You're not imagining it: the rich really are hoarding economic growth

[EternalFantasies]

That would be economic mobility.

Its called Social Mobility coz peope change in social strata.

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

 

[EternalFantasies]

Yes, social and socioeconomic mobility is context-dependent. Do you really want to go with the line that because some measurement is context dependent, a metric for it cannot be made objective? Or that the authors of a study have not accounted for that context dependence, without good evidence? Feel free to take my disdain, turn it sideways, and shove it up your ass.

What you termed as "extraneous shit" is actually what's important.

See, many studies sometimes are skewed to serve a purpose. So, i decided now to go ahead and check where you got this shit, since you didn't post the link, and you probably saw it as an image on google images...

It turns out, it is quite legit, and i may read more about it now. Besides, there's an old economist who once made a paper demonstrating (in his own way) how the rich's kids always rich, poor's kids always poor etc. But he was eventually shot down (intellectually not ak 47).

So your link not only is legit, it actually repeats EXACTLY what i told you and you called it "extraneous shit".

Here's your study:
http://www.hamilton************/cha...between_income_inequality_and_social_mobility

Copy paste from your study Einstein:

Many are concerned that rising income inequality will lead to declining social mobility. This figure, recently coined “The Great Gatsby Curve,” takes data from several countries at a single point in time to show the relationship between inequality and immobility. Inequality is measured using Gini coefficients, a common metric that economists use to determine how much of a nation’s income is concentrated among the wealthy; social mobility is measured using intergenerational earnings elasticity, an indicator of how much children’s future earnings depend on the earnings of their parents. Although, as the figure shows, higher levels of inequality are positively correlated with reductions in social mobility, we do not know whether inequality causes reductions in mobility. After all, there are many important factors that vary between countries that might explain this relationship. Nonetheless, this figure represents a provocative observation with potentially important policy ramifications.

Which is exactly what I told you, and using the examples of Nordic countries and Brasil should've been quite obvious to an experienced fellow; not one with an ass as wide as the Holland Tunnel as yours.

 

[water505]

Yes, yes, Muslim immigrants scare you.....we get it.

Like women scare the shit out of you?

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

What you termed as "extraneous shit" is actually what's important.

[snip extraneous shit]

Which is exactly what I told you, and using the examples of Nordic countries and Brasil should've been quite obvious to an experienced fellow; not one with an ass as wide as the Holland Tunnel as yours.

Just what do you think we're discussing, ya stupid dumbfuck? My posting the graph was nothing more than relating the fact of the matter, that there is an apparent correlation between social mobility and income inequality. If you're not disputing the fact of the matter, then GTFO. If you don't have a reason why metrics for context dependent measurements cannot be objective, then GTFO. There is no claim about what form of economy or governance leads to greater or lesser degrees of social mobility, as you desperately seem to want to argue with. The rubbish you posted was and still is extraneous to the fact of the matter.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Just what do you think we're discussing, ya stupid dumbfuck? My posting the graph was nothing more than relating the fact of the matter, that there is an apparent correlation between social mobility and income inequality. If you're not disputing the fact of the matter, then GTFO. If you don't have a reason why metrics for context dependent measurements cannot be objective, then GTFO. There is no claim about what form of economy or governance leads to greater or lesser degrees of social mobility, as you desperately seem to want to argue with. The rubbish you posted was and still is extraneous to the fact of the matter.

What i posted is exactly what your own study is telling you. So your point from the getgo is irrelevant.

So, not only a wide experienced ass, but a sore loser too. Hmmm.. pity

 

[BotanyBoy]

That’s NOT the standard definition of what Socialism actual is. It's far too loose and could be applied to just about any and all economic systems.!

Yes it is, and no it can't. You're just desperate to church socialism up.

You can have capitalism under communism (China, Vietnam)

LOL no you can't. Communism is absolutely antithetical to capitalism, unless you're doing some dumb ass re-defining of capitalism.

Considering you think the USA, hugely anti-freedom police state, is some how capitalist however it wouldn't shock me if you were.

government does not own the means of production, therefore is not a socialist government

It does control it though, so it is.

No communism isn't a higher level of socialism, just another flavor of it.

…what you have is some form of corrupt Capitalism which is often heavily slanted in favour of the banks and wealthy, which stymies’ free market Capitalism. Ergo the regulation you’re railing against.

Woof!

