paying attention to debates but ignoring Trump

[Jim in CT]

it’s also pure marxist bullsh*t to say the stock market improvement primarily helps
a small portion of the country. Many of us now have exposure to the stock market through IRAs and 401ks. that was written by someone with an occupy wall street agenda.






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s also pure marxist bullsh*t to say the stock market improvement primarily helps
a small portion of the country. Many of us now have exposure to the stock market through IRAs and 401ks. that was written by someone with an occupy wall street agenda.






Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

According to the Commies at Goldman Sachs, stock ownership is extremely concentrated because of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., and thus the market’s performance affects households making up the wealthiest 1% of Americans much more significantly than the other 99%.
“The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s,” Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs’s chief economist said.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

According to the Commies at Goldman Sachs, stock ownership is extremely concentrated because of the growing wealth gap in the U.S., and thus the market’s performance affects households making up the wealthiest 1% of Americans much more significantly than the other 99%.
“The wealthiest 0.1% and 1% of households now own about 17% and 50% of total household equities respectively, up significantly from 13% and 39% in the late 80s,” Daan Struyven, Goldman Sachs’s
chief economist said.

we’re all better off when the market rises pete. no one is inherently better off if the market crashes.

sorry, comrade, you’re not holding any cards here.

as to the gap in wealth, as i’ve said
it might not be fair, but it’s not bad either. not unless you’re dumb enough to believe that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty. no one would be better off if wealthy people stopped creating more wealth for themselves. Bill Gates’ net worth has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to seek financial security. Zip.

Is that all you have? Orange Man Bad, wealth inequality somehow “causes” poverty, any other liberal
bumper sticker slogans you got?

Earth to Pete...if oprah winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there’s a million left for us to scrounge for. It doesn’t work that way, wealth is not finite like a pizza. Plus, she’ll pay some taxes on that million, she’ll spend some, she’ll
invest some, shell
give some to charity, ALL of which help the economy and lessen the burden on regular folk.

Take off the tin foil hat, wipe the crazed foam off your
mouth, stop
howling at the moon, and think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

we’re all better off when the market rises pete. no one is inherently better off if the market crashes.

sorry, comrade, you’re not holding any cards here.

as to the gap in wealth, as i’ve said
it might not be fair, but it’s not bad either. not unless you’re dumb enough to believe that one persons wealth causes someone else’s poverty. no one would be better off if wealthy people stopped creating more wealth for themselves. Bill Gates’ net worth has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to seek financial security. Zip.

Is that all you have? Orange Man Bad, wealth inequality somehow “causes” poverty, any other liberal
bumper sticker slogans you got?

Earth to Pete...if oprah winfrey earns another million today, that does NOT mean there’s a million left for us to scrounge for. It doesn’t work that way, wealth is not finite like a pizza. Plus, she’ll pay some taxes on that million, she’ll spend some, she’ll
invest some, shell
give some to charity, ALL of which help the economy and lessen the burden on regular folk.

Take off the tin foil hat, wipe the crazed foam off your
mouth, stop
howling at the moon, and think.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I cite an analyst at Goldman Sachs and you put words in my mouth and claim that I have a tinfoil hat and somehow revert to your usual rant that wealth inequality is good, has no effect on opportunity, a non-issue, Oprah's got money, things will trickle down or something.

If you again are off on this track to a trainwreck, explain how control of the factors of production has no consequence, perhaps you should tell the professors in Economics 101.
They would tell you that all business requires Land, Labor and Capitol.
If you control one of these you can control markets and dominate them, perhaps you have an alternate business theory?
The wealthiest people in the world are gaining more control of the capital market and it is clearly evident if you look at the data.
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I cite an analyst at Goldman Sachs and you put words in my mouth and claim that I have a tinfoil hat and somehow revert to your usual rant that wealth inequality is good, has no effect on opportunity, a non-issue, Oprah's got money, things will trickle down or something.

If you again are off on this track to a trainwreck, explain how control of the factors of production has no consequence, perhaps you should tell the professors in Economics 101.
They would tell you that all business requires Land, Labor and Capitol.
If you control one of these you can control markets and dominate them, perhaps you have an alternate business theory?
The wealthiest people in the world are gaining more control of the capital market and it is clearly evident if you look at the data.
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

please. if that same
analyst gave trump credit for something, you’d say he was a racist.

a rising tide does lift all boats. i’m sorry if you only choose to celebrate that when delivered by a democrat, but that’s your bias, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

please. if that same
analyst gave trump credit for something, you’d say he was a racist.

a rising tide does lift all boats. i’m sorry if you only choose to celebrate that when delivered by a democrat, but that’s your bias, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You didn't answer my questions
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You didn't answer my questions
Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?
Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?

"Buy shoes or an appliance lately?"

Both, actually. So?

"And don't worry american manufacturers took this chance to raise their prices also, so buying American doesn't save you money."

If that's true, inflation would be increasing. You appear to be the first person to have discovered it. Either that, or you are desperately grasping at straws...

"Black unemployment is still double white unemployment, do you think he should get credit for letting them also benefit in the rising tide, since black unemployment has dropped continually since the beginning of the Obama presidency? "

In other words, Obama gets credit for decreasing black unemployment, but Trump doesn't. When black unemployment drops under Obama, that's great. When it drops under Trump, all that matters is the gap between white and black unemployment.

You cannot keep your goalposts still, for two consecutive seconds. All you're doing, is shifting the goalposts.

"Do you think that the distribution of wealth is not changing?"

I have said many times that it's changing, it's increasing. I can't answer any more directly than that, can I? Here are 2 follow-up questions...

(1) Why should I give a sh*t? As I said, if Oprah earns another billion this year, how does that hurt my family, of your family, or anyone else? Please be specific...

(2) how would you prevent it? Would you pass a law, saying that once your net worth reaches a certain amount, that you are no longer allowed to work or invest? How else could you stop it?

"Do you think controlling capitol is inconsequential?"

I don't think it's overly-consequential, not as long as we have the constitution and courts who follow it.