When do you consider someone "wealthy" or "rich"?

[Seattle]

!!!! Poor people have always been in debt since the invention of currency. When the poor - or farmers, or skilled workers, or clerical workers, or service workers - fall behind on their chronic debt, the consequences are similar through history. They became serfs, sharecroppers, galley slaves, prostitutes; they went to prison and the colonies

Why all the drama? In the 1950's were there a lot of serfs, galley slaves, people in debtor prisons?

 

[Jeeves]

Everything is the governments fault apparently.

Only insofar as the government is a fully-owned subsidiary of megabusiness.

 

[Seattle]

How it works - has always worked - is: You pay them just enough to live on. But you own everything: the mine they work in, the house they live in, the stores they shop in, the doctor, the pharmacy, the pub, the school - everything - so you get to set the prices. They're okay - treading water - until the miner falls down a shaft and breaks his leg, or the farmer has three dry summers in a row, or the seventh* child has asthma ... or you decide to automate the mill and turf out all the employees with no severance pay and no place to go. After that, given compound interest, they're in the bottomless hole for life.
* Of course they have to: you own the church, too, and forbid birth control.

Let's be honest, you are arguing against capitalism everywhere. It's not for you. Right?

 

[billvon]

That's ridiculous. Are you arguing that before credit cards we just didn't hear about debt?

Nope. Credit cards make it easy to rack up debt. It's harder with mortgages, car loans, local store tabs, bar bills and personal loans. People still did it.

If you don't make a lot of money, don't borrow money. It's only fairly "recently" that people have had to option to get into debt when they don't make a lot of money.

I assume you are joking. You are smart enough to have heard the term debt slavery. In fact, sharecropping was the primary system of labor in the South until World War II, which is just before credit cards appeared. In that system, you worked someone else's land, and they supplied you with seeds, farming implements, livestock etc at a price. Then you could sell a portion of your harvest. In bad years, you owed more than you made - and thus went into (usually permanent) debt. It was a form of slavery that neatly replaced actual slavery at a time when landowners needed cheap labor.

This has been going on since people had money.

 

[Jeeves]

Why all the drama? In the 1950's were there a lot of serfs, galley slaves, people in debtor prisons?

That was a post-war boom... in some parts of the world. Not so much in others.
We can probably find a dozen decades, between 5000 BC and 2000 AD during which some populations were prosperous - usually after a massacre that their side won.
This doesn't make it the case that "before credit cards" - ie 5000 BC through 1960 AD - very few people were in debt.
In fact, very many people were in debt very much of the time in very many places.

 

[Jeeves]

Let's be honest, you are arguing against capitalism everywhere. It's not for you. Right?

It is an economic mechanism which runs entirely on debt. Money-lending is its engine.
No, I'm not mad keen on it.
Even less keen am I on people who cover for its crimes.

 

[parmalee]

That was a post-war boom... in some parts of the world. Not so much in others.
We can probably find a dozen decades, between 5000 BC and 2000 AD during which some populations were prosperous - usually after a massacre that their side won.
This doesn't make it the case that "before credit cards" - ie 5000 BC through 1960 AD - very few people were in debt.
In fact, very many people were in debt very much of the time in very many places.

Incidentally, I only recently learned that Winston Churchill actually forbade public distribution of the Beveridge Report <<< during WWII. Kinda shocking.

 

[parmalee]

It is an economic mechanism which runs entirely on debt. Money-lending is its engine.
No, I'm not mad keen on it.
Even less keen am I on people who cover for its crimes.

And all posited on the absurd notion of limitless growth. Capitalism is intrinsically unstable and untenable--I think even it's strongest proponents are keenly aware of this, they simply don't care.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Coming from you, that means a lot.

to be fair, i am guessing you probably take your meds & have a whisky prior to jumping on the net in the evening.

i was wondering in 2008 how a meth-jockey in a cheap suit could turn the modern world back into the stone age collapsing entire citys ecconomys...
so i decided to start reading.
im guessing you gave up on reading well before then.

