/biz/ - Business & Finance

Buying dogecoins is morally corrupt?

According to Jesus, yes.

According to me, the rich have a nebulous moral obligation to help people who were born into worse circumstances than themselves (i.e. starving kids).

>>109669
Yes. Buying dogecoin is betting on a greater fool down the line.

No you fucking retard. people who become rich just work hard and constantly want to work. or they discover some new technology or service etc. Stop believing antirich propaganda.

>>109648
No, but you'll likely have to bankrupt someone.

>>109706
or their dad did

>>109680
wouldn't that entail creating a societal environment that doesn't allow for there to be starving kids in the first place? i.e., rich people get less so that cheese singles and two slices of bread are at least the bare minimum.

No, I'm a financial advisor and mostly work with wealthy clients. They're not more "morally corrupt" then anyone else, if anything, they're less. Educated professionals like doctors, lawyers, pilots, etc. in particular are really good people. This only applies to the moderately wealthy though, I don't know about the super-wealthy with 10M+ in assets.

>>109706
>implying I believe antirich propaganda.

>>109721
I suppose i was referring to the more than moderately wealthy, but I appreciate that perspective.

Pretty much. I've spent a bit of time learning about the history of quite a few wealthy people in my city. Not extravagantly wealthy but the kind with a nice enough house, cars, and lifestyle.

A lot of it is hidden really. They are just smart people who take advantage of the mistakes dumber people can make. Or just take advantage of anything. They all did something I wouldn't do.

>>109714
>not thinking people should be able to spend their hard earned wealth on their family

>>109721

I found similar - although people who make in the small millions or people who get high income jobs without really being qualified can be real jerks

but for the most part - I don't see any correlation between money and morality

>>109706
>>109715
>>109715
Starving kids is an example, and in first world countries there are some systems in place to help these people.

The broader point is that there is always someone who has it harder growing up, and sitting on a huge pile of money instead of lending them a hand is kind of shitty.

>>109721
This. rich people are just like normal people. The only reason people think otherwise is because of the class warfare rhetoric the left pushes out to justify stealing more money from them.

Somehow their money is better spent in the govt than on buying things that require workers making things and servicing people, or investing in the stock market that grows other investors wealth and allows companies to grow and hire more employees, or putting it in the bank to be loaned out to a small business owner trying to expand out of his garage or a family trying to invest in buying their first home.

>>109759
Yeah, it would be pretty cool to never have to work a day in your life because of something you didn't contribute to.

>>109771
Rich people use most of their money for investments, so its hardly as if they're "sitting on a huge pile of money", that money is going toward creating value in the economy.

>>109794
as long as the rich choose worthwhile investments, then i have no issue with how they spend their own time/money

>>109771
How did I quote that many times I swear I didn't click it.

>>109763
Oh and these people also dont care much for family. That just an idea of how cutthroat they can be.

>>109771
rich people give enormous amounts to charity and simply by being rich they help others. Simply because they don't think govt welfare helps people just as it hasn't helped blacks in the 50 years since LBJ started the war on poverty in America doesn't mean theyre selfish or evil etc.

>>109771
I think people would be more generous to donating to starving kids if our donations actually did anything. It seems like the money for the most part never reaches those kids.

I spent some time in one of the poorest African countries, all those charaties had nice offices and were living the in rich areas of the city, you'd never see them in the shanties.

and worst, everyone in that country, all the best and brightest were trying to get into government or NGO because that's where all the money was. It also crippled their local economy because who's gonna compete with aid giving away shit for free

this sort of charity is based on a flawed premise that throwing money at a problem will solve it, not true.

Notice however how Bill Gates was able to get a series of billionares to donate half their income on the premise that his charity would actually make a difference

>>109791
who are you to say someone can't spoil their children with the wealth they spent their entire lives earning? and those rich snobs do contribute. they take daddy's money and open restaurants and clubs and act obnoxious and buy luxuries etc that require people who work to make them and service them.

>>109794
>creating value in the economy
For other people with money to invest.

>>109680
If you feed starving kids they grow up to be starving adults.

>>109812
I know right? too bad the govt forces you to invest in a shitty ass social security program and a retarded elderly healthcare program. not to mention income taxes and property taxes for shitty public schools. after all that money taken from the working man he has no money to invest.

>>109817
And all the while getting richer from their investments so that their children never have to work either.

It's called dynastic wealth. It's economic nepotism.

>>109816
thats another argument for why welfare and charity have inherent negative consequences that people on the left don't want to admit. They'd rather call you racist or a selfish morally corrupt rich person.

Upper class - mostly no morals
middle class - slots of moral but lack of moral still rampant
Working class- same as middle but more moral

Its easier to succeed without morals.

>>109849

no I didn't say that, I just said that throwing money at a problem could not itself solve it, there is a right way to do chairty (ie. Bill gates fund) and a right way to do welfare (like Swtizerland) all I'm saying is that the reflexive gib monies plz approach doesn't work.

>>109759
>not thinking society should be a meritocracy
you know everything "evil" the rich do is always in the name of helping their family

>>109842
so what? how does that affect you other than positively? their investments grow other businesses who hire new employees and open new shops and factories, they open restaurants that need employees and hire peopel who want work, their money in savings are lent out to people wanting loans for houses and small businesses. Be jealous all you want but using your jealousy and envy to take their money and give it to the govt is all that money wasted on govt bureaucrats and welfare that keeps people out of work

>>109864
What evil things are the rich doing for their family?

why do you care if the founder of Hilton hotels spoils his children and grandchildren? why do people work hard their entire lives other than personal comfort and that of their family's?

freedom is more important than your childish belief that everyone has to start out on an even slate. also even if you did believe that that doesn't negate the fact that their money in their family's hands is better for the economy than in the govts.

>>109867
>you're just jealous of the rich

The point is that prosperity being largely determined by your parents is not a fair system for anyone.

"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

-Warren Buffet

For a few specific jobs in high finance, yes. Otherwise, no.

>>109901
having some people's prosperty helped by their parents doesn't affect you negatively, and their money kept in their hands is better for the economy. So it is all about your jealousy that they had it easier than you.

the rich's money in their own hands is better for the economy than in the govts. the fact that you get mad that they have it easier than you is irrelevant.

>>109956
You're still confused that the argument is about me.

>>109902
Fascist faggot. govt and business are working together now more than ever due to how much the left wants the two to overlap and this is causing more division more wealth inequality and more corruption and bribery.

all the things the left hates about corporate corruption like bribery corruption and lack of business ethics is caused by their love of regulation of these corporations. The housing crisis of 2008 is a perfect example.

>>109901

Your income still correllates more strongly with your IQ than your parents income.

>>109977
What does that have to do with the quote I posted you mentally unstable shill

>>109974
it is about you and other people like you who are jealous of how easy other people have it, and because of your jealousy you argue for shitty economic policies to correct that "unfairness"

You want to take money from rich brats solely because the idea of rich brats is distasteful never thinking that perhaps despite their obnoxiousness that money is better for the economy in their hands than in the govt bureaucracy who spends money worse than even the most obnoxious trust fund brat.

>>109984
Really? I've seen stats showing the opposite. Polite [citation needed].

>>109987
it has everything to do with Warren Buffett and the retarded ideology you're trying to push with that stupid quote. Don't quote people you know nothing about dumbass

>>110002
>Rich guy admits that class warfare is entirely real
>STOP TRYING TO PUSH YOUR IDEOLOGY YOU LEFTARD YOU'RE JUST DUMB AND JEALOUS AND STUUUUUPID AND I'M REALLY SMART SMARTER THAN YOOOUUUUUUUU
Okay kiddo.

>>109995
It's not jealously. It's just pointing out that the lottery of pedigree is unfair. Unless you bring up a new point this isn't going anywhere.

>>109977

How was the housing crisis caused by regulation?

Alan Greenspan loved deregulation, and to a lesser extent, Ben Bernanke

>>110023
It's a mises fanatic, you can't reason with them.

>>110020
what is class warfare? and how is his opinion on class warfare any more valid than yours or mine on the existence of class warfare?

I would say no, to a point, theres nothing wrong with being a successful doctor, lawyer, small business owner.
But when you start raking in millions every year, I think there is a point you should seriously ask your self whats the point? Do you really need all this wealth? Couldn't be used to give maybe a bonus to your employees instead of another house?
Just my 2c

>>110041
>what is class warfare?
Tensions that arise between socioeconomic classes that manifest in a variety of ways.

>and how is his opinion on class warfare any more valid than yours or mine on the existence of class warfare?
Because he is a member of the upper/ruling class who it is in their interests to deny the existence of class warfare.
I don't know why you deny it exists, it's been a feature of every post-primitive society on earth.

>>110023
I work in lending for a small bank. over 90% of our loans are sold to fannie mae and or freddie mac

at bigger banks the percent is even higher roughtly 99%. The govt largely created the significance of secondary mortgage market and took away risk from the govt.

