Metro Jacksonville

Very thought-provoking.  Faye or some other economist out there might be able to shed more light on the Gini coefficient. 

I couldn't figure out how to imbed the chart, but if you'll click on the link, it's there. 

http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/01/the-capitalist-economt-does-no (http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/01/the-capitalist-economt-does-no)

QuoteFor all those interested in finding out the other half of the income inequality story that last week’s CBO study does not tell, here is some fascinating stuff from Political Calculation, a wonkish blog.

It produces three charts, displaying the Gini Coefficients of individuals, families and households in America from 1994 and 2010 that show that we can safely dial down the CBO-triggered gloom-and-doom that the capitalist system is generating vast disparities of wealth. (This data is superior to the CBO’s in at least one major respect: It is more current because it goes up to 2010. The CBO’s ends in 2007 which means that it does not take into account the post-recessionary losses that the much-reviled top 1 percent experienced.)

The charts show that although there is a slight increase in income inequality for U.S. families and households, there is absolutely no significant change in the inequality among U.S. individual income earners from 1994 through 2010. (A Gini Coefficient of 0 indicates perfect equalityâ€"everyone has the same incomeâ€"and a value of 1 indicates perfect inequalityâ€"one person has all the income, while everyone else has none.)



The CBO study's findingâ€"being shouted from roof tops by the leftâ€"that the top 1 percent of Americans have pulled ahead from everyone else was based entirely on household income. But the better metric to indict capitalism would be rising individual income inequality. Why? Explains the blog: “If income inequality in the U.S. was really driven by economic factors, this is where we would see it, because paychecks (or dividend checks, or checks for capital gains, etc.) are made out to individuals, not to families and not to households.”

So the real complaint of the left isn't about rising income inequality produced by markets, but rather, income inequality produced by how people choose to group together into families and households.

Says Political Calculation:

With a near rock-steady level of income inequality among individual income earners over time, it is only possible for income inequality to rise among families and households if the most successful income earners group themselves into families and households and if the least successful income earners likewise group themselves together into families and households as well.

Think about it. The reason that the income inequality levels recorded for families and households are lower than those for individuals are because most families and households may have one high income earner, who is balanced out by individuals within the families or households who have low or no incomes.

But, if people with very high income earning potential join together to form families and households, and increasingly do so over time, perhaps because such people might have things in common that make forming themselves into families and households an attractive proposition, then income inequality among families and households will increase.

The same holds true for the opposite end of the income-earning spectrum. If people with really low income earning potential join together to form families and households, or perhaps if they choose to split apart, and increasingly do so over time, then the resulting low income family and household will also make income inequality among families and households rise, even though there has been no real change in the amount of actual income inequality among individuals.

In other words, if rising inequality is limited to households and families and does not extend to individuals then the causes might have less to do with greedy capitalists in the American economy and more to do with other factors in the American society. These include: diminished social contact between the rich and the poor; rising divorce rates and the breakdown of families; fewer income earners in a household because of a lack of education, death or incarceration and so on.

If the left seriously wants to address inequality, these are the issues it'll have to focus on rather than fleecing poor rich people.

(http://reason.com/assets/mc/shikhadalmia/GiniCoefficient.jpg)

Thank you. 

^It's the title of the article, Stephen.

At any rate, I'm not buy this on their sayso. Speaking as someone with a wife, our individual incomes are less important than our joint income.

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 10:06:55 AM
it comes from reason magazine, which has a deep history of fake studies being published

How stupid do they think their readers are?  The CBO study looks at last three decades (starting in 1979), while this article says "no significant change in the inequality among U.S. individual income earners from 1994 through 2010."  The CBO report goes on to say that the Gini index for household market income rose from 0.479 in 1979 to 0.590 by 2007, an increase of 23 percent.  The index increased almost continuously during that span except for declines during the recessions in 1990â€"1991 and 2001.

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 10:06:55 AM
it comes from reason magazine, which has a deep history of fake studies being published, but i personally think the whole thing is a strawman.

Do people really believe that the current crisis is caused by a collection of evil montebanques coordinating a campaign to gleefully steal candy from babies and dentures from old women?

Ive never heard any of that nonsense from anyone except the strawmen arguments of the Right.

I think most people would agree that the current inequalities come instead from a system of economic laws that favor the ultra rich because they can influence policies better than the ultra poor.

I further would posit that most people think that the lopsided state of our broken economy can be fixed by changing those regulations and policies back to a position where everyone has a reasonably equal opportunity.

So Im wondering where Ajax came up with this idea about the 'greedy capitalists' rather than greedy capitalism?

Yes, there are people who believe there’s a collection of rich evil scoundrels at the top who are out to screw everyone else.  That’s part of what I’m hearing within the 1% vs. 99% argument.  I’m not sure how many of the OWS protesters believe that, but I believe that is at least part of their argument.   

Does Harry Reid believe that Republicans want to kill old people?  Or does Sarah Palin really believe that Obama wants to have death panels?  Probably not, but that doesn’t stop the rhetoric, and it doesn’t stop gullible people from believing it. 

I would agree that a huge problem is that the ultra rich have so much influence, but that argument is not mutually exclusive from the idea that there’s a rich 1% (or less) out to screw everyone else.     

In response to your question â€" I didn’t come up with the idea.  I cut & pasted the article and the title.  I thought the title of the article and the final paragraph were a bit over the top.  But wouldn’t “greedy capitalism” require “greedy capitalists”? 

Honestly, the more thought-provoking part of the post (for me) was the part at the end where the author discussed the effects of individuals pooling together their income into family income and the breakdown of the family unit.  As we see an increase in single parents â€" especially in lower-income communities â€" we should recognize that these trends will continue to increase income disparity, and will cause these single parents to rely even more on government assistance.  Are the social reforms of the last 30-40 years encouraging the breakdown of the family unit?  Does this dependence on the government (and the easy-out that it provides for deadbeat fathers) put people in “a position where everyone has a reasonably equal opportunity”? 

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 11:51:04 AM
Who?

Surely you can name a person in public life who believes this.

I'll skip over people like Cornell West and Michael Moore, and go to Joseph Stiglitz:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963212/-Joseph-Stiglitz-Unpretentious-Must-Read-On-Income-Inequality:-Of-the-1,-by-the-1,-for-the-1 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963212/-Joseph-Stiglitz-Unpretentious-Must-Read-On-Income-Inequality:-Of-the-1,-by-the-1,-for-the-1)

Quote from: Tacachale on November 03, 2011, 10:00:54 AM
Speaking as someone with a wife, our individual incomes are less important than our joint income.

I think that's one of the points the author is trying to make. 

Quote from: finehoe on November 03, 2011, 11:40:23 AM
The index increased almost continuously during that span except for declines during the recessions in 1990â€"1991 and 2001.

So it's possible that the coefficient has dropped since the CBO's last report in 2007? 

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 11:59:01 AM
But even if you don't believe in the concept of 'whores' you can certainly believe in moderation, intelligent choices, minimul planning to prevent catastrophes (like 99 children with 78 women) and a few rules of engagement, right?

Agreed.  And thanks for the sex talk.  ;)

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 12:22:18 PM

Quote from: Ajax on November 03, 2011, 12:15:41 PM

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 11:51:04 AM
Who?

Surely you can name a person in public life who believes this.

I'll skip over people like Cornell West and Michael Moore, and go to Joseph Stiglitz:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963212/-Joseph-Stiglitz-Unpretentious-Must-Read-On-Income-Inequality:-Of-the-1,-by-the-1,-for-the-1 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963212/-Joseph-Stiglitz-Unpretentious-Must-Read-On-Income-Inequality:-Of-the-1,-by-the-1,-for-the-1)

Well then you must be reading something in the meta tags that I cannot see, because Stiglitz isnt saying that at all.  In fact, here is what he claims: 

QuoteHe points out that tax policy is, traditionally, where we'll find the most obvious example of inequality. And, Americans now are "...doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealthg

seems like hes blaming tax policy, not the character flaws of the 'greedy capitalists'.

The top 5% pay well more than 50% of all income tax paid. That is world class inequality.

I am sure the bottom 95% would like to earn enough to pay a higher percentage of the taxes.

In the end the government has cleared corporations to try and get American workers to be competitive with China and India.  Rather than protecting American work as we did with Hamiltonian economics from the beginning of this country through to Regan. 

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 12:22:18 PM

Quote from: Ajax on November 03, 2011, 12:15:41 PM

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 11:51:04 AM
Who?

Surely you can name a person in public life who believes this.

I'll skip over people like Cornell West and Michael Moore, and go to Joseph Stiglitz:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963212/-Joseph-Stiglitz-Unpretentious-Must-Read-On-Income-Inequality:-Of-the-1,-by-the-1,-for-the-1 (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963212/-Joseph-Stiglitz-Unpretentious-Must-Read-On-Income-Inequality:-Of-the-1,-by-the-1,-for-the-1)

Well then you must be reading something in the meta tags that I cannot see, because Stiglitz isnt saying that at all.  In fact, here is what he claims: 

QuoteHe points out that tax policy is, traditionally, where we'll find the most obvious example of inequality. And, Americans now are "...doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealthg

seems like hes blaming tax policy, not the character flaws of the 'greedy capitalists'.

He is criticizing tax policy, but it's also a rebuke of the 1%. 

QuoteBut one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic powerâ€"from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itselfâ€"one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

QuoteThe top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

Edited to add the link to the Stiglitz article: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105 (http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105)

Quote from: Ajax on November 03, 2011, 12:18:29 PM
So it's possible that the coefficient has dropped since the CBO's last report in 2007?

It's quite possible, but the idea that that drop is significant is farfetched.

