You're right. How ignorant of me for posing such a ridiculous question.
I for one welcome our new government overlords.
Originally Posted by Shea
You're right. How ignorant of me for posing such a ridiculous question.
I for one welcome our new government overlords.
Check and Mate, Jeff.
I never grew up in a family with much money or any noticiable wealth, but I'll always remember feeling reasonably comfortable and secure. If you would have asked me, I probably would have told you that my Mom and Dad made "lots" when the truth is, they were just your average middle-class family; a son of a USPS worker, and a teacher.
A couple lessons though (from both my parents), that constantly echoed through my upbringing, was to never "live beyond my means", and to try and resist the urges to ever be greedy or wasteful. And like lots of people, I had my fair share of financial stuggles, back in my 20s, that thankfully I've long-since solved.
Now more than ever, as I'm now an adult watching the whole financial fiasco of the past few years, I'm happy to have learned from those lessons, and position myself to be in a good place. I'm still far from wealthy, but I enjoy all the comforts and pleasures that I afford myself, and I can genuinely say that I don't think I live beyond my means, nor that I believe that I'm greedy. It's a shame that the ultra-wealthy and the more specifically the "controllers" of financial industry did not take similar values into account, when all of the movements were being made, that ended up damaging our economy so badly, but lining so so many others pockets even further.
And as Ghost alluded to, maybe we can't change or control the world on our as individuals, but be most definitley can control the the small part of the world that we occupy. If you get my drift...
~Brandon~
Aprilia RSV 1000 R Factory - "Gemma"
MV Agusta F3 800 - "Amy Lou"
Rattan Fat Bear Plus - "Lynda"
(720) 935-6438
I rarely think of motorcycles without a little yearning. They are about moving, and humans, I think, yearn to move – it’s in our cells, in our desires. We quiet our babies with cyclic movement, and we quiet ourselves by going.
Melissa Holbrook Pierson
Mojo has a couple more interesting reads today.
(Linked pages include charts)
First, a perspective on our recession that gets little press:
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/10/...conomic-growth
Study: Income Inequality Kills Economic Growth
—By Josh Harkinson| Tue Oct. 4, 2011 3:00 AM PDT
Eric Constantineau/Flickr
Corporate chieftains often claim that fixing the US economy requires signing new free trade deals, lowering government debt, and attracting lots of foreign investment. But a major new study has found that those things matter less than an economic driver that CEOs hate talking about: equality.
"Countries where income was more equally distributed tended to have longer growth spells," says economist Andrew Berg, whose study appears in the current issue of Finance & Development, the quarterly magazine of the International Monetary Fund. Comparing six major economic variables across the world's economies, Berg found that equality of incomes was the most important factor in preventing a major downturn. (See top chart.)
Andrew Berg & Jonathan Ostry
In their study, Berg and coauthor Jonathan Ostry were less interested in looking at how to spark economic growth than how to sustain it. "Getting growth going is not that difficult; it's keeping it going that is hard," Berg explains. For example, the bailouts and stimulus pulled the US economy out of recession but haven't been enough to fuel a steady recovery. Berg's research suggests that sky-high income inequality in the United States could be partly to blame.
So how important is equality? According to the study, making an economy's income distribution 10 percent more equitable prolongs its typical growth spell by 50 percent. In one case study, Berg looked at Latin America, which is historically much more economically stratified than emerging Asia and also has shorter periods of growth. He found that closing half of the inequality gap between Latin America and Asia would more than double the expected length of Latin America's growth spells. Increasing income inequality has the opposite effect: "We find that more inequality lowers growth," Berg says. (See bottom chart.)
Berg and Ostry aren't the first economists to suggest that income inequality can torpedo the economy. Marriner Eccles, the Depression-era chairman of the Federal Reserve (and an architect of the New Deal), blamed the Great Crash on the nation's wealth gap. "A giant suction pump had by 1929-1930 drawn into a few hands an increasing portion of currently produced wealth," Eccles recalled in his memoirs. "In consequence, as in a poker game where the chips were concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, the other fellows could stay in the game only by borrowing. When the credit ran out, the game stopped."
