Cite, please? What “future” is this exactly? Are we talking about the rich vs. non-rich, poor vs. non-poor … what?
If you’re defining “future” as “be a billionaire,” I’d expect having billionaire parents helps a lot. If “future” means “don’t be a drug addict,” I wouldn’t be surprised to hear having billionaire parents hurts. So, please: what exactly do you mean here?
You know exactly what I mean: money. What we’re talking about, since I said EXACTLY that money begets money, and money does NOT tend to lose itself, in fact the FACTS prove quite the opposite.
If tendency of those with money was to lose it, their children of the affluent would not tend to be affluent adults, in fact the opposite. It’s an utterly stupid statement to make that money tends to lose itself, anyone with common sense knows otherwise.
This is not mutually exclusive with what I said. I would agree that it is easier to stay rich than to get there in the first place, particularly from a position of poverty.
But there are a lot of poor people struggling to climb up and relatively few wealthy people.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/10/12/economist-destroys-the-gops-seven-biggest-economic-lies/
Here is Reich explaining the 7 biggest economic lies of the right wing. The right is so wrong, but so easily fooled.
Oooo, this will be fun:
Ok, #1. This looks like a strawman. Do we have a cite for who is saying this now, or is this douchebag just making up arguments so he can swat at them? Anyway. his argument is bad, as an economist he should know better than to say what he said here.
If, as he says, wages flattened when trickle down economics was tried, that does not count as evidence against trickle down economics, because we do not know if they would have flattened more without it or not. Correllation does not equal causation, and he needs to use a regression analysis to support his thesis that trickle down had no effect. We’ve argued this one before (the trickle down thing,) but the correct answer is that tax cuts for the rich would stimulate the economy if taxes were at 100%. If tax cuts were at 0% than further cuts could not stimulate. Anything in between will depend on a host of other factors. It is not a simple one variable equation.
This guy is an economist, right?
Anyway, I’m going to stop right here. This guy is simply not credible.
Meanwhile, in Ireland… [NSFW language]
Ah, everything sounds nice in an Irish accent.
#4 and # 5 are debatable propositions, and therefore no more a lie than if I were to say “The best color is blue.”
#6 A ponzi scheme can be “Solvent.” Whether or not SS is solvent or not or can be made solvent is irrelevant as to whether or not it is a ponzi scheme.
According to the SEC:
A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors."
Whether or not SS is “investment fraud” is a debatable proposition (I think it is,) but the latter half of the definition absolutely applies.
So again, either he is an idiot doesn’t know what a ponzi scheme is, and thinks it has to do with solvency, or else he’s deliberately lying to make a point.
#7 Again, “fair” is a debatable proposition. You would think a professor or an economist, would be careful and would define his arguments better. So, let me ignore “fair,” and address the actual issue which is regressive versus progressive taxes.
Yes, he is right. If we are talking about total tax burden, than the poor pay a disproportionate amount in these payroll and sales taxes, even when we account for the fact that they pay little if any in income taxes.
If we are talking strictly income tax, than I guess the person making the argument that the poor don’t pay much or anything is correct technically.
Personally, I think everybody should pay income taxes who has an income (the poor would pay a token amount, but it would be there nonetheless, but sales and payroll taxes are regressive and discriminatory in their current form and need to be changed.
And that’s all for that douchebag. What a lying sack of shit he is. This dipshit is a professor? That’s just fucking shameful. That’s like an engineer telling people steam engines are powered by happy thoughts.
You don’t know who he is. I am not surprised. he was a Harvard professor, a political economist, served in the cabinets of Ford, carter and Clinton. He is not credible. But you ditto-heads are? No surprise there.
This is a little sneaky. The cite offered gives no substantiation to the preposterous claim that a Ponzi scheme can be solvent. It does offer the definition of a Ponzi scheme which, most likely, nobody reading this didn’t already know. The positioning of the cite offers the unfortunate conclusion that the cite supports Scylla’s surreal definition of “solvent”.
Not quite the done thing, old bean.
Technically a Ponzi scheme can be solvent - in the short term. The problem is that it cannot remain so for long.
It appears he hath abandoned his credentials and devolved into partisan Hackery.
Define “not long.”
Madoff went for decades. As long as they can keep growing at a certain pace they remain solvent.
Let’s explore your cancer analogy some more. You seem to be saying that a large fortune is like a tumor, that it sucks up other money into itself. Is that about right?
What do you think would happen to that “other money” if the fortune didn’t exist?
Say what?
Ponzi schemes can be solvent for a long time. It’s not preposterous. It’s true.
Madoff didn’t run a Ponzi scheme for decades. He committed fraud for decades. He falsified investment records for his customers to make them think that they were getting the returns he promised. It was only when those customers started making large withdrawals that he began paying them from the contributions of new investors.
Withdrawals by early investors were funded by contributions of later As a matter of requirement since he was not receiving the investment gains he claimed, and still taking fees based on those fraudulent claims. Anyway, he was convicted of running a ponzi scheme for note than 20 years according to the law section of the WSJ dated 6/30/09, so I think you are wong.
Or, we could argue about Philip Barry out of Brooklyn who ran a ponzi scheme for three decades.
Ponzi schemes can go on solvent indefinitely provided they avoid detection and have sufficient inflow of new Capitol.
Every year I have to go and sit for a week of seminars and tests and learn all about money laundering, fraud, and other financial schemes as part of my continuing ed, and I have to pass a test on the subject so I’m pretty confident I know whereof I speak.
I don’t see how your cite supports your claim. It says
Ergo, your own cite indicates that parental income is closer to having no influence whatsoever than having complete influence. (And that’s without getting into the methodology of the study, which is not explained)
Remember, your claim was parental wealth (not income) is “the biggest predictor.” For that to be true it must be bigger than things like: education, employment, intelligence, drug use, etc. It’s possible, but I am skeptical.
For example, while having poor parents correlates with poverty, I’d bet dropping out of high school or doing drugs correlate even more strongly. Similarly, while having rich parents correlates with wealth, I’d bet a college degree or having a job correlates much more strongly; the fact that 80% of millionaires are first-generation affluent seems to support that.
From the very first moment, a Ponzi scheme is insolvent. The very first sucker is promised a return on his money that the Ponzi scheme cannot deliver. Attracting more suckers and using their investments to pay off earlier investors is a means to hide the fact of insolvency, it actually only makes the insolvency worse.
If your definition of solvency is correct and universally accepted, you should have no problem supporting it. Instead, you offer your own boundless authority and a cute bit of cite juxtaposition, as noted above. Even an aging hippy with a long history of chemical enthusiasms can see through that. In fact, one just did.
When you worked for Lehman, is this how they defined solvency? Might explain a lot.