BTW, the report is not from 2007, it is from Oct. 2011:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

Quote from: JeffreyS on November 03, 2011, 12:32:43 PM
I am sure the bottom 95% would like to earn enough to pay a higher percentage of the taxes.

Agreed and that is completely up to them. Just so you know the bottom 50% pay almost no income tax

Quote from: bill on November 03, 2011, 12:30:37 PM
The top 5% pay well more than 50% of all income tax paid. That is world class inequality.

How so?

Quote from: finehoe on November 03, 2011, 12:38:43 PM

Quote from: Ajax on November 03, 2011, 12:18:29 PM
So it's possible that the coefficient has dropped since the CBO's last report in 2007?

It's quite possible, but the idea that that drop is significant is farfetched.

BTW, the report is not from 2007, it is from Oct. 2011:  http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12485/10-25-HouseholdIncome.pdf

I apologize - I meant their numbers were from 2007.  Since the two declines were during recessions, I was just trying to point out that it's possible the coefficient has declined again between 2007 and 2011. 

Quote from: finehoe on November 03, 2011, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: bill on November 03, 2011, 12:30:37 PM
The top 5% pay well more than 50% of all income tax paid. That is world class inequality.

How so?

By writing a check April 15th

Quote from: bill on November 03, 2011, 12:39:42 PM
Just so you know the bottom 50% pay almost no income tax

And just so you know, government is not funded solely by the income tax. 

It's approximately true that 50 percent of Americans pay no federal income tax. However, conservatives routinely abbreviate this by claiming that 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes. This is the zombie lie. Conservatives get very upset when you call them on it, but that never makes them stop.

So where does the rest come from? Well, in addition to federal income taxes, Americans pay excise taxes, payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and various other taxes. In one form or another, even poor Americans pay a fair chunk of their income in taxes. 

Bottom line: Poor people pay less in taxes than rich people, as they should, but it's very far from zero. The midpoint of the first quintile is about $11,000, and even a household earning that little pays about $1,400 in taxes. The household in the second quintile, earning a munificent $30,000 per year, pays $7,000 in taxes.

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 01:03:37 PM
I know, finehoe.  This latest argument kills me.  It just kills me.  And yet the meme spread to where people honestly believe that the bottom 50% doesnt pay any tax at all.

The best part is that with foundations, tax loopholes, and charitable contributions, the top 4% also don't really pay income taxes either.

I am glad my post gave you two an opportunity to get on your soap boxes about conservatives blah blah blah.
Please note previous post "INCOME TAX PAID"
and yes the top 5% pay over 50% of the INCOME TAX PAID

No go back to your delusional, incoherent blathering

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 01:08:59 PM

Quote from: bill on November 03, 2011, 12:39:42 PM

Quote from: JeffreyS on November 03, 2011, 12:32:43 PM
I am sure the bottom 95% would like to earn enough to pay a higher percentage of the taxes.

Agreed and that is completely up to them. Just so you know the bottom 50% pay almost no income tax

So are you claiming that the entire bottom 95% could just simultaneously transition to the top 5%, Bill?

Can you tell me how that it mathematically possible?

As usual simpleness. I did not claim anything. I stated that it is up to an individual if they want to make more money and pay higher taxes. I welcome all new taxpayers. 

Biggest Public Firms Paid Little U.S. Tax, Study Says

Warren E. Buffett, take note. It is not just a few wealthy individuals paying unusually low taxes to the federal government. Corporate America is not far behind.

A comprehensive study released on Thursday found that 280 of the biggest publicly traded American companies faced federal income tax bills equal to 18.5 percent of their profits during the last three years â€" little more than half the official corporate rate of 35 percent and lower than their competitors in many industrialized countries.

Mr. Buffett, the billionaire investor, has said that the tax code is unfair, allowing him to pay just 17 percent in federal taxes last year, about half the percentage his secretary paid.

The corporate study, prepared by the left-leaning advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice, examined the regulatory filings of the companies to compute each year’s current federal taxes. Some of the companies disputed the findings, saying that the study understated their tax payments by omitting deferred taxes that they may pay in future years.

Using information from the companies’ own corporate filings, however, the study concluded that a quarter of the 280 corporations owed less than 10 percent of profits in federal income taxes and 30 companies had no federal tax liability for the entire three-year period.

The report is being released as corporations are pushing for a cut in their official tax rate, saying the current system puts American companies at a disadvantage with competitors abroad and encourages them to shift jobs and investments overseas.

The Congressional supercommittee charged with cutting the budget deficit is also considering proposals to revamp the tax system, simplifying the corporate structure and possibly lowering corporate rates.

The study said that the shelters and loopholes in the current tax system rewarded companies that aggressively avoided taxes at the expense of those that did not. A quarter of the companies in the study had a federal tax bill of 35 percent of their profits, while a similar number had an effective rate of less than 10 percent.

“Companies that are paying their fair share ought to demand that the tax-dodging companies pay their fair share too,” said Robert S. McIntyre, the author of study. “So should the public, which is subsidizing them in terms of increased federal debt.”

The report is based on data gleaned from the companies’ regulatory filings, which can be different from their corporate tax returns. Even in a year when a company claims an overall tax benefit, it may pay some cash taxes while accumulating credits that can be redeemed in future years. But because most corporations do not release their tax returns, these corporate regulatory filings offer the best publicly available gauge of what companies pay and what strategies they use to reduce their tax bills.

Among the companies that the study said escaped a liability for all three years were Boeing and Ryder System, whose chief financial officer, Art A. Garcia, said the company had benefited from the additional depreciation intended to stimulate the economy.

Boeing officials said they, too, had paid  some federal taxes, but would not say how much. They said they had lowered their rate by taking advantage of tax breaks intended to encourage hiring. Chaz Bickers, a company spokesman, said Boeing hired 9,000 American workers this year

Also on the list was General Electric, which has come under close scrutiny since The New York Times reported earlier this year that the company had recorded $5.1 billion in American profits in 2010, but claimed a federal income tax benefit of $3.2 billion in its regulatory filing.

“The report is inaccurate and distorted,” said Kenneth Juarez, a G.E. spokesman. He said G.E. paid “billions of dollars in taxes in the United States over the last decade,” but would not say what part was federal income taxes.

The company that recorded the biggest reduction in taxes was Wells Fargo Bank, which is a large holding of Mr. Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. The banking company reported a total of $49 billion in profits in 2008 through 2010, yet received a tax benefit of $651 million. Ancel Martinez, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, said much of the tax savings came from write-offs obtained after its 2008 purchase of Wachovia, which incurred big losses during the financial crisis.

American corporations are paying a smaller share of taxes than in previous decades. They paid a total of $191 billion in federal income taxes in 2010, the Internal Revenue Service said, representing about 1.3 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product. That is down from about 6 percent during the 1950s (although some of the decline is because a smaller percentage of businesses now file as corporations).

Despite the decline in corporate tax rates since then, business advocates say the nation needs to lower its top rate further to encourage hiring and investment. Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, said that the United States system was not competitive because it taxed income earned around the world, instead of just in this country.

“There are still Bolsheviks who recognize that we need to bring the rates down,” he said.

But the Citizens for Tax Justice study found that two-thirds of  the American companies with significant profits overseas actually paid more in taxes to foreign governments than they did in the United States. Rather than lowering the corporate rate more, the study said, the federal government should end the subsidies and shelters that favor companies that game the system.

“Closing the loopholes will have real benefits, including a fairer tax system, reduced federal budget deficits and more resources to improve our roads, bridges and school â€" things that are really important for economic development here in the United States," the report said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Biggest-Public-Firms-Paid-nytimes-969088864.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=2&asset=&ccode=

The top 5% pay 50% of the income taxes because they are earning way more than 50% of the money.  They still are paying a smaller PERCENTAGE of their earnings than the 45% of us are on our earnings.

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 03, 2011, 02:25:48 PM
The top 5% pay 50% of the income taxes because they are earning way more than 50% of the money.  They still are paying a smaller PERCENTAGE of their earnings than the 45% of us are on our earnings.

Huh? fuzzy math

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 01:39:03 PM

Quote from: bill on November 03, 2011, 01:11:50 PM

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 01:03:37 PM
I know, finehoe.  This latest argument kills me.  It just kills me.  And yet the meme spread to where people honestly believe that the bottom 50% doesnt pay any tax at all.

The best part is that with foundations, tax loopholes, and charitable contributions, the top 4% also don't really pay income taxes either.

I am glad my post gave you two an opportunity to get on your soap boxes about conservatives blah blah blah.
Please note previous post "INCOME TAX PAID"
and yes the top 5% pay over 50% of the INCOME TAX PAID

No go back to your delusional, incoherent blathering

would you consider hallunicating the word, 'conservatives' in my post to be 'delusional'?  Or just blather?

Blather

Quote from: stephendare on November 03, 2011, 02:52:53 PM
Well we do agree then.  Your comments are blather.  Perhaps we differ in as much as I also think they are delusional.

It really is as simple as math, which apparently you are fuzzy at.

Nanny nanny boo boo
Well explain it smartest guy in the room

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 03, 2011, 02:25:48 PM
The top 5% pay 50% of the income taxes because they are earning way more than 50% of the money.  They still are paying a smaller PERCENTAGE of their earnings than the 45% of us are on our earnings.

Nothing fuzzy about it.  The top 5% earn more than 50% of all income earned by everybody.  Of course they pay 50% of the income taxes.  If they paid taxes at the same rate (%) that the rest of us do, then they would pay MORE than 50% of the income taxes.  Since they don't, it is obvious that they pay a much smaller PERCENTAGE on their income than the rest of us do.

i.e. Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of taxes on his income than his secretary does.

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 03, 2011, 03:16:01 PM

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 03, 2011, 02:25:48 PM
The top 5% pay 50% of the income taxes because they are earning way more than 50% of the money.  They still are paying a smaller PERCENTAGE of their earnings than the 45% of us are on our earnings.

