Federal, state & local government makes up about 41% of US GDP so that leaves 59% split between corporations & individuals.

Poor people are more likely to spend an extra dollar than a rich person. Why does that matter?

No, why would low interest rates have anything to do with income inequality?

What are you trying to get at with your last question?

Consumer spending is around 68% of the US economy (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=hh3). Encouraging spending will help expand the economy. The wealthy are less likely to spend the next dollar as the poor and middle income. If your goal is to expand profits you should give money to the person more likely to spend the dollar. Low interest rates show that the wealthy are already investing(the next dollar will inflate assets but not spur new capital investments).

Income inequality plays a huge role in this, can you not see that?

Clinton's= actively involved in everything the foundation does. Including having a fund raiser who wrote a memo about how much money he made Bill Clinton personally while being paid for the foundation.

Ivanka is not at all involved in how the world bank fund spends it's money.

You are very naive. You're lack of understanding of our political system is laughable. Why any of this is news worthy is beyond me.

I'm wondering what motivates a person to troll a forum were he gets easily offended when he could stay in the warm fuzzy confines of P.

Exactly!

This desperate tweet reveals how politically ignorant these people are.

Yea, and the return to shareholders is a small fraction of the price tag.

It's an example of how things "trickle down". If you're hiring a worker for $20/h to work on a new luxury car he's not $20/h better off. If he was paid $18/h at the old company doing the same thing he's $2/h better off. And the guy who replaced him was probably given a very minor promotion to fill that role, and a guy was given a minor promotion to fill HIS role, and when you add all if it up - it's going to be a fraction of the cost of labor. And in fact in industries that have competitive labor markets it's going to be a very small fraction.

So if you have to spend $25,000 on labor to build a $100,000 car, you might only see an associated benefit to the tune of $5,000 delivered to workers. Then you have land, capital, resources... all of which exhibit a similar situation where the landlord or the people who mine the resources are seeing a small profit per unit sold, but only a small fraction of it's cost.


Better off in terms of what? In terms of accumulation of wealth it may very well be better off in the hands of a wealthy person since they'll spend less invest more. But the value of those dollars is very different to different people. That's not an argument for making things exactly equal, but there're certain depths of poverty that pretty much every modern society agrees is unacceptable.

What does this even mean, lurker? Because that story absolutely did break this morning. Grow up.

It just means you live in fantasy land. Absolutely.

Don't really care much, tho. Just a combination of funny and sad.

Using he and she to refer to the same person- quite progressive of you bahbah.

Rich people hoarding money does not help the economy; it hurts the economy. All things equal, giving money to those willing to spend it stimulates the economy. People in the larger buckets spend more. Supply side economics is just the hoax that keeps on hoaxing.

It's well established that at a certain level of rising compensation people will choose to work less instead of more. This is one of the most basic and reliable observations in econ (of course it doesn't hold for all people). Going down the scale, why do you think many poor people work multiple jobs? If you gave them more they would work less- agree?

They're not ignorant. The fake progressives know Hillary is every bit as corrupt as Trump. They just pretend not to know because they are cowards with no integrity.

You didn't give a **** about Trump using his charity's funds illegally, mickey. Why are you pretending like you have principles on this subject?

What you, and most liberals, forget is that just because someone isn't spending money doesn't mean they aren't helping the economy. Which is why earlier I asked what a rich person does with that money that doesn't help with the economy.

I have a lot to say about income inequality, but I think you need to understand the above before we can go there.

Of course only a small % of net sales is paid to shareholders. Companies do have expenses and they are spending their money elsewhere as I mentioned in the post you were responding to.

According to your example one guy is leaving one company paying him $18/hr for a company paying him $20. Then the guy at his old company is going from $16/hr to his old pay of $18/hr. Then the guy below him making $10/hr may just get a promotion to the 2nd guy's job and start making $10/hr, but now the company needs someone in the $10/hr role so they hire someone new.

I was talking about your claim that society would somehow be better off taking extra money from the rich to give it to the government who would then distribute the money to the poor. I was wondering why you thought that.

Please cite where I said I did not care. It is possible for someone to believe that Trump and Hillary are both corrupt/done some shady business dealings.

Your post acted like Ivanka situation with global bank fund is the same as the Clntons' with the foundation. It is not even remotely close. Ivanka did not do anything wrong (in that situation), it is not pay for play unless you show how Ivanka is controlling the money to enrich herself.

