rayjay

per Wiki, the 4 states (including DOC) with the highest gini coefficient are blue (Wash D.C., NY, Mass, CT) whereas the 3 most equal states are red (Alaska, Wyoming, and Utah). Perhaps it is more complicated than your bumper sticker arguments suggest

Its not that complicated
The top 1% of wealth resides in large part with Wall Street Financiers. Where do they live? NY, CT, Mass, DC
Texas is 43rd on the list. Their inequality is driven by the small percentage of people who are benefitting from their oil economy, and the large percentage who make up the minimum wage laborers.. If someone is making minimum wage you think they feel the benefits of growth? Even Marco Rubio says you can't live on minimum wage.


Rayjay

Yes, growth is good. Which is growing faster: Texas or Illinois? But again "growth" is not the same thing as "income inequality".

Growth that goes almost all to the top 1% isn't good in the long run. Well, even in the short run, unless you happen to be in that 1%.
Historically we know it brings more crime, unrest and extreme political activity. Usually violent.
Historically this kind of inequality has lead to revolutions.
If you think we are going through a uniquely violent period of terrorism in the world due to religion ...I'd invite you to read up on the anarchists of the 20 years before WWI.
They assassinated 2 Spanish Prime Ministers, A French prime minister, the King of Italy, the Princess of Austria/Hungary, A US President, and thousands of innocent citizens around the world with bombs and shootings. (Parliaments were a target as were trains) Finally they killed the Archduke Ferdinand to ignite WWI.
Much of the unrest in the Middle East now was caused in large part by economic conditions. Income inequality was a large part (as was drought brought on by Climate Change).
The US is a mature democracy and the living standard isn't driving the desperation that will lead to revolution.... But when people know they are going backwards, as the middle class and working class do .... they will eventually seek change..
Even in Texas.
I guess having a candidate like Sanders shows the way to some of that change. And having a loose canon like Trump pointing to the unclothed emperors on some things also adds to the changing political climate. When even the Republicans point to the Gini coefficient ...there's an admission . And that's a start.
Kind of like there's an admission on climate change now...by anyone wishing to appear sane)

Ricky:

The top 1% of wealth resides in large part with Wall Street Financiers. Where do they live? NY, CT, Mass, DC

Very few Wall Street Financiers live in Mass. It's a 3 hour commute. The 1% in Washington D.C. are the political class of both parties that benefit from big government. It's not that complicated.

Ricky:

Much of the unrest in the Middle East now was caused in large part by economic conditions. Income inequality was a large part (as was drought brought on by Climate Change).

Yes, no doubt when they yell Allah Akbar before killing others they are proclaiming "wow is the world getting hot and dry".

Ricky:

When even the Republicans point to the Gini coefficient ...there's an admission . And that's a start.

Except I'm not and have never been a Republican. Start reading more carefully and writing less loosely.

Ricky:

One problem they have had is that in many nations the population has not been growing. If the population does not grow, the economy does not, not does it really need to...

You may be confusing cause and effect.

ray

You may be confusing cause and effect.

Not at all.
If the population goes down, there is generally going to be less economic activity ...hence a lower gdp.
A population going up generally means more economic activity ... It doesn't mean that the standard of living is improving in that growing economy (see India) . That's why other measures of growth than the GDP are required...

But a falling GDP, matched to a falling population is not necessarily a bad thing...
In times of stable or falling population there are three fundamental economic forces that would benefit most people.

* Fewer people would compete for jobs. The infrastructure for manufacturing and the service sector for our large population is in place and corporations will not easily abandon these investments. Therefore jobs will continue to be available and their availability will contract more slowly than the population. Thus, it would become easier to find good jobs at every level. As a result, pay scales across the board will rise.

* Fewer people would be vying to purchase products and services - food, health insurance, electronics, and luxury items alike. Therefore, prices would drop and previously unaffordable goods would fall within the budget of a wider range of people. This is again true because of existing investment in plant and capacity.

* The per capita availability of virtually every "natural" or non-renewable resource would rise, from grazing land to minerals and energy sources. This increased abundance would result in a cost drop, in effect a dividend, for consumers and end users.

http://howmany.org/taboo_economic_concerns.php

rayjay

Except I'm not and have never been a Republican.

Did I quote you?
You are however starting to sound more and more like fate.