Nothing fuzzy about it.  The top 5% earn more than 50% of all income earned by everybody.  Of course they pay 50% of the income taxes.  If they paid taxes at the same rate (%) that the rest of us do, then they would pay MORE than 50% of the income taxes.  Since they don't, it is obvious that they pay a much smaller PERCENTAGE on their income than the rest of us do.

i.e. Warren Buffet pays a lower percentage of taxes on his income than his secretary does.

Now I get it thanks for explaining. The 50% that do not pay income taxes are paying a MUCH higher percentage than those 5%

(Banging head on desk) I give up!

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 07:48:15 AM
(Banging head on desk) I give up!

I hate to break it to you, but the desk won't feel a thing.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 04, 2011, 07:53:47 AM

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 07:48:15 AM
(Banging head on desk) I give up!

I hate to break it to you, but the desk won't feel a thing.

I know, but Bill isn't within reach. He's either pretending to be obtuse or is one of those people who can't count to twenty-one without playing with themselves.

Oligarchy, American Style
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 3, 2011

Inequality is back in the news, largely thanks to Occupy Wall Street, but with an assist from the Congressional Budget Office. And you know what that means: It’s time to roll out the obfuscators!

Anyone who has tracked this issue over time knows what I mean. Whenever growing income disparities threaten to come into focus, a reliable set of defenders tries to bring back the blur. Think tanks put out reports claiming that inequality isn’t really rising, or that it doesn’t matter. Pundits try to put a more benign face on the phenomenon, claiming that it’s not really the wealthy few versus the rest, it’s the educated versus the less educated.

So what you need to know is that all of these claims are basically attempts to obscure the stark reality: We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only.

The budget office laid out some of that stark reality in a recent report, which documented a sharp decline in the share of total income going to lower- and middle-income Americans. We still like to think of ourselves as a middle-class country. But with the bottom 80 percent of households now receiving less than half of total income, that’s a vision increasingly at odds with reality.

In response, the usual suspects have rolled out some familiar arguments: the data are flawed (they aren’t); the rich are an ever-changing group (not so); and so on. The most popular argument right now seems, however, to be the claim that we may not be a middle-class society, but we’re still an upper-middle-class society, in which a broad class of highly educated workers, who have the skills to compete in the modern world, is doing very well.

It’s a nice story, and a lot less disturbing than the picture of a nation in which a much smaller group of rich people is becoming increasingly dominant. But it’s not true.

Workers with college degrees have indeed, on average, done better than workers without, and the gap has generally widened over time. But highly educated Americans have by no means been immune to income stagnation and growing economic insecurity. Wage gains for most college-educated workers have been unimpressive (and nonexistent since 2000), while even the well-educated can no longer count on getting jobs with good benefits. In particular, these days workers with a college degree but no further degrees are less likely to get workplace health coverage than workers with only a high school degree were in 1979.

So who is getting the big gains? A very small, wealthy minority.

The budget office report tells us that essentially all of the upward redistribution of income away from the bottom 80 percent has gone to the highest-income 1 percent of Americans. That is, the protesters who portray themselves as representing the interests of the 99 percent have it basically right, and the pundits solemnly assuring them that it’s really about education, not the gains of a small elite, have it completely wrong.

If anything, the protesters are setting the cutoff too low. The recent budget office report doesn’t look inside the top 1 percent, but an earlier report, which only went up to 2005, found that almost two-thirds of the rising share of the top percentile in income actually went to the top 0.1 percent â€" the richest thousandth of Americans, who saw their real incomes rise more than 400 percent over the period from 1979 to 2005.

Who’s in that top 0.1 percent? Are they heroic entrepreneurs creating jobs? No, for the most part, they’re corporate executives. Recent research shows that around 60 percent of the top 0.1 percent either are executives in nonfinancial companies or make their money in finance, i.e., Wall Street broadly defined. Add in lawyers and people in real estate, and we’re talking about more than 70 percent of the lucky one-thousandth.

But why does this growing concentration of income and wealth in a few hands matter? Part of the answer is that rising inequality has meant a nation in which most families don’t share fully in economic growth. Another part of the answer is that once you realize just how much richer the rich have become, the argument that higher taxes on high incomes should be part of any long-run budget deal becomes a lot more compelling.

The larger answer, however, is that extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy. Can anyone seriously deny that our political system is being warped by the influence of big money, and that the warping is getting worse as the wealth of a few grows ever larger?

Some pundits are still trying to dismiss concerns about rising inequality as somehow foolish. But the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/opinion/oligarchy-american-style.html?_r=1

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 07:59:12 AM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on November 04, 2011, 07:53:47 AM

Quote from: Dog Walker on November 04, 2011, 07:48:15 AM
(Banging head on desk) I give up!

I hate to break it to you, but the desk won't feel a thing.

I know, but Bill isn't within reach. He's either pretending to be obtuse or is one of those people who can't count to twenty-one without playing with themselves.

Bill is clinging to a version of history that he bought from others. It's not easy to dump it, once you've bought into it. The good news is that he's in the conversation. When one has facts to present, one should present them.

He is factually correct about 50% of Americans with zero federal income tax liability.

Others have shown where income taxes on the uber wealthy come to a smaller percentage of income once you factor in payroll taxes and cost of survival. He gets it. We shouldn't expect an immediate reversal on an anonymous message board however.

I can learn from Bill, and he can learn from me.

It's a good thing.

Keep coming back Bill.

Well said, Bucket!

I must be missing something when I am reading this.  Did I understand that 50% of the people do not pay income tax???

Is that 50% unemployed or making income below the taxable level?

Sorry . I really don't want to look like a total moron but I think I read that it is fact that 50% have no tax liability.. to me this means they pay no tax.

????

Oh no.. not at all. I just find the figure of 50% staggering, not to mention misleading.  I guess factoring in Retirement age, young people who do not or are too young to work, unemployed , what have you, I guess it could be.   It just seems like ,as i said a staggering percentage but I guess it is not impossible.

makes sense when you put it that way.  :)

In the interest of truth, Politifact explains that the "50% don't pay taxes" number refers to households, not individuals.  So in fact, 50% of households don't pay income tax.  Whether the taxing system is fair or not I will leave to previous posters. 

I like the FAIR tax.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/sep/16/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-wolf-blitzer-was-wro/

QuoteNever mind that there are more ways than military service to 'serve' this country or our society.

I would certainly like to see more of this...

Quote from: stephendare on November 06, 2011, 11:44:53 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 11:14:32 AM

QuoteNever mind that there are more ways than military service to 'serve' this country or our society.

I would certainly like to see more of this...

How do you mean?

Paid opportunities... with benefits similar to the military... providing service to the country.  Not everyone is able to serve in the military.  Contrary to popular belief... they are pretty selective.  Those who do not make the grade to serve in a military capacity should be able to serve in some other form.

One example could be service in the National Park service... or some kind of education support service.  I would welcome anyones ideas for such a program...

Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2011, 09:49:53 PM

Quote from: NotNow on November 05, 2011, 09:15:16 PM
In the interest of truth, Politifact explains that the "50% don't pay taxes" number refers to households, not individuals.  So in fact, 50% of households don't pay income tax.  Whether the taxing system is fair or not I will leave to previous posters. 

I like the FAIR tax.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/sep/16/debbie-wasserman-schultz/debbie-wasserman-schultz-says-wolf-blitzer-was-wro/

In point of fact, politifact is incorrect.  A quick reference with the GAO clears that up.

Source? 

I am simply quoting a website.  I checked some others and found that "household" is the commonly accepted format.  And since that is how we pay our income taxes, it seems to make sense:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index.htm

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm

But I would be interested in seeing the GAO source that you mentioned.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: stephendare on November 06, 2011, 11:44:53 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 11:14:32 AM

QuoteNever mind that there are more ways than military service to 'serve' this country or our society.

I would certainly like to see more of this...

How do you mean?

Paid opportunities... with benefits similar to the military... providing service to the country.  Not everyone is able to serve in the military.  Contrary to popular belief... they are pretty selective.  Those who do not make the grade to serve in a military capacity should be able to serve in some other form.

One example could be service in the National Park service... or some kind of education support service.  I would welcome anyones ideas for such a program...

Anyone can serve now by volunteering.  There is the Peace Corps, which offers an avenue of service for all ages.  There is the Job Corps, which offers free occupational training and education for young people.

I don't personally believe that there is any way to replicate an institution such as the US Military in any civilian service agency.

I tend to think of military service as a compelling example of selfless and honorable service to one's country.  Service in which some citizens sacrifice in ways most other citizens will never know, up to and including their own life.  I can think of no better nor more honorable way to serve "our society".

You are mistaken.  No other occupation asks for such selflessness and sacrifice in peacetime.  Young men and women stand ready tonight, and every night in cesspools, frozen wastelands, deserts, and oceans around the world so that we can sit safely at home and type these words.  In time of war, many of those same people will place their bodies, their future and their lives on the line.  This can not be marginalized into "just like any other career". 

What you call "government directed violence" is actually defense of the national interest of our country, at times, defense of our countries and even our personal survival.  It is not "evil", it is honorable and very, very necessary.  It always will be.

And though despised by some, marginalized and belittled by others, US service men and women continue to make those sacrifices, even make a career of it.  Not for money, but usually because they hear the call for service and see the value in what they do. 

It is a difficult, dangerous, and sometimes dreadful duty, borne by hero's all.  And I admire those that are willing to bear that burden for all of us.

Yes, I think that "perspective" would be very important.

