The Rich Really Get Richer!

[MadMarketScientist 11]

One reason for the growing income inequality in the United States is the relationship between the government and private corporations. This is hard to deny, especially with a simple look at the richest counties in the U.S. Of the top 10, five are located in the D.C. area - with four of them in the top 5.

 

But, there's another way that the rich get richer - it's recessions. This might seem kind of strange, but think about it a little more. When the market bottoms out, what happens? Someone buys at the bottom to lend support to that level.

 

Who is that someone? Well, let's understand who it isn't. The middle-class guy with a $100,000 underwater mortgage isn't buying. The guy who lost half his retirement is probably too scared to enter the market. The guy whose employer may be downsizing isn't jumping back in. The middle-class Joe has a million good reasons to avoid the bottom of the market.

 

It's pretty clear who buys at the bottom - it's the rich. And when the market rebounds, they're earning a very high return. The average guy always misses the rebound and jumps back into the market when the upside is limited, but the folks with excess cash come back earlier and earn the higher returns. As a result, the gap between the groups grows larger.

 

The rich really get richer!

[TheDude 10]

Yep. A market is a market, is a market. Houses, land, ES, MSFT, it's all the same.

 

The wise man buys low. He then sells to the noob who buys the high (resistance) expecting a breakout, thinking hes being clever waiting for prices to come off the lows and show a little momentum before committing.

 

A fools and his money were lucky together to get together in the first place.

 

The Dude abides.

[ahimsa 10]

Yep. A market is a market, is a market. Houses, land, ES, MSFT, it's all the same.

 

The wise man buys low. He then sells to the noob who buys the high (resistance) expecting a breakout, thinking hes being clever waiting for prices to come off the lows and show a little momentum before committing.

 

A fools and his money were lucky together to get together in the first place.

 

The Dude abides.

 

One reason for the growing income inequality in the United States is the relationship between the government and private corporations. This is hard to deny, especially with a simple look at the richest counties in the U.S. Of the top 10, five are located in the D.C. area - with four of them in the top 5.

 

But, there's another way that the rich get richer - it's recessions. This might seem kind of strange, but think about it a little more. When the market bottoms out, what happens? Someone buys at the bottom to lend support to that level.

 

Who is that someone? Well, let's understand who it isn't. The middle-class guy with a $100,000 underwater mortgage isn't buying. The guy who lost half his retirement is probably too scared to enter the market. The guy whose employer may be downsizing isn't jumping back in. The middle-class Joe has a million good reasons to avoid the bottom of the market.

 

It's pretty clear who buys at the bottom - it's the rich. And when the market rebounds, they're earning a very high return. The average guy always misses the rebound and jumps back into the market when the upside is limited, but the folks with excess cash come back earlier and earn the higher returns. As a result, the gap between the groups grows larger.

 

The rich really get richer!

 

HI mad market scientist,i'm a bit confused:confused:,do you talked about in general ,as in stock as in forex?do you mean (if i don't misrepresent)that when there are the recession the rich really get richer because put his money in finance markets,also after recession he will invest in commercial activity,while the middle class or the poor further for fear he will be impossibilitate in recession to jump in the market because he don't have money.but is also true that for example in crude oil we are almost like some years ago whit the crude to 140$ many expensive....i would like to throw the coin in short...:

 

 

ahimsa

[MightyMouse 12]

Yep. A market is a market, is a market. Houses, land, ES, MSFT, it's all the same.

 

The wise man buys low. He then sells to the noob who buys the high (resistance) expecting a breakout, thinking hes being clever waiting for prices to come off the lows and show a little momentum before committing.

 

A fools and his money were lucky together to get together in the first place.

 

The Dude abides.

 

The wise man who bought at the low this time is not always the same wise man buying at the low and the wise man selling at the high this time is not always the same wise man selling at the high. Yesterday's wise man is frquently today's fool.

 

The noob tends to get it right just as often as the pro, The difference is that the noob can't hold on as long as the pro.

[SIUYA 11]

it also takes money to make money most of the time.....and guess who often has money when the banks wont lend, and they are not too worried about feeding their family and hanging onto a job.

[MadMarketScientist 11]

HI mad market scientist,i'm a bit confused:confused:,do you talked about in general ,as in stock as in forex?do you mean (if i don't misrepresent)that when there are the recession the rich really get richer because put his money in finance markets,also after recession he will invest in commercial activity,while the middle class or the poor further for fear he will be impossibilitate in recession to jump in the market because he don't have money.but is also true that for example in crude oil we are almost like some years ago whit the crude to 140$ many expensive....i would like to throw the coin in short...:

 

 

ahimsa

 

I just mean in general ...just more of a observation that the only people who have money to buy *create* the low and then they make the majority of the upside. who has money to buy when everything appears to be going to hell? the rich of course! so its a vicious cycle of the rich getting richer ...

 

no comments on the wealthiest counties being right by DC? coincidence?

