OT: You Need 1,450% Income Growth to Join the 1%

5) A revolution lead by SJG and hookers with pitchforks is coming and then we'll all be the 50%.

Testify Douglass testify

Actually, Dougsteer, if you (1) happen to be a leading neurosurgeon or (2) just invented the transistor or (3) you came up with the special theory of relativity then 1450% income growth is just fine with me. If you got that income growth by figuring out some clever way to sell fucked-up mortgages as securities, then it's totally reprehensible.

Also, trolls deserve very large income growth (as long as they are sensational trolls and not garden-variety trolls).

Furthermore, calling people "fags" is not PC. Just ask Clubber. Sheesh!!!

I'm at 500%! Another 13 years to get to 1450% for my lifetime to reach that 1%. Now all I need to do is decide which political party to follow. Where o where will I find the guidance to get me there? I sure as hell can't do it alone.

You do realize who owns Bloomberg news service. Michael Bloomberg the elitist form mayor of NYC who suffers from short man's syndrome. That little shit bag does not want anyone to succeed he does not choose. He has made millions by scamming people and does not know what an original idea is. He also has made a lot of money by buying political influence and inside information. Not a good example. He also is in favor of higher taxes since he pays almost no taxes (and never will) himself due to his "special circumstances" that he got from buying off politicians. You want a fair tax system a flat tax with almost no deductions (kids, dependents and you primary residence up to a reasonable amount) is the only way to true get anything from the ultra wealthy like Buffet, Bloomberg, Gates, Kennedys, Reid, Romney, Zuckerberg, Kerry7 and the like. Otherwise they will buy off congressmen to build in loophole to hide their money in or move it offshore like the Kennedys did. Or better yet make it all a point of sale tax: you tax what people buy except food and medicine. That way the more you spend the more tax you pay. You can bet John Kerry with his wife's billions does not shop at Wal-Mart and Bloomberg does NOT drive himself in a Chevy Spark. A point of sale tax will also tax the underground economy like dope dealers.

Josh, part of the problem is that there really is no line between the so called legitimate finance sector, and the kind of scams of which you speak.

SJG

Well, I experienced ~2200% income growth between the ages of 25 and 55. I'm not in the "top 1%", so much for those studies.

^^^ must have disbelieved or spoke contrary to the Libertarian party line at some point.

"part of the problem is that there really is no line between the so called legitimate finance sector, and the kind of scams of which you speak."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very good point, SJC. If only the budding oligarchs here on TUSCL could grasp that point. However, many lose sight of the truth in an orgy of greed and power.

^^^ splitting?

Bloomberg should be president. It's a shame he'll never run.

Yes, he could run for either party and win. Only person in the country who could win as Republican candidate, IMO.

Don't like his gun policies. Other than that he is a borderline saintly figure (assuming Jews coukd be still be canonized). Made his fortune in the financial world though, so it would be hilarious to see guys like SJG and Josh scramble to cover their above stamps about all finance being evil if he did run.

It is worse still, it is not just that there has never been any line between speculative scams and some supposed legitimate finance sector.

Actually, if there was any sort of a line it was from the time FDR took office and imposed regulations and steep progressive taxation, up until Jimmy Carter left office at the start of 1980, to see all of that dismantled.

Things could be changed today overnight simply by going back to a regulated financial sector and then once again collecting an FDR thru Carter level of taxes on high incomes. Then the government could run off of current income, and that money it would spend to protect the middle tier of jobs. It would not be that everyone in the middle would be working for the government, it is simply that government spending has always been needed to prop up that center.

But as it stands today, the government is obliged to borrow the money and then to be later paying it back at interest. Often this will be to the very same speculators who have learned all sorts of ways to make money off of the government itself.

But I say it is worse than just the problem of there being no 'legitimate financial sector' anymore. What is happening is that the speculators are able to determine what sorts of innovation are attempted.

One commentator Paulina Borsook,

http://www.amazon.com/Cyberselfish-Criti…

spoke of work going on during the dot com bubble. People always referred to it as, "High Tech". But in fact often it was little more than just people figuring out branding strategies for dog food.

The speculators drive the whole affair in the direction of things which work like branding strategies. They do not spur innovation, they control and regulate it, and choke off anything which acts against them.

This is why even back in the 1920's Thorstein Veblen was referring to business as "The Price System". It was a system for limiting innovation so that profits could be made.

Today, this is still the sort of stuff that the speculators fund. It corrupts many of the people who do the work too.

Capitalism is insane. It never attempts to solve the problems it creates. Instead it always looks to ever more expansion, like into new territories, new technologies, new social realms, the human genome, human psychology, and probably into outer space.

