If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Reuters)   Obvious: The rich keep getting richer. Spiffy: There's more of them   (reuters.com) divider line 60
    More: Cool, record numbers  
•       •       •

1408 clicks; posted to Business » on 04 Mar 2013 at 1:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-04 11:31:35 AM
Yes, that's what happens when the middle class erodes away. Some of them become rich, some of them become poor.
 
2013-03-04 11:45:28 AM

Lando Lincoln: Yes, that's what happens when the middle class erodes away. Some 2-3 of them become rich, millions some of them become poor.


Just to be clear.
 
2013-03-04 12:06:45 PM
This is good?
 
2013-03-04 12:34:51 PM
i.huffpost.com

Extra large Earth bound meteor has no money.

He wants to be rich too.
 
2013-03-04 12:47:15 PM
Spiffy?
You one of them Subby?

Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.
 
2013-03-04 01:19:14 PM

Bonkthat_Again: Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor


This is not always true, but true in an inflation-pumped economy like we've had for the past 15 years.
 
2013-03-04 01:20:48 PM
More of 'em to eat, I guess.
 
2013-03-04 01:26:20 PM
Isn't this a natural by-product of inflation?
 
2013-03-04 01:33:18 PM
You know if we cut taxes, there would be even more of them.

Thanks Obama.
 
2013-03-04 01:42:21 PM
If the size of Mrs. Astor's ballroom were still the dividing line between the top drawer of society and the rest, Mrs. Astor's butler would have to boot 42 billionaires down the up staircase. That means that being a billionaire is no longer enough to be one of the 400. You have to be old money or have some other class symbols to qualify as elite besides wealth  and income. The American aristocracy has arrived. No wonder poor Mrs. Romney is obsessed with dressage horse competitions. She'd be nobody without them.

Meanwhile, in New Delhi, billionaires are paying $100 million for bungalows that are controlled by the Government and wouldn't be worth $1 million if they were in any other city in the world. True, some of them have six acres of valuable land attached, and quarters for 17 staff (or a couple of horses), but even so.

It's a funny, sad old world.

Personally I'd like to put Dame Thatcher of Dullwich into a cannon and fire her into a Russian kleptocrat's $1 billion yacht.

The last thirty years have been as vulgar, stupid, ugly, mean, and criminal as the Age of Robber Barons, not to mention the Great Recession and several bubbles between the Inauguration of Reagan and the Fall of Western Civilization at the hands of the GOP and their Best Republican President ever, Bill Clinton.

No wonder a solid majority of Republicans and Democrats believe in the kind of reform that Obama has modestly implemented in the form of a few percent on the marginal tax rates for the near rich.

More power to him. 50% off the top of the kleptocracy would suit most of humanity just fine.
 
2013-03-04 01:46:29 PM
210 people graduated from multi-millionaire to billionaire?  That is a lot more like "rich getting richer" than it is "more rich people".
 
2013-03-04 01:58:58 PM
Wait, I thought Obama's radical overhaul of our economy destroyed capitalism.
 
2013-03-04 02:25:28 PM

Frankentots: You know if we cut taxes, there would be even more of them.

Thanks Obama.


Yeah! If we cut taxes, then I would be one of them!

/not intended to be a factual statement
 
2013-03-04 02:48:52 PM
The poor don't get poorer, the rich just get richer.  At a specific point, you cannot get any poorer.
 
2013-03-04 03:27:26 PM
Most of the billionaires are self-made, 961, while 184 inherited their wealth and 281 inherited part of it and are increasing it.

If I recall, Forbes standard for "self-made" is simply the subjective opinion of the person in question.

Double-checked Forbes. Their Methodology page makes no reference to their "self-made" criteria. (judged by a ctrl-f search for "self", which failed)
 
Xai
2013-03-04 03:31:04 PM
given that median incomes have slipped in the last decade, it basically means that the rich are getting richer at the expense of thousands more poor people.

For someone to get a $billion, when the GDP remains relatively static, just under a million people must lose $1k (accounting for inflation)
 
2013-03-04 03:38:33 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: The poor don't get poorer, the rich just get richer.  At a specific point, you cannot get any poorer.


They can always take away your refrigerator.
 
2013-03-04 03:39:32 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: The poor don't get poorer, the rich just get richer.  At a specific point, you cannot get any poorer.


I suggest you check out this radical financial concept first.
 