Lenders selling and leveraging toxic debt
VLR value to loan ratios
poor loan equity in a market that could not sustain the risk of small losses
large multi billion dollar corporations being run like loan sharks by borderline incel meth-jockeys looking for the next big fix...


https://www.ft.com/content/9ae580b6-5095-11de-9530-00144feabdc0

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found here.
https://www.ft.com/content/9ae580b6-5095-11de-9530-00144feabdc0

Tom Braithwaite in Washington and Francesco Guerrera in New York June 4, 2009 Print this page Details of the Treasury’s toxic asset plan are in doubt after the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Wednesday said it was suspending a test run of the legacy loans programme. Sheila Bair, chairman of the FDIC, said development of the programme – designed to encourage investors to buy toxic, or legacy, loans from banks in order to restart the flow of credit – would continue but a pilot sale of assets was on hold. “Banks have been able to raise capital without having to sell bad assets through the LLP, which reflects renewed investor confidence in our banking system,” Ms Bair said in a statement. The LLP is part of the public-private investment programme that puts federal debt and equity alongside private money in an attempt to allow banks to sell their troubled assets, blamed for dissuading banks from lending. Ms Bair’s comments echoed those of Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, who this week said that banks might be able to rely on the normal private market for asset sales. The LLP falls under the control of the FDIC, the regulator of deposit-taking banks, as it is designed to provide debt to allow private investors to leverage their investments in legacy loans. A separate legacy asset programme is being run by the Treasury and forms the second part of PPIP. Some economists believe private investors stand to make large profits while the taxpayer would bear the brunt of any losses. Banks and investors, meanwhile, had misgivings over taking part in the PPIP amid fears the politically charged climate could prompt Congress to change rules on issues such as executive compensation for those firms that participated in the programme.

 

[Seattle]

It is an economic mechanism which runs entirely on debt. Money-lending is its engine.
No, I'm not mad keen on it.
Even less keen am I on people who cover for its crimes.

We should already be open to embracing better systems, that's true. Before capitalism around the world most people were poor and that was the just the state of things. It was capitalism that managed to produce surpluses and create wealth for the average person.

It works best with regulation. What system do you prefer and where has it resulted in a better outcome for the average person?

 

[Seattle]

Nope. Credit cards make it easy to rack up debt. It's harder with mortgages, car loans, local store tabs, bar bills and personal loans. People still did it.

I assume you are joking. You are smart enough to have heard the term debt slavery. In fact, sharecropping was the primary system of labor in the South until World War II, which is just before credit cards appeared. In that system, you worked someone else's land, and they supplied you with seeds, farming implements, livestock etc at a price. Then you could sell a portion of your harvest. In bad years, you owed more than you made - and thus went into (usually permanent) debt. It was a form of slavery that neatly replaced actual slavery at a time when landowners needed cheap labor.

This has been going on since people had money.

I'm not speaking literally of course. The degree to which debt is available now is greater than ever before.

I'm the first one in my family to ever use a credit card. My parents and grandparents had no debt. Yes, of course, I'm aware of the various ways that people have managed to get into debt historically speaking.

Do you consider that we are experiencing particularly bad economic times now, historically speaking?

 

[RainbowSingularity]

It was capitalism that managed to produce surpluses and create wealth for the average person.

no !
wrong !

basic economics lesson #1
the creation of currency created surpluses to create wealth
without creating a currency there would be no capitalism

are you deliberately trying to mislead people ?

It was capitalism that managed to produce surpluses and create wealth for the average person.

no ! you are wrong !

It works best with regulation.

wrong again !
without regulation there would be no currency
regulation is the act of accepting a currency
thus regulation comes before currency which comes before capitalism

are you deliberately attempting to fool people ?

a "market" can exist without a currency
but regulation is the act of accepting the market be created to become a living thing.
like new life being created.
regulation is the act of sex/copulation

surplus only happens where there is no loss which is where currency has allowed fruit to be converted into currency(cash, credit or non perishables of an agreed value) so it doesn't become worthless in a few months.

your grasp of economics is childish or deliberately miss representing to fool people
pick one

Do you consider that we are experiencing particularly bad economic times now, historically speaking?

plush troll ?

comparative macro-standard of living as a quality of life ?

people talk so much shit about economics
it gets me fired up

what a great speech

 