[MightyMouse 12]

I just mean in general ...just more of a observation that the only people who have money to buy *create* the low and then they make the majority of the upside. who has money to buy when everything appears to be going to hell? the rich of course! so its a vicious cycle of the rich getting richer ...

 

no comments on the wealthiest counties being right by DC? coincidence?

 

MMS,

 

The rich do not play unless it is an uneven playing field. The wealthiest people lobby congress to create rules so that they have an unfair advantage. Patents, copyrights, etc insure that if they invest they will get paid. We go to war and hurl $1 million dollar bombs at the urging of defense industry lobbyists so that their clients can sell more. They do not take risks in the markets without knowing they are going to win or at least that they cannot lose or influence the outcome.

 

Look at the man they called the "Most Dangerous Banker in the World", Josef Akerman, the Deutsche Bank CEO, targeting 25% because he knew the bank would be bailed out by tax payers because it was too big to fail.

 

The guy who buys risking his money and catches the bottom and relies on market information without trading inside information is lucky this time, and next time. He hopefully quits while he is ahead.

 

I can go on and on, but I won't

 

MM

[Tradewinds 12]

The other half of the story, is that all the people who are NOT rich, will not cooperate with each other. If they did, then the majority could easily do whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted. But people tend to be suspicious and wary of cooperating with each other or going into some kind of joint venture together. People don't work very well together, and self-interest usually outweighs the common good. This allows the masses of people to be manipulated and controlled by a small percentage of people. Most people are just to stupid to "get it". And even when there is an exceptional leader, that leader may get frustrated and just give up, because they can't get anyone to cooperate for the common good.

For all practical purposes, the groups of people who often rise to power are the ones who come up with better, more effective ways of killing.

[ahimsa 10]

I just mean in general ...just more of a observation that the only people who have money to buy *create* the low and then they make the majority of the upside. who has money to buy when everything appears to be going to hell? the rich of course! so its a vicious cycle of the rich getting richer ...

 

no comments on the wealthiest counties being right by DC? coincidence?

 

I don't know this counties,in US i have some friends and relation but not in this counties in los angeles and phoenix.but i can say that also in italy we have many counties were the rich getting richer,and always there aren't the townsman,this because in little town the quality of life is better than in a big metropolis,were the townsman are habit to fight with all the inconvenient...stress.traffic,overpopulated,bad law.bad sanity...and the problem that a big city and his government can have.I think if all the people that can choice were live .choice a town or a counties were the life is better,were the hate is less.where the respect for people is bigger.i understand this from your words ,i hope to don't misrepresent....the other concept...for the rich getting richer in trading because he can permit to trade with the strong hands and move the market its another thing.for me.please correct me if i misrepresent,i don't know the story of these counties.right by the DC(dc is an abbreviation of ?)thanks in advance.

 

 

ahimsa:)

[MadMarketScientist 11]

I don't know this counties,in US i have some friends and relation but not in this counties in los angeles and phoenix.but i can say that also in italy we have many counties were the rich getting richer,and always there aren't the townsman,this because in little town the quality of life is better than in a big metropolis,were the townsman are habit to fight with all the inconvenient...stress.traffic,overpopulated,bad law.bad sanity...and the problem that a big city and his government can have.I think if all the people that can choice were live .choice a town or a counties were the life is better,were the hate is less.where the respect for people is bigger.i understand this from your words ,i hope to don't misrepresent....the other concept...for the rich getting richer in trading because he can permit to trade with the strong hands and move the market its another thing.for me.please correct me if i misrepresent,i don't know the story of these counties.right by the DC(dc is an abbreviation of ?)thanks in advance.

 

 

ahimsa:)

 

Washington DC, the point is that its no coincidence the wealthiest people are the ones close to the government. Even in a 'democracy' ... but I guess power is power and this 'coincidence' probably should't come as a big surprise

 

MMS

[TheNegotiator 13]

Another really important reason that the rich get richer is timing. First off they don't have any imperative to trade or invest or start a business or whatever. So they sit and they observe and they wait and if needs be they wait some more. Then when everything is looking like it is in their favour, then they make the trade. Secondly, if their timing is off slightly but the idea is right, they have the proverbial 'deep pockets' to stay in the trade longer than most. Usually, I'd say people have the right idea but timing especially in trading, means they have to exit before money can be made. Rich people don't tend to have the same issue.

[TheDude 10]

Another really important reason that the rich get richer is timing. First off they don't have any imperative to trade or invest or start a business or whatever. So they sit and they observe and they wait and if needs be they wait some more. Then when everything is looking like it is in their favour, then they make the trade. Secondly, if their timing is off slightly but the idea is right, they have the proverbial 'deep pockets' to stay in the trade longer than most. Usually, I'd say people have the right idea but timing especially in trading, means they have to exit before money can be made. Rich people don't tend to have the same issue.

 

Youre 100% right.

 

BUT - what you describe is a winners attitude - someone with discipline - a good trader.

