The Housing Bubble

“It is all Bush’s fault.”

Some of us have long suspected…

This user is so abusive that I can’t imagine that you didn’t at least consider once setting him straight and banning him entirely even if just for a week. I think *one* large intervention on your part would have stopped this in its tracks.

I have a great deal of respect for you. Ten years ago this place was like an oasis to me because I didn’t know a single person in the SF Bay Area that saw the real estate bubble and the monetary issues we were about to be confronted except for Patrick’s site. You provided the best forum on the Internet for people like me. I do appreciate it.

I also appreciate the fact that you allow desperate opinions to be expressed without being heavy handed. But I do think one poster here is no longer expressing opinions. He is just shouting everyone else down.

I have no problem if you need to ban me to keep harmony here. If you choose to let me stay I will not respond to this particular poster. I’ll put him on “ignore.” I understand this is your kingdom and I am just a guest so I respect whatever you need to do.

Either way I do appreciate all that you did for me ten years ago. Thanks you!

Ben, if there’s any moderating to be done, could I ask that you somehow limit the constant user name-changing? I suppose it’s cute when “Karl Marx” or “Ayn Rand” posts in character, but it’s gotten to the point where I can’t keep track.

Ten years ago this place was like an oasis to me because I didn’t know a single person in the SF Bay Area that saw the real estate bubble and the monetary issues we were about to be confronted except for Patrick’s site.

Here here.

Truth is, we wanted to buy in 2004, and because of HBB and Patrick.net, we held off while everyone else was jumping no the bandwagon.

We did end up buying 2 months ago, for a few hundred thousand less than we would have had we not waited.

“This user is so abusive that I can’t imagine that you didn’t at least consider once setting him straight and banning him entirely even if just for a week.”

“You suck.”

Excerpts from recent Comment by SF Bay Area…

Bring on the issues

Which are, as tied to housing, that $12/hour public union janitors whose wages are paid by excessive municipal property taxes, are a slippery slope, the very tipping point in fact, leading to the genocidal monstrosities enacted under Stalin, and part of President Obama’s push to integrate the USA into a communist one-world state.

Don’t you get it? It’s all connected…

the very tipping point in fact,

LOL

And a final word on the matter and for the record, my “personal attacks” were mild compared to yours.

but yours came first, as they always do. Bay Area was just defending himself, he didn’t start anything.

They were not equal in intensity, duration, persistence and general “off-the-wallness”.

and it’s you that gets to decide what’s ‘off-the-wall’?

what about when you insinuated that i was a racist? is race baiting ok with you? here’s the exchange we had..

me: “yes, i think he’s the most dangerous president this country has ever seen.”

Rio: “I know. And I know for sure he’s the darkest.”

you can try to paint me as a racist, but it won’t fly.

but your (attacks) came first,

Your “but” shows me that you know I was much more attacked than I gave out. And you’re wrong. His attacks came first.

SF started using strawman, smart alec, contemptuous posts against another poster in the 8-9 hours. Chiming in, in the 11 hour I explained how I disproved SF’s non factual post on the Swedish banking crisis which was the current subject. In the 12 hour SF began the first personal attack of the day calling me names to another poster. It then devolved with his attacks being much more savage and off the wall than mine.

and it’s you that gets to decide what’s ‘off-the-wall’?

Yes, me. When someone says I want to KILL PEOPLE with guns for politics it is ME who is the decider. Not you.

what about when you insinuated that i was a racist?
me: “yes, i think he’s the most dangerous president this country has ever seen.”

Rio: “I know. And I know for sure he’s the darkest.”

I’m sorry if that insinuated that you were a racist. I make many posts trying to be funny and point out chains of illogical arguments. Many Republicans would consider Obama “dangerous” because he is Black but that does not mean that you would. It was much more being a dumb joke than race bating. I apologize to you personally but not to actual racists.

you can try to paint me as a racist

That’s the liberal “get out of jail free card” when they are losing an argument.

And you’re wrong. His attacks came first.

i don’t agree, but anyone that cares about it can check yesterday’s blog for themselves.

I make many posts trying to be funny and point out chains of illogical arguments.

what can be ‘funny’ or humorous about insinuating that someone is a racist?

Many Republicans would consider Obama “dangerous” because he is Black but that does not mean that you would.

first, i’m a registered independent. republicans are too far to the left for me. they left their principles behind long ago. do you know what makes me so far to the right? it’s the knowledge that freedom and free markets work. and with me, it’s not belief, it’s knowledge.

It was much more being a dumb joke than race bating.

your “more” shows me that you knew you were race baiting me.

I apologize to you personally but not to actual racists.

your apology only comes after Ben decided to crack down, not when i originally complained right after your comment. nevertheless, i accept your apology. and i do think there are far less racists than you think there are.

That’s the liberal “get out of jail free card” when they are losing an argument.

yes, and it also gets used to avoid an argument altogether. for instance, people that would like to vet obama like every other president, know that they will be labeled ‘racists’ if they try.

that $12/hour public union janitors whose wages are paid by excessive municipal property taxes

It’s not the janitors’ fault, it’s the teachers. All those leechy public school teachers are completely responsible for the coming economic collapse and the downfall of western civilization.

Mea culpa.

what can be ‘funny’ or humorous about insinuating that someone is a racist?

It can be very funny insinuating that many Republicans are racists because they are. This is fact. And many racists use the Obama’s “most dangerous” argument. I’ll take you at your word that you aren’t. Thus the apology and explanation.

It was much more being a dumb joke than race bating……..your “more” shows me that you knew you were race baiting me.

Or not you personally, just many people who have a deep and personal hatred of Obama and use certain often used buzzwords.

your apology only comes after Ben decided to crack down,

No, You were just a side-show yesterday in what Ben cracked down on. The apology came when I realized it bothered you. You mentioned it twice in 2 days so I’m giving you an explanation. Yesterday I didn’t even remember what you were talking about.

i don’t agree, but anyone that cares about it can check yesterday’s blog for themselves.

I did and again, you’re wrong.

It can be very funny insinuating that many Republicans are racists because they are.

in fact, very few are. the vast majority of the racists are liberals. but in any case, it’s not ‘funny’ to insinuate that ANYONE is a racist. it’s an ugly charge, and you better be damn sure before you make it.

And many racists use the Obama’s “most dangerous” argument. I’ll take you at your word that you aren’t.

no, many people that understand how dangerous communism is, make that argument. and i didn’t give you ‘my word’. i don’t have to. i’ve said nothing on this forum to give anyone any reason to think i’m a racist. only a racist sees racism where there is none.

The apology came when I realized it bothered you.

no it didn’t. you knew it ‘bothered’ me the moment i immediately replied to your race baiting comment, which was made about a week ago.. and you didn’t know that implying someone is a racist would ‘bother’ them?? who are you trying to kid?

