Quote :

"Survey: Number of millionaires hits new record Wealthy households boosted by overseas markets, alternative investments By Deborah Brewster, Financial Times NEW YORK - The number of very rich people in the U.S. grew last year at the fastest pace in at least a decade as their moves into international stock markets, real estate and alternative investments paid off. The number of households with $5 million or more in investable assets — excluding the family home — rose by 26 percent to a record 930,000, according to a study by Spectrem Group. That is the biggest jump since Spectrem began its survey in 1996. The number of millionaires rose by 11 percent, to a record 8.3 million – the second biggest jump in the decade since they were surveyed. The overall affluent market – households with $500,000 or more – rose by 7 percent to a record 14 million. This group fared the worst in the wake of the stock market collapse, with their numbers falling sharply from 2000. Last year was the first time their total passed that of their peak in 1999. Catherine McBreen, a managing director at Spectrem, said: "It's been a great couple of years for America's millionaires ... the stock market, which posted solid improvement in 2005, was one reason for the advance. However, for the wealthiest Americans it appears the increased use of international markets and alternative investments were key drivers of their improvement." George Walper, president of Spectrem, said the group had questioned respondents on their investments and returns, and also examined the returns of international markets and alternative investments to ensure the veracity of the results. In a sudden reversal of their longstanding affinity for their domestic market, U.S. investors last year put more than $130 billion into international mutual funds, more than three times the amount they put into U.S. funds. Most overseas markets performed better than the U.S. market, so their switch paid off. Hedge funds returned on average only slightly more than the U.S. stock market last year, but investable real estate and some private equity investments returned more than this. Affluent households, on average, held close to half their money in assets — stocks, bonds and alternative investments — and a larger than usual amount of cash, Spectrem said. The affluent reported a greater satisfaction with their financial advisers than in recent years, but this was still short of the highest level previously reported. Those who used advisers were shifting back to use full-service brokers as their main advisers."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12393877/

This should bring out the class warriors.

4/20/2006 11:54:50 AM

Are class warriors those silly people that think the strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its least fortunate?

4/20/2006 12:25:54 PM

4/20/2006 1:35:02 PM

the protest warriors are some of the dumbest motherfuckers in the political arena. not just that, but they physically harm protestors.

youre dumb just for posting that.



[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 2:27 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2006 2:25:54 PM

the protest warriors are anti-democratic provacateurs

only slightly better than terrorists

4/20/2006 2:31:35 PM

i'm not familier with the protest warriors

but I do know that Greens suck.

4/20/2006 2:36:39 PM

i cant say i agree with everything they stand for, but the greens are the most misunderstood political party out there.

i can almost guarantee you that you probably dont know what they really stand for. hint: its more than hippy bullshit.

4/20/2006 3:26:13 PM

as you can see

the characterization game has already been played

the greens lost

4/20/2006 3:36:36 PM

maybe a green would like to argue this

but its 4/20, so im sure they're all out smoking pot

4/20/2006 3:43:21 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

For the US
1970: 0.394
1980: 0.403
1990: 0.428
2000: 0.462 [1] The note says that they changed the way the number is calculated in the US, meaning it went up by about .02 after the 1990 census.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/ie6.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
The reason all of this is important, is that we are the equal of countries such as China, Iran, Turkey, Cambodia, Venezuela, Senegal.
Regardless of your class warfare worries, that should bother you.

4/20/2006 3:48:40 PM

Quote :

"The path analysis indicated that the effect of income inequality (as measured by the Robin Hood Index) on age-adjusted firearm homicide is mediated in part by social capital (as measured by level of social trust). According to our model, income inequality exerts a large indirect effect on age-adjusted firearm homicide through the social capital variable (Fig. 2). In Fig. 2, as income inequality increases so does the level of social mistrust which is in turn associated with increased age-adjusted firearm homicide rates."