2013-03-04 03:42:23 PM

brantgoose: If the size of Mrs. Astor's ballroom were still the dividing line between the top drawer of society and the rest, Mrs. Astor's butler would have to boot 42 billionaires down the up staircase. That means that being a billionaire is no longer enough to be one of the 400. You have to be old money or have some other class symbols to qualify as elite besides wealth  and income. The American aristocracy has arrived. No wonder poor Mrs. Romney is obsessed with dressage horse competitions. She'd be nobody without them.

Meanwhile, in New Delhi, billionaires are paying $100 million for bungalows that are controlled by the Government and wouldn't be worth $1 million if they were in any other city in the world. True, some of them have six acres of valuable land attached, and quarters for 17 staff (or a couple of horses), but even so.

It's a funny, sad old world.

Personally I'd like to put Dame Thatcher of Dullwich into a cannon and fire her into a Russian kleptocrat's $1 billion yacht.

The last thirty years have been as vulgar, stupid, ugly, mean, and criminal as the Age of Robber Barons, not to mention the Great Recession and several bubbles between the Inauguration of Reagan and the Fall of Western Civilization at the hands of the GOP and their Best Republican President ever, Bill Clinton.

No wonder a solid majority of Republicans and Democrats believe in the kind of reform that Obama has modestly implemented in the form of a few percent on the marginal tax rates for the near rich.

More power to him. 50% off the top of the kleptocracy would suit most of humanity just fine.


You took the words right out of my mouth.
 
2013-03-04 04:19:44 PM
upward mobility is a lie


/amidoingitrite?
 
2013-03-04 04:23:20 PM

moos: upward mobility is a lie


/amidoingitrite?


Well, yes, if you believe those pinko commies at the Chicago Fed.
 
2013-03-04 04:38:08 PM
And Leon's getting laaaaaarger...
 
2013-03-04 04:53:40 PM
Everybody I know voted for McGovern.
 
2013-03-04 04:58:12 PM
The term self made isn't very accurate.  Whenever someone says they got that wealthy through hard work, ask them whose hard work?
 
2013-03-04 05:20:59 PM

FarkedOver:  ask them whose hard work?


The Winklevoss twins, from what I've heard.
 
2013-03-04 05:46:05 PM
uhh...

Inflation?
Devaluation?

Try comparing it to the global value average and adjust your threshold.
 
2013-03-04 06:18:27 PM
Soon we'll ALL be RICH!
 
2013-03-04 06:56:43 PM
There's poor, piss poor and too poor to pay attention.
 
2013-03-04 07:00:51 PM

dryknife: There's poor, piss poor and too poor to pay attention.


Huh? What?
 
2013-03-04 07:47:54 PM
Just means we'll need to build more guillotines when the Great Backlash happens.
 
2013-03-04 07:50:22 PM
 
2013-03-04 08:38:06 PM

FarkedOver: The term self made isn't very accurate.  Whenever someone says they got that wealthy through hard work, ask them whose hard work?


Unless you have a time machine and you could go back in time and impregnate your mother.

Yhen you would be self made. Kind of.
 
2013-03-04 09:09:28 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Big_Fat_Liar: The poor don't get poorer, the rich just get richer.  At a specific point, you cannot get any poorer.

I suggest you check out this radical financial concept first.


From the article, where the "speculate" how people saved more money:
But he expects they cut spending and they sold riskier assets and put that money into savings accounts.

Which is almost silly now adays, considering getting the 0.5% in most saving accounts isn't that much better than sticking the money under your mattress.
 
2013-03-04 09:33:19 PM

FarkedOver: The term self made isn't very accurate.  Whenever someone says they got that wealthy through hard work, ask them whose hard work?


1) Did any friends or family help pay for college or help persuade college to accept you?
2) Did any friends or family play any role in getting any job you have ever had?

Those two are enough to call most "self made" claims a bunch of BS.
 
2013-03-04 10:55:19 PM

Bonkthat_Again: Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.


Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
 
2013-03-04 11:00:21 PM
 Ric Romero reports that when enough of a society's wealth ends up in few enough hands, that society's economy ceases to function. Tune it at eleven for video from the Wellduh Institute.
 
2013-03-04 11:02:37 PM

Koalacaust: Bonkthat_Again: Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.


True - but irrelevant to this discussion, or our nation's current situation, or to the truth stated in the post responded to.
 
2013-03-04 11:10:51 PM

jso2897: Koalacaust: Bonkthat_Again: Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

True - but irrelevant to this discussion, or our nation's current situation, or to the truth stated in the post responded to.


How is it irrelevant? The implication of the post that I was responding to was that every new billionaire is created at the expense of the welfare of thousands in the middle class. This is wrong.
 
2013-03-04 11:32:14 PM

Frankentots: You know if we cut taxes, there would be even more of them.

