Those numbers are obscene.

Yes, they are obscenely large numbers. And, while I won't try to understand entirely and exactly how hedge funds and option trading and all that works, I know that traders are "seduced" into taking very brave positions with money that has not yet been spent, and which isn't their own money, anyway.

Then they get rewarded really well if things work out. When they don't, you hear about a lot of suicides. And then there are a lot of rather young, clever people in the business too. Perhaps that is required to get the right level of bravery, but often it also means a lack of maturity and even ... morality?

Yet, I don't believe more regulation will solve the problem, except for reducing obvious illegal actions. I think a healthy economic society needs a small number of people making seriously good money at the top end. It's a way to pull many of us in the middle, towards that top.

Having said all that, I'm glad I have a real job, which I believe is useful, at least. I get paid a lot less, a helluva lot less, but I don't mind so much.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Yes they are, especially when so many in this country are struggling to get by.

Any accountants out there? I seem to remember back when I was in business my accountant saying there was an excess profit consideration in the tax code that called for a higher tax rate if you were to fall into that catagory.

Not a concern I needed to worry about.

Does that still exist?

Not meant in a snarky way but could you offer an actual, not philosophical, real world illustration of that.

I've always found it difficult to see that theory at work and actually find how many folks in the middle that actually helps. Any percentages?

No, I'm sorry, I cannot. And it's probably impossible to provide such percentages.

I was just trying to say (clumsily, I guess) that society will not benefit if we try to force everybody to live and consume according to their needs and to produce according to their abilities. I.e. Marxism is a nice thought, but doesn't really work for any length of time.

It's an indictment on the human nature, but profit is what motivates people. (I generalise, of course, but it's true in general.)

And so society needs to see that it is possible to earn a lot of money if you are more clever, or work harder, than the next guy.

Personally, I don't think trading derivatives, or managing hedge funds, adds any value to our lives, but I'm sure there are some clever people out there who will be able to explain why they think I'm wrong.

So, necessarily, my thoughts remain philosophical, even though, as a scientist, I would have preferred to be able to argue with data to hand.

And don't worry, I didn't think your comment was "snarky".

So, what, we should control how much money a person can make? That's ridiculous.

Yes, these people make a lot of money. So what? Do you really think that we should take more money from them and give it to poorer people because they made smart business moves? NO.

It's not THEIR fault that people are buying houses they can't afford. It's not THEIR fault people are spending more than they make.

Yes, the rich keep getting richer and the poor keep getting poorer. Why? The rich make savvy business moves and the poor spend money they don't have. Of course, that's in generalities.

Plus, the invisible tax of inflation doesn't help the poor get any richer.

WTF???

There isn't any points in your response that have anything to do with the issue or ramblers response.

Who suggested that we control what people earn, take money away fron the rich and give it to the poor?

This has nothing to do with the housing market and if you believe the rich get richer only because they make savvy business moves you are very inexperienced.

And of course inflation doesn't help anyone.


The article deals with HUGE profits and discusses them in the narrow perspective of the contrast with todays economic problems that are essentially relegated to the middle class and the poor. The rich and very rich seldom suffer economic problems so it's difficult to feel sorry for them if they slip into a higher tax bracket.

Agreed, Maxism has failed in just about every instance where it was instituted, even Red China is moving toward Capitalism. The personal profit angle seems to be the only stimulous that gets people going.

I was actually hoping you could give me an example because while some people are great believers in the trickle down theory I have yet to really see it at work. The government, particularly the President, traditionally has little to do with a rise and fall in the economy. The most we can hope for from that office is that he doesn't screw it up when it's going well.

Tax cuts are traditionally used as a stimulous to jolt the economy by providing more money for people to spend. However, if they aren't applied properly they don't seem to do much.

Maybe times have changed and it's no longer to be expected that when big business and the super wealthy are given tax breaks they feel a bit obligated to bring everyone along with them. The huge tax cuts that were given in this administration have not resulted in that. Business seems to have no problem pocketing the extra profits and then outsourcing work, cutting jobs, and opening plants in countries where workers get a few bucks an hour...if that.