It's corrupted though government power that is used to favor the banks and the wealthy....socialism.

If it's not free market, it's not capitalism. Free markets don't favor anyone.

 

[Nipples_Mcgee1]

What i posted is exactly what your own study is telling you. So your point from the getgo is irrelevant.

So, not only a wide experienced ass, but a sore loser too. Hmmm.. pity

So tell me, dumbass, what exactly was my point? That you're too dumb to realize you were arguing against a strawman? Yeah, I already knew that. Thanks, anyway.

 

[EternalFantasies]

So tell me, dumbass, what exactly was my point? That you're too dumb to realize you were arguing against a strawman? Yeah, I already knew that. Thanks, anyway.

https://media.tenor.com/images/8ecde13b38dc08bae3d7a2a82219d811/tenor.gif

No need to tell you. Why embarrass your ass more than i already did? next time, read the source of your image

https://media.giphy.com/media/46TigNCTXi0QE/giphy.gif

 

[EternalFantasies]

What i wrote on the first page, has a lot to do with the link below. Yes, the main trigger is still the same.

So yes monkey boy, your same study project does claim what mainly affects social mobility: Education!

http://www.hamilton************/papers/thirteen_economic_facts_social_mobility_education

Funny thing is, I had rambled on about how education is a possible main factor, then shortened my paragraph which you called "extraneous shit" coz.. no one reads

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Its called Social Mobility coz peope change in social strata.

Social mobility is the movement of individuals, families, households, or other categories of people within or between social strata in a society. It is a change in social status relative to others' social location within a given society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

Movement in social stata has nothing to do with income inequality.

I discount Wiki because it caters to Social Justice definitions.

For the average person, what you are describing is a natural outcome of your life in a free and open society. You start with nothing but energy, compete and earn and at the end of middle age you have accrued Capital. The you go back down the economic ladder either because you did not provide for old age, or because you are gradually drawing down upon that which you did set aside.

Now, naturally, this will occur more easily in small homogenous 'countries' united by a historic culture. In a giant polyglot nation, we see that we have forces in place that prevent the sharing of a culture which locks large groups of people into a permanent class and the SJWs fight tooth, nail and claw to preserve this state of affairs because it affords them political power.

 

[richard_daily]

No that's the left.

Equal opportunity is just the chance to try.

Equity says take some from the winners and give to the loosers because their opportunity didn't work out so well for them.

No, equity and parity are similar concepts, in that if someone starts from a disadvantaged position (which is most americans compared to the rich), they should be granted some measure of protections so that they can work TOWARDS having equal opportunity.

Would you trade places with someone on welfare, assuming you still had the same work ethic, wanted to make things happen for yourself, etc?

I get that you think the military did right for you, but should that be the solution for everyone? What if someone is morally opposed to military service because of religion or moral beliefs?

By all accounts, and everything you've said, the military granted you with some level of parity... some equity. You're just failing to recognize it as such.

That's great, I'm with you on that.

That' doesn't make the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations micromanaging industries and controlling market access not socialism.

Unfortunately for your argument, it does...

You're attempted to state that because of regulations, that government runs business, and nothing could be further from the truth. You state at other times, that corporations run government. Both cannot be true at the same time.

You mistake contentedness with the reality of the world with misery.

No shock, we've always had a decent posting relationship and I enjoy it.

More money isn't going to make me happier, but I'll have more fun with my short existence. I live comfortably in one of the most beautiful places on Earth and I get to do what I love doing, that's as good as it gets. Everything else is just cheap thrills.

Do something more fulfilling with your time. Spend time helping kids, or people less fortunate than you are... I don't know man, do you... but you definitely have a hole somewhere inside of you. From an outsider's perspective, and the way you carry yourself on here, that's obvious to me. I'm saying that with love. Fill your time and your life with things that matter to you.

We aren't talking about corporate control over business though are we?

We are talking about corporate control over the GOVERNMENT, a totally different animal and not at all capitalism.

It's not just capitalism, it's the inevitable result of capitalism, and why capitalism is a non-equitable system of economics.

Nobody is in support of my growing anything.....bunch of fucking communist shit birds ran me out of the industry. That's for elite (D)'s only!

The Republican however DID support me 'mining the miners' as it were, but an aggie version.

I got myself a licence to compost green waste (yard scraps/wood chips), manure and food waste.