Thanks Obama.


We could double the size of the government and starting printing money like crazy.  That should work.
 
2013-03-05 04:17:10 AM

cchris_39: Frankentots: You know if we cut taxes, there would be even more of them.

Thanks Obama.

We could double the size of the government and starting printing money like crazy.  That should work.


Reagan tripled the size of government and raised taxes 11 times to help fund the growth.

Is that what you mean by "work"?
 
2013-03-05 04:50:47 AM

cchris_39: Frankentots: You know if we cut taxes, there would be even more of them.

Thanks Obama.

We could double the size of the government and starting printing money like crazy.  That should work.


Yes, because that's the only alternative.
 
2013-03-05 05:34:25 AM

Koalacaust: jso2897: Koalacaust: Bonkthat_Again: Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

True - but irrelevant to this discussion, or our nation's current situation, or to the truth stated in the post responded to.

How is it irrelevant? The implication of the post that I was responding to was that every new billionaire is created at the expense of the welfare of thousands in the middle class. This is wrong.


I would think that is more of an inference than an implication. There are a lot of reasons that the rich get richer, and the poor poorer in badly run economies - none of them being that there is only a fixed amount of wealth in the world that can only be divided among us. That's what the phrase "zero-sum game" means - and nobody actually believes that - it's a strawman argument.
 
2013-03-05 05:37:48 AM
I honestly don't understand why people need so much money. It is absolutely pornographic. I am nearly 50 y/o. I have had what one would think of as a normal career trajectory. (or what counted as normal). At a certain point, more money does not buy you anything except power.
 
2013-03-05 06:11:06 AM

Harry_Seldon: I honestly don't understand why people need so much money. It is absolutely pornographic. I am nearly 50 y/o. I have had what one would think of as a normal career trajectory. (or what counted as normal). At a certain point, more money does not buy you anything except power.


You just answered your own question, Champ.
 
2013-03-05 08:08:46 AM

Bonkthat_Again: Spiffy?
You one of them Subby?

Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.


Because economics, as everyone knows, is a zero-sum game.
 
2013-03-05 08:19:34 AM

Harry_Seldon: I honestly don't understand why people need so much money. It is absolutely pornographic. I am nearly 50 y/o. I have had what one would think of as a normal career trajectory. (or what counted as normal). At a certain point, more money does not buy you anything except power.


So, business owners should shut down their businesses for the rest of the year after making whatever you consider to be enough? Yeah, that'll help the working man.
 
2013-03-05 08:56:32 AM

jso2897: Koalacaust: jso2897: Koalacaust: Bonkthat_Again: Think about it. For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor.

Wealth is not a zero-sum game.

True - but irrelevant to this discussion, or our nation's current situation, or to the truth stated in the post responded to.

How is it irrelevant? The implication of the post that I was responding to was that every new billionaire is created at the expense of the welfare of thousands in the middle class. This is wrong.

I would think that is more of an inference than an implication. There are a lot of reasons that the rich get richer, and the poor poorer in badly run economies - none of them being that there is only a fixed amount of wealth in the world that can only be divided among us. That's what the phrase "zero-sum game" means - and nobody actually believes that - it's a strawman argument.


Really? How else am I supposed to interpret the statement: "For every new billionaire, thousands of people are bumped (probably) from middle class to poor"?He's clearly implying (or  inferring, if it pleases you) the the billionaire's newly acquired wealth is coming straight from the pockets of the middle class. That is, no new wealth is being created, only taken from the masses and given to the rich. Or how about these gems:

dletter: 2-3 of them become rich, millions of them become poor.


Xai: the rich are getting richer at the expense of thousands more poor people


Clearly there are people here who believe in the zero-sum picture. In their minds, you can't make someone rich without making a thousand people poor.
 
2013-03-05 09:23:42 AM
And none of them have Fark log-ins, and no, Fark-cons, they're still not going to f*ck you.
 
2013-03-05 10:54:18 AM

DrPainMD: So, business owners should shut down their businesses for the rest of the year after making whatever you consider to be enough? Yeah, that'll help the working man.


Pay the employees that helped make the success possible. Yes, that will help the working man.
 
2013-03-05 10:59:00 AM

Koalacaust: Clearly there are people here who believe in the zero-sum picture. In their minds, you can't make someone rich without making a thousand people poor.


It is possible to have it both ways. Wealth is not zero-sum, but a few wealthy are hoarding an ever larger share of the (growing) pie, driving more people into poverty even as the money supply increases.
In 2011, the top 5% of incomes saw a 5.3% increase in that income. The rest? Zero or negative growth.
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report