I'm not blindly against tax cuts or profits, I'd like to see it become effective.

That's the short form basis for my request for an example. I just haven't noticed that it works.

The economic spectrum is a bit more fluid than that. There are poor people who ascend to riches and rich people who fall fairly regularly. It's just that when the rich people fall, it is often literally out of a high window.

I would assume that regulation would regulate how much money they could make. It had nothing to do with Rambler, you are correct.

Um, the majority of democrats (not that Republicans are exempt. McCain falls in the Democrat category) and quite a few people who think that CEOs make too much.

And Robin Hood.

I don't feel sorry for them.

I'm not trying to.

I was trying to make a point that regulation does nothing.

It was a generalization of what seems to be widely true, that money makes more money.

Generally speaking and unless you have your head firmly lodged up your ass, it's easier to make money, through business ventures, investments, opportunities, IF you already have money. Thats just a fact.

Joe Nobody off the street with no money isn't likely to get approached with a great business investment like someone WITH money, is he?

These are just a couple of simple points I was thinking of when I commented on the rich getting richer and the poor poorer.

That phrase also nicely sums up the every increasing gap between rich and poor. The divide between rich and poor is now huge and is only increasing.

Joe Nobody, if he has a job and lives within his means can accumulate enough to start investing, whether in stocks, in savings, or in himself. From there, it gets easier as you said. The poor are not without hope, though. As he invests more, he gets more income.

Not easy in some cases, granted, but more people could manage to do so if they were properly educated on how to manage money and we could better serve those who do not have the means. A greater tax base, and a smaller number of needy people leads to more meaningful change in the lives of those who need it most. No politician will do this though, it allows too many people to retain their own power instead of handing it over to government.

You're kind of living in a dream world. I know that the poor aren't without hope but try telling someone who's poor and I mean poor, that they should put some of their money aside to invest.

By poor I mean people who have barely enough money just to eat and pay bills and maybe get caught in the vicious credit cycle (Credit that enables the rich to get richer off the backs of the poor)

Tell the single mum with kids who works her ass off and still is short of NEEDED money that she should put money aside to invest and dabble in stocks and shares. The people who after spending their minimum wage on life's necessities don't have money to spare to invest or save.

I understand what you're saying about personal responsibility and the ability to change your own circumstances and I'm all for bettering yourself BUT the reality of life isn't as simple as you make out.

You are working on the assumption that the poor I'm talking about are simply lower middle-class with a half decent job. I'm talking about people with no "spare" cash to invest, save or dabble in stocks who struggle through life scraping by while Mr.Big-bollocks in the city is making so much money he'll never be able to spend it in his lifetime and STILL wants more.

Many people are living in a self-inflicted nightmare, I was one of them.

The lower middle class that can do this is exactly who I was aiming for. The same ones who want a bailout because they made ignorant decisions(ignorant, not stupid, ignorance is curable), not the ones who honestly can't do it. My second paragraph points out that I am aware that not everyone can easily do this, with varying shades of impossibility mixed in.

Only about 5-9% of all workers are on minimum wage and the majority of those are entry level teens, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This is the stage where investing in self comes in with an education or skills improvement. Investing can come in many flavors, not just financial, let alone dabbling in stocks, and skills improvement need not cost a dime. I would also love to tell that single mother how to get more effective use out of her labor rather than point out how some fatcat is soooo much better off than her. Talk about rubbing her nose in it...

If we are able to educate some people so they don't get caught up in the debt cycle, wouldn't that be better? They get to keep the money they would have wasted on interest, and the usurers don't get a cent. They also are able to more usefully contribute to the economy and help create jobs that the lower class needs. Paying interest just feeds some fatcat in New York. It does nothing for the economy.

By the way, I lived it. I was in the cycle to the point I was making $200 less per month than my bills required. It took me 5 years to climb out and only because I was able to take on some more work and attack the debts smallest to largest, using any windfall that may come(tax returns, bonuses, those magical 3 paycheck months) to attack debt rather than indulge in consumerism. It wasn't luck as some would say, luck is hitting the lottery, it was work properly applied.