Piling on 100 regulations and then removing 1 is not deregulation. Anyone who thinks banking is unregulated knows nothing about it. While bubbles do exist in free markets the housing bubble would be nothing without govt involvement.

see pic.

>>110032
>hurr durr vote obama obamacare is actually really great

>>110070
>implying I like obamacare
>implying I like obama
>implying I'm even american

>>110069
>Tensions that arise between socioeconomic classes that manifest in a variety of ways.
so class warfare is a feeling? how is class warfare fought? other than the masses voting in politicians who tax the rich more? how do the rich fight class warfare?

>>110032

Fuck off and stop shitflinging you flaming faggot

If you want to say something why don't you present some actual fucking evidence

>>110079
Then shut the fuck up This is business and finance, what the fuck would you know about it poorfag?

>>110080
>so class warfare is a feeling?
No, it's a term used to describe this feature of society.

> how is class warfare fought?
A variety of ways.
-Forcible breakup of unions
-Revolution or industrial action
-taxing groups into the dust (both rich or poor, but it almost always happens to the poor)
many more

>>110070

I know absolutely nothing about this sort of thing

What I don't get is how are defaulting mortgages and such bad? The money is still in the system somewhere, maybe in the bank, or paid to contractors to build or maintain the house

It's not like it disappears

>>110070
i mean to say they took away risk from these banks.

>loan out to anyone under the sun even unemployed retards and sell loan to govt entities.
>blame these banks instead of the fact that the govt gave them that ability when otherwise they wouldn't have done so since they wouldn't service these people if they had to actually carry their loans.

>>110070
>Anyone who thinks banking is unregulated knows nothing about it. While bubbles do exist in free markets the housing bubble would be nothing without govt involvement.


when you are able to hide and sell garbage/poison secretly means you are regulated? NO

it was a sum of both shitty policies. deregulation and political correctnes.

>>110104
the poor pay jackshit in taxes, and if you want to lower taxes you better be voting conservative since the left will never lower taxes.

Its their business if they don't want you to join a union thats their right. You have the right to fuck off and work somewhere else.

>>110131
>the poor pay jackshit in taxes
But that simply isn't true.

> if you want to lower taxes you better be voting conservative since the left will never lower taxes.
You seem to be under the impression the the American 'left' is even vaguely left wing.

>Its their business if they don't want you to join a union thats their right. You have the right to fuck off and work somewhere else.
So your employer has the right to bring in mercenaries to kill you if you join a union? At least you aren't pretending to be a champion of freedom like most Austrian school advocates.

Bye.

>>110110
say I have I lent out two loans for 100,000 dollars each. now how I make money on those loans is I collect interest on the repayment of their loans. Or I can sell that loan to someone else at a profit and then he would make the money on the interest.

but what the other guy doesn't know is that I sold those loans to a retarded monkey and a teenage girl and neither of them can pay them back so after buying those loans those two people I lent to defaulted and thus the loan becomes worthless.

>>110130
so when banks can sell over 90% of their loans to a govt created institution instead of being forced to carry them themselves that qualifies as unregulated to you?

>>110131
You are now justifying class warfare instead of denying its existence.

>>109673
that's pretty gud advice

No you just have to be very good at spending and saving money

>>110164
>banks can sell over 90% of their loans to a govt created institution

Urgh, citation on that claim would be nice.

>>110152
>You seem to be under the impression the the American 'left' is even vaguely left wing.
its all subjective since the center is subjective.

if taxes made govts more solvent and lower the debt, than European countries with higher taxes would have lower debts. They don't. Their debt as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than the US is.

>So your employer has the right to bring in mercenaries to kill you if you join a union? At least you aren't pretending to be a champion of freedom like most Austrian school advocates.
thats retarded as fuck dude. I have rights just as the rich person does, killing me violates my rights, just as me forcing him to keep me employed despite me talking shit about him through my union and not letting him expel me from his private property forever violates his.

>>110195
>Their debt as a percentage of GDP is significantly higher than the US is.
That's because of their shrinking GDP due to austerity measures, which is the banking sectors method of pushing the fallout from the economic crisis onto the lower end of the income bracket.
here's a pretty good talk about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQGCoiakycQ

>thats retarded as fuck dude. I have rights just as the rich person does, killing me violates my rights, just as me forcing him to keep me employed despite me talking shit about him through my union and not letting him expel me from his private property forever violates his.

>>110104
>-Forcible breakup of unions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting is what I was referring to.

>>110183
Not exactly what you asked for but you should get the idea unless you're fucking retarded.

My source is primarily talking to my bosses who are loan officers and bank managers.

>Check out this chart that breaks down the source of new mortgage originations for each year from 1990 to 2011. Blue is Federal Housing Authority (FHA) or Veteran’s Administration (VA), Red is Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs) including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and Green is Other, presumably private sector mortgages held by banks and credit unions.

you can't look at these numbers and pretend this massive govt influence and domination in the housing market and lending won't affect it. I can't believe people actually think housing and banking is unregulated, biggest lie of our age.

>>110232
There is no austerity in Europe. another leftwing lie.

and they have had larger debts long before the European austerity myth even existed.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/05/austerity_myth_118693.html

>>110278
You can't be serious.

>>110252
also this doesn't even include loans originated by private banks and then packaged and sold to fannie mae etc. banks would loan to any retard on the street because they could just sell it to the govt. the govts existence in the housing market encouraged corruption and risky behavior. The FDIC and moral hazard both also make bankers exceptionally risky as well.

>>110278
>realclearpolitics.com
heh

>>110278
This is why I don't bother debating with anclaps and lolberts anymore

>>110291
nice response. care to expand on that? what austerity has there been in Europe? give me one specific example in western europe.

>>110298
whats wrong with Realclearpolitics faggot?

>One problem with this conclusion: European governments didn't cut! If workers pick through garbage, cuts can't be a reason, since they didn't happen.

>Some European countries tried to reduce deficits by raising taxes. England slapped a 25 percent tax increase on the wealthy, but it didn't bring in the revenues hoped for. Rich people move their assets elsewhere, or just stop working as much.

>Iceland was hit by bank collapses -- but government ignored street protests and cut real spending. Iceland's budget deficit fell from 13 percent of gross domestic product to 3. Iceland's economy is now growing.

>Canada slashed spending 20 years ago and now outranks the U.S. on many economic indicators.

>Around the same time, Japan went the other way, investing heavily in the public sector in an attempt to jump-start its economy, much as the U.S. did with "stimulus" under President Obama. The result? Japan's economy stagnated.

>The left now claims Japan didn't stimulate "enough."

>>110278
Someone needs to tell Stossel that the US has assets that far exceed the deficit and that macroeconomics do not work like microeconomics.

Negative real interest rates, internally held debt issued in our own currency, cet...

>>110313
give me one example of austerity in Europe? give me a country that actually cut spending in Europe.

>>110329
Did you mean to say debt and not deficit?

you liberals don't know shit about economics.

>>110345
>I literally cannot stop sucking dicks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_of_the_United_States

>>109817
>who are you to say

I think we had this attitude with kings in the middle ages "who are you to say King Henry ought to give back to the poor and instill human rights - why he serves the nation merely by ruling and exists through the divine right of kings:"

Hoepfully as society becomes more civilized, we'll begin to see that these large mega corps and ultra wealthy have a responsibility to society and are not there to just spend frivilously on themselves

>>110336
>>110331
Here ya go champ

>>110302
>banks would loan to any retard on the street because they could just sell it to ANYONE (AIG included)
THAT is deregulation.

go ahead and try to sell toys with lead to people. you can´t because it is regulated and ilegal

ftfy

>>110364
what is fiscal tightening? raising taxes can be considered fiscal tightening.

also
>countries hit hardest by the debt crisis are forecasted to do worse than countries not hit as hard

seriously bro. stop being brainwashed.

>>110355
what point are you trying to make? yes the US has a debt.

>>110355
>links to something which says debt and not deficits
So... yes?

selfishness and greed are not good things despite what capitalists would like you to believe

>>110387
>what is fiscal tightening?
It's another way to say austerity, it involves both spending cuts and tax hikes.

>>countries hit hardest by the debt crisis are forecasted to do worse than countries not hit as hard
I don't think you read that chart correctly.

>>110355
>He thinks debt and deficit is the same thing

>>110395
but dude you haven't read atlas shrugged

>>110382
>THAT is deregulation.
jesus christ dude. okay lets try this again.

Say you're a bank owner. and Joe methhead comes into your bank and asks for a loan, now say fannie mae and freddie mac don't exist, you're going to have to actually carry that loan as part of your assets. so you're assuming all the risk. So you're going to deny joe methhead since he's too risky. But what if you don't have to carry that loan? what if the govt will buy that loan from you? why not loan to Joe methhead when you can just sell it to the govt or have the govt insure it?

Don't you see how this encourages banks to be shady as fuck?

>>110406
>It's another way to say austerity, it involves both spending cuts and tax hikes.
how much of which? of course raising taxes fucks over the economy. only liberals believe otherwise. I want something that shows european countries actually significantly cut govt spending. because you're not going to fix the debt unless you cut spending. raising taxes does jack shit.

>I don't think you read that chart correctly.
Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Portugal

How did I read it incorrectly what country was hit harder than these? and what spending cuts have these countries made? I'm betting zilch except maybe in Ireland

>Hey guys, if we only track income we can make it appear that the nation is broke!
>Yeah it's a good thing there are no assets like land, minerals, human capital or IP.
>libertarian economics

>>110446
oil and gold and minerals in the ground are as useful as assets to the govt as they are to me. What point are you trying to make? that you can just keep spending money because you have some shiny rocks underneath you?

>>110367
Them spending frivolously on themselves is better for the economy than the govt taking that money out of the economy and wasting it on retarded pet projects.

>>109721
The morally bankrupt leeches reside far, far above educated professionals. $5m+ if you wanna believe a certain someone.

>>110447
> I want something that shows european countries actually significantly cut govt spending.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10162176

> because you're not going to fix the debt unless you cut spending.
Cutting spending actually worsens public debt-GDP ratios. I posted a pretty informative video about this further up but you probably didn't watch it.

>How did I read it incorrectly what country was hit harder than these? and what spending cuts have these countries made? I'm betting zilch except maybe in Ireland
I just don't see what the fuck you're trying to say. The graph shows change in GDP against fiscal tightening, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

>>109648
depends on whether it is a cause or an effect

sociopaths or impulsive/stupid people tend to skyrocket with success then promptly overextend themselves or outright shoot themselves in the foot

career criminals on the other hand follow more of a sigmoid curve, treading waters to begin with, followed by a flurry of criminal activity before easing off once they have raised too much suspicion and an abrupt end to their activities as they abscond with the money

Not necessary, but it helps.

>>110424
i do see that, but not only government institutions were doing that.
see: AIG and every other local and foreign institution buying this kind of timebombs based only on corrupt rating agencies and trust

by only blaming the government, you are victimizing banks and justifying their shady and sociopathic behavior.
if they are acting like that, they need to be regulated like little suicidal kids.

>>110497
So buying that second yacht is more productive than spending on schools, infrastructure, and technology that increase the earning power of everyone?

>>110502
>I just don't see what the fuck you're trying to say
Your graph is forgetting the saying "correlation doesn't equal causation"

Your graph is trying to argue that "fiscal tightening" is why their economies are doing badly, when I could just as easily say their economies are doing badly because they were hit the hardest in the first place by the debt crisis so it makes perfect sense that they'd be the ones the worse off and have the furthest way to go.

>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10162176
thanks for the article btw

>Greece
>But in order to receive the new bailout, the Papademos government committed Greece to far-reaching spending cuts, equal to 1.5% of its output. Greece has now been in recession for five years.
>The cuts proved deeply unpopular with the Greek people, leading to a wave of protests and crippling strikes.
austerity is just the new boogeyman for leftists who want to keep their welfare state. 1.5% of cuts and raising taxes isn't austerity. especially considering the enormous size of govt spending to begin with. just look at Greece's debt as a percentage of their GDP and that debt's growth, 1.5% of spending cuts isn't going to do shit.

>Italy
>The Berlusconi government had already adopted an austerity package in July 2011, featuring savings worth 70bn euros.
cut spending by 70bn euros? lol yeah that'll cover that massive debt lol.

>>110559
>1.5% of cuts
1.5% of the output. Not of the budget.

>>110559
>Your graph is trying to argue that "fiscal tightening" is why their economies are doing badly,
...no, I was just showing you that austerity is real?

>austerity is just the new boogeyman for leftists who want to keep their welfare state. 1.5% of cuts and raising taxes isn't austerity. especially considering the enormous size of govt spending to begin with. just look at Greece's debt as a percentage of their GDP and that debt's growth, 1.5% of spending cuts isn't going to do shit.
>cut spending by 70bn euros? lol yeah that'll cover that massive debt lol.

>show me just one country that has cut spending!!!
>okay, here you go
>n-n-n-n-n-not good enough!!!!!!!!
Come back here with those goalposts son.

>>110519
>by only blaming the government, you are victimizing banks and justifying their shady and sociopathic behavior.
>if they are acting like that, they need to be regulated like little suicidal kids.
I'm not victimizing them or justifying their behavior. I'm recognizing the reality of the situation. And the reality of the situation is that they wouldn't get away with such shady and sociopathic behavior if the govt wasn't involved in banking like it was and is. Without the govt's involvement they wouldn't act the way they did because it wouldnt' be profitable to do so.

What you are doing however is ignoring the govts massive involvement in housing and banking so you can tow the party line of "evil bankers suck, please save us govt"

>>109648
being morally bankrupt can help a little, but being worthy of other people's trust and working to satisfy the needs and wants of other people helps WAY more.

>>109648
I thought this meant live as though you were always Bankrupt.

Captcha : DEBTS srvants

>>110590
real or significant whats the difference in this situation?

>>110575
and? nevermind the natural growth in govt spending, nevermind the stagnating economy, you think this is significant in anyway? also not to mention the chaos it caused to the economy because all the govt workers striked.

>>110610
You're so stupid it hurts.

>>110606
>and working to satisfy the needs and wants of other people
That's a good way to stay poor.
>>110610
> you think this is significant in anyway?
Yes. Yes, it is.

And yes, it did cause chaos, BECAUSE it was significant.

>>110621
>>and working to satisfy the needs and wants of other people
>That's a good way to stay poor.
only if you aren't bringing anything to the table that wasn't already there.

>>110560
govt technology? lol, what govt technology?

public schools are a joke. the US spends more money on students than all other countries combined and theyre still a disaster. infrastructure, okay infrastructure can be funded through the govt buying loans or through a 1% tax.

What do you think walmart would do if it could keep all of its profits? it could more easily raise its workers wage, it could lower prices, and it could more easily expand. this means cheaper goods, better paying jobs and more job opportunities at new walmarts.

instead half its income goes to the govt which is primarily spent on insolvent entitlements the welfare state that has been a disaster and to a lesser extent the military.

>>110646
>the US spends more money on students than all other countries combined

wtf really?

>>110646
>lol, what govt technology?
you are aware that you're on the internet yes?

>>110620
good argument kid.

>>110621
>Yes. Yes, it is.
just because you say it is doesn't make it so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html

from 2008-2009 in the USA govt spending rose by 10% you think a measly cut by 1.5% is going to make any real difference?

>>109648
So is /biz/ filled with poor teenagers and idiots now?

>>110621
lol, where are the cuts?

>>110646
>it could more easily raise its workers wage, it could lower prices, and it could more easily expand.
Well, and it could tell people they made a record profit.

>>110687
How the fuck is the USA's spending related to Greece's spending?

>>110673
college costs are through the roof because students are offered government backed loans

>>110700
That's a nice source you have there.

To answer the question, they vanished in increased expenditures for debt.

>>110686
lol, you still think the got invented the internet?

http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch001016.htm

>>110673
well I guess I was wrong about that. but still its too much and I don't know if this chart is using nominal or PPP

>>110699
They were laughed out of /pol/.

>>110591
>And the reality of the situation is that they wouldn't get away with such shady and sociopathic behavior if the govt wasn't involved in banking like it was and is.

AIG was buying that shit like candy, and they were the largest insurance company in the world.

why? because it was packaged and hidden, they trust them based on rating agencies.

bankers are evil and you are recognizing that by saying:
>And the reality of the situation is that they wouldn't get away with such shady and sociopathic behavior.

and i am not saying that govt does not suck. so i go back to: >>110130

>>110701
how would it get record profits when they don't change their business model and lower their prices when all their competitors did, and they also get all the good press from raising their employees wages.

>>110704
Other than the fact that theyre both rising? well when you claim that theyre using austerity and yet their spending continues to increase you have a little problem. it hurts the point you're trying to make.

>>110742
shit...

*some bankers are evil

>>110762
> when all their competitors did,
>implying they would
>implying the biggest retailer and in many places the last retailer left gives a shit about competition
> and they also get all the good press from raising their employees wages.
They're getting shit press now and don't give a damn, what makes you think they care about getting good press?

>>110762
>well when you claim that theyre using austerity and yet their spending continues to increase you have a little problem.
The problem is called "massively increased interests on your debt that you still have to pay as a condition for your bailout".

>>110762
>

also >>110782

>>110746
I'm sure /k/ had it's share of anti gun threads, just as /lgbt/ got plenty of stormfags when it was first made. probably some creationists and /x/ on /sci/ as well.

this board is gonna be just fine.

>>110783
we're all gonna make it

>>110742
they bought packaged loans that wouldn't have existed in the first place if actual banks had to service them and GSE's didn't exist in the market.

none of this even covers moral hazard and the general assumption of bailouts and that affect on risk assessment, nor laws like ECOA, CRA etc.

if you were in this debate on the housing crisis from the beginning of this thread at the very least you've gotta understand that the govt had a huge role in housing before the crisis hit. even at 50% of mortgages issued or serviced and or bought by fannie mae would grossly affect the housing crisis.

