Discussion:
The Demographics on Who Really Owns Stocks in America
(too old to reply)
wy
2014-02-03 21:11:31 UTC
Permalink
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.

"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.

Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.

This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).

Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""


http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
Yak
2014-02-03 21:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
Just think if yahoo overweight hillbilly trailer trash like yourself put money in the stock market instead of buying 20 packs of Marlboro's, 10 six-packs of PBR and 5 bags of Red Man every week. You'd be able to build a retirement, upgrade your doublewide and maybe even get a new set of teeth to boot.
wy
2014-02-03 21:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yak
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
Just think if yahoo overweight hillbilly trailer trash like yourself put money in the stock market instead of buying 20 packs of Marlboro's, 10 six-packs of PBR and 5 bags of Red Man every week. You'd be able to build a retirement, upgrade your doublewide and maybe even get a new set of teeth to boot.
I don't smoke, drink or chew tebaka. Must explain why I've got money in stocks, then. But nowhere near as much as the fat cats have, and they probably smoke, drink and chew tebaka. Boy, you're stupid.
Christopher Helms
2014-02-03 21:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Yak
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
Just think if yahoo overweight hillbilly trailer trash like yourself put money in the stock market instead of buying 20 packs of Marlboro's, 10 six-packs of PBR and 5 bags of Red Man every week. You'd be able to build a retirement, upgrade your doublewide and maybe even get a new set of teeth to boot.
I don't smoke, drink or chew tebaka. Must explain why I've got money in stocks, then. But nowhere near as much as the fat cats have, and they probably smoke, drink and chew tebaka. Boy, you're stupid.
It's "Tebaccy."
Christopher Helms
2014-02-03 21:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
It's all part of that non existent "wealth disparity."


The future success of the Republican party largely depends on the ability of a small group of rich white millionaires to convince Americans that the economy sucks because billionaires are being unfairly persecuted by the incessant greed of people making, on average, 10 dollars an hour.
jane.playne
2014-02-03 22:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.

What is your point? Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???

Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.

Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.


http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q

OR

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
wy
2014-02-03 22:46:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"


It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
jane.playne
2014-02-04 02:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.

Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".

How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.

You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"

As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."

You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
senario of a couple who turned 65 and retired on Oct 23, 2013. I stated:

"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."

I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]


endnotes:
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
wy
2014-02-04 04:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
Steve
2014-02-04 12:13:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
<LOL> Showing facts to wy will only confuse the old sow...
Mr. B1ack
2014-02-04 13:21:16 UTC
Permalink
The gist of this debate seems to be that smart, educated
people buy stocks and make investments and make lots
of money from them - while stupid, ignorant people don't
bother and tend to become po' boys.

Clearly the solution is to keep everyone ignorant and
possibly induce brain-damage in the smart kids ....
that way everyone will be equally poor and life will
seem more 'fair' and 'just' :-)

Vonnegut did a great short story on this back in
the 50s when the "liberals" first started making
noise about "social justice" and such ....
jane.playne
2014-02-04 12:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.

My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.

You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500

You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".

You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.

You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Wexford
2014-02-04 13:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Just sop we'll understand the argument here -- Your cherry pick is better than his cherry pick???

