Whatever happened to the upper class ?

22 posts / 0 new

Only 6% of millionaires remain millionaires after 9 years.

This fact tends to debunk the Leftwing notions of class warfare and privledge.

Indeed, the only economic fact that is enduring is government corruption, cronyism and debt.

Source:

http://mercatus.org/publication/millionaires-unlikely-stay-millionaires-long?UA-2082207-2

truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm

Comments

If you can only blame government for the corruption of Wall St. and the MIC industrialists, then your binary world of Rightwing debunkerdom comes out Libertarian. If you can conceive of government that can resist such corruption because it actually is the tool of the people for self-government, you can become a democrat and have a political analysis again.

As you consistently attack the Left and government while letting the cronies and corrupters off the hook, I continue to regard your handle as a troll label for Power speaking to Truth. When you take on power instead of the poor, when you engage in politics instead of cynicism about government, you may be able to live up to your rhetorical title. Until then, you have nothing, again.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Your chart is for people earning a million a year, a millionaire is a person with a net worth of 1,000,000.
It is unlikely that many people worth $1mil 8 years later find themselves destitute. They may lose something, they may get beaten up by the market forces, but they tend to remain wealthy.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
As you consistently attack the Left and government while letting the cronies and corrupters off the hook, I continue to regard your handle as a troll label for Power speaking to Truth. --DRC

The only way that 'cronies and corrupters' can gain power is by leveraging government. In the absence of government these corrupt, inefficient, wasteful actors must compete for consumer and business preferences within a free, voluntary and competitive marketplace --hence they fail and go bankrupt.

Indeed, obama and the Left bailed out these corrupt cronies to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars at the expense of Main Street.

However, when has fact, logic and empirical certainty ever swayed the faith-based egalitarian who live is continually conned by self-serving 'hope and change' snake oil salesmen ?

In sum, those individuals and societies that surrender their wealth and freedoms to a political elite class will see neither prosperity, equality or freedom.

truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm

Nope, if they have no government to contend with, they just take over as warlords, landlords and banksters. They hire their own guns and institute rape and pillage.

You keep confusing the Bush bailouts with the Democrats. If you cannot get the nuances of this correctly, your criticisms of Obama lose any credibility. Many here believe that Obama has been too cautious, but we may be speaking from hope rather than realism. That we need more than we have gotten is not reason to act as if Obama were Bush or did what he did.

I have not supported any elite political class or economic class ever.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm sure the warlords in Afghanistan and Somalia ar really dreading the absence of a strong govt, because is they didn't have the gov... oh wait that is completely ass-backwards. The absence of counter force allows the wealthy and powerful to consolidate freely. Only by buying the government, through their natural, imperialist conservative allies, can the wealthy control a democratic nation. So, the conservatives go around telling people to vote for conservatives who will gut the govt to make things easier for wannabe corporate warlords.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote DRC:

You keep confusing the Bush bailouts with the Democrats.

Well, there is a good reason for this. Even though it was President Bush who signed off on the TARP legislation if you look at the Congress voting record it is clear this was a Democrat plan. I and many other Conservatives are extremely unhappy that Bush allowed Democrats to vote this through.

TARP yeas = 263 (63%) Democrat 172, Republican 91

TARP nays = 171 (39%) Democrat 63, Republican 108

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-681

Obama was among the Democrat majority that voted through TARP.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm...

Calperson's picture
Calperson
Joined:
Dec. 11, 2010 10:21 am

All bush had to do was veto it Cal..........BUT.........he didn't did he? We know why he didn't but apparently you don't which doesn't surprise me one bit.

Remember all the fear mongering going on we have to do this now to save the banking industry/country? I would have let those SOB's fail and if possible forgave all the outstanding loans and in the long run it would have probably been cheaper. The consumers that had loans forgiven just think of all that money they would have had to spend in our tanking economy immediately. The crooks got bailed out and the consumers got hosed......again.