>>109759
He is not even implying that, he simply mentioned that a lot of people are rich simply because of inheritance.

Which is objectively true

>>110769
I know that if I was a CEO I would lower prices if I could and still make a profit because then I could advertise that I lowered prices. How do you think Walmart is successful other than the fact that its shit is cheap?

>>110808
>at the very least you've gotta understand that the govt had a huge role in housing before the crisis hit.

see: >>110130
political correctness = everyone gets a house!!!

>>110834
>How do you think Walmart is successful other than the fact that its shit is cheap?
Because it's a massive one-stop shopping mall. There are other cheap retailers, you know. But Walmart is huge - you get all your shit in one go. That is a huge advantage for people.

Also, your shareholders are gonna like that massive profit. Sure, you can lower prices a bit, but most of it is going in the pockets of the owners.

>>110782
so now a huge bailout loan with massive interest is austerity lol?

taking a loan you can't pay off with overpriced interest rates while continuing to spend far more than you take in meanwhile raising taxes on working people stagnating the economy isn't really a recipe for austerity let alone a growing economy.

>>110849
>political correctness = everyone gets a house!!!
i agree with that, I just don't see any deregulation.

I see removal of oversight, I don't see a removal of what actually caused shady lending practices. thats the differnence.

>>110854
Austerity: Cut your expenditures. They did that, massively.
But there was an expenditure they couldn't cut without going bankrupt - which would hurt the country even more - and that is interests. They had to pay far higher interest rates to cover their deficit... that comes from interest rates in the first place. And they'd only get bailouts to cover the parts where people would simply not lend them money anymore if they used it to pay off interests.

Otherwise put, the rest of europe was paying greece to not go bankrupt, so long as greece would use every cent they can use for that first.

So, one part of government spending - interests - increased without them being able to do anything about it.

The rest was cut - austerity.

>>110850
>Also, your shareholders are gonna like that massive profit. Sure, you can lower prices a bit, but most of it is going in the pockets of the owners.

there are cheap retailers but walmart is one of if not the cheapest around especially in smaller towns.

by giving walmart more of its money they at least have the option or abililty to raise wages, lower prices or open new stores in other areas all of which are positive for the economy and working people. by overtaxing them you give them no option, making their profit margins razor thin and expansion, price cutting, and wage increases riskier or impossible.

>>109721
Here is how I see it

There are (roughly) two kinds of people who are rich:

A.People who just happened to get rich (Luck of some kind, be it inheritance or "hey I just happened to have all of this petrol here" kind of thing, the defining factor is that they didn't really work for their wealth)

B.People who worked to get rich, normally entrepreneurs at some point, these people have worked their ass off, they put their business as a priority in life, they might have gotten somewhat lucky here or there but ultimately, you can safely say they have won the rights to their wealth

There also are two kinds of "richness":

1.Absurdly rich, arab prince kind of shit, you have so much fucking money you literally don't care about it

2.Moderately rich, closer to just being "high class"; you could just stop working and do whatever the hell you want for the rest of your life, you aren't going to purchase an island but you can live with leisure and no economical problems ever

I find that these do, to a degree, shape people, I actually think its naive to consider that money can't influence how a person gets to be

That being said it's only trends, but I personally feel B is usually more down to earth than A, especially if A is rich from a young age, I also feel that 1 gets to you way more than 2

Hell, multiple rich people actually either don't leave their whole inheritance to their children or don't give them anything at all, perhaps a fuckload of money makes for a bad education

>>110895
Walmart made a profit of 17 billion fucking dollars last year.

If they were interested in raising wages, they'd do that.

>>110880
>They did that, massively.
where? you keep saying that but the sources and charts provided ITT have shown the complete opposite.

There were no significant cuts whatsoever

>>110790
>>110762
>>110700
where are the cuts? Greece has/had massive debts and continues to have massive debts driven greater by increasing deficits that is spending more than they are bringing in, and then you come here and say they're going through austerity?

They haven't even removed the deficit and you're talking about austerity. Then you pick the most hard hit economies in Europe and claim that because theyre still suffering because of the crisis you can blame it on austerity that hasn't even happened in any significant way.

>>110930
Did you even read the rest of the post?

They cut their expenditures, but had to pay more elsewhere - expenditures they had no real control over. Debt. The alternative was bankrupcy, which would have hit them even worse.

>>109816
Ok I will first and foremost admit that I don't really know much about the subject.

That being said, could I get your opinion on this then?

http://annualletter.gatesfoundation.org/

>>110930
I literally pointed to the cuts on the graph which you posted

>>110278
>There is no austerity in Europe. another leftwing lie.

As someone who lives in Spain, please try to milk your prostate with a cactus

>>110929
here is a pretty good graphic to show you that you're wrong.

>>110971
This graphic somehow assumes that walmarts workers each work 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 356 days a year.

So fuck off.

>>110970
why would anyone listen to what Spain says about anything? Your socialism got you into this mess. Hows that 40% unemployment?

If you haven't even removed the yearly spending debt you can shut the fuck up about austerity.

>>111007
Nice unsourced graph.

Also, you are now aware that there are government expenditures that you cannot cut.

no one is forced to work at walmart. last year 23000 people applied for 600 positions in dc stores. there's plenty of people willing to work for less than 15usd/hour

I don't think that rich people are inherently bad or evil, I do think though that regulations and how the market itself works makes them look like greedy evil bastards.

Oldest example in the book: Some company is polluting some place, yet it's profitable to do so, so they keep doing it.

They pay a fine each whateverfuckingyears and just keep going at it because the fine is low enough for it to be profitable.

The state is actually cool with this, they get money, it's like an extra tax.

The company is cool with this, they get more profit than they would otherwise.

The public sees this as companies being evil and greedy though, because companies are being companies and they want profit, and nobody really does anything

>>111026
>no one is forced to work at walmart.
Except all the people who'd lose their homes instead and who have no other job available to them.

>>110646
>public schools are a joke
This is by and large false, most of our schools are good but there are localized exceptions. If the bottom worst 5% of classes were replaced with classes getting average scores, we would be #1 in the world in terms of student achievement.

>>111007
>Your socialism got you into this mess.

If you are going to tell someone to shut up then at least don't make retarded statements, the housing bubble had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with rampant corruption

>If you haven't even removed the yearly spending debt you can shut the fuck up about austerity.

Same as this

>>111065
>how much do you think they should increase their wages without allowing them to lower their taxes and I'll calculate if they could remain in business.
So much that none of their workers has to rely on any government programs to supplement their income anymore.

>>111035
oh fucking well. why did they take a loan out to buy a house when they're 100% reliant on minimum wage job at only one company in a 30 mile radius? if they dont want to work there for 8/hour, there's hundreds of others that will.

>>110989
I just did the math myself and if they all worked 40 hours a week 52 weeks a year which is typical that would be an increase of 26 billion which would completely remove all profits.

how much do you think they should increase their wages without allowing them to lower their taxes and I'll calculate if they could remain in business.

I'll even show you my work.

Nope. You can always justify anything if you're good enough at it.

>>111077
Please note how I said "homes" not "houses". Odds are if you work at walmart, you rent. And if you don't pay the rent, you land on the street. So particulary if you have a family to support - either parents or children - you're gonna take any job, no matter how shit it pays.

Those people aren't in a position to pick and choose, or to negotiate their wage. They have to take whatever they can get.

>>111007
>Get fuckloads of money from Europe
>LETS BUILD HOUSEEEEEEES
>Sir maybe we should invest in growth or-
>NOPE MY FRIENDS BUILD HOUSES AND IM IN CHARGE SO HOUSES IT IS
>a couple of decades pass
>DAMN YOU SOCIALISM

Meanwhile cuts in spending everywhere and taxes increasing for the poor, as the finance minister literally prevents dubious flow of money from being investigated.

Precisely at the same time that the governing party is in the middle of a corruption scandal

Damn you socialism, damn you

>>111106
> the governing party is in the middle of a corruption scandal
Well there's your fucking answer.

>>111017
>Also, you are now aware that there are government expenditures that you cannot cut.
of course a socialist would say that. you refuse to cut anything and then wonder why you're in a debt crisis.

>>111046
see pic
>austerity
lol

>>111094
like i pointed out, there's other jobs within a 30 mile radius to work at. they dont HAVE to work at walmart.

>>111124
So austerity is only austerity if it automatically meets demands?

Are you mentally impaired?

>>111007
Kill yourself

>>111076
I used to work for 8 dollars an hour. You don't need govt assistance to survive.

but if you want to do that, you're going to have to cut their taxes otherwise they'll go out of business and then everyone is fucked.

>>111022
>The public sees this as companies being evil and greedy though, because companies are being companies and they want profit, and nobody really does anything
Zizek said some pretty good stuff about this, people need to stop moralising the problem and realise it's a symptom of the system as a whole which causes companies to do these things.

