Forbes 400

A quick economic lesson in a small nut shell:
The amount of money in circulation is not directly related to the amount of dollars that are printed! Strange statement? Not when you look at the way the amount of money is really created. It has to do with how much money a bank can loan out vs. how much money they have to have in reserve to loan that money out that is never printed. For example, if they can loan out $10 and have to have $9 in reserve. The Fed has allowed them to create $1 in the supply of money available; or 10%. (It is a little more complicated than that, but essentially that is how it works.) Likewise if their are restrictions on the way money is loaned then the money supply is restrained. Monetary policy controls the money supply, and interest rates. Most monetary transactions are not done in paper dollars; that is our walking around money we carry and use day to day. Large transactions are not done in dollar bills; these transactions are in checks, wire transfers, and other easily traced methods.

There are a couple of books available about the regulations of the Federal Reserve that are eye openers. It took me three boring months to read them.

Oh well, another degree; and not any smarter just more reading finished.

JR Originally Posted by JRLawrence

You're preaching to the choir. I'm quite aware of the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, etc. I even have an autographed copy of Ron Paul's "End the Fed." I use the term "print" loosely, and to encompass any expansion of circulating "dollars." Of course, as you had stated with loans, inflation is ever increasing by default.

Most people are blind to how we are being fleeced by the government and banks.

You're preaching to the choir. I'm quite aware of the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, etc. I even have an autographed copy of Ron Paul's "End the Fed." I use the term "print" loosely, and to encompass any expansion of circulating "dollars." Of course, as you had stated with loans, inflation is ever increasing by default.

Most people are blind to how we are being fleeced by the government and banks. Originally Posted by Philhelm

Correct! Just expanded a bit. Most people are not aware that money can be created just by getting a loan. i.e, the bank can lend money that it does not have. When the entire amount is paid back, a supply of new money is created.

As for Ron Paul, he has some sound ideas, with not a lot of depth of study in economics. His training was medical, was it not? The answer lies in the middle of the road, not to either the left or the right side. Anyway, I got away from this stuff 37 years ago. It has helped with my own investments, but to deal with this politics of this stuff day in and day out can drive a sane person crazy.

JR

Correct! Just expanded a bit. Most people are not aware that money can be created just by getting a loan. i.e, the bank can lend money that it does not have. When the entire amount is paid back, a supply of new money is created.

As for Ron Paul, he has some sound ideas, with not a lot of depth of study in economics. His training was medical, was it not? The answer lies in the middle of the road, not to either the left or the right side. Anyway, I got away from this stuff 37 years ago. It has helped with my own investments, but to deal with this politics of this stuff day in and day out can drive a sane person crazy.

JR Originally Posted by JRLawrence

Correct, Ron Paul was not an economist by trade. However, he has long been on the economic committee, and is an enemy of the Federal Reserve, fractional reserve banking, and Keynesian economics.

Of course, he is also for a true free market, as he believes that one cannot truly have individual liberty without economic liberty.

My comment was about some (not all) of the upper millionth using their wealth to unfairly influence politics

In a nation of 300 million, the upper millionth percentile would be 3 people. Lets look at them: Originally Posted by lacrew_2000

The upper millionth of 300 million would be 300. Is that why you added the word percentile...to change the results?

Are you bad at reading or bad at the maths?

And don't give me any union crap. Unions place a ceiling on what people can earn, you can't get farther, even if you merit a higher wage. Unions, who once had their place, are now huge barriers to individual prosperity. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You seem to be arguing against yourself in this post. You claim that unions "place a ceiling on what people can earn"...which means they keep labor costs low for their employers. You'd like to see them get paid a "higher wage"...which means increased labor cost for their employers. Does that make any fucking sense? If that's the way it worked, businesses would be begging for more union employees.

American unions are more important now than ever. And after all, unions are just small businesses that sell a service. Better still, they have constitutions and democratically elect representatives. Why do you hate small business? Why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate elected representatives? Why do you hate these Americans? Why do you take sides with dictatorial big businesses?

"Are you bad at reading or bad at the maths? "

Some people just don't know what they don't know...it used to bug me, but now it just makes me smile.

Since we are lucky enough to have a number of Nobel Laureates in Economics on ECCIE, do you believe the disparity in wealth illustrated in the orginal post is healthy for our country? If the trend of that disparity continues, is it sustainable in a democracy?