Had your party done its frickin job all of this housing mess could have probably been avoided. Put the blame where it really belongs Cal and quit picking around the edges. Your party owned the government when all this shit was going on and when it finally came to a boil what did bush do? Remember him saying everything is alright just spend spend spend even though the economy was slowly going down in the shitter. If both bailouts would have been spent on protecting the consumers we would have been better off today.....Has anyone gone to jail yet for wrecking the economy here and those economies abroad?.......I'm pretty sure the answer is F no they haven't and the next question should be ....Why Not?.......If we had a press that worked for the people this should be on the evening news every night until all those responsible are in jail or my personal favorite......Executed so they can't committ the same crimes again......I have no use for thieves...period.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

Nope, if they have no government to contend with, they just take over as warlords, landlords and banksters. They hire their own guns and institute rape and pillage. --DRC

Agreed, I am not an anarchist.

Indeed, our Constitutional Federal Republic intentionally decentralizes, balances, limits, and makes transparent the elements of armed force within society --- hence, civil and political liberties have been protected and expanded.

However, statists, absolutists, socialists, et al have found a backdoor to undermine societal rights in the form of economic coercion in a quid pro quo scheme of tax and regulatory preferences to cronies in the private and public sector for campaign contributions, bribes, and special interest votes.

You keep confusing the Bush bailouts with the Democrats.--DRC

You keep confusing fallacy with facts ---

virtually every single progressive (including obama) voted to bailout wall street and reward failed CEOs with bonuses at the expense of Main Street.. IN contrast the only sturdy and principled opposition was from libertarian conservatives.

truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm
I'm sure the warlords in Afghanistan and Somalia ar really dreading the absence of a strong govt, because is they didn't have the gov... oh wait that is completely ass-backwards. --phaedrus76

progressive government wouldnt work in afghanistan and somalia either -- in fact very little can function in these hell holes due to factors unrelated to economics.

Hence, when you compare America or any other western nation with somalia and afghanistan -- you are engaged in a fallacious argument equivalent of comparing apples and oranges.

our constitutional federal republic guarantees civil and political rights --not because of a strong central government -- precisely the opposite. It is because the elements of armed force in society are intentionally balanced, decentralized, limited and made transparent. hence we have seen our civil and political freedoms expanded since 1776 and 1787.

In contrast, statists have found a backdoor to power in the form of economic coercion in the form of tax and regulatory power that enables these self-interested politicians and their cronies in the public and private sector to gain and hold power at the expense of Main Street.

Indeed, it is grand naivete to think that any politician or political structure does anything other than serve itself. Yet those on the Left continually search for the next 'hope and change' snake oil con man that will deliver a utopian outcome to societal ills.

So, the conservatives go around telling people to vote for conservatives who will gut the govt to make things easier for wannabe corporate warlords.-- phaedrus76

You dont remotely understand what true conservative -libertarians desire. For example, we understand that government enables and protects 'wannabe corporate warlords' in a quid pro quo scheme of bribes, campaign contributions, et al for preferential tax and regulatory policy.

Lastly -- and here is the unassailable truth -- if government did not have the power to tax and regulate commerce, then corrupt, inefficient, and wasteful corporations would die on the vine because they would not be effective at satisfying consumer demands in a free, voluntary and competitive marketplace.

truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm

@sprinklerfitter,

Many factors contributed to the housing collapse which in turn led to the financial collapse.

However, the response from statists like Bush and the progressives was palapable and telling ---

THey bailed out bad actors, thus creating another round of moral hazard that will lead to the next far more devastating economic collapse.

In contrast, if for some miraculous reason free market capitalist principles were in play and the government did not have the power to game the economy for its friends on Wall Street with TARP -- then all of these corrupt, wasteful, greedy and/or inefficient actors would have been justifiably burned and bankrupted.

Moreover, Main Street would not have been forced to pay a dime to the subsequent profits and bonuses that these bad actors received -- largely thanks to cronies like Obama, bush, frank, reid, et al. Indeed, banks and other financial institutions have made more profits in the first two years under obama then the previous eight years under bush !

IN sum, government is a market where corrupt, inefficient, wasteful corporations and special interests go to get what they want when they can't get it in a free, voluntary and competitive marketplace.