Capitalism depends on never ending growth and at a never ending rate of growth of the growth. It depends on having and endless serious of positive derivatives. Once this falters, then it starts to cave in.

@Dougster, do you have some sort of inferiority complex and so are you trying to hide behind money? This is what I keep hearing you trying to put onto other people, trying to make them feel that they have to be rich in order to matter and have an opinion. Is this how it is for you?

It might surprise you to know that there are lots of us who actually enjoy the various types of work that we do. We do it because we are proud of what we do and of our skills and abilities. And so we have zero reluctance to stand up to people like yourself who want to deny others that same sort of pride.

It might not come to women and men marching, as you say, with pitchforks. Things would start to change if people would just start voting. Things would further change if people could start working and living together and building new types of industries. This is where I am involved. But it also could come down to violence in the streets, at some point. It took an extra legal abolitionist movement to end slavery. Mostly what has to happen is new types of alliances are needed, ones which respect the people who actually to the work, and which enable people to stand up for themselves and to not fall prey to this idea that only the speculators matter.

SJG

( P.S. Sorry but I'm often not even on now for a hour per day. So it is hard for me to keep up. But I will eventually find all the replies. )

@SJG: I'm fine with people of all income levels providing they aren't fags. I just like to make fun of fags who think they know about things they don't. Like Stevie-girls prediction of doom last year. Especially after they went on and on about and there was the circle/jerk here pile on effect.

I'm quite capable of seeing whether an argument is right or wrong beyond the wallet of the presenter. Hell there are probably goes on here who do make decent money but are still complete fags.

You may be projecting your own feeling about yourself and your credibility into others and charging your usual windmills.

@SJG: if Bloomberg did run for President how would you feel? Would you support him?

@Dougster I'm just responding to the very things you are writing in your posts.

Of course, I would not support Bloomberg for President. Just what he did in taking over NYC schools was enough to never support him for anything.

And as far as prediction of doom, I want the bubbles to burst. I see this as sanity.

Problem is though that sometimes it goes further than this and so more people get hurt. We have a huge bubble right now and I believe that it will burst in time to try and influence the 2016 election so that the Republicans can win the Presidency. I am opposed to this.

And I do hope that Steve229 comes back and I don't think you should be calling people fags.

SJG

Some people rather do nothing else other than becoming sniveling whiny little bitches about everything, especially the stock in their life. Whoever said life is fair?
Here in the US is the only place where on taxpayer money you can sit on your ass, have a maid clean your place and do your laundry, and have free food and housing. I was listening to Howard Stern this week and a classic case of someone like this is wack packer "High pitch Eric". You don't get the treatment like he gets in any other country, but all the bitchy whiny faggotts want to point out is the des parity in income and how we should get rid of classes and equalize the results of the playing field. You see the liberals aren't interested in equalizing the playing field, they just want everyone to achieve the same results no matter how much you work for it.

Just curious, Meat, whether you will be taking social security and Medicare? Are those entitlements you can live with? Maybe we should just send all old people out on a boat and let them die -- since, after all, who said life is fair?

That's funny in the context social security and Medicaid is used. First of all they are earned, and secondly if that is all you have to lean on then you are mathematically poor. The relevance of those programs do not fit with this conversation. The programs should be there as a safety net, and it goes to show how little we have as a society to complaim about. But with so much prosperity around some people try to point out what's wrong like they are goin to get a reward for it.

@SJG: I'm surprised you won't support Bloomberg. His educational moves were definitely controversial and the guy is quirkier than most (generally goes hand in hand with having an independent mind). Overall, I thought you would like him.

Is there anyone you would support for president? Liz Warren? $14 million net worth but champion against the 1%?

Meat72: "so much prosperity around some people try to point out what's wrong like they are goin to get a reward for it."

Yeah, what exactly are all these urgent problems that need addressing and are supposedly caused by wealth disparity? I walk around and have trouble seeing them. Are they people in situations that need help and there is no way to get out if they want to?

Liz Warren? $14 million net worth but champion against the 1%?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not effective snark, Douglas, and I'm quite sure you can do better. Perhaps you're a product of Bloomberg-era schools. Or maybe your vaccines are long overdue.

Net worth of $14M is about average in the Senate and perfectly reasonable for a competent Senator and former Harvard law prof. Her entire net worth is about one-sixtieth of the amount the Koch brothers have raised to influence just the 2016 elections. Glad that Warren is not running because she has zero chance of winning. She understands the wonky elements of the financial crisis and she is better off in the Senate where she can be a specialist and stick to what she knows best. And as the crisis fades away into this boom, we need someone there who understands and remembers what happened.

