patrick.net

"See, it is the issuance of credit unbacked by anything that causes income disparity. The reason is that it also causes asset bubbles, and that in turn raises the cost of living. You can't keep up due to economic inefficiency -- that is, your income always rises at a slower rate than the increased credit availability.

But those in the very top are able to access leverage and they gain access to inside information and ways to use it without going to prison. The latter is essential because without it the inevitable collapses of said bubbles will always bankrupt you.

So you need both the access to cheap credit and inside information so as to know when to get out before being reamed. Otherwise your only choices are to gamble by using the leverage anyway, a losing bet that will almost-always eventually result in your bankruptcy (go ask Jesse Livermore about that; he ultimately blew his own brains out after making -- and losing -- several fortunes.)

The solution to this is to not let that happen.

The way you prevent it is to stop unbacked credit creation by treating unbacked credit creation as the counterfeiting that it is.

None of the asset price ramps we've seen through the years could have happened without that unbacked credit creation."

Yep.

Even pope said that Trickle down isn't working well today.

mell says

If Obama cared about this problem he would identify the true cause of the problem and put a stop to it.

But he doesn't, just as the Republicans don't. They instead both intentionally lie to you about where the problem lies -- whether it be "minimum wage" or some other "social justice" nonsense. Yet Obama knows exactly what made things "work" for him as one of the privileged few, because he has personally abused leverage in exactly the above way with his property and other holdings, just as have the Republicans.

This is why I prefer a Republican Whitehouse, because all of the Liberal Congressmen and Senators reelections depend on them doing something about those Bastards. It's hard to tell who's who, when both parties are wallowing in the Pig shit.

I am so glad to hear Obama addressing the income disparity, etc. He has put way too much energy into bending backward to try to bring the wacked out far right into the fold. That strategy has got him nowhere. Hopefully now he will work for the people who elected him.

Jemaho says

I am so glad to hear Obama addressing the income disparity, etc. He has put way too much energy into bending backward to try to bring the wacked out far right into the fold. That strategy has got him nowhere. Hopefully now he will work for the people who elected him.

He won't

Jemaho says

I am so glad to hear Obama addressing the income disparity, etc. He has put way too much energy into bending backward to try to bring the wacked out far right into the fold. That strategy has got him nowhere. Hopefully now he will work for the people who elected him.

Like what-trying to disband the NSA??

It's cute how you guys think the president has any control over the situation. Wall Street IS the government now. Obama's just along for the ride. Maybe people will wake up from their American Idol coma and stop tasing each other to get an X-Box someday and realize what's happening to them. Or maybe not.

Homeboy says

Obama's just along for the ride.

I think he tries to fight the power there. But at a certain point, rational people would give up. I'm more worried about that.

I heard that same speech and in essence, the speech was about income equality, plain and simple. I don't think there is anyone on either side of the isle who would deny things are not well in the sense that there is an overall fairness to the employment situation in this country. I have particularly strong feelings about this because even though I now make a good wage, I spent years working at various big box stores, making very little income, squeezing every penny, meanwhile with the company itself making untold billions. It used to be that you could in many instances do a decent, honest day's worth of labor and actually live a modest, but reasonable existence.

That is hardly the case anymore, and that the President actually said something about it versus a lot of other politicians who simply waxed over everything saying that the economy was strong and whatnot to me shows someone who is bringing up points that need to be made.

mell says

The solution to this is to not let that happen.

The way you prevent it is to stop unbacked credit creation by treating unbacked credit creation as the counterfeiting that it is.

None of the asset price ramps we've seen through the years could have happened without that unbacked credit creation."

Facebook is trading at 123x next years earnings, Linked in 1020x, im sure there are a few more "asset price ramps" we can find...

so are we supposed to get some kind of SEC warning of price bubbles or what ?
last i checked there wasnt much unbacked credit creation from stock bubbles..

edvard2 says

I don't think there is anyone on either side of the isle who would deny things are not well in the sense that there is an overall fairness to the employment situation in this country.

one has to be employed to comment on how fair it is.. but since the administration

is anti-business and not very interested in job creation, there isnt much to complain

over " income inequality " .

But the Dems will do the usual.. blame on income inequality vs actually making

more jobs available.. else what else can they do but use it as a political weapon.

thomaswong.1986 says

one has to be employed to comment on how fair it is.. but since the administration

is anti-business and not very interested in job creation, there isnt much to complain

over " income inequality " .

But the Dems will do the usual.. blame on income inequality vs actually making

more jobs available.. else what else can they do but use it as a political weapon.

Meanwhile back in reality-land, today reports came out that showed the highest levels of job growth since 2005 and the unemployment rate dropped to 7%.