How could that trend continue? I mean, people don't live forever...and we don't let them just pass those billions of dollars to their children without being taxed. Those children didn't earn it. They were just born into it. We'd end up with a nation of royal twits and multitudes of poor subjects instead of a democracy. Oh wait...we do.

Look at all those Walton kids.

Since we are lucky enough to have a number of Nobel Laureates in Economics on ECCIE, do you believe the disparity in wealth illustrated in the orginal post is healthy for our country? If the trend of that disparity continues, is it sustainable in a democracy? Originally Posted by sipapi

MY OPINIONS:
Everyone wants to do well for themselves. If it is not allowed, it is not a democracy. Is it sustainable in a democracy? Of course, why not. It is a democracy.

Disparity of wealth is a good thing: at the last supper even Jesus made the observation that "the poor will always be with us." So he allowed Mary M to spend a fortune to wash his feet with a precious oil.

HOWEVER:
This last fiasco was planned by a slick group of crooks: 1)Couple high home appraisals with promotional low interest loans on houses with a variable interest rate that will raise with the market 2) Sell those loans to local banks 3) Recent regulation changes caused banks to package those high risk loans and sell them as a group 4) Watch the interest rates go up 5) Bet that the market value of the low value loans will go down. 6) as the value of homes go down foreclose 7) make money on the sale, and the foreclosure as well.

This type of stuff was not allowed until recently. It is not the disparity of wealth, it is the lack of financial regulations that is the cause of the present problems. A democracy does not have to allow anything and everything. Even as Adam Smith strongly opposed any governmental intervention into business affairs his thoughts about "Laissez-Faire Policies" did not reject the need for regulation of the capitalists class. He made the observation that when a group of capitalist would gather together, the talk would turn to collusion against the public. Thus, he strongly favored anti-monopoly laws. He viewed that competition encouraged economic growth, and thus government should not limit competition. (In a nutshell, but you can look him up on the web today for a quick study on your own.)

In a democracy, as well as other forms of government, there is a need to regulate certain segments of society for the good of all:
Quality medical care, Doctors need to be Licensed & Regulated
Quality Banking; Bankers and Investment need to be Licensed & Regulated
Protection of food: Food manufacturers need to be Licensed & Regulated
Protection from bad drugs: Rx needs to be Licensed and Regulated.
Protection from bad cosmetics: the manufacturing need to be Regulated.

I could go on and on!

The main point is that both political parties are to blame, and mostly the Democrats because they pushed for an open society the most.

The main thing to remember is that the banking and investments had the regulations removed by a combination of both parties: the DamnDemocrats (notice how that is one word) can not play innocent.

After the great depression in the 30's there were a lot of safety controls that were placed on the banking and investment community. As the regulations were lifted, I pulled out of the stock marked ahead of this last crash by several years.

This crash has lead to some great investments, if you have the confidence to see what is coming next, a swing up, followed by ---------; watch and see.

If you really believe that Obama is a complete idiot, the time to buy investments was just after the he took office. For me personally, a $250,000 investment at the time he took office has increased in value so that my profit on the transaction is now $875,000. It may be time to sell, but the choice of what not to buy is another question. Damn, it should have been all in, but I am too old to be fully committed, or my children might have me committed.

How was that for a fast quickie course in Economics 101?

JR

You seem to be arguing against yourself in this post. You claim that unions "place a ceiling on what people can earn"...which means they keep labor costs low for their employers. You'd like to see them get paid a "higher wage"...which means increased labor cost for their employers. Does that make any fucking sense? If that's the way it worked, businesses would be begging for more union employees.

American unions are more important now than ever. And after all, unions are just small businesses that sell a service. Better still, they have constitutions and democratically elect representatives. Why do you hate small business? Why do you hate democracy? Why do you hate elected representatives? Why do you hate these Americans? Why do you take sides with dictatorial big businesses? Originally Posted by Longermonger

Again, Longer, you set up a straw argument, shoot it down, and congratulate yourself. Are you bad at reading? Or just math?