Quote from: NotNow on November 06, 2011, 04:45:57 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 12:41:47 PM

Quote from: stephendare on November 06, 2011, 11:44:53 AM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 06, 2011, 11:14:32 AM

QuoteNever mind that there are more ways than military service to 'serve' this country or our society.

I would certainly like to see more of this...

How do you mean?

Paid opportunities... with benefits similar to the military... providing service to the country.  Not everyone is able to serve in the military.  Contrary to popular belief... they are pretty selective.  Those who do not make the grade to serve in a military capacity should be able to serve in some other form.

One example could be service in the National Park service... or some kind of education support service.  I would welcome anyones ideas for such a program...

Anyone can serve now by volunteering.  There is the Peace Corps, which offers an avenue of service for all ages.  There is the Job Corps, which offers free occupational training and education for young people.

I don't personally believe that there is any way to replicate an institution such as the US Military in any civilian service agency.

I agree with your point of there not being a way to replicate an institution such as the US Military in any civilian service agency...to a point.

Not Now.. you know that I almost never enter a debate....  I think for years prior to "don't ask ,don't tell " there were plenty of people WILLING to serve in the US Military , but they were not allowed to IF they are Gay.  If they did serve and it was found out , or they were "caught"  they were ousted, under dishonorable or other-than-honorable discharge.    So , quite simply ,some people never served because they were never allowed to, Some attempted to serve but was ousted because of this ( I personally think it is ridiculous, nevertheless) Some served, said nothing , never got caught , lucky them . Now it is no longer an issue.  Too little, too late.  I don't mean to steer totally off topic. 

I wholeheartedly agree with Stephen on a point he makes  ( and both of you know I never get in the middle of an exchange between you two)     THERE ARE OTHER WAYS to serve our Country....MANY other ways.   Law Enforcement personnel , for example.    Personally I think working for or volunteering for charitable foundations or agencies, helping the elderly , helping the homeless, helping feed the homeless, Habitat for humanity, community volunteers ,etc , etc.  These are (other) ways we serve our Country.

When I was a Senior in High School I was pressured , upon graduation to enlist in the Marines.  I never did ,because I knew they did not, at the time allow gays in the military. PERIOD.   So I never attempted enlistment , although I did have to keep draft info current  for years following.

Maybe my points make no sense at all, but I have the utmost respect for Law Enforcement and Any/ All Military service personel, either serving , reserve , or retired.   Likewise my hat is off to a volunteer on any sort of scale.

MEYER, DAKOTA

Rank: Sergeant
Organization: U.S. Marine Corps
Company: Embedded Training Team 2-8Division: Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7
Born: 26 June 1988, Columbia, KY
Departed: No
Entered Service At: Louisville, KY:
Date of Issue: 09/15/2011
Place / Date: 8 September 2009, Kunar Province, Afghanistan 

  Citation

Corporal Meyer maintained security at a patrol rally point while other members of his team moved on foot with two platoons of Afghan National Army and Border Police into the village of Ganjgal for a pre-dawn meeting with village elders. Moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed by more than 50 enemy fighters firing rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and machine guns from houses and fortified positions on the slopes above. Hearing over the radio that four U.S. team members were cut off, Corporal Meyer seized the initiative. With a fellow Marine driving, Corporal Meyer took the exposed gunner's position in a gun-truck as they drove down the steeply terraced terrain in a daring attempt to disrupt the enemy attack and locate the trapped U.S. team. Disregarding intense enemy fire now concentrated on their lone vehicle, Corporal Meyer killed a number of enemy fighters with the mounted machine guns and his rifle, some at near point blank range, as he and his driver made three solo trips into the ambush area. During the first two trips, he and his driver evacuated two dozen Afghan soldiers, many of whom were wounded. When one machine gun became inoperable, he directed a return to the rally point to switch to another gun-truck for a third trip into the ambush area where his accurate fire directly supported the remaining U.S. personnel and Afghan soldiers fighting their way out of the ambush. Despite a shrapnel wound to his arm, Corporal Meyer made two more trips into the ambush area in a third gun-truck accompanied by four other Afghan vehicles to recover more wounded Afghan soldiers and search for the missing U.S. team members. Still under heavy enemy fire, he dismounted the vehicle on the fifth trip and moved on foot to locate and recover the bodies of his team members. Corporal Meyer's daring initiative and bold fighting spirit throughout the 6-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy's attack and inspired the members of the combined force to fight on. His unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his U.S. and Afghan comrades in the face of almost certain death reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.


BASILONE, JOHN

Rank: Sergeant
Organization: U.S. Marine Corps
Born: 4 November 1916, Buffalo, N.Y.
Departed: Yes   

  Citation

For extraordinary heroism and conspicuous gallantry in action against enemy Japanese forces, above and beyond the call of duty, while serving with the 1st Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division in the Lunga Area. Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, on 24 and 25 October 1942. While the enemy was hammering at the Marines' defensive positions, Sgt. Basilone, in charge of 2 sections of heavy machineguns, fought valiantly to check the savage and determined assault. In a fierce frontal attack with the Japanese blasting his guns with grenades and mortar fire, one of Sgt. Basilone's sections, with its guncrews, was put out of action, leaving only 2 men able to carry on. Moving an extra gun into position, he placed it in action, then, under continual fire, repaired another and personally manned it, gallantly holding his line until replacements arrived. A little later, with ammunition critically low and the supply lines cut off, Sgt. Basilone, at great risk of his life and in the face of continued enemy attack, battled his way through hostile lines with urgently needed shells for his gunners, thereby contributing in large measure to the virtual annihilation of a Japanese regiment. His great personal valor and courageous initiative were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service.

http://www.cmohs.org/



Commercial fishing?  If you can't see the difference, our perspectives are VERY different StephenDare!

I noticed that you saw in the article that you posted that in 2008 "Security Guard" had entered the top ten most dangerous occupations.  Note that in the list that you provided, for 2010, that "Police Officer/Sheriff's Deputy" was listed in the top ten.  But the point, whether Military or Police, is not the death rate.  The point that you don't grasp is that these young people and all those Officers fell while going in harms way for the sake of others.   That doesn't sound like much, does it?  I, and many others, can assure you that it is a life changing experience. 

An article that YOU might be interested in (a little dated, but the point remains):

http://www.nysun.com/new-york/heroes-and-cowards/48926/

Timkin,  I agree with you that there are many ways to serve this country.  Of course service in our Armed Forces is special and should be recognized as such.   Thanks for your support of military and law enforcement.  I have known several gay persons in the military and many in Police work.  I can honestly say that knowing their sexual preference meant nothing, as they have all been dedicated and just as professional as any other soldier, sailor, marine, or officer that I have known.  Today these labels mean very little to most of us.  (Believe me, the last thing any Officer cares about is who or what someone is sleeping with, as long as they are acting reasonably.) 

And although StephenDare! and I argue quite a bit, and of course he is missing his "perspective" on this one, I assure you and anyone else reading this that Dare! has supported Police Officers in the past when he did not have to.   I don't mistake his opinions about the military for lack of courage or something on his part.  I truly believe that he is seeking the truth in his own way as we all are.  I don't believe that he wishes any ill will, he is just stating his beliefs as he has come to know them in his own journey through this life, as we all are. 

Of course he is still wrong.  ;)

...And far be it from me to try to be the decider of who is right or wrong... Lord knows I have been wrong countless times in my life.

  You make very valid points.... and so does he.  It is not a matter of side-taking on my behalf.   

As to your position about Armed Forces being special and recognized as such, I seriously doubt Stephen or anyone else would dispute that point , and I can only speak for myself when I say I wholeheartedly agree with YOUR point.

Quote from: stephendare on November 05, 2011, 10:06:24 PM
'household' is too tricky of a term to gauge correctly anyways, notnow. 

How do you count two couples living in the same house that both pay taxes?  Is that one household or two?

What if one couple pays taxes and the other doesnt?  Would you count that as a 'household' that doesnt pay taxes or one that pays half taxes?

What about unmarried people in the same home?

Or tax paying children of tax paying parents?

Or taxpaying children living with non tax paying parents?

Its just a ridiculous claim notnow and a moments reflection should have cleared that up.

In fact, it is a measure of total americans.

22% of americans (or households, if you like) recieve social security.  They are presently income tax exempt, but have already paid an adult lifetime of income taxes.  Don't you think its dishonest to represent these people as 'not paying income taxes' in this context?

They paid the amount they agreed to pay.  Income taxes until retirement.  basically 45 years of taxable income.  That's their fair share, thats what our budget figures are based on, and it is a lie to pretend that they are somehow slacking off of their commitment.

Shameful.

The second group of people reflects the tax credits given for the raising of children.  The deductions are like your fair tax.  They are the same amount no matter how much you make in income.  No child is worth more than another child to the tax man.  So if those children were in wealthy families instead of poor families, the amount that the government allows for all of them is the same.

Obviously a poor family will quickly deduct enough for their children that they do not owe any income taxes.  That is because the amount per child is the same no matter what income level.  Taken together, the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account for about 15% of the people who pay no federal income tax.

http://dmarron.com/2011/07/27/why-do-half-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax/

It is so dishonest to make this kind of claim that I think people who continue to make it after they have been corrected deserve to be known as what they are:  malicious, willful, demogogic liars.

Wow, looks like you're right on something??  Ok, just a little bit...because while you're right in saying that making a blanket statement like, "50% don't pay taxes" is dishonest, yes it is.  Anyone that works in this country (legally works, meaning they don't get handed cash under-the-table so to speak), has to have a federal account number (this is your SSN for those that may not know), to which all of your government taxes are held, so yes, anyone that works pays taxes.  However, and you knew this was coming, those 50% being referenced receive tax refunds equal to or even greater than the amount of taxes they've had deducted and paid into the system.  Net/Net realization = $0 or -$0 dollars.