Yes, no doubt when they yell Allah Akbar before killing others they are proclaiming "wow is the world getting hot and dry".

You are aware of the fundamental problems drought caused in Somalia and in Syria?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... e-like-it/

Ricky:

rayjay

Except I'm not and have never been a Republican.

Did I quote you?

Yes

You are however starting to sound more and more like fate.

We are both small government economic conservatives; but we disagree on a number of issues including gay marriage, abortion, gun control, immigration, and drug legalization. Based on those issues, I cannot fit in with the Republican party. (The tent is not that big.)

Yes, no doubt when they yell Allah Akbar before killing others they are proclaiming "wow is the world getting hot and dry".

You are aware of the fundamental problems drought caused in Somalia and in Syria?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk ... e-like-it/

There's very little that you've said that I'm not aware of. The question is whether it is accurate and relevant to the topic at hand. You are much more noise than signal. I don't know much about Somalia, but Syria is part of the sunni-shia conflict. It's not about carbon.

Getting back on topic, there are many people making it in America in many different ways. They can be software, mutual fund, or pharma people in Massachusetts, or oil barons in Texas, or media or wall street types in NY. The country is filled with successful doctors, and lawyers, and accountants, and engineers, and money managers, and a myriad of other professionals and business people and entrepreneurs who make good money by working hard..

rayjay

Yes

Do me a favor and actually cut and paste where I quoted you...

ray

I don't know much about Somalia, but Syria is part of the sunni-shia conflict. It's not about carbon.

Its about drought. At least it was drought that lead to the migrations that exacerbated the sunni shia conflict. And lead many poor to unrest against the ruling regime...
(see previous link).
Without the drought there may not have been a catalyst for the conflict.

ray

Getting back on topic

Which topic is that?
I can't tell from the non-sequitur that follows...

rickyp wrote:ray

Getting back on topic

Which topic is that?
I can't tell from the non-sequitur that follows...

I it almost as if RJ is unaware of the myriad people who work hard and don't end up making much money...

danivon wrote:

rickyp wrote:ray

Getting back on topic

Which topic is that?
I can't tell from the non-sequitur that follows...

I it almost as if RJ is unaware of the myriad people who work hard and don't end up making much money...

Not at all.

rayjay

There's very little that you've said that I'm not aware of. The question is whether it is accurate and relevant to the topic at hand

You addressed non of them with any supporting evidence... So can I assume that you've decided they are accurate and relevant?

And you've not shown where you claim I misquoted you. So can I assume you misread or misinterpreted?

This response .....
rayjay

Getting back on topic, there are many people making it in America in many different ways. They can be software, mutual fund, or pharma people in Massachusetts, or oil barons in Texas ....etc

is not on topic in any way. Its a dodge and a retreat to a position that falls back on the standard conservative claim that success or failure is about character or lack of it ...
That poor people are poor and rich people are rich because they deserve to be .... That if some people can still succeed in the current system then the system is not at fault so much as the people who are unable to find sufficient reward for their effort to enjoy a life better than their parents... .
Blame the poor for being poor. Blame the middle class for failing to overcome the increasing obstacle in their way. Ignore the ways that the proceeding generations benefited but they no longer have access to. (i.e. The free education and cheap business loans of the GI Bill. The progressive taxation levels that helped fund programs and lower the national debt. The introduction of socialized medicine and pensions that changed the circumstances for their retired and retiring parents and softening the load for the children.)

I think the crash of 08 and the necessary bail out is a clear indication that this is simply untrue. The characters that created the collapse through fraudulent financial dealings did not suffer from the collapse. Most of those chiefly responsible for marketing worthless CDS and other financial instruments are whole again and making money hand over fist again. But millions of Americans found their savings and financial worth evaporated as a consequence.
Tax Payers, ordinary tax payers, bailed out the financial institutions but the working poor and middle class have never really recovered, nor have they been systematically helped by the system in any significant way.
This is not an issue of character.
Its an issue of a gamed system. The fundamental flaw is a democracy that no longer functions to give power to choose one's representatives individuals equally.

rickyp wrote:I think the crash of 08 and the necessary bail out is a clear indication that this is simply untrue. The characters that created the collapse through fraudulent financial dealings did not suffer from the collapse. Most of those chiefly responsible for marketing worthless CDS and other financial instruments are whole again and making money hand over fist again.

Why were the instruments being sold "worthless?" In other words, why did they have no inherent value?

Fate

Why were the instruments being sold "worthless?" In other words, why did they have no inherent value?

Fine, it was an over statement to say they had NO value. The ultimate value would have to be the value earned at auction when a settlement for a default is arranged. That can be anywhere from nothing to 99.99% (Fannie Mae was in the high 90's. Lehman Bros. about 8%. Greek debt was at 50% I think.
At its heart CDS were intended when invented in the early 90"s as a way to offset risk. But they quickly became complicated speculative engines.
The quickly became too large without proper regulation and, because all contracts are privately negotiated, the market has no transparency.
Because they were speculative, they also often quickly created uncertainty about the financial stability of companies, making it difficult to impossible for some of these companies to operate and speeding their demise.
CDS quickly became the epitome of casino capitalism. Not real investment, in real businesses, but only betting. To certain extent they could serve a purpose in risk management ... but used as they were, they quickly became dangerous as they were often not sustained by real value.
The end of Glass Stegall allowed banks to become exposed to CSDs... So, once again, the ability of the market to regulate itself is proven wrong. (well ay least its ability to avoid disaster through self regulation. )

rickyp wrote:Fate

Why were the instruments being sold "worthless?" In other words, why did they have no inherent value?

Fine, it was an over statement to say they had NO value. The ultimate value would have to be the value earned at auction when a settlement for a default is arranged. That can be anywhere from nothing to 99.99% (Fannie Mae was in the high 90's. Lehman Bros. about 8%. Greek debt was at 50% I think.
At its heart CDS were intended when invented in the early 90"s as a way to offset risk. But they quickly became complicated speculative engines.
The quickly became too large without proper regulation and, because all contracts are privately negotiated, the market has no transparency.
Because they were speculative, they also often quickly created uncertainty about the financial stability of companies, making it difficult to impossible for some of these companies to operate and speeding their demise.
CDS quickly became the epitome of casino capitalism. Not real investment, in real businesses, but only betting. To certain extent they could serve a purpose in risk management ... but used as they were, they quickly became dangerous as they were often not sustained by real value.
The end of Glass Stegall allowed banks to become exposed to CSDs... So, once again, the ability of the market to regulate itself is proven wrong. (well ay least its ability to avoid disaster through self regulation. )

You missed my point. Perhaps I wasn't specific enough. What did these instrument purport to represent? What was the alleged commodity being sold that turned out not to have the value it was believed to have?

Hillary is absolutely clueless on how bad the VA is:

Democratic primary front-runner Hillary Clinton says the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) scandal is not as “widespread” a problem as coverage of the incident would indicate…

The former first lady blamed Republicans for using the issue as part of an “ideological agenda” and said they want the VA to “fail.”

“Now nobody would believe that from the coverage you see, and the constant berating of the VA that comes from the Republicans, in – in part in pursuit of this ideological agenda that they have,” Clinton said.

“They try to create a downward spiral, don’t fund it to the extent that it needs to be funded, because they want it to fail, so then we can argue for privatization.”

Senate Democrats blocked a bill to fund the VA earlier this month in order to negotiate a larger budget deal.

Clinton said veterans often report having a positive experience with the VA when they get treatment through the agency.

As the blogger points out:

How will veterans, their families and all of the people who support them react to this? Does Hillary ever watch the news? I wonder if she was aware that the government already admitted that there were nearly 60,000 veterans kept on secret waiting lists for months at a time so that the agency’s clearance rates could look better on paper.

I wonder how many veterans she knows? One thing is certain: she has no personal experience in the matter.

I just don't understand where Ricky and Danvion are coming from. I care deeply about the poor, and in particular the working poor. BTW, I've worked on a food assembly line, as a driver for a women's safety service, in a factory fixing ovens (with many cockroaches), as a bookkeeper in a textile factory (on 137th St. in the Bronx), stocking frozen food in a freezer, as an assistant truck driver, as a busboy, as a clerk in a convenient store, etc.

I just know from experience that the majority of the policies that Ricky and Danivon support are not particularly helpful, and often harmful. Why do they have to assume that someone with a different view on economics is evil or evil-intentioned? This is about their issues, not mine.