Congratulations to all Americans!

[Olsen]

Olsen, just because there are those who haven't prospered does not in itself prove that this is a zero sum game, any moreso than there are those who *have* prospered proves it.

If you really believe this, you've got to show something far more concrete than saying "there are people with varying degrees of wealth."

This is not science in any way, shape or form.

Don't forget, every Apple shareholder gains when Apple does well. Apple customers buy Apple products and use them to create their own wealth (for example, Final Cut Pro and Macs are used in Hollywood.)

Still waiting to find out what this fixed wealth figure actually is.

Take the US Gross Domestic Product.

That is a figure that has been increasing - and decreasing, through the history. With just a few percent per year, but still so small change that for all practical calculations, regard it as close to fixed. Look at this total US GDP figure as a large cake. A part of this cake salaries. Another is capital gains, yet another the cost of imported goods, another interest on foreign debt. etc.

Say; If capital gains increases with more than the total growth of GDP it has to 'take' that growth from some other part of the cake. etc.

More scaringly; with the increase of the US debt, the part of GDP that goes to serve that debt. That 'increase' of GDP is a growth that nobody (in USA...) prospers from.

 

[dfoo]

This US historical GDP growth rate since 1970 is 3.2 percent. That change is not small at all, and certainly not "close to fixed"; clearly you don't understand compound growth! That represents a growth of more than 350% over 40 years.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Take the US Gross Domestic Product.

That is a figure that has been increasing - and decreasing, through the history. With just a few percent per year, but still so small change that for all practical calculations, regard it as close to fixed. Look at this total US GDP figure as a large cake. A part of this cake salaries. Another is capital gains, yet another the cost of imported goods, another interest on foreign debt. etc.

Say; If capital gains increases with more than the total growth of GDP it has to 'take' that growth from some other part of the cake. etc.

More scaringly; with the increase of the US debt, the part of GDP that goes to serve that debt. That 'increase' of GDP is a growth that nobody (in USA...) prospers from.

Exactly. Of course the net wealth of the world tends to increase, but comparatively slowly. For red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalists to take all the credit, and claim all the rewards, is risible.

Of late, the disparity between rich and poor in several countries has been rising faster than GDP (i.e. the poor are getting poorer in absolute buying-power terms, not just relative terms), and of course, there are always more mouths to feed globally.

Basically, it's a question of how much longer the poor will put up with it. Who believes that terrorism (more or less random killing in support of a supposed ideology) does not have a strong economic component? This is true whether it's freelance or done by whole states.

Cheers,

R.

 

[dfoo]

Have you looked at the GDP growth in China over the last 20 years?

 

[dmr]

I'm very surprised by the Buffett-bashing.

Here in the States, at least, he's considered to be the good guy when compared to the various other top executives of wide exposure.

 

[dfoo]

This US historical GDP growth rate since 1970 is 3.2 percent. That change is not small at all, and certainly not "close to fixed"; clearly you don't understand compound growth! That represents a growth of more than 350% over 40 years.

BTW, that is post inflation growth, not pre. That is _real_ growth.

 

[Olsen]

I'm very surprised by the Buffett-bashing.

Here in the States, at least, he's considered to be the good guy when compared to the various other top executives of wide exposure.

By whom? The main stream media? Is it the same media that lure Americans (most of them, it seems) that men like Warren Buffet create growth for society as a whole and not just for himself?

 

[Olsen]

This US historical GDP growth rate since 1970 is 3.2 percent. That change is not small at all, and certainly not "close to fixed"; clearly you don't understand compound growth! That represents a growth of more than 350% over 40 years.

Sounds impressive, but... don't get hanged up in wether the GDP is constant or not. The US GDP has both been growing - and falling lately. The GDP is the 'cake' that all Americans - rich and poor, can share, deducted cost of loans, materials, imports etc. etc.

I am sure you can find out:

What is the compound growth of the Forbe's 400 and the rest of the US population in the same period....?

 

[Olsen]

Yes, I agree we are on a slippery slope.

But I still have yet to see a valid argument of how the world's wealth is a fixed number, and the only way to increase individual wealth is by decreasing someone else's.

Again; don't get hanged up in wether it is fixed and not. - GDP both grows and falls. It far more important to keep track of how this wealth is distributed. Because; it is the same wealth you can share.