Look, Jane, doesn't your chart tell you that GW and the Pugs totally screwed the financial markets? The bankers and insurers created a bubble with fraudulent housing loans that finally burst. When it did and the financial markets were dying Bush and his pals declared that the financial markets had to be saved, put together a bill to save them then foisted it on Obama and immediately began screaming about the growing federal deficit. You wingers are so cute. You rub shit on your neighbor's dog then complain because it stinks.
Fred Oinka
2014-02-04 14:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Just sop we'll understand the argument here -- Your cherry pick is better than his cherry pick???
Look, Jane, doesn't your chart tell you that GW and the Pugs totally screwed the financial markets? The bankers and insurers created a bubble with fraudulent housing loans that finally burst. When it did and the financial markets were dying Bush and his pals declared that the financial markets had to be saved, put together a bill to save them then foisted it on Obama and immediately began screaming about the growing federal deficit. You wingers are so cute. You rub shit on your neighbor's dog then complain because it stinks.
Once again it must be explained that the housing bubble was brought about by the government ordering banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
Fannie and Freddie, pseudo-government organizations.
wy
2014-02-04 14:44:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Just sop we'll understand the argument here -- Your cherry pick is better than his cherry pick???
Look, Jane, doesn't your chart tell you that GW and the Pugs totally screwed the financial markets? The bankers and insurers created a bubble with fraudulent housing loans that finally burst. When it did and the financial markets were dying Bush and his pals declared that the financial markets had to be saved, put together a bill to save them then foisted it on Obama and immediately began screaming about the growing federal deficit. You wingers are so cute. You rub shit on your neighbor's dog then complain because it stinks.
Once again it must be explained that the housing bubble was brought about by the government ordering banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
Fannie and Freddie, pseudo-government organizations.
The government was ordering banks to do that long before the bubble, stupid. The bubble only really ballooned after Bush started giving away free down payment money to those who couldn't afford homes in 2003 and then the SEC did away with the net capital rule for Wall St. banks, meaning they no longer were required to have a piggy bank safety net of their own should they run into cash flow problems with subprimes. That's when all the pretty charts show a sudden spiking through the stratosphere of subprime growth, like this one, stupid:

Loading Image...