Call it Crazy says

edvard2 says

I don't think there is anyone on either side of the isle who would deny things are not well in the sense that there is an overall fairness to the employment situation in this country.

Wow..... You didn't blame only GOP this time, like usual. How come???

Your slipping....

He might be slipping. One day he'll wake up and realize that neither party gives a damn, and they both have the same masters.

Rich people elected Obama, next time those same rich people will elect the next PR guy who will get poor to believe that this government cares.

And this BS train will continue going forward. Why change when the game still works? They make money by taking away opportunities from American people, all while telling them that this is the land of opportunity. You can't find bigger double talk than that... it's like Hitler telling Jews that he wants them to celebrate Hannukah.

As I have mentioned on a number of occasions I grew up in a highly conservative, almost entirely Republican stronghold in the South. I was also a Republican voter up until I was in my 20's. After living in basically all four corners of the country I decided the GOP does not currently carry the interests of the average middle class and working class American. This is interesting because the GOP has historically been a champion of those classes, even having strongly supported worker's unions, worker's rights, conservation, and were also anti-monopoly. Its only been in the last few decades, perhaps starting with the Nixon Admin that they did a stark 360 and put themselves into the pockets of big business meanwhile preaching the eee-ville's of big government and somehow at the same time convincing the things that are actually good for their constituency are bad and hence getting them to eagerly vote against their own best interests to a point where the middle and working classes find themselves in the worst financial situation as a group in almost 100 years.

There are many things I admire from a foundational perspective of the GOP, mainly when it comes to the idea of fiscal responsibility. But when the current actions that the party takes in turn only serves to protect the monied classes and doesn't serve the majority of the population then forget it.

And as far as Obama being voted in by "rich people", well the numbers more or less disprove that notion. He was elected by the largest popular vote margins in decades. The overwhelming support he got came from minorities, recent immigrants, and other growing demographic groups which the GOP has zero influence over.

Meanwhile the GOP has been co-opted by the Tea Party- a purposely engineered fake political movement fully sponsored by big money from interests whom use it as a tool to get what they want in Congress. They in essence have eliminated the voice of reason from the GOP.

The GOP is undergoing an identity crisis. They cannot stay the same party as they have been if they want to win future elections. An yet they are not even able to keep their own party unified, due to all of the inner factions and outside money using the party as a puppet. But i the GOP wants to start using more intelligent reasoning and useful, constructive debates, then perhaps I'll listen. But as for now my votes will go to the Democrats and while obviously some here don't agree with what I have said, I have come full circle, I have seen both sides, and my own experiences and observations across the country have led me to this decision. My decision.

FortWayne says

Rich people elected Obama

You can say a lot about Obama, but "rich people elected him" is not one of them. Romney as much as publicly stated his disdain for the middle class, and that lost him the election. I wouldn't be surprised if it broke down almost to the individual vote as poor people voting for Obama and rich people voting for Romney.

Obama is beholden to the plutocrats, but sadly, the republicans even more so.

Homeboy says

FortWayne says

Rich people elected Obama

You can say a lot about Obama, but "rich people elected him" is not one of them. Romney as much as publicly stated his disdain for the middle class, and that lost him the election. I wouldn't be surprised if it broke down almost to the individual vote as poor people voting for Obama and rich people voting for Romney.

Obama is beholden to the plutocrats, but sadly, the republicans even more so.

Did Obama get a record amount of small donations to his campaign(s) or not? Did the wealthy even vote for him?

The higher income people voted for him in even smaller numbers in 2012. They chose the Plutocrat.

We really need a viable third party that will represent the problems of the people. Sort of like the democratic socialists or something. We need to being back industry. We need to have a real economy instead of one built on pipe dreams and located in the ether. Neither party that exists is for that. The GOP likes tw status quo: rich get richer, poor get poorer, vast profits to be made from off shoring. The Democrats don't like industry either but claim they are choking it off for environmental reasons or some other happy horse shit. We've had both, majority of both in house and senate, both parties have fielded presidents, and the situation has grown steadily worse.
Is this the time when people wake up and realize we have no party to represent us? Or do we need more pain first?

CL says

The higher income people voted for him in even smaller numbers in 2012. They
chose the Plutocrat.

This is rather shocking I must say, I thought americans all want bathrooms they can play baseball in, so psychoanalytic theory would predict that they would vote for Mr Bain as a form of wish fulfillment.

Quigley says

The Democrats don't like industry either but claim they are choking it off for environmental reasons or some other happy horse shit

Interesting... especially seeing as how the US is set to become the largest producer of both petroleum as well as natural gas, which incidentally is occurring at the same time as a Democratic President is in the white house.Quigley says

Is this the time when people wake up and realize we have no party to represent us? Or do we need more pain first?