And yet, the Left will continue to hope for the next hope and change snake oil peddler who in reality screws them as good as any republican. YOu cant remove self-interest and corruption from government when it controls vast sums of wealth in the form of tax and regulatory power.

Removing corruption from an entity that controls trillions of dollars in wealth is like trying to win the drug war.

didnt einstein have a name for progressive who continually and naively think that fair and responsible government is possible ???

truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm

It is not tyranny to prosecute fraud.

Who should we be prosecuting? Well, there’s Dick Fuld of Lehman; James Cayne of Bear, Stearns; Joseph Cassano of AIGFP; Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide; and E. Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, just to name a few. There’s also all the bailed out top bankers still in power, such as Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, and the meltdown era executives at the other biggest bailout recipients: Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley. And that’s not an exhaustive list.http://abigailcfield.com/?p=686





bamboo's picture
bamboo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Truth to Power: ...

Really? Another debate you will run away from? Please...

If you want to know something about mobility in the US, then you have to read peer-reviewed economic articles on income mobility. If you do that, you find the US is ranked about average or below average among developed nations.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Really? Another debate you will run away from? Please...--Dr. econ

dude I dont have the time to answer everyone of your fallacious posts.

I do have a life.

If you want to know something about mobility in the US, then you have to read peer-reviewed economic articles on income mobility. If you do that, you find the US is ranked about average or below average among developed nations.-- dr. econ

To paraphrase Churchill:

The vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of prosperity, the virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery.

Nonetheless, I am not against equality -- the Tea Party is against using government to achieve this end.

Indeed, as government has expanded, inequality has expanded.

Of course, it is obvious to any rational, objective and independent thinking citizen that surrendering freedoms to big government in order to address inequalities in society will neither increase equality or prosperity.

Why?

It is obvious to any rational, objective, and independent thinking analyst that government only serves itself and its cronies in the public and private sector at the expense of the very people and causes it was originally created to address.

Wake up dude and stop feeding the beast (government and their private and public sector cronies)

truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm
It is not tyranny to prosecute fraud.

Who should we be prosecuting? Well, there’s Dick Fuld of Lehman; James Cayne of Bear, Stearns; Joseph Cassano of AIGFP; Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide; and E. Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, just to name a few. There’s also all the bailed out top bankers still in power, such as Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, and the meltdown era executives at the other biggest bailout recipients: Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley. And that’s not an exhaustive list.http://abigailcfield.com/?p=686 -- bamboo

Blame big government for bailing out these cronies at the expense of Main Street.

The free market would have punished these bad actors with impunity. Government bailed them out.


truth to power's picture
truth to power
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2011 7:21 pm

So we reform government. In the absence of government what you have is not a "free market" but playground rules or, in other words, the biggest bully gets his way. Our government is us but you want to get rid of us governing ourselves and leave the door open for gangsters and swindlers and con artists and legally sanctioned vultures to dominate our lives. Thank you very much but I'll take my chances with a government that I can vote in or out of office every two years. You libertarians imagine that in the absence of authority everybody would just play nice and that displays a naivety beyond comprehension.

mdhess's picture
mdhess
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2010 11:43 pm
Quote truth to power: dude I dont have the time to answer everyone of your fallacious posts.

Let me repeat - since you failed to address my point as you always do: what is the point blabbering about mobility when you have no knowledge of how mobile the US is?

And if you don't have time to answer points, then why do you start new ones?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote truth to power: To paraphrase Churchill: The vice of capitalism is unequal sharing of prosperity, the virtue of socialism is equal sharing of misery.

To paraphrase Keannu Reeves:

Quote Keannu Reeves: dude
Quote TTP:.. Indeed, as government has expanded, inequality has expanded.

Dude! WTF? Inequality has fallen in the US since about the time of Reagan. I would go on and talk about different countries, and their time periods, but I doubt you care about the accuracy of your statements.

Quote TTP: ...Of course, it is obvious to any rational, objective and independent thinking citizen that surrendering freedoms to big government in order to address inequalities in society will neither increase equality or prosperity.

How can that be 'obvious' when the only successful developed nations are mixed economies with progressive tax systems?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote truth to power:
It is not tyranny to prosecute fraud.