So, yeah, it's Bush's fault, stupid.
Wexford
2014-02-04 15:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Just sop we'll understand the argument here -- Your cherry pick is better than his cherry pick???
Look, Jane, doesn't your chart tell you that GW and the Pugs totally screwed the financial markets? The bankers and insurers created a bubble with fraudulent housing loans that finally burst. When it did and the financial markets were dying Bush and his pals declared that the financial markets had to be saved, put together a bill to save them then foisted it on Obama and immediately began screaming about the growing federal deficit. You wingers are so cute. You rub shit on your neighbor's dog then complain because it stinks.
Once again it must be explained that the housing bubble was brought about by the government ordering banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
Fannie and Freddie, pseudo-government organizations.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/U.S._Home_Ownership_and_Subprime_Origination_Share.png
So, yeah, it's Bush's fault, stupid.
Either these wingers never bought a house or they're so confused and brainwashed by winger propaganda they've forgotten what it's like. I bought and sold houses during every decade since 1970. Getting a loan was never a particularly easy ride until the 2000s. I pushed through a loan in 2005 almost instantaneously. Prior to that, I had to promise my leg and left kidney, even with 20% down, to get a bank to move. The financial bubble was just a huge scam. There were thousands of participants from lowly loan officers to presidents of the largest financial institutions in the country. When the bubble burst and banks began to fail, the guys in the big jobs didn't suffer in the least. The president of WaMu, who completely screwed his shareholders and bond holders, walked away with $100 million in bonus money and gave the world the finger. He wasn't the only one. When the recovery began, the hedge fund managers made huge fortunes in bonuses. in 2010, the top ten hedge fund managers in the US skimmed $1 billion in bonuses from the markets. They did this without risking any of their own capital -- all done with other people's money. I don't envy these people. They disgust me. They're like pigs who want to eat from one of the trough to the other.
Wexford
2014-02-04 14:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Just sop we'll understand the argument here -- Your cherry pick is better than his cherry pick???
Look, Jane, doesn't your chart tell you that GW and the Pugs totally screwed the financial markets? The bankers and insurers created a bubble with fraudulent housing loans that finally burst. When it did and the financial markets were dying Bush and his pals declared that the financial markets had to be saved, put together a bill to save them then foisted it on Obama and immediately began screaming about the growing federal deficit. You wingers are so cute. You rub shit on your neighbor's dog then complain because it stinks.
Once again it must be explained that the housing bubble was brought about by the government ordering banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
Fannie and Freddie, pseudo-government organizations.
Once again a rightard mindlessly repeats the right-wing talking point. Government policy -- in force since the 1970s -- had nothing to do with it. Bankers and insurers, mostly AIG, rewarded themselves for making loans. The sharks at the top (and plenty in the middle) found that they could gull the markets for a time by bundling lousy loans with good ones and issuing financial instruments supposedly insured and completely solvent based on that mix. It might have worked if they hadn't gotten greedy and simply let loans to everyone whether or not the recipients could afford the payments. The bundles of lousy and lousy were toxic to everyone except the guys at the top who reaped huge bonuses based on the amount of loans they put into force. As long as the market for housing kept going up, they could always foreclose and sell the property again, perhaps to someone else who couldn't afford it. When the market finally started to collapse, the sharks left with the cash and dumped the problem on the public.
Fred Oinka
2014-02-04 15:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wexford
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Just sop we'll understand the argument here -- Your cherry pick is better than his cherry pick???
Look, Jane, doesn't your chart tell you that GW and the Pugs totally screwed the financial markets? The bankers and insurers created a bubble with fraudulent housing loans that finally burst. When it did and the financial markets were dying Bush and his pals declared that the financial markets had to be saved, put together a bill to save them then foisted it on Obama and immediately began screaming about the growing federal deficit. You wingers are so cute. You rub shit on your neighbor's dog then complain because it stinks.
Once again it must be explained that the housing bubble was brought about by the government ordering banks to make loans to people who could not afford them.
Fannie and Freddie, pseudo-government organizations.
Once again a rightard mindlessly repeats the right-wing talking point. Government policy -- in force since the 1970s -- had nothing to do with it. Bankers and insurers, mostly AIG, rewarded themselves for making loans. The sharks at the top (and plenty in the middle) found that they could gull the markets for a time by bundling lousy loans with good ones and issuing financial instruments supposedly insured and completely solvent based on that mix. It might have worked if they hadn't gotten greedy and simply let loans to everyone whether or not the recipients could afford the payments. The bundles of lousy and lousy were toxic to everyone except the guys at the top who reaped huge bonuses based on the amount of loans they put into force. As long as the market for housing kept going up, they could always foreclose and sell the property again, perhaps to someone else who couldn't afford it. When the market finally started to collapse, the sharks left with the cash and dumped the problem on the public.
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
wy
2014-02-04 14:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Collectively, they own about as much stock, likely a lot less, than the 7% of the filthy rich. Or did "the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011" go both over your tiny head and under your crotchless crotch at the same time?
jane.playne
2014-02-04 17:43:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
What did your chart prove? Nothing. It's just a meaningless illustration of lines going up and down without any relation or context as to what's behind the lines. At least give me percentages as to how many rich people made how much money and how many small people lost money, and then compare the percentages of how so few could disproportionately amass so much against so many ending up with so little. But not even that, nada. Stupid chart, stupid you.
Post by jane.playne
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
.
My "stupid chart" proved at least one thing; It proves that you cherry
pick data so that you can use the data to incite wealth envy.
You cherry-pick the period illustrating a climb of the DOW from 6500 up
to 12,200, BUT you ignore the data illustrating the fall from 14,000
down to 6,500
You not only ignored the data in my "stupid chart", but you even
cherry-picked information from your own citation. You ignored the
statement, "the wealth that had been lost during the financial meltdown".
You cherry-pick not only because you are trying to incite wealth envy,
but also because you are a troll trying to incite an argument.
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Collectively, they own about as much stock, likely a lot less, than the 7% of the filthy rich.
The amount of bullshit that you create never ceases to amaze me. You
even question your own bullshit. First you say "about as much stock",
then you question the validity by saying "likely a lot less". There is
no need for me to argue with you; you are doing a great job of arguing
with yourself.

So, tell me. Which is it? Do the bottom 50% of stock owners "own about
as much stock" as the top 7%, or do they own "a lot less"?