Yesterday I didn’t even remember what you were talking about.

then you are rather cavalier in your insinuations that others are racists.

I did and again, you’re wrong.

like i said, they can read yesterday’s blog and decide for themselves.

only a racist sees racism where there is none.

Uh no, I gotta disagree with this one. Many instances of racism go unnoticed because racism, like other forms of discrimination, are usually systematic and embedded in our lives.

Or at least they go unnoticed by the perpetrator, but not by the victim.

The fact that the charge of racism is considered a big deal is a good thing, because it means that for most people racism is not something they proudly claim. Although it wasn’t always so.

Generally when someone says something obviously racist, some one will speak up.

So far we are not quite there with homophobia. Another poster here thought it he was funny by applauding Uganda’s decision to put gays and lesbians in prison for life. Silence.

it’s not ‘funny’ to insinuate that ANYONE is a racist.
I disagree. But enough. You’ve been apologized to. Now you sound like you’re whining.

in fact, very few Republicans are racist. the vast majority of the racists are liberals.

Thanks for the belly laugh.

Here’s a good article on some of the “code words” and the racist aspects of the past election.

How to Read Political Racial Code

http://ideas.time.com/2012/09/06/how-to-read-political-racial-code/

Part of my job when I speak about politics is to speak up for black people and say things black people need said. This mission has rarely felt so necessary as it has when racial code words recently entered the Presidential election. These code words are ancient racial stereotypes in slick, modern gear. They are linguistic mustard gas, sliding in covertly, aiming to kill black political viability by allowing white politicians to say ‘Don’t vote for the black guy’ in socially-acceptable language. Sometimes the code comes directly out of a candidate’s mouth. Sometimes it comes from supporters, or can be found in advertisements.

Do not be fooled by the canard that both parties do it. That was former RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s response when I asked him about it on my MSNBC show “The Cycle.” Using certain words to invoke racialized fear and scare white working class voters is a long-established part of the Republican playbook. The GOP is a 90% white party and has been for decades. According to Ron Brownstein of the National Journal, Mitt Romney will need over 60% of white people to vote for him or he will lose. “That,” Brownstein says, “would be the best performance ever for a Republican Presidential challenger with that group of voters.” Given that math, in a base turnout election where Romney has a big lead among white, non-college educated men, it’s understandable why he’d try to motivate those voters with code words that remind them of their racial difference with Obama and stigmatize that difference. In this effort a word like “welfare” is extremely valuable. Sure there are more white than black Americans on welfare, but when a candidate says ‘welfare’ many whites think of their tax dollars being given to blacks.

So when Romney began running ads about Obama “dropping the work requirement from welfare” - ads which are still running even though the claim has been thoroughly debunked - he was merely updating Ronald Reagan’s old “welfare queen” meme. Both are designed to create racial resentment around entitlements. This tactic is bolstered by the classic stereotype of blacks as lazy. A recent Pew Research Center poll, for example, found that 57% of Republicans believe people are poor because they don’t work hard. When a recent Washington Post poll asked “Why do most black voters so consistently support Democrats?” the second reason given by Republicans was “black voters are dependent on government or seeking a government handout” while for Democrats it was that “their party addresses issues of poverty.” (The top answer for members of both parties was “Don’t know”.)

There’s also the cornucopia of terms and concepts created to de-Americanize Barack Obama, from calling him “Muslim” or “Socialist” to Romney surrogates like John Sununu saying things like, “I wish this President would learn how to be an American.” There is also a return to birtherism, with Romney recently joking, “Nobody’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.” The subtext of all this is: Obama, like other blacks, is not one of “us.” He is other.

Do Democrats use racial code? No. The Democratic party is a racially diverse coalition. There would be no value to playing this game. In fact, the party has risked alienating white working class voters by fighting for people of color, a tightrope perhaps best symbolized by President Johnson signing the 1964 Voting Rights Act and then famously, and presciently, saying to an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation.”

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina recently told the Washington Post. “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

But for now, as the GOP paddles furiously trying to stay viable as an all-white party, we must shine a harsh light on their attempts to use old racial stereotypes to win votes.

President Johnson signing the 1964 Voting Rights Act and then famously, and presciently, saying to an aide, “We have lost the South for a generation.”

It would have been more prescient if he had said they’d lose it for two generations, since that has been the case. Two and counting, but it is getting chipped away. Florida, Virginia, maybe North Carolina…

“We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

No, we’re not. But the hardest thing in the world is going to be the switchover from the party of angry and/or rich white men, into a party that more closely represents modern America. I’m not sure they can do it.

it’s not ‘funny’ to insinuate that ANYONE is a racist.

from the beginning it’s easy to see it’s a racist article. it’s drivel and i didn’t finish reading it. if you think the article is making a good point, state it in your own words and i’ll debate it with you.

yes, this says a lot about you.

It says I have a normal sense of humor. Comics have been laughing at, and pointing out the humor of bigoted racists for decades. What I think is most funny is that the race card is through now for the Republicans. It doesn’t work well in national elections anymore.

if you think the article is making a good point, state it in your own words and i’ll debate it with you.

Point: Romney ran a dirty, race baiting campaign and used buzzwords and phrases to constantly remind the Repbub base that Obama was black, and therefore “not fit to be President” because he was “different” a “socialist” “dangerous” born in “Kenya” “Muslim” not a “real” American. Taking money from “hard working” whites and giving “handouts to the blacks”.

I would also add that Romney supporters who used the above tactics and words and phrases (innocently or not) should not be so shocked if some of the Romney covert racist tactic dirt and backlash (deserved or not) rubbed off on them too.

your antagonists don’t resort to bullying, inciting to gang up, absurd accusation, and schoolyard name-calling

If I weren’t so busy, I’d happily dig up posts where you and others who think they’re squeaky clean have used name-calling. There is a very common habit of mangling the handles of people one doesn’t agree with to mock them and you’re guilty. I guess when you and others do it they consider it “cute” instead of disrespectful?

And what blog are you reading? Sometimes his/her antagonists certainly resort to bullying and ganging up…just wow that you can’t see this.

nice comment ahansen..

There’s a nuanced difference between chiding and bullying, but most can recognize it by tone.

It has noting to do with ideology and everything to do with intent.

“It has noting to do with ideology and everything to do with intent.”

If there is anyone here whom I have not insulted, I beg his pardon.

– Johannes Brahms

I like the way you framed the debate.

do you measure the “success” of a society at its apex, or at its base? And therefore, do you set up the government to benefit the apex or the base

Stop changing your name so often. Underwater metro DC buyer “can’t keep up”.

Not me. Save for a few “calling out the complaining hypocrites” posts, I stay outta that mess.

I don’t know why there is all this doubt about the current situation.

So what do you think is going to happen? Housing predictions for one year out? 5 years? 10 years?

Maybe a weekend topic discussion?

There are those who would like us to forget what this thing is.

