Super-rich become wealthier again, Sunday Times says

reply to post by drew hempel


You blame the managerial class? What a joke. Who is this managerial class?

Jeez, certainly fell for the marxist dogma huh? Yes, as we can see the move toward the communist format here in the US is doing well. You can tell by the excellent managerial skill of government.

I suppose your idea is to have no managers?

I guess when I ran my business, I was part of the problem aye?

That is about it, pretty funny there though.

reply to post by endisnighe


are.berkeley.edu...

Across all TFA plants, profits fell relative to other sectors. Profit declines were largest in the districts targeted by anti-sweatshop activities. It appears that the anti-sweatshop movement resulted in a type of 1 For a discussion of the role of minimum wages in Indonesia, see SMERU Research Institute (2001) or Rama (1996). 4 forced profit sharing, where higher wages for TFA workers were financed largely through lower returns to capital.

reply to post by drew hempel


Okay, last comment. It seems you just want to post non nonsensical replies so I am done.

Please explain to others what your last comment even means, since it has nothing to do with the discussion. I have seen your technique before of not even bothering to debate the topic and just continue to post things that have nothing to do with the discussion.

Thanks for playing.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


30% ?

Nasdaq is almost to 2007's highs already basically up 100%.

DJIA up 65-70%+ as well I believe

Remember, it takes the elevator down and the stairs up. The faster it falls the greater velocity move to the upside will usually result. Goes both ways. There are many examples of this, remember the mid 2000's till early 2008 was a bull market as well following the tech crash.

It's just psychologically hard to buy at the bottom.

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Oh you mean the Housing Bubble?

Boom Bust is the proper cycle of capitalism.

reply to post by endisnighe

GDP of Haiti: $8.5 billion. Goldman Sachs bonus pool: $20 billion.

reply to post by drew hempel


How does the housing bubble have anything to do with NASDAQ being up 100% this past year or so?

Your responses are tiring, I should have blocked you long ago. Hope to see you when you create your new handle.

reply to post by GreenBicMan


The post I was responding to used the figure 30%, so in my reply I used his/her figure. I didnt mean to state the 30% as a fact, I was commenting on his/her implying that people would be angered by the rich getting richer out of pure envy, rather than some underlying unfairness.

I am sure you are right about the actual percentage, I know you pay much more attention to the markets than I do, from other posts of yours. I didnt take the time to find out the actual percentage increase because my post really wasnt related to the percentage. I was trying to point out that the anger people are feeling here is not your run of the mill envy. There really was underlying unfairness in how this all played out, and who bore the costs of this economic crisis.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


I didn't mean it like that either.

My only point was there are plenty of historical examples of these things happening in the markets, so it's really not that big of a surprise. If you think about it DOW 6500 was priced at destruction. There really is no such thing as DOW 4000 because at that point it is all melting down anyway.

Just a generational buying opportunity that most missed out on because of lack of funds or lack of vision.

95% percent of Americans make 5% Americans wealthy. How is that? Stop complaining and do something about it. You have that minimum wage job, do something about your situation and stop blaming on the rich for being smart about using their money to work for them and not working for the money!

reply to post by deltaboy


doughenwood.wordpress.com...

two months’ Pentagon spending could end poverty On that point, a reminder of how little it would take to end poverty in the USA. The so-called poverty gap, the amount of money necessary to bring everyone whose household income is below the offical poverty line up to that line, was about $138 billion in 2008, less than 1% of GDP. Or, to put it more bluntly, about what the Pentagon spends in two months. Or 3% of the total income of the richest fifth of American households. Or roughly what we spent bailing out AIG. But Wall Street and the war machine really need the money, you see.

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

 

[edit on 25-4-2010 by drew hempel]

[edit on 25-4-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by GreenBicMan


Which is kind of my point. Many of the wealthy had the funds because they were protected from the full brunt of their own bad choices, and many of the middle class and poor were not so protected. Many of the wealthiest also had the opportunity to buy at prices never offered to the general public during the height of the crisis as well.


