96-99%'rs ... YOU ARE the 99%

cybercoma · November 10, 2011

That is another leftie myth. The top 1% is changing constantly. More than 60% of the people in the top 1% in 1996 had dropped out by 2005.

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf

Cherry picking.

cybercoma · November 10, 2011

Deregulation gave he USA economy the best economic growth possible

Gilded age late 1800s

Society prospered then, why couldn't it now?

No, it was gov't intervention that caused problems. Since gov't decided to intervene more and more, there have been more and more problems.

You have a very loose understanding of the Gilded Age. By its very definition it means superficial.

blueblood · November 10, 2011

You have a very loose understanding of the Gilded Age. By its very definition it means superficial.

What, you would rather have a society full of tenant farmers? The numbers don't lie, society vastly improved with the gilded age and became richer.

jacee · November 10, 2011

http://www.munknee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/the-gap-between-the-top-001-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-big-since-the-roaring-twenties.jpg

This chart shows the income gap that resulted in the Depression of the 1920's, and the similar gap today.

Only the 1% benefit from depression/recession.

The other 99% of us suffer.

It's easy to see why you encourage conditions that cause depression. However, it is irresponsible.

blueblood · November 10, 2011

http://www.munknee.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/the-gap-between-the-top-001-and-everyone-else-hasnt-been-this-big-since-the-roaring-twenties.jpg

This chart shows the income gap that resulted in the Depression of the 1920's, and the similar gap today.

Only the 1% benefit from depression/recession.

The other 99% of us suffer.

It's easy to see why you encourage conditions that cause depression. However, it is irresponsible.

What, saving your money and spending/investing it wisely? That's not conditions for depression, thats conditions for growth. All this government intervention is causing these bubbles and popping of the bubbles.

Whats irresponsible is people who don't know what they are talking about influencing gov't to enact policies that encourage unsustainable consumption funded by debt or gov't spending.

bush_cheney2004 · November 10, 2011

Only the 1% benefit from depression/recession.

The other 99% of us suffer.

Not true at all...many of us in the 99% prosper all the same.

It's easy to see why you encourage conditions that cause depression. However, it is irresponsible.

The conditions are caused by government spending and debt for social programs, defense, and other entitlements. Things that benefit mostly the 99%. See Pogo...

jacee · November 10, 2011

What, saving your money and spending/investing it wisely? That's not conditions for depression, thats conditions for growth. All this government intervention is causing these bubbles and popping of the bubbles.

"Growth" for those who have money to spare to pick up the "buying opportunities" that result from bankruptcies, foreclosures and such during recessions.

IE, growth only for the predatory 1% who invest in order to reap profits from people's misery but not to create jobs.

The real 'job creaters' are the small businesses of the 99% who earn money actually making or producing something of value, and employ people in the process. The fortunes of the real 1%'rs, however, are made on the misfortunes of others, and in influencing law and regulation and policy to their advantage, at the expense of the rest of us.

Whats irresponsible is people who don't know what they are talking about influencing gov't to enact policies that encourage unsustainable consumption funded by debt or gov't spending.

And who benefits from perpetuating that cycle?

The 1%.There's a demographic reality that economists and business are once again ignoring, as they wait (and wait) for consumers to start buying again and small businesses to start investing again ...

The population bulge that has fuelled economic growth since the 1950's has passed their major buying years and are now approaching 50 and hunkering down and saving for retirement - not spending and investing safely, minimizing their risks.

All of this points to a need for better projection models based on future demographics (not the past, a fact that seems to escape our 'tunnel-vision economists), better redistribution of wealth to sustain all of us, not just the predatory wealthy, and better control of public policy by the people, not the self-interested 1%.

Look at the chart - the income gap that brought us the depression is back.

Can that really be a good thing for "society" as a whole?

And btw, where are your "stats" that 'prove' that the freer the market (to predatory practices), the better off "society" is ?

Have you forgotten to post it?

You should be able to demonstrate that from the above chart ...

Waiting ... waiting ...