Let me know, with a valid citation, and I will continue the discussion.
Post by wy
Or did "the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011" go both over your tiny head and under your crotchless crotch at the same time?
I agree that their wealth rose "an estimated 28%" between the years 2009
and 2011, "*much* [but not all] of the wealth that had been lost during
the financial meltdown"[1]

endnotes:
1. either you ignorance, or you reading comprehension, or your extreme
prejudice prevents you from comprehending that last clause in YOUR citation.
wy
2014-02-04 20:58:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
You also ignored the statement in your own citation that said 55% of
people in the $30k to $75k range own stock.
Collectively, they own about as much stock, likely a lot less, than the 7% of the filthy rich.
The amount of bullshit that you create never ceases to amaze me. You
even question your own bullshit. First you say "about as much stock",
then you question the validity by saying "likely a lot less". There is
no need for me to argue with you; you are doing a great job of arguing
with yourself.
There's no questioning. Did you see a question mark accompany it? No. So there's no questioning. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
So, tell me. Which is it? Do the bottom 50% of stock owners "own about
as much stock" as the top 7%, or do they own "a lot less"?
As much or likely a lot less still means that the 7% have disproportionately more than the other 93% combined. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
Let me know, with a valid citation, and I will continue the discussion.
Post by wy
Or did "the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011" go both over your tiny head and under your crotchless crotch at the same time?
I agree that their wealth rose "an estimated 28%" between the years 2009
and 2011, "*much* [but not all] of the wealth that had been lost during
the financial meltdown"[1]
Their increase didn't end in 2011. It's still going on in 2014. Which can't be said for much of the rest of the population, certainly nowhere near the rate at which the filthy rich are reaping their rewards - or did you conveniently miss this headline from 2012, just less than a year after 2011?

"Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

There's no crocodile tears being shed for the poor filthy rich, who actually continued to remain filthy rich during the crash, if not as filthy rich, unlike at least 8 million small people who ended up losing their jobs.

Boy, you're stupid.
MattB
2014-02-04 07:55:03 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Fred Oinka
2014-02-04 09:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
jane.playne
2014-02-04 18:22:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.

I just love the logic of progressives.

The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.

They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.

They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.

They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)

They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)

In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Wexford
2014-02-04 19:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.
I just love the logic of progressives.
The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.
They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.
They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)
In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
wy
2014-02-04 21:07:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.
I just love the logic of progressives.
The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.
They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.
They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)
In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
jane.playne
2014-02-04 22:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.
I just love the logic of progressives.
The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.
They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.
They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)
In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
.

Why shouldn't she?

Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
wy
2014-02-04 22:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
jane.playne
2014-02-04 23:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
.