Obama won re-election. He did so via a democratic process meaning people voted and the person with the most voted won. Last time I looked, that is how a democratic society functions in regards to elections and hence more people thought the Democrats were a wiser decision than those who don't.

There have always been third parties in the US. I too would like to see a third party, but until one that actually has any meaningful input appears the Democrats ( for me) are a better option than the current GOP. Again- my preference.

edvard2 says

And as far as Obama being voted in by "rich people", well the numbers more or
less disprove that notion. He was elected by the largest popular vote margins in
decades. The overwhelming support he got came from minorities, recent
immigrants, and other growing demographic groups which the GOP has zero
influence over.

It was a very interesting time when he won his first term in office. It really did seem like people were genuinley yearning for 'hope and change', then reality set in and showed that no single person not even the 'leader of the free world' has that much control of the situation. At this point I am not really sure how much it matters who the pres is......

Quigley says

We really need a viable third party that will represent the problems of the people. Sort of like the democratic socialists or something. We need to being back industry. We need to have a real economy instead of one built on pipe dreams and located in the ether. Neither party that exists is for that. The GOP likes tw status quo: rich get richer, poor get poorer, vast profits to be made from off shoring. The Democrats don't like industry either but claim they are choking it off for environmental reasons or some other happy horse shit. We've had both, majority of both in house and senate, both parties have fielded presidents, and the situation has grown steadily worse.
Is this the time when people wake up and realize we have no party to represent us? Or do we need more pain first?

Jesse Ventura can say some whacko things, but I think he is right on this one. The current 2 party system essentially won't allow another party to compete (e.g. allow them in the national television debates).

Analyzer says

Jesse Ventura can say some whacko things, but I think he is right on this one. The current 2 party system essentially won't allow another party to compete (e.g. allow them in the national television debates).

The two party system has its faults but has more or less worked for the better part of 200+ years. There have also almost always been third parties on the sides. I am not against a 3rd party myself. But if there is to be one that has a chance they need to take a moderate approach and bridge the gap between the two parties and siphon off the moderates of both parties

edvard2 says

Analyzer says

Jesse Ventura can say some whacko things, but I think he is right on this one. The current 2 party system essentially won't allow another party to compete (e.g. allow them in the national television debates).

The two party system has its faults but has more or less worked for the better part of 200+ years. There have also almost always been third parties on the sides. I am not against a 3rd party myself. But if there is to be one that has a chance they need to take a moderate approach and bridge the gap between the two parties and siphon off the moderates of both parties

Elections are now won by money, media, and lobby support. Very difficult for a 3rd party to get in the game.

Edvard says, "Obama won re-election. He did so via a democratic process meaning people voted and the person with the most voted won. Last time I looked, that is how a democratic society functions in regards to elections and hence more people thought the Democrats were a wiser decision than those who don't."

Bush won reelection as well, do what's your point? Obama was paired (intentionally) against a plutocrat who is so out of touch with middle class America he practically spit on us. Obama wasn't well liked either, and hadn't brought back industry or jobs or done much at all to help people or grow the economy long term, but his opponent was much worse.

My question is: how is it democracy if you have to vote for one of only two choices, neither of whom will represent your interests or the interests of your 60% majority?

A third party is not only a valid choice. It's the only choice.

I do agree about it needing to draw in moderates tho.

edvard2 says

I am not against a 3rd party myself

I'm all for the Tea Party becoming its own real party. That's just me talking as a laughing liberal though.

CL says

edvard2 says

I am not against a 3rd party myself

I'm all for the Tea Party becoming its own real party. That's just me talking as a laughing liberal though.

Fine, they still will have to overcome the significant barriers to entry.

Quigley says

Bush won reelection as well, do what's your point? Obama was paired (intentionally) against a plutocrat who is so out of touch with middle class America he practically spit on us. Obama wasn't well liked either, and hadn't brought back industry or jobs or done much at all to help people or grow the economy long term, but his opponent was much worse.

If Obama wasn't well-liked he would not have won re-election. There certainly isn't a lack of third parties. But most I've seen of these have such far-fetched idealism and platforms that they stand no chance in hell of winning. As far as Bush winning two terms, his Presidency marked the last election where a GOP candidate won via their base, which as of now is too small to now make that happen again. CL says

'm all for the Tea Party becoming its own real party. That's just me talking as a laughing liberal though.

I would like to see the name "party" removed from "Tea Party". They were never a real party to start with.

dublin hillz says

CL says

The higher income people voted for him in even smaller numbers in 2012. They

chose the Plutocrat.

This is rather shocking I must say, I thought americans all want bathrooms they can play baseball in, so psychoanalytic theory would predict that they would vote for Mr Bain as a form of wish fulfillment.