[Seattle]

no !
wrong !

basic economics lesson #1
the creation of currency created surpluses to create wealth
without creating a currency there would be no capitalism

are you deliberately trying to mislead people ?

no ! you are wrong !


wrong again !
without regulation there would be no currency
regulation is the act of accepting a currency
thus regulation comes before currency which comes before capitalism

are you deliberately attempting to fool people ?

a "market" can exist without a currency
but regulation is the act of accepting the market be created to become a living thing.
like new life being created.
regulation is the act of sex/copulation

surplus only happens where there is no loss which is where currency has allowed fruit to be converted into currency(cash, credit or non perishables of an agreed value) so it doesn't become worthless in a few months.

your grasp of economics is childish or deliberately miss representing to fool people
pick one


plush troll ?

comparative macro-standard of living as a quality of life ?

people talk so much shit about economics
it gets me fired up

Do you shout at lot in person?
I said nothing about currency, one way or the other. Of course moving from a barter economy (if there ever really was one) is the most important step but since that is pretty much universal most people pretty much take that as an assumption.

 

[Seattle]

large multi billion dollar corporations being run like loan sharks by borderline incel meth-jockeys looking for the next big fix...

Sometimes I forget who I'm dealing with here.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Sometimes I forget who I'm dealing with here.

thats ok

borderline incel methamphetamine-jockeys playing chicken with global markets...
2008 credit collapse...

it was all penises and cocaine and strip clubs for the boys club as the world burnt..
the burning civilians got a bit upset though as their entire citys financial systems burnt to the ground

 

[iceaura]

The only people who lost their homes were those not paying their mortgages whether they were top bank executive or anyone else.

So?
(Untrue, btw, in implication - a large number of investors in housing lost homes purchased on commercial loans or other jiggerings of "mortgage" lending).

My point is that in a capitalist economy more rewards go to those with capital. You can be a wage earner and use your saving to invest in capital.

And this is presented as if it were the weather - some kind of phenomenon of nature rather than the governance and structuring of an economy by man.
Meanwhile: Wage earners always have surplus money they can save, in wingnut world. Just like all the badly paid jobs are reserved by some "market" for "transients", because nobody else can afford to take them. The thing to notice is that this bubbleworld is comprehensive - it replaces physical reality, in their politics. And they use it to make moral judgments, to found assumptions about other people befitting their presumptions about the real world.

Back to the quote: Some do, of course. A smaller percentage than in the more prosperous, pre-Reagan past. And a shrinking percentage - health care costs have kept rising, breaking the 20% warning level and approaching 30% for some demographics (lower middle class families with young children). Only the rich are going to have much left over to "save" after covering that nut.
But that saving does not end the matter - since Reagan's governance trashed the Savings & Loans and crippled the retail banking industry's footing in small customers, money merely "saved" has become money gradually lost - so instead of exemplifying prudence and moderation, saving perforce must become "investment in capital" by people who don't know what they are doing. Recall that payoff to investment goes to risk, in general. And over time, in an environment of risk, the smaller stakes - most people - eventually lose. The House wins, in Las Vegas and in New York alike. The net result of that is a steady accumulation of the many losers's savings in the hands of the fewer wealthy , marking the erosion of net wealth in the middle and lower classes.
And so we arrive at the current reality, a structural inequality of wealth so topheavy that it threatens to wreck the entire American social and political system.

Those that focus on what they have rather than what someone else has tend to do better.

Your imagination is not data.
The most successful people I have followed in my life - in terms of getting rich by their own efforts - were (and still are) borderline obsessed with what other people had, and how they got it. That is a small and uniquely biased sample, unfit for extrapolation, of course. But even if it were adequate for extrapolation, I would not regard such an assessment of personality as explaining large scale structural features of the US economy - the other way around would seem more plausible to me. Rapacious and materialistic self absorption does not spread and take over unless it is rewarded, lavishly and consistently: its penalties and costs are too heavy.

Do you consider that we are experiencing particularly bad economic times now, historically speaking?

That is the obvious direction of the current trends, sure. It's not rocket science - not too long ago we were building the bridges we can no longer afford to maintain, for example. And the debt from the last few wars is still on the books, rolling over every budget cycle, accumulating interest - we had WWII paid off much faster than that.

