Which made a few people richer. Are you really that naive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Printable View
Which made a few people richer. Are you really that naive?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
That's not what I asked. :( Middle class people had about half of their "wealth" tied up in real estate, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Middle class spends about 20% on healthcare, 20-30% on housing, and another % in taxes. We're already over 50% of income, never mind other costs like saving for kids' college or retirement. The uber rich will be fine, even if they move down a rung or two in lifestyle; the poor will be subsidized....but who's looking out for the middle?
Yes, the uber rich will be fine. They only thing they have to worry about is a communist revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Socialist. Or maybe an American version of the French Revolution. I wonder how long it'll be before Congress says "let them eat cake" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Uh, not all wealth is a transfer. It does not represent a closed system. Wealth (ie the value of owned assets) can decrease without someone or something else gaining.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
The TEA partiers are talking communism. At least some believe the Obama administration is phasing in a communist state by nationalizing everything. And who's afraid of communism most? Those with most to lose by nationalizing wealth - aka the "rich folks."Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
As an illustration, who's gaining wealth by the deflation of property values all over the country? LOTs of wealth is evaporation - believe me, it stings - but the wealth I've lost isn't going to anyone else as far as I can tell. Some dude's getting a sweet deal on a well maintained and updated home, and I suppose if the local property values recover some sort of sanity that might be a transfer of wealth...Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Uh, that's not historically accurate in the US. One can easily see the logic of the assumption, but it's still counterfactual.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Wealth by itself is not a closed system but wealth does not exist without economies. What the fuck do you think the winners in the recession did with their money? I think they bought up other peoples wealth. That is a shift of wealth. Money does not evaporate.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Yes, because when people lose money, other people must get that money. That's why GDP never goes down. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Evaporation theorist. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Explain that please.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Asset values are never "realized" in gain or loss until someone sells something. Selling implies a gain for someone else who buys. There has to be an actual transaction or else it's just hypothetical representative wealth, ie funny munney and fuzzy math accounting tricks.
That's actually not true. The really wealthy have liquid assets. If they fear an impending revolution, they can just shift their assets to another country. The people who are hurt most by a revolution are the middle class, who have wealth to lose but don't have the ability to move it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
No, it doesn't. :bored: Just because I buy a house that lost value doesn't mean I actually make any money. I can only make money when I sell that house to the next person.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Say you bought a house for $400k. I buy it from you for $200k. You just lost $200k in wealth. I just bought a house that's valued at $200k for $200k. I made nothing. :bored:
If Obama is a communist, he's doing it wrong.
And the middleman was insured by AIG so guess who made up the difference. Oh wait, you were talking about cash transactions. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You gained a house, presumably with a tax deductible mortgage. But yes the concept remains....you won't realize a gain or loss until/unless you sell. "Wealth transfer" IS transactional.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The main point here is that if any loss must be offset by a similar gain, then it would be impossible, by definition, for wealth in a country to ever decrease. :bored:
Haha. I like how you eliminated the reference to GDP. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I like how you've yet to say anything sensible in your 598 posts.
Yep, money just evaporates. Yep. :haha:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Well, the regular folks fear bread lines and totalitarianism, but communism wasn't supposed to be about that. Consider that if communism could actually work, really be an egalitarian paradise that the vast majority of the laborly oppressed would get better lives from, those at the top of the capitalist pyramid would still oppose it to their last breath.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
On a side note, do you feel the improvement in working conditions and compensation in the West had anything to do with fear of popular support for communism? Or was it strictly the labor movement? (recognizing of course the two are ideologically linked...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
Would it be accurate to say the wealth in egregiously over-valued property was never there to begin with?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Business assets like factories, mines, boats and offices? Vast tracts of land? Stocks and bonds that can be frozen? Are you really saying the extreme-wealthy keep their money in cash?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No. Wealth is based on the value given to objects at a given time period.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Would it be accurate to say that taxpayers don't own AIG and Fannie Mae?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
On a side note, who took home the money we paid for them?
So in some part wealth is literally wishful thinking. Faith. Property values kept going up for no good reason other than people believed they would. And those that bought and sold at the right time got to keep that wealth created by the increasing property values. But when people stopped believing, the wealth that was still in the property just . . . went away.... That's fucked up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
It didn't go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
How else can you determine how much something is worth other than by the amount of money people are willing to give to buy it? Nothing really has an inherent value (other than food I suppose).Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
You suppose wrong because food is the most subsidized necessity on the planet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Are you genetically incapable of saying things that are actually relevant?
Its not any less fucked up when you rearrange the words. And the value of food goes up and down too. A loaf of bread is worth more than its weight in diamonds under the right circumstance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Do you understand the meaning of inherent? Or did you just use the word because it sounded good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki