View Full Version : "the rich get richer"

02-28-2003, 11:29 AM
billionaire update (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79876,00.html)

Just an FYI for those that have been programmed all your lives to say "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." Now, I'm sure I'll get some sort of charts and graphs from the left on this one, but there are some indisputable facts in this article.

1. There are fewer billionaires now than there were last year (or the prior year, or the year before that).

2. The richest man in the world (and also the largest charitable contributor) has less than half as much money as he had 5 years ago.

3. For the first time in history, a black woman is a billionaire. And no, she wasn't born rich.

Granted, these are small snapshots of the big picture, but I just think this side of the story occasionally has to be pointed out. Flame away.

02-28-2003, 11:49 AM
if u think bill gates is richest man in world youre totally naive.

02-28-2003, 11:52 AM
Fair enough. Will you accept the richest man in capitalist America?

02-28-2003, 12:07 PM
probably not simply becuase all the old wealthy have their money in, for example, trusts.

david rockefeller testified before the US senate and stated that he paid no (personal) income tax. (for that very reason.)

02-28-2003, 12:20 PM
What is the value of their assets? It would seem hard to believe that they're worth more than what Gates has after taxes given the value of his MSFT stock. I would think that Gates pays the the long term capital gains tax on stock he sells which he does constantly. However, off the top of my head I might believe that someone in the royal Saudi family might be the richest due to all the in the ground oil assets in Saudi Arabia. Not sure though.

02-28-2003, 12:34 PM
since things like trusts are private, its hard to know the value or composition of assets.

but how much, for example (although not owned by one individual or thing), is a central bank worth? even if say out of its (private) 100 shares of stock the majority stockholder only owns 8 or 10 shares, how much is that worth?

02-28-2003, 12:34 PM
If you measure the populations wealth in the USA by the personal distribution of income there is no doubt that over the last 20 years (since Reagan) that the top income earning households are making a bigger share of the available income. The statistics are given such that the households are broken up into quintiles (groups of 20% of the income producers). The top income producing quintile I believe is making 52% of the household income of the USA up from 48% when Reagan took office. I'm quoting those numbers from memory so I'll have to double check them. So I would say that indeed the rich are getting richer. One of the reason's is that transfer payments have declined significantly for the disenfranchised. What it all means is that over the last 20 years the USA has moved more in the direction of pure capitalism than socialism. As far as Gates's asset values declining, the stock market was simply much higher so his assets were valued higher. Markets fluctuate a lot and it's clear now that the stock market reached a multi-year high which won't be seen again anytime soon. As far as a black woman becoming a billionaire, I think it says something very positive about the opportunities available here to make money.

02-28-2003, 12:43 PM
Less than MSFT. MSFT probably has more liquid assets than many banks. Citigroup is the largest bank in the USA I believe (well they're much more than just a bank). They have over $1 trilliion in assets but $944 billion in liabilities. They have a tangible book value of $50 billion. MSFT has a tangible book value of $52 billion. MSFT has over $50 billion in cash and marketable debt securities. MSFT has profit margins of 31% and has basically maintained that profit margin for quite some time. MSFT sells at 4.52 times book value. Citigroup sells for about 2.l times book value. Gates owns about 20% of MSFT stock I believe.

02-28-2003, 12:44 PM
citibank is not the central bank.

02-28-2003, 12:46 PM
Then what are you referring to the Federal Reserve bank?

02-28-2003, 12:51 PM
yes, in the united states.

02-28-2003, 12:53 PM
I wasn't aware that it had private ownership. Are you sure about that? I'm probably misunderstanding totally.

02-28-2003, 12:57 PM
look it up on the internet. congressman ron paul introduces legislation every year to repeal federal reserve act (which obviously goes nowhere). (btw, he voted no on the p.a.t.r.i.o.t. act since he couldnt even read it)

congress delegated its power to coin and determine value of money to private central bank. (federal reserve)

its common knowledge.

02-28-2003, 01:00 PM
I realize that but my understanding is that commercial banks are the investors if you will.


02-28-2003, 01:08 PM
well im not an expert but from what i understand the fed is private corporation, stockholders are secret or whatever but kinda semi public knowlege but most of them are not american (like british and european).

i dont know was say bank of america even around in 1913? (of course b of a is a lot foreign owned too)

for what its worth greenspan just said lately (like last week or two) that no bank is 'too big not to fail', whatever that means.

of course i mean is anything more convoluted than banking? if you read american history a lot of it has to do with banking (and the bankers being the bad guys)

also i have a 10$ 'silver certificate' (i used to work in a high cash industry - ok, a parking lot, not drug dealer, heh, and found it) which promises the bearer 10$ in silver on demand. of course its no good anymore.

02-28-2003, 01:21 PM
/forums/images/icons/frown.gif jesse is outraged people could make this much money, particularly since they all owe their money due to slavery and it's afterward sick influence...jesse demands everyone including the black babe turn over all their ill-gotten gains to him and al sharpton for proper distribution...gl /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/spade.gif

02-28-2003, 01:22 PM
j.j. is confirmed cia asset.

02-28-2003, 01:23 PM
The Fed is in essence the fourth branch of government. It's constitutionality has been questioned by more than a few. I believe it's survived every court challenge. One famous Texas Congressman from the past and active Fed critic, Wright Patman, was quoted as saying: "Constitutionally, the Federal Reserve is a pretty queer duck." I would concur with that assessment by the late Congressman.

02-28-2003, 01:42 PM

i think i made a good point to think about tho, did US have megabanks in 1913 or thousands of small banks?

is there a mega today that wasnt around then? (in any form)

that should tell something

Roy Munson
02-28-2003, 02:03 PM
As poker continues to increase in popularity, a tidal wave like demand for the 2+2 books is inevitable. This will vault Mason and David into the Forbes 400.

02-28-2003, 02:12 PM
"the top income earning households are making a bigger share of the available income."

I agree with that sentence. Note that you didn't say the wealthiest households are making a bigger share...

Top income-producers tend to have education and experience on their side, and thus can make even more in subsequent years. Sounds reasonable to me; work harder, bring home more dough.

"What it all means is that over the last 20 years the USA has moved more in the direction of pure capitalism than socialism."
--I don't have a problem with that.

"As far as a black woman becoming a billionaire, I think it says something very positive about the opportunities available here to make money."

02-28-2003, 02:16 PM
"What it all means is that over the last 20 years the USA has moved more in the direction of pure capitalism than socialism."
--I don't have a problem with that.


r we paying more in taxes? i think so.

02-28-2003, 02:23 PM
"r we paying more in taxes? i think so."

--I know I am. I have to admit I haven't compared what I would be paying in taxes 20 years ago in the same job, same age. I'd love to see taxes lower than they are right now, but they could be a LOT worse under a more socialist setup.

02-28-2003, 02:30 PM
but how can we both be getting less socialist and more taxed?

02-28-2003, 02:47 PM
"but how can we both be getting less socialist and more taxed?"

--We must be getting less socialist, otherwise the rich wouldn't be getting richer /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif

Actually, I think we're becoming more capitalist RELATIVE to the rest of the world as other countries become more socialist. It's my impression that while we may have increased taxes over the years, we've done it less than other countries. As usual, I have no data to support my claim, but it sounds good enough for me.

When I say that we are more capitalist, I mean that there is no better country in the world for a competitive individual to increase his relative market value, and as a result, his net wealth.

Okay, so that's a shoddy response, but cut me some slack... It is Friday, after all.

02-28-2003, 03:18 PM
Good points you made above about the top quintile of income earners. I posted a link a few weeks ago about how the Bush tax plan would actually help middle and lower income earners more than the top earners. What's happened over the last 20 years is that the top income producers are also paying a bigger share of the taxes i.e. the tax system has gotten more progressive. I heard Dr. Kathleen Connell, the former California state controller, say on a business show that in California the wealthiest 5% of the residents pay 65% of the state taxes. Her concern was of course the looming California budget crunch and she feared that wealthy Californians might exit the state. On a national level the same kind of thing has happened. Anyway I'll try and dig up my statistics and hopefully post them.

Mason Malmuth
02-28-2003, 03:35 PM
Hi Roy:

There's no question that the demand for our products is on the rise and we're actually having trouble keeping up with everything.

Best wishes,

02-28-2003, 05:43 PM
/forums/images/icons/grin.gif ya selling viagra now mason..lol..gl..i will buy anything your company ever prints...gl /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

02-28-2003, 11:47 PM
This debate goes all the way back to the first establishment of a National bank in 1791, Chartered for 20 years, as the website you posted informed us. It is a very old and contentious debate. Alexander Hamilton convinced G.Washington to establish the National Bank. Jefferson was staunchly against this policy and claimed that it was unconstitutional. I think it went all the way to the Supreme Court, anyway, the National Bank was set up. This was one of the first major splits in American politics - between the "Federalists" and Jefferson’s “democrats”.

I think this debate is about monetary rich and monetary not-so-rich or poor etc. There are other forms of riches. Of course, those other forms of riches can be very much tied to Money - The God in which we All Trust and Pledge Allegiance. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif


John Ho
03-01-2003, 06:08 AM
He is the richest. The Rockefellers can't touch him. It's been split up in too many directions.

The Saudis might have a case but I don't think so...there are too many of them and the fact that America is the economic giant of the world and Gates is on top of the heap by a large margin give him the clear edge.

03-01-2003, 03:05 PM
very informative post.