Historically speaking, we are setting the US up for a continuation of the bubble and bust workings of Reaganomics (including severe crashes every couple of decades at least), consequent continuing economic stagnation in the middle and lower classes, consequent continuing growth and influence of banana republic politics, and the already impinging loss of general prosperity inevitable upon the concentration of wealth in a few hands.

 

[Seattle]

So?
(Untrue, btw, in implication - a large number of investors in housing lost homes purchased on commercial loans or other jiggerings of "mortgage" lending).
And this is presented as if it were the weather - some kind of phenomenon of nature rather than the governance and structuring of an economy by man.
Meanwhile: Wage earners always have surplus money they can save, in wingnut world. Just like all the badly paid jobs are reserved by some "market" for "transients", because nobody else can afford to take them. The thing to notice is that this bubbleworld is comprehensive - it replaces physical reality, in their politics. And they use it to make moral judgments, to found assumptions about other people befitting their presumptions about the real world.

Back to the quote: Some do, of course. A smaller percentage than in the more prosperous, pre-Reagan past. And a shrinking percentage - health care costs have kept rising, breaking the 20% warning level and approaching 30% for some demographics (lower middle class families with young children). Only the rich are going to have much left over to "save" after covering that nut.
But that saving does not end the matter - since Reagan's governance trashed the Savings & Loans and crippled the retail banking industry's footing in small customers, money merely "saved" has become money gradually lost - so instead of exemplifying prudence and moderation, saving perforce must become "investment in capital" by people who don't know what they are doing. Recall that payoff to investment goes to risk, in general. And over time, in an environment of risk, the smaller stakes - most people - eventually lose. The House wins, in Las Vegas and in New York alike. The net result of that is a steady accumulation of the many losers's savings in the hands of the fewer wealthy , marking the erosion of net wealth in the middle and lower classes.
And so we arrive at the current reality, a structural inequality of wealth so topheavy that it threatens to wreck the entire American social and political system.

Your imagination is not data.
The most successful people I have followed in my life - in terms of getting rich by their own efforts - were (and still are) borderline obsessed with what other people had, and how they got it. That is a small and uniquely biased sample, unfit for extrapolation, of course. But even if it were adequate for extrapolation, I would not regard such an assessment of personality as explaining large scale structural features of the US economy - the other way around would seem more plausible to me. Rapacious and materialistic self absorption does not spread and take over unless it is rewarded, lavishly and consistently: its penalties and costs are too heavy.
That is the obvious direction of the current trends, sure. It's not rocket science - not too long ago we were building the bridges we can no longer afford to maintain, for example. And the debt from the last few wars is still on the books, rolling over every budget cycle, accumulating interest - we had WWII paid off much faster than that.

Historically speaking, we are setting the US up for a continuation of the bubble and bust workings of Reaganomics (including severe crashes every couple of decades at least), consequent continuing economic stagnation in the middle and lower classes, consequent continuing growth and influence of banana republic politics, and the already impinging loss of general prosperity inevitable upon the concentration of wealth in a few hands.

It sounds like the sky is falling. We had better run.
I assume you weren't crazy about the 1930's. Liked the post WWII years, didn't like the Reagan years or any years since then.

I think you would generally have been unhappy no matter when you were born or where. Is that fair to say?

 

[parmalee]

It sounds like the sky is falling. We had better run.
I assume you weren't crazy about the 1930's. Liked the post WWII years, didn't like the Reagan years or any years since then.

I think you would generally have been unhappy no matter when you were born or where. Is that fair to say?

Why not simply address the content of a post? I'm not seeing anyone "whining" or expressing "envy" here.

Anyways, crap article--apart from this "50/30/20 rule" (which I had never heard of), I don't know what the hell they mean by "live comfortably." But, there are some numbers, at least:

There is no one answer to how much money you need to make to live comfortably, but one oft-used rule of thumb in budgeting is the 50/30/20 rule — which calls for half your income to go to necessities, 20 percent to savings and investments and 30 percent for splurges and fun. For most Americans, that’s a pretty sensible approach to defining a living wage, but plenty of residents living in America’s largest cities are probably reading that and thinking “Are you insane? Half my income doesn’t even cover my rent and I live in a converted dumbwaiter.” ...

