Special Krugman Friday

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your questions are stupid. Piketty's basic point (and I'm overly generalizing here) is that returns to capital exceed economic growth generally (and wage growth), and over the long term (he looked at roughly 200 years worth of data), the result is ever increasing inequality and concentration of wealth.

LMAO... Your position is stupider... OMG OMG...

Face it... you refuse to answer because you know it makes his position foolish.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Your questions are stupid. Piketty's basic point (and I'm overly generalizing here) is that returns to capital exceed economic growth generally (and wage growth), and over the long term (he looked at roughly 200 years worth of data), the result is ever increasing inequality and concentration of wealth.

Again moron... the only way the wealth gap doesn't increase is if you stop the wealthy from making money. The stupidity of that concept is astounding. Even if you tax them heavily, the wealth gap will continue to increase. Had you possessed the intellect to answer the 2nd grade math questions, you would have realized this. The only ways the wealth gap narrows is if the market collapses or if you take the wealth from those that have it by force.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

LMAO... Your position is stupider... OMG OMG...

Face it... you refuse to answer because you know it makes his position foolish.

Superfreak it's a fact that inequality has risen and the 1% have acquired more and more wealth, so that's why I just laugh at your silly math questions and attempts to divert the thread. You always do that. It's okay though because you're not a bad guy. At least I don't feel as if I need a shower in this thread.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Superfreak it's a fact that inequality has risen and the 1% have acquired more and more wealth, so that's why I just laugh at your silly math questions and attempts to divert the thread. You always do that. It's okay though because you're not a bad guy. At least I don't feel as if I need a shower in this thread.

Darla... do the fucking math... it isn't rocket science. I am saying OF COURSE it has gone up. If you do the fucking math you will realize WHY. It HAS to go up when the stock market is rising. Even if you tax them heavily on the gains... the wealth gap will STILL increase. If you stopped whining and just answered the fucking questions you would see that. You think I am trying to divert, when in reality I am simply showing you that it HAS to increase.

If you had read my first post on this thread, you would see that was correct. But you are so desperate to avoid answering the fucking questions that YOU try and divert into your little tantrums.

 

[Bonestorm]

Again moron... the only way the wealth gap doesn't increase is if you stop the wealthy from making money. The stupidity of that concept is astounding. Even if you tax them heavily, the wealth gap will continue to increase. Had you possessed the intellect to answer the 2nd grade math questions, you would have realized this. The only ways the wealth gap narrows is if the market collapses or if you take the wealth from those that have it by force.

Apparently, you've never heard of the Kuznets curve. I guess that's probably because Kuznets is older than you, from Belarus, and won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1971, well before your undergraduate economics classes.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Since the Dems are too fucking retarded to do the math on their own... I will spell it out for them...

If you have four people...

Person 1 has $1mm invested in the market, person 2 has $100k invested, person 3 has $10k invested and person 4 has nothing invested...

What happens to the wealth gap when the market goes up 10%?

Person 1 would now have $1.1mm, person 2 $110k, person 3 $11k and person 4 would still have nothing invested. Between each of these four people, the wealth gap increased.

The follow up...

For all the geniuses on the left... Take the gains the first three have... tax the biggest portfolios gains at 50%, the second at 25% and the third at 10%. Now, tell us what happened to the wealth gap for the four individuals.

After taxes person 1 would have $1.05 million, person 2 $107,500, person 3 $10,900... person 4 still nothing invested. Again, even after 'taxing the rich more', the wealth gap STILL increases.

So what do you dems propose we do to avoid the wealth gap increasing? Limit the percentage the wealthy can gain? Make the stock market tank? Take a gun or the government and force the wealthy to give up their wealth?

What exactly are you idiots proposing we do?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Apparently, you've never heard of the Kuznets curve. I guess that's probably because Kuznets is older than you, from Belarus, and won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1971, well before your undergraduate economics classes.

I have heard of it... please enlighten us to how you think it applies in the US right now...

 

[Bonestorm]

So, basically, Superfreak's math problems aside, many economists believed that the compression of inequality in the post-war period was the product of increasingly developed economies and the result of natural economic processes. Basically, the idea was the inequality increases as economies advance from agrarian to industrial and then inequality decreases as the industrial economy further advances (that's what the Kuznets curve looks like). Piketty's book, looking at hard data from the past 200 years says that the post-war compression in inequality was not the result of natural economic processes, but an aberration. As a result, we shouldn't expect that inequality will naturally decrease any time soon and that it will only further increase.

The really weird thing about SF calling Piketty a moron and an idiot and all that is that Piketty and SF aren't really at all in disagreement about what is happening and will happen in the future (inequality will continue to grow). The only real disagreement I see is that Piketty thinks ever-increasing inequality is a bad thing and that governments should do something about it, while SF either doesn't think it is a problem or that government can do anything about it.

 

[Bonestorm]

*crickets*

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So, basically, Superfreak's math problems aside, many economists believed that the compression of inequality in the post-war period was the product of increasingly developed economies and the result of natural economic processes. Basically, the idea was the inequality increases as economies advance from agrarian to industrial and then inequality decreases as the industrial economy further advances (that's what the Kuznets curve looks like). Piketty's book, looking at hard data from the past 200 years says that the post-war compression in inequality was not the result of natural economic processes, but an aberration. As a result, we shouldn't expect that inequality will naturally decrease any time soon and that it will only further increase.

Funny how you still refuse to simply address the points. Again... what is your solution? Will you take it by force? Restrict their ability to gain? What do you think is a solution?