Oh you better believe there are. Alot of them. Many of them paid. There is one known right here on the HBB.

And “predict”? lmao. There is no need to “predict”. Prices are falling. Yep. Prices down M-O-M in the bay area too. This is far from over. Try the 1st quarter. The inventory still hasn’t been disposed. The bottom was merely forestalled and delayed. It’s still ahead of us. It’s all coming right at us and that’s precisely what the Housing Crime Syndicate PR arm wants you to ignore.

Are you referring to me?

I sure wish I was getting paid.

Pimp, we all already know what you believe re RE. How ’bout everyone else?

pimp is right, prices will continue to come down.. how fast is the only question.. or how slowly rather..?

“I don’t know why there is all this doubt about the current situation.”

It seems that some of the alpha economists in the discussion live under the delusion that if they ignore the housing bubble, it will go away — sort of like a drunk guy and his pink elephant.

I remember being told as far back as the 1980s that you had to play the appreciation and trade up game to get ahead (this was in SoCal).

I’m wondering if this is the same strategy as “you have to have both spouses working to get ahead.”

It works until ‘everyone’ is doing it.

if one never sells it then that shouldn’t be a problem (losses).

It was never a problem until bubble era sales began.

SFhomeDebtor,

I don’t own any houses.

Now have you found a buyer for your underwater shack? Is it a short? Or will you just walk away. (I recommend the latter)

I definitely did it with eyes wide open. I didn’t buy it as a monetary investment. I’m amazed that it currently isn’t ‘worth less’ than it was when I paid for it, and I told my wife when we bought it that she needed to be okay with us probably taking a bath on the house if she really wanted to buy it. But just because it’s NOT ‘worth less’ now doesn’t mean it won’t be worth less later. I will admit I thought 2012 would be the bottom, but I also thought the bottom would be at least 30% lower than it is on the SF peninsula where we live. (We bought at 33% down from the peak, and I was expecting at least 50% down from peak.) Now I don’t think the bottom is in, and we’re in a bull trap for those that were the ‘pent up demand’. When it peters out next year, I expect the bar area to resume it’s march towards 50% off of peak pricing.

Just razzin’ ya man, I couldn’t care less.

I suspect my wife and I will be having the same “come to Jesus” discussion next year as she is getting a little antsy to make a move. Admittedly I am too, but I just don’t want “them” to win!

I definitely did it with eyes wide open. I didn’t buy it as a monetary investment. But just because it’s NOT ‘worth less’ now doesn’t mean it won’t be worth less later. I will admit I thought 2012 would be the bottom, but I also thought the bottom would be at least 30% lower than it is on the SF peninsula where we live.

I’m not gonna change my name to SF bubble buyer anytime soon, but this is pretty much our story too.

I bought a house because we needed a place to live and the rent increases and dealing with landlords was getting old.

I know the Pimp thinks that renting is always cheaper, but that really depends on where you live.

There is no glut of housing (rental or otherwise) in San Francisco.

Tiny apartments: Modern living or barely living?

This week, San Francisco’s Planning Commission will vote on whether to cap the new micro-apartments allowed in the city at 375 units. Proponents of the tiny apartments — which cram living room, bathroom and kitchen into as little as 220 square feet of living space — say the city desperately needs more apartments with lower monthly rents. They also point out that 40 percent of San Franciscans live alone, making this type of unit ideal. But opponents worry that the units would not benefit neighborhoods where they would be built, and point out that, at a higher price per square foot than larger apartments, they are not truly affordable housing.

The real question, though, is would it be bearable — even nice? — to live in a San Francisco micro-apartment? Small space lovers say it’s all about the design and the resident’s self-restraint — every time you bring something new into your micro-pad, you need to take something else out to avoid being crowded out by clutter.

always cheaper

ALWAYS.

And you chose the more costly option. Why is that?

I also like to light my stogies with burning $100 bills. It tastes that much sweeter.

The bank wants their money back.

They can have it back at the contractually agreed upon rate. Or faster at my discretion, as agreed upon in the contract. Nowhere does it state “You may not light your cigars with 100 dollar bills” in there.

Meanwhile, the house depreciates while the debt-slave toils. lmao

Well ownership almost always is more expensive in the first years of ownership. But I bought in ‘99 and by now my mortgage is less than the equivalant rent. And in a couple of months the principal and interest go to zero. So even with the time cost of money, it has worked out for me.

I’m toiling the exact same amount as I would if I rented.

uh huh…. lmao.

Are you selling your houses, Pimp Watch? Or sustaining your losses?

Alpo…. wtf are you yammering about now? Bedlam is calling.

They are your losses to sustain and yours alone.”

Acually thats not what i’m seeing I see the losses are for everybody..

the whole system is rigged. I guess it makes some important people money to have it this way.

You know, the two houses you said you owned. Are you selling them or sustaining your losses?

You know, the two houses you said you owned. Are you selling them or sustaining your losses?

He won’t answer. Do as he says, not as he does.

Bedlam is calling AlPimp.

Honesty is calling Pimp Watch. Will you answer?

You’re yapping again Alpo.

I guess you’re refusing Honesty’s call. Sleep well.

PW is a broken record, adding little to the discussion.

So tell us about these magical houses alpo. Or are you lying about that too? The irony of it all.

Just bought a Chronos 7 laptop on clearance at Best Buy, if that also counts as “product.” (Wasn’t planning to buy one just yet - was looking for a Sony at the right price - but went in looking for a networking component for work and spotted it in the clearance bin on the way to the rest room, LOL).

15″, I7, 1TB HDD, 8GB RAM. It’s awesome. And fast. And awesome.

I’m also considering the Galaxy SIII phone. Everyone I know who has one loves it.

I have a Galaxy Nexus. It’s very nice except the speaker stopped working, so I can no longer hear it ringing. I have to set it on vibrate and keep it nearby if I’m expecting a call. I don’t know if this is a common problem or if I got a lemon.

jbunniii - do you have any calling apps installed (like Talking Caller ID, etc.)? Removing them may fix your problem. My Motorola media volume is buggy since ICS update. I found an app that let’s me control headphone options (the phone keeps thinking headphones are plugged in when they are not). It’s worked since.

eastcoaster - I don’t have any apps like that.Samsung technical support also walked me through a complete factory reset, still no dice. They will repair or replace the phone under warranty, but I’ll be phoneless during that process, most likely for several weeks, so I’m reluctant to pull the trigger.

I think that the PC will go back to the purpose for which it was originally intended. It’s a business productivity tool, not an entertainment device.

In other words, if you’re tasked with creating, managing, or reporting on some sort of content, you’re best off with a PC. If you just need to view content or perform easy tasks like sending/receiving e-mail or web browsing, a tablet or smartphone should be perfectly adequate.

Hp sounds like companies who buyback stock after it doubles or triples

They would be taxed as income, according to Forbes.