Albuquerque, New Mexico

• Median income: $49,878
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a homeowner: $72,631
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a renter: $73,879
  

Albuquerque isn’t going to top any salary comparison by city with the median earner pulling down under $50,000, which is below the average salary in the U.S. But, with “just” $22,753 separating a median earner from the cost to live comfortably in Albuquerque, it’s actually among the more affordable major cities in the country.

Arlington, Texas

• Median income: $55,562
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a homeowner: $80,650
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a renter: $89,050
  

Arlington residents are likely struggling a little to get by with a little over $25,000 separating a median earner from what they would need as a homeowner in the city. However, the situation is likely significantly harder if you’re renting as the annual cost for necessities is over $4,000 higher when you don’t own.

Atlanta

• Median income: $51,701
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a homeowner: $88,607
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a renter: $88,151
  

It’s actually cheaper to rent in Atlanta, though by the smallest of margins — under $500 separates the income needed to live comfortably in each situation. That said, the average resident is falling over $35,000 a year short of what they need to fit into the 50/30/20 budget.

Austin, Texas

• Median income: $63,717
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a homeowner: $98,007
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a renter: $94,455
  

If you’re not earning six figures, you should reconsider living in the Texas capital based on just how costly it can be. However, if you’re dead set on enjoying the city’s renowned music scene on a nightly basis — part of why it’s often no stranger to lists of the best places to live in the U.S. — you will need about $3,500 less each year when you’re renting rather than owning.

Boston

• Median income: $62,021
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a homeowner: $129,389
  
  
• Income needed if you’re a renter: $120,413
  

Living in Beantown might require an especially talented bean counter to be sure you can pay all your bills. Boston is one of just 13 cities where you’ll need to make at least $100,000 a year to live comfortably whether you’re renting or owning.

...

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-live-comfortably-50-major-090000242.html

Notice the pattern? The "income needed" is like 30 to 70 thousand dollars per annum higher than the median incomes for all cities listed. Of course, perhaps the income needed to "live uncomfortably" is much lower... And, sure, I've actually managed to live in several of the cities listed on a a four-figure salary (ha!), but I was simply skating by on my Bruce Chatwin-esque charm (or something like that). Anyhow, point being: what's the likelihood for setting aside money for "savings" for most people?

 

[Jeeves]

And all posited on the absurd notion of limitless growth. Capitalism is intrinsically unstable and untenable--I think even it's strongest proponents are keenly aware of this, they simply don't care.

Oh, they care, all right. Hence the current feeding-frenzy. They're determined to eat everything before the X-event.

 

[Jeeves]

Before capitalism around the world most people were poor and that was the just the state of things.

News flash! They still are. Just a lot more of them. And a quarter of those poor are already on the move - fleeing drought, flood, fire, war, crime, persecution, tyranny and famine. They're coming to a border-wall near you. Just looking for their share of all that prosperity.

It was capitalism that managed to produce surpluses and create wealth for the average person.

What produces surpluses is people working longer and harder and more dangerously than would be required to keep their families fed, sheltered and clothed. They have to work longer and harder and more dangerously in order to produce the surplus that lets a Kock brother buy $30,000 bottles of wine and the Wyoming senate. The average person gets the odd slop-over when things are going well. That same average person gets shafted when things are fucked up. The average person has no control over when either of those situation obtain, so he's self-medicating and puts all his emotional energy into idiotic professional sports.

It works best with regulation.

It's less destructive when regulated, yes. Thus: the Republican Party - financed and manipulated for the express purpose of preventing regulation of anything that makes money - including weapons of mass destruction.

What system do you prefer and where has it resulted in a better outcome for the average person?

Average Argentine person? Indonesian person? Mexican person? Pretty much any economic system they had before the IMF screwed them to a wall. The average recipient of US military intervention - pretty much anything else.
My preference is hunting-gathering. I see it's about to make a come-back.
'Course, we need a 90% reduction in population... but hey, no omelette, etc