Quote :

"In his review of poverty and inequality and their relationship to crime, Braithwaite (1979) concluded that programs that simply targeted groups living in poverty would not have a significant impact on the overall crime rates in society. In contrast, he argued "that gross economic measures to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and the rest of the population" (pp. 231) are necessary if a significant reduction in crime is to be expected. This view runs against the conventional violence prevention wisdom which usually only targets high risk individuals and groups rather than attempting to shift the underlying societal forces that give rise to a high incidence of violence in the population. This is not to say that the effects of poverty on violent crime are negligible (firearm homicide, r=0.49), and we would certainly not argue against policies to reduce the burden on families living in impoverished settings. Nor would we argue that policies that restrict access to firearms be neglected as one of the means to reduce violent deaths. The proxy for access to firearms was highly correlated with firearm homicide (r=0.44) indicating that it is also a powerful determinant of firearm homicide as has been shown in other studies rates (Cook, 1991; McDowell et al., 1992; Kellermann et al., 1993). However, the profound effects of income inequality and social capital on firearm violent crime when controlling for both of these factors, indicate that policies and interventions that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration. "

Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime


Bruce P. Kennedya, *, Ichiro Kawachib, Deborah Prothrow-Stitha, Kimberly Lochnerb and Vanita Guptaa

a Division of Public Health Practice, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA
b Department of Health and Social Behavior, Harvard School of Public Health, 718 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA

Available online 7 July 1998.

4/20/2006 3:58:57 PM

Quote :

"Regardless of your class warfare worries, that should bother you."

BUT OMF

WE GOT MORE BILLIONAIRES

SOMEHOW THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER

4/20/2006 4:09:23 PM

you are right.
3% of a country owning 90% of its wealth would be better than 1% owning 40% (please note that these numbers are fake)

4/20/2006 4:14:00 PM

Quote :

"WE GOT MORE BILLIONAIRES SOMEHOW THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER"

It should since, according to the IRS, the the top 10% of wage earners pay over 65% of the total federal income taxes. The top 50% of wage earners pay for over 95% of income taxes.

The strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its most successful, but of course no one here wants to join the ranks of the rich since that would be a real cop-out.

4/20/2006 7:41:52 PM

Quote :

"The strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its most successful"

That's just silly.

4/20/2006 7:46:01 PM

Why not judge the strength of a society by how well off all of the classes are? hmm

4/20/2006 7:52:45 PM

why not judge a society by something other than money? like...how happy people are??

4/20/2006 8:02:03 PM

Quote :

" The strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its most successful,"

then iraq during 2000 was one of the greatest countries in the world.

4/20/2006 8:49:05 PM

We must take care of our rich. We shouldn't punish them too much for being successful. Our capitalistic system needs them. In addition to paying the bulk of taxes, they gather the capital needed to provide the jobs for the rest of the country.

We should be grateful that there are people who are good at commerce, creating the demand for labor and providing products and services that we desire.

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 8:54 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 20, 2006 at 8:55 PM. Reason : .]

4/20/2006 8:54:11 PM

i think...yeah i did. i just puked. just a little bit

4/20/2006 8:58:18 PM

Quote :

"i can almost guarantee you that you probably dont know what they really stand for. hint: its more than hippy bullshit."

I know, their platform stretches far beyond tree-hugging. They're really, really socialistic (the most extreme example being that they want a "maximum income"--once you make over a certain rather modest amount, you are taxed 100%. that's the stupidest fucking idea i've ever heard). They're very anti-free market, too.

I hate 90% of their platform with a passion.

4/20/2006 9:01:23 PM

you and 90% of the rest of america.

4/20/2006 9:02:32 PM

Quote :

"The strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its most successful, but of course no one here wants to join the ranks of the rich since that would be a real cop-out."

haiti has some really swank mansions, just take delmas up from port-au-prince

4/20/2006 9:09:33 PM

Quote :

"then iraq during 2000 was one of the greatest countries in the world."