Right now we are approaching salary negotiations between our largest trade unions and the employers organisations here in Norway. In front of this, our Department of Statistics have made a study of 'the distribution of our domestic GDP'. An almost annual study. I haven't followed the details, but 'the state' turns out the winner (taxes), the owers no 2 (profit, capital gains, etc) and the employees as no 3, to what I know. The employees have not kept up with the growth of our GDP, management excluded. Which is a good argument for a salary rise. In most European counties I knwo of, this is a common exersise.

Why not in the US?

 

[Spoks]

The USA is held in the same light by europeans.

Well. There is a lot of 'USA bashing' here. Europe is not perfect either. Over here too; billionaires get richer and the poor are getting poorer. But the picture is more mixed. Some of the European countries are more egalitarian than others, with wealth far better distributed. My impression: The smaller the country, the better.

The only political movement fighting this development is the European Social Democrats. For this they are getting bashed by main stream media, and rediculed by fascist papers like Wall Street Journal in the US. I can name at least three assassinated European social democrat politicians in Europe since WWII. So, Europe is not such a cozy place as it might look.

Still, the European Social Democrat movement is one of the largest political movements in the world with support from 1/3 of the voters of Europe, with a population twice that of USA. That is a support from close to 100 million voters. Compared, the US political party 'The Republicans' is just a small party with support of only 22 - 23 million voters. Even smaller than the many populistic fascist anti emigration parties that get 10 - 15% of the votes over here.

 

[dfoo]

Sounds impressive, but... don't get hanged up in wether the GDP is constant or not. ...

Huh? My figure was the average rate over the 40 years.

 

[dfoo]

Again; don't get hanged up in wether it is fixed and not. - GDP both grows and falls. It far more important to keep track of how this wealth is distributed. Because; it is the same wealth you can share. ...

I would also take issue with that. Much of a nations wealth (and in particular the US) is tied up in non-liquid, or only semi-liquid assets, and is NOT counted as part of the GDP.

 

[Olsen]

I would also take issue with that. Much of a nations wealth (and in particular the US) is tied up in non-liquid, or only semi-liquid assets, and is NOT counted as part of the GDP.

This is not particular in US. - Quite on the contrary. Hasn't your real estate market crashed?

But you are right.

The Forbe's 400 measures the 'value' of these billionaires fortunes. That is not part of the GDP as such. But their income in form of salary and all kinds of financial windfall are. There usually is a connection between fortune and income.

 

[dmr]

By whom? The main stream media?

I have to say that it's the general reputation in the business community and among the Teeming Millions.

Berkshire-Hathaway is seldom mentioned in the same breath with such firms as Enron, Citi, Countrywide, etc. Likewise, Warren B. and Charlie M. are seldom mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Lay, Skilling and "Joe Bananas" of Qwest.

Do a Google search for "most despised executives" and "most despised companies" and you'll get boocoo hits, with very few referring to Warren B. or B-H.

 

[dfoo]

It just goes to show you, some people will do anything to knock someone down.

 

[Spoks]

Huh? My figure was the average rate over the 40 years.

....and what does this figure tell us? That the super rich don't have to be a little bit poorer so all the poor might get richer? Is this your big point?

 

[dfoo]

From your response I guess you completely lost track of the argument. At any rate, I even disagree with what you write above. The poor are richer now than 40 years ago.

 

[Roger Hicks]

From your response I guess you completely lost track of the argument. At any rate, I even disagree with what you write above. The poor are richer now than 40 years ago.

And (in several countries, including the USA) poorer than they were 10 years ago.

Cheers.

R.

 

[dfoo]

Do you actually have some stats to back that up? Personally I don't think, in many cases, that the poor become poor because the rich become rich. The poor become poor for many reasons, such as their environment, upbringing, level of intelligence, lack of opportunity and sometimes (only sometimes mind you) because they are lazy. Sometimes people are not well off, simply because that isn't that important to them. Some rich become rich because they happened to choose the right parents. Others, however, become rich because becoming rich is their number one goal. They are driven, and work intelligently towards that goal.

 

[Olsen]

Do you actually have some stats to back that up? Personally I don't think, in many cases, that the poor become poor because the rich become rich. The poor become poor for many reasons, such as their environment, upbringing, level of intelligence, lack of opportunity and sometimes (only sometimes mind you) because they are lazy. Sometimes people are not well off, simply because that isn't that important to them. Some rich become rich because they happened to choose the right parents. Others, however, become rich because becoming rich is their number one goal. They are driven, and work intelligently towards that goal.

...look up the statistics on the purchasing power of the last 10 years of just ordinary Americans....

Further...

how has the wealth been financed? By loans...?