Romney rich friend says inequality good for U.S.

[alkemyst]

And Democrats are the party of minorities, homosexuals, women*, and poor.

So who is a middle-class straight white man suppose to vote for?


EDIT: Perhaps better amended as husbandless women.

With an attitude like this, perhaps raising Hitler from the dead may be helpful for you.

 

[Craig234]

And Democrats are the party of minorities, homosexuals, women*, and poor.

So who is a middle-class straight white man suppose to vote for?


EDIT: Perhaps better amended as husbandless women.

Actually, progressives are the group for the poor, middle class, lower upper class and ultra wealthy. They're just not the party for the ultra wealthy destroying the country.

The economy and the ultra wealthy do better, really, under Democrats - higher stock growth, more economic growth, and so on. They just don't shift massive wealth to the top.

 

[Craig234]

Please. America's wealthiest did not force people to buy houses they could not afford.

Actually, they did push those mortgages.

Because Wall Street found a huge market for the sub-prime based derivates, they badly wanted large numbers of those loans to package.

They didn't care how bad they were - garbage was fine, and even wanted because after the 'legitimate' mortgages were exhasted, that was the only type to get.

So they incented the mortgage indusry to write them - with lots of money - and the mortgage industry gave them what they wanted, 'LIARS loans' and all that crap.

People were incented with a bubble to get those bad loans, the mortgage industry pushed them - they could make a lot of money, and did. The primary fault was with Wall Street.

 

[nehalem256]

Actually, they did push those mortgages.

Did they force anyone to take a mortgage... no.

Did they irresponsibly offer mortgages... yes. But those people taking the mortgages were completely free to purchases a lower priced house, or turn them down completely. But their inherent greed blinded them just as much.

 

[nehalem256]

With an attitude like this, perhaps raising Hitler from the dead may be helpful for you.

So caring about the interests of straight white middle-class men makes you like hitler 🙄

 

[zsdersw]

5-5-2012

One percenter: Inequality good for U.S.
A rich investor and friend of Romney's says the superwealthy benefit all.

Edward Conard, just outside his office at Bain Capital, the private-equity firm he helped build into a multibillion-dollar business by buying, fixing up and selling off companies at a profit.

Conard, who retired a few years ago at 51, is not merely a member of the 1 percent. He’s a member of the 0.1 percent. His wealth is most likely in the hundreds of millions; he lives in an Upper East Side town house just off Fifth Avenue; and he is one of the largest donors to his old boss and friend, Mitt Romney.

Unlike his former colleagues, Conard wants to have an open conversation about wealth. He has spent the last four years writing a book that he hopes will forever change the way we view the superrich’s role in our society. “Unintended Consequences: Why Everything You’ve Been Told About the Economy Is Wrong,” to be published in hardcover next month by Portfolio, aggressively argues that the enormous and growing income inequality in the United States is not a sign that the system is rigged. On the contrary, Conard writes, it is a sign that our economy is working. And if we had a little more of it, then everyone, particularly the 99 percent, would be better off. This could be the most hated book of the year.

Inequality of outcomes isn't good or bad... it's just a fact of life. There will always be some people who have more and others who have less.

 

[Phokus]

So caring about the interests of straight white middle-class men makes you like hitler 🙄

Here's a hint: Conservatives don't give a shit about the interests of straight white middle-class men.

 

[fskimospy]

Inequality of outcomes isn't good or bad... it's just a fact of life. There will always be some people who have more and others who have less.

Some inequality is a very good thing, large and widespread inequality is a bad thing.

Modest inequality gives incentives for individuals to excel, it's the foundation of our economic system. Large inequality has negative effects on social cohesion and likely negative effects on long term economic growth.

So really it's not right to say that inequality of outcomes isn't good or bad, it is sometimes good and sometimes bad.

 

[zsdersw]

Some inequality is a very good thing, large and widespread inequality is a bad thing.

Modest inequality gives incentives for individuals to excel, it's the foundation of our economic system. Large inequality has negative effects on social cohesion and likely negative effects on long term economic growth.

So really it's not right to say that inequality of outcomes isn't good or bad, it is sometimes good and sometimes bad.

