patrick.net

thomaswong.1986 says

Like so many who have used corporate email since the mid 80s... we all learned that grammer and spelling doesnt matter.

It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.

Peter P says

Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem

You have got to be kidding. Wealth disparity is THE problem. All of the rest are symptoms are it. I honestly can't believe that it's so hard for others to see this--it's plain as day and simple to observe through history.

Nobody says

Damn, I just realize Wong is an uneducated moron who has never taken a day of Economy class in college. He has absolutely no idea what demand means.

There is absolutely no way he is a controller at a large high tech company. Zero.

I'd be shocked if he has a business degree.

tatupu70 says

There is absolutely no way he is a controller at a large high tech company. Zero.

I'd be shocked if he has a business degree.

Nope, not large.. I suggest you go work in a SV tech companies for 3 decades.
You wont last long as some left wing Obamatron.. welcome to the real world.

rooemoore says

It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.

where did you say your other home was ?

New York.. maybe! City Slickers !

it really is amazing how arrogant the east coast people can be.

tatupu70 says

Peter P says

Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem

You have got to be kidding. Wealth disparity is THE problem. All of the rest are symptoms are it. I honestly can't believe that it's so hard for others to see this--it's plain as day and simple to observe through history.

Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed.

That said, the society must not make it harder to achieve. We must build a business-friendly environment:

1. Universal healthcare - no more employer-specific plan to enslave people
2. Abolish minimum wage - this hampers employment and pushes jobs overseas

Remember, Henry Ford made his cars affordable to his workers NOT by imposing a minimum wage across the board - he improved manufacturing by way of innovation.

Peter P says

Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed

So there are two choices? Anything goes or communism? It is possible to redistribute wealth in a way that helps level the income imbalance and retains incentive to work hard.

rooemoore says

Peter P says

Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed

So there are two choices? Anything goes or communism? It is possible to redistribute wealth in a way that helps level the income imbalance and retains incentive to work hard.

Moderation may be as extreme as the two ends.

It has been said that Capitalism is about men exploiting men and Socialism is the other way around. Any attempt to moderate or redistribute wealth in leads to Capitalism-without-failure. We all know what that means.

Wealth redistribution is always evil. All effort should be made to encourage wealth creation.

I maintain that wealth disparity may be higher than it needs to be only because of efforts to reduce the gap. Bailouts and stimulus programs invariably benefit the rentiers.

The mass is always wrong. Thus any conscious effort by and for the mass to overcome the "elite" will inevitably backfire.

The Professor says

The answer: Education and free communication.

Education is not always the answer. The People must retain its individuality and drive to acquire knowledge.

I seriously think many people should not consider going to college.

Here's the fundamental problem: In theory, socialism is a great idea. Create and empower a middle class (the buzzphrase of the left) via education and mass transit, etc. and everyone benefits.

The problem is the the leftist elite wind up becoming crony capitalists and in order to retain power, throw the middle class under the bus and buy votes via the welfare state (until they don't need votes anymore, then they throw the lower class under the bus too.) That's how it's worked out nearly everywhere since the early 1900's other than Sweden, etc. which are isolated, european ethnic environments or occupied American territories (Japan) (open them up for immigration and see how it goes. Ask the Japanese how tolerant they are of diversity.)

Other than it not working and degenerating into ethnic cleansing and corruption, socialism is a great idea. Toodle loo!

Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

Moreover, regardless of whichever system being followed, the world is always unfair to losers. But one system encourages winning...

thomaswong.1986 says

justme says

Most VC money comes from pension funds and university endowments, in particular public pension funds of big states. THAT is were the money comes from.

Too risky for pension funds, universities and govt funds. If they did, pretty much many went belly up back in 2000.

Nope! its mainly high worth individuals and corporations. They are the only ones who can tolerate the risks.