The Clinton foundation memo from their top fundraiser clearly shows how the foundation employees went out of their way to enrich Bill. Do you think it is a total coincidence that the foundation donations have dried up with Hillary's loss?

So I take it you can not back up your post on the facts?

Where are rich people hoarding money where it hurts the economy? Just because liberals use a simple example to show poor people are more likely to spend the money they have than a rich person doesn't mean it is better for an economy. I am sorry but you are going to have to think about this a little more.

So you think it is established that people will work harder for less money than more money?.... interesting. So you think poor people work two jobs in attempt to make less money?

Not only is he pretending that he has principles on the subject, but you are pretending he is the real Mickey.

I chose 20-->18 to illustrate the point. Those jumps are completely unrealistic though. In most cases there's NO pay jump, they just call up a couple of part timers and see who wants it (at the same wage). The details and the magnitude of their preferences matter. Each of those part time workers values the opportunity if they choose to take the job, but the strength of their preference is what defines the value of the job. They may be on the fence as to whether to spend their saturday working or spending time with the children / doing domestic work that has no clear market value. Those things don't show up on the general ledger but that doesn't mean that it has no value.

These are things that can't really be measured, but to the extent that the labor markets are efficient, the benefits will be right around nill. And by necessity in all cases it will be less than the cost of the labor. The question isn't does the consumption of a rich person make the world better off. It's - when a rich person consumes a luxury good, is 25% of the price tag just cost that gets flushed down the toilet, or is closer to 50%?


Every modern society believes that. Even primitive societies believe that in as much as their religious communities work in tandem with their government, and there's often a lot of overlap.

- if I'm wrong, then correct me; do you care about Trump's pay for play (w Pam Bondi as an example, if you don't think this Ivanka stuff qualifies) and his illegal use of charity money?
- can you show how the Clintons controlled their charity money to enrich themselves, since your clear implication above is that Ivanka is better than the Clintons for not doing that?
- lol "do you think it's a total coincidence", so conspiracy theories are okay as long as they aren't directed at Trump. Don't allege anything shady by Jared and Ivanka here, but wow look at this Clinton stuff, so weird dontcha think?

Sorry, you're right, he's a conservative in all lowercase with no avatar. Easy to confuse you people.

Unrelated: Trump asked high-ranking intelligence officials to help him push back against Comey's FBI investigation

Typical behavior from our narcissistic, idiotic, power-abusing president that you all chose

Those same words describe Hillary Clinton.

Well two things about that:
- Hillary is way smarter than Donald, not because she's a genius or anything but because he sets the bar super, super low
- one of those words doesn't apply: "president". And that's pretty important, because the things the ACTUAL president does matter - a lot - and you sitting here crying about people who don't hold any political office at the moment is really just a dumb distraction tactic.

I do care about Trump's pay for play. The Bondi thing not so much. Would put the blame the politician. If a billionaire can get out of a crime for a donation that is not his problem. Care more about the government employees in the pay for play situations.


Can you explain what Ivanka did? Her involvement with World Bank Fund? Because it is not her charity. There is no involvement, except having an idea about such a charity. You seem to think it is a huge pay for play scandal and I am not seeing the payoff to Ivanka.

As for the Clintons' have you read the Band memo? You have a fundraiser completely paid for by the foundation. The foundation controls assets and has big donors. This fundraiser thought part of his job was to twist arms of these donors not to just give to the foundation but to have them personally hire Bill to give speeches and other things.

Yea, it applies to both.

The problem is that trump actually has a large block of republicans who'll blindly support him because they have no real interest in policy, they want a daddy figure to tell them what to believe, and donny is exactly their type.

My argument for hillary was always that she wouldn't have much of an impact. She was chosen by the DNC because she had name recognition and could win, not because there were large numbers in the house/senate who revered her as a god.

- having Ivanka's name attached is obviously a huge boost to her brand (from which she still has financial interests), and her husband intervened in the arms deal in a way that benefited the Saudis right around the same time they gave $100m to Ivanka's thing. If we allow your Clinton level of conspiracy logic to apply here, that's pretty shady!!
- no, I haven't read that memo, and this all sounds complicated - can you explain what the Clintons personally did wrong? (I'm assuming this isn't another conspiracy theory where someone 2 levels away did something inconclusively bad, because you've been telling me their conduct is way worse than Trump's!)

Sounds like you know nothing about either situation but some how came to the conclusion they are similar and the Ivanka situation is way worse.

Ivanka's name is not attached to the World Bank Fund.