If you insist on picking on rich hypocrites, then Feinstein might be a better choice. She's filthy rich, married to an investment banker, and speaks out on inequality.

...and off, off-topic, Scott Walker seems to be getting a lot of buzz for 2016.

You're a real genius aren't you, Josh? Your logic is there are politicians with even more money than her therefore she is not part of the 1% she likes to talk her game about? Wow, you've sure got some extraordinary reasoning powers even by TUSCL standards don't you?

And yes her net wealth would make her lose credibility if she did run and tried to rachet up the rheoteric which is why she doesn't run,

Calm down, Dougster. Warren is self-made and from a working-class background. She could never win because she's too liberal -- and that has absolutely nothing to do with her net worth.

sorry josh but I can tell from the hostility of your reaction that you know that is exact why this fantasy of Liz Warren as Democratic Messiah will never come true, and how disappointed you are by this.

And it gets worse... For all her she would be no different if she ran. Would either tine down Her rheoteric or be wise enough not to slay the goose that lays the golden egg.

My favorite Liz Warren quote: "I like free markets". Liberal Messiah indeed.

elizabeth warren? she’s just another mega-rich indian squaw.

no, wait a minute. that’s not true.

she’s just another mega-rich 100% lily-white lying thieving limousine liberal whore.

there, that’s better.

Haha! Wasn't sure what the good doctor was talking about with that Native American stuff. Had to look that one up, but good stuff!

Had to look that one up
--------------------------------------------------
...probably cause you've devoted your entire adult life to bumping your own faggot threads on TUSCL.

Warren never really cleared up the Native American claim and it's a valid criticism, especially if she got affirmative action getting into Harvard.

Still don't understand the "Mega-Rich" bullshit, though. Especially coming from the rich oligarchs of TUSCL ($14M would be pocked change to Douglas).

pocked == pocket

Josh, let me see if I can make this so simple even you can understand. Now, I have some doubts that is possible, give what you want and need to believe, but I'll try nevertheless.

To be in the "top 1%" you either need an income of around $400,000k/y or a net worth around $8 million. Liz Warren makes this on both counts.

No you counter by saying "yeah, but some politicians make even more so she is not top 1%!" That is just incredibly stupid reasoning. If it was valid the only person who won't be top 1% would be the world's richest man (Gates) because everyone could point to someone who made more than they did.

Do you get it now Josh? When you try and determine if someone is top 1% or not you only have to look at their income/wealth and compare it to the baseline. It just doesn't matter if there is some people who make point. It's such a pathetic attempt a deflection, I don't know if the Democratic Party who include it in their tactics manual, but you could propose it and see what they say.

Get it now, Josh?

(And no, I don't follow politics play by play since it doesn't have much impact on the markets. Maybe a week or two if there is government shut down I'll follow it hour by hour, but even then it is so obvious it's just theatre it's just an opportunity to laugh at those who do believe.)

Yes, I just finished analyzing a set of stochastic differential equations, and it turns out that Warren is indeed in the top 1%. Who gives a fuck? She just has average net worth in the Senate. At least she understands what caused the financial crisis, and she has the balls to stand up to wall street. Otherwise we get an endless stream of clowns blaming the crisis on poor people and the Community Reinvestment Act. After 8 years of misery, you would think her skills would be appreciated. Can't a free-thinking oligarch like yourself appreciate what she has to offer???

The Native American claim bothers liberals -- a lot.

We argue endlessly about where to put the decimal point. The real issue is that wealth is building in the top 0.01% or 0.001%, occupied by people in the financial services industry, who do nothing for society.

So how do you feel about the Cock brothers spending $900M on a single election? Is that the kind of democracy you want?

Josh: "So how do you feel about the Cock brothers spending $900M on a single election? Is that the kind of democracy you want? "

In some sense I'm with SJG that what I want to see is a more participatory democracy. Like ancient Athens but including women and (wage) slaves this time. :-) Technological advances should make this possible. Might be a 5 years project if people decided they wanted it.

I'm not with him about people living on communes and I think it's only a small % of the population who would want so it won't ever happen.

I made the decision last year to tie my own fate very tightly to how the East Coast financial industry does. I'm not quite "all-in" - if there was a downturn I would have enough emergency funds to go elsewhere, but I need it to do well if I'm going to make the 1% in any reasonable amount of time.

Liz Warren doesn't scare me at all. Get her in. If she is going to put in legislation that prevents Wall Street from blowing it itself up that is good news for me. Some extra derivatives/leverage/funds segregation isn't what's holding back financials right now. Rather it's low interest rates. They were needed for a time, but no longer.

As I say, Liz Warren "likes free markets". I believe when she says that. Run your stochastic differential equations and calculate how much her wealth could have come from salary and how much must have been investments, and you will see she would have no interest in crippling the financial world.