I would say that what happened was more than just a generational buying opportunity. It was a massive shift upwards of wealth from the lower to the upper classes.

The Ostrich Market! Stick you head in the sand and you too will SEE THE TRUTH! haha.

If only I could block the truth -- ah ignorance is bliss!

There are many examples of this, remember the mid 2000's till early 2008 was a bull market as well following the tech crash.

It's just psychologically hard to buy at the bottom.

www.leftbusinessobserver.com...

The Housing Bubble!

The root of the present drama is in the huge housing mania—and the financial adventurism that surrounded it—that took hold of the U.S. in the mid-1990s and accelerated after the stock market collapsed in 2000–1.

www.leftbusinessobserver.com...

The bubble, and the easy money that's financed it, has been crucial to the economic recovery since 2001. By one measure (that of Asha Bangalore of Northern Trust), housing has contributed over 40% of the cycle's employment growth. Building and remodeling are contributing a near-record share of GDP. Real estate has accounted for 70% of the increase in household wealth over the same period.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by drew hempel]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


Well maybe the ultra high net worth people of $50,000,000 in assets and above. But those people will always have available cash. Even if you were considered high net worth of around $10,000,000 your funds were depleted by quite a bit and you were sweating as well.

Like I said it takes the elevator down and the stairs up. Everyone sells in a frenzy but very skeptical to buy on the way back up. Does this sound familiar? It should because this process has repeated itself at least 3-4 times in the past 20 years. The marketplace is full of lessons and it is a continuing education that no one masters.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by GreenBicMan]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


GreenBicMan's uncle is the head of the Federal Reserve.

GreenBicMan just wrote an automated program that predicts that Wall Street will rise in value!

GreenBicMan has figured out somehow that massive bailout of the rich increases the value of the stock of the weathly!

GO GREENBICMAN!!

Originally posted by GreenBicMan
The marketplace is full of lessons and it is a continuing education that no one masters.

That I will agree with completely and without reservations.

Edit to add,

I personally feel the market should have been allowed to correct itself naturally, no matter how miserable that outcome would have been. You dont really learn the lessons of the market if you protect the major players from the consequences of their actions.

Free market capitalism works in theory because it mimics natural selection. The strongest and smartest are meant to rise up and the weak and stupid are meant to fall by the wayside. The problem with bailing out the rich is that it thwarts that selective function. And the weak and corrupt and foolish are allowed to thrive and those who should have risen to take their place are held down unnaturally.

[edit on 25-4-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


It did correct naturally.

This is what happens when the Fed Funds Rate goes to 0-.25.

Take a look at historical Fed Funds Rates and see the correlation vs. DJIA. That is also part of the reason this train isn't going to stop on the upside until we get at least 50 basis points higher. More like a lot of the reason actually.

You may think that is manipulation, but all it really amounts to is monetary policy and the results that follow.

The market is rebounding like this because it is actually undervalued. All this crisis really was about is a month or so of extreme uncertainty and then reevaluation of risk took place.

Think about things like AAPL which makes up a majority of NASDAQ percentage wise. It is dominating its 2007 sales BIG TIME, how can that be in an environment like this? It is because of disposable income from people not paying their mtg. and it is also due to the rest that had a job this whole time still enjoying the fruits of their labor.

It doesn't seem natural to you but it is natural when you understand long term price action in financial markets. That point can't be stressed enough. We will see good times and bad times again, no doubt. Just save for the rainy day.

reply to post by GreenBicMan


I suspect we are talking apples and oranges here.

I agree with you that the broader market was undervalued at the bottom. And I am sure many of those companies would have rebounded even if we did not bail out the banks.

But if all we needed to do was lower the interest rate, why did we give all that money out to banks, to AIG, to other "too big to fail" ventures?

I have nothing against changing the interest rate. You are right, thats monetary policy. However bailing out a firm that should have "died" in natural selection terms is not monetary policy. Its the antithesis of a free market.

reply to post by deltaboy

You have that minimum wage job, do something about your situation

What a horrible thing to say. Do you honestly believe there is equal opportunity for every child born?