This is a fantasy that exists only in your head.

He also appears to have difficulty understanding the concept that wealth can be measured in holdings other then currency.

All I see in your chart is bottom 50% losing around 25/30% of income and almost half in wealth since 1950 .

And 1950s middle class , we’re getting wealthy again .

It’s even worst when you take a more comparable data set like the end of the 1920 early 1930 ..

While I have mixed feelings about what the solution to this issue is, I just love this:

A+

Inso0 also seems to believe that gov't acts in service for the Poors and is a protection to that end while serving as a shakedown artists on the uber rich who are just poor victims being sheered of their wealth undeservedly.

Yes.

It is what I refer to as taking real data, taking a selective knife cut that best makes the case you want to present while excluding the wider data set that far more clearly shows the position is wrong.

TS was famous for that in the Covid BFI thread.

There simply is no denying that the MC have lost substantial ground as the uber wealthy have gained. Much of that was what was gutted in the 2008/9 Mortgage debacle, which some here pretend hurt the uber rich too as they point to 'some' firms that did badly but the fact is Investment banking sector overall and the uber rich overall reaped massive benefits from this crash and then the bounce back.

The main reasons where that they got the mass amount of gov't bailout money (IB firms) and were the buyers of all the 'on sale' assets.

I recently saw Janet Yellen on John Stewards new show defending the bail out cash to the giant Investment Banks saying that if that money was not injected and the Investment Banks allowed to crash it would have caused a massive liquidity crisis that would have spiralled the US into a great recession or Depression.

I wish Jon fired back with, most US citizens do not hold their mortgages with Wall Street Investment Banks. Most hold with smaller Community Banks. If instead of giving all that money Top Down through the giant banks, which triggered a foreclosure spree at the community level bank level with Wall Street firms then swooping in to buy them up and you celebrating that as REQUIRED LIQUIDITY for the market...

... If instead of that the same amount of money was given as a Mortgage credit to each and every Mortgage holder that they had to pay to their community bank to reduce their mortgage obligation then that would have created the market liquidity you say was needed but at the Mid Tier level. It would have elevated the Community banks while helping rid society of these 'Too Big To Fail Banks' or forcing them to consolidate and realize they could not gamble counting on bailouts in the future.

Instead we got the worst of both worlds. Local homeowners booted out as discount prices and firm like Steve Mnuchin's provided gov't guarantees on down side risk if they would race into the market and buy up these fire sale homes for his firms Investors. And once Mnuchin has those downside guarantees he was able to raise a ton of money to do so.

The about was just about as corrupt as it gets IMO.

Politicians and those advising them in that crisis would be amongst the main shareholders of the Wall Street Big Banks, many of them former exec's or lobbyist for them. So had they let the Wall Street banks collapse, they personally would have taken a big hit.

The further corruption was in laying no charges. But you can only imaging the mess of starting to lay charges thru the SDNY Prosecutors office and other as each level of executive charged started to point fingers at others, even in unrelated areas to try and cut a deal and to fulfill the SDNY requirement that you tell them of any and all criminality you are aware of and not just what you are being charged for.

The charges may have started at the Debt Ranking Agencies at the mid level exec but quickly would engulf Wall Street and then likely lobbyist and gov't officials with all the deal cutting, finger pointing.

Had the politicians pursued charges it almost certainly would engulf their friends and family members and former colleagues who work in and around Wall street directly and indirectly.

I can't even imagine the amount of finger pointing and required admissions and where it would stop. I think they would still be prosecuting some of those cases.

I am sure Inso0 is angered but benefits and bonuses going up is a very good thing.




I still believe that Trumps move to ship out migrant workers and more consequently scare many from considering to ever cross and come in to this market is having a huge impact.

Even small moves on that lower end of employment where migrants would eagerly surge in and take up all those lowest paying jobs (Trump Hotels, Golf Courses, etc) is going to have a significant trickle up effect IMO.

Suddenly the employers find out that in fact 'NO' US workers do not want those jobs at that wage and they need to move up their wage. When they do that that forces every employer above them to bump up wage and benefits as well or lose their usual pool or workers.

When you had these migrant surge workers jumping in it took the pressure off the system which meant they did not have to change. If an employer knows a lower wage migrant will show up to take the job they can give the middle finger to the US worker saying 'fine do with nothing then' and the US workers break and head in to work at that lower wage. The opposite is now in place with the workers increasingly able to say to the employer 'fine do with nothing then' as there is no surge workforce coming to save them and there are enough employers willing to pay up that all others are forced to pay up.

Cuepee what do you think of Kanye, do you regard him as a traitor? Or Candace Owens? A traitor? I do believe it's not as simple as you said.

I cannot see a traitor on this list other than maybe Don King or Carl Malone. I don't know all of them but the other seem somewhat legit.