 

In nature, all successful predators have the following instincts:

Patient in selection

Quick in decision

Fast in action

 

Spiders, snakes, lions, Buffet, Sorros, you?

 

As for stops, you should stop yourself out when the dynamics have changed, not at a certain price/level. That takes confidence and knowledge. Seeing if there is follow through/acceptance or rejection of your stop level. Again,

Patient in understanding

Quick in decision

Fast in action

 

Its all the same - property development, restaurants, trading, franchise start ups.....

[daVinciLite 10]

Youre 100% right.

 

BUT - what you describe is a winners attitude - someone with discipline - a good trader.

 

In nature, all successful predators have the following instincts:

Patient in selection

Quick in decision

Fast in action

 

Spiders, snakes, lions, Buffet, Sorros, you?

 

 

I think there is a point that many refuse to acknowledge. Most people that are classified as “rich” started off from humble beginnings. The US Trusts conduct surveys of the wealthy. Well over 80% of US households that are worth over one million describe their upbringing as middle class. The same type of research was done 100 years ago with the same result. Check out the book “The Millionaire Next Door.”

 

People are being brainwashed to think otherwise to their own determent. If we are going to have a free society, everyone has to be allowed to fail or succeed on his own merits. So the rich do get richer and the poor get poorer. Yea, that is happening. But everyone has the ability to improve his situation in a free society if they decide to do so.

 

It troubles me that D.C. is accumulating wealth because D.C. produces nothing. It is just making the poor even poorer.

 

I will get off my soapbox now.

 

dVL

[Tradewinds 12]

If we are going to have a free society, everyone has to be allowed to fail or succeed on his own merits.

 

The problem is, that many people who fail, tend to become counterproductive to society. Then these destructive people become a problem for everyone. There are consequences to the failure. And there are consequences to everyone's "freedom" from those failures. A persons "freedom" to succeed or fail doesn't happen in a vacuum with no consequences to the rest of us. So if the ultimate goal is a "free society", there are some other things to factor in and think about. It's a little more complicated that just being "free" to succeed or fail on your own merits.

 

If a nations economy collapses, and total chaos, crime and war break out, I would not call that a "free society". People won't be "free" to operate easily or at will in those conditions. If a child is justifiably terrified that they will get shot to death by a gang member on their way to school, they are not "free". TECHNICALLY, they are living in a "free" and open society, but they are not free. So, we need to look at what the ultimate consequences are going to be, and what that "freedom" really means.

 

Again, if the goal is to create a "free society", but hard working people can't find employment, and become homeless, through no failure of their own doing, that's not freedom. There is a bigger picture. It's more complicated than just succeeding or failing on our own merit. There are people who kill themselves trying to make a good life, and they fail for no fault of their own.

 

A well functioning society can only happen if enough individual members are functioning well. People who experience injustice and/or extreme difficulty tend to give up hope and turn to actions that are counter productive, and self destructive.

 

If people who failed, quietly suffered out the rest of their lives, or just keep trying until things got better, that might perpetuate a healthy cycle of constructive behavior. But, often enough, that isn't what happens. Destructive behavior cycles over and over, and perpetuates itself indefinitely in this world. A very few people break out of the cycle, but that isn't going to be enough to insure our future. It only takes a few people to cause a lot of trouble and destruction for everybody else.

 

I'm not saying that a competitive and merit based compensation and reward system is a bad thing. There needs to be some kind of motivation for people to produce. Obviously friendliness, cooperation and goodwill isn't seen as a good enough reason for personal motivation, so I'll guess we will just need to rely on something else.

 

There is a bigger picture. There are more pieces to the puzzle. Why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has consequences. If science could genetically engineer people who could be exploited and enslaved for other people's personal gain, and those genetically engineered people didn't mind being slaves, that might be a good solution for the rich people. Well, in the mean time, I guess other methods will need to be employed.

 

Actually, a lot of middle class and poor people wouldn't even mind not having much, as long as they could "get by" somehow. A person doesn't really need much for material things to live. But when people can't even afford a place to live, or food to eat, or some basic health care, there will be consequences.

 

My grandfather built a log cabin by himself for my grandparents. They had no running water. They used an "outhouse" to go the bathroom. In many ways it was basic survival. But if you own the property, and can pay the taxes, it's a good feeling, even if life is very hard. But the modern world has made that way of life, and those simple satisfactions almost impossible.

 

So what's the answer? Maybe aliens should invade and exterminate the genetically inferior beings. :rofl:

[andypap 10]

i am really surprised that almost everyone thinks that this is somehow a fair game.

consider these three factors

inside information, manipulation and extremely friendly legislation.