Damn it, I pulled a StephenDare and shot off at the fingertips before I fully read something. Shame on me ;-)  I just saw and read the link you posted ~sighs~.  Now I have to admit that you had the facts right on something.  Copy and paste this or bookmark it cause it's not likely to happen again ;-)

The 1% are the very best destroyers of wealth the world has ever seen

Our common treasury in the last 30 years has been captured by industrial psychopaths. That's why we're nearly bankrupt

If wealth was the inevitable result of hard work and enterprise, every woman in Africa would be a millionaire. The claims that the ultra-rich 1% make for themselves â€" that they are possessed of unique intelligence or creativity or drive â€" are examples of the self-attribution fallacy. This means crediting yourself with outcomes for which you weren't responsible. Many of those who are rich today got there because they were able to capture certain jobs. This capture owes less to talent and intelligence than to a combination of the ruthless exploitation of others and accidents of birth, as such jobs are taken disproportionately by people born in certain places and into certain classes.

The findings of the psychologist Daniel Kahneman, winner of a Nobel economics prize, are devastating to the beliefs that financial high-fliers entertain about themselves. He discovered that their apparent success is a cognitive illusion. For example, he studied the results achieved by 25 wealth advisers across eight years. He found that the consistency of their performance was zero. "The results resembled what you would expect from a dice-rolling contest, not a game of skill." Those who received the biggest bonuses had simply got lucky.

Such results have been widely replicated. They show that traders and fund managers throughout Wall Street receive their massive remuneration for doing no better than would a chimpanzee flipping a coin. When Kahneman tried to point this out, they blanked him. "The illusion of skill … is deeply ingrained in their culture."

So much for the financial sector and its super-educated analysts. As for other kinds of business, you tell me. Is your boss possessed of judgment, vision and management skills superior to those of anyone else in the firm, or did he or she get there through bluff, bullshit and bullying?

In a study published by the journal Psychology, Crime and Law, Belinda Board and Katarina Fritzon tested 39 senior managers and chief executives from leading British businesses. They compared the results to the same tests on patients at Broadmoor special hospital, where people who have been convicted of serious crimes are incarcerated. On certain indicators of psychopathy, the bosses's scores either matched or exceeded those of the patients. In fact, on these criteria, they beat even the subset of patients who had been diagnosed with psychopathic personality disorders.

The psychopathic traits on which the bosses scored so highly, Board and Fritzon point out, closely resemble the characteristics that companies look for. Those who have these traits often possess great skill in flattering and manipulating powerful people. Egocentricity, a strong sense of entitlement, a readiness to exploit others and a lack of empathy and conscience are also unlikely to damage their prospects in many corporations.

In their book Snakes in Suits, Paul Babiak and Robert Hare point out that as the old corporate bureaucracies have been replaced by flexible, ever-changing structures, and as team players are deemed less valuable than competitive risk-takers, psychopathic traits are more likely to be selected and rewarded. Reading their work, it seems to me that if you have psychopathic tendencies and are born to a poor family, you're likely to go to prison. If you have psychopathic tendencies and are born to a rich family, you're likely to go to business school.

This is not to suggest that all executives are psychopaths. It is to suggest that the economy has been rewarding the wrong skills. As the bosses have shaken off the trade unions and captured both regulators and tax authorities, the distinction between the productive and rentier upper classes has broken down. Chief executives now behave like dukes, extracting from their financial estates sums out of all proportion to the work they do or the value they generate, sums that sometimes exhaust the businesses they parasitise. They are no more deserving of the share of wealth they've captured than oil sheikhs.

The rest of us are invited, by governments and by fawning interviews in the press, to subscribe to their myth of election: the belief that they are possessed of superhuman talents. The very rich are often described as wealth creators. But they have preyed on the earth's natural wealth and their workers' labour and creativity, impoverishing both people and planet. Now they have almost bankrupted us. The wealth creators of neoliberal mythology are some of the most effective wealth destroyers the world has ever seen.

What has happened over the past 30 years is the capture of the world's common treasury by a handful of people, assisted by neoliberal policies which were first imposed on rich nations by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I am now going to bombard you with figures. I'm sorry about that, but these numbers need to be tattooed on our minds. Between 1947 and 1979, productivity in the US rose by 119%, while the income of the bottom fifth of the population rose by 122%. But from 1979 to 2009, productivity rose by 80%, while the income of the bottom fifth fell by 4%. In roughly the same period, the income of the top 1% rose by 270%.

In the UK, the money earned by the poorest tenth fell by 12% between 1999 and 2009, while the money made by the richest 10th rose by 37%. The Gini coefficient, which measures income inequality, climbed in this country from 26 in 1979 to 40 in 2009.

In his book The Haves and the Have Nots, Branko Milanovic tries to discover who was the richest person who has ever lived. Beginning with the loaded Roman triumvir Marcus Crassus, he measures wealth according to the quantity of his compatriots' labour a rich man could buy. It appears that the richest man to have lived in the past 2,000 years is alive today. Carlos Slim could buy the labour of 440,000 average Mexicans. This makes him 14 times as rich as Crassus, nine times as rich as Carnegie and four times as rich as Rockefeller.

Until recently, we were mesmerised by the bosses' self-attribution. Their acolytes, in academia, the media, thinktanks and government, created an extensive infrastructure of junk economics and flattery to justify their seizure of other people's wealth. So immersed in this nonsense did we become that we seldom challenged its veracity.

This is now changing. On Sunday evening I witnessed a remarkable thing: a debate on the steps of St Paul's Cathedral between Stuart Fraser, chairman of the Corporation of the City of London, another official from the corporation, the turbulent priest Father William Taylor, John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network and the people of Occupy London. It had something of the flavour of the Putney debates of 1647. For the first time in decades â€" and all credit to the corporation officials for turning up â€" financial power was obliged to answer directly to the people.

It felt like history being made. The undeserving rich are now in the frame, and the rest of us want our money back.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers

Quote from: second_pancake on November 09, 2011, 12:35:12 PM
those 50% being referenced receive tax refunds equal to or even greater than the amount of taxes they've had deducted and paid into the system.  Net/Net realization = $0 or -$0 dollars.

Oh, so these are the people you're talking about: 

QuoteMore than 1,500 millionaires paid no income tax last year, according to federal records, mainly due to tax loopholes and savvy accountants.  American millionaires receive more than $30 billion in government subsidies each year.  The $30 billion in handouts, to put it in perspective, amounts to twice as much as the government spends on NASA, and three times the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency. ... The biggest money comesâ€"or goes, ratherâ€"through unpaid taxes.

http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

QuoteMore than 1,500 millionaires paid no income tax last year, according to federal records, mainly due to tax loopholes and savvy accountants

Were these illegal?  My guess is no.  But most of us are right there with ya... most of us have been screaming for simplification of the tax code and closing loopholes.

QuoteAmerican millionaires receive more than $30 billion in government subsidies each year.

According to the link you posted...

QuoteThese billions of dollars for millionaires include $74 million of unemployment checks, $316
million in farm subsidies, $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates, $9 billion of
retirement checks, $75.6 million in residential energy tax credits, and $7.5 million to compensate
for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured. All and all, over
$9.5 billion in government benefits have been paid to millionaires since 2003. Millionaires also
borrowed $16 million in government backed education loans to attend college.

Are you suggesting means testing for retirement benefits?  How about unemployment checks?  We could probably find common ground in the elimination of residential energy credits, ranch and estate preservation and federal insurance for uninsured homes.  Clearly means testing for college loans needs tightening too...

See... we DO have common ground... :)

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 15, 2011, 03:36:28 PM
Were these illegal? 

Did either second_pancake or myself say those not paying were acting illegally?

Quote from: finehoe on November 15, 2011, 04:06:40 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 15, 2011, 03:36:28 PM
Were these illegal? 

Did either second_pancake or myself say those not paying were acting illegally?

So the problem... as many of us have said all along... is government. 

Just like the Miller Lite commercials, both sides are "right". Tastes great... Less filling. (Although these are value judgments which can be debated).

It is the government's fault and it is the corporations fault.

They are in bed together. Corp A might be in a different position than Corp B, and the same goes for politicians A and B. It is still an orgy.

As long as we address one side, we address nothing.

Ah... so what one side sees a corporate handout or welfare for the rich... the other sees a stimulas or an incentive.

QuoteThese billions of dollars for millionaires include $74 million of unemployment checks, $316
million in farm subsidies, $89 million for preservation of ranches and estates, $9 billion of
retirement checks, $75.6 million in residential energy tax credits, and $7.5 million to compensate
for damages caused by emergencies to property that should have been insured. All and all, over
$9.5 billion in government benefits have been paid to millionaires since 2003. Millionaires also
borrowed $16 million in government backed education loans to attend college.

Solyndra was just the latest example of a corporate handout or corporate welfare...  or was that an incentive or stimulas??

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2011, 07:03:41 AM
So the problem... as many of us have said all along... is government.

You've almost got it...the problem is government run by and for the rich and corporate interests.

Quote from: buckethead on November 16, 2011, 07:23:11 AM
As long as we address one side, we address nothing.

Exactly.  The ideological fantasy that government is the problem, and simply getting rid of it is the answer, is a great propaganda slogan for white collar criminals to promote, but it makes little sense in the real world of flawed human beings and a persistent rogue element in any society.

For it is the constant weakening of regulations by the banks and their lobbyists that led to the financial crisis and the looting of the public trust.   If the criminals have corrupted the policeman, one does not get rid of the police department as a solution, because that is to fulfil the very intent of the criminal element in the first place.  One reforms what has been corrupted, and prosecutes the criminals more vigorously.

The problem is the weakening of government by corruption. And the solution is reform, not more of what went wrong with the rule of law, replacing it with lawlessness.

