The (Semi) Official Trump Election/Inauguration thread...

[Brad69]

This has to stop we are all agreeing on something!

We need to start the U.S. Out of the UN movement!

 

[Leadeye]

Ship the drug dealers to work camps along the border so they can build the wall, guards on horseback with 97 Winchesters, throw in some dogs as well.

 

[Joe G]

Obama: Fox, Limbaugh created 'character named Barack Obama' | Washington Examiner

Those who still mistake Tina Fay's skit as Sarah Palin seeing Alaska from her house could not be reached for comment

Don't forget their parodies of Dr. Carson, GWB and DJT of course. They never seem to portray the Dem's as maliciously as Rep's, much less CREATE viewpoints that the Rep's never held.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

http://www.thepilotnews.com/content/culver-academies-mounted-units-appear-17th-presidential-inaugural-parade. Culver Military Academy will march

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Trump Advisor A.J. Delgado Hints at Comms Director Jason Miller Sex Scandal, Deletes Twitter Account

 

[Trigger Time]

I did NOT claim that HRC would have been a better POTUS. You have misread what I wrote....and now that I have reread what I wrote, I wasn't clear (I wrote that in the wee hours, mea culpa). I think both Trump and Clinton feed the oligarchs. A miserable set of choices for the citizenry.

"Would you like the strawberry oligarchy or would you prefer the vanilla oligarchy?"

I was born in 1949. So, what I observe as changes in freedoms over time are from that perspective. Corporate power is much greater than when Eisenhower cautioned about the military/industrial complex. Personal liberties have been significantly reduced based on fear (the Patriot Act). Corporations are now "people" (Citizens United). Wealth is concentrated in a smaller percentage of the citizenry than at any time in history.

So, I ask you, how can you not see these signs?

so you were part of the generation that slowly conceded and gave away freedoms

 

[bwframe]

Was Miller banging Degato?

 

[BugI02]

I did NOT claim that HRC would have been a better POTUS. You have misread what I wrote....and now that I have reread what I wrote, I wasn't clear (I wrote that in the wee hours, mea culpa). I think both Trump and Clinton feed the oligarchs. A miserable set of choices for the citizenry.

"Would you like the strawberry oligarchy or would you prefer the vanilla oligarchy?"

I was born in 1949. So, what I observe as changes in freedoms over time are from that perspective. Corporate power is much greater than when Eisenhower cautioned about the military/industrial complex. Personal liberties have been significantly reduced based on fear (the Patriot Act). Corporations are now "people" (Citizens United). Wealth is concentrated in a smaller percentage of the citizenry than at any time in history.

So, I ask you, how can you not see these signs?

Forbes Welcome

What do the Commerce Department numbers actually tell us? They show the bottom fifth of households are currently collecting only 3.4% of all personal income. This is down from a high of 4.3% in 1978, but only down a bit from 3.5% in 2001. The top fifth of households has increased its share from 43.7% in 1978 to 50.5% today.


What do the Commerce Department numbers not tell us? Importantly, they do not tell us how much of the top fifth of all income is really business income that has been incorrectly lumped with personal income. More and more businesses are abandoning the corporate business form in favor of the LLC (limited liability company) and other alternatives. This means that business income is increasingly reported, not on corporate tax forms but on the personal tax returns (1040s) of the well-off.


What else do the Commerce Department economic inequality figures not tell us?


–The degree to which a large increase in new immigrants, most arriving very poor, is holding down the bottom fifth’s income share;


–How changes in household size (dramatically shrinking in the bottom quintile) and changes in average age of the population (people in prime working years make more) are affecting the numbers;


–How the figures would change if adjusted for hours worked (the top quintile seems to be working many more hours);


–How they would change if all income sources (earned income tax credits for instance) were included;


–How they would change if capital gains were excluded (these gains are actually asset exchanges, typically stock for cash and vice versa, not economic income).


–How many households seem to be stuck in the bottom fifth, not just passing through?


The truth is that U.S. income inequality statistics are a muddle. We can glean some information from them, but they obscure as much as they reveal.