No doubt about that. If only Shrubya hadn't fucked it up...

4/20/2006 9:17:28 PM

Quote :

"The strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its most successful"

You have got to be the dumbest fucking person on the planet.

4/20/2006 9:31:59 PM

Maybe the strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its dumbest fucking person.

4/20/2006 9:40:10 PM

Quote :

"6. COMMUNITY BASED ECONOMICS Redesign our work structures to encourage employee ownership and workplace democracy. Develop new economic activities and institutions that will allow us to use our new technologies in ways that are humane, freeing, ecological and accountable, and responsive to communities. Establish some form of basic economic security, open to all. Move beyond the narrow "job ethic" to new definitions of "work," jobs" and "income" that reflect the changing economy. Restructure our patterns of income distribution to reflect the wealth created by those outside the formal monetary economy: those who take responsibility for parenting, housekeeping, home gardens, community volunteer work, etc. Restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation. "

thats their economic stance, fwiw.

normally, a discussion would be good, but i already know it will end up involving all the libertarians infesting this place jumping up and down and screaming about how the current economic structure is "repressive".

4/20/2006 10:13:26 PM

Quote :

"You have got to be the dumbest fucking person on the planet."

Name-calling doesn't add much to our discussion. Do you have a cogent point that refutes my point that the rich provide the fuel for our economy?

4/20/2006 10:29:23 PM

Quote :

"We must take care of our rich. We shouldn't punish them too much for being successful. Our capitalistic system needs them."

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." - JM Keynes

4/20/2006 10:31:49 PM

recap:

people with x amount of dollars are wicked

4/20/2006 10:45:11 PM

Quote :

"Restrict the size and concentrated power of corporations without discouraging superior efficiency or technological innovation. "

Is this even possible? It seems that 'restrict the size' and 'without discouraging superior efficiency' are contradictory, e.g. economies of scale. Of course, "COMMUNITY BASED ECONOMICS" is rapidly becoming passe day-by-day. Unless your community is the world.

4/20/2006 10:51:04 PM

well, there is such thing as a happy medium.

Seymore, go to your room.

4/20/2006 10:53:04 PM

Quote :

"The strength of a society should be judged by the condition of its most successful"

theDuke866, can you suspend EarthDogg?

4/20/2006 11:00:14 PM

Well, as it stands now, I'd say that most prefer a happy medium that leans heavily towards superior efficiency.

Walmart is not short of customers.

4/20/2006 11:08:44 PM

Quote :

"Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men "

Lord Keynes commenting on being wicked? The same man who voiced support for both Hitler and Stalin -- now that's what I call "wicked"

They need you over in the Capitalism thread. Kris. They're tearing Keynes a new one over there.

4/20/2006 11:45:10 PM

I don't see what an attack on Keyne's social mores has to do with this.

4/20/2006 11:52:52 PM

I should be more specific. Keynes, in his position of being an economist, gave the Nazis and the Soviets his professional stamp of approval in the 1930s.

But all in all, I'm glad to see that the rich are getting richer. That's good for all of us.

4/21/2006 12:34:55 AM

Quote :

"I should be more specific. Keynes, in his position of being an economist, gave the Nazis and the Soviets his professional stamp of approval in the 1930s."

Economically speaking, they both did rather well for themselves at that time.

4/21/2006 1:01:57 AM

way to change the subject. fucking idiot.
you posted an article to try and goad the liberals on this board into attacking you so you can destroy our arguments and it backfired in your face.
stop changing the subject.
you lose.

4/21/2006 1:09:53 AM

Quote :

"Walmart is not short of customers."

then again, if the average person w/ a conscious and knew more about walmart's situation, they might think twice.

4/21/2006 1:11:03 AM

Why? because Wal-Mart's pay and benefits suck? Because they drive small time businesses out b/c they can't compete with the Evil Empire's efficiency and economy of scale?

I personally am not bothered by that.

