American Budget Cuts

How so? Increases in GDP do not solely come from increases in the productivity of the American worker. Why? Lets look at the Real GDP and population growth from 1970 to 2009.Relative to the value of the dollar in 2005, in 1970 the average worker's share of the GDP was $20,819.74. In 2009 it was $41,890.45. Are you suggesting that the average American worker somehow managed to increase the yield of "the sweat of their brow" by a little more than double simply through working harder?What do you think the figures were for the previous 40 years? Just under 3 times greater; exactly how little do you think people worked back then? Oh I see how it is."They are stealing from us!"
"Oh really, how?"
"Well... I have less money than I think I should have! Everything else is kinda fuzzy..."

Not necessarily. Its always possible for someone to be an idiot and lose their fortune. In the slightly longer term fortunes can be broken up among offspring. If you allow people to keep the fruits of their labor then yes. Those people are in essence standing on the backs of their ancestors. This in no way hinders the ability of others to get ahead and to make their fortunes, and in fact it makes it easier due to the vast amounts of investment capital available.But I suspect you are going to whine about how its terrible you can't have their money. That those of our current generation who work really hard are somehow entitled to the wealth of the previous generation no matter who they were. Or that such a distribution of wealth must have terrible results for our form of government.What it comes down to is that if you let people invest in their children, their children will be better off. Either you get rid of the idea of inheritance or you will just have to deal with that fact.

Oh come on, you even quoted it: "Relative to the value of the dollar in 2005..." All of those figures were relative to that value. The figures are about "real GDP" converted to a common standard and adjusted for population so it was actually a useful statistic.If you aren't going to bother to read there isn't much help I can offer on a text-based forum.

Who are you to say what people should eat? If they want to eat cheap, unhealthy food then that is their choice of how to allocate their resources. Its not like healthy food isn't available to them, its just that apparently you have a problem with what you would consider a suboptimal choice even being available.Well thats freedom, get over it. I won't be lectured by a wannabe autocrat. This is actually a legitimate fear, and is one of the problems in compensation that companies and their investors take great pains to mitigate. It isn't as you suggest something to be expected or welcomed in a capitalist society. Actually there is an incentive to fill every niche. The first company will balance quality and cost to find the right balance between number of customers and price for greatest profit. The second will have to compete in some way; one will probably end up being the lowest cost producer and the other will differentiate themselves in some way, usually through quality.Look at the computer industry: Apple has a comparatively tiny amount of the market share yet they have been enormously profitable. Thats because they have grabbed a large portion of the high-end computer sales market through differentiation as the leader in quality. Quality sells. And what do people want to buy? Probably the safest security force, although to be specific they probably don't want the safest money can buy. Guarding their store with an APC and a horde of hardened former SWAT members is probably overkill.People get what they want, not some idealized extreme that makes you cream your pants when you imagine it. So people get the food they want, not the food thats theoretically best for them. Yes, they don't have Bolder-dash the autocrat lording over them deciding what they can and cannot eat. I'm having trouble imagining under what circumstances exactly people are going to of their free will purchase less effective medicines given the option.

So whats your plan, that just because your ancestors built up an infrastructure to aid you that it should be harder for you to make a profit? Or even impossible for you to just break even? Maybe not. But I notice you still haven't tackled the question of what business it is of yours that other people have wealth. Looking at everything that exists and seeing others producing more with their greater resources, and being jealous, isn't a reasonable basis for wealth redistribution.

Right, now you start to deny the economic reality. Well Bolder-dash, how about a taste of your own medicine?Your figures about GDP growth and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a minority have no meaning whatsoever in regards to modern life. You still have the same ability to increase your fortune and profit from your labor as you ever did, or as anyone does.Your spun numbers about how the wealthy are mysteriously filching from the poor, in ways you refuse to address, have absolutely zero value for drawing conclusions about anything. Actually, the particular calculator I used was developed by a pair of Economics professors from the University of Illinois at Chicago. Lawrence H. Officer and Samuel H. Williamson if you want to look them up. As for their data, its hardly a secret what with the US collecting and publishing GDP numbers and inflation rates.

And I'm astounded that you can't seem to couch your greed in other terms. You realize that the total wealth in the world isn't a static amount, right? Since when does leaving your assets to your children have to be fair? Are you fair to your children compared to the rest of the children in the world?

Yes I do. Building upon the advancements of our ancestors is what the progress of the human race is based upon. Being able to make things better for your children is both a central and respectable motive for a person.A long and successful family line leaving the resulting generations many resources is the logical expectation.

And there comes the rhetoric.You didn't actually point out any particular stage of the process thats unfair or undesirable, you just skipped straight to bitching about people being wealthier than you.You want what they have, given to them by their parents who earned it.

You are getting it. Without the invested money your efforts are not terribly profitable. WRONG! You could get a decrease in value without a change in percentage if the overall value available decreased. You are trying to compare a reduction in overall percentage share from one year to the next with a static view of the overall value available, which is simply wrong. NNNNoooooo, it also depends on the amount of stuff out there available for purchase. You are leaving out massive elements of the equation.If someone's share of the total money supply decreases by 1% but the amount of goods available to purchase doubles... their purchasing power dramatically increased. Yes they can, your poor understanding of economic notwithstanding. This discourages investment, making it harder for the poor to find investment capital. Being unable to buy equipment or labor which they can leverage into increased profit is hurting them, not helping them. Really? My research indicates that the top 1% of wealthy Americans between 2007 and 2008 paid 38% of all federal income taxes but earned 20% of adjusted gross income.The top 5% of earners paid far more than the bottom 95%. Where on Earth are you getting your data?

Lets. I said nothing of the sort, thats bitching. I never even hinted at the rich being a ruling class of any sort, or that they would necessarily be idle (although in theory they could if they wished). Again, not even slightly mentioned. The problems of Georgian and Victorian England are easily identifiable as oppressive practices, not just because someone had a bunch of money. The monetary accumulation was a byproduct, not the cause. Again, this has nothing to do with anything I said. Bankruptcy is certainly agreeable and the very idea of a "free market" goes against workhouses. Its just more bitching from you. And what does this even have to do with economics? Emotional bitching from start to finish. No, and in fact I'm not especially against the idea of progressive taxation. The idea of not taxing the poor who can't afford it is reasonable and directly extensible to offloading that burden onto those who can afford it.However, keep in mind that investment is an effort multiplier. Having investment capital available makes people much more productive than otherwise, and hurting investment opportunities is detrimental to overall progress. Taxation is a necessary element of running a society with public services, but drawing too much from discretionary income has long term social and infrastructure issues as well.

I'm not going to bother responding if you aren't even going to make a pretense of addressing reality. Its adjusted for the change in population.And yes, the technology and equipment was a big factor. Thats investment.

Whats your evidence that they didn't? I don't have to justify that I earned and deserve what I own to you, and neither do they. If you are going to accuse them of obtaining it dishonestly you have to make your case.

No, in fact I expressly disagreed to that on the grounds that their invested wealth is responsible for increases in productivity. You have continually misrepresented my position, things to which I have agreed, and even data which you have provided.Since you are not going to discuss this honestly, I am done here.

Lets start over on the basics. Consider the statement:"Wealth can be applied to enhance productivity."Do you agree with this statement?