There are some STUPID FUCKS on this board and there are some smart ones, too!

[Little Stevie]

I'm not pointing any fingers just yet but people who can't understand this simple bar graph can try out as leaders for the really S-L-O-W ones!



Does anyone not really understand this has been going on for YEARS and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the black dude or Bill Clinton and everything to do with those who brought us Citizens United, Wall Street deregulation, outsourcing and derivatives?

[Jackster21]

Just use the derivatives to find the area under the curve and integrate. Or something like that.

[Anita Lay]

GOOD LUCK STEVIE...LOL

[blue3122]

I am not sure that you understand what a derivative is. You may not like people who misuse derivatives but is that really the fault of the mathematicians/economists who uncovered derivatives? And as for corporations, corporations do not misuse derivatives. People do. Corporations are entities. They do not act in any way. People do.
A good example of a derivative is a bottle of Coca-Cola. Coke has a patent on that shape. So when you spend $1.29 on a 20 oz Coca-Cola at 7-11, you are buying two pieces (derivatives). $.29 is for the bottle and that shape and $1.00 for the ingredients inside. Add them up and you get a whole. Even before the liquid is bottled, there is some value. (The numbers above are just for illustration purposes). Almost everything in our world is sum of some derivatives. A house is a sum of derivatives of bricks, concrete, wood, wiring, labor, etc.. Add them up and you have a house. Taken separately, they are worth something also. A bond, for instance, is a sum of principal plus future interest payments. They can be split apart or priced together. Nothing wrong with that really.

You overlook technology in your graphical example. The speed of technological growth and quality made it easier for less skilled workers to make more advanced products. Advances in technology did more to separate the world economically than any one thing in the last 40 years. It made more educated, more skilled workers much more valuable than less educated workers.

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by Little Stevie

I'm not pointing any fingers just yet but people who can't understand this simple bar graph can try out as leaders for the really S-L-O-W ones!



Does anyone not really understand this has been going on for YEARS and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the black dude or Bill Clinton and everything to do with those who brought us Citizens United, Wall Street deregulation, outsourcing and derivatives?

u r right on! this shit got nothing 2 do with technology, globalization or big government, thid is all about the rich waging war against the poor! it all started with Reagan.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Af-Freakin

...about the rich waging war against the poor! it all started with Reagan.

Actually, it was the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[Whirlaway]

The bar graph data (1947 to 1979) is un-reliable. The data source is a group called "United For A Fair Economy",.it's board of directors reads like a communist manifesto (check it out)!

More "have and have not" class warfare by dysfunctional lefties and greying Alynskyites.

And LS ignores, the Gramm-Leach-Blilley Bill of 1999 (signed into law by Clinton) which repealed the Glass Steagall Act.

There has been disparities of incomes; but the causes are more complex than some "rant against the man" BS. And to blame it on Regan is an absolute joke !

[pyramider]

When looking at statistics it always pays to remember that statistics is the simple manipulation of data to suit your purposes.

[MrGiz]

Yeah.... Let's ruin all those rich phucks, so we we can all unite in being poor!

phuckers.....

[RichardGozenya]

"Little"???? (as in little stevie)

IQ or common sense or dick size ?

or maybe "you are the stupid fuck" ?

just considering the "statisics"

*****************************
man up,if you think someone has stolen your "wealth"....
pick up a gun and explain it to the thief....
probably,not gonna happen because of "little balls" ;>)))))))))))))))))))))

*****************************

Proud Member of:
THE SOCIETY of DON'T WANT NUTHIN' FROM A RICH MOTHERFUCKER

Affiliated with:
THE SOCIETY of DON'T WANT NUTHIN' FROM A POOR MOTHERFUCKER,EITHER

****************************

BTW....your stage name/avatar is an insult to a real achiever...
it should be illegal for a WHINER to use it

***************************

Now that you know a little about my lack of wit,
you can call me a "stupid fuck".
I confess to it.
At least,I am not a "whining stupid fuck"

[petiteassman]

dude in a hoodie

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Actually, it was the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by MrGiz

Yeah.... Let's ruin all those rich phucks, so we we can all unite in being poor!

If you think that's what the graph shows, then you're saying that everyone was poor between 1947 and 1979?

The graph is about proportionality of benefits. Upper incomes benefit, in no small part by either shipping jobs overseas, or threatening to do so, thereby hindering the incomes of those who survive on, you know, working for a living. And if that's not bad enough, they follow it up by then crying "class warfare" when those sorts of things are pointed out to them.

Your entire position Mr. Giz, seems to require you to assume facts that are not proven, and deny facts that are.

phuckers.....

Pretty strong rhetoric, particularly since it seems to be directed at people whose position you distort beyond anything recognizable.

Originally Posted by pyramider

statistics is the simple manipulation of data to suit your purposes.

Like claiming the graph shows that everyone would be poor if 1980 to 2007 looked similar to 1947 to 1979?

[blue3122]

If you ask the 300+ million residents (legal and illegal) about what "fair" is, you probably get 300+ million unique answers. The economic definition of "fair" depends on the type of economy. In a zero sum game (stagnant) economy, the definition of "fair" is more for me, less for you. In a positive sum game (growing) economy, the definition is a lot more for me and probably more for you. In a negative sum game ( shrinking) economy, the definition is more for me, a lot less for you.

Its just basic Adam Smith. If you want everyone to be equal, that's basic Karl Marx. If you want to be titty baby, that's basic Keynes/Obama.

[Whirlaway]

It was Wall Street that filled Obama's campgain coffers in the 2008 election cycle - by a factor of 2:1 !

[Little Stevie]

Not ONE SINGLE accurate repudiation of the data - just as I expected from the dumb fucks on board!

And to the "Derivatives Lesson" proposed, would the moron who posted that derailment of the original example and path of my comments prefer I used Credit Default Swaps or how about "Smoke and Mirrors"?

I'm surprised I didn't get a "Barney Frank Did It" reply in there somewhere from some stupid moron who doesn't realize the part Phil Gramm played. The CRA was passed in 1979 under Carter and functioned fairly well until the slimeball, greedy bastards started selling FAKE mortgage insurance even when Brooksley Born tried to warn Greenspan and the others! Do you STUPIDS think the people who were told "you qualify" were to blame? If so, where is all the money they made? Follow the money you idiots! It went to the people who SOLD that "Shit on a Stick" and who guaranteed it!

And the superior technology versus education gap CRAP is simply corporate globalization lingo for "we want Americans to lower their standard of living enough to be able to work for Malaysian wages".

I'll bet that maybe ONE of the STUPID FUCKS replying negatively to this thread is in that top 1/2 of 1%. (Notice the bar graph even says that the top 20% would have only grown 31% without the "boost" from the included top 1%!

You S-L-O-W people should read your answers over and over until you realize just how much you have been conned into supporting things that are diametrically opposed to your own financial well-being.