 

please let me know who on earth who has enough power will not use it to have an advantage

[SIUYA 11]

Maybe aliens should invade and exterminate the genetically inferior beings. :rofl:

 

we have enough humans on earth here who occasionally try this, it does not usually work over the long term. and is rather more counterproductive than helpful and/or effective

[Ingot54 13]

i don't know the story of these counties.right by the DC(dc is an abbreviation of ?)thanks in advance.

ahimsa:)

 

Ahimsa

 

I am an Australian, but I think the "DC" in "Washington DC" means "Dominion Capital" or the seat of the Government of the Country (not county).

 

I could be corrected on this - my knowledge of how things are organised in a republic are limited, and I hope they stay limited.

 

Australia is a part of the British Monarchy system, and we are governed by the Westminster Parliamentary system - one of the finest in the world. We are not as susceptible as other forms of government, to corruption, and therefore, under our system, it is not as easy for the wealthy to become wealthier ... at least not legally ... and corruption is usually picked up and noted a lot earlier in a small nation ... harder to remain an anonymous crook!

 

In the USA you can have the head of a large corporation as the Vice President of the country. That corporation can be the manufacturer of munitions, and the manufacturer of infrastructure materials.

 

Then that Vice President can influence the policies of the nation to go to war, use the munitions to destroy the infrastructure of another nation, and then get the contracts to rebuild the new infrastructure.

 

That is another way the rich can get richer. Pretty neat, huh?

And all out in the open and ... er ... legal.

 

Only in America

 

Only Dick Cheney

 

Only Halliburton

 

Only George W Bush

 

Only abandoning the Constitution of the United States of America and the will of the people

 

Only introducing Government by Executive Decree instead ... illegally

 

Only bypassing Congress ... illegally

 

Only ignoring the constitutional democracy that put them there ... illegally

 

The biggest farce on the planet - get people to vote for your policies, then abandon those policies, and the people? ... fraud

 

Republic? What's that?

 

A circus, and the reason the USA is in its current dilemma.

There is no one in the driver's seat - the passengers are steering the bus, and they don't have a licence.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Yep - while the fox is in charge of the hen-house, the chickens will be lunch!

 

PS - I am the world's greatest cynic when it comes to government. I am a Libertarian more than any other brand - the less government intervention, the better the country will run ... supply and demand is still the best formula.

[ahimsa 10]

Ahimsa

 

I am an Australian, but I think the "DC" in "Washington DC" means "Dominion Capital" or the seat of the Government of the Country (not county).

 

I could be corrected on this - my knowledge of how things are organised in a republic are limited, and I hope they stay limited.

 

Australia is a part of the British Monarchy system, and we are governed by the Westminster Parliamentary system - one of the finest in the world. We are not as susceptible as other forms of government, to corruption, and therefore, under our system, it is not as easy for the wealthy to become wealthier ... at least not legally ... and corruption is usually picked up and noted a lot earlier in a small nation ... harder to remain an anonymous crook!

 

In the USA you can have the head of a large corporation as the Vice President of the country. That corporation can be the manufacturer of munitions, and the manufacturer of infrastructure materials.

 

Then that Vice President can influence the policies of the nation to go to war, use the munitions to destroy the infrastructure of another nation, and then get the contracts to rebuild the new infrastructure.

 

That is another way the rich can get richer. Pretty neat, huh?

And all out in the open and ... er ... legal.

 

Only in America

 

Only Dick Cheney

 

Only Halliburton

 

Only George W Bush

 

Only abandoning the Constitution of the United States of America and the will of the people

 

Only introducing Government by Executive Decree instead ... illegally

 

Only bypassing Congress ... illegally

 

Only ignoring the constitutional democracy that put them there ... illegally

 

The biggest farce on the planet - get people to vote for your policies, then abandon those policies, and the people? ... fraud

 

Republic? What's that?

 

A circus, and the reason the USA is in its current dilemma.

There is no one in the driver's seat - the passengers are steering the bus, and they don't have a licence.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Yep - while the fox is in charge of the hen-house, the chickens will be lunch!

 

PS - I am the world's greatest cynic when it comes to government. I am a Libertarian more than any other brand - the less government intervention, the better the country will run ... supply and demand is still the best formula.

 

 

Yes i knew that you are australian,i asked to mad market scientist,what mean D.C. because he wrote in his first post without wrote Washington .i knew that near the washington city name there is the abbreviation D.C.but i don't knew the sense,and after i saw on wikipedia that Washington is famous also like DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.because his government seat is in a seat called so.

[Tradewinds 12]

So what's the answer? Maybe aliens should invade and exterminate the genetically inferior beings. :rofl:

 

we have enough humans on earth here who occasionally try this, it does not usually work over the long term. and is rather more counterproductive than helpful and/or effective

 

Yes, both God and Hitler found that out the hard way. God used the great flood as the preferred extermination method, then made a promise to never do that again. God's extermination method was a kinder, gentler mass destruction. Drowning is more humane than the gas chamber.

 

Both God and Hitler seemed to have similar goals with the mass extermination, but their plans didn't work out so well. So you are right.

 

But the real issue is, "How do we solve this problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?" That question can't be addressed without addressing issues of human behavior, and good verses evil. So the topic of good verses evil is really what we are talking about here.