Yet another post by mr. wrong that shows his assertion that he is employed in the field of accounting/finance is fiction. Here's the faq page from trade association of venture capitalists that says the most of vc money is from "pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, foundations, family offices, and high net worth individuals.". I'm pretty sure they would know what they are talking about.

http://www.nvca.org/index.php?Itemid=147&id=119&option=com_content&view=article

Peter P says

Wealth disparity is a problem as much as art is a problem. It is actually desirable for wealth NOT to equalize. Why would anyone work if there is no wealth differential? I will just sit on my ass all day and wait to be fed.

Of course I don't want wealth to equalize. Where did you get that idea??

It just can't get to the level it's at now or the economy ceases to function.

Peter P says

It has been said that Capitalism is about men exploiting men and Socialism is the other way around. Any attempt to moderate or redistribute wealth in leads to Capitalism-without-failure. We all know what that means.

Once again history disagrees with you. The US did pretty damn well with highly progressive taxes. Much better than it has done since the top rate and capital gains rates were lowered.

Peter P says

Paraphrasing Margaret Thatcher, socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.

PolishKnight says

Here's the fundamental problem: In theory, socialism is a great idea

And once again, when posters have no legitimate argument, they resort to strawmen.

Noone, let me repeat, Noone on this board is advocating socialism. Can we get that straight please??

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.

Peter P says

The mass is always wrong. Thus any conscious effort by and for the mass to overcome the "elite" will inevitably backfire.

This may be the case, but what if the redistribution is small and not a conscious goal, but rather a side benefit ?

We are in a system now that is the opposite of wealth redistribution, and the gullible right wing sheep are crying NO NO ANYTHING BUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION !

Raising taxes to a level where our economy works bettor, and to where we are actually living within our means is not first and foremost about wealth redistribution.

The benefits of doing this are obvious. It's called fiscal responsibility, or at least it used to be considered fiscal responsibility. Taxes need to be at or close to a level where we cover our spending.

If paying our bills were the highest goal, then those powerful and rich people who pay a lot would be motivated to see less govt waste in spending in all areas, rather than only focusing on entitlements. And it would naturally take a lot of waste and corruption out of govt spending.

Bottom line, government works better when you actually pay for it.

thomaswong.1986 says

rooemoore says

It matters. Just because you are either poorly educated or just lazy does not excuse poor grammar and atrocious spelling.

where did you say your other home was ?

New York.. maybe! City Slickers !

it really is amazing how arrogant the east coast people can be.

I'm a sixth generation Californian. My ancestors came here in 1840. Yes, I do own an apartment in NYC.

You claim to be an educated businessman. Your communication skills in this forum betray that claim.

In other words: wake up, stealing from others and giving to the "poor" will not create jobs.

bob2356 says

Here's the faq page from trade association of venture capitalists that says the most of vc money is from "pension funds, insurance companies, endowments, foundations, family offices, and high net worth individuals.". I'm pretty sure they would know what they are talking about.

Facebook IPO.. someone is pissed !

tatupu70 says

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.

And Earth is flat.

marcus says

The benefits of doing this are obvious. It's called fiscal responsibility, or at least it used to be considered fiscal responsibility. Taxes need to be at or close to a level where we cover our spending.

It is like telling workers that their incomes need to be at or close to a level where they cover their spending.

rooemoore says

You claim to be an educated businessman. Your communication skills in this forum betray that claim.

Im sure even a doctor has great penmanship when it comes to writing prescriptions...

Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking the $431.5 billion we are spending in FY12 on welfare programs (including the EIC where it exceeds taxes paid, housing, unemployment, and family and children support) is the biggest problem the federal budget has.

But if we bring up the $85B those making over $1MM per year get in tax reductions based upon the 15% capital gains rate, then we are socialist and waging class warfare. We are talking the .1% here....the richest of the rich. $85B in special tax handouts.

I mean, why shouldn't someone who makes more than $1MM per year NOT get a special tax rate that happens to be about 43% of the tax rate for ordinary income at that level? They clearly deserve it.

Billionaries paying lower tax rates than their secretaries. Until you agree to fix that, anything you say about fiscal responsibility or "fair taxes" is bullshit.