The next-to-top bracket? Top bracket is for the rich folk.

If they’re paying 40% on their dividends, then they must be in the top income tax bracket.

Hey - can I fully tax your paycheck twice? Didn’t think so.

If i take my post-tax paycheck and buy a soda, I pay sales tax. I’m taxed twice! If I buy beer, I pay even more taxes, I’m taxed thrice!

This ‘investment income is taxed twice’ idea is malarkey. Money is taxed twice or more, all the time. Not just investment income.

If you buy a pack of smokes, you are taxed quince!

And if I try to smoke them while in a tanning salon, I’m sextuple taxed!

And if I try to smoke them while in a tanning salon, I’m sextuple taxed!

LOL.

Don’t reward investor risk and investors go else where.

Where will they go? Might they go, start a business and create some jobs?

“Hey - can I fully tax your paycheck twice? Didn’t think so.”

People just repeat these things without thinking. Payroll tax plus income tax. Wage income IS taxed twice, as long as it is high enough to be taxable and low enough to be under the $110,000 threshold.

Where will they go? Might they go, start a business and create some jobs?

Funny thing about that: One of the events that catalyzed my push into startup mode was a significant loss in the stock market last year… a need to generate a reliable income stream outside of what the market could or would provide.

Hey - can I fully tax your paycheck twice?

Taxes as it passes to employee.
Taxed when spent.
Taxed at death as you attempt to give any leftovers to someone else.

“This is the strongest global economy I’ve seen in my business lifetime” — Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, July 2007

Both, since France is a great example of what we can expect.

Both, since France is a great example of what we can expect.

France should be the example we try not to emulate… Greece is the end result. Both should be avoided.

Both, since France is a great example of what we can expect.

Good health-care at half the price and 1 month vacations?

Good health-care at half the price and 1 month vacations?

Unshaven women…

I assume by ‘trying to avoid being like France’ you mean not starving the poor until they riot and storm the Bastille and start cutting the heads off of the oligarchy with guillotines. To that end, I suggest the rich stop whining about removal of all their tax advantages and hope they can shove enough cake into the maw of the increasing poverty class to keep them calm long enough for them to get the middle class growing again.

The rich seem to forget every other generation or so that a strong middle class is what keeps the pitchforks at bay. When the middle class is shrinking, they are getting closer and closer to being the first against the wall come the revolution.

30 year old students and 50 year old retirees

When you value equality over liberty, you will find you soon have neither.

When you value money over the good of your society, you will have neither.

Alpha, if you have enough money, you don’t need a good society. You can buy your fortress and your private army and the rest of society can go hang, as they say.

You can buy your fortress and your private army

Yeah, I guess so. But it seems like it would be more enjoyable to be rich in a country where you could cruise around in your convertible Ferrari with the roof down, chatting up the girls, instead of being clammed up in your armored BMW, with your bulletproof windows rolled up tight, and bodyguards, speeding from one secured location to another. But some seem to prefer the latter.

No, I already had said that losing the Bush tax break seem fair since many of them had supported open borders. But my problem is no sooner do the Republicans start to shift on that then the Democrats start changing their willingness to make any cuts to entitlements and then you have people on the left say we need to move the tax rate up to 91%. I would like the Bowles Simpson plan passed without amendments so we can start to move in a meaningful way to cut the deficit. It is not perfect but had we passed it at the beginning of the Obama administration we would be in a far better position. It is a reasonable compromise.

Fairly soon if we do not have meaningful cuts, the U.S. is going to lose its reserve currency status. This will reduce everyone’s standard of living by 20 to 25% and I pity the party that holds the presidency when it happens. When we cannot just print money without consequences, we will look like Greece. Elections have consequences but so too do trillion dollar a year deficits and six trillion added to the debt.

Thanks for the clarification. And agreed. Still, let’s stay away from the dire “we’re gonna turn into France” warnings.

That said, I wish more people understood that things need to get worse before they get better. Of course that will be labeled as this (and probably the next) President’s failures, when it’s just the necessary flush occurring.

If you have a 100M revenue business, with 10M net income, the value might be something like 7x trailing quarter’s earnings, so 10M - 35% tax = 6.5M / 4 = 1.625M x 7 = 11.3M valuation of the company. How does the 7x trailing quarters earning come about? It’s based on a rate of return blended on the capital gains of the company and the expected dividend.

So say on the 11.3M valuation, the company is paying a 5% dividend, or 500k/yr. The people taking the dividend are paying 15% capital gains on that (after the 3.5 million already paid in corporate tax), or an additional 75k , netting 425k on the 11.3M valuation. 3.76% after tax return.

If you increase the tax rate on cap gains to 30%, the tax taken will now be 150k, netting 350k, or 3.10% after tax return. This is a reduction to 82.4% of the previous rate of return on your invested capital. All things being equal, you would expect the value of the company to drop some portion of that 17.6% reduction to balance the rate of return. So maybe the company is now worth 10.3M instead of 11.3M. Yes, that is “wealth destruction”. People won’t value a lesser performing asset as much as a higher performing one.

On the other hand, suppose the corporate tax rate either a) allowed dividends to be deducted (S corps do something like this as passthru income), or just lowered the corporate tax rate. You can see by boosting that expected dividend you can increase valuations of companies. Why our tax law doesn’t promote payment of dividends, I have no idea… especially on publicly traded companies (C-corps) available to average joes in 401k’s etc…

Because dividends are a distribution of profits (current or accumulated) not a business expense like interest (cost of capital).

Paying corporatate level taxes is entirely voluntary these days. If people don’t like it, they can reorganize as a limited liability company taxed as a partnership. The partners have to do a lot more paperwork, but the org has no organization level taxes.

The people who take their place.

Exactly alpha. If there is demand to support the services, then the next most qualified (or connected, or advertised or whatever) person will do the work. A lot of people are out of work and really need the income. If a bunch of people decide they don’t need the income and don’t feel like working, the next group who do need the income will move into those positions.

Sounds like a great idea.

When the people that fled or were shot in communist countries were gone, the countries never recovered. Not all the rich have talent but many do and you cannot just substitute one person for another. Lose a Steve Jobs and your country will regret it.

As an aside that is why I am not a bull on Apple. I see the company selling more and more products but not really adding to the bottom line. Without Jobs, the products will not be as unique and not have the same profit margin.

China never recovered?

Cracks me up every time I hear some dyed in the wool, rich folk claiming to want to renounce their citizenship to “avoid higher taxes”.

IMO, the number who would leave America wouldn’t amount to a rounding error in the rich’s numbers. Moving to a different country is much more of a jolt than most people would like to experience. Besides, if you’re rich, America is a great place to live.

They may pay taxes on their income and capital gains on the way out but they will not be paying every year after that. Also, if they are really rich they do not need a green card because they are making their money more by investing than working.

Didn’t Denise Rich renounced her citizenship. She was a big democratic supporter.