The danger is that when, in the name of libertarian reform or some other misguided anarchist movement, the laws are knocked down, and the social fabric is torn, very often the worst of us, the truly ruthless opportunists, put forward their 'strong men' or a 'great leader' to bring back order and act as the law, or merely preside over the law of the jungle.

And then begins the real descent into hell.

QuoteThe ideological fantasy that government is the problem, and simply getting rid of it is the answer

You are mis stating the fantasy AND the answer.  Big, bloated, expensive, government is the problem.... and making it smaller and more accountable is the answer.  No one... except some loons at the fringes of the left and right talk about getting rid of government.

Quotethe banks and their lobbyists

You mention the awful "banks and their lobbyists".  I guess we are referring to "corporate lobbyists" only.  Farmers clearly have lobbyists... so do environmentalists, gun lobby, anti-gun lobby, cheese lobby, green lobby, gay lobby, steel lobby.  Hell... for every single issue there is a lobby.  Outlaw em all?  Just some?  Only the ones we agree with?

Quote from: finehoe on November 16, 2011, 12:16:07 PM

Exactly.  The ideological fantasy that government is the problem, and simply getting rid of it is the answer, is a great propaganda slogan for white collar criminals to promote, but it makes little sense in the real world of flawed human beings and a persistent rogue element in any society.

The ideological fantasy that government is the answer is a great propaganda slogan for well-meaning do-gooders to promote but it makes little sense in the real world when it will always be composed of flawed human beings who try as they may cannot protect us from the persistent rogue element in society and who in the process of trying to protect us take away more and more of our personal freedom.

^^So you are of the opinion that no law enforcement mechanism is needed in modern society?

Quote from: finehoe on November 16, 2011, 12:51:52 PM
^^So you are of the opinion that no law enforcement mechanism is needed in modern society?

Law enforcement should be for violence, theft, fraud and coercion and that should be primarily at the state and local level.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2011, 12:44:45 PM
You mention the awful "banks and their lobbyists".  I guess we are referring to "corporate lobbyists" only. 

This thread is about 'greedy capitalists' so of course I mention banks.  When someone starts a post on agricultural subsidies, then I'll mention farmers.

Quote from: urbanlibertarian on November 16, 2011, 01:06:28 PM
Law enforcement should be for violence, theft, fraud and coercion and that should be primarily at the state and local level.

Have not the banks commited theft, fraud and coercion?  How are the states and localities dealing with it?  By declaring bankruptcy?  http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-14/jefferson-county-bankruptcy-a-blow-to-long-suffering-birmingham.html

So... we should just ban "the bankers lobby"?

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2011, 01:45:33 PM
So... we should just ban "the bankers lobby"?

I can only guess that you are being deliberately obtuse.  I've already stated what should be done:  Reform what has been corrupted, and prosecute the criminals more vigorously.

Quote from: finehoe on November 16, 2011, 02:37:37 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2011, 01:45:33 PM
So... we should just ban "the bankers lobby"?

I can only guess that you are being deliberately obtuse.  I've already stated what should be done:  Reform what has been corrupted, and prosecute the criminals more vigorously.

And skip on down the lane FEELING oblivious.

The reformers are corrupt and the prosecuters are criminals

Quote from: finehoe on November 16, 2011, 02:37:37 PM

Quote from: BridgeTroll on November 16, 2011, 01:45:33 PM
So... we should just ban "the bankers lobby"?

I can only guess that you are being deliberately obtuse.  I've already stated what should be done:  Reform what has been corrupted, and prosecute the criminals more vigorously.

Gee... I guess I could say the same for you. 

QuoteReform what has been corrupted, and prosecute the criminals more vigorously.

This should be a bumper sticker... something everyone agrees with... yet too vague to really discusss...

Prosecutions for Bank Fraud Fall Sharply
By CATHERINE RAMPELL

Federal prosecutions for financial institution fraud have tumbled over the last decade, despite the recent troubles in the banking sector, according to a new analysis of Justice Department data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University.

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/15/business/economy/economix-15trac/economix-15trac-custom1.jpg)

This category can refer to crimes committed both within and against banks. Defendants include bank executives who mislead regulators, mortgage brokers who falsify loan documents, and consumers who write bad checks. (Here are some recent cases of bank fraud prosecutions: http://www.irs.treas.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=246532,00.html)

During the first 11 months of the 2011 fiscal year, the federal government filed 1,251 new prosecutions for financial institution fraud. If that pace continues, TRAC projects a total of 1,365 prosecutions for the fiscal year. That’s less than half the total a decade ago.

The decline in these new cases stands in contrast to the government’s broader approach to federal criminal prosecutions. Federal prosecutions for other crimes have grown tremendously, with the number of total new prosecutions filed for all federal crimes nearly doubling over the last decade:

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/11/15/business/economy/economix-15trac/economix-15trac-custom2.jpg)

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/15/prosecutions-for-bank-fraud-fall-sharply/

Perhaps the Problem lies with the fact that much of what used to be illegal is now legal.

Namely, commingling commercial deposits with investment banking. Throw in some government backed loans and bailouts are a certainty.

It isn't either/or here guys.

I think we could agree that Jon Corzine won't be helping to save investors and depositors from governmental/corporate fraud.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/01/03/bloomberg_articlesLX0Z3W0UQVI9.DTL#ixzz1iR3o5rzs

Thought some might enjoy this interesting artical about the idea of psychopaths in our institutions.

Jan. 3 (Bloomberg) -- It took a relatively obscure former British academic to propagate a theory of the financial crisis that would confirm what many people suspected all along: The "corporate psychopaths" at the helm of our financial institutions are to blame.

Clive R. Boddy, most recently a professor at the Nottingham Business School at Nottingham Trent University, says psychopaths are the 1 percent of "people who, perhaps due to physical factors to do with abnormal brain connectivity and chemistry" lack a "conscience, have few emotions and display an inability to have any feelings, sympathy or empathy for other people."

As a result, Boddy argues in a recent issue of the Journal of Business Ethics, such people are "extraordinarily cold, much more calculating and ruthless towards others than most people are and therefore a menace to the companies they work for and to society."

How do people with such obvious personality flaws make it to the top of seemingly successful corporations? Boddy says psychopaths take advantage of the "relative chaotic nature of the modern corporation," including "rapid change, constant renewal" and high turnover of "key personnel." Such circumstances allow them to ascend through a combination of "charm" and "charisma," which makes "their behaviour invisible" and "makes them appear normal and even to be ideal leaders."
Stable Environment
Until the last third of the 20th century, he writes, companies were mostly stable and slow to change. Lifetime employment was a reasonable expectation and people rose through the ranks.

This stable environment meant corporate psychopaths "would be noticeable and identifiable as undesirable managers because of their selfish egotistical personalities and other ethical defects."

For Wall Street -- a rapidly changing and highly dynamic corporate environment if there ever was one, especially when the firms transformed themselves from private partnerships into public companies with quarterly reporting requirements -- the trouble started when these charmers made their way to corner offices of important financial institutions.

Then, according to Boddy's "Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis," these men were "able to influence the moral climate of the whole organization" to wield "considerable power."

They "largely caused the crisis" because their "single- minded pursuit of their own self-enrichment and self- aggrandizement to the exclusion of all other considerations has led to an abandonment of the old-fashioned concept of noblesse oblige, equality, fairness, or of any real notion of corporate social responsibility."

Boddy doesn't name names, but the type of personality he describes is recognizable to all from the financial crisis.

He says the unnamed "they" seem "to be unaffected" by the corporate collapses they cause. These psychopaths "present themselves as glibly unbothered by the chaos around them, unconcerned about those who have lost their jobs, savings and investments, and as lacking any regrets about what they have done. They cheerfully lie about their involvement in events, are very convincing in blaming others for what has happened and have no doubts about their own worth and value. They are happy to walk away from the economic disaster that they have managed to bring about, with huge payoffs and with new roles advising governments how to prevent such economic disasters."

'Reasoning Aptitudes'

In closing his short essay, Boddy recognizes that the theory is relatively untested and would benefit from "further development and research" into the "personalities and moral reasoning aptitudes of the leaders" of the companies that got into serious trouble in the financial crisis.

In an e-mail correspondence with me, he said his article has been warmly received and has been downloaded 9,440 times in the past 90 days. "Apparently this is a lot for an academic article and it is more than the next four most-downloaded papers combined," he wrote.

He also has a prescription for how to prevent psychopaths from getting into positions of power on Wall Street and elsewhere.

"Anyone who makes decisions that affect significant numbers of other people, concerning issues of corporate social responsibility or toxic waste, for example, or concerning mass financial markets or mass employment, should be screened to make sure that they are, at the very least, not psychopaths and at most are actually people who care about others," he wrote.  Makes sense to me.

(William D. Cohan, a former investment banker and the author of "Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World," is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

From Huffpost today:

Robert Kuttner: Obama's PopulismCo-founder and co-editor, 'The American Prospect'

"The people who disparage "populism" either have a self-interest in damping down popular comprehension of just who has been wrecking the economy, or they are supporters of a perverse austerity agenda, or they worry that Obama's "populism", more consistently applied, just might work. As for class warfare, it's here. The policies of the past three decades, whether on taxes, de-regulation, outsourcing, the assault on unions, or the deliberate weakening of social insurance, have been top-down class warfare. It's just charming that when progressives begin to show some spine and start fighting back, the Right screams "class warfare!" They should know. The only thing wrong with Obama's populism is that it took him until nearly the year of his re-election to practice it resolutely. More, please."

Excellent.  Looks like the continual pressure of truth is producing more eloquent descriptions of it.  Love it.  To arms.........  verbal of course.  Kill them all................. the lies of course.  Bring forth truth, justice, fairness, and real freedom from economic and political oppression and manipulation.     

Rofl... pretty much says it all... ::)

Quoteobscure former British academic to propagate a theory

Ron, I love ya. Your bookstores are among the most awesome places to go in the city.

That said, Your belief in Obama as a populist crusader is unfounded.

Rhetorically sure, but in actions Obama is just another GWB.

Shall we count the ways?

Quote from: buckethead on January 10, 2012, 10:35:08 AM
Ron, I love ya. Your bookstores are among the most awesome places to go in the city.

That said, Your belief in Obama as a populist crusader is unfounded.

Rhetorically sure, but in actions Obama is just another GWB.

Shall we count the ways?

I see your point Bucket.  I'll admit I've been a little confused with Obama's actual behavior as compared to what one would expect given the rhetoric.  I tend to sweep things occasionally with hasty idealism; not taking time to do sufficient research.  His ties and connections are where one wouldn't expect them to be.  Yes... I'm a little confused and disappointed............ and too busy to sort it all out.         

Quote"The reason 2012 feels so empty now is that voters on both sides of the aisle are not just tired of this state of affairs, they are disgusted by it. They want a chance to choose their own leaders and they want full control over policy, not just a partial say. There are a few challenges to this state of affairs within the electoral process â€" as much as I disagree with Paul about many things, I do think his campaign is a real outlet for these complaints â€" but everyone knows that in the end, once the primaries are finished, we’re going to be left with one 1%-approved stooge taking on another.

Most likely, it’ll be Mitt Romney versus Barack Obama, meaning the voters’ choices in the midst of a massive global economic crisis brought on in large part by corruption in the financial services industry will be a private equity parasite who has been a lifelong champion of the Gordon Gekko Greed-is-Good ethos (Romney), versus a paper progressive who in 2008 took, by himself, more money from Wall Street than any two previous presidential candidates, and in the four years since has showered Wall Street with bailouts while failing to push even one successful corruption prosecution (Obama).

There are obvious, even significant differences between Obama and someone like Mitt Romney, particularly on social issues, but no matter how Obama markets himself this time around, a choice between these two will not in any way represent a choice between “change” and the status quo. This is a choice between two different versions of the status quo, and everyone knows it."

Matt Taibbi, The Meaningless Sideshow Begins (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103#ixzz1j6HCDhyv)

A little commentary from a fairly bright gentleman. Not your run of the mill neocon.


http://www.youtube.com/v/8mA4HYTO790&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Thanks Bucket.  Imagine if we did not enjoy in our presence these Chomsky type fellows who are able and willing to engage the frequently harmful trends and actions from our leaders, the result being that they expose errors in policy, and even intentional deceit.  I’ve read very little of Chomsky’s books but have read articles and quotes.  From what I’ve seen, this fellow is on the mark on many issues. 

Of course, not being a politician, Chomsky and others like him are free to ponder and seek positions closer to the truth, most always being guided by the fundamentals of an issue, whereas a politician must maneuver amongst whatever dynamics will achieve election, even if these include decisions and deceptions ultimately harmful to our nation and its people, and all too often result in benefiting only those who contribute the most money to their campaigns.

We seem to have been ensconced into a system wherein those who have attributes allowing them to be good politicians would not lower themselves to be one, and those who would lower themselves to be one, do so, even though they ultimately lack the necessary qualities. 

So……… yes, thank goodness for the Chomsky’s of the world.       

Another little ditty, I thought I'd share. From a very libertarian (perhaps absolutist) source.

I am VERY suspicious about the Fed, Primary Dealers, and GSEs. (Freddie/Fannie/Minnie)

If my cynicism is unfounded, I would appreciate being talked down from the tin foil ledge.

It's scary out here.

QuoteThe Bernank's greatest quotes (thus far). Be afraid. Be very afraid:
(November 15, 2005) "With respect to their safety, derivatives, for the most part, are traded among very sophisticated financial institutions and individuals who have considerable incentive to understand them and to use them properly."
(July, 2005) "We’ve never had a decline in house prices on a nationwide basis. So, what I think what is more likely is that house prices will slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumption spending a bit. I don’t think it’s gonna drive the economy too far from its full employment path, though."
(October 31, 2007) "It is not the responsibility of the Federal Reserve â€" nor would it be appropriate â€" to protect lenders and investors from the consequences of their financial decisions."
(November 21, 2002) "The U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at no cost."
"The money supply is not changing in any significant way. What we’re doing is lowering interest rates by buying Treasury securities."
"One myth that’s out there is that what we’re doing is printing money. We’re not printing money."
(When asked directly during a congressional hearing if the Federal Reserve would monetize U.S. government debt) "The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt."


The only banks that fear deflation are those that control governments, which is the case with the relationship between almost all developed nations today and their 'central bank' masters.

The central banks can print as much fiat as they wish, to compensate for any and all "losses" that inflation theoretically could do to their holdings.

Federal Reserve Notes, aka BernankBux, are prolific and compuslive liars of the worst order, and the same can be said of all fiat worldwide now, as all of it is conjured from thin air, backed by nothing of any inherent value (just empty platitudes such as "full faith & credit" at no cost to the central merry banksters & then loaned at interest, leveraged many dozens of times over, and then either repaid with interest - or better yet - defaulted on, allowing the masters of the Merry Central Bankster Puppets to Harvest the real assets that have actual, inherent wealth, that were pledged to securitize said loans (think homes, land, factories, equipment/machinery, farms, natural resources in the case of alleged sovereign nations, etc.).

Even if a huge percentage of unsecuritized loans are defaulted upon, it's no skin of the Money Masters sacks, as the basis of the loan was conjured from thin air, with zero cost of production, and any loans that perform (even a single one) are pure gravy.

Bonds are, for the most part, securitized by fiat such as EuroWipes or BernanBux.

It's such a brilliant racket that they're running.

Banks that have to earn profits via the conventional banking model of borrowing money at a low rate from a central bank, and loaning that money out at a higher interest rate (the interest rate differential is their gross profit, essentially), have everything to fear from inflation, as it completely destroys their conventional and main method of making profits, during normal times in the economic cycle, wherein rising interest rates drown the value of their past loans extended, absent extraordinary subsidization from some external source.

Bank loans are bank 'assets,' while deposits are 'liabilities,' and all things being equal, inflation destroys any profit (and could put the bank deep in loss) that the conventional spread between money borrowed and loaned typically offers it.

So, aside from central banks, which can compensate for inflationary impact by printing more fiat, and too-big-to-fail entities, which enjoy de facto central bank status (literally; plus, look at all the revolving door nepotism as to hiring between central banks and too-big-to-fail banks) and all sorts of 'extras' in the form of guaranteed and risk free profit making avenues offered exclusively to them by central bank policies, inflation destroys lenders and rewards borrowers.

It's not deflation on home values that wipes out those banks that choose to carry (rather than sell at the time of closing) mortgage backed paper - it's the fact that the loans go bad since a greater % of the people who are indebted on the mortage quit paying on their loans.

Could the deflation lead to the non-payment? Sure. But it's far more likely that job losses and wage reductions affecting affordability of repayment will do that trick. To say that the deflation in home values will lead to job losses and wage reductions is a common misnomer, IMO, that many economists are perpetuating these days - the health of the job market governs home values; the value of homes DOES NOT GOVERN THE JOB MARKET.

Take a moment to think about the people still working, but who are underwater 20% to literally 75% on their home values, but are still making their mortgage payments because they are still working and still have that ability (although more and more who can do so are CHOOSING not to do so, but I digress).

All things being equal, deflation in general, and on home values, means that the bank is getting supercharged returns on the loan it extended to the homebuyer, assuming the loan performs and the bank receives repayment on the underlying note.

It's my humble opinion that one of Bernanke's main goals was to flood as many banks with as much excess reserves as possible, while also extending extraordinary access to the discount window (offering de facto 0% loans), in an effort to keep as many of them from crashing as possible (I think about 900 have failed since 2008), during a time in which he knew their conventional means of generating income and making profits - via loaning money at higher rates than their borrowing costs - would completely break down.

And here we are, with banks that allegedly survived (so far), stuck with toxic balance sheets, full of shitty ass loans secured by eroding value assets, depending more and more on their excess reserve income and massive amounts of new fees (adding significant revenue to their top line) they are imposing on their customers, praying and hoping that here never comes the day that reverse repo operations really do take place, as that would mean a death sentence for another estimated 2500 banks (maybe more).

Anyone who tells me that banks are in anything other than extend and pretend mode, made possible by incredible intervention and excess reserves compliments of Bernanke & Geithner, along with incredibly lax regulation and fantasy-land valuation of assets (thanks to Congress), is really knee or thigh high in the Kool-Aid.

Similarly, given the unsettling trends of high inflation (real numbers), pathetic job growth (with the risk of actually printing negative numbers soon again - even by official and highly massaged measurements via the BLS), incredibly weak demand for loans and incredibly weak willingness/ability to make loans (unless its guaranteed/backstopped by the Fed or Treasury or subagencies of government), anemic retail and manufacturing data, etc., anyone who thinks Bernanke and our own beloved government haven't merely kicked the can at the expense of taxpayers and the organic economy and organic growth, for two long years, to the tune of at least 5 trillion in direct and incredibly inefficient spending (Stimulus, TARP, TALF, QE1 and QE2, etc.), and as much as 12 trillion considering what's yet to be paid back or what the government is still on the hook for in terms of guarantees on loans and toxic asset portfolios it contractually made, only complicating his dilemna and the nation's dilemna, should seriously reassess their level of intelligence or sources of information gathering.

The more that The Bernank pushes on a string (QE, ZIRP4EVER), the more people white knuckle their fiat. Oh, the irony.

It's all the snake eating its own tail.

The Bernank is DESTROYING the desire to consume, as he's freaking the world of savers and the presently liquid out with his absolute abomination of policies, while the non-savers and the majority who have difficulty getting credit have difficulty spending, also (given the banking sectors precarious-dead state of health).

Here is but one of many examples I can cite:  Mr. Smith, who is 78 years old, worked hard his whole life and retired with enough savings that would have, in an ordinary interest rate environment, have produced an income stream from interest on his savings, that would have prompted him to spend far more freely (he may even have already have replaced his 2001 Mercury Grand Marquis by now if not for the fact he is anxious due to his meager/non-existent interest ZIRP income).

So, Mr. Smith buys no new car, hires no one to put a sunroom on his (now radically depreciated home), and gets all of his grandchildren a lump of coal for Christmas this year.

All thanks to The Bernank.

And the cherry on top is The Bernank is thinking of going all in, doubling down on his failures in the U.S., with a sure fire IMF (i.e. U.S.) and credit swap line liquidity tsunami of USD into the EuroZone Debt Black Hole, which sucks in all capital, never to be seen again.

The alleged great academician, expert on The Great Depression, wizard of monetary policy, etc. etc., who is The Bernank, is a total and complete failure IF the goal of his actions was to help the broadest swath of people.

If his goal was to debase their purchasing power, concentrate more and more wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer Crony Capitalists (the opposite of true capitalists) who know all the right players in what is unquestionably now our Kleptocracy, he's succeeding magnificently.

No one really knows whether deflation or inflation takes firm grasp of the global economy, as things will spiral out of control, inevitably, and social and political unrest will foment great changes that can't be predicted or controlled by even the Money Masters, and no one knows how the current system will implode or what will take its place (it will implode without question, however).

And to be honest, it doesn't really matter whether a deflationary death spiral or inflationary destruction of consumption does the economy in - the end result, the destruction of the global economy as we know it, will come about.

Some sane theses have been put forth that we'll have a deflationary collapse first, followed by hyperinflation. While that certainly sounds as likely as anything, no one knows, because people like The Bernank and those he runs errands for won't be calling the shots after things break down.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/chart-proves-feds-policies-have-been-failure

Nobody wants to help me emerge from this (very restricting) tin foil sarcophagus ?

Welp... just watch this.

Lengthy, but watchable:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7mw1qHgTy4&feature=player_embedded#!

QuoteMoney from Nothing: A Primer On Fake Wealth Creation And Its Implications (Part 1)

"Only God can create… value out of nothing"â€"Justice Martin V. Mahoney in First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly.
"(I’m) doing God’s work." â€" Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Blankfein
Introduction:

What is fraud except creating “value” from nothing and passing it off as something?

Frauds interlink and grow upon each other. Our debt-based money system serves as the fraud foundation. In our debt-based money system, debt must grow in order to create money. Therefore, there is no way to pay off aggregate debt with available money. More money must be lent into the system to make the payments for old debts. This causes overall debt to expand as new money for actual people (vs. banks) always arrives at interest and compounds exponentially. This process is called financialization.

Financialization: The process of making money from nothing in which debt (i.e. poverty, lack) is paradoxically considered an asset (i.e. wealth, gain). In current financialized economies “wealth expansion” comes from the parasitic taxation of productivity in the form of interest on fiat lending. This interest over time consumes a greater and greater share of resources, assets, labor, and livelihood until nothing is left.

Only in a debt-based money system could debt be curiously cast as an asset. We’ve made “extend and pretend” a quaint phrase for a burgeoning market for financial lying and profiteering aimed toward preventing the collapse of a debt- (or lack-) based system that was already doomed by its initial design to collapse. This primer will detail the major components and basic evolution of fake wealth creation, accelerating debt expansion, hollowing out of the economy, and inevitable financial implosion.

Stage oneâ€"Fiat money origination, multiplication, and distribution

The U.S. Federal Reserve System (“The Fed”): A private, non-transparent entity, formed in 1913, representing and serving private, profit-driven banks that creates money from nothing (fiat) and to which the U.S. government has delegated and effectively ceded its constitutional power to coin money.

The Fed essentially lends our “sovereign” public money to us at interest, paying for things like government debt with more debt, thus expanding debt. By contrast, the Fed currently gives away money to its constituent private banks at zero percent interest, allowing those banks to buy U.S. Treasury bonds, which yield a 2-3 percent interest mark-up to be paid by taxpayers, adding to citizen debt.

Fractional reserve: Private fiat fabrication of exchangeable public “money” as a bookkeeping entry through “multiplication” of public fiat held in private bank reserves. Holding 100,000 dollars of depositors’ money may allow me, as a bank, to lend out 1,000,000 dollars. By what authority? None, really, just my say-so and my action.

In the court case referenced in the heading quote, Justice Mahoney ruled against a bank acting in conjunction with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in its efforts to foreclose upon and “buy” a U.S. citizen’s house by simply creating “the entire $14,000.00 foreclosure purchase in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry.” Further, “Mr. Morgan (the plaintiff/bank representative) admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.” (First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Jerome Daly)

Stage twoâ€"Delusional, unregulated value assignment, manipulation, and expansion

After money is created out of thin air, other market mechanisms have been propagated to magnify, funnel, and package value-from-nothing further still, creating financial vehicles that add more numbers without adding more value.

Leverage: The practice of arbitrarily multiplying one’s alleged value in order to acquire controlling interest in another property. This mechanism is a favorite of now-discredited corporate raiders and leveraged buy-out firms that currently go under the euphemism “private equity firms”. This claimed private equity can be a fictitious multiplication of self-assessed asset value used to buy a controlling interest in a productive company.

Typically the acquired company is put into debt, its real assets hollowed out and harvested, and then the acquired company is allowed to go bankrupt thus making a killing for the raiders while destroying the ability of displaced workers to make a living. (Unhinged: When Concrete Reality No Longer Matters to the Market (and What to Do About It)).

Over the counter (OTC) derivatives: Purely unregulated, non-transparent, and malignant uncollateralized bets and hedges on market movements requiring no assets or stake in assets. Of the over 700 trillion dollars of “notional value” in disclosed OTC derivatives by International Bank of Settlements for 2011, the majority were supposedly “benign” interest rate and currency swaps, not the more toxic credit default swaps. However, it was a Goldman Sachs currency swap with “a fictitious exchange rate” that sunk Greece, nearly doubling its liability on just one deal from about 2.8 billion euros to over 5 billion euros. (How Goldman Sachs Helped Corrupt Politicians to Screw the Greek People) Also remember the undisclosed OTC derivatives market may easily be bigger than the disclosed market.

Rehypothecation: The process of recycling or using the same collateral with multiple deals and entities. Apparently England has no legal limit on how many times collateral can by rehypothecated (Shadow Rehypothecation, Infinite Leverage, And Why Breaking The Tyranny Of Ignorance Is The Only Solution):

Simply said: when one truly digs in, MF Global exposes the 2011 equivalent of the 2008 AIG: virtually unlimited leverage via the shadow banking system, in which there are practically no hard assets backing the infinite layers of debt created above, and which when finally unwound, will create a cataclysmic collapse of all financial institutions, where every bank is daisy-chained to each other courtesy of multiple layers of "hypothecation, and re-hypothecation." (Why The UK Trail Of The MF Global Collapse May Have "Apocalyptic" Consequences For The Eurozone, Canadian Banks, Jefferies And Everyone Else)

Note: For a concise explanation of the related mechanisms of collateralized debt obligations (CDO’s), synthetic CDO’s, credit default swaps (CDS’s), naked short selling, and high frequency trading (HFT), see When The Market Has Cancer.

Stage threeâ€"Usurping democracies and cannibalizing functioning capitalism

A cartel of international wealth counterfeiters have boldly made claims on Greece’s national wealth through super-national entities like the European Central Bank. These claims are not backed by clear legal authority or logic, but they are being enforced anyway, administered by unelected technocrats and “agreed to” by complicit politicians acting against the interests of actual citizens.

Greece (with more countries to come) is being treated like a company town where “costs” (i.e. social services) are to be cut, productivity milked through greater taxation, and debt servitude reinforced. Corrupted capitalism continues thus to metastasize. Now that phantom paper profits are collapsing for the counterfeiters, real assets must be taken over to fill in the gaps.

Greece’s national assets have been put up for sale endangering its national sovereignty and right to control its own property. Greek well-being is being diminished through austerity programs. This has only caused the economy to contract at an accelerating rate. Seizing control of productive assets, and cannibalizing real wealth to feed counterfeit demands seem to be the primary unstated goals of these strategies because the empirical results of these strategies clearly run counter to stated objectives.

Disaster capitalism: (The Shock Doctrine) The intentional infliction of insecurity, suffering, and scarcity on a population to cause panic, compliance, and amenability to exploitation and extraction of wealth. It is a thoroughly vicious business model that operates in plain sight. When abuse no longer has to be organized and covered by conspiracy, one can confirm that capitalism’s illness is in advanced stages. It is amazing how easily assets can be acquired and individual rights denied (as with fraudclosure) when people are overwhelmed by corruption on all sides.

Stage fourâ€"Implosion of the body politic or necessary transformation and redirection?

This stage has yet to be fully entered, but the fraying of Greece’s current social and political order sends a strong signal for the future of the wider world: Passivity equates with more abuse and exploitation, more austerity, and greater hijacking of national and personal assets. Active, civil resistance is necessary to stop the loss of public sovereignty to private interests. Creative, viable alternatives to the currently corrupt and fraud-ridden global economic system are vital. These alternatives and the implications of our current counterfeit wealth trajectory will be explored tomorrow in Part 2 of this article.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-money-nothin-primer-fake-wealth-creation-and-its-implications-part-1#comment-2247206