Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The top 1% will always benefit more than the top 99%. The top 2% will benefit more than 98%, the top 50% will always do better than the bottom 50%, and the top 99% will always do better than the bottom 1%. Basic math.
No. You are late to the conversation and aren't up to the speed.
The question is not if the 1% does better than the 99%. The point is that the 99% as a whole has actually LOST income during the recovery.
The 99% doesn't always lose income. Sometimes it gains income.
The basic math that Finn-Jarber is either not intelligent enough to understand or is choosing to play dumb to keep spouting off fake talking points is that if the 1% gets 121% of the income gains during the recovery, that means that the 99% as a whole lost income.
Wall street DIDN'T BENEFIT from QE (at least not in any major, direct, measurable way). The QE purchases went into HOUSING MORTGAGES. There was NO stock purchases AT ALL - NONE, NADA, ZIP.
Stocks MIGHT have gotten a slight indirect boost - but only from the fact that stablizing housing helped boost the overall economy, which resulted in higher profits for companies, which resulted in higher stock prices. It's pretty doubtful that QE played much part in that increased profitablity - though it probably played some (but just how much is impossible to quantify).
The fact is there is ZERO proof - ZERO - that the stock market surge had much of anything to with QE.
Ken
This shows me and everyone else you don't have a freaking clue what your talking. A complete and total lack of the basic understanding of how the market works. It was a freaking boon to Wall Street and why we have the most disparity in income in our history.
This shows me and everyone else you don't have a freaking clue what your talking. A complete and total lack of the basic understanding of how the market works. It was a freaking boon to Wall Street and why we have the most disparity in income in our history.
We deserve everything we have coming. I just hope it's ten time worse to prove a point. Just another asinine post from an Obama sheep..
It is beyond me how someone could look at tiny interest rates and huge amounts of cash pumped into the economy and think that has nothing do with stock prices going up. I mean it's like saying that just because you went out in the rain has nothing to do with why you got wet.
The point is that the 99% as a whole has actually LOST income during the recovery.
Does this include the 60 million who benefitted from the near tripling of their investments?
Do you think the 60 million would be better off, or worse off without the recovery? Think about it on your own, don't let the left-wing blogs do the thinking for you.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 10-19-2014 at 03:52 AM..
The term is misleading, because no one expects everyone to make the same amount of money.
The problem is in the slow rate of economic increase/improvement in middle and low classes. The figure below illustrates the economic (wealth) growth in different classes of people since 1979. The problem is not the fact that rich are getting richer, but the fact that the poor and middle classes are not improving fast enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
Yes, you are saying it, althought you clearly do not see it yourself. Even now you cry about the 1% as if they are the only ones benefitting, while everyone else suffers. You are the lefty here, not me. You are basically complaining Obama's policies are not left enough for you.
Of course the rich make more money. I already told you 5% gain from 1 million is more than 5% from 1 thousand. Why that makes you envy the rich is your problem, not mine. I do not care how much more someone else is making. I'll take my 5% from whatever amount I have in the game. I take care of myself, while you clearly expect politicians to deliver something for you.
You are the one shifting positions, due to your blinding love for Obama.
One moment you are upset the poor aren't improving fast enough and we need more Obama-policies.
The next moment when it is shown that under Obama the 99% lost income during the recovery, you are suddenly fine with it.
If you were smart (ha!), you would realize that you can't attack the Huffington Post in this situation, or the other news cites, but instead the UC Berkley study that they directly linked to and the economists Saez and Picketty themselves if you disagree with the claim that the 99% has lost income during the recovery.
You are also still not brave enough to address these points on the stock market gains:
1) These gains are Paper gains, not realized gains.
2) Most people have very little saved.
Quote:
Seventy-five percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The specter of downward mobility in retirement is a looming reality for both middle- and higher-income workers. Almost half of middle-class workers, 49 percent, will be poor or near poor in retirement, living on a food budget of about $5 a day.
4) The rich are benefiting overwhelmingly by Obama's Trickle Down policies.
The rising stock market is not bad...but it is not helping as many as you Obamabots claim it is...and is it worth the QE Trickle Down?
Here is something else for you to coward away from:
Quote:
The median household in 2013 had a net worth of just $56,335 -- 43% lower than the median wealth level right before the recession began in 2007, and 36% lower than a decade ago. “There are very few signs of significant recovery from the losses in wealth suffered by American families during the Great Recession,” the study concludes.
Does this include the 60 million who benefitted from the near tripling of their investments?
Do you think the 60 million would be better off, or worse off without the recovery? Think about it on your own, don't let the left-wing blogs do the thinking for you.
Worse off. The retired that was expecting the interest on their savings to pay their bills had to go back to work. If they had stayed out of the work force it would have provided more jobs for others. If QE hadn't inflated energy prices the middle and lower classes would have had more money to spend. More money spent means that businesses did well for fundamental reasons, not because their stock prices went up. Business hires when they sell more, not so just because their stocks go up.
Without all this made up money people feel more secure and get back to normalcy. People are spending less both because they don't have it and they know that the debt must be paid back and it is them that will be forced to pay it back, not the one's who largely benefited the most.
So yes, we would be better off as a country if we would have simply allowed the bubbles to pop and allowed for slow but real solid growth as opposed to creating another bubble that is going to pop one way or the other.
If the Fed would do what they should and announce a complete end to their programs, stocks would fall, big deal. Along with the announcement that interest rates were going to rise. People would get off their savings and buy houses, cars, or whatever to get in before the rates go up. This would be a real recovery.
So, they actually did the opposite of what you think they did. They reduced the QE since making those comments in August.
They have had to reassure the markets that they will do whatever is necessary to keep the markets inflated. It doesn't matter what they call it. They say they are going to keep interest rates artificially low and you cant do that without a program like QE no matter what you want to call it. What they call their welfare programs doesn't matter, it's what they do that matters.
The markets are at or near record highs. Why do you have to do anything? (About the 5th time I've asked this)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