November 10, 2011

The whole idea that 99% of our population has something to gripe about is ridiculous. The idea that the 99% share a common bond against the 1% is ridiculous. I would wager that range in income between the top of the 99% and the bottom of the 99% is a whole hellava lot wider than the range in income between the top of the 99% and the bottom of the 1%.

Yet it's the 1% that the rest of the population should be up in arms against. Those earning less than $1,530,773 in 2011 all suffer.

The idea that "the 99%" should stand in solidarity against "the 1%" is ludicrous. The idea that someone earning $1,000,000 in 2011 should protest along side someone who earned $6,000 because after all they're both part of the 99% is ludicrous.

The whole idea of the 99% vs. the 1% is ludicrous and makes me wonder if the protesters even know what they're talking about/protesting half the time.

blueblood · November 10, 2011

"Growth" for those who have money to spare to pick up the "buying opportunities" that result from bankruptcies, foreclosures and such during recessions.

IE, growth only for the predatory 1% who invest in order to reap profits from people's misery but not to create jobs.

The real 'job creaters' are the small businesses of the 99% who earn money actually making or producing something of value, and employ people in the process. The fortunes of the real 1%'rs, however, are made on the misfortunes of others, and in influencing law and regulation and policy to their advantage, at the expense of the rest of us.

And who benefits from perpetuating that cycle?

The 1%.There's a demographic reality that economists and business are once again ignoring, as they wait (and wait) for consumers to start buying again and small businesses to start investing again ...

The population bulge that has fuelled economic growth since the 1950's has passed their major buying years and are now approaching 50 and hunkering down and saving for retirement - not spending and investing safely, minimizing their risks.

All of this points to a need for better projection models based on future demographics (not the past, a fact that seems to escape our 'tunnel-vision economists), better redistribution of wealth to sustain all of us, not just the predatory wealthy, and better control of public policy by the people, not the self-interested 1%.

Look at the chart - the income gap that brought us the depression is back.

Can that really be a good thing for "society" as a whole?

And btw, where are your "stats" that 'prove' that the freer the market (to predatory practices), the better off "society" is ?

Have you forgotten to post it?

You should be able to demonstrate that from the above chart ...

Waiting ... waiting ...

Dd you not read the article about the gilded age? That created wealth for all of society and we became richer. The 1% are using their wealth to invest at times when others can't and that's a bad thing? Investing in companies and getting a return on it isn't creating value?

The income gap is wide because of the 1% being smart with their money. That's it, no conspiracies or screw jobs, or whatever fantasy you have.

If a population bulge fuels economic growth, then the USA should make birth control prohibitively expensive so that we get another population boom right? Unfortunately it doesn't work that way and one only needs to look at Africa for that.

jacee · November 10, 2011

Ya the 1%'rs throw the 90-99%'rs a few crumbs to make them feel 'special' and keep their noses firmly up their butt, but they're still hugging zero growth in real wealth with the rest of us!!

They just more duped than the rest of us.

The conditions are caused by government spending and debt for social programs, defense, and other entitlements. Things that benefit mostly the 99%. See Pogo...

Public debt ... that becomes necessary due to predictable market downturns that business refuses to prepare for, instead whinging and whining at jet engine decibels and demanding tax breaks (causing public debt) laying off workers (causing public debt), foreclosing (causing public debt) etc. (Causing public debt) and then, of course, making out like bandits by earning the interest from public debt:

For the 1%, it isn't 'production' during the good times that earns them fortunes: They just pretend to be sympathetic to the real small-medium businesses who DO job creation to pressure governments for corporate welfare that benefits them the most. It's recessions and depressions that fuel their gargantuan profits.

I think perhaps this is the first time in Canadian history at least, that ordinary Canadians are seeing the pattern of predatory wealth accumulation that benefits ONLY the 1% and victimizes the rest of us.

Now we just have to turn the tables of the moneysuckers.

Edited November 10, 2011 by jacee

bush_cheney2004 · November 10, 2011

"Growth" for those who have money to spare to pick up the "buying opportunities" that result from bankruptcies, foreclosures and such during recessions....