Unions make sure that everyone, regardless of merit or ability, earn the same wage. If someone is better at their job than someone else, they should earn more, but unions are against that. If you are in a union, you earn what the union says you can earn, and nothing more. And the AFL-CIO is a small business? God, you're funny! I don't hate democracy, it seems that the union in Wisconsin does hate democracy, since the union supporters in the Senate left the state rather than have a democratic vote. I guess the voice of the people doesn't count if it is anti union. And if the unions favored democracy, they would quit supporting card check, which would eliminate free elections for union representation.

And where did I take the side of big business? You're hallucinating again. I take the side of individual liberty and individual achievement. I oppose business, unions, and government that are harmful to those concepts.

Longer, your arguments are the funniest I've seen. You make Cheaper sound coherent. Sorry, Cheaper, that wasn't meant as an insult to you.

Sipapi, I'm guessing your investments weren't in real estate or mutual funds.

Sipapi, I'm guessing your investments weren't in real estate or mutual funds. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

??? COG I never mentioned any investments. My last investment was in those stretchy phone cords and I'm still waiting for it to pop.

My post was only dripping in sarcasm in regards to our resident Nobel Laureates and drawing attention back to the orginial post of wealth disparity. I don't believe the ever expanding gap between rich and poor is healthy for our country or sustainable. There will come a point when "let them eat cake" doesn't feed the hungry populace anymore.

Again, Longer, you set up a straw argument, shoot it down, and congratulate yourself. Are you bad at reading? Or just math? At least quote me correctly. It's "the maths".

Unions make sure that everyone, regardless of merit or ability, earn the same wage. Except they don't. They negotiate so that union members get paid the same amount for the same amount of work, if possible. Employers try to introduce step-wages for new hires. And don't forget about employers' history of paying women less than men! History, son. That's what they DID. And they'd do it again in a New York minute if they could get away with it. If someone is better at their job than someone else, they should earn more, but unions are against that. No, unions would love to bargain for more pay for their members. If a business would pay more money to employees that produce more and set up a way to measure that, then fine. But businesses don't want that. They want to speed up assembly lines like Henry Ford and cut pay at the same time if they can get away with it. If you are in a union, you earn what the union says you can earn, and nothing more. No, you earn what the union has negotiated with the employer. If it were as easy as you say, the union would say, "You earn a million dollars a minute!" and that would be what employees earn. Again, no. Employees are paid by their employers, not the union. The union just does the collective bargaining on the employees behalf. And the AFL-CIO is a small business? There are more unions than just the AFL-CIO. But still, the AFL-CIO is a collection of 56 smaller unions. The AFL-CIO is a federation, not a union proper. God, you're funny! I don't hate democracy, it seems that the union (which union?) in Wisconsin does hate democracy, since the union supporters in the Senate left the state rather than have a democratic vote. I guess the voice of the people doesn't count if it is anti union. I've already covered the parallel between what they did and what U.S. Senate Republicans did for 2 years. Enjoy your Pyrrhic victory. I'll enjoy the recalls and the 2012 elections. And if the unions favored democracy, they would quit supporting card check, which would eliminate free elections for union representation.
"Free elections" would not be eliminated. A secret ballot elections would still exist under EFCA if between 30% and 50% signed a petition or authorization cards. If over 50% signed a petition or authorization cards, the secret ballot election would be bypassed and a union is automatically formed. That cuts out a bunch of NLRB government red tape bureaucracy. The only possible negative is that the names on the cards or petition become public. Personally, I wouldn't give a fuck. I'd print a bunch of 'Union and Proud' T-shirts for my brothers to wear.
And where did I take the side of big business? You're obviously against labor just like big business. You're hallucinating again. I take the side of individual liberty and individual achievement. Duh! I oppose business, unions, and government that are harmful to those concepts. You think that unions are run by big bosses that tell their members what to do and that unions bully small businesses. I know that big businesses are run by big bosses that tell their employees what to do and that unions of those employees are their only defense against being bullied. Most non-union people are just jealous.

Longer, your arguments are the funniest I've seen. You make Cheaper sound coherent. Sorry, Cheaper, that wasn't meant as an insult to you. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You guys underestimate Cheaper. He sticks his foot in his mouth a lot less than most of you guys.

Longer, we're not as far apart as it may seem. I think big business is corrupt, I think big government is corrupt, but I also think that big unions are corrupt. I remember the last time I saw Jimmy Hoffa, it was last season when the Giants were playing at home.

Longer, this isn't a democracy and the founders were against democracies. They said they were mob rule with with manners. We are a representative republic.