Many economists believe a similar process has unfolded over the past decade. Median wages grew too little over the past 30 years to drive the kind of spending necessary to sustain the consumer economy. Instead, increasingly exotic forms of credit filled the gap, as the wealthy offered the middle class alluring credit card deals and variable-interest subprime loans. This allowed rich investors to keep making money and everyone else to feel like they were keeping up—until the whole system imploded.
Income inequality has other economic downsides. Research suggests that unequal societies have a harder time getting their citizens to support government spending because they believe that it will only benefit elites. A population where many lack access to health care, education, and bank loans can't contribute as much to the economy. And, of course, income inequality goes hand-in-hand with crippling political instability, as we've seen during the Arab Spring in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.
History shows that "sustainable reforms are only possible when the benefits are widely shared," Berg says. "We hope that we don't have to relearn that the hard way."
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
And one on how CEO salaries have gotten out of control:
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...ill-undeserved
CEO Pay: Still Skyrocketing, Still Undeserved
—By Kevin Drum| Mon Oct. 3, 2011 8:59 PM PDT
Over the past three decades, the growth rate in justifications for skyrocketing executive compensation has been nearly as high as the growth rate of executive compensation itself. Globalization makes a great CEO more valuable than ever. Tournament theory makes high pay inevitable. Companies are bigger these days. The skill sets of modern CEOs dwarf those of past eras. Pay is more closely linked to performance. Blah blah blah.
All of these things have a kernel of truth (aside from pay for performance, which is mostly a myth), but even collectively they don't explain much. What does explain a lot is two things: (a) stagnating worker pay has made a much bigger pool of money available for executive compensation, and (b) peer group comparisons inexorably ratchet up CEO pay. Because nobody wants to admit that their company is merely average, every company wants to pay its CEO more than average. But if every company wants to pay above the average, guess what happens?
Today, Peter Whoriskey of the Washington Post tells us that the practice of peer group comparison is widespread:
It wasn’t until recently, however, that its pervasiveness and impact on executive pay became clear. Companies have long hid the way they set executive pay, but in late 2006, the Securities and Exchange Commission began compelling companies to disclose the specifics of how they use peer groups to determine executive pay.
Since then, researchers have found that about 90 percent of major U.S. companies expressly set their executive pay targets at or above the median of their peer group. This creates just the kinds of circumstances that drive pay upward.
The chart on the right tells the familiar tale. Adjusted for inflation, cash compensation for line workers has actually decreased over the past few decades, and even when you include healthcare compensation it's grown only about 30% or so. In contrast, executive compensation over the same period has more than quadrupled.
Do they deserve this? Almost certainly not. There's simply no good reason that a CEO of 2011 is worth 4x more than a CEO of 1970. The reason their pay has gone up is simple: for all practical purposes, CEOs set each other's pay. And they keep raising each other's pay because they can. It's a pretty nice racket.
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
Pot, consider yourself stirred...
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
More on that:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...NJL_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...L_graphic.html
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
~Hunter S. Thompson
You're bored, eh?Pot, consider yourself stirred...
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
~Hunter S. Thompson
A little.
And being stuck inside, instead of riding on this spectacular day, has me a little "anti-establishment-ish"
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
Considering the role countrywide had in the sub-prime mess, I thought this piece from your WP article is pretty telling:
Seems convenient to always call us "anti-entrepreneur" whenever we talk of spiraling CEO compensation.
"• At Countrywide Financial, then-chief executive Angelo Mozilo earned more than $180 million as he led the company to the brink of ruin during the five years before the housing bust. At times, his pay had been set at the 90th percentile of peers.
Mozilo blamed “the left-wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions” for putting pressure on corporate boards to restrain executive pay. Cutting executive rewards, he said, would discourage talented leaders.
“I strongly believe that a decade from now there will be a recognition that entre*pre*neur*ship has been driven out of the public sector,” he wrote in an October 2006 e-mail that was turned up by a congressional investigation."
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
It is absolutely perfect out...
