Since 1989, the top 1% have gained 21 trillion in wealth, the bottom 50% LOST 900 billion

[PubliusVentidius]

In what ways, are they more free? The governments of Western Europe have much tighter regulations in a number of different areas.

They are half-truths or outright lies that are spread on right wing horseshit think tanks like the Cato Institute and other Koch funded cesspools. Here's a great article that dismantles those fabricated myths one by one: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2020/03/fareed-zakaria-nordic-countries-socialism

Imagine actually convincing lemmings that european social democracy is more ''laissez faire'' than the Reaganite neoliberalism the US has been operating on for the past 40 years that has made inequality soar to the point you see it described as a new gilded age; which it's not far off considering the news about most americans not being able to afford a 1000$ emergency while at the same time you have the very real prospect of having trillionaires in a few years.

 

[Madmick]

Keep shilling for the ultra wealthy bud. I know it makes you feel like part of the club, and maybe, just maybe they'll let you in one day if you just lick their boots hard enough.

More bizarre speculatively psychoanalytic ad hominem from someone who feigned indignation at (what he wrongly perceived to be) ad hominem; forwarded to distract from and dodge the simple matter in contention. Your commie lawyer manipulated the Fed stats to misrepresent the condition of the bottom 50% wealth.

Hilariously, you are once again demonstrating an inability to interpret graphs and charts. This wasn't the one you wanted to cite. We are all concerned about the disappearing middle class, but obviously for different reasons. Because if you had correctly interpreted the very GIF you just tried to cite you would realize it is telling you this...
https://www.ft.com/content/98ce14ee-99a6-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f769

The core of American society now represents 50 per cent or less of the adult population, compared with 61 per cent at the end of the 1960s. Strikingly, the change has been driven at least as much by rapid growth in the ranks of prosperous Americans above the level of the middle class as it has by expansion in the numbers of poorer citizens.

Recent political debate has been dominated by the view that US society has been distorted by staggering gains for the top 1 per cent of the country at the expense of the remaining 99 per cent. Pew’s research gives a more nuanced picture however. Better off households — defined by Pew as earning more than $125,608 a year — account for more than one-in-five of the US population. That is the highest share the study has found, as well-educated Americans from finance to computer programming and biotech enjoy strong prospects. “On balance, there is more economic progress than regression,” the report says.

 

[Madmick]

I KNOW your reading comprehension isn't that bad. So if you read the article you'd know what's flawed in your argument.

I pointed out on a previous page how he manipulated the Fed's figures to forward an argument that was untrue (about wealth). Again, as the Fed calculates wealth, the bottom 50% became wealthier over this period.

It's a wonderful example of the entrenchment of bias that you all are so hostile to the citation of this simple fact. You cannot even bring yourselves to acknowledge it.

 

[Raptac]

The worst thing about the reactions is that people who have the "they should work more" take are never rich.

Brain dead manipulated slaves.

I come from a wealthy family and a millionaire without needing to work (I still work tho, and love my job), and politically I'm far left, close to anarchism.

Super wealthy people who want to perpetuate this unequal system are just working for their class, there is nothing pragmatic about it, pure tribalism and class ideology.

What is sad is that the 1% successfully made the majority of the 99% going against their interests.

From an insider POV, the wealthy people use identity politics (from both sides, white men bad/immigrants and Muslims bad) to make you all vote against your interests.

(Sorry for my English btw, it's my third language)

Wow what utter BS. Slaves had no choice ya dumbass, these people do. It's all about choices, them being poor their shit lives are all due to the choices they make. There is no big secret or plot against them.

 

[toutadixballes]

Wow what utter BS. Slaves had no choice ya dumbass, these people do. It's all about choices, them being poor their shit lives are all due to the choices they make. There is no big secret or plot against them.

You're the dumbass, dumbass.
1) I'm richer than you, so I'm smarter following your logic.
2) extreme majority of people get rich by inheritance not work, Trump being the best exemple.
That's basic economy/reality.

Idiot.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Pick your source, idgaf. The source of these articles is all from the Fed.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/06/14/top-1-up-21-trillion-bottom-50-down-900-billion/
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/201...eased-a-damning-indictment-of-capitalism.html
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ned-21-trillion-wealth-1989-while-bottom-half

What happened conservatives?