Sure it is. Facts aren't good or bad.. they're facts. "Good" and "bad" are biases caused by one's position and perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

Sure it is. Facts aren't good or bad.. they're facts. "Good" and "bad" are biases caused by one's position and perspective.

There is of course the idea that good and bad don't exist in the universe, that they are merely constructions of the human mind. I am totally uninterested in that argument.

From the perspective of the average, rational human alive in the world today, economic growth is good, and social disruption and hampered economic growth is bad. Since the evidence points in different levels of inequality achieving such results, different levels of inequality are either good or bad, depending.

 

[nehalem256]

Here's a hint: Conservatives don't give a shit about the interests of straight white middle-class men.

I thought it was clear from the original post I made that I was assuming that as well.

But if

Republicans are the party of the wealthy, and

Democrats are the party of minorities, homosexuals, women(husbandless?), and poor.

Who do I vote for as a straight middle-class man?

 

[fskimospy]

I thought it was clear from the original post I made that I was assuming that as well.

But if

Republicans are the party of the wealthy, and

Democrats are the party of minorities, homosexuals, women(husbandless?), and poor.

Who do I vote for as a straight middle-class man?

If I were you, I would go look and see what periods corresponded to the greatest level of median income growth, look at what party's ideology was being implemented, and adjust accordingly.

As for the Democrats being the 'party of homosexuals', that's pretty ridiculous. Even if they were it's hard to see why that would possibly matter.

 

[zsdersw]

There is of course the idea that good and bad don't exist in the universe, that they are merely constructions of the human mind. I am totally uninterested in that argument.

You can be uninterested all you want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

From the perspective of the average, rational human alive in the world today, economic growth is good, and social disruption and hampered economic growth is bad. Since the evidence points in different levels of inequality achieving such results, different levels of inequality are either good or bad, depending.

"Social disruption" meaning what, exactly? Hampered economic growth? Who determines what rate of growth is too slow to be acceptable? What rate of growth is too fast?

 

[alkemyst]

Did they force anyone to take a mortgage... no.

Did they irresponsibly offer mortgages... yes. But those people taking the mortgages were completely free to purchases a lower priced house, or turn them down completely. But their inherent greed blinded them just as much.

The problem is those ignorant like you.

People buy homes and have bought homes because they need a place to live and want to own. Most buying had to make concessions to get much less house than they wanted due to the prices being so high. They still felt secure in knowing real estate has a 1-3% appreciation each year...the powers that be long knew ahead of time the fall the market would take.

Those ignorant like yourself, of course play hindsight and say you pegged it.

The nation was not only duped, but we are now paying to fix what the banks were left holding.

Not only that, but the banks changed the whole bankruptcy and foreclosure laws on us making it hard to get the protections a Capitalistic nation has in place.

In the past the recourse was the bank took your house, you went on your merry way and rented for 3-4 years until you proved credit worthiness and put 20% down on your next place or went the full 7 years and got back into low down payment loans.

You also have people like me that were making payments like I was supposed to and with my loan being flipped having the paperwork get screwed up on their end. My current servicer has finally acknowledged I paid as I was supposed too, but don't know exactly where my payments got applied. It's not stopping their foreclosure action nor showing on paper I own $100k more than I started with and none of the five years of payments being accounted for.

In the end they have this stuff on auto-pilot. When it goes to court I am going to choose to walk out of this place and sue for damages to my credit. It almost bankrupted me when my interest payment on other debts went from $200/month to over $1200. Many of my credit lines were in the mid 5 figure range and single digit fixed interest. Credit cards like this are impossible to get anymore. Being able to basically carry $100k in 'insurance' at all times was a tremendous value I have lost.

However, until I started 'stop' paying last year, my mortgage company just made promises to resolve things. It went on over 3.5 years until I stopped and that's when I finally started getting calls back, forms to fill out, etc. In the end it was worthless though as they still didn't act on anything.

All this 'bail out' money for consumers is just being sat on. Billions of dollars that the banks are leveraging for interest and not in any desire to negotiate.

And there you are spiting your neighbors because you somehow feel slighted that you didn't 'cash in' and believe everyone else must have.

tsk tsk.