 

I want to be on the side of good. I point out the really dark side as a contrast and comparison method that helps define the outer boundaries of the area within which to work in. Unfortunately there is a harsh reality that needs to be faced before a solution can be decided on.

 

So what's the solution? We can discuss the "Why?" of the issue for eternity, and never come up with the solution or implement it.

[SIUYA 11]

i think you also forgot some the greatest mass murderers of the recent centuries as well, Mao and Stalin. Those who ideologically may have/possibly/we hope so, actually thought they were helping to relieve the gap between the rich and the poor.

Plus with a the evil v good, rich v poor comparisons - I guess Zuckerberg, Buffett, Gates.....that must mean they are evil....? I am sure there are plenty of evil rich and poor people.

 

Also shouldn't we be concerned with average wealth - even on a relative scale, there are more people in the world who are wealthier than in the history of the world. Wealth is always going to a comparative relative measure, and yet so far the system seems to be working for the greatest number at present. Whats so wrong with that?

too often people think it was better in the past, when in reality, they forget about the disease, war, famine, oppression that history is littered with.

[Tradewinds 12]

i think you also forgot some the greatest mass murderers of the recent centuries as well, Mao and Stalin. Those who ideologically may have/possibly/we hope so, actually thought they were helping to relieve the gap between the rich and the poor.

 

I think that it's common for people to think that violence can solve problems. Mass killing doesn't do much to motivate the general population. That's been proven over and over again. The human brain tends to influence people's behavior towards control, manipulation, intimidation and inflicting physical and emotional pain on others as a method to achieve goals. That's the default behavior in humans.

 

Plus with a the evil v good, rich v poor comparisons - I guess Zuckerberg, Buffett, Gates.....that must mean they are evil....?

 

No, I apologize if I gave the impression that I automatically think that rich people must be evil. I don't like to make automatic absolute associations, the key word being "absolute". Reality is a thousand shades of gray. It's not that there are not absolutes, there are. There are both absolutes and there are shades of gray.

 

Also shouldn't we be concerned with average wealth - even on a relative scale, there are more people in the world who are wealthier than in the history of the world. Wealth is always going to a comparative relative measure, and yet so far the system seems to be working for the greatest number at present. Whats so wrong with that?

 

It's not bad to be moving towards a better standard of living, if it's sustainable. It is better to have a relative increase in something good, if what caused the increase in relative good will also perpetuate goodness indefinitely. But it's absolutely critical to use the standard of perpetual goodness in the test of what is truly good.

 

The communist ideology proposed that the communist system was the long term solution. But it's not. In practice, communism did not eliminate the rich upper class. And it kills motivation in the masses, because there is no motive to excel. There must be a reward to motivate people.

 

Communism might argue that there will be a relative increase in the average standard of living. So the argument that relative increases in wealth are inherently good, isn't a rational train of thought. And if we are talking about average wealth, that is very problematic. The general public could actually be realizing a decrease in real income, while the average income per capita is going up. The income of the super rich could swing the average calculation up, even as the real income of everyone else is going down. For a real indication of how the average person is doing financially, the income of the rich must be excluded. This thread is about the rich getting richer. That implies a comparison of the rich to everyone else. So talking about average income, and then averaging in the rich people's income is a potential act of deception.

[MightyMouse 12]

Ahimsa

 

I am an Australian, but I think the "DC" in "Washington DC" means "Dominion Capital" or the seat of the Government of the Country (not county).

 

I could be corrected on this - my knowledge of how things are organised in a republic are limited, and I hope they stay limited.

 

Australia is a part of the British Monarchy system, and we are governed by the Westminster Parliamentary system - one of the finest in the world. We are not as susceptible as other forms of government, to corruption, and therefore, under our system, it is not as easy for the wealthy to become wealthier ... at least not legally ... and corruption is usually picked up and noted a lot earlier in a small nation ... harder to remain an anonymous crook!

 

In the USA you can have the head of a large corporation as the Vice President of the country. That corporation can be the manufacturer of munitions, and the manufacturer of infrastructure materials.

 

Then that Vice President can influence the policies of the nation to go to war, use the munitions to destroy the infrastructure of another nation, and then get the contracts to rebuild the new infrastructure.

 

That is another way the rich can get richer. Pretty neat, huh?

And all out in the open and ... er ... legal.

 

Only in America

 

Only Dick Cheney

 

Only Halliburton

 

Only George W Bush

 

Only abandoning the Constitution of the United States of America and the will of the people

 

Only introducing Government by Executive Decree instead ... illegally

 

Only bypassing Congress ... illegally

 

Only ignoring the constitutional democracy that put them there ... illegally

 

The biggest farce on the planet - get people to vote for your policies, then abandon those policies, and the people? ... fraud

 

Republic? What's that?

 

A circus, and the reason the USA is in its current dilemma.