I thought a rising tide lifts all ships? I thought market capitalism was lifting people out of poverty? I thought competition and free markets delivered freedom?

Are the people in the bottom 50% (which includes the middle class) more free and prosperous, since collectively losing nearly a trillion in wealth? Do the people in the bottom 50% just need some more "personal responsibility" and "hard work"? Do they just need better bootstraps?

Did the top 1%, work 21 trillion dollars harder, than the bottom 50% collectively?

Predict the clown show brigade response below:
A) This is fine. Actually, its desirable.
B) Fake news.
C) TDS
D) "not real capitalism"
E) "its duh globalists"

You do realize that before 1989 the bottom 50% wasn't spending money on smart phones/watches, video games, and flatscreen tv to watch 100+ channels?

 

[Corn Pop Hombre]

You do realize that before 1989 the bottom 50% wasn't spending money on smart phones/watches, video games, and flatscreen tv to watch 100+ channels?

so hyper economic inequality is okay, because cell phones tho? Surely you can do better.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

so hyper economic inequality is okay, because cell phones tho? Surely you can do better.

I don't know know if economic inequality is particularly evil or not; just pointing out that the bottom 50% spend a large portion of their money on things that would have been deemed wasteful by most in the 70s and 80s thus no savings and no wealth.

 

[Raptac]

You're the dumbass, dumbass.
1) I'm richer than you, so I'm smarter following your logic.
2) extreme majority of people get rich by inheritance not work, Trump being the best exemple.
That's basic economy/reality.

Idiot.

It's clear you lack the intelligence to follow logic whatsoever. They are poor because of their choices made not because they didn't inherit money, is that so hard to grasp. Majority get rich by working and buying appreciating assets like property. Only a small minority get rich by inheritance.

durrr

 

[JoshTehV]

Can you explain what is wrong with his sig?

It's an idea popularized by Karl Marx who was fueled by communism but commie supporters love to act like communism didn't kill more people than Hitler's escapades. Marxism is just some bullshit a lot of liberal colleges like to regurgitate in hopes of creating a new flock. It's crazy to see someone you know who's made hundreds of thousands through investing and trading stocks to come out of college and say they think Karl Marx was onto something. I don't understand how you can be a business major and a Marxist, because to me that is cognitive dissonance at its best. I've yet to hear any really articulated version of Karl Marx's theories that weren't a paraphrase of someone else opinion of it. The guy obviously just made a new account and is baiting like fuck in this thread. What's the point of even creating a thread if you already assume you know the right answer and the solution. What is there to discuss after that @Corn Pop Hombre? Which is why he's ignored everyone who states facts that he chooses to misconstrue. This guy treats news based outlets like their peer-reviewed journals. In the real world, if he said anything remotely relating to Marxist in a place like Ukraine, he'd get stoned to death because of how the rest of the world views communism but he's lucky he lives in a country that wouldn't throw him in the gulag for having a handle on an internet MMA forum. If he likes that shit so much why doesn't he move to mainland China, Cuba, or North Korea?

 

[JoshTehV]

I don't know know if economic inequality is particularly evil or not; just pointing out that the bottom 50% spend a large portion of their money on things that would have been deemed wasteful by most in the 70s and 80s thus no savings and no wealth.

oh yeah man I know people on EBT who trade their EBT for 1/2 the money in cash, I knew a guy that spent all of his 200$/month ebt on redbulls because he didn't have to pay for them. I've seen more dudes walking or riding a children's bike wearing hundreds to thousands in clothes in comparison to those who own and drive a car. These same people subscribe to BS like pop culture and the Kardashians so what can you do? God forbid we reap what we sow especially for those who spend an arm and a leg for a shit degree like liberal arts, or journalism. That is two of my friends who can't get a job besides a shit minimum wage job because they choose a shitty, easy degree because of C's get degrees. That c's get degrees shit is an inherent fallacy of communism, no one will put in the same amount of work when you can put in the minimum amount of effort and get the same result as the best performers or producers @Corn Pop Hombre.