4/21/2006 1:22:54 AM

we are glad you arent bothered by it.
because your taxes pay the health care they dont provide.

4/21/2006 1:28:32 AM

Last time I checked, Walmart pays taxes, too. A lot more than you and I do. And probably a lot more than all the Walmart-displaced small businesses did (small businesses who didn't provide health care, either).

4/21/2006 7:58:21 AM

^ please for the love of god... dont use that argument to support yourself. someone is gonna eat you alive... i may agree with walmart but defending them like that makes my life harder...

4/21/2006 8:10:23 AM

Quote :

"We must take care of our rich. We shouldn't punish them too much for being successful. Our capitalistic system needs them. In addition to paying the bulk of taxes, they gather the capital needed to provide the jobs for the rest of the country. We should be grateful that there are people who are good at commerce, creating the demand for labor and providing products and services that we desire. "

you must be joking

if you are serious, why take care of the poor any less?

4/21/2006 8:22:10 AM

^^ eat him alive how? I realize that argument doesn't sound very nice, but it does sound like it would be technically true... Instead of telling him to shut up, why not tell all of us why that argument is false?

^ Technically speaking, the theory goes, by taking care of the rich we are taking care of the poor (by "taking care of" I mean "not persecuting"). It is the wealthy that donate the most to charity and it is this charity that does the most good for the nation's dis-advantaged.

[Edited on April 21, 2006 at 9:57 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/21/2006 9:54:48 AM

Quote :

"you posted an article to try and goad the liberals on this board into attacking you so you can destroy our arguments and it backfired in your face. "

So far, all I've generated in the way of responses to my point are personal attacks and insults. I'd love to respond to an actual counterpoint.

Quote :

"Economically speaking, they both did rather well for themselves at that time."

Yes Slave Labor definitely shaves off your expenses.

Quote :

"if you are serious, why take care of the poor any less?"

My point has nothing to do with taking care of the poor. But I would suspect that the poor in a capitalistic system, which enjoys a strong wealthy class, do much better than the poor in any other country. Taking care of the poor is fine, but we shouldn't arrange the whole economy around that goal. We need to support and promote the people who create the wealth. We should remove as many barriers as possible to let them drive the success of our economy. As JFK said..A rising tide lifts all boats.

4/21/2006 10:52:48 AM

i posted an article about the effects of income inequality, but you didnt say a word about it. instead you made a ridiculous statement that has changed the topic of this thread.

4/21/2006 11:26:13 AM

^ Alright, so someone should address your article. It strikes me as bunk. Crime is invariably committed against ones neighbors. I don't see what high income inequality has to do with that for the simple fact that rich people and poor are not sharing neighborhoods. If they were killing rich people that would be one thing, but they're killing their fellow poor neighbors which are not markedly wealthier.

And it fails to address the overt split between dramatic decreases in violent crime since the early 1990s and dramatic growth in income disparity since before that time.

Now, if this study was on a neighborhood level then all it really advocates is the relocation of individuals of increasing income out of poor neighborhoods in order to prevent a loss of trust/social capital within that local community.

4/21/2006 11:40:15 AM

the point of my posting the article wasnt to say that income inequality causes all crime, but rather to point out that there are causes and effects, and i would like to avoid most of the causes that i see.

but i dont see what the victim of the crime has to do with anything. we are trying to figure out why crime occurs, and the authors show that for the time studied there is a correlation between levels of violence and equality. this article fails to adress the current trends because it was done in 98. violent crimes on a national level started to dip in 94, but i dont know what income inequality looked like between 92 and 98. i also saw a bunch of articles talking about health care and income inequality, but then saw an article saying that the proof had dissapeared since 2000 (or so). i honestly have not taken the time to look into whether or not the evidence is still there after 2000.

i dont think people lose trust/social capital because of proximity to the rich in their neighborhood. i dont think you need to see rich people to know you are getting shafted by the system.

4/21/2006 11:49:54 AM