>>110971

And how much of the doubled wage will go back to walmar for necessities like food, etc?

>>111124
>of course a socialist would say that.
A sane person would.
You have to keep a military. They are NATO members, so they really have to.
You have to keep paying your debt.
You have to maintain a police force, firefighters, courts, prisons.
You have to maintain a functioning government, including revenue collection.

That kinda stuff.
>>111133
Yeah, they wish that were this easy. But unfortunatly, there's like 10 other jobs for 500 people who want one. And none of them will pay more than walmart.
>>111154
>I used to work for 8 dollars an hour.
When, 20 years ago?
>You don't need govt assistance to survive.
Yeah, if you're a single with parents who can hold themselves in a cheap one-room flat, that's probably true. Not everyone can only live for himself.
>but if you want to do that, you're going to have to cut their taxes otherwise they'll go out of business and then everyone is fucked.
Yeah, no. They can either rise their product prices a bit - you are already paying that shit anyways through your taxes - or they can slim their profit margin until they reach that point.

>>111140
austerity is only austerity if its actually significant. other than in the minds of butthurt socialists.

spend decades spending more money than you bring in and then one day only spend slightly more than you did last year instead of a lot more and then calling it austerity doesn't fly.

You people just refuse to blame your economic problems on your retarded big govt policies so when people actually try to reign in spending you blame them instead of what got you there in the first place.

>>111176
>When, 20 years ago?
where do you live where you can't live on 8 dollars an hour? get a roommate.

>>111202
So in other words, if you want to live on $8/hour, you can't even enjoy the privacy of living on your own.

And a country that allows this calls itself the leader of the first world. At least commies gave everyone their own small flat in the blocks.

>>111176
So you're arguing that the majority of Spain's spending is on things like the military debt and police, IRS etc?

care to back that up? cause I'm betting the vast majority is spent on the massive welfare state.

>>111214
And don't you dare say that your boss shouldn't be able to buy a second yacht instead of paying a bit more tax so you can live in your own house! You commie bastard!

>>109648
No. Luck of the devil also works.

I had a recruiter ask me to relocate 4 hours from home into rural Ohio-- she says 'yeah, like... you won't be able to live on your own, its only an entry level job, but if you have some friends or a couple roommates down there, in a few years you might be able to afford an apartment on your own."

>>111242
How many people do you know that have bosses with two yachts? That have bosses with one yacht? This isn't a realistic premise.

>>111261
I'm sorry for not basing my jab on sourced statistics you autist

>>111214
>At least commies gave everyone their own small flat in the blocks.
the government can only give us something by taking from others. they do enough of that already.

8 bucks an hour you can live in a trailer and drive a 5000 dollar car. no one in america lives within their means though.

>>111214
what else did the commies give you? you happy with what Spain has given you? what all those leftwing economic policies have given you in Europe? 25% unemployment, and complete and utter economic stagnation. When's the last time a Western european country had more than 1% GDP growth?

>>111237
Find me the budget, because I can't.
>>111280
>8 bucks an hour you can live in a trailer and drive a 5000 dollar car.
The american dream.
>>111286
You don't even know what socialism is, so how about you just fuck right off already.

>>111264
Better than no job, at least.

>>110864
see:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB119906606162358773?mod=rss_free

>>111264
Jesus I'd hate having to be 4 hours from my synagogue

>>111297
>The american dream.
the american dream is if you work hard enough you can accomplish anything. working your whole life at walmart for 8 bucks an hour is not chasing the american dream. not everyone is entitled to the american dream.

>>111242
so what does taking money from the guy who wants a second yacht and giving it to the govt do for the guy working 8 dollars an hour? other than giving you satisfaction that you've punished that mean ole rich guy?

the rich guy doesn't have a second yacht, but also doesn't have as much money to raise his workers wage or hire more employees or open up another store. Instead it goes to the govt which the working man has no need for other than "muh roads" and infrastructure, police and courts can all be handled at the state level with a tax of no more than 1%. Other than that more govt taxes does jack shit for the working man.

>>111286
>what else did the commies give you?
Uhm, a stable country, secure employment?

I mean, there was the whole dictatorship thing, which sucked, but well, the stasi would be jealous as fuck of the NSA.
>you happy with what Spain has given you?
Pretty sure it wasn't spain that started the crisis.
>what all those leftwing economic policies have given you in Europe?
"leftwing"... man, you're so far right you don't even know where the middle is anymore.
They did give us a high standard of life.
> 25% unemployment, and complete and utter economic stagnation.
The result of... bingo, austerity.
'11 at least, I don't have the data for '13 at hands.

>>111311

Right? Location was an hour away from the nearest store (a Walmart) and it was an offer for a postgrad job with my STEM degree.

fun times

>>111319
Gee I dunno, have you ever heard of rent controls? Subsidised rent?

>>111297
Dreams aren't always identical to reality.

>>111193
>You people just refuse to blame your economic problems on your retarded big govt policies

Except I've been blaming it on the government since the very fucking start, the government did retarded shit, the people chose did retarded shit choosing people who were obviously going to fuck them in the ass but they were far, far too retarded to notice.

You are talking about socialism, this country hasn't had a party that actually resembles anything close to socialism in the last two fucking decades, the GDP is FUCKED, and guess what austerity measures aren't helping for shit because it turns out that when there is a retarded employment rate and you get more cash off the working class they get less money which fucks spending which fucks the employment even more, good fucking luck trying to raise it that way.

Sure don't look at the housing bubble, while you are at it don't look at the completely fucking retarded mortgage laws, sure don't look at the rampant corruption, don't even consider the rampant tax evasion, or unemployment.

No, socialism, it must be about the socialism.

>>111314
>the american dream is if you work hard enough you can accomplish anything.
Except working hard is meaningless. You need luck, the right start, to know the right people, to get the right things at the right moment, and luck.

And even then, not everyone can do it. Sure, anyone can. But anyone can also win the lottery.
> working your whole life at walmart for 8 bucks an hour is not chasing the american dream.
You can't chase any dreams while you're slaving away so your children have food on the table.
> not everyone is entitled to the american dream.
Not everyone has a chance at it.
>>111323
The american dream most definitly isn't.

>>111237
>care to back that up? cause I'm betting the vast majority is spent on the massive welfare state.

>Get country with completely fucked up spending, businesses dying left and right
>The problem is the welfare state I bet

Yeah I wonder how did unemployment get there

I bet people just don't feel like working because of welfare being so good

>>111347
so what are you saying? walmart owes all its employees the american dream? i should have dropped out of highschool at 16 and became a cashier at walmart. why aspire to do anything more?

>>111297
>You don't even know what socialism is, so how about you just fuck right off already.
even socialists can't agree on what socialism is, so don't pretend aspects of Spanish govt aren't socialistic. the fact that "socialistic" is a word disproves your narrow definition of the word. but anyway thats a pointless argument.

I couldn't find a chart but the idea of austerity in Spain is hilarious, as this link illustrates.

Government spending in nominal terms increased at an annual rate of 7.6% from 2000 to 2009. Ryan Avent at The Economist says that “the push for austerity began in 2010,” and thus we have to look at nominal spending after that year, when according to Avent, it fell “substantially” due to austerity measures. In reality, it went down by just 1% in 2010 and a further 3.6% in 2011. If these cuts seem “substantial” to Avent, then a yearly average increase of 7.6% for almost a decade must be staggering.

Moreover, if we look at spending in real terms, using constant euros from 2000, there hasn’t been any decrease in the level of government spending.

If we look at government spending as a share of the economy, Spain appears as fiscally prudent: Spending was 39.2% of GDP in 2000 and exactly the same figure in 2007. However, as has been noted by Juan Ramón Rallo, Ángel Martín Oro and Adrià Pérez Martí of the Juan de Mariana Institute in a recent Cato study, “the data should be interpreted with caution, given that the GDP was growing at an artificially high rate.” The point is proven by the fact that when the economy came to a halt in 2008 (it grew by just 0.9%), government spending as a share of GDP leapt 2.3 percentage points to 41.5% in just one year. Government spending as a share of the economy remained constant during much of the 2000’s not because the government was spending too little but because GDP was growing too fast.

http://www.cato.org/blog/looking-austerity-spain

>>111360
In fact, it's so good people are stealing food, so much money do they have left.

>>111367
>so what are you saying?
That your "american dream" isn't and can't ever be for everyone. You absolutely need the working poor. So you can feel like middle class and have someone to look down on.

They're the motivation to keep you going like you do now.
>walmart owes all its employees the american dream?
No. I'm saying wake up. The american dream doesn't exist any more than it does elsewhere - maybe even less.
> i should have dropped out of highschool at 16 and became a cashier at walmart. why aspire to do anything more?
No, that's retarded and I have no idea how you even got to this.

>>111297
>Find me the budget, because I can't.
this link has a pie chart. the vast majority of Spains budget is spent on the welfare state.