I suppose today could be an opportunity for you to "Break Free" and while you can't topple The System, defeat Big Oil/Big Pharma/Big Banking, you could exert some minor individual power and take off early?
Preferably while running around with your pants off so you can tell the world to "ALL YOU SUCKERS CAN KISS MY ASS, I'M OUTTA HERE!"
Consider it a microcosmic protest against the world.
...or...post on here and wait for the C_M bomb to finally hit...
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
~Hunter S. Thompson
Considering my mother-in-law is the QA manager here, that would be epic...
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
This is one of the major problems--the matter of spin/perspective and the fact that those with all the money/power control the message.
Seems convenient to always call us "anti-entrepreneur" whenever we talk of spiraling CEO compensation.
So, taxpayers who would rather support fellow Americans that are struggling to survive in our great nation are demonized as being "Socialist" while fuck-up corporations (and their over-paid CEOs) are all "victims" of "hostile" anti-entrepreneurial bias...even though I've yet to see where "Bail Out" fits in the description of "Entrepreneur"
If, as a country, we're willing to let millions of our own slide below the poverty level (which is $22,133 for a family of FOUR), and we're willing to let millions float around either unemployed or underemployed, then why the hell aren't we willing to let these mavericks of the marketplace fail when they fuck up?
"Of the People, by the People, for the People", I don't see anything about Corporations in there yet they seem to be running everything...
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
~Hunter S. Thompson
Be sure to post pics.
Considering my mother-in-law is the QA manager here, that would be epic...
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
~Hunter S. Thompson
Semi-related:
http://news.yahoo.com/hungry-muppet-...181611449.html
Faster, faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death.
~Hunter S. Thompson
Remember these poor CEO's still pay taxes. When was the last time you wrote a 40 million dollar check to the IRS? No matter where the money flows, a portion of it goes back to the government. Cut government spending; treat it more like a lean mean business machine and then we could reduce the deficit and maybe even reduce the overall percentage of taxation.
In my opinion, more business leaders in congress and less asshat lawyers from the baby-boomer generation. I can't wait until the baby-boomer generation gets out of politics.
aka Zane aka The Quiet One
Silver & Black 2000 RSV Mille (Giada)
ITALIAN RED 2002 VFR800 (Natasha) - sold
*** NO MATTER WHAT PEOPLE SAY, THERE IS SEX IN "THE PURPLE ROOM" ***
Guess it depends on which "people" you are.
Asshole Nazi devil moderator out to get each and every one of you
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
disce quasi semper victurus vive quasi cras moriturus
The return of MRA #321! Sponsored by Western Ambulance, Chicane Trackdays, and a very patient wife...
I'm fine with reducing wasteful spending, lowering taxes reducing the defict and balancing the budget. I live within my means and expect my country to do so too. I just want the "there are no jobs because of high taxes" propaganda to go away and I want tax equality.
As in a flat tax rate across the board for individuals and corporations. No loopholes or subsidies. Capital gains, being income, should be taxed equally too. Right now the richest 1% pay almost no payroll taxes because few of them receive any traditional paycheck. Most their income comes in the form of capital gains which thanks to "W", is only taxed at 15% while payroll taxes hover around 30%. How the hell is that fair?
I want my voice to be heard as loudly in the halls of congress as Bank of America's.
89 EX500 RIP
06 R6S RIP
03 R6
But he took all the risk! Or something.Considering the role countrywide had in the sub-prime mess, I thought this piece from your WP article is pretty telling:
Seems convenient to always call us "anti-entrepreneur" whenever we talk of spiraling CEO compensation.
"• At Countrywide Financial, then-chief executive Angelo Mozilo earned more than $180 million as he led the company to the brink of ruin during the five years before the housing bust. At times, his pay had been set at the 90th percentile of peers.
Mozilo blamed “the left-wing anti-business press and the envious leaders of unions” for putting pressure on corporate boards to restrain executive pay. Cutting executive rewards, he said, would discourage talented leaders.
“I strongly believe that a decade from now there will be a recognition that entre*pre*neur*ship has been driven out of the public sector,” he wrote in an October 2006 e-mail that was turned up by a congressional investigation."