I noticed that you have a history of problems with definitions.
Steve
2014-02-05 01:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling> If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
wy
2014-02-05 02:04:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling>
Gay half-human Steve acting so gay with the eye rolling again.
Post by Steve
If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
Steve
2014-02-05 02:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling>
Gay half-human Steve acting so gay with the eye rolling again.
<LOL> Apparently, wy knows of some gays who roll their eyes about
her... those gays must think the old sow is a fruitcake, too.
Post by wy
Post by Steve
If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
wy
2014-02-05 02:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling>
Gay half-human Steve acting so gay with the eye rolling again.
<LOL> Apparently, wy knows of some gays who roll their eyes about
her... those gays must think the old sow is a fruitcake, too.
Apparently, half-human Steve IS gay. Only gays, and women, roll their eyes the way he does. Gawd, you're soooooo gay, Stupid Steve.
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
Steve
2014-02-05 02:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling>
Gay half-human Steve acting so gay with the eye rolling again.
<LOL> Apparently, wy knows of some gays who roll their eyes about
her... those gays must think the old sow is a fruitcake, too.
Apparently, half-human Steve IS gay. Only gays, and women, roll their eyes the way he does. Gawd, you're soooooo gay, Stupid Steve.
<chuckle> Apparently, Wy doesn't get out much. She'd rather spend her
time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using the
group home's computer.
wy
2014-02-05 02:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Apparently, half-human Steve IS gay. Only gays, and women, roll their eyes the way he does. Gawd, you're soooooo gay, Stupid Steve.
<chuckle> Apparently, Wy doesn't get out much. She'd rather spend her
time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using the
group home's computer.
And Stupid Steve doesn't deny he's gay. Interesting. And I thought I was joking all along.
Steve
2014-02-05 02:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Apparently, half-human Steve IS gay. Only gays, and women, roll their eyes the way he does. Gawd, you're soooooo gay, Stupid Steve.
<chuckle> Apparently, Wy doesn't get out much. She'd rather spend her
time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using the
group home's computer.
And Stupid Steve doesn't deny he's gay. Interesting. And I thought I was joking all along.
<LOL> ...and that comes right after wy does not deny that she spends
her time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using
the group home's computer.
wy
2014-02-05 03:04:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Apparently, half-human Steve IS gay. Only gays, and women, roll their eyes the way he does. Gawd, you're soooooo gay, Stupid Steve.
<chuckle> Apparently, Wy doesn't get out much. She'd rather spend her
time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using the
group home's computer.
And Stupid Steve doesn't deny he's gay. Interesting. And I thought I was joking all along.
<LOL> ...and that comes right after wy does not deny that she spends
her time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using
the group home's computer.
There's only one wy here, so who the hell knows which wy you're referring to that isn't even part of the discussion. Hallucinating much, on top of rolling your eyes gayly and making out with that plastic blow up doll you call your wife when not eking out a sub-standard living via your Hey Little Girl lemonade that has you cutting back on internet expenses by $10 per month?
Steve
2014-02-05 11:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Apparently, half-human Steve IS gay. Only gays, and women, roll their eyes the way he does. Gawd, you're soooooo gay, Stupid Steve.
<chuckle> Apparently, Wy doesn't get out much. She'd rather spend her
time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using the
group home's computer.
And Stupid Steve doesn't deny he's gay. Interesting. And I thought I was joking all along.
<LOL> ...and that comes right after wy does not deny that she spends
her time sitting on her fat ass watching her group home's TV or using
the group home's computer.
There's only one wy here, so who the hell knows which wy you're referring to that isn't even part of the discussion. Hallucinating much, on top of rolling your eyes gayly and making out with that plastic blow up doll you call your wife when not eking out a sub-standard living via your Hey Little Girl lemonade that has you cutting back on internet expenses by $10 per month?
Fortunately, wy is too fat, too ugly, and too much of a social misfit
to have mated and passed along her inferior genes...
MattB
2014-02-06 08:03:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling>
Gay half-human Steve acting so gay with the eye rolling again.
<LOL> Apparently, wy knows of some gays who roll their eyes about
her... those gays must think the old sow is a fruitcake, too.
Maybe a very ugly drag queen. :-))
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Steve
2014-02-06 11:39:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by MattB
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling>
Gay half-human Steve acting so gay with the eye rolling again.
<LOL> Apparently, wy knows of some gays who roll their eyes about
her... those gays must think the old sow is a fruitcake, too.
Maybe a very ugly drag queen. :-))
More like an elderly Chaz Bono...
Post by MattB
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by Steve
If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
MattB
2014-02-06 07:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
So convictions and principles don't mean a single thing when someone is "forced" to purchase something, do they? You know, just because one contributes to SS and Medicare doesn't mean they're "forced" to accept it in their old, feeble and dirt poor age if they've been dead set against it the whole time. Otherwise, can anyone spell H.Y.P.O.C.R.I.T.E.?
<much eye rolling> If the government forces me to buy something, I'm
sure as hell not going to give them a pass on delivering it to me...
Dumbass wy thinks one should buy something they don't need, and not
take delivery of something they were forced to pay for. No wonder the
ignorant old sow can't afford her own computer.
Do these progressive actually think they can take other peoples
property?