That’s unpossible. The “Producers”, the “Job Creators”, the “Masters of the Universe” will be welcomed with open arms wherever they deign to relocate.

Yes, just like the people leaving France. I know you are being sarcastic but you are right. Billionaires always have an open door to countries.

Especially in countries without extradition treaties.

“After I paid taxes on the income, it wasn’t worth my time.”

That’s not exactly a problem either. Unless you’re extremely specialised, there is someone else to take that contract.

I’d like to know where the crossing point is on that cost/benefit graph. At what income does it become not worth the money? That would give us an idea of the income ceiling in America, the point at which Americans would cash out and pack up the business. I suspect (hope) that the figure is higher than $250K.

I used to turn down contract work all the time because the rate was too low.

And yet, when the unemployed turn down $2/hour baker jobs or $9/hour accounting jobs because they think the rate is too low, the conservatives on this board berate them for not being “competitive” and wanting “free sh!t” and “union goons” and tell them they better take the $2 and like it, or else they can’t feed the family, or the company will move somewhere more business-friendly.

Northeasterner, are you any different? Would you have turned your nose up at those “low rates” if all your customers/bosses threatened to go elsewhere and leave you with no contracts at all? Are you truly the only person who could do your job?

(unless, I suppose you’re wealthy enough that you could afford to not work at all, so you only take jobs when you want to…)

On the other hand, if you really, really need $x to live the life you want, and taxes increase so you need to work more to get to $x, then you may be motivated to work more hours to get to the income you want.

Economists recognize both concepts as motivating work and which one dominates will depend on the particular facts and circumstances. If you dedided not to work those extra hours, you must already make as much as or more than your internal accountant thinks you need. Congratulations. That doesn’t mean the next person will feel the same way.

I’d like to know where the crossing point is on that cost/benefit graph. At what income does it become not worth the money?

If you decided not to work those extra hours, you must already make as much as or more than your internal accountant thinks you need.

I think it differs across industries and for each individual. In my case, I already had a full-time job, so the contract work was an additional source of income and the time spent performing the work was my “free-time”. I put a very high value on my free time, so even though the contract work paid what was equivalent to my salary, the fact that I didn’t “need” the money and the taxes were higher (self-employment tax, as I was a 1099) meant that it was much less lucrative or desirable for me.

For the record, I’m no where near earning what I want to earn or what I think my time is worth… but I didn’t see the contract work as being lucrative enough for the time I spent. The potential payoff with the start-up is significantly higher, both in terms of salary/bonus and ownership stake, if things work out. If I’m successful in that venture, I don’t particularly care what tax rate I’m at, as I should make millions (literally).

I guess that answers the first question: for me, millions in “income” are worth the extra effort and higher taxes. Tens of thousands in extra income, not so much. This is in a household in the top 10% of income…

In the 1950’s corporate executives spent much of their time at the country club who could blame them given the 90% tax rate. Maybe that is why by the 1960’s companies such as Xerox and Kodak had lost their edge and were on the road to irrelevance.

How much is enough? To a sociopath CEO it might never be enough and plenty make it to the top. Many of them will pass the point of making an efficient organization to short sided decisions which will eventually bankrupt the corporation.
However, even to a reasonable person it does depend somewhat on how much is taken by the government. It is the billion dollar question on how do we continue to have CEO’s make our corporations competitive without the excessive compensation they do receive and no accountability for short sighted decisions.

It would if it also meant the ability to work in the rest of the EU.

I wonder if you could start a business there on the permit? Spain would be a perfect place to try out my solar-powered tanning salon concept. (It’s a room with no ceiling or roof.)

haha - nice.

Indeed, it’s the Fed who’s buying up all the bad paper.

Reappointed by whom?

Don’t worry, us younger Marylanders will continue to find your red state infrastructure, first responders, Medicare, and SS.

You’ll just have to put up with marriage equality, the Dream Act, Roe v Wade being upheld, Citizens United being struck down, and all your John Galt type idols paying slightly more in taxes.

Honestly, if I was middle aged or beyond, I wouldn’t worry too much about this. You’ll be in a pine box before we finish working through the problems you guys created. You can’t fix 3 decades of problems in 4 years or even 8 years.

CU was struck down? That’s news to me. (Hint: it won’t happen in this lifetime)

Good for you, RN. What you’ll inherit is what you’re creating right now. Don’t make the same mistake the ijits in my generation did. You truly DO reap what you sow.

I look at the millennials and you guys give me such hope….

I “plagerized” your name because I don’t want the Bos-Wash corridor associated with gun-toting, faux-boot-strapping types who extol the virtues of the .1% while working for a living themselves. It comes off like you’re getting screwed but you’re unaware of it and, to make matters worse, cheering the people who are screwing you.

There are plenty of us gun owning DIY types out here.

What’s that got to do with giving free college to criminals?

faux-boot-strapping types who extol the virtues of the .1% while working for a living themselves.

Ah, so what makes you think I’m “faux-boot-strapping”? And how is one supposed to create wealth except through work? Other than those who inherited, don’t all of us “work for a living” until you’ve earned enough to not work or work because you want to?

As to the .1%, I’m pretty sure I’ve never defended them. I have defended the economic system that allows all of us to create value and wealth, including the .1%. I’ve also said I think government needs to get out of the way of small businesses and that more taxes aren’t the answer. Does any of that sound like defending the .1%?

faux-boot-strapping types

Here’s the definition of boot-strapping from google:

bootstrappingpresent (Verb)
*Get (oneself or something) into or out of a situation using existing resources.
*Start up (an enterprise), esp. one based on the Internet, with minimal resources.

Which ones don’t apply?

how is one supposed to create wealth except through work?

In 2010, Mitt Romney made $22 million and didn’t work at all. Next.

I’ve also said I think government needs to get out of the way of small businesses and that more taxes aren’t the answer. Does any of that sound like defending the .1%?

Tax the .1% higher and invest part of that money into developing real incentives and advantages for small businesses. The .1% and their sheltered, huge businesses have done more to kill small businesses than any other small group in America than I can think of.

This is how Capitalism can be managed by governments to provide the benefits of productivity and wealth to more than just the .1%. Other countries do it. We should too.

Tax the .1% higher and invest part of that money into developing real incentives and advantages for small businesses.

I’m definitely not in the “Grover Norquist” camp of no new taxes… especially if it means we hit the fiscal cliff and 90% see higher taxes.

All those new Mexican scientists software developers coming out of Maryland schools ought to be great for the economy.

You neglect the fact that not all of the Americans in your community who grew up in homes where taxes were paid went off to college. A lot of those kids grew up to become masons, carpenters, welders, janitors, etc.

These are the same jobs that are now harder to come by for these same Americans because they are exactly the jobs that are being absorbed by our visitors from the far South. The wage are depressed and the standard of living for all people in this category

How are they Mexican if they went to school here? Most of these kids have never been to Mexico.