There is no one in the driver's seat - the passengers are steering the bus, and they don't have a licence.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Yep - while the fox is in charge of the hen-house, the chickens will be lunch!

 

PS - I am the world's greatest cynic when it comes to government. I am a Libertarian more than any other brand - the less government intervention, the better the country will run ... supply and demand is still the best formula.

 

Cheney was no longer head of Haliburton when he was VP.

 

Greenspan was a libertarian and his desire to let the banks regulate themselves and let market forces take care of any inefficiencies are what set the stage for the global melt down. Regulating the otc markets that the banks trade the CDSs would have prevented the whole mess. He now admits that he was completely mistaken. Personally, I think he should go to jail.

[Ingot54 13]

i think you also forgot some the greatest mass murderers of the recent centuries as well, Mao and Stalin. Those who ideologically may have/possibly/we hope so, actually thought they were helping to relieve the gap between the rich and the poor.

Plus with a the evil v good, rich v poor comparisons - I guess Zuckerberg, Buffett, Gates.....that must mean they are evil....? I am sure there are plenty of evil rich and poor people.

 

Zuckerberg has a lower profile (at the moment) but if you mention his name with Buffett and Gates, then I would have to lump him in with the seriously most evil capitalists of all time.

 

Google obviously has heard of Zuckerberg though:

 

Could 7-year-old emails halve Zuckerberg's Facebook stake? - Computerworld

 

Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss: 'Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg owes us £310 million' - Telegraph

 

Eduardo Saverin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Read the F

"FaceBook entry) ... doesn't sound like a nice fella, does he!

 

Don't collapse over that ...

 

At some point all of these entrepreneurs had to make a moral decision. And it is here that they turn from the public interest (providing a service that made them wealthy) to perpetuating something that is selfish and is slowly bleeding the very public who helped establish them to begin with.

 

Buffett: Don't know how he obtained his grub-stake, but his behaviour during the GFC has been nothing short of awful ... (this is a family show, so I can use the appropriate language to describe this fellow). He behaved like an opportunist parasite.

 

You might like to point to how his "investment" in Goldman Sachs "saved" that institution from going down the road traveled by Lehman. What a shame he did that - I would crawl 400 yards over broken glass naked to see the collapse of GS! The firm that has more of the American taxpayers money in their vaults than even Halliburton. And they have arguably participated in more manipulation and evil activities in Washington to the detriment of the American people, than any other single company.

 

Buffett also invested in Dow Chemical and General Electric under similar juicy terms.

 

Warren Buffett’s Profit on GE Investment: $1.2 Billion - Deal Journal - WSJ

 

Thanks Mr Buffett. That was just his GE profit!

 

So what did Mr Buffet get for his GS "investment" of $5 billion? $3.7 billion profits ... 74%!

 

Someone put it at $9.51 per second. Now under "normal" business arrangements, that would be great capitalist investing. After all, Buffett punted on GS being "too big to fail" (read: too many mates in Washington to fail) ... well-and-good, right?

 

Er ... no. The problem is that GS got bailed out by their Washington mates, under a process known now as "privatising the profits, but socialising the debts." In other words, GS's bailout came from you, the taxpayer, but went to Buffett the investor. GS is now feeling the blow-torch to the belly as they are under investigation for selling real estate derivatives - CDO's, which they openly joked amongst themselves were "junk".

 

While they were selling these, they were actually "short" on those same derivatives themselves!!

 

Investors Need to See Mainstreet Anger in the Light of Goldman Sachs Derivatives Scandal

 

And this is the company our much revered Warren Buffett desperately wanted to see survive. I want to vomit! Really.

 

Now for our Philanthropic mate Mr Gates.

 

Remember the anti-trust fight? Microsoft loses antitrust battle - IT News from V3.co.uk

 

And that was just the stuff they could prove.

 

But there were predictions that once George Bush became President, the rulings would be reversed ... they were correct:

 

Microsoft Antitrust Ruling Reversed By U.S. Appeals Court

 

Ask any free-source software engineer what they think of Mr Gates.

Ask anyone who has had to pay for incessant Windows upgrades, anti-spy/mal/snoop/ad-ware what they think of Mr Gates.

Ask anyone who has had to rebuild an entire software network because of hacking what they think of M Gates.

Ask anyone who has ever had to deal with Computer viruses The 9 Types of Computer Viruses To Watch Out For & What They Do what they think of Mr Gates.

Note: Trojans and worms are technically NOT viruses - similarly to how Adware/malware/spyware is not classes as virus software.

 

Now - anyone still in denial?

 

Then consider this, if there was no alternative, then Gates could be seen to be "clean"!

Ask Linux and the many other virus-free software platforms available, whether MS could have done more to prevent this costly problem.

 

Again ... "privatising the profits, but socialising the problem." Do you think the MS corporation is unhappy that virus software so easily pervades their Internet Explorer and Outlook Express software? Ha ha ha! :rofl:

 

But I will let someone else have the last word on Gates:

 

Bill Gates - a knol by David Blomstrom

 

The problem is that the lines are blurred.