Famous black republicans:

https://www.ranker.com/list/republic...-conservatives

Candace Owens is a flat our grifter.

She started trying to make a name on the left and found in a busy field she could not gain traction and make money and then she switched to the right finding the more she parroted the white supremist talking points the more money they paid her to do so.

I don't know Kanye's views.

Kanye is an idiot at times and then he's not. Imo he has both sides like most people. Genius and stupidity. I.e going with Kim Kardashian.

About Mrs Owens I don't know a lot, but I think she is not as bad as you try to imply. She could be fed up with the bs from the left like me. Too much hypocracy. Also, doesn't she have a big following from the African American Community? Ive seen some interviews with her. She is not stupid at all.

Who is not? Clinton and Fauci comes to my mind when u say this. But also Obama, what has he done in the middle East and what about Mexico, and what to improve America? There are a lot of grifters.

No Candace is flat out a grifter.

it is one thing to ride your views to riches and milk them. It is another to just turn 180 degrees to your prior views when you are unable to compete and make a buck as that is a busier space and instead to then appeal to the people you were attacking prior and not paint them as on the side of right just because they will pay you big money to do so.


If Greta T got offered big Oil money to change her view tomorrow and she accepted and became a Big Oil evangelist that would be a special kind of grift. That it the lane Candace is in.

Wait a minute. How is Fauci a grifter? How has his personal wealth increased nefariously?

He's not, I don't think Obama is either. I think Fauci enjoys the spotlight a little too much and has an interest in keeping this COVID thing going, but that's different than grifting.

this makes no sense, would you not want to give your kid anything? I feel like the older immigrants which this country was built and mold from, nothing great was built without immigrants in our country imo, without them we would be nothing. would they be okay with not giving their leftovers to their children??

its insane people think that most of it should just go to the govt/state and not families overall. Its fair to tax them a small % over a certain figure amount but to tax 50%+ of it doesn't seem right



Also, as I said in my posts earlier, I hear all the time these guys 'arent liquid" but I feel they are def more liquid then we all ****ing think or know, there is no way they are only 1-3% liquid. I refuse to believe that. but I also know there are progressives that feel they are 90% liquid which just isnt the case at all lol

They use the loans to create liquidity while letting their equity grow over time. For a billionaire being 1-3% liquid doesn't seem unreasonable. Plus if they hold stock in public companies they can sell that at any time and generate cash within a few business days at most.

I don't want to tell you anything wrong, so I have to look it up again and report back with all the details about fauci.

If I remember correctly he was in cahoots with the WHO and spread misinformation about the origins and China. I think he got money from both or at least one. He could have been more efficient but had to play buddy buddy with China. The head of the WHO was also in big cahoots with China receiving big paychecks. Talk about conflict of interest. He should have never had that position.

A typical blue chip stock portfolio of mixed securities can be leveraged or margined 50%. The diversity in the stocks is seen as key to such leverage as many stocks at once would need to crash for the Bank or Brokerage to get caught before they could force a sale.

A single holding, even if Blue Chip, such as Tesla or Amazon would typically be marginable up to 30% dependant on the Brokerage's view of the volatility of it. So if Elon has $200B in stock he would likely have about $65B in borrowing room against it.

It is quite dangerous though to max leverage as a big downward blip might force the bank to sell shares at the lower price to pay out the debt compounding the loss if the stock bounced back shortly thereafter.

Most Banks/Brokerages will set up that margin account like a Line of Credit account where the person can draw instantly from it. There would be no delay to access that liquidity as it could be one click transferred to a main bank account.

According to this video, they are talking about the head of the WHO from min 4:30 and about Fauci. The US supported gain of function in wuhan, they even funded it for many years, with the knowledge of Mr. Fauci of course. He denies it here publicly. There are a lot of ties, the head of the WHO received money from the chinese party.


[/QUOTE]

edit. from min 43:00

Sorry, no proof...and no conversation about Fauci making personal money from this situation. Mostly the video is the major spin by Trump and Pompeo. The video takes what those two say at face value and ....almost amazingly so..... promote as fact. When did the American public ever believe that Trump told the truth about anything?

The video THAT YOU CITE AS EVIDENCE is about the origins of C19. The video doesn't even hint that Dr Fauci personally profited from his position at the NIH. Through third parties, The US did fund several GoF research projects around the globe. To choose those project to fund would be a group effort.

What evidence do you have that Dr Fauci is a grifter?

I think washoe is using 'grifter' to mean 'fraud'.

And I don't think Fauci is a fraud but by his posts I think he is conflating those two things wrongly.

Science is hard.

Pretty sure fraud would be difficult to prove too

I don't think Fauci is a fraudster, but I hear he enjoys torturing little puppies.