And yes, some of them will become scientists, engineers, lawyers, etc. LOL at your racism showing if you think a kid who gets admitted to UMD or UMBC (etc) has less verbal or math ability than a white American kid.

Maybe it’s a generational thing, but the immigrant kids I grew up with worked just as hard, if not harder, than kids of citizens. And perhaps it’s selection bias, but I attended an Ivy with a lot of VERY capable children of immigrants.

It’s time to get in tune with demographic reality, gramps. Today’s immigrants are no less capable than the Irish, Polish, or Italians of the 20th century.

We have posted this here before, the criminal invasion of 20 million illegal Mexicans and their anchor babies does not benefit working class and middle class white and black American citizens.

Some of us do not want the country we were born in to turn into Mexico.

The GOP Chamber of Commerce types want the Mexodus for cheap labor.

The libtard Dems want the Mexodus for more recruits to the Free Sh*t Army for votes.

We want neither.

LOL at your racism showing if you think a kid who gets admitted to UMD or UMBC (etc) has less verbal or math ability than a white American kid.

WOW. This is a new low for liberals. First you plagarize my name and post the opposite side of many of my arguments. Then you throw out the racism card when no one is discussing “race”. Does that win you points with your liberal friends?

The children of illegals born here may be considered citizens of the US, with the rights therein, but those who are here illegally are breaking the law and should not be given any of the benefits of citizenship. It is a slap in the face to those who have followed the rule of law and gained citizenship the proper way.

As far as being as able as past immigrants, I have posted numerous posts where I show that unlike legal immigrants, you do not see the children of the illegal immigrants advancing. In fact, the children of the illegals are proned to joining gangs, dropping out of schools and using mean tested programs. What is happening to California is a great example of the problems including gang violence directed against blacks merely because they lived in the gang areas.

High-Immigration States Tend To Have Less-Educated Workers

By Roy Beck, Friday, July 16, 2010, 2:27 PM EST

Our new maps (see below) suggest that if a state wants an educated workforce that creates a strong middle class and high tax base, it might want to avoid high immigration.

Take Nevada as an example. In 1970, it had the 5th best-educated laborforce in the country (based on rate of high school dropouts)……. what might account for such a disastrous drop? Note that the map on the right also shows Nevada colored red — in this case, for being in the highest level of immigration. (Interestingly, its long-time U.S. Senator, Harry Reid, continues to be one of the country’s strongest advocates of pushing immigration to even higher levels.)

Both Senators from California (colored red for highest immigration) also are urging higher levels of immigration. After 40 years of high immigration, California has plummeted from No. 7 in educated laborforces to No. 50.

you do not see the children of the illegal immigrants advancing

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/hispanic-workers-lack-education-as-numbers-grow-in-u-s-.html

But of course, to discuss this is Racist®

I said OK to a store credit card application to get a 10% discount on a large purchase last month. It was denied. The followup letter said I had no credit history. I guess they don’t go back 20 years. Banks just don’t want one night stands, they want serious debt hampsters.

“Or “Muscle Ferret”…

I`m still going with the Hampster

ferrets vs hamster - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc26fm37qY8 - 187k -

That Hamster is in a debt ball! He`s trying to get away from the bill collecting bankster Ferrets.

All rodents make crappy pets.

Actually rats make really good pets. They are smart, social, and can be trained. The only downside is that they only live 2-3 years.

“….wasn’t a blowout.”

Unless your gerbil comes with a cardboard tube and a match.

I agree the Republican establishment forced Romney on the Republicans and everyone in the country has to pay for it. It is clear by his last few months that they know that people really care about, middle class tax cuts, hardline on China and yes despite monday morning quarterbacking strong borders. While Romney said the right things, many did not trust him.

Even though we disagree on many things, I agree with you on this. I very likely would’ve voted for Ron Paul over Obama. My only question would’ve been, what kind of judges would RP appoint? Unfortunately, we never got to hear the discussion because the GOP foisted a charlatan on us and that vermin needed to be exterminated. The Romney/Ryan ticket was just as bad as McCain/Palin, if not worse. It was like they learned nothing in the intervening 4 yrs. Idiotic.

Also, the younger independents and GOP seemed to be very marginalized. The GOP basically rigged the system to get the result they wanted–the guy who would support the .0001% *and* trumpet “traditional values”. Again, idiotic.

Yep. The republicans keep catering harder and harder to the right trying to ‘reignite the base’, but they don’t seem to realize they keep SHRINKING the base when they do that. They ‘took back the House’ decades ago with that tactic, and pulled off a ‘fiscal hardliner’ version of it in 2010, but pushing it further and further is doing them no favors, and the demographics of the country show it will become even more of a losing recipe going forward. I bet it still gets them some results on non-presidential years when voter turnout drops enough that an ignited fundamentalist voting block can make a dent, but it won’t work on the big stage.

It’s pretty funny. During and after this election, conservatives were screaming that elections should be decided by popular vote, not the electoral college system, because the electoral college was not representative of the American people. And yet, the only states where Ron Paul gained any kind of foothold were states with an even LESS representitive system: the manipulative caucus system. And you wonder why they shut the Paul delegates down?

But Colorado the reason many now use the Euro or the dollar is that they have crashed their own currency so often is that they cannot use any currency they print.

comments

BusterDoug

Hell, why don’t we all go on strike? How about I not pay my income taxes and go on strike against the government? They’ve wasted PLENTY of taxpayer money, including bailing out the banks!

ReplyrnagelIf

we go on strike and not pay income taxes only half of us can participate

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/10/esop_urging_underwater_homeown.html - 70k

“Obama Nation”

Hate to throw some more facts your way, but this was the SOP of serial refinanciers before Obama became a Senator, much less the president.

All of that “don’t let your equity lay there, doing nothing….” propaganda from the bankster/realtor crowd.

Lets not forget about Chris Dodd, you know the friend of Angelo. Isn`t he one of the dudes, Dodd/Frank right. What was that Frank said again “These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

And what ever happened to Angelo? That`s right, nothing.

Then there is this

“In 1994, Barack Obama was one of the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit, alleging that Citibank had engaged in practices that discriminated against minorities. The lawsuit forced the bank to ease its lending practices.”

“President Barack Obama was a pioneering contributor to the national subprime real estate bubble, and roughly half of the 186 African-American clients in his landmark 1995 mortgage discrimination lawsuit against Citibank have since gone bankrupt or received foreclosure notices…”

“Obama’s lawsuit was one element of a national “anti-redlining” campaign led by Chicago’s progressive groups, who argued that banks unfairly refused to lend money to people living within so-called “redlines” around African-American communities. The campaign was powered by progressives’ moral claim that their expertise could boost home ownership among the United States’ most disadvantaged minority, African-Americans.”

Take off the shades dude they’re all guilty.