No, but the money has to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is the lower classes.

>>111378
And you're still missing the point. Austerity is cutting where you can. When costs explode where you can't do anything about them, well, you're fucked. That doesn't mean you're not cutting costs like mad.

>>109673

pretty much

>>111329
see
>>111378
There was no austerity, take some responsibility for your shit economy, instead of trying to blame the guys trying to fix it.

and where is the middle of the economic spectrum? if I'm far right and you're far left where is the middle?

The rich are lucky, the poor aren't. That's it.

>>111333
states without rent control have cheaper rent.

>>111423
>There was no austerity
Yes, there was. "exploding cost of your debt" means that even if you cut like mad, to your "I only look at overall figures" stupidity it still of course doesn't look like it.
That doesn't mean that there weren't massive cuts.
> if I'm far right and you're far left where is the middle?
I'm not far left. Far left is communism, dumbass.

>>111347
lol, you're such a butthurt commie

if the American dream doesn't exist, why do Americans have a higher median AND mean household income than all of Europe minus Norway? why does it have a higher HDI index? why does it have a higher GDP per capita?

and don't get me started on the shitty eurostyle healthcare system.

>>111434
States with cheaper rent don't need rent control.

Causality, causation.

>>111434
>unsourced claim
>ignore other half of my comment
cool

>>111461
>and don't get me started on the shitty eurostyle healthcare system.

Hahahah

>>111411
except your definition of what can't be cut is too large. You people refuse to cut anything and so thus nothing is done and then a 1% cut somehow seems like a holocaust to you people.

>>111437
its all subjective retard, you are far left, communism is a joke now after your retarded parents kept trying to implement it and failing miserably so the spectrum has narrowed.

Fascism used to be in the middle now idiots claim its far right.

>>111347
>Except working hard is meaningless. You need luck, the right start, to know the right people, to get the right things at the right moment, and luck.
look at this lazy fuck justifying his unemployment and failures.

I used to be a liberal up to my early twenties once I stopped being jealous of other people and took responisibility for my life and have thus become more successful and hard working.

>>111378
>>111423
>Austerity measures doing fucking nothing
>You guys just have to austerity harder!

You guys crack me up

Has austerity ever worked?

>>111461
>why do Americans have a higher median
I'd like to see a source on that claim
>why does it have a higher HDI index?
Because living there is awesome for the rich and not so awesome for the rest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI
>why does it have a higher GDP per capita?
'cause you keep printing money to finance it.
>and don't get me started on the shitty eurostyle healthcare system.
AHAHAHAHAHA
>>111497
>except your definition of what can't be cut is too large.
So? Where could they cut without causing higher costs elsewhere?
>Fascism used to be in the middle now idiots claim its far right.
Yeah, fuck right off.
>>111532
>look at this lazy fuck justifying his unemployment and failures.
Do you really claim you don't need those things?
You can just get rich by working hard?

>>111532

It is luck though. Everything is luck. Free will isn't a real thing.

>>111534
>decades of govt spending growth of 10%
>cut spending 1%
>hey guys we did austerity it didn't work lets go back to more spending

seriously this is you, how did you people get so brainwashed? is it because govt runs everything so everyone is telling you that you need govt? seriously what the fuck? its like I"m taking crazy pills.

Some people would assume that any money you have beyond your basic necessities should be given to charity, otherwise you're morally bankrupt.

These people don't understand the power of capital to exponentially increase production, therefore increasing the amount of money able to be given to the poor or underprivileged.

>>111578

>>111552
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_household_income

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income

lol there is a reason nobody uses the GINI index.

unless you can argue why the gap between rich and poor has a negative effect on the economy you don't get to use it. and when you won't be able to, you'll realize why nobody else uses it either.

>You can just get rich by working hard?
I did. i wouldn't say rich, but comfortably upper middle class I'd say.

>>111553
its not luck its just hard work. I was an unemployed faggot with no job skills I got a job at a bank worked hard expressed interest in advancement saved my money took finance courses and seminars in my field, got promoted bought a house, moved out of that house and rented it out, and bought another house I live in.

Try doing this in Europe lol.

>>111532
that's not the case, working hard will produce you nothing in the end, but it's not all about luck either, having drive, networking skills, guts, vision are all important

it's like if everyone on 4chan competed to make the best website - sure people with fancy computers and software will have the advantage, but those with skills will also have the advantage, there might also be cases where some people with no web skills or money can just network others and get them to work on their vision,

life is just one big hot mess - the weak cry about things outside their control (resources, luck) the great work on the things they can control

>>109714
>Becoming rich
>Being rich
>The same thing
retard alert.

>>111599

How hard you work is irrelevant. The oppourtunities you get to work hard and actually progress are all luck. Even how hard you're willing to work is lucky.

>>111585
>implying what I just said was trickle down economics

Are you really going to try to argue that the poor in the world would have been better off if instead of creating factories, or investing in industry, we instead created a subsistence charity scheme? We'd still be stuck in an agricultural society, and the poor would be much worse than they are now.

I'm a welfare capitalist. I believe in social safety nets. What I don't believe in is the idiotic statement that we would have been better off without capitalism. World production has gone up at a rate not seen in hundreds of thousands of years of human existence, and we can do much more for the poor now than we ever could.

>>111599
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
And there's the guy who doesn't know where luxembourg or switzerland are.
>lol there is a reason nobody uses the GINI index.
You mean why americans don't use it. Because it shows them the reality they don't want to see.
>unless you can argue why the gap between rich and poor has a negative effect on the economy you don't get to use it.
It has a negative impact on the quality of living for the average guy. If the few rich have it so awesome it pulls the average standard of living up, then that doesn't help the average guy one bit.
>I did. i wouldn't say rich
Wow
>Try doing this in Europe lol.
Sure you can.

>>111610
>working hard will produce you nothing in the end
other than this you're absolutely right.

in your example even someone who knows jack shit who worked hard to learn how to develop a website or whatever would work hard to learn how to make a website and thus would be valuable to a website development company and thus successful.

>>111627
>What I don't believe in is the idiotic statement that we would have been better off without capitalism.
Who ever claimed that?

>>111627
> instead of creating factories, or investing in industry
But that's your necessities, since that's how you make a living.

What you should give to charity is the part that you spend on hookers and blow.

>>111632
>It has a negative impact on the quality of living for the average guy. If the few rich have it so awesome it pulls the average standard of living up, then that doesn't help the average guy one bit.
so if the guy down the street has a huge mansion and a yacht and a ferrari, that somehow makes the other guy's standard of living lower magically?

how does some people being super rich hold back everyone else? if you can't clearly explain this in economic terms you have no argument.

>>111631
how hard you're willing to work is not luck. its just devoting the time to do it and making sacrifices the average leftist doesn't want to make. I used to be a leftist, they all drink and smoke and waste their money on luxuries they don't need etc and then wonder why they have no savings. they never invest in their future.

>>111578
>These people don't understand the power of capital to exponentially increase production, therefore increasing the amount of money able to be given to the poor or underprivileged.
But that assumes those with the capital don't just hold onto it instead of reinvesting in the economy

>>111610
>it's like if everyone on 4chan competed to make the best website
At the end, one will succeed, and 10 will make popular sites at best, because the market is limited.

And then you can tell all others "Yeah, you could have done it, had you only worked harder." And then you hope that they all work so much harder that they don't ask why there was never room for more than 11 to succeed.

>>111676
>so if the guy down the street has a huge mansion and a yacht and a ferrari, that somehow makes the other guy's standard of living lower magically?
That's not what I was saying at all.

I was saying using statistics that get falsified by the super-rich as outliers instead of statistics where they are calculated in as outliers are more honest.

>>111669
>What you should give to charity is the part that you spend on hookers and blow.
money given and spent by rich people is better for poor people in the hands of bankers etc than in the govt. just look at what Greece or Spain or Italy or Portugal etc's govt did with the "savings' the govt invested in them.

The rich choose to invest in companies they think will be successful, the govt as an investment is terrible as europe has largely shown. poor leftists want to invest in govt which has shown that it is a horrible investment, rich people want to invest in thriving industries and companies.

>>111676

>how hard you're willing to work is not luck.

Yes it is. I'm sorry you don't understand basic physics.

>>111698
Wow, your post has absolutely nothing at all to do with mine. Good job.

>>111687
The HDi measures quality of life and standard of living. by entering in wealth inequality would imply that wealth inequality negatively affects quality of living which you haven't been able or willing to prove.

>>111701
how is my willingness to work have to do with luck? let alone physics?

>>111708
>The HDi measures quality of life and standard of living.
Yes - on average. That includes the rich guy who has it totally awesome and the poor fuck sitting in the streets. In a country with a small but very, very rich upper class, your average gets distorted and it appears that your country is far better to live in than it actually is for normal people.

Once you factor in inequality, this problem gets removed and you actually get the results for the average guy.

Of course not. In fact, most rich people are morally rupt. However, you do need ambition, something poor people hate.