 

[JoshTehV]

Well that's why I was being kind of snarky about this whole thing. I wasn't sure what TS was hoping for here. To talk about an outright replacement of capitalism is dumb... but fine if he wants to argue for regulations to whatever extent of our brand of capitalism is.

So in a sense, I understood where you were coming from when you said that capitalism is good and the best system. Knowing you, I realize what kind of regulations you want of that system. So it isn't a matter of turning over the market in total to the government.. it's just having the government intervene more into our system to provide protection for the proletariat class. This of course is where I was coming from with my Sweden comment because they are of course built upon a capitalist foundation. It isn't government ruling business and diving everything up equally among it's population. Of course, this is a pipe dream among those who favor straight socialism.

He's just arguing some professors take on Marxism and the US economy that he can't quite grasp because @Corn Pop Hombre doesn't fully comprehend all the aspects and nuances regarding Marxism and or Communism besides social welfare programs and free shit. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a 2000s baby by the way he comes off

 

[Andy Capp]

Poll needs a "It's because the system is rigged by the rich people" option.

 

[JoshTehV]

I pointed out on a previous page how he manipulated the Fed's figures to forward an argument that was untrue (about wealth). Again, as the Fed calculates wealth, the bottom 50% became wealthier over this period.

It's a wonderful example of the entrenchment of bias that you all are so hostile to the citation of this simple fact. You cannot even bring yourselves to acknowledge it.

He literally won't admit that he gets all of his bs from crap sources like the nightly news and his local community college professor

 

[Holic]

I really don't think that the "system" we have now is so much a system as it is the reaction to the supply and demand that exists in the natural world.

In general, the bottom 50% of people will always end up with less, because their jobs are available to such a wide range of people. If you deliver pizzas for a living, you get a low wage because anybody can do that. Far fewer are surgeons, inventors, and major league baseball pitchers. Those people will always be in higher demand, and thus will naturally wind up with a bigger piece of the pie in the end.

You can try to rig it so that the surgeons earn the same as the pizza delivery guys, but that isn't going to change the demand for surgeons. And if you don't compensate them accordingly for that demand, why would they work? Just my simple thoughts on the matter.

I was watching lions on the Discovery Channel and apparently there's one tribe of like 50,000 lions. In one week they kill like 50,000 gazelles but all the kills go to the head lion, and then they trickle down.

Was this meant to refute what I said? Cause uh...

https://www.mankwegametrackers.co.za/things-you-may-not-know-about-lions/

The females in a pride do most of the hunting however the males do offer help, especially to take down bigger prey such as buffalo and giraffe. Male lions will eat first at a kill, while the females and cubs wait their turn. The females put up with this behavior because the males offer protection for the pride.

 

[JoshTehV]

More bizarre speculatively psychoanalytic ad hominem from someone who feigned indignation at (what he wrongly perceived to be) ad hominem; forwarded to distract from and dodge the simple matter in contention. Your commie lawyer manipulated the Fed stats to misrepresent the condition of the bottom 50% wealth.

Hilariously, you are once again demonstrating an inability to interpret graphs and charts. This wasn't the one you wanted to cite. We are all concerned about the disappearing middle class, but obviously for different reasons. Because if you had correctly interpreted the very GIF you just tried to cite you would realize it is telling you this...
https://www.ft.com/content/98ce14ee-99a6-11e5-95c7-d47aa298f769

That's his only rebuttal because he literally has no grasp over convincing someone and proficiently conducting an argument like an adult. Something he saw triggered the shit out of him on the news and he felt the need to come on here and try to bait supposed right-wingers into getting yellow carded or banned by slinging out stereotypical epithets at everyone who opposes his view. He doesn't practice what he preaches and prefers to be pretentious and subjective rather than objective. He ignored me when I said all his responses logically fall flat on their faces because he is so caught up in the red vs blue thing that he can't use anything because an ad hominem style argument to get his point across. At this point I can only assume he just has a low IQ because he seriously thinks anyone that disagrees is far-right and it's not the case.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