Where did you get those neatly summarized talking points, mr. hazard?

Not so! They’ll have the cooking fire set up at the base waiting for you to ‘drop in’ for dinner! Just hope that the economy sputters along long enough for you make it to the rocks before the mass rioting starts.

Let them eat Soylent Green!

Sorry, bubbleboy, our retirement plan is to live well until age 70, and then take up unroped, free solo, rock climbing as a hobby / exit strategy.

Get your health care proxies and end of life directives in order. Anything could happen between now and that rock climbing trip that leaves you in assisted living care.

Get your health care proxies and end of life directives in order

We have recruited the loyal services of a Black Angel to snuff the squad should circumstances warrant. Meanwhile, we sport climb at max level 5.8 in addition to numerous class 4 alpine routes above 13,000 feet.

Gee I thought all of those military dictatorships were because the 1%ers/oligarchs wanted to keep the serfs from getting all uppity, and demanding stuff like getting their fair share of the GDP.

Yeah, the military dictators in South America were transferring too much money alright, but to themselves and their cronies, not to the poor.

The various falls of Rome and Greece are too complex and varied to sum up shortly, but concentration of wealth in too few hands played a major role in many, particularly in the fall of the Roman (democratic) Republic, and rise of the (undemocratic) Roman Empire, according to the vast majority of mainstream historians. I’m sure the Heritage Fund has endowed a prof somewhere who thinks it was all because of welfare.

<My argument is against the newly grown MASSIVE increase and level of wealth and income inequality.

massive or not, it’s natural and not harmful.

Not harmful to be poor? Climb down from your ivory tower.

The effects of poverty have been well documented. Harmful to your health, your life span, your education, your children, etc etc.

it’s natural and not harmful.

The rich getting richer while the poor stay poor and the middle is getting poorer is not historically natural for America and is in fact very harmful to everyone but the rich.

wealth-inequality is a sign of growing wealth,

The rich getting richer while the poor stay poor and the middle is getting poorer is not a “sign of growing wealth” for the poor and the middle. It is only “growing wealth” for the rich. (Words have meanings and you can find their meanings in the dictionary.)

we’re getting poorer because the pie is starting to shrink, not because ‘the rich’ have taken too much pie.

The pie is NOT shrinking, the GDP has grown for most of the past 30 years but the rich are almost the only ones getting any gains. in the pie. (for 30 years) This problem did not start just yesterday.

socialism has always hurt the poor more than it hurts the rich.

Tell that to the Germans, the Canadians, the Aussies, the Swedes. Their “socialized” health-care, education and safety nets have not hurt them in the least. They have helped their people and countries. Show me how these programs have “hurt” those people. You can’t

Not harmful to be poor?

the poor benefit from more wealth in the world than the rich do.

The effects of poverty have been well documented.

where did i say that poverty was a good thing? a growing wealth pie (in fee market capitalism) enriches the poor (in total, not individually) more than the rich. the smaller gains of most of the much more numerous poor adds up to much more than the gains of the very few rich.

The rich getting richer while the poor stay poor and the middle is getting poorer is not historically natural for America and is in fact very harmful to everyone but the rich.

right, but the poor are staying poor because on socialist policies, not the free market. we don’t have much free market capitalism left, so the poor are going to suffer the most for it.

The rich getting richer while the poor stay poor and the middle is getting poorer is not a “sign of growing wealth”

right, it’s a sign of growing socialism.

(for 30 years) This problem did not start just yesterday.

right, creeping socialism has been going on for much longer than 30 years.

Tell that to the Germans, the Canadians, the Aussies, the Swedes. Their “socialized” health-care, education and safety nets have not hurt them in the least.

they would all be much further ahead now if they wouldn’t have taken the socialism poison.

Show me how these programs have “hurt” those people. You can’t

google “the seen and the unseen” to understand how people would have been much better off, if socialist policies wouldn’t have passed.

The rich getting richer while the poor stay poor and the middle is getting poorer is not a “sign of growing wealth”

right, it’s a sign of growing socialism.

It can’t be a set rule because in many social democracies that practice more socialism than the USA, the growing wealth translates into growing wealth for a much larger section of the population. In the USA we have growing socialism for the rich maybe.

they would all be much further ahead now if they wouldn’t have taken the socialism poison.

You can’t prove this but the opposite can be proved. Their health-care is half the price for similar results. That’s not “poison”. That’s more money in their pockets.

google “the seen and the unseen” to understand how people would have been much better off, if socialist policies wouldn’t have passed.

But many of their their social security and health-care and social programs are stronger than America’s and they are much more socialized than ours. By your logic, USA’s should be much better than theirs because USA is less socialistic than Sweden, Canada, Germany etc. but their social programs are better than ours already and for less money in health-care. So isn’t America better when we are still much less socialistic than them?

It can’t be a set rule because in many social democracies that practice more socialism than the USA, the growing wealth translates into growing wealth for a much larger section of the population.

this is just more pablum. socialist policies destroy wealth, they don’t create it. why don’t you explain how you think socialism creates wealth?

In the USA we have growing socialism for the rich maybe.

nope, it’s growing for everyone, making everyone collectively poorer.

Their health-care is half the price for similar results.

half the price at four times the cost.

That’s more money in their pockets.

so they think. but they’ll never know how much more money they’d have in their pockets without socialist health care.

By your logic, USA’s should be much better than theirs because USA is less socialistic than Sweden, Canada, Germany etc.

you way underestimate how socialistic we’ve become. we’ve got your damn obamacare now. soon you’ll see the layoffs because employers will be trying to get under the 50 employee limit. obamacare will be creating the new 49er’s (employment caps). there will be long waits to see doctors. rationed care. increasing premiums and more doctors on the fast track to retirement. and that’s just the beginning. in two years those morons that voted for him are going see it for themselves. ouch! make it go away! but it’s too late.. ok, then on to single payer! that’s what they wanted anyway. then of course it will get even worse.

and of course dodd-frank is being written as we speak. they’ve already ended free checking accounts. thank you bureaucrats. i’m sure they’ve got more ‘goodies’ in store for us.

socialists/communists are the bane of humanity.

why don’t you explain how you think socialism creates wealth?

Socialism does not create wealth. But proper social policies need not destroy wealth and can actually make that wealth more valuable to more people. If done properly proper public policies enable more people to enjoy the wealth a society and economy creates. For example: Would you rather be a factory worker Making BMW’s in Germany or USA? I assure you Germany spends more on social programs than does the USA, but the German BMW factory worker has a higher standard of living than the American BMW factory worker.

“German factory workers are 11 percent higher than those in the U.S. — largely because their unions are more powerful.” source: BLS, Eurostat

So your premise that all more evenly spread wealth destroys wealth is incorrect and there are many stats to prove it.