I can't mine but I can sell aggregates out of the same yard, so I do because duh.

Nobody is doing anything federally to help me out, they are all a bunch of used car salesmen out to fuck me.

Maybe you need to run for government?

 

[EternalFantasies]

Movement in social stata has nothing to do with income inequality.

I discount Wiki because it caters to Social Justice definitions.

For the average person, what you are describing is a natural outcome of your life in a free and open society. You start with nothing but energy, compete and earn and at the end of middle age you have accrued Capital. The you go back down the economic ladder either because you did not provide for old age, or because you are gradually drawing down upon that which you did set aside.

Now, naturally, this will occur more easily in small homogenous 'countries' united by a historic culture. In a giant polyglot nation, we see that we have forces in place that prevent the sharing of a culture which locks large groups of people into a permanent class and the SJWs fight tooth, nail and claw to preserve this state of affairs because it affords them political power.

ur funny AJ

You do have access to a search engine right? Coz otherwise, I got no clue what ur talking about.

https://www.google.com/search?q=soc...1j69i60j0l2.2355j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You see, I am old school.

I had to do a lot of reading, from various sources, and then reach my own conclusions. We didn't have computers, the internet or even calculators, we used slide rules.

New school is, you come to a conclusion and then you use a search engine to confirm your conclusion to the exclusion of all other writings...



That's y'alls 'slide' rule



http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-engines

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, equity and parity are similar concepts, in that if someone starts from a disadvantaged position (which is most americans compared to the rich), they should be granted some measure of protections so that they can work TOWARDS having equal opportunity.

That's not equal opportunity....that, in most cases, is racist bullshit.

I get that you think the military did right for you, but should that be the solution for everyone? What if someone is morally opposed to military service because of religion or moral beliefs?

Then go get a different job to get your hustle on with.

By all accounts, and everything you've said, the military granted you with some level of parity... some equity. You're just failing to recognize it as such.

No, you confuse work with welfare.

The military didn't grant me a fucking thing.

Unfortunately for your argument, it does...

Unless you're going with the "It's only socialism if it's full blown Soviet Style Communism!! EVERYTHING else is capitalism!" definition of socialism. Which is fucking retarded and you're better than that.

No it doesn't.

You're attempted to state that because of regulations, that government runs business, and nothing could be further from the truth.

How is government controlling access to markets, and controlling how people run business capitalism??

You state at other times, that corporations run government. Both cannot be true at the same time.

Sure it can. The government regulates bidnizz...at the request of big money/bidnizz.

It's not just capitalism, it's the inevitable result of capitalism,

You're going to have to explain to me how government nanny state, wiping everyone's ass, micromanaging the exchange of goods and services, re-distributing wealth as the elites see fit, then blocking access to money for anyone but the elites = capitalism.

Last I checked that's socialism and what every socialist state looks like, including the USA.

and why capitalism is a non-equitable system of economics.

Who ever said it was supposed to be equitable?

Fuck equitable...I want an equal opportunity.

Maybe you need to run for government?

For what? LOL besides I'm not sociopathic enough.

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, equity and parity are similar concepts,

Similar but not the same.
http://culturalorganizing.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/originalequityvsequality.jpg

in that if someone starts from a disadvantaged position (which is most americans compared to the rich), they should be granted some measure of protections so that they can work TOWARDS having equal opportunity.

That's not equal opportunity....that, in most cases, manifests as racist bullshit like affirmative action.

I get that you think the military did right for you, but should that be the solution for everyone? What if someone is morally opposed to military service because of religion or moral beliefs?

Then go get a different job.

By all accounts, and everything you've said, the military granted you with some level of parity... some equity. You're just failing to recognize it as such.

Sounds like you're confusing having a job with getting welfare.

Unfortunately for your argument, it does...

Only if you're going with the "It's only socialism if it's full blown Soviet Style state ownership of everything and EVERYTHING else is capitalism!" definition of socialism. Which is fucking retarded and you're better than that.

No it doesn't.

You're attempted to state that because of regulations, that government runs business, and nothing could be further from the truth.

How is government controlling access to markets, and controlling how people run business capitalism??

You state at other times, that corporations run government. Both cannot be true at the same time.

Sure it can. The government regulates bidnizz at the request of big money/bidnizz but it's still the government doing it.

Wal Mart and Monstanto won't kick my door in at 2am and stick a gun in my face.