I am not the 1%, yet I have "money to spare" to buy such things as well. Foreclosures and defaults are still a minority of mortgage holders, and those that do fail can trace the causes to very well known reasons. The failures of the few should not drive policy for everyone else.

Edited November 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

jacee · November 10, 2011

Deregulation gave he USA economy the best economic growth possible

Gilded age late 1800s

Society prospered then, why couldn't it now?

No, it was gov't intervention that caused problems. Since gov't decided to intervene more and more, there have been more and more problems.

"Society" DID NOT "PROSPER" as a whole: The Robber Barons prospered while workers died by the thousands and we're disabled by the millions in the unsafe conditions and paltry wages they mostly owed to 'the company store'.

The 'gilded age' gave rise to the labour movement because of the slavery/indentured worker conditions that gave great profits to the 1% with no taxation/payment back to the people for the resources being depleted and workers being disabled.

From your link:

The term "Gilded Age" was coined by Mark Twain and Age: A Tale of Today. The name refers to the process of gilding an object with a superficial layer of gold and is meant to make fun of ostentatious display while playing on the term " golden age."

It was no 'golden age', just predatory victimization of workers for the benefit of the 1%.

And the "deregulation" since the 1980's brings us to the "gilded age" of false 'prosperity' we have today ... because it was and is ONLY 'prosperity' for the 1%.

Edited November 10, 2011 by jacee

blueblood · November 10, 2011

"Society" DID NOT "PROSPER" as a whole: The Robber Barons prospered while workers died by the thousands and we're disabled by the millions in the unsafe conditions and paltry wages they mostly owed to 'the company store'.

The 'gilded age' gave rise to the labour movement because of the slavery/indentured worker conditions that gave great profits to the 1% with no taxation/payment back to the people for the resources being depleted and workers being disabled.

From your link:

The term "Gilded Age" was coined by Mark Twain and Age: A Tale of Today. The name refers to the process of gilding an object with a superficial layer of gold and is meant to make fun of ostentatious display while playing on the term " golden age."

It was no 'golden age', just predatory victimization of workers for the benefit of the 1%.

And the "deregulation" since the 1980's brings us to the "gilded age" of false 'prosperity' we have today ... because it was and is ONLY 'prosperity' for the 1%.

And where would those 99% ers be had it not been for those developing industries? They'd be poorer than ever. Would you rather the robber barons sit on their wealth and take it to their grave or invest in industries and pay people to work for them? It's a two way street.

It was a golden age, the country became wealthier, and many things were invented because of all that capital. so society didn't benefit from electricity, the telephone, the automobile, factories that made things, sanitation, plumbing, and funding for science?

I don't think you understand how an economy works.

November 10, 2011

I am not the 1%, yet I have "money to spare" to buy such things as well. Foreclosures and defaults are still a minority of mortgage holders, and those that do fail can trace the causes to very well known reasons. The failures of the few should not drive policy for everyone else.

I'm not the 1% either, not by a long shot, and I don't have "money to spare" to buy such things, not by a long shot - so does that make me a victim? Deprived? Less fortunate? Living a less that fulfilling life?

This is what I don't get. I'm far from monetarily rich, yet I have so much. I don't know of any other country that would have afforded me the opportunities that my country has.

I realize that our (western) countries aren't perfect and that there are legitimate complaints/room for improvement. But this movement seems to focus solely on the negative - 99% = good while 1% = evil and the 99% are living less than ideal lives because of the 1%.

There are plenty of people within the 99% who have stepped on others' toes, who have taken from others, who have no concern for anyone other than themselves. I cited the example of those who commit welfare fraud and/or take advantage of the system. The 1% does't hold a monopoly on unethical actions by any means nor are they automatically guilty of it by the sole fact that they are rich.

The general feeling of the OWS movement comes across to me as totally negative, complaining, whining, and unappreciative of what we do have along with the opportunities that we have available to us. It's never going to be "equal." People's drives and ambitions and priorities aren't "equal."

Again, there are legitimate complaints, room for changes/improvement, but the feeling of general 'victimization/complaining/negativity' that I get from this movement isn't productive, IMO.

bush_cheney2004 · November 10, 2011

...There are plenty of people within the 99% who have stepped on others' toes, who have taken from others, who have no concern for anyone other than themselves.

No doubt there are far more people who have done so who are part of the 99%. We could start in the prison system! More importantly as you point out, our self worth is not tied up in competing with the 1%. There is not one night that I go to bed wishing or praying to be "part of the 1%". Like you said, we are already very very rich.

Michael Hardner · November 10, 2011

The general feeling of the OWS movement comes across to me as totally negative, complaining, whining, and unappreciative of what we do have along with the opportunities that we have available to us. It's never going to be "equal." People's drives and ambitions and priorities aren't "equal."

Again, there are legitimate complaints, room for changes/improvement, but the feeling of general 'victimization/complaining/negativity' that I get from this movement isn't productive, IMO.

I generally agree with you. I'm frustrated with Occupy because their demands are such that there's no room for dialogue. There isn't anything specific being demanded, they are just unhappy. This goes with the Tea Partiers too, IMO.

So, what do we do with this ? It looks like we'll have a permanent set of protest movements occupying the fringe at both ends... Do we listen to them ? Will they even be partially satisfied if things change ?

Shady · November 10, 2011

Not true at all...many of us in the 99% prosper all the same.

Exactly, and some in the 1% suffer. Jacee needs to talk to Jon Corzine, or perhaps the chaps that used to work at Lehman Brothers.

jacee · November 10, 2011

And where would those 99% ers be had it not been for those developing industries? They'd be poorer than ever. Would you rather the robber barons sit on their wealth and take it to their grave or invest in industries and pay people to work for them? It's a two way street.

It was a golden age, the country became wealthier, and many things were invented because of all that capital. so society didn't benefit from electricity, the telephone, the automobile, factories that made things, sanitation, plumbing, and funding for science?

I don't think you understand how an economy works.

I don't think you understand how an economy should work for the benefit of all.

Gilded Age - Key Points

Rapid economic growth generated vast wealth during the Gilded Age wealth during the Gilded Age

New products and technologies improved middle-class quality of life

Industrial workers and farmers did not share in the new prosperity, working share in the new prosperity, working long hours in dangerous conditions for low pay low pay

Gilded Age politicians were largely corrupt and ineffective corrupt and ineffective

Most Americans during the Gilded Age wanted political and social reforms, but they disagreed strongly on what kind of reform.

During those years, America's economy did grow at an extraordinary rate, generating unprecedented levels of wealth. Railroads, and soon telephone lines, stretched across the country, creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs and cheaper goods for consumers. But a nation that had long viewed itself in idyllic terms, as a nation of small farmers and craftsmen, confronted the emergence of a society increasingly divided between the haves and the have-nots—a society in which many poor workers struggled just to survive while an emerging industrial and financial aristocracy lived in palatial homes and indulged in opulent amusements. Some Americans celebrated the new wealth, others lamented it; all could agree that profound changes were taking place in the country.

http://www.shmoop.com/gilded-age/summary.html

dre · November 10, 2011

I generally agree with you. I'm frustrated with Occupy because their demands are such that there's no room for dialogue. There isn't anything specific being demanded, they are just unhappy. This goes with the Tea Partiers too, IMO.

So, what do we do with this ? It looks like we'll have a permanent set of protest movements occupying the fringe at both ends... Do we listen to them ? Will they even be partially satisfied if things change ?

Right now they are small enough to ignore. That could change though, because so many people share some of their concerns.

And you are reading way to much into their list of demands, and the idea of negotiating with them. It the mob gets large and angry the government will have to do some things to address that. Theres a lot of different options out there to stop the system from concentrating wealth, and the government and our biggest brains in this area might have to take some action. But its not going to be based on a list that some people camping in the park wrote. It would attempt to address their concerns in a different way.