 

On the one hand we love to applaud heroes who "made good" from scratch and we love to point to all the good that has come out of their activities.

 

On the other hand, we like to turn a blind eye to the seriously criminal activities these foljks seem to have been involved in - not my words - I refer to the cases brought against them in the courts. We seem to be thinking of "the greater good" and not the truth, or what is truly good about their activities.

 

We love to delude ourselves, because we secretly would love to have their story on our own CV.

 

Also shouldn't we be concerned with average wealth - even on a relative scale, there are more people in the world who are wealthier than in the history of the world. Wealth is always going to a comparative relative measure, and yet so far the system seems to be working for the greatest number at present. Whats so wrong with that?

too often people think it was better in the past, when in reality, they forget about the disease, war, famine, oppression that history is littered with.

 

Siuya - I think you may have been a little liberal with the true figures, regarding wealth in this world. You might be right regarding "there are more people in the world who are wealthier than in the history of the world" but that really means nothing. Relative to what?

 

Did you do the Global Rich List exercise?

 

If you are really trying to say that the AVERAGE person's wealth in the world is better than at any time in history, I would disagree. If you have one person with $1 billion, and 99 people with one cent, then the average wealth approaches $10 million each. But if you then double the first man's wealth to $2 billion, the average wealth jumps to $20 million, yet the 99 others still only have one cent.

 

That is what is really going on here. Most of the people in the world are NOT actually the beneficiaries of "increasing wealth." This is the privilege of a handful of entitled people, who have absolutely zero interest in the people they derive their billions and millions from.

 

People are merely a commodity to be milked. The smartest wins.

 

I would say the Somalian Pirates are getting wealthier, and I would largely lump in the people I spoke about earlier, as possibly sharing similar sentiments towards those they "serve."

 

But what if you're not a Pirate?

 

Read on ...

[Ingot54 13]

But the real issue is, "How do we solve this problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?" That question can't be addressed without addressing issues of human behavior, and good verses evil. So the topic of good verses evil is really what we are talking about here.

 

Tradewinds - the topic is "The Rich Really Get Richer" ..."The Poor Getting Poorer" is an introduced topic to the main one.

 

This is an easy one - there is only ever going to be so much wealth produced. For anyone to improve their wealth, they have to add value to what they produce. The rich seem to have simply worked out a way to arrive at the destination without taking the journey!

 

Originally in an agrarian society, wealth was created by producing more food and so on. The harder you worked, the more you were able to produce. You received the just rewards for your labour. And the whole community was the beneficiary - eg no one went hungry - the humane thing was to feed everyone - including the church organist and the undertaker, despite the fact that they didn't till the fields. They still served their useful role well.

 

Today, the attitude is: "It's mine! I don't share!" And people accumulate for the sake of counting the numbers, while their brothers starve to death, or live in disease-ridden squalor, when they needn't. Is that good ... or evil?

 

I want to be on the side of good. I point out the really dark side as a contrast and comparison method that helps define the outer boundaries of the area within which to work in. Unfortunately there is a harsh reality that needs to be faced before a solution can be decided on.

 

So what's the solution? We can discuss the "Why?" of the issue for eternity, and never come up with the solution or implement it.

 

The solution is easy, but it has never been tried.

 

Communism comes very close to it, but the worst Capitalists are the Communists!

 

True Communism, like true Christianity, has never been practised.

No one likes having any authority to have to answer to - to be responsible to, or to accept any guidance from.

 

It's "My way or the highway"

 

No one likes being told how to run their lives.

 

No ... and that's the problem ... simple! Fixed in one.

 

No one lives by the Golden Rule any more.

 

And those who support the Kleptocracies in Africa for political and economic gain, are only locking in the African people to continuing oppression and poverty.

 

Why?

 

Abuse of power, that's all. The human being was not designed to handle power.

He was designed to be a gregarious and a cohabiting entity, guided by a set of rules-for-living, established a few years back. Last time I looked, the rules were still working and valid.

 

But people like me are a vanishing breed - we are ticked-off as "idealists" or "altruistic Polly-Anna-types" when the reality is there is no need for the mess we have made of the planet economically, socially, ecologically, and politically. Every single problem has come about by two things:

 

i) Breaking the Rules

ii) Not holding the rule-breaker to account

 

Any more problems you want solved today?

 

Then please refer to the above.

[Ingot54 13]

Cheney was no longer head of Haliburton when he was VP.

 

No - he resigned the role of "head" but retained 433,000 company options, held in a "trust".

 

Cheney Gets 'Deferred' Salary From Halliburton Democrats Question Cheney's Halliburton Payments

 

Will Stolen Iraq Oil Funds and Deals For Cronies Force Cheney Impeachment?

