We are seeing many areas of consumer spending rapidly decline if not stop altogether. Delinquencies in mortgages, car loans and credit are expected to skyrocket. Also, the wealthy have a lower ma…
perhaps a lower marginal propensity to consume, but bigger purchases make up for it. A millionaire remodeling his home for example or buying a Tesla.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're overestimating the value of high intelligence. I don't believe we have any accurate means of identifying potent leaders, not even a 10% slice they might belong to.
Strip the wealthy if their wealth and most will probably become wealthy again. If you don’t call it intelligence what would you call it.
The counterpoint is the richest Southern families quickly recovered their positions in the years after the Civil War [1]... but that relied heavily on racist policies, and of course these families still owned capital like land.
0: http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-repo...
1: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700?utm_campaign=ntwh&utm_med...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a second wave of epidemic Judging by people's behavior, and the politicization of even common sense measures like mask wearing in the US, I think this is likely. I hope I'm wrong.
It's not just likely, I worry you won't even get out of the first wave. With everyone pulling in literally 50 different directions and and no leadership from the top this might just bounce between states like the proverbial hot potato. I feel bad for you guys watching from the north here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Also, I know it is hip to say that Wall Street is short-sighted, but in reality it is one of the the few fields where people routinely think decades at a time. If you run a large pension fund or investment account you were already risk-weighted and if the cash isn't needed for 10+ years you'd much rather own a slice of the world's largest companies ten years from now instead of gold or cash under a mattress.
I feel like there is a decade of guillotines in the future that they are either not seeing or are looking way past. But then I've always been cynical about the growing divide between the uber-wealthy and the other 99% of this country.
Why would anyone in their right mind give up their life for a revolution under these conditions?