"Figures lie, and liars figure" (The pejorative is not directed at you, Alpo. Perhaps you recognize the quote)

 

[Alpo]

so you were part of the generation that slowly conceded and gave away freedoms

Every generation blames their parents. I stopped that at 25. But, I recognize most of the GenXers grow up slower.

At 37, "your" generation is about to be in charge...that is, if they ever get out of mom's basement and start working for a living.

Get back to me when you're in your 60's and tell me how well your generation did.

 

[Alpo]

Bug: Consider the source. He doesn't really prove his case. In fact, he doesn't do anything other than state general opinions and observations, blame government and call the whole thing "a muddle".

And you've quoted a 2007 article written and "researched" before the Great Recession?

LOL

 

[BugI02]

It was deliberate, Alpo. It was meant to be indicative of how the vapors about wealth concentration is not just a recent phenomena. And it was a good example of how what one chooses to include and exclude in calculations affects the outcome. I only wish they had actually done the alternate calculations, allowing for the caveats mentioned, to demonstrate the effects.

I actually came across this article while researching whether good numbers existed for wealth concentration in the 'robber baron' era, in order to see whether the claim that wealth concentration was the the worst its ever been was fact or hyperbole

I am uncertain how the article being written before the 'great recession' would affect the veracity of its results. Have not the rich always been getting richer? Perhaps you would/could elaborate

 

[BugI02]

Bug: Consider the source. He doesn't really prove his case. In fact, he doesn't do anything other than state general opinions and observations, blame government and call the whole thing "a muddle".

And you've quoted a 2007 article written and "researched" before the Great Recession?

LOL

Are the points he makes not valid concerns vis a vis the statistics?

 

[Alpo]

Perhaps next week we can explore it. It's a holiday weekend and I wouldn't wish this research task on anyone. However, just a general comment or two. Wealth has little to do with hours worked, immigration, etc. Wealth held in the form of business ownership or personal bank accounts don't matter in computing accumulated wealth, only in accuracy of measurement. There is a smell of red herring about the article. But: Breitbart.

 

[BugI02]

I look forward to a discussion on INGO wherein the results are immutable and quantifiable (for once)

because; math

 

[Brad69]

Bernie was right !

The rich are getting richer!

Merry Christmas to everyone even HRC!

 

[Alpo]

OK. I'll give you one easy chart from the Federal Reserve Board. There are many ways to slice the information of course. Google images is your friend.

Piketty has a number of very fine charts and there's no use repeating them if you have access to his data. The book is great, but overwhelming in size (heavy). Lots of google Piketty charts though if you'd like to read ahead.

 

[BugI02]

Simply investing excess capital (if you have it) into an index fund historically would net you an average annualized return of 8 to 10%, numbers which I believe have been currently revised downward to 6 to 8%. The rich are getting richer because of the way the market works

Perhaps if some folks saved more and didn't have to have the latest, greatest everything they would be more of a player

 

[Alpo]

Ahhhhh. Now your going super-subjective. Where's the "math"?

Assume one person owns all of the assets (or wealth) in a nation. What does it look like? How does it function as a free society?

Assume oligarchic ownership. Inject capitalism with a heavy dose of feudal control.

yada yada yada

I don't like to be overly simplistic, but with the complexity of our systems today, simplicity tends to get the gist of the problem centered. Fractional banking, for example, is pretty complex in its current implementation, but is pretty well understood with simplistic examples of one bank, one farmer, etc.

 

[BugI02]

I simply mean to assert that the rich can get richer by just kicking back and investing in the market, it doesn't require any evil intent (as some seem to need to impute). It is the way the market is supposed to work. Will you add 'too big to be allowed' to 'too big to fail' - and who will make that determination?

 

[Alpo]

And that is the ultimate concern, isn't it? A rentier class who own the wealth of the nation and don't perform any substantial work....

...some here would say that taxes are theft. I assume they all strive to be rentiers one day.
Personally, we give too much thought to "the market" and not enough thought to banks. The market has long past its direct usefulness to a "growing nation" as a central means of capital formation. We are no longer adding land, resources are fairly efficiently exploited (except alternate energy...even there its growing and more efficient).

Trading doesn't add to the GDP. There is a huge difference in GDP deployed directly to production and services vs interest and rents.

It all depends, to me, on how you define the nation, its population and its goals.