The math is simple (complex for you, I know)... as long as the economy is moving forward, the wealth gap is going to continue to increase. So what is your master plan Dung?

The really weird thing about SF calling Piketty a moron and an idiot and all that is that Piketty and SF aren't really at all in disagreement about what is happening and will happen in the future (inequality will continue to grow). The only real disagreement I see is that Piketty thinks ever-increasing inequality is a bad thing and that governments should do something about it, while SF either doesn't think it is a problem or that government can do anything about it.

I call him a moron because he wants to do precisely what I am guessing you would do. But I will wait for you to actually provide us with your thoughts on a solution... please, share with the board how you would resolve this issue.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

*crickets*

Let me guess... the above is your answer to the math problem again? I even gave you the answers... yet you are still incapable of addressing them?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

*crickets*

 

[Bonestorm]

*crickets*

I've tried to be civil with you, while you continue being an obtuse asshole. I have better things to do with my time, like bang my head against this here wall.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've tried to be civil with you, while you continue being an obtuse asshole. I have better things to do with my time, like bang my head against this here wall.

LMAO... you have been anything but civil. You have been your normal condescending asshole of a self.

You call me an obtuse asshole, yet you refuse to discuss anything. Instead we just get your petty bullshit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Anyone think SF ever heard the name Thomas Piketty (the "moron" author of the book) before this thread? I don't.

I think SF's definition of "moron" is "person whose ideas are frightening."

I going to go way out on a limb here and suggest that socialists probably define "successful" a lot differently than you.

Well, I suppose no one could accuse you of being open-minded. So you've got that going for you . . .

Do you randomly walk up to people on the street and call them morons?

I didn't suggest that you should have known him before this thread. I suggested that you should not call him a moron considering you know nothing about him.

LOL. I love this thread.

I don't really have feelings on Piketty one way or the other. I love this thread for what it reveals about you.

It reveals that you are a keenly self-aware, open-minded, intellectually curious (voratiously so) and thoughtful person who is comfortable with his own views and is interested in deepening his understanding of the world by challenging those views from time to time and actively engaging on an intellectual level with smart people (and their works) who hold opposing views.

It's hilarious when he talks to himself.

Your questions are stupid. Piketty's basic point (and I'm overly generalizing here) is that returns to capital exceed economic growth generally (and wage growth), and over the long term (he looked at roughly 200 years worth of data), the result is ever increasing inequality and concentration of wealth.

Apparently, you've never heard of the Kuznets curve. I guess that's probably because Kuznets is older than you, from Belarus, and won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 1971, well before your undergraduate economics classes.

So, basically, Superfreak's math problems aside, many economists believed that the compression of inequality in the post-war period was the product of increasingly developed economies and the result of natural economic processes. Basically, the idea was the inequality increases as economies advance from agrarian to industrial and then inequality decreases as the industrial economy further advances (that's what the Kuznets curve looks like). Piketty's book, looking at hard data from the past 200 years says that the post-war compression in inequality was not the result of natural economic processes, but an aberration. As a result, we shouldn't expect that inequality will naturally decrease any time soon and that it will only further increase.

The really weird thing about SF calling Piketty a moron and an idiot and all that is that Piketty and SF aren't really at all in disagreement about what is happening and will happen in the future (inequality will continue to grow). The only real disagreement I see is that Piketty thinks ever-increasing inequality is a bad thing and that governments should do something about it, while SF either doesn't think it is a problem or that government can do anything about it.

*crickets*

I've tried to be civil with you, while you continue being an obtuse asshole. I have better things to do with my time, like bang my head against this here wall.

The above is Dung 'being civil'... fucking retard that he is, he may actually believe that crap.

 

[Bonestorm]

The above is Dung 'being civil'... fucking retard that he is, he may actually believe that crap.

LOL. Now do you.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

LOL. Now do you.

Poor little guy... are you so embarrassed at your ass being handed to you that you resort to the above?

 

[Bonestorm]

Poor little guy... are you so embarrassed at your ass being handed to you that you resort to the above?

I'm embarrassed for you, SF. It's like watching a dude walking down the street strutting his stuff thinking all the ladies are checking him out not realizing he's got TP hanging out the back of his pants.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So, basically, Superfreak's math problems aside, many economists believed that the compression of inequality in the post-war period was the product of increasingly developed economies and the result of natural economic processes. Basically, the idea was the inequality increases as economies advance from agrarian to industrial and then inequality decreases as the industrial economy further advances (that's what the Kuznets curve looks like). Piketty's book, looking at hard data from the past 200 years says that the post-war compression in inequality was not the result of natural economic processes, but an aberration. As a result, we shouldn't expect that inequality will naturally decrease any time soon and that it will only further increase.

The really weird thing about SF calling Piketty a moron and an idiot and all that is that Piketty and SF aren't really at all in disagreement about what is happening and will happen in the future (inequality will continue to grow). The only real disagreement I see is that Piketty thinks ever-increasing inequality is a bad thing and that governments should do something about it, while SF either doesn't think it is a problem or that government can do anything about it.

Have you read Piketty's book?

SF just goes sideways anytime you mention an economist or a book you're going to read, or that you think someone else is smart. It surprises me how automatically I tune out that fallout now.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm embarrassed for you, SF. It's like watching a dude walking down the street strutting his stuff thinking all the ladies are checking him out not realizing he's got TP hanging out the back of his pants.

Of course you are retard... that is why you refuse to discuss anything. Because you are embarrassed for the guy who has destroyed your feeble beliefs.