Republicans actually believe that those people receiving this welfare would rather do nothing and live in poverty than work a $100k+ a year job and live well.

Wealth inequality is THE problem. It is so large that it makes all other problems that you republicans like to bitch about trivial. Some of you guys understand that but you think government caused the inequality.

I am still waiting for a Republican to show me a better way of freeing up the capital the wealthy have than taxing them.

I'd be all for it if it was based in real math. I'm waiting...

Retards sorting out the crazies, gotta love the D'eux oughts.

Peter P says

tatupu70 says

Progressive taxation is not Socialism.

And Earth is flat.

OK--why don't you give me your definition of socialism then? Because it clearly differs from most textbooks ones.

tatupu70 says

OK--why don't you give me your definition of socialism then? Because it clearly differs from most textbooks ones.

If I recall correctly a heavily progressive income tax was what Karl Marx recommended as the first step in his communist manifesto. Progressive income taxation is anti free market and discourages productivity. It is therefore wealth destroying. A free market economy is the most efficient. Anything else is using the "political means" rather than the productive means to get wealth and is less efficient and decreases general wealth available... So while Progressive taxation is not Socialism in its entirety it is socialist in nature.

The premise that free market is a cure to all ills is false. It has never functioned well for society. Human history is full of struggles and poverty.

People struggled to survive and often died in those "free markets" that chest pounding conservatives for some reason are so in love with lately.

I understand our system today isn't perfect, but going back to survival of the fittest isn't my idea of a "conservative" lifestyle.

tatupu70 says

Wealth disparity is NOT by itself a problem

expropriated surplus value IS the problem.

czb9 says

Progressive income taxation is anti free market and discourages productivity

Really--please explain the mechanism for that. How does a progressive income tax discourage productivity?

czb9 says

A free market economy is the most efficient.

Who is arguing against a free market economy?? How is that relevant?

coriacci1 says

expropriated surplus value IS the problem.

I think you misquoted me there. I strongly believe that wealth disparity IS the problem.

david1 says

Republicans have been brainwashed into thinking the $431.5 billion we are spending in FY12 on welfare programs (including the EIC where it exceeds taxes paid, housing, unemployment, and family and children support) is the biggest problem the federal budget has.

Not to mention that all that assistance money goes directly or indirectly toward buying basic consumption that equals profits to the top end. The bottom 80% own roughly 7% of all financial assets. So, where does the money go when the bottom 80% buy toilet paper?

FortWayne says

The premise that free market is a cure to all ills is false.

I hardly think anyone holds this premise but -agreed
FortWayne says

It has never functioned well for society.

Like communism a "free market economy" is probably a Utopia which never can exist, however if you think about it like a continuum with free market (liberty) on one end and communism (authoritarian) on the other then history is pretty clear that tending toward free markets has indeed "functioned well for society". I believe our current system is about 70% toward authoritarian and best described as a "Kleptocracy" or "Crony capitalism".
Confusing free market with survival of the fittest is not helpful the first and most legitimate purpose of government is protection (a monopoly on the use of force) and a "free" market implies mutual accord or the lack of force.
People have and will continue to struggle, suffer poverty, and yes die regardless of the political system invented. The first two are relative terms and the later inevitable.
As for conservative and liberal they are useless terms in modern usage with infinite vague definitions which change with each use.

Some people think that it's a free market, but those that prosper the most know that it isn't. Using the tax code and various laws to give unfair unvantages proves that. And that's what the very top buys with their political "donations".

Yes, some advantages are available to all, but the actual likely possibility that but just a very small percentage of the overall will be able to utilize them, is by design, it's intent. The mortage interest deduction is just one example,, with many falsely believing that it works for them, as opposed to the very top incomes and the houses that those incomes buy, or borrow for.