Abolish the corporate income tax, tax em if they decide to sit on a ton of cash (like they're doing now), instead of spending it on compensation, dividends, equipment, etc.
Progressive income brackets, income includes: wages, capital gains, inheritance.
This is one of the major problems--the matter of spin/perspective and the fact that those with all the money/power control the message.
So, taxpayers who would rather support fellow Americans that are struggling to survive in our great nation are demonized as being "Socialist" while fuck-up corporations (and their over-paid CEOs) are all "victims" of "hostile" anti-entrepreneurial bias...even though I've yet to see where "Bail Out" fits in the description of "Entrepreneur"
If, as a country, we're willing to let millions of our own slide below the poverty level (which is $22,133 for a family of FOUR), and we're willing to let millions float around either unemployed or underemployed, then why the hell aren't we willing to let these mavericks of the marketplace fail when they fuck up?
"Of the People, by the People, for the People", I don't see anything about Corporations in there yet they seem to be running everything...
More often than not, the poor choose to be poor. And social welfare programs are 99% to blame.
My grandma grew up poor, got money, blew it all, and is still poor. No amount of money would ever help her quality of life. She is lucky to have offspring who are fiscally responsible.
Once you start handing out free lunches, its kinda hard to take them away. It may sound selfish and arrogant, but poverty is not my problem.
You also can't just nuke the social welfare and entitlement-type programs with millions of people dependent on them. Literally, there would be very bloody riots overnight if that stuff disappeared. It's a self-perpetuating cycle to have people on those programs chronically, but once that cycle is started it can't just be stopped suddenly. Unfortunately we also can't afford to run it like we do anymore. I don't know what's going to happen, but it won't be pretty.
Asshole Nazi devil moderator out to get each and every one of you
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous
than sincere ignorance
and conscientious stupidity.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
disce quasi semper victurus vive quasi cras moriturus
The return of MRA #321! Sponsored by Western Ambulance, Chicane Trackdays, and a very patient wife...
Cpt and Ghost,
I've read your posts and please enlighten me if I'm missing something.
Is your primary argument here that capitalism isn't "fair"? Are you actually arguing in favor of equal misery? Because that is the only thing that socialism and communism have ever succeeded in.
In the real world everybody negotiates their fair market value. Let me give you a real example. Not just for your salary or wages, but when you buy something. Whatever price the market is willing to bear (ie pay) is the fair market value.
Let me give you a real life example.
There's another advisor that I work with who has a client. In the last year he's only had to meet with the client once but has collected $17,000 in fees.
Is that fair? One client, one annual meeting for a portfolio review and $17,000 paid in fees.
What if I also told you that the once-per-year meeting is at the client's request and over that same year-period his portfolio grew by $320,000? Is that still unfair?
Because to me, paying $17,000 in fees to get back $320,000 in returns seems like a hell of a deal.
With CEOs it's the same thing. Having a capable leader at the helm provides one of the best returns out there. Conversely, having a bad leader at the helm can drag the whole company or country down. Obama, anyone?
This guy has been writing about the bullshit going on in the financial system for some time. His stuff should be in the New York Times. Today I came across this piece that lays out the history of what's been going on.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...chine-20100405
Formerly MRA #211 - High Precision Racing
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self- preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."
--Thomas Jefferson
What exactly does Occupy Wall Street want?
We want more money. Yeah, more money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY6fp95uGfM
Dirk, come on man, don't tell me you actually believe this shit?
Wow. What an awesome passage from your link, Dirk:
"...an extremely unfortunate loophole in the system of Western democratic capitalism, which never foresaw that in a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy."
~Brandon~
Aprilia RSV 1000 R Factory - "Gemma"
MV Agusta F3 800 - "Amy Lou"
Rattan Fat Bear Plus - "Lynda"
I rarely think of motorcycles without a little yearning. They are about moving, and humans, I think, yearn to move – it’s in our cells, in our desires. We quiet our babies with cyclic movement, and we quiet ourselves by going.
Melissa Holbrook Pierson
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