Correction:
German factory workers WAGES are 11 percent higher than those in the U.S. —

But proper social policies need not destroy wealth and can actually make that wealth more valuable to more people.

make that wealth more valuable? are you going to wave your magic wand over it? the value of wealth always slowly dissipates over time. like a house, it has its maximum value at the moment it’s created. but at least you’re correct that socialism doesn’t create any wealth, it just eats it.

I assure you Germany spends more on social programs than does the USA,

and i assure you that there’s more evil to socialism than just spending. the nanny state isn’t just about spending.

but the German BMW factory worker has a higher standard of living than the American BMW factory worker.

like i said, you way underestimate how socialist we’ve become.

“German factory workers are 11 percent higher than those in the U.S. — largely because their unions are more powerful.”

i assume you mean that unions have raised the standard of living? no, they’ve lowered the standard of living for everyone. eventually, unions will destroy every company they infest. hostess didn’t go out of business because they had a lousy product (twinkies are a lousy product, but that’s not why they went out of business). hostess went out of business because the union demanded more blood than they could give. it doesn’t matter what the unions promised. you can promise someone you’ll repeal the law of gravity, but it’ll never happen.

the company offered part ownership but the union declined. they didn’t want to take the risk of ownership. they’re all like that. they’re a parasite that eventually kills the host(ess).

henry ford paid his workers more than union autoworkers get today in inflation adjusted dollars. and that was DECADES before they were unionized! it was free market labor that brought the five day work week, not the unions. there was never a good reason for unions to exist in the first place. the list of negatives on unions is long. but of course union propaganda has many people believing that they served some kind of ‘good’ a long time ago. they didn’t. everything that every union did would have been better handled in a free market.

So your premise that all more evenly spread wealth destroys wealth is incorrect and there are many stats to prove it.

there are zero stats to prove such a lame assertion.

German factory workers WAGES are 11 percent higher than those in the U.S.

too late. i’d already written and submitted my post.

make that wealth more valuable? are you going to wave your magic wand over it?

Wealth spread more equally is spent - therefore, more valuable. Economics 101. Extreme wealth concentration pools in people like Romney’s Cayman Island bank account. Many of the super-rich like Romney practice vulture-capitalism and do America no favors. Higher wages for workers (like union workers) remains at work in the economy much more than pooling billionaire’s money in Swiss Bank accounts.

i assume you mean that unions have raised the standard of living? no

Unions increased the standard of living in the USA for 60 years until corporations lobbied laws to weaken their existence and formation. Unions have raised the standard in Germany as well. America’s extreme wealth concentration is hindering American capitalism and lowering the standard of living of the middle-class. It has nothing to do with “socialism”.

then on to single payer! that’s what they wanted anyway.

Great. That’s what we needed all along. A single-payer with private insurance options. It’s going to be way better than it has been for the past 20 years. USA will join the modern health-care world.

Wealth spread more equally is spent - therefore, more valuable. Economics 101.

honestly, you just babble. green cheese spreads easier than yellow cheese, therefore, it’s more a valuable. cheeseonomics 101.

Extreme wealth concentration pools in people like Romney’s Cayman Island bank account.

what??

Many of the super-rich like Romney practice vulture-capitalism and do America no favors.

‘vulture capitalism’.. another made up term that’s devoid of meaning in the real world.

Higher wages for workers (like union workers) remains at work in the economy much more than pooling billionaire’s money in Swiss Bank accounts.

pooling money amplifies its power to build. giant pools of money can do great things like build factories that wouldn’t be otherwise possible.

Unions increased the standard of living in the USA for 60 years until corporations lobbied laws to weaken their existence and formation.

just the opposite.

Unions have raised the standard in Germany as well.

America’s extreme wealth concentration is hindering American capitalism and lowering the standard of living of the middle-class.

try backing some of this up with logic, so i can debate you. you don’t need facts or figures, just some logic. you keep repeating the same things, so all i can do is say you’re wrong.

USA will join the modern health-care world.

the usa is going to join the 3rd world.

just the opposite.

You’ve added nothing today. TJ. No stats. No examples. No comparisons of different countries. While I’ve offered stats, example, comparisons of different countries. I think you are just trying to waste my time.

Your thing about automation had to be a joke. I’m laughing actually! Read it again.

Comment by tj
2012-11-20 19:19:51

automate or die. just think how improved our lives would be if we could automate our food, transportation, shelter and energy production. we’d be free to do many other things, and the cost of living would be so cheap it would be ridiculous. we’d probably only have to work a week to pay living expenses for a year.

People do not start killing each other because one guy has a lot of money, they do it because they are hungry or abused….Communism is a lie.

So you might be for unlimited food-stamps or housing in a country that produces no jobs or low paying jobs?

Of course Communism is a lie but I would say a lot of OWS and Tea Partiers marched because they feel American “Capitalism” has evolved into a lie for many, and they feel abused by the lie.

40 years ago that’s what they said would happen.

it would have happened long ago if government would have stayed out of the way. it didn’t.

But most ALL the benefits of “automation” and technology have gone only to the very rich.

wrong again. all you’ve got is blaming the rich. we’ve all, and i mean everyone on the planet has benefited from automation.

The ONLY way your picture could come about is with massive government intervention in the markets which you’d never agree with.

well this time i don’t even know what you’re talking about. how would government intervention in the markets bring about my ‘picture’?

See my article posted today “The Future of Capitalism”.

the future of capitalism is indeed bleak with socialism on the rise. but i assure you i’m not going to read the article.

Like the owners of the means of production are going to let you work a week for a years pay?

like they could do anything to stop me, if we had free market capitalism.

Good luck with that Utopia fantasy.

my utopia is worked for, and earned. yours is made of handouts.

it would have happened long ago if government would have stayed out of the way. it didn’t.

Impossible.

i mean everyone on the planet has benefited from automation.

Except the millions who’ve lost their jobs.

well this time i don’t even know what you’re talking about

At least your honest.

my utopia is worked for, and earned. yours is made of handouts.

Fantasy land.

Except the millions who’ve lost their jobs.

they’ve benefited from automation too.

well this time i don’t even know what you’re talking about

At least your honest.

clever insult, but it doesn’t change the fact that you made no sense, and apparently don’t care to clarify it.

Fantasy land.

my utopia is worked for and earned, yours is made of handouts (and lies).

anyway rio, i’m done for the night before this turns into something Ben doesn’t want again.

anyway rio, i’m done for the night before this turns into something Ben doesn’t want again.

Good idea. Later.

I say BS, it is leading to our formerly well regarded state to turn into Louisiana/Mississippi, with lousier food. I guess we’ll see who is right in about ten years.

New data out today…CA added 295k jobs year on year through October. The US as a whole added 1.95 million (including CA)

That’s CA job growth of 2.1%.
The US ex-CA job growth of 1.4%

Texas is doing even better with 277k jobs (2.6% job growth).
Arizona added 46.5k (1.9% job growth)

Here’s the BLS press release:

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm