We Are the 99.9%!

Gerald · 11-25-11, 10:20 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/op...me&ref=general

Note: November 24, 2011

STEED · 11-25-11, 10:24 AM

Too boring for me I'm off to make a cup of coffee.

Dowly · 11-25-11, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEED

Too boring for me I'm off to make a cup of coffee.

I just had a cup or two.

Now I'm fully awake and ready to start cleaning this place of mine!
(which I won't do because coffee doesn't cure lazyness)

STEED · 11-25-11, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I just had a cup or two.

Now I'm fully awake and ready to start cleaning this place of mine!
(which I won't do because coffee doesn't cure lazyness)

I must remember that one.

CaptainHaplo · 11-25-11, 10:38 AM

An opinion piece that ignores simple math....

Working man buys 5 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a pop.

Super-rich guy buys 2000 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a share.

The company goes global and makes money hand over fist - paying dividends and watching its stock price multiply by 10 fold.

Working man collects his dividends and makes a nice little profit.

Super rich guy does the same.

Yes - super rich guy just made 400x more than the working man - because he RISKED 400x as much.

Paul Krugman (and most other liberal "economists") intentionally ignore the fact that when you "have more" - its easier to "make more".

Simple and fundamental reality - but in their view - the super rich guy should be giving his extra profit to the working man - just to "be fair".

And they wonder why the economy hasn't recovered with wealth distribution schemes in place...

Betonov · 11-25-11, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Yes - super rich guy just made 400x more than the working man - because he RISKED 400x as much.

He didn't risk 400x as much. One that makes 500$ per month and risks a 100$ to buy shares, has 400$ left afterwards which is looooow. A super rich that makes 50 000$ per month and invests 40 000$ still has 10 000$ left, which is more than enough to go trough the month comfortably.

He risks more money in quantity, but his life quality wont fall. Math is not real life

But I agree with the point of the post.

Gerald · 11-25-11, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dowly

I just had a cup or two.

Now I'm fully awake and ready to start cleaning this place of mine!
(which I won't do because coffee doesn't cure lazyness)

but a few vodka shots, then you can begin cleaning,

Jimbuna · 11-25-11, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Betonov

He didn't risk 400x as much. One that makes 500$ per month and risks a 100$ to buy shares, has 400$ left afterwards which is looooow. A super rich that makes 50 000$ per month and invests 40 000$ still has 10 000$ left, which is more than enough to go trough the month comfortably.

He risks more money in quantity, but his life quality wont fall. Math is not real life

But I agree with the point of the post.

Agreed...money makes money.

TarJak · 11-25-11, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Agreed...money makes money.

Aye, and fools are soon parted with theirs.

Jimbuna · 11-25-11, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TarJak

Aye, and fools are soon parted with theirs.

I'll try not to be too foolish then

MH · 11-25-11, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

An opinion piece that ignores simple math....

Working man buys 5 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a pop.

Super-rich guy buys 2000 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a share.

The company goes global and makes money hand over fist - paying dividends and watching its stock price multiply by 10 fold.

Working man collects his dividends and makes a nice little profit.

Super rich guy does the same.

Yes - super rich guy just made 400x more than the working man - because he RISKED 400x as much.

Paul Krugman (and most other liberal "economists") intentionally ignore the fact that when you "have more" - its easier to "make more".

Simple and fundamental reality - but in their view - the super rich guy should be giving his extra profit to the working man - just to "be fair".

And they wonder why the economy hasn't recovered with wealth distribution schemes in place...

Small nuance:
When the super super rich guy goes broke the government bails him out and the poor guy ends up on the street.
If the government does not then much more people end up on the street.
Something is screwed up and out of control here.....its a win win situation for super rich ....megalomaniacs.

mookiemookie · 11-25-11, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Small nuance:
When the super super rich guy goes broke the government bails him out and the poor guy ends up on the street.
If the government does not then much more people end up on the street.
Something is screwed up and out of control here.....its a win win situation for super rich ....megalomaniacs.

Indeed. The rules are different for the 1% and the rest of everyone else. The 1% take risks and have everyone bail them out when they blow up.

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

11-25-11, 07:35 PM

Quote:

An opinion piece that ignores simple math....

Working man buys 5 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a pop.

Super-rich guy buys 2000 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a share.

The company goes global and makes money hand over fist - paying dividends and watching its stock price multiply by 10 fold.

Working man collects his dividends and makes a nice little profit.

Super rich guy does the same.

Yes - super rich guy just made 400x more than the working man - because he RISKED 400x as much.

Paul Krugman (and most other liberal "economists") intentionally ignore the fact that when you "have more" - its easier to "make more".

Simple and fundamental reality - but in their view - the super rich guy should be giving his extra profit to the working man - just to "be fair".