 

[fskimospy]

You can be uninterested all you want, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

It actually does, I explained that already. If you wish to discount all value judgments that people can make that's your business, but don't expect others to play along.

"Social disruption" meaning what, exactly? Hampered economic growth? Who determines what rate of growth is too slow to be acceptable? What rate of growth is too fast?

Higher levels of inequality are associated with higher crime rates, lower levels of community engagement, etc. As for what growth rate is too slow, generally we want our real GDP growth rate to be as high as possible. Why wouldn't you? High levels of inequality seem to impede this, so that makes them bad.

 

[cybrsage]

Out of curiosity zsdersw, would you care to actually quote (in context) the item you have in your sig? Or is your superiority complex too strong for you to do it?

 

[zsdersw]

Higher levels of inequality are associated with higher crime rates, lower levels of community engagement, etc. As for what growth rate is too slow, generally we want our real GDP growth rate to be as high as possible. Why wouldn't you? High levels of inequality seem to impede this, so that makes them bad.

Higher crime? So we should rob the rich and give to the poor to cater to criminals, hoping they won't be criminals?

 

[zsdersw]

Out of curiosity zsdersw, would you care to actually quote (in context) the item you have in your sig? Or is your superiority complex too strong for you to do it?

What superiority complex? Sure, here's where my signature originates:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=32992475#post32992475

As previously mentioned, I am taking all bets from people who think Santorum will win the nomination.

I will take that bet. If Santorum wins, you can leave the forum. If he loses, I will leave.

Deal?


(I like to bet in ways I win even when I lose. 😉 )

Since the Republican convention ends on August 30 this year, the nomination process will be completed by then... and Santorum won't be the nominee.

 

[fskimospy]

Higher crime? So we should rob the rich and give to the poor to cater to criminals, hoping they won't be criminals?

Taxation is not theft, period. As for what we should do about inequality, that's a different discussion. You seemed to be asking me to clarify why I was labeling high inequality as 'bad'. I think most people consider crime to be bad, and so something that creates more crime would generally be considered bad unless it offered a correspondingly equal or greater benefit.

As I am not aware of such benefits arising from large, widespread inequality, its contribution to crime seems bad to me.

 

[cybrsage]

Sure:

Now, show the actual context, you know, what lead to it and what transpired after. Context is more than one isolated post. You being superior to the rest of us, you should have already known this.

EDIT: Good start, now finish up.

 

[nehalem256]

The problem is those ignorant like you.

People buy homes and have bought homes because they need a place to live and want to own. Most buying had to make concessions to get much less house than they wanted due to the prices being so high. They still felt secure in knowing real estate has a 1-3% appreciation each year...the powers that be long knew ahead of time the fall the market would take.

Concessions not found

 

[zsdersw]

Now, show the actual context, you know, what lead to it and what transpired after. Context is more than one isolated post. You being superior to the rest of us, you should have already known this.

EDIT: Good start, now finish up.

What's missing?

 

[alkemyst]

Out of curiosity zsdersw, would you care to actually quote (in context) the item you have in your sig? Or is your superiority complex too strong for you to do it?

Sadly this is the rub in action. Everyone wants to believe they are 'better' than their fellow man, but there is always a hierarchy that doesn't match their wants.

Personally I know I am 'better' than many here. I know I fall far under quite a few. Better in the financially capable/stable sense and as well as the philantrophy/volunteering sense.

Our masses loved to ridicule me when I was struggling and honest about that struggle. The same folks now want to put me down because I have risen above them financially and choose to be vocal about charity donations I believe in.

This is one of the main problems the US has today. People don't know their place and we want to coddle our young into believing everyone WILL be the astronaut one day instead of some having to be the guy that cleans his space suit.

Most of our nation's policy is leveraged at putting our voters into a position they actually vote contrary to their real needs thinking they don't have those concerns.

 

[fskimospy]

What's missing?

There's nothing missing, your context is fine. I read the thread too, after all I'm the one he made the bet with. You know as well as I do that he's far too desperately invested in this forum to follow through on his word though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[cybrsage]

What's missing?

The rest of the context. You know, what you quoted:

"and what transpired after."