It's an idea popularized by Karl Marx who was fueled by communism but commie supporters love to act like communism didn't kill more people than Hitler's escapades. Marxism is just some bullshit a lot of liberal colleges like to regurgitate in hopes of creating a new flock. It's crazy to see someone you know who's made hundreds of thousands through investing and trading stocks to come out of college and say they think Karl Marx was onto something. I don't understand how you can be a business major and a Marxist, because to me that is cognitive dissonance at its best. I've yet to hear any really articulated version of Karl Marx's theories that weren't a paraphrase of someone else opinion of it. The guy obviously just made a new account and is baiting like fuck in this thread. What's the point of even creating a thread if you already assume you know the right answer and the solution. What is there to discuss after that @Corn Pop Hombre? Which is why he's ignored everyone who states facts that he chooses to misconstrue. This guy treats news based outlets like their peer-reviewed journals. In the real world, if he said anything remotely relating to Marxist in a place like Ukraine, he'd get stoned to death because of how the rest of the world views communism but he's lucky he lives in a country that wouldn't throw him in the gulag for having a handle on an internet MMA forum. If he likes that shit so much why doesn't he move to mainland China, Cuba, or North Korea?

Lol I know where the term comes from McCarthy. Can you bring up the actual issue with the quote itself.

If you want to talk history. The American communists murdered during the Labor Movement straight up died for your rights.

Since we're speaking historically that is. Hell a socialist novel basically reformed labor laws and food regulation by itself.

Also the FBI did a hell of a job along with Reagan (a fucking opportunistic snitch if there ever was one) of equating issues with wealth inequality and wage slavery with being a Commie.

Have you read much Marx? I think this video brings up how certain Marxist thought can be a benefit even for a capitalist society and also a really good critique of USSR leaders.


Reagan is dead (thank God) and the brainwashing campaign against socialism is dying out with the boomers. There are a lot of talks that should be had, and merely writing off something due to being "Marxist", "Communists", or "Socialist"

Anyway not to go off on another tired rant about how annoying it is that communists and socialists fought and died for your rights are completely written out of American history, but my question was more what is your issue with the exact quote. I'm actually curious.

 

[JoshTehV]

Poll needs a "It's because the system is rigged by the rich people" option.

the oligarchy has this in the bag dog as you can see by this thread and TS feelings, they've already won and indoctrinated enough people to keep the ball rolling. People like @Corn Pop Hombre doesn't realize that the god and the devil carpool to work together.

 

[JoshTehV]

Lol I know where the term comes from McCarthy. Can you bring up the actual issue with the quote itself.

If you want to talk history. The American communists murdered during the Labor Movement straight up died for your rights.

Since we're speaking historically that is. Hell a socialist novel basically reformed labor laws and food regulation by itself.

Also the FBI did a hell of a job along with Reagan (a fucking opportunistic snitch if there ever was one) of equating issues with wealth inequality and wage slavery with being a Commie.

Have you read much Marx? I think this video brings up how certain Marxist thought can be a benefit even for a capitalist society and also a really good critique of USSR leaders.


Reagan is dead (thank God) and the brainwashing campaign against socialism is dying out with the boomers. There are a lot of talks that should be had, and merely writing off something due to being "Marxist", "Communists", or "Socialist"

Anyway not to go off on another tired rant about how annoying it is that communists and socialists fought and died for your rights are completely written out of American history, but my question was more what is your issue with the exact quote. I'm actually curious.

You sound pretty indoctrinated, did you come up with those notions and ideologies on your own or did you adopt them from others? Soldiers died for my freedom, and for yours , buddy.

 

[AgonyandIrony]

You sound pretty indoctrinated, did you come up with those notions and ideologies on your own or did you adopt them from others? Soldiers died for my freedom, and for yours , buddy.

Ah... On of those people lmao. The men who the rich had executed after the Haymarket Riot, the murdered IWW protesters in Seattle by the police, the Rednecks who picked up rifles against the police and their oppressors at Blair Mountain, their deaths did more for my freedom than some high school grad getting killed in Fallujah.

What a delightful insightful mind you have, pray tell me. What doctrines have you came up with on your own? That weren't impacted by the musings of others? Such brilliant mind we have here someone who can't even in good faith bring up a counterpoint to a sentence lmao.

You should probably watch that video and educate yourself about socialism and Marxism as well as his scathing critique of the USSR otherwise don't @ me.