That will never happen under the Constitution.

No wonder they want to eliminate the second Amendment.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com
Wexford
2014-02-05 01:12:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.
I just love the logic of progressives.
The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.
They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.
They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)
In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
And then Rand had the nerve to apply for Social Security and Medicare, the very government programs she objected to. Yeah, when right wingnuts get old, feeble and broke, suddenly they become instant liberals.
.
Why shouldn't she?
Although she may disagree with SS and Medicare, these are two insurance
products that she was FORCED to purchase. Since she had to purchase the
products, shouldn't she receive the benefit of what she had purchased?
I've often wondered why she was reduced to doing that. Her book royalties and movie must have brought her some wealth. Maybe she just squandered it all. She should have been rich enough to blow off SS as petty pocket change.
Fred Oinka
2014-02-04 23:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.
I just love the logic of progressives.
The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.
They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.
They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)
In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
You get hung up on minor details, ignoring the main thrust of the story, then you want to talk about "thinking"? YOU fuk'n grow up, you little twig eating snit!
Wexford
2014-02-05 01:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by Wexford
Post by jane.playne
Post by Fred Oinka
Post by MattB
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 21:39:43 -0500, "jane.playne"
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
Post by jane.playne
Post by wy
You're most likely to have money in the stock market if you're a university-educated white male and registered voter right wingnut aged 50-64 earning over $75,000 per year. Anything other or less than that and you're increasingly out of the stock market wealth game.
"A Pew Research Center study in April found that the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011.
Driving this was the fact that affluent households have far more of their money in stocks and other financial holdings, and they reaped the benefits of the rise in the markets. Less affluent households typically have their wealth concentrated in the value of their homes, and while the housing market has started to rebound, it did not see the kind of surge that the markets had.
This finding was underlined by a report issued this week by the Federal Reserve in a section analyzing "How Much Household Wealth Has Been Recovered," (p. 14).
Of the total recovery, 62% of the gain was due to increased stock market wealth, the analysis said. "Stock wealth is unevenly held, with the vast majority of stocks owned by a relatively small number of wealthy families. Thus, most families have recovered much less than the average amount.""
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/31/stocks-and-the-recovery-majority-of-americans-not-invested-in-the-market/
.
What is your point?
The point is obvious, stupid. The stock market is owned by the wealthy few who not only have the means to plow into it far more cash than the small people, but also reap far more cash in return as a result, so when the market booms, the filthy rich rake it all in disproportionately. Getting rich on the stock market is a fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you very far.
Post by jane.playne
Are you trying to incite more wealth envy by
pointing out that the evil, nasty, filthy rich "reaped the benefits of
the rise in the markets...between 2009 and 2011" while the average Joe
is losing ground???
Well, that gain between 2009 and 2011 is simply a partial recovery of
their losses during the crash in 2007.
Here is a graph of the S&P500 from Jan 1, 2007 to Dec 31, 2011.
"the upper 7% of Americans as far as mean net worth saw their wealth rise an estimated 28% while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4% between 2009 and 2011"
It doesn't matter what your stupid chart shows, the fact is that the rich are still rich, or more like richer, while everyone else got poorer. Not to mention that it's over two years after 2011 and they've gotten even richer still while everyone else got poorer still. Boy, you're stupid.
Post by jane.playne
http://tinyurl.com/ncrju3q
OR
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/kaavio.Webhost/charts/big.chart?nosettings=1&symb=sp500&uf=0&type=2&size=2&sid=3377&style=320&freq=1&entitlementtoken=0c33378313484ba9b46b8e24ded87dd6&startdate=1/4/2007&enddate=12/31/2011&rand=806774399&compidx=SP500&ma=0&maval=9&lf=1&lf2=0&lf3=0&height=335&width=579&mocktick=1