Socialism is a great idea! The placing of restraints on naked capitalism keeps the power balanced between the people and the wealthy. If this skews towards the rich you get robber barons and pinkertons firing on labor demonstrations. If it skews too far the other way, you have employees with no motivation to work and produce, who suck the life out of a company until it folds. The middle ground is what we need to shoot for, where life is in balance. Asian cultures seem more aware of the essential need for balance in life than we do in the West.
The middle class is the most valuable and commodity a nation can possess. This special, hard-to-sustain socioeconomic group is the source of every truly thriving economy. A thriving economy enables better social programs to be enacted to raise the lower bar for a society. It also allows for great civic projects like space exploration and transportation and technology revolutions. All this is made possible by a balance of power maintained by an intricate lattice of laws that discourage theft and encourage productivity.
In short: America works best when Americans work.
That's right off a support sticker for my union: the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

czb9 says

Like communism a "free market economy" is probably a Utopia which never can exist, however if you think about it like a continuum with free market (liberty) on one end and communism (authoritarian) on the other then history is pretty clear that tending toward free markets has indeed "functioned well for society". I believe our current system is about 70% toward authoritarian and best described as a "Kleptocracy" or "Crony capitalism".
Confusing free market with survival of the fittest is not helpful the first and most legitimate purpose of government is protection (a monopoly on the use of force) and a "free" market implies mutual accord or the lack of force.
People have and will continue to struggle, suffer poverty, and yes die regardless of the political system invented. The first two are relative terms and the later inevitable.
As for conservative and liberal they are useless terms in modern usage with infinite vague definitions which change with each use.

It wasn't the free market utopia that made America a paradise for the world. It was our system that allowed free enterprise to exist, grow, and compete, while having safety nets for the poor which allowed all members in our society to take risks and be productive knowing full well that socially they are protected. Other nations didn't have that, they either had communism with no free enterprise, or free enterprise but no safety nets. We got the combination right, and we have it right.

But what I hear from Republicans lately is that they want to tear this system down, they want to gut social security and medicare, they want to get rid of safety nets. And I don't agree with them. Because I want a system that works for everyone in the society, and doesn't foolishly rely on good graces from the top 1%.

Quigley says

The middle class is the most valuable and commodity a nation can possess. This special, hard-to-sustain socioeconomic group is the source of every truly thriving economy.

Yes, to the tune of a roughly $16 trillion economy, not debt. But, as this whole forum might suggest, chasing an elusive and imaginary pipedream of prosperity by buying a house creates servitude, just as a car loan, etc. People falsely believe that they must have the above things and if they do, somehow they're better off or in some distirted way of thinking, rich. Does the house, car, loan for a new lawnmower work for you, or do you work for those things?

FortWayne says

or free enterprise but no safety nets.

Please give me an example of a country that provided for free enterprise with no safety nets and failed. Not challenging, moreso curious...

CBOEtrader says

I suggest that expanding government power and specifically increasing deficits, create inflation, which in turn creates wealth disparity as well as asset bubbles.

This idea is presented in Greenspan's biography. Greenspan was close personal friend and follower of Ayn Rand. In short, this is not an original idea.

Short of "Government inflation numbers are lies" how do you explain record deficit spending in the last four years correlated with low inflation?

How about budget surplus in 1999-2000 with higher inflation than today?

How about much higher deficit spending in the 1980s than the 1970s with much lower inflation?

How about deficit spending in the 1930s and 1940s at the highest levels (relative to GDP) in history with falling prices in the 1930s and generally low inflation in the 1940s until the war ended (and spending fell, and we had a surplus)?

http://www.multpl.com/inflation/table
http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php

I know, correlation is not causation, but what makes you think that deficits cause inflation??? Certainly not the historical record...

If deficits do not create inflation, then they cannot create wealth disparity (BTW we have had generally low inflation since 1982 and generally rising wealth inequality over the same period) nor asset bubbles.

tatupu70 says

I guess I just don't accept that if idiots call Obama a socialist enough then the meaning of the word changes to reflect that Obama's policies are now Socialism.

Sure. The talking head should at least point out that the republicans are as or even greater socialists than Obama under the current use of the term. From what I can tell, the best current definition of the term is total government spending as a % of GDP-- but we should absolutely call it something else and agree.