 

It was house-keeping ... symbolically a gesture to appease the politically correct ... tick all the boxes and she'll be apples, mate! Do you really think Cheney would give up his Halliburton game for the mere VP position, that would at best last only 8 years? This is a man who likes money and power, and the VP job was only a small step in the scheme of things.

 

Ha ha. :rofl: :helloooo:

 

Oh ... and he was also a very poor shot!

 

Dick Cheney NRA Gun Photo - Cheney Photo Parody

 

Click on the "Previous/Next" link to see them all!

 

Greenspan was a libertarian and his desire to let the banks regulate themselves and let market forces take care of any inefficiencies are what set the stage for the global melt down. Regulating the otc markets that the banks trade the CDSs would have prevented the whole mess. He now admits that he was completely mistaken. Personally, I think he should go to jail.

 

I am unsure about Greenspan being a Libertarian.

 

For one thing, true Libertarians do not promote the accumulation of unmitigated debt as a policy. Fact!

 

The closest thing the US political system has to a Libertarian, is Ron Paul, and you already know how they treat him! And don't Ron Paul's policies include making the US Gov't balance its books, to stop racking up debt, to practice fiscall competence and accountability and responsibility?

 

Greenspan showed none of this. No, he was certainly NO Libertarian.

 

The stage for the GFC was set before the 2000 tech boom/bust, when those who thought we were in for a never-ending bull market continued to borrow and create their way into insane derivative-driven debt.

 

I remember the analysis of the 1987 stock-market collapse. The single most important cause identified, was the unbridled creation and use of derivatives in financial markets.

 

Fast forward to the year 2000, and the lessons were all forgotten - "it's different this time" ... and even the 1998 collapse of the LTCM Hedge Fund didn't ring any alarm bells with the regulators. Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bear Stearns, Lehman bros, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, and so on all had their snouts in the derivatives trough.

 

The first hint of trouble came, I remember very well, was when Bear Stearns was unable to sell some of their bundles CDO's. They asked for time. Credit Spreads widened, and suddenly the game was up. In July 2007 I think, BS held about 20 times leveraged CDO's and was unable to get a bid - liquidity had suddenly dried up.

 

Bear was sold for $10/share later ... after indignantly saying the first offer, $2/share was outrageous. It was ... Bear was quoted in its heyday at $133/share ... less than a year earlier!

 

Why had this occurred? because their mates at the Federal Reserve GUARANTEED their losses ... moral hazard again.

 

But the screws are tightening.

 

Firms like Standard and Poors, Fitch, Moodies ... all have one thing in common - they were responsible for rating the risk. They all failed. They - above ALL OTHERS should have been acutely aware of the risk - that is their job ... that is why they charge clients fees ... and they have the lessons of history more acutely in front of their eyes than any of the firms mentioned ... or should have,

 

As soon as the "too big to fail" mantra became common, then the moral hazard genie was out of the bottle. And the biggest fish to date - Goldman Sachs themselves, have along with Warren Buffett, capitalised on this. They are abusing the knowledge that the US Fed Reserve would NOT allow the bigger companies to go down. The Fed guarantees the losses of these biggies.

 

And why? Because per employee, GS might have more "inside men" involved in US Government departments that any other private company. Is this fair to the people who actually do have morality and are trying to do what is right?

 

I have said before, and I say it once again - the Fed should have allowed the "too-big-to-fail" companies to go to the wall. Let the carnage happen. Then they could have spent just a fraction of the money they have, on cleaning up the disaster zone, without the likes of GS, MS, JPM, ML and Lehman etc.

 

And the big three agencies, colluding to cover up the risk - S&P, Fitch and Moodies?

 

The executives should have been, and still should be, gaoled. A total abrogation of fiscal responsibility and assessment, to protect the system.

 

But hey! Disagree if you wish - it won't change anything.

 

The system is corrupt ... there is no one - NO ONE - who will put up the hand and say: "The buck stops with ME." The public service is too top-heavy with vested interests, lobbyists, favors to be repaid, bribes to be settles, graft and corruption widespread. yet the people don't give a hoot. Where are the protest movements? Where are the activists? Where are the watch-dogs in American Society?

 

Voters thought Obama would do it ... but he couldn't even close Gitmo. All Obama has achieved is QE1 and 2 which is only prolonging the timing and increasing the size of the coming collapse. He had a mandate to wind it all back, and to balance the budget, and to hold those responsible to account.

 

Blew it!

 

You see why the rich really get richer? Because they are all feeding at the same trough, and there is no one who is not corrupt to speak out against them.

 

Am I wrong?

 

I am not familiar with Ron Paul, or his policies, but it seems to me that he has been calling for a very long time now, for some kind of austerity and budgetary common sense in Washington. It seems to me that his calls have been for more than 10 years, consistently and fearlessly.

 

But the system is too big now ... and people with true vision and integrity are easy to ignore when the press is echoing the noises from inside the halls of power, and not the small voices of reason from without.

 

I wish we had such strength of accountability in my country, of the kind Ron Paul displays.