It's not just capitalism, it's the inevitable result of capitalism,

You're going to have to explain to me how government nanny state, wiping everyone's ass, micromanaging the exchange of goods and services, re-distributing wealth as the elites see fit, then blocking access to money for anyone but the elites = capitalism.

Last I checked that's socialism and what every socialist state looks like, including the USA.

and why capitalism is a non-equitable system of economics.

Who ever said it was supposed to be equitable?

Fuck equitable...I don't want Affirmative Action in my economics. I just want the 'equity = equality' bullshitters to take their racist bullshit and get the fuck out of my way.

Maybe you need to run for government?

For what? LOL besides I'm not sociopathic enough.

 

[EternalFantasies]

You see, I am old school.

I had to do a lot of reading, from various sources, and then reach my own conclusions. We didn't have computers, the internet or even calculators, we used slide rules.

New school is, you come to a conclusion and then you use a search engine to confirm your conclusion to the exclusion of all other writings...



That's y'alls 'slide' rule



http://www.ebizmba.com/articles/search-engines

Hehe.. The eclectic myself.

And even with the internet, i do not exclude. EternalLearner

 

[BoyNextDoor]

You're quite annoying.

If there is less chances of becoming rich, it is primarily due to philosophies and regulations that you as a modern leftist ascribe to.

Americans signed off their freedom (the real one) and then complain why they can't make more money...

Of course, I do not expect you to comprehend the above.

False.

Name a "leftist" regulation that prevents class mobility.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

source

The massive debt load and the inequitable sharing in the current bull market coupled with the growing inequality points to another 2008 of even greater proportions coming our way.

$12.7 Trillion Debt

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iAK56lGLoezI/v2/800x-1.png

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Just another example of how government money and Liberal intentions have distorted the education market.

 

[BotanyBoy]

False.

Name a "leftist" regulation that prevents class mobility.

Go try and make money for yourself legally....you'll find out just how many there are.

Licensing boards that aren't shall issue upon public/environmental safety compliance, outrageous fees and taxes beyond the actual paperwork/enforcement that intentional or not have come to guard entry to any number of markets, usually the more lucrative the heavier the restrictions.

Cant even be a fuckin' lawn boy without 30,000+ in licensing and fees these days.

Tax the corporations (consumers) more more more!!! It's never...NEVER enough.

Who do you think that hurts the rich or the poor?

Who's mobility do you think that restricts? The rich or the poor?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Just another example of how government money and Liberal intentions have distorted the education market.

Socialist....there is very little if anything liberal about what the modern so-called "liberals" or Democrats anymore.

Sure as fuck not the social justice bigots.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

It would have been so much easier if he had just said that.

Then we could have assessed him as a caveman troglodyte (with apologies to the cavemen and cavewomen out there) and been done with it.

Troglodytes once had their own kingdom. It was called Cappadocia. It was repeatedly invaded and depended on mercenaries and Rome for its survival, but it was a country. This guy couldn't start a country if you gave him a staff, major tech prototypes for new inventions, a thousand computers, and enough money to buy his own private army. He wouldn't know what to do with a country if he had one. He's the Viserys Targaryen of Litizen propagandists.

To be less competent than the weakest kingdom that existed during the late Republican era of Rome, one that had only one functioning city, the capital, Eusebia Mazaca.....let that sink in.

 

[EternalFantasies]

False.

Name a "leftist" regulation that prevents class mobility.

I don't like wasting my time & energy, and especially so in a complex economics subject.

You are notorious for bailing once squeezed into a corner and/or proven wrong.

No time for you.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Uh no we haven't.

We've been doing some damn form of trickle down economics for decades. it's not working.

You don't like what the data says so you try to denigrate it. You keep shilling for the policy that started this mess. It's been demonstrated repeatedly that tax cuts for the wealthy provide minimal economic growth. Again, trickle down does not work.

The income tax isn't going anywhere any time soon. If at all. In the meantime we are dealing with a tax policy engineered by the wealthy that screws everyone else and isn't good for the middle class. The old tax structure did not reflect the wage stagnation of middle class America so you really are going to have to provide some kind of support for your statement that income tax has never helped the middle class.

You act like corporate America's record profits and record low tax burdens aren't a thing.

Shhh....don't confuse him with graphs and charts. Those constitute data. In other words, facts or reality. He can only understand memes and myths.