And they wonder why the economy hasn't recovered with wealth distribution schemes in place...

Your opinion ignores reality......
Super rich guy buys 2000 shares, working guy buys 20

Getting ready to expand grows big then goes tits up.
super rich guy gets a nice bail out on his 2000 shares because he is big and politicians like him and his friends, working guy gets burnt on his holdings because he doesn't really count for much, then gets stiffed with a tax hike to pay for super rich guys bail out then gets thoroughly screwed with more taxes because super rich guy wants more breaks for his next unable to fail gamble.

tater · 11-25-11, 08:01 PM

Actually, the rich guys, and the slightly less rich guys get stiffed with taxes to bail themselves out. The guy who can only afford 20 shares doesn't actually pay enough in taxes to even cover HIS shares bit of bailout, much less anyone else's.

The only people who have a right to complain about wall street bail outs are those paying enough that they are actually contributing to bail outs in a meaningful way. That means meaningful income tax payments. No, payroll taxes don't count, since those workers can expect a positive return on their payroll tax investment (even properly counting the "employer" contribution). The bail outs---like every other government expense in the US---are overwhelmingly paid for by the top tier of taxpayers.

The most funny thing to me is that most people hear "1%" and likely think of a lifestyle actually akin to the top 0.1%, or even 0.01%. People just in the top 1% are your neighbors, parents to your kids' friends, etc. They are not pals with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The top 1% is a couple million taxpayers, the vast majority of whom make under 500k a year. In major metro areas (where most of them live), that sort of income gives you a pretty mundane lifestyle.

tater · 11-25-11, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Indeed. The rules are different for the 1% and the rest of everyone else. The 1% take risks and have everyone bail them out when they blow up.

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses.

Everyone else bails them out? How, exactly, when they pay little or no income tax? Or are you concerned about people in the top 20% who don't happen to be in the top 0.1% who might actually get bailed out? That's fine by me, I was against all the bail outs, I thought the market should do its work.

Again, payroll taxes do not count in the least, since that is in effect a retirement program for the poor, and they will in fact pull out far more than they ever put in. Anyone in the top 20-40% will not get a positive return.

11-25-11, 10:20 AM	#1
Gerald SUBSIM Newsman Join Date: May 2008 Location: Close to sea Posts: 24,254 Downloads: 553 Uploads: 0	We Are the 99.9%! http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/op...me&ref=general Note: November 24, 2011 __________________ Nothing in life is to be feard,it is only to be understood. Marie Curie

11-25-11, 10:24 AM	#2
STEED Lucky Jack Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Down Town UK Posts: 27,695 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 48	Too boring for me I'm off to make a cup of coffee. __________________ Dr Who rest in peace 1963-2017. To borrow Davros saying...I NAME YOU CHIBNALL THE DESTROYER OF DR WHO YOU KILLED IT!

11-25-11, 10:38 AM	#5
CaptainHaplo Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,404 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 0	An opinion piece that ignores simple math.... Working man buys 5 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a pop. Super-rich guy buys 2000 shares of gettinreadytoexpand inc. at 20 bucks a share. The company goes global and makes money hand over fist - paying dividends and watching its stock price multiply by 10 fold. Working man collects his dividends and makes a nice little profit. Super rich guy does the same. Yes - super rich guy just made 400x more than the working man - because he RISKED 400x as much. Paul Krugman (and most other liberal "economists") intentionally ignore the fact that when you "have more" - its easier to "make more". Simple and fundamental reality - but in their view - the super rich guy should be giving his extra profit to the working man - just to "be fair". And they wonder why the economy hasn't recovered with wealth distribution schemes in place... __________________ Good Hunting! Captain Haplo

11-25-11, 08:01 PM	#14
tater Navy Seal Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: New Mexico, USA Posts: 9,023 Downloads: 8 Uploads: 2	Actually, the rich guys, and the slightly less rich guys get stiffed with taxes to bail themselves out. The guy who can only afford 20 shares doesn't actually pay enough in taxes to even cover HIS shares bit of bailout, much less anyone else's. The only people who have a right to complain about wall street bail outs are those paying enough that they are actually contributing to bail outs in a meaningful way. That means meaningful income tax payments. No, payroll taxes don't count, since those workers can expect a positive return on their payroll tax investment (even properly counting the "employer" contribution). The bail outs---like every other government expense in the US---are overwhelmingly paid for by the top tier of taxpayers. The most funny thing to me is that most people hear "1%" and likely think of a lifestyle actually akin to the top 0.1%, or even 0.01%. People just in the top 1% are your neighbors, parents to your kids' friends, etc. They are not pals with Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The top 1% is a couple million taxpayers, the vast majority of whom make under 500k a year. In major metro areas (where most of them live), that sort of income gives you a pretty mundane lifestyle. __________________ "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one." — Thomas Paine