American Budget Cuts

Yes. Capital gains are the result of selling for more than you purchased for. The growth or decline in the value of a stock may have many causes, one of which is increased earnings. But an earning company can still lose stock value if people believe it may earn less in the future, or if many people try to sell all at once, or even for no reason at all like what happened in last May when a computer programming bug resulted in the single largest single-day losses in the entire history of the Dow Jones stock exchange. Well, "animal spirits", technically: Blue. How long do most people hold stocks in your parallel universe? As I mentioned, it's about eleven seconds in mine. Unlike others in this thread I've made no particular claims of expertise, except for knowing how to read. And I know the difference between the economics that is actually a real picture of how wealth is allocated and distributed in an economy, and the "economics" that is nothing more than bullshit meant to reinforce someones ideological preferences about the distribution and redistribution of wealth.

The source of the income. One is payment for labor, and the other is repayment of what is basically a loan. I'm not. You're the one saying that the GDP increase was primarily captured by the rich because it was the return on an investment they made. The source of the GDP increase was increased productivity by the American workforce, as you've already agreed. We're just at a disagreement about who should reap the benefits of the increase. I believe that a person is entitled to the sweat of their brow, I believe that people who earn money should get money, and I believe that the redistribution of wealth is anti-American. You're some kind of socialist who believes that the rich are entitled to wealth they didn't earn simply by virtue of being alive.Well, you don't say that, of course. What you said is that the rich are entitled to the increase because it's the return on an investment they made. Since the money came from the American worker you're implictly saying that the investment was in the American worker. (I can't collect money from Apple for money I invested in Microsoft, right?) I'm challenging that they actually made such an investment.Since you're the one saying they did, I'm the one asking you for evidence. No, not at all. But we've already agreed that in this case, the increase in GDP was the result of widespread productivity gains in nearly every aspect of the American workforce.That's settled. You agreed on it, and it happens to be true. Ask any economist. None of them will tell you that the increase in GDP was the result of American workers remaining exactly equally productive, but the top 1% income earners becoming almost a million times more productive, apiece. That's so patently stupid that nobody would suggest it.So, what we're talking about is the top 1% of Americans collecting the rewards for a 220% increase in productivity by just about everybody. My claim is that that's a form of theft, because people who increase their own productivity should be rewarded for it. Your claim is that all those gains were the result of an investment in the American worker made by those top 1%, and that the transfer is simply the payment on that investment.Well, ok. Let's examine your claim! When was the investment made, and what were it's terms? If you dig into somebody's wallet and take the money, and then when you get caught you claim that you're simply taking what's owed you, based on an investment you once made in the owner of the wallet, you'd better be prepared to show that the investment was actually made and that this repayment was a term of the deal. No, it's true. We've established it; that's why the rich are getting richer and the middle class is shrinking. Nobody disputes that there's been an enormous wealth transfer from the middle class to the rich. Certainly not you - your contention is that the rich have gotten so much richer on the basis of an enormous return on investment, not that they've not gotten any richer at all. That's not really in the scope of the discussion.

But this one did. We've established that, because you've agreed that it's ridiculous to suggest that 3.5 million Americans suddenly became a million times more productive since 1970.I mean, that's a physical impossibility. Are there a million more hours in a day since 1970? Not even if you're rich. Sure! Working harder, working smarter, working longer hours - an eight-hour workday is only one third of a day, after all - it's not that difficult to imagine the average worker doubling their productivity. Even if they simply worked two shifts instead of one, there's enough hours to do that and still get home for a night's rest. It's not good for you, which may partially explain the dramatic decrease in American public health since 1970.So, the notion of workers doubling their productivity isn't all that unreasonable. There are 24 whole hours in a day, and in 1970 they were only working for a third of them. We could explain the increase in productivity simply by supposing that workers are working twice as many hours.Now, of course, that's not likely true. It's far more likely that a combination of factors were responsible - workers working more effectively due to technological advancements, workers working longer hours, as well as an increase in the number of workers. All of that is considerably more reasonable than the notion that 3.5 million rich people figured out how to increase their productivity by seven orders of magnitude. I think there were less people working, and people were working less effectively due to more primitive technologies. For instance, the internet has dramatically increased the productivity of knowledge workers; computers have dramatically increased the productivity of anyone who works with numbers.

Right, the sole proprietor of a business isn't separate from the business.But you specified "corporations", so we're talking about corporations. You understand the difference, right? It's the truth; I'm sorry you're needlessly defensive instead of willing to correct your errors.

What's your evidence that they earned it, aside from the fact that they have it?

Reality?How many hours are there in a day, Phage? Be specific. Total GDP isn't, which is what we've been talking about.Well, it's what I've been talking about; you've been talking about made-up "investments" by rich people which you can't seem to identify or verify. What's your evidence that every single one of the 1% wealthiest got that way as a result of technology and equipment investments?Remember how an investment in Microsoft doesn't entitle you to money from Apple? Be specific as to these "investments."Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Their wealth increased but their productivity remained static, as you've already agreed. I already have, and you've agreed with the case by agreeing to all of its factual particulars. So it's no longer under debate that the wealthy have simply stolen the bulk of your wealth. Your sole defense are these unspecified "investments" which you refuse to discuss.

Well, ok. What's your evidence that they made these investments in the American worker? Be specific. What investments were made?

So, you're again insisting that the wealthiest 1% gained that wealth as the return on investment in the American worker.Can you elaborate on what specific investments were made and when?

Then on what basis do you contend that they were made? The outcome.

How does that prove that even a single investment was made? Be specific, please. I have, as have others. People who earn money should be the people who have money.You, on the other hand, believe in a kind of klepto-socialism where each gives as little as possible and takes according to his opportunity. Redistribution from the middle class to the wealthy isn't capitalism; it's just plain theft.