Corporate Profits Going to Executives, Shareholders

[donttread]

Everyone, true, but how many "took it off the backs of others or from a tilted table" is probably not that many in the grand scheme of things. Not enough to characterize the market as such.

It's not just the market Chris. That's simply legal gambling which favors insiders.. The table is tilted in many ways. Look at the dollars corporations spend on lobbying? Much of that is meant to tilt the table.
The super rich have advantages in so many ways. If they did not profit from undue influence they would not attempt to influence as much as they do.

If you distributed all the money evenly tomorrow you'd have super rich again after a while , but on most cases not the same super rich. And if you set the system up to keep an even table the distribution of wealth would head down from the ridiculously high amint current held by the super rich

[Mr.Soxes]

It's not just the market Chris. That's simply legal gambling which favors insiders.. The table is tilted in many ways. Look at the dollars corporations spend on lobbying? Much of that is meant to tilt the table.
The super rich have advantages in so many ways. If they did not profit from undue influence they would not attempt to influence as much as they do.

If you distributed all the money evenly tomorrow you'd have super rich again after a while , but on most cases not the same super rich. And if you set the system up to keep an even table the distribution of wealth would head down from the ridiculously high amint current held by the super rich

That should be taxed like lotto,cigarettes and booze is!MAGA

[donttread]

That should be taxed like lotto,cigarettes and booze is!MAGA

Certainly not at 20% off 47,000,000 in unearned income , where that much earned income would of paid twice that rate.

[Chris]

It's not just the market Chris. That's simply legal gambling which favors insiders.. The table is tilted in many ways. Look at the dollars corporations spend on lobbying? Much of that is meant to tilt the table.
The super rich have advantages in so many ways. If they did not profit from undue influence they would not attempt to influence as much as they do.

If you distributed all the money evenly tomorrow you'd have super rich again after a while , but on most cases not the same super rich. And if you set the system up to keep an even table the distribution of wealth would head down from the ridiculously high amint current held by the super rich

The market is simply where people trade. THe problem comes when people abandon economic means for political means: "Look at the dollars corporations spend on lobbying? Much of that is meant to tilt the table. The super rich have advantages in so many ways. If they did not profit from undue influence they would not attempt to influence as much as they do." And do so only because of the great power of the central government and its corrupt politicians.

If you distributed all the money evenly tomorrow you'd have super rich again after a while , but on most cases not the same super rich.

That's the Pareto Principle. It's also Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument where he says redistribute wealth however you like, people will want to see a star like Chamberlain play, and so wealth will again flow to him and other stars.

[donttread]

If and when enough people get fed up with the current system in place, you'll have change; until then it'll be the status quo.

Will that change come in time to be political in nature though?

[Captdon]

The rich or more specifically the super rich have been grabbing an increasing share of the pie for decades through democrat and repub regimes . The timing of when it began is oddly close to when IRA's pushed everyman towards the stock market. The bigger the market the more the super rich will ,make and the more wealth they will accumulate comparitively.

So what. I don't care what someone else makes on an investment. I do care what I make. When I was young the idea of having any investment was ridiculous. Yet, here I am, retired and living very well. If you haven't taken advantage of the market ...well, boo hoo.

[Captdon]

I have only been on this forum a short time now, but I think I have observed that Agent Zero is usually wrong in his understanding of how things work. Perhaps we should all be patient and try to educate him. One day the light bulb might come on.

Nah. Look at where he works.

[donttread]

Brought to us by the man who has an Amazon and Facebook Account. Owns several Apple products, uses modern electronics, owns an automobile that burns gasoline, a home that uses a thousand different corporate products...and has a 401k.

In other words.....oops.

Yes, much like a POW offered food by captors he hates, I use the products I need to use when other opportunities don't exist but would still like better, fairer, opportunities. I've told you that several times. What part is it you have trouble with?
Also 401 K's are great but I should have the same tax deferment option for investment in local business for example,. That's what makes that unfair and hostile to local economies. We could have internet and electronics with smaller corporations.

How do you explain the massive increase in the wealth held by the top 1% or so in the past few decades? Are today's super rich smarter that yesterdays? Are the rest of you who call this capitalism dumber that the general public of years ago? Or has the tilted table and the government pushing everyman into the stock market helped them accumulate a higher and higher percentage of wealth?

[donttread]

The market is simply where people trade. THe problem comes when people abandon economic means for political means: "Look at the dollars corporations spend on lobbying? Much of that is meant to tilt the table. The super rich have advantages in so many ways. If they did not profit from undue influence they would not attempt to influence as much as they do." And do so only because of the great power of the central government and its corrupt politicians.





That's the Pareto Principle. It's also Nozick's famous Wilt Chamberlain argument where he says redistribute wealth however you like, people will want to see a star like Chamberlain play, and so wealth will again flow to him and other stars.

The market is a gamble based on information about human emotion and a damn poor indicator of the economic health of any country. Large companies don't change value by full percentage points very often and such changes almost alway "correct". Their assets vs. liabilities, goodwill, etc change little but games and emotion change much. Wall street types can even bet on a companies failure. that's gambling plain and simple.

[Captdon]

Forget the grammar.? * You;; seem to understand what I'm saying. Look at the truth in the content. The view that everyone legally and morally earned everything they have and that none of them took it off the backs of others or from a tilted table is ridiculous.
If you disagree defend your point, if you can??!!

Umm, you said the last 30 years. I hate to break this to you. Joe Kennedy has been dead longer than that.
I couldn't get through this. I do know that no one has ever said the rich have always been on the up and up. I also don't care. I want what I make not what someone else makes.

"Tilted table." Jeez, life isn't fair. It never has been and never will be.