Who should we be prosecuting? Well, there’s Dick Fuld of Lehman; James Cayne of Bear, Stearns; Joseph Cassano of AIGFP; Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide; and E. Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, just to name a few. There’s also all the bailed out top bankers still in power, such as Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, and the meltdown era executives at the other biggest bailout recipients: Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley. And that’s not an exhaustive list.http://abigailcfield.com/?p=686 -- bamboo

Blame big government for bailing out these cronies at the expense of Main Street.

The free market would have punished these bad actors with impunity. Government bailed them out.

Dude! I thought you were against fraud. What kind of lame brain libertarian philosophy are you advocating, anyway? That corporations can commit fraud?


[/quote]

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote truth to power:
It is not tyranny to prosecute fraud.

Who should we be prosecuting? Well, there’s Dick Fuld of Lehman; James Cayne of Bear, Stearns; Joseph Cassano of AIGFP; Angelo Mozillo of Countrywide; and E. Stanley O’Neal of Merrill Lynch, just to name a few. There’s also all the bailed out top bankers still in power, such as Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, and the meltdown era executives at the other biggest bailout recipients: Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley. And that’s not an exhaustive list.http://abigailcfield.com/?p=686 -- bamboo

Blame big government for bailing out these cronies at the expense of Main Street.

The free market would have punished these bad actors with impunity. Government bailed them out.


You know damn well if the government didn't bail those SOB's out this country would have probably been in a serious depression. Big government screws up everytime something is deregulated. I think Government should have taken them over first by firing all those SOB's who made bad and corrupt decisions that crashed our economy. Then they should have been prosecuted. It would have been cheaper to forgive all loans, sold off all their assets to their competitors, gave those left a years salary to find another job. Or you could do what I think needs to be done to them and that is execute them like China did several of their financial thieves last year. No long drawn out court case for years. Swift and final justice that keeps the thieves from ever doing it again. That may seem a little harsh to some but I have no use for thieves especially those who hide behind the law to screw people out of everything they own. It really takes a rotten to the core SOB to treat anyone like they are disposable.

That's my 2 cents worth for a sunday morning. Time for another cup of coffee. Chris Hayes will be coming on in few minutes and I really like that young fellow. He seems to be pretty honest in his reporting which is something many others can't say for themselves.

Great line up of guests this morning. Amy Goodman is on there and I like watching her show.

Sprinklerfitter's picture
Sprinklerfitter
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2011 6:49 am

TTP is very confused.

Left Wing radicals would like to bring back Glass-Steagall Act. right wings do not.

Left wing radicals would like to limit insider trading on the hill. right wingers are sort of agreeing

Left wings wanted vote counting in Florida to ferret out irregularities and corruption... right wing shut it down

the people TTP pointed out of corruption were for the most part are right wing conservatives.

As for millionaire losing that status after 9 years? Well millionaire did mean you were rich in "ages past" even as recently as 30 years ago. A million dollar in bank was wealthy, when houses cost $16,000 and monthly pay was less than $1,000. A pound of sirloin steak cost 18cents/lb. And a brand new cadillac cost less than $3,000... You need about $10million or more. More like $50million I would think. Anything less and you are not really in a "millionaire club". If you only have a million, Its not much really. Yawn at your comment TTP. Million dollar in your piggy bank doesn't go very far these days.

I would consider a person to be in a "millionaire club" if their monthly capital gain routinely exceed their monthly expense. You need about $10million on the low end to do this. And if you are this club of millionaire, you are not about to become a proletariat any time soon.

smilingcat
Joined:
Sep. 23, 2010 9:14 am
Quote smilingcat:

If you only have a million, Its not much really. Million dollar in your piggy bank doesn't go very far these days.

"I could deal widdit" (lol) Seriously though, I hear ya.

anti-Republicon
Joined:
Aug. 21, 2011 10:37 pm

Currently Chatting

GOP Blocks Equal Pay...again.

Just in time for election season, Senate Republicans blocked legislation aimed at closing the gender pay gap. For the third time since 2012, Republicans refused to allow debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act, and reminded women that the GOP doesn't believe in equal pay for equal work.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system