She just knows how to talk real good. No threat to me. Hell, I'd probably vote her unless Bloomberg ran for the Republicans, then it would be a close call. I just know she has shot her mouth off too much in the past and left herself wide open to be criticized on her own personal wealth. Sure others have more wealth than her but have not shot their mouth off like she has.

Josh: "Cock brothers"

Lol! Was that you or auto-correct? :-)

Or is it Coke? Ha ha, lol!!

@Josh43 “The Native American claim bothers liberals -- a lot”


and yet lizzie is the standard bearer, the champion and the great white hope of the liberals.

sometimes i wonder about the REAL native American that didn’t get to go to penn and harvard and maybe become a US senator on account of lizzie lying to steal those opportunities for herself when she otherwise never could have had them. i wonder if that very REAL person is condemned to dealing blackjack in some indian casino or is just waiting for the welfare check to take down to exchange for firewater ten feet outside the rez at that convenient liquor store which is most likely owned by some new england limousine liberal family. but i am glad to hear that “The Native American claim bothers liberals -- a lot”

you really do have to kind of admire liberals who all get by through pretending to care about shit while in truth they are stone cold motherfuckers who would watch someone bleed out in the gutter with the same expression on their face they use to order a Caesar salad. it's an amazing trick to pull off.

^^^ This is stupid, inflammatory shit, but I'll try to answer objectively.

It's true that the Native American claim was never cleared up, but it was also never documented that Warren checked the "Native American" box on her application. If you have such proof, then give a link. If Warren did lie on her application, I agree that it's a very serious charge.

"Great white hope of the liberals" is just inflammatory crap. She has special skills and knowledge of the financial crisis. If you look at the financial crisis with any objectivity, you would appreciate having someone like Warren in the Senate to avoid another crisis in the future.

There are conservatives and liberals that lack compassion; calling all liberals stone-cold motherfuckers just reveals your own lack of objectivity and it's impossible to take anything else you say, seriously.

What a dumbass post.

While he might be pushing it a bit, I've certainly found conservative much more genuinely friendly and compassionate on an individual level. Almost like they take it as their personality responsibility to act this way and not delegate it to the state. I agree with Dr Phil that Liberals don't really seem to care when push comes to shove and its up to them individually to do something. It's all saying the right things to be in a clique and feel morally superior while not putting their money where their mouth: tell other people, however, that they should have too. Conservatives seem 10x genuine to me.

"I've certainly found conservative much more genuinely friendly and compassionate on an individual level. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to prove one way or another. The "new" Paul Ryan has coined the phrase "envy economics" which personally makes me sick to my stomach, and I bet he couldn't care less about the poor. In the end, I bet there is no correlation between compassion and party affiliation. Who cares, really?

@Meat says "Or is it Coke? Ha ha, lol!!"
Meat: hard to tell whether you are laughing with me or laughing at me. I can assure you that "Cock(SIC) brothers" was intentional and not auto-correct. The Cock brothers are the poster-child for the problems with wealth inequality. Inherited wealth, the brothers sued each other for daddy's fortune. They are secretive (privately owned company), they use their wealth to fight against things like the minimum wage, and government regulation, and because of Citizen Untied, they are able to legally put almost a billion dollars to sway the next election. David Koch ran earlier as a Libertarian. Eighty billion dollars -- now that's what you call wealth. In fairness, the Dems have plenty rich dudes, too.

"I've certainly found conservative much more genuinely friendly and compassionate on an individual level. "
------------------------------------------------------------
Hard to prove one way or another. The "new" Paul Ryan has coined the phrase "envy economics" which personally makes me sick to my stomach, and I bet he couldn't care less about the poor. In the end, I bet there is no correlation between compassion and party affiliation. Who cares, really?

@Meat says "Or is it Coke? Ha ha, lol!!"
Meat: hard to tell whether you are laughing with me or laughing at me. I can assure you that "Cock(SIC) brothers" was intentional and not auto-correct. The Cock brothers are the poster-child for the problems with wealth inequality. Inherited wealth, the brothers sued each other for daddy's fortune. They are secretive (privately owned company), they use their wealth to fight against things like the minimum wage, and government regulation, and because of Citizen Untied, they are able to legally put almost a billion dollars to sway the next election. David Koch ran earlier as a Libertarian. Eighty billion dollars -- now that's what you call wealth. In fairness, the Dems have plenty rich dudes, too.

Sorry about double-post.

Just what I've noticed as a clear pattern throughout my life. Your experience may be different.

"Coke" or "Cock", I'm definitely laughing with you as I get the humor in it Sir Josh.