.
Ya Right; Me and my "stupid chart".
How silly of me to subject you to facts and data that would get in the
way of your prejudice and bias.
You are a typical left wing nut. You want to use data when it allows you
to incite wealth envy, but you choose to ignore the facts in your own
citation. You use the facts that illustrate "restoring much [but not
all] of the wealth", but you choose to ignore the part of YOUR article
that states, "[the wealth] that had been lost during the financial meltdown"
As for your ignorant comment, "Getting rich on the stock market is a
fantasy that can only be pursued and realized by the rich because
putting in only a measly $100 a month or even week into it won't get you
very far."
You and I had this discussion back in Oct 2013. On Oct 23 I presented a
"A married couple who did nothing more than contribute to their IRA
would have $1,382,551.80 at age 65.[That is $1.38 million for people who
have a problem with big numbers] They didn't start their own business;
they didn't invent the next new cell phone phenomenon; They didn't
create the next new social media web site. They did nothing more than
work at a regular job and invest in their IRA. If they had a 401K with a
company match, they would have made even more than their $1.38 million."
I am not going to waste my time expounding on that again. You didn't
learn anything then and I doubt that you will learn anything this time.[1]
1. Ignorance: the lack of knowledge that can be corrected.
2. Stupidity: the inability to learn.
I wonder what he thinks should be done?
It's obvious, take from the producers by force and give to the moochers, then expect the producers to keep producing.
.
I just love the logic of progressives.
The claim that Ayn Rand's ideas are pure bullshit... But they whine and
squeal when the wealthy French flee (with their money) to a lower tax
rate country.
They still claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit, ... but they whine and
squeal when US factories move their factories off shore.
They continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but they whine
and squeal when the wealthy put their income in tax differed accounts.
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when Apple borrows money at a low interest rate
rather than repatriated some of their off-shore Billions (and paying US
taxes)
They even still continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure bullshit,... but
they whine and squeal when corporation use cost & profit shifting to
shift profits to a country with a lower corporate tax rate (rather than
paying the highest corp rate in the world)
In spite of all of that, they continue to claim that Ayn Rand is pure
bullshit,... but they whine and squeal when Mark Zuckerberg does EXACTLY
what Ayn Rand wrote; Mark Zuckerberg flees and disappears from this country.
Let me point out an obvious inconsistency in Rand's writing. She exalts selfishness as a virtue yet offers you heroes who selflessly put their lives on the line to defeat the (what? Fabian Socialists? Trade Unions?) liberal establishment -- whatever that is, democracy be damned -- and create a utopia devoted to the concept of selfishness and quid pro quo. John Galt even lets himself be tortured then tells his torturers how to fix the electrical grid so they can torture him some more. The character in the Fountainhead is pissed that the people who are paying him to design a building alter his design, so he blows it up in a fit of pique. This is the kind of pap that appeals to brainless adolescents. No thinking person can buy it. She's your hero? Grow up.
You get hung up on minor details, ignoring the main thrust of the story, then you want to talk about "thinking"? YOU fuk'n grow up, you little twig eating snit!
Those were not "minor details." She created selfless heroes (what other kind are there?) of selfishness. You don't find that to be inherently inconsistent? Galt and his two buddies risk life and limb to bring down the evil, taxing, welfare-addled government and to build their utopia of selfishness based on the gold standard. Towards the end of Atlas Shrugged Dagney Taggert (if I spelled her name correctly) is whisked off to a mountain lair (magically hidden from view by the engineering genius of Galt) where their perfectly selfish community is established. She must work for her money, which is paid in gold, and she is deliriously happy to do so. What a silly-assed, adolescent conclusion to a book based on stupid, inconsistent premises. "Fountainhead" is just as bad. Howard Roark is a rock-headed, violent jackass whose idea of courtship is to throw the girls down and screw them (Rand had a thing with rape fantasy). He commits an act of gross terrorism because his ego was bruised. If any architect blew up a building in real life you rightards would be calling for the death sentence.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...