Hispanics, Asians and Women moved towards Obama, consolidating Democratic advantage there.

Despite what Thomas.Wrong says!

Analyzer says

Fine, they still will have to overcome the significant barriers to entry.

Not that big of a barrier for them. They have representatives already, and they can easily get on the ballots. Their problem is that it would be stupid for the very heart of Republican ideology to become its own party, and force the remaining moderates or business minded into the arms of the Dems.

That's why the GOP "leadership" is so bent on acquiescing. The consequences are dire for the party.

edvard2 says

If Obama wasn't well-liked he would not have won re-election. There certainly
isn't a lack of third parties. But most I've seen of these have such far-fetched
idealism and platforms that they stand no chance in hell of winning. As far as
Bush winning two terms, his Presidency marked the last election where a GOP
candidate won via their base, which as of now is too small to now make that
happen again.

The Republicans blew it. It was their election to lose and sure enough they did a fine job of sealing the deal.

CL says

Analyzer says

Fine, they still will have to overcome the significant barriers to entry.

Not that big of a barrier for them. They have representatives already, and they can easily get on the ballots. Their problem is that it would be stupid for the very heart of Republican ideology to become its own party, and force the remaining moderates or business minded into the arms of the Dems.

That's why the GOP "leadership" is so bent on acquiescing. The consequences are dire for the party.

Like I said if you don't have the money, media, and lobby you don't have much of a chance. Who cares if you can get on a ballot.

bgamall4 says

Many jobs have been created Wong, but the problem is, they don't pay squat. This is a globalization issue.

You forgot to mention that these low paying jobs we have created are all in Mexico, China, India, Thailand, etc.

Analyzer says

Like I said if you don't have the money, media, and lobby you don't have much of a chance. Who cares if you can get on a ballot.

But see? At that point you are blaming the voters. And what good does that do in a Democracy?

If the candidate has merit and can gather enough voters he/she can get elected. The odds are against it because each constituency is smart enough to know that they have an "in" with a major party and moving away from that means that their interests will almost certainly be ignored.

And keep in mind that once the fabled independent gets elected, he/she will find that actually acting on their promises is a lot harder than what they proposed while running for office. You think the GOP is going to work with a Ron Paul or Ralph Nader presidency?

They would face even larger hurdles than Obama has, even with his tepid, mainstream, Republican friendly policies.

Nothing changes because the voters don't change, aren't taught civics and are lured by the teevee man. And money=speech, as the right has dictated but for that I'd also assign blame to SCOTUS.

So, the idea works great, as long as everything else in the system changed too, and it won't.

If Obama was George Zimmerman, cops would have been called out for Obama's lies as many time as police have responded to guns on Zimmerman in the last year.

His lies are his guns and he can't put them down. You'll take away Obama's lies when you pry them from his lips.

CL says

Hispanics, Asians and Women moved towards Obama, consolidating Democratic advantage there.

Despite what Thomas.Wrong says!

edvard2 says

Meanwhile back in reality-land, today reports came out that showed the highest levels of job growth since 2005 and the unemployment rate dropped to 7%.

Reality ? its a bitch alright ! how many millions were excluded from "Unemployed".

thomaswong.1986 says

Reality ? its a bitch alright ! how many millions were excluded from "Unemployed".

I am almost willing to get that if it were GW in the office you guys would be jumpin' for joy absolutely sugar coating this thing. As I mentioned in another post Wall Street clearly likes the fact that millions more people are now employed. Hence the market was up almost 200 points. Boo-hoo for the GOP...

Call it Crazy says

Well, it's a good thing the government is hiring to help push the UE number down...

And you know what? Guess what those people who work for the government do?

why.... they get paid, pay taxes, buy houses, shop at the store, buy cars, send their kids to school, and all the other 'stuff' that normal ordinary citizens do. In other words, they contribute to the economy while doing useful things- like paving the sidewalks you walk on, pave the streets you drive on, and teach your kids.

this notion that "government workers don't count" makes zero sense.

Call it Crazy says

Where do the funds to make those payrolls come from????

It comes from taxes. Last time I looked the government provides services. So if you have a point, let me know. otherwise I assume you must think somehow we can totally do without any government services.

edvard2 says

I am almost willing to get that if it were GW in the office you guys would be jumpin' for joy absolutely sugar coating this thing. As I mentioned in another post Wall Street clearly likes the fact that millions more people are now employed. Hence the market was up almost 200 points. Boo-hoo for the GOP...

Either way, i would be replacing the current manual survey system with a much more IT system solution to get precision and focus on fixes. By that i would implement Citizen ID/Voter /Medical cards for citizens to use when they are unemployed. Therefore real govt spending to cure unemployment is not wasted as it was in prior years.