This isnt rocket science. We know why this stuff is happening. The proportion of wealth held by the top 1% actually consistantly shrank between the end of WW2 and the 70's. It reversed course when we adopted a new financial system.

Have a look at this graph... Notice the trend is flat or receding between WW2 and the 70's?

http://www.infiniteunknown.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/us-wealth-concentration-disparity.png

Look at the obvious correlation on a graph of debt.

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

We hit a cliff on both of those metrics at almost the same time. And if you plot the money supply on a similar graph it will look about the same.

What was the fundamental change that caused all those things? Its simple... the gold window closed, and almost immediately debt, wealth concentration, and the size of the money supply began to exponentially increase.

And it makes perfect sense if you think about it, because the wealthiest 1% were allowed to collect interest on all that debt and the rapid expansion of the money supply robbed workers of purchasing power.

If the size of the monetary base was based on the real goods and services in the productive economy, none of this every could have happened. The dollars to create this inequity simply would not exist, and the money that your average wage earner takes home would have 3 times as much purchasing power as it does right now.

eyeball · November 10, 2011

I generally agree with you. I'm frustrated with Occupy because their demands are such that there's no room for dialogue. There isn't anything specific being demanded,

What part of close the gap don't you get Micheal?

It's easy to understand why so many sycophants around here claim they don't get the message but why make it even easier for them?

eyeball · November 10, 2011

This isnt rocket science.

What dre said.

Michael Hardner · November 10, 2011

What was the fundamental change that caused all those things? Its simple... the gold window closed, and almost immediately debt, wealth concentration, and the size of the money supply began to exponentially increase.

And it makes perfect sense if you think about it, because the wealthiest 1% were allowed to collect interest on all that debt and the rapid expansion of the money supply robbed workers of purchasing power.

If the size of the monetary base was based on the real goods and services in the productive economy, none of this every could have happened. The dollars to create this inequity simply would not exist, and the money that your average wage earner takes home would have 3 times as much purchasing power as it does right now.

Have you ever heard of the controversy in America that happened around the Silver Standard ? It's a remarkably similar situation. The Silver standard had nothing to do with the drop of wealth, though, and I don't know that the 1% are making their money by increased debt.

Michael Hardner · November 10, 2011

What part of close the gap don't you get Micheal?

It's easy to understand why so many sycophants around here claim they don't get the message but why make it even easier for them?

I get that they want to close the gap, but it's not as simple as that. Like I said, they'll be a permanent fixture of outrage on the political facade or they'll stop protesting. Either way, they have largely completed their project of making folks aware that some people aren't happy.

Moonlight Graham · November 10, 2011

Deregulation gave he USA economy the best economic growth possible

Gilded age late 1800s

Society prospered then, why couldn't it now?

No, it was gov't intervention that caused problems. Since gov't decided to intervene more and more, there have been more and more problems.

Me thinks the economic boom in that era had a heck of a lot more to do that just low gov regulation. A little thing called the 2nd Industrial Revolution. If you want to go as laissez-faire as it was back then and you're expecting some massive boom because of it you'll be disappointed. We'll need something as revolutionary to production in a short period of time like combustion engines, cheap steel, electricity, and the telephone.

This era was economically prosperous, but that doesn't equal everything to do with society prosperity. No gov regulation, then major retraction in things like minimum wage, workers comp, safety standards, environmental standards, labour rights, EI etc. How were those things in the 1870's?

I'm not a communist. I'm saying there's been income growth in the past 30 years and virtually all of it has gone to the 1%. Who has been benefiting from the deregulation that began with Reagan/Thatcher? "Trickle-down economics" sold to us in this era has statistically turned out to be a pile of rubbish.

bush_cheney2004 · November 10, 2011

...I'm not a communist. I'm saying there's been income growth in the past 30 years and virtually all of it has gone to the 1%. Who has been benefiting from the deregulation that began with Reagan/Thatcher? "Trickle-down economics" sold to us in this era has statistically turned out to be a pile of rubbish.

You also implied that economic growth was better with regulation, comparing Canada's banking system to the American wild wild west. The numbers say that isn't so.