Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87797)	7/18/2010 8:59:06 PM
From: tonto	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

The rich do not receive...that is absurd. They create and earn it. The government takes away is what he should have said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87797)	7/18/2010 8:59:48 PM
From: TopCat	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

"Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income." Gee, I wonder why 1928 was chosen as the base date.....???

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87797)	7/19/2010 4:58:34 AM
From: FJB	Respond to of 224748

Ireland's credit rating downgraded by Moodys CIARA O'BRIEN Mon, Jul 19, 2010 Credit agency Moodys has downgraded Ireland's government bond ratings to Aa2, blaming banking liabilities, weak growth prospects and a substantial increase in the debt to GDP ratio. The general government debt-to-GDP ratio was at 64 per cent at the end of last year, up from 25 per cent before the financial crisis took hold, and is continuing to rise. “Today’s downgrade is primarily driven by the Irish government’s gradual but significant loss of financial strength, as reflected by its deteriorating debt affordability,” said Moody's lead analyst for Ireland Dietmar Hornung. The support provided to the banking system, including the transfer of loans to the National Asset Management Agency, was also cited as a key factor in the rating downgrade. Recapitalisation measures already announced may reach €25 billion, the agency said, but Anglo Irish Bank may require further support. "While we do not expect the government - not even in a moderately stressed scenario — to incur permanent losses in excess of 25 per cent of the country’s 2009 GDP as a result of these obligations, we believe that the uncertainty surrounding final losses would exert additional pressure on the government’s financial strength," the agency said in a statement. The move comes just over a year after Moody's last downgraded the country's rating. On July 2nd 2009, the agency gave the bonds a Aa1 rating, with a negative outlook. However, the outlook was today changed to stable, with Moody's now viewing the upside and downside risks as evenly balanced at the current rating level. The agency said it expect expects economic growth to be below historical trend over the next three to five years due to the weak banking and real estate sectors, and the fall in private sector credit. “If the GDP growth trend were to exceed Moody’s expectations - with a quick resumption of domestic credit flow and a supportive global economic environment — then the government’s debt metrics could stabilise earlier than is currently being assumed,” said Mr Hornung. General government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to stabilise at 95 per cent to 100 per cent over the next two to three years, Moody's said. "Given Ireland’s wealthy and flexible economy and its very high institutional strength, these debt levels are commensurate with a Aa2 rating. Ireland’s demonstrated adjustment capability and its economic vitality — reflected for instance in its ability to attract foreign direct investment — are important characteristics that support the rating," the agency said.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87797)	7/19/2010 4:18:51 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224748

Talking to yourself these days, Ken? Next, you'll sit in a dark room staring at the wall and wondering "Why did Obama get us into this miserable mess?"

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87797)	7/19/2010 4:31:27 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224748

Approval of Obama drops to 28 percent in new Arizona poll Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services \| Posted: Monday, July 19, 2010 12:00 am PHOENIX - Most Arizonans no longer think Barack Obama is doing a decent job as president. A new Behavior Research Poll released Sunday shows that nearly four out of every 10 Arizonans now rate Obama's performance as poor or very poor. That's up 5 points from the same survey taken in January. What's different is that the number of those who think he's doing an excellent or good job has plummeted. Three months after taking office, fully 51 percent of Arizonans gave Obama positive ratings, even though the state went for hometown favorite John McCain in the 2008 election. A year into office, that had slid to 40 percent. But by the time pollster Earl de Berge conducted this latest survey, between June 30 and July 11, only 28 percent of Arizonans were willing to say they like the job he's doing. According to de Berge, much of that slide tracks with a separate poll he does asking Arizonans about their views on the economy and current job market conditions. "As might be expected, those who think the job market is static or worsening have the least favorable view of his performance," de Berge said. But the survey also was taken about the time it became clear that the Department of Justice, asked to look at Arizona's new immigration law, intended to file suit. In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in an interview with a television station in Ecuador, spilled the beans early in June. That all became official when the Obama administration went to federal court on July 6 - right in the middle of the polling - asking a judge to block the statute from taking effect as scheduled July 26. The law, which spells out when police have to ask those they have stopped about their immigration status, is popular in Arizona, with every single survey showing it's backed by more than half of residents. Obama maintains his popularity with Democrats, 52 percent of whom still have a positive assessment of his work. Still, that's down from 85 percent in April 2009. His positive rating among independents, which was 54 percent in that first post-election survey, now has dropped to 22 percent. And 8 percent of Republicans now score his performance as excellent or good. The survey of 800 adult heads of households has a margin of error of 3.5 percent.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (87797)	7/29/2010 6:32:51 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 224748

The Upside of Income Inequality By Gary S. Becker and Kevin M. Murphy From the May/June 2007 Issue Filed under: Economic Policy, Public Square Much of the widening gap in incomes reflects the rising payoff for a college education and other skills. Rising payoffs are a development that the authors, economists who have won the Nobel Prize and the Clark Prize, call ‘beneficial and desirable.’ Income inequality in China substantially widened, particularly between households in the city and the countryside, after China began its rapid rate of economic development around 1980. The average urban resident now makes 3.2 times as much as the average rural resident, and among city dwellers alone, the top 10 percent makes 9.2 times as much as the bottom 10 percent.[1] But at the same time that inequality rose, the number of Chinese who live in poverty fell—from 260 million in 1978 to 42 million in 1998.[2] Despite the widening gap in incomes, rapid economic development dramatically improved the lives of China’s poor. Politicians and many others in the United States have recently grown concerned that earnings inequality has increased among Americans. But as the example of China—or India, for that matter—illustrates, the rise in inequality does not occur in a vacuum. In the case of China and India, the rise in inequality came along with an acceleration of economic growth that raised the standard of living for both the rich and the poor. In the United States, the rise in inequality accompanied a rise in the payoff to education and other skills... american.com Pareto principle vs. Gini coefficient When professional economists think about economic policies, they generally start with the principle that a change is good if it makes someone better off without in making anyone else worse off. That idea, first suggested by the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto, is referred to as the Pareto principle. I find it hard to see how one could disagree with such a principle, which is why it is the widely accepted foundation for the evaluation of economic Policies Not all policies can be evaluated in reference to the Pareto principle. There are policies that make some people better off while making others worse off. The desirability of such a policy depends on how much the gainers gain, how much the losers lose, and the initial income and circumstances of the individuals involved. But that difficult evaluation is not my concern here. I am interested only in evaluating changes that increase the incomes of high--income individuals without decreasing the incomes of others. Such a change clearly satisfies the common-sense Pareto principle: It is good because it makes some people better off without making anyone else worse off. I think such a change should be regarded as good even though it increases inequality. Not everyone will agree with me. Some see inequality as so intolerable that they regard increasing the income of the wealthy as a 'bad thing," even if that increased income does not come at anyone elses expense. Such an individual, whom I won describe as a 'spiteful egalitarian," might try to reconcile this with the Pareto principle by saving, " It makes me worse off to see the rich getting richer. So if a rich man gets $1000, he is better off and I am worse off. I dont have fewer material goods, but I have the extra pain of living in a more unequal world." I reject such arguments and stick to the basic interpretation of the Pareto principle that if the material well-being of some individuals increases with no decrease in the material well-being of others, that is a good thing even if it implies an increase in measured inequality. nber.org