>>111718

You are the sum of your experiences. That you were willing to work hard, and got the opportunities you did, are all because you just happened to be part of the right place at the right time. As far as what it has to do with basic physics, Newton's 3rd law explains it pretty well.

>>111669
If only i had the cash to spend on hookers and blow...

>>111761
People who finance factories usually have it.

>>111722
no you're adjusting the methodology of the HDI by negatively associating inequality to the HDI, which assumes inequality is negative.

>The index captures the HDI of the average person in society, which is less than the aggregate HDI when there is inequality in the distribution of health, education and income. Under perfect equality, the HDI and IHDI are equal; the greater the difference between the two, the greater the inequality. In that sense, "the IHDI is the actual level of human development (taking into account inequality), while the HDI can be viewed as an index of the potential human development that could be achieved if there is no inequality."[2]

the IHDI is not used outside of the internet because it assumes wealth inequality has physical negative effects on the economy. Its a butthurt leftist response to the actual HDI.

>>111766
>because it assumes wealth inequality has physical negative effects on the economy.
No. No, it doesn't. You stupid fuck.

The HDI measures the quality of life in total, that includes the fucking awesome quality of life of a few rich people.
The IHDI measures the quality of life that the average person actually has.

So the IHDI does NOT make ANY assumptions about the economy WHATSOEVER.

It simply says "Rich people get a far higher quality of life, so if we want to know what life for the average guy is, we have to calculate rich people out."

>>111676
You imply that people in, say, a McJob aren't working hard. Have you ever done that job? It is difficult, much more difficult than any desk job. Yet you will never become a business owner off a McJob.

>>111792
jesus christ dumbass. let me explain it to you as if you were a retarded monkey

for example

the average american has access to good healthcare although there is inequality in access to that good healthcare

Nigeria has no inequality in access to shit third world healthcare they all have equal access to shit healthcare

so simply because there is inequality you're assuming that that negatively affects the quality.

the complaints about inequality are a holdout from the 20th century back when socialism was still a legitimate ideology.

>The IHDI measures the quality of life that the average person actually has.
okay now think about how it does this, it does this by negatively associating inequality with accessing various aspects of things education etc.

Is equal access in education or healthcare better than inequal access?

what if my inferior healthcare is very unequal to the rich guy's healthcare but better than the standard healthcare in a country that has equal access to healthcare?

get it together kid, you're being manipulated. which makes sense being from a country whose govt is so large you're hit in every direction telling you how essential the govt is.

>>111877
>so simply because there is inequality you're assuming that that negatively affects the quality.
No. I'm not. I'm saying the inequality leads to the statistic displaying the quality as higher than it actually is. It doesn't affect anything BUT THE STATISTIC. It only leads to false data. Did you get it now?

>>111859
you become a manager or assistant manager, which makes more than enough money to live on and start a family and buy a house etc.

>>110971
>decide to basic math
>2000000employeesx$8.81/hr=$17620000/hr
>17620000*40hrs/week=$704800000/week
>$704800000*52weeks/year= 36.6 billion dollars per year

Whelp. looks like walmart has been running on a -20 billion dollars per year revenue already, I'm sure they wouldn't mind another -25 billion

>>111897
And only one in 10 will ever be able to do that, because there is only one manager position. And even that guy will never own the business he works at. He gets his mcmansion and can fuck his wife and that's it.

>>111897
>you become a manager or assistant manager
Please. At best you become a team leader where you go from $9 an hour to $11 an hour and there's only 3 of those spots ASSUMING the current ones get jobs elsewhere. Then assuming the manager goes to work elsewhere you're talking about working for $9 an hour for at least 5-10 years and even then you might get passed over or they hire someone from outside the store.

>>111887
and yet again you don't seem to think about the methodology of doing this in a statistic such as the HDI. Don't think about what theyre trying to say theyre doing think about what theyre actually doing.

What theyre saying and what you're saying is "theyre trying to get the quality of the average Joe"

yes thats a very noble goal which is in essence what the HDI does anyway.

but what the IHDI does in trying to get their stat is to attach a negative indicator to inequality of access, any inequality in education or healthcare or education etc gets a negative association. Even if a country with the person at the bottom of the inequality has better access than a person with no inequality in access.

>>111907
Note the word "profit". Those numbers are already subtracted from the gross. All your math has proven is that they can't afford to double employee wages which we already knew.

>>111938
>yes thats a very noble goal which is in essence what the HDI does anyway.
No, it's not. The HDI gets the quality from everyone. Average joe, rich guy. It throws all of them in one pot. And the rich guy distorts the results disproportionally.

The IHDI sees that the rich guy is far less common than the average joe and hence adjusts the index to actually get the average joe.

There is no negative association. There is simply the fact that if you put all people in one statistic, and a few of them are heavy outliers, they are gonna skew the results.

>>111909
how can you expect more than a mcmansion and a wife to fuck? you honestly believe you deserve more than that? thats the American dream

>>111936
there are more than one mcdonalds out there. and if you work for more than a few years become a team leader, you learn payroll, you learn scheduling, you learn how to manage employees, you learn customer service, you can get a supervisor role anywhere at any restaurant or in other places that aren't involved with food.

>>111967
>thats the American dream
Pretty damn sad. The american dream used to be making it big.

>>111945
All they'd have to do is adjust elsewhere, which should be the wages of the people who are making millions in a year as well as all the fringe benefits that the already rich motherfuckers get on the company dime.

>>111959
>The IHDI sees that the rich guy is far less common than the average joe and hence adjusts the index to actually get the average joe.
I'm done discussing this with you since you keep repeating yourself and not responding to what I'm saying. Yes I understand what theyre trying to do and I understand what you're trying to argue, the point is how they implement this into their methodology. Once you actually understand how they "take out the rich guy since he's far less common" you'll see that theyre not "taking out the rich guy" theyre negatively associating inequality in all aspects.

even when the guy at the bottom of that inequality is better off than the guy at the top of a country who has no inequality.

>>111990
>adjust elsewhere
Right. Fire as many people as they can, replace checkers with those automated things, get rid of greeters in most cases.

>which should be the wages of the people who are making millions in a year
You think folks will take a pay reduction? They'll go elsewhere. And there will be downsizing in upper levels too, but there's not that many of them relative to the minimum wage workers.

>>111972
no its not. the american dream is having a house and a car and 2.5 kids. Are you even American?

this is why all these retards get all upset about inequality. They think the fact that someone is super rich that somehow makes it harder for them.

>>111629
Pretty sure you can "become" rich from your parents' work too, or is inheritance earned?

>>111990
you honestly think a couple million dollars off the wage of the CEO etc is going to be at all significant compared to increasing the wage of the typical employees? you're talking tens of billions which is more than overall profits.

>>112017
>I'm done discussing this with you since you keep repeating yourself and not responding to what I'm saying.
Because what you're saying is fucking retarded.
>even when the guy at the bottom of that inequality is better off than the guy at the top of a country who has no inequality.
Yes, that's why the US is still #17 once you adjusted for inequality.

>>112032
Don't forget the dog and the yard.

>>111959
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe#2010_ data_for_European_Union

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-now/posts/2013/09/what-percentage-us-population-foreign-born >comparing European country's that have 9.7% of the population as foreign born immigrations to one where 13% is foreign born

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Europe#Overall_trends

http://www.aoa.gov/AoAroot/Aging_Statistics/>comparing Europe's fast aging ass to America

You have to be willing to tolerate inequality if you want to take in immigrants and have a young population of workers.

>>112044
As you say, it adds up. If you don't think Wal-Mart has more than enough money to pay its employees a fair wage then I don't know what to tell you. And any company that doesn't have enough to pay its employees a fair wage is overreaching and deserves to fail.

>>112052
>You have to be willing to tolerate inequality if you want to take in immigrants and have a young population of workers.
That doesn't mean that your standard of life gets better just because the standard of life of a few very, very rich people is downright awesome.

Hence, your links are wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hands.

>>112042
>Yes, that's why the US is still #17 once you adjusted for inequality.
and yet the average American despite inequality has a greater chance of surviving cancer.

so this is the last time I explain this to you, keep the pic I posted in mind.

okay access to American healthcare is less equal than in say the UK.

but if you're dying of cancer you're more likely to survive by a very large margin than you would if you were in the UK.

the access is unequal but the quality overall is better. the UK has equal shit quality. but the mean quality is still less than the lowest in the US.

you're automatically assuming inequal access is negative. its a typical socialist way of thinking.

>>112087
So you're saying poor people should just suck it up and stay ill so rich people get better access?

>>112087
>and yet the average American despite inequality has a greater chance of surviving cancer.
That's nice, but only one thing and only relevant once you get cancer.
>but if you're dying of cancer you're more likely to survive by a very large margin than you would if you were in the UK.
And if you have a normal disease you're more likely to get dragged into debt for it in the US.

The quality is better, the financial outcome is worse. Hence, if you're rich, the US is better for you. If you're not, the UK can be better for you.

Also, please note how the UK has a lower IHDI than the US, making your post completely fucking retarded.

>>112062
whats a fair wage?

and by bringing in the wage of the CEO implies that changing their wage will help raise the wage of employees.

you could pay the CEOs a penny and you'd barely get a cent wage increase for the average employee.

>>112065
>That doesn't mean that your standard of life gets better just because the standard of life of a few very, very rich people is downright awesome.

nor does it mean that the existence of those very rich people negatively affect the average life of the typical person.

The only way to do this would be to cut off the richest people in the US and the richest people in European countries and then average out the access of everyone else below them. This is what that one guy is trying to say happened, but its not. which the wikipedia explains and I already posted.

>>112119
>which the wikipedia explains and I already posted.
Can you even read?
>The index captures the HDI of the average person in society, which is less than the aggregate HDI when there is inequality in the distribution of health, education and income.

>captures the HDI of the average person in society

And yeah, of course it's gonna be less if there is inequality, because a few rich people have the most awesome parts.

>>111945
Hmm, I know where you're coming from, but the graphic is misrepresenting data. In fact, the average walmart employee works 34 hours per week, not 40 like the graphic claims, which does make about a 20 billion dollar difference.

http://makingchangeatwalmart.org/factsheet/walmart-watch-fact-sheets/fact-sheet-wages/

Which means that they're still in the red I guessm but I mean I also don't agree in making zero experience, minimal education jobs get paid $15/hr, that's silly. However, lying is not a very good way to build trust in an ideal

>>112106
>The quality is better, the financial outcome is worse. Hence, if you're rich, the US is better for you. If you're not, the UK can be better for you.
nothing to suggest that at all.

USA median household income: 29,000
UK median household income: 23,000

in ten years the typical American will have 60,000 more dollars to spend than the typical Brit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income#Median_household_income_and_the_US_economy

You can keep your shitty wait times and shitty quality service and huge debt and low cancer survival rates. I'll keep my extra 60,000 dollars.

>>112136
>>captures the HDI of the average person in society
jesus christ, HOW? HOW DO THEY DO THAT, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THEY FUCKING DO THAT?

If you can't do that shut the fuck up, I know what theyre saying theyre doing, you seem to be unable to think about HOW they do it. You're like a fucking parrot.

>>112145
>>111945
I also found how interestingly small the profit is compared to walmart's revenue, that being 447 billion dollars. I guess that's the price of retail

>>112146
Once again you're comparing the US and the UK and try to claim that this falsifies the IHDI when the UK clearly has a lower IHDI than the US.

Also, that lower income can easily be explained in one word: Vacation.

>>112119
A fair wage is one that covers basic living expenses and allows room for emergencies and growth. Housing, food, utilities, healthcare, transportation. Really this is different depending on the area but I think $15 is a decent middle ground.

I'm not talking about just the CEOs. I don't know their exact budgeting lines, but I mean the company parties, bonuses, excess marketing, all of that. Trim the fluff.

>>112146
You're leaving out the fact that the brits have great public services and less personal debt as a result.

>>112164
The IHDI accounts for inequality in HDI dimensions by “discounting” each dimension’s average value according to its level of inequality measured by the Atkinson index.

So, basically, when there is greater inequality they're discounting more of the respective index. Since, the greater the inequality, the less the average joe actually has of it in relation to the absolute value.

Having a younger population with 5% more immigrants doesn't skew wealth?

>>112171
replace the UK with any other country that is above the US. the US still dominates them in cancer survival.

and 6,000 dollars extra earned per year more is 6,000 more dollars now add on typical 10% earnings through investments. after 10 years. you can keep your shitty vacations.

>>112213
> now add on typical 10% earnings through investments.
Nah, typically those 10% will go to paying off your mcmansion or your latest $50,000 medical bill.

Also, yes, 13 public holidays and 24 days paid vacation starting in a job that needs no education whatsoever is pretty nice to have. Lets you actually live and enjoy your life. What do those extra 5-10% per year help me if I never get to enjoy them?

Also, 10% per year earnings, you're delusional or a gambler.

>>112172
so your idea is completely vague and subjective.

california's minimum wage is very high and they have one of the highest unemployments and one of the highest costs of living.

>>112190
and thus negatively associating inequality to the index. you're roundly discounting inequality in all access to various services etc.

The HDI may be flawed in some respects but the IHDI is flawed in negatively associating inequality.

>>112240
You want me to give an exact number which I cannot since the conditions vary from place to place. The cost of living in a given area is not subjective, it's fully calculable and that is what a minimum wage should be based on.

Guess why the minimum wage is so high in CA?
>one of the highest costs of living
It's pretty high in WA too but guess what? We have people actually creating businesses and a decent public transit system to help create jobs and lower the cost of living.

>>112231
>Nah, typically those 10% will go to paying off your mcmansion or your latest $50,000 medical bill.
now you're just making shit up. only 15% of the country is uninsured and those who are uninsured don't pay anything because they get free care.

stop using retarded bullshit talking points.

the typical insured person pays 50 dollars a month in insurance through their employer.

>Also, 10% per year earnings, you're delusional or a gambler.

that is the typical earnings in the long term. thats a fact, you uneducated person

>>112264
>only 15% of the country is uninsured
If only those insurances would cover the full bill.
>that is the typical earnings in the long term. thats a fact, you uneducated person
You claim typical earnings of 10% in a system growing not nearly as fast?
Yeah, no.

>>112263
>You want me to give an exact number which I cannot since the conditions vary from place to place. The cost of living in a given area is not subjective, it's fully calculable and that is what a minimum wage should be based on.
Its clearly not calculable since nobody can agree on what a basic standard of living is.

you have people creating business in WA because the govt gives them favors.

Boeing was going to leave Seattle but the govt made it so they basically don't have to pay any taxes. so they encourage their super rich to stay by flaunting the rules you support.

>>110152
>But that simply isn't true.
Yes it is. All American citizens are subsidized barring the top 20% of earners, and even their income pales in comparison to certain corporate taxes and importers.

>So your employer has the right to kill you if you join a union?
He never said that. You have the right to find a different job if your employer won't let you unionize.
>Unions
>Good for workers
Twinkie employees would like to have a word with you.

>Bye
>Quitting while behind

>>112282
>You claim typical earnings of 10% in a system growing not nearly as fast?
some years its less some years its more.

your problem is becoming clear. You're simply uneducated on these subjects. Which is fine, you're either brainwashed Europoor who has no dissenting views other than the pro statist view, or you're a brainwashed Amerifat.


http://www.daveramsey.com/article/the-12-reality/lifeandmoney_investing/
>Where Does It Come From?
When Dave says you can expect to make 12% on your investments, he’s using a real number that’s based on the historical average annual return of the S&P 500. The S&P 500 gauges the performance of the stocks of the 500 largest, most stable companies in the Stock Exchange. It is often considered the most accurate measure of the stock market as a whole. The current average annual return from 1926, the year of the S&P’s inception, through 2011 is 11.69%. That’s a long look back, and most people aren’t interested in what happened in the market 80 years ago.

So let’s look at some numbers that are closer to home. From 1992–2011, the S&P’s average is 9.07%. From 1987–2011, it’s 10.05%. In 2009, the market’s annual return was 26.46%. In 2010, it was 8%. In 2011, it was -1.12%.

>>112326
twinkies is a perfect example of the cancer that is unions

>typical union worker earns 20 bucks an hour for doing unskilled labor
>but because of their power they still continue to ask for more and more and more, putting everyone out of business even those who would be perfectly happy with a wage cut.

>>112200
No one?

>>112348
Yep.
>Walmart
>$15 for unskilled labor
>Anyone else paying $15 an hour for employees that fuck around given a chance to
The only issue I have with Wal-mart is the way it treats it's employees. They don't deserve more money but they are just shit upon at a lot of stores from what I hear. It's funny too because retailers are actually having a bit of a labor crisis in my country (even with all the people looking for work) because of the high turnover and because teenagers just don't find working at a mall "cool" anymore.

>>112376
alot of the doucheness of huge corporations is also a result of govt, pushing out competitors. these huge corporations lobby the govt who regulate the industry making business only profitable for the super rich while less experienced and smaller companies can't compete so all we have are walmart, who are "too big to fail" essentially and can do as they please.

liberal beliefs in pro regulation pro taxation create the problems they say they abhorr.

>>112292
Okay, I'll reiterate. A minimalist standard of living. Surely the things I just named cover that. That is what I mean. Those few things that are necessities are my definition of "basic living"

>>109824
that has as much logic as racist proofs for geNocide

>>109648
>Do you have to be morally bankrupt to become rich?
No, you have to have strong morals.
You're increasing society's wealth by becoming rich.

Unless you it your money through central banking that is.

>>112404
Monopolies are an economic inevitability. Eventually someone gets a runaway advantage and the others just can't compete. At some point that monopoly eventually succumbs to a nimbler company working on a new paradigm (Amazon).