“Now we know why CEOs didn’t want this data released,”

[DBT]

Oh, sure, the likes of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et al, live like Paupers, ha ha....is that the sound of sad violins in the background, Barbos?

I am not sure I follow "sad violin" remark.

Merely a quip. Your remark - ''you keep failing to understand that they don't really have these billions. They have stock which is valued at these billions.'' - suggests that their money is all locked up in stocks, so they ''don't have all these million' therefore live on limited incomes just like ordinary folks, which is so very sad for them....except that its not true.

I have seen millions of such articles, they are all alike and mostly wrong

The articles are not wrong because you claim they are wrong. Most of these articles do cite source material, studies and statistics.

You are not addressing the issue here. Economy today can not be compared to the one 100 or even 30 years ago. You just can't do it, yet you keep doing it.

That's not what I am doing. It is not what these articles are doing. This issue is related to the situation we are in here and now, the only comparison between here and now and the recent past being that the income and overall wealth ratio of a relatively small percentage of the rich has steadily increased over the last fifty years in comparison to wage earners.

 

[barbos]

Merely a quip. Your remark - ''you keep failing to understand that they don't really have these billions. They have stock which is valued at these billions.'' - suggests that their money is all locked up in stocks, so they ''don't have all these million' therefore live on limited incomes just like ordinary folks, which is so very sad for them....except that its not true.

Well, Buffet still lives in his old house he bought when he was fairly poor
Rich folk today are as obnoxious as they were in the past.

I have seen millions of such articles, they are all alike and mostly wrong

The articles are not wrong because you claim they are wrong.

True, they are wrong because I have shown them being wrong, hence my claim of them being wrong.

Most of these articles do cite source material, studies and statistics.

Citing material does not make you you right, source can be wrong too.

You are not addressing the issue here. Economy today can not be compared to the one 100 or even 30 years ago. You just can't do it, yet you keep doing it.

That's not what I am doing. It is not what these articles are doing. This issue is related to the situation we are in here and now, the only comparison between here and now and the recent past being that the income and overall wealth ratio of a relatively small percentage of the rich has steadily increased over the last fifty years in comparison to wage earners.

That's been shown to be false or irrelevant. And you just compared now to 50 years in the past, so yes this is exactly what you are doing - comparing today's economy to the one in the past.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Not really :

Your quotes show there was a big problem with their original calculation.

Oh look : another unsubstantiated Loren Pechtel assertion.

 

[Canard DuJour]

This issue is related to the situation we are in here and now, the only comparison between here and now and the recent past being that the income and overall wealth ratio of a relatively small percentage of the rich has steadily increased over the last fifty years in comparison to wage earners.

That's been shown to be false or irrelevant.

Where?

 

[barbos]

This issue is related to the situation we are in here and now, the only comparison between here and now and the recent past being that the income and overall wealth ratio of a relatively small percentage of the rich has steadily increased over the last fifty years in comparison to wage earners.

That's been shown to be false or irrelevant.

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Not in totally unrelated topics, then? Well, that's a start. Where "here" - i.e. in this particular incarnation - has it been shown?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Not really :

Your quotes show there was a big problem with their original calculation.

How so? Can you elaborate?

Note how the list grew 7x? That means there was a lot of negative net worth people distorting the picture--and people with negative net worth are usually not in poverty as a negative net worth implies someone is willing to loan you money--which implies they think you can pay it back.

 

[laughing dog]

How so? Can you elaborate?

Note how the list grew 7x? That means there was a lot of negative net worth people distorting the picture--and people with negative net worth are usually not in poverty as a negative net worth implies someone is willing to loan you money--which implies they think you can pay it back.

No, it implies someone expected you could pay it back. Big difference.

 

[DBT]

True, they are wrong because I have shown them being wrong, hence my claim of them being wrong.

I don't see that you have. I know that you have said that you have, but the evidence for it appears to be missing.

Citing material does not make you you right, source can be wrong too.

They can be wrong, but we have too many independent studies that say essentially the same thing, the stats are not far off between studies.

If you think they are wrong, as you appear to believe, you should show where the studies and stats go wrong by posting the evidence,

- - - Updated - - -

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

Highly doubtful.

 

[DBT]

How so? Can you elaborate?

Note how the list grew 7x? That means there was a lot of negative net worth people distorting the picture--and people with negative net worth are usually not in poverty as a negative net worth implies someone is willing to loan you money--which implies they think you can pay it back.

Expected to pay back, as noted by laughing dog Plus the disparity between the incomes of those at the top in comparison to ordinary wage earners tells its own story, as shown in previous posts.

 

[barbos]

I don't see that you have. I know that you have said that you have, but the evidence for it appears to be missing.

Yes, you see it, you are not dumb, you just refuse to acknowledge that it was throughly shown.

They can be wrong, but we have too many independent studies that say essentially the same thing, the stats are not far off between studies.

They are not independent, they are all highly biased "studies".

If you think they are wrong, as you appear to believe, you should show where the studies and stats go wrong by posting the evidence,

I did post the evidence. Wealth comparison is bullshit I already explained why. Example with student loans is an excellent example why it's BS. It only measures assets in very narrow and literal meaning, ignoring the whole bunch of factors.
correct metric would have been consumption. But of course that would be inconvenient for these politically biased "researchers"

- - - Updated - - -

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

Highly doubtful.

No, have done it.

Look, I am all for sending half of the WallStreet to prison, but these academic studies are nothing but bullshit.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Your quotes show there was a big problem with their original calculation.

How so? Can you elaborate?

Note how the list grew 7x? That means there was a lot of negative net worth people distorting the picture--and people with negative net worth are usually not in poverty as a negative net worth implies someone is willing to loan you money--which implies they think you can pay it back.

The quote shows quite the opposite. Most of them are the poor in low income countries. It simply does not follow that being in debt means you aren't in poverty . The distortion is taking them out of the picture just to exclude a few income-rich people which the report shows to be insignificant at the aggregate global level. Even then, the underestimate shows extreme wealth concentration.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your quotes show there was a big problem with their original calculation.

How so? Can you elaborate?

Note how the list grew 7x? That means there was a lot of negative net worth people distorting the picture--and people with negative net worth are usually not in poverty as a negative net worth implies someone is willing to loan you money--which implies they think you can pay it back.

The quote shows quite the opposite. Most of them are the poor in low income countries. It simply does not follow that being in debt means you aren't in poverty . The distortion is taking them out of the picture just to exclude a few income-rich people which the report shows to be insignificant at the aggregate global level. Even then, the underestimate shows extreme wealth concentration.

Those in poverty aren't likely to be able to get a loan.

 

[bilby]

The quote shows quite the opposite. Most of them are the poor in low income countries. It simply does not follow that being in debt means you aren't in poverty . The distortion is taking them out of the picture just to exclude a few income-rich people which the report shows to be insignificant at the aggregate global level. Even then, the underestimate shows extreme wealth concentration.

Those in poverty aren't likely to be able to get a loan.

Then how come we see incessant advertising for short term unsecured 'payday' loans targeting the poor? Or do you imagine that it is wealthy people who are taking out these loans at ruinous interest rates?

It's one of the many mechanisms by which wealth concentrates - rich people lend money to poor people at very high rates of interest. Poor people have no option but to borrow at these rates, because nobody will lend to them at lower rates, and they can't survive without food, heating, and shelter - which will not be available until it is too late if they wait for payday. So things that cost you or I $1, effectively cost the poor $1.50 or $2. The difference goes to wealthy people as pure profit.

Those in poverty can always get a loan - as long as they have an income, no matter how meagre, some bastard will be trying to separate them from it, and this is a good way to do that. Sure, it doesn't net a lot per poor person; But there are lots of poor people, so the overall result is highly lucrative.

 

[DBT]

Yes, you see it, you are not dumb, you just refuse to acknowledge that it was throughly shown.

They are not independent, they are all highly biased "studies".

If you think they are wrong, as you appear to believe, you should show where the studies and stats go wrong by posting the evidence,

I did post the evidence. Wealth comparison is bullshit I already explained why. Example with student loans is an excellent example why it's BS. It only measures assets in very narrow and literal meaning, ignoring the whole bunch of factors.
correct metric would have been consumption. But of course that would be inconvenient for these politically biased "researchers"

- - - Updated - - -

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

Highly doubtful.

No, have done it.

Look, I am all for sending half of the WallStreet to prison, but these academic studies are nothing but bullshit.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion.

 

[barbos]

Yes, you see it, you are not dumb, you just refuse to acknowledge that it was throughly shown.

They are not independent, they are all highly biased "studies".

I did post the evidence. Wealth comparison is bullshit I already explained why. Example with student loans is an excellent example why it's BS. It only measures assets in very narrow and literal meaning, ignoring the whole bunch of factors.
correct metric would have been consumption. But of course that would be inconvenient for these politically biased "researchers"

- - - Updated - - -

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

Highly doubtful.

No, have done it.

Look, I am all for sending half of the WallStreet to prison, but these academic studies are nothing but bullshit.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion.

Likewise.

 

[Canard DuJour]

The quote shows quite the opposite. Most of them are the poor in low income countries. It simply does not follow that being in debt means you aren't in poverty . The distortion is taking them out of the picture just to exclude a few income-rich people which the report shows to be insignificant at the aggregate global level. Even then, the underestimate shows extreme wealth concentration.

Those in poverty aren't likely to be able to get a loan.

Then how come we see incessant advertising for short term unsecured 'payday' loans targeting the poor? Or do you imagine that it is wealthy people who are taking out these loans at ruinous interest rates?

It's one of the many mechanisms by which wealth concentrates - rich people lend money to poor people at very high rates of interest. Poor people have no option but to borrow at these rates, because nobody will lend to them at lower rates, and they can't survive without food, heating, and shelter - which will not be available until it is too late if they wait for payday. So things that cost you or I $1, effectively cost the poor $1.50 or $2. The difference goes to wealthy people as pure profit.

Those in poverty can always get a loan - as long as they have an income, no matter how meagre, some bastard will be trying to separate them from it, and this is a good way to do that. Sure, it doesn't net a lot per poor person; But there are lots of poor people, so the overall result is highly lucrative.

Yep.

Worse, it can even be lucrative to lend to people with no income if you can draw on their labour and services until they pay the debt off. Or continually lend to people with insufficient income if you're both creditor and employer. The whole idea is that they can't pay you back.

But that's more a poor people in poor countries thing, than a Harvard graduate thing.

 

[DBT]

Yes, you see it, you are not dumb, you just refuse to acknowledge that it was throughly shown.

They are not independent, they are all highly biased "studies".

I did post the evidence. Wealth comparison is bullshit I already explained why. Example with student loans is an excellent example why it's BS. It only measures assets in very narrow and literal meaning, ignoring the whole bunch of factors.
correct metric would have been consumption. But of course that would be inconvenient for these politically biased "researchers"

- - - Updated - - -

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

Highly doubtful.

No, have done it.

Look, I am all for sending half of the WallStreet to prison, but these academic studies are nothing but bullshit.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion.

Likewise.

I have provided stats from multiple sources. Studies that all essentially paint the same picture - the super rich are in a position to influence policy makers to legislate tax laws, business interests, pay rates for employees, etc, and given the nature of the system, wealth accumulates the top, that the rich have in recent times increased their wealth significantly while the wages of ordinary workers have stalled.

Now, you appear to be claiming that the stats are bogus and that you have shown this.....however, I have not aware that you have. I can't recall seeing your evidence, I don't recall seeing counter arguments based on studies.

Hence, what you say appears to be an expression of opinion.

If I happened to have missed reading a post where your evidence and arguments were provided, please direct me to this post.

 

[barbos]

Yes, you see it, you are not dumb, you just refuse to acknowledge that it was throughly shown.

They are not independent, they are all highly biased "studies".

I did post the evidence. Wealth comparison is bullshit I already explained why. Example with student loans is an excellent example why it's BS. It only measures assets in very narrow and literal meaning, ignoring the whole bunch of factors.
correct metric would have been consumption. But of course that would be inconvenient for these politically biased "researchers"

- - - Updated - - -

Where?

Here and in previous incarnations of this topic.

Highly doubtful.

No, have done it.

Look, I am all for sending half of the WallStreet to prison, but these academic studies are nothing but bullshit.

Thank you for your sharing your opinion.

Likewise.

I have provided stats from multiple sources. Studies that all essentially paint the same picture - the super rich are in a position to influence policy makers to legislate tax laws, business interests, pay rates for employees, etc, and given the nature of the system, wealth accumulates the top, that the rich have in recent times increased their wealth significantly while the wages of ordinary workers have stalled.

Now, you appear to be claiming that the stats are bogus and that you have shown this.....however, I have not aware that you have. I can't recall seeing your evidence, I don't recall seeing counter arguments based on studies.

Hence, what you say appears to be an expression of opinion.

If I happened to have missed reading a post where your evidence and arguments were provided, please direct me to this post.

I explained why that data is BS.
1. You can't compare today's economy to the one 50 or 100 years old. Capital requirements for starting any kind of serious business is vastly different. US is not Africa where you can have a business with 100 bucks. 20 years ago a chip factory would probably cost you less than half a billion, Now, it's in the order of 10 billions.
2. Wealth is defined very narrowly, for example it does not account for student loans. Students unless they are sociology majors do not just waste their loans, They get education which is wealth too. Even people with no expensive education and no money are expected to earn at least a million bucks over their life span, that should be counted as wealth too.
3. You know who had no wealth disparity? Stone age people. The mere fact of wealth disparity increase is an indication of highly developed technological society.
4. The fact is, ordinary people today are vastly better off today than 50 years ago. Some may feel differently but that does not mean that they actually worse. Young people did not live 50 years ago, and old people feel bad because they are old

 

[DBT]

I explained why that data is BS.
1. You can't compare today's economy to the one 50 or 100 years old. Capital requirements for starting any kind of serious business is vastly different. US is not Africa where you can have a business with 100 bucks. 20 years ago a chip factory would probably cost you less than half a billion, Now, it's in the order of 10 billions.

Completely irrelevant.

It is the sheer disparity and scale of wealth in the hands of a few in comparison to the rest of the population, both on nation and world scale, that is the problem.

It is a problem right here and now, with no comparison to the past necessary.

As the figures show, in some ways it was marginally better in the recent past (western economies), the ratio between average CEO income and those below was not as great 30 years ago as it is now...which is the subject of this thread,

So your objection fails in this regard.

2. Wealth is defined very narrowly, for example it does not account for student loans. Students unless they are sociology majors do not just waste their loans, They get education which is wealth too. Even people with no expensive education and no money are expected to earn at least a million bucks over their life span, that should be counted as wealth too.

The figures deal with distribution of wealth in society and the incomes of those at the top as compared with the rest of society, so student loans and possible future incomes for some are irrelevant to current distribution of wealth and the trend in which it is heading.

It does not appear to be improving significantly. The super rich are not going away. Wealth distribution does not appear to be improving significantly in the short term and unlikely to in the long term unless drastic measures are implemented.

Your objection does not resolve the issue.

3. You know who had no wealth disparity? Stone age people. The mere fact of wealth disparity increase is an indication of highly developed technological society.

Nobody is claiming that we should all enjoy equal pay and conditions. The problem is the growing divide between those at the top and the rest of society.

4. The fact is, ordinary people today are vastly better off today than 50 years ago. Some may feel differently but that does not mean that they actually worse. Young people did not live 50 years ago, and old people feel bad because they are old

Sure, generally we are all better off....but this doesn't alter the situation where those at the top get ever richer while the incomes off ordinary wage earners stagnate or decline in purchasing power.

That is the problem you ignore. That is the problem you fail to address. That is the picture that the studies and stats portray, of which I have already provided numerous examples both in Australia and other countries.