Is the recent financial crisis the result of theft?

[Question Everything]

America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich ... The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 ... -not-broke

Questions for debate:

1. Is the recent financial crisis the result of theft by the richest 1% of the population from the poorest 99%?

2. If so, what should be done about it?

[Goat]

America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich ... The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 ... -not-broke

Questions for debate:

1. Is the recent financial crisis the result of theft by the richest 1% of the population from the poorest 99%?

I wouldn't call it 'theft' since it was legal. However, it is partly because the rich are no longer paying their fair share (only partly). The very richest has manipulated the media to convince people that taxing them is taxing the middle class.

2. If so, what should be done about it?

Remove the tax loop holes for the very rich, and tax them their fair share for one thing. The next thing is to look at cutting out some fof the pork in spending.

[WinePusher]

Michael Moore, a fringe, biased, liberal filmaker tries talking economics...and I find it amazing that his opinions seem to be given credence in the mind of liberals on here. Hey, I heard Michael Savage talking about the causes of the financial crisis earlier and how illegal immigrants are the cause of it. He's equivalent to Moore, do you give his biased, fringe opinions merit as well, or is it only Michael Moore since you both associate on the left side of the aisle?

America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich ... The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on.

This rant is the same as conservative rants on Obama's place of birth. The only difference is I know an unsubtantiated rant when I see one even if it is coming from a conservative and avoid granting it any legitmacy. Moore, in one fell swoop, as demonstrated that he doesn't understand one single ounce of economics. He just throws out the standardized leftist talking points. Btw, you wanna try explaining how theft can cause an economics recession in a step by step methodological fashion? Perhaps if you ,or Moore, were able to outline this position in a presentable manner with arguments and evidence it would hold some actual legitmacy, because as of now it's nothing more than a rant.

1. Is the recent financial crisis the result of theft by the richest 1% of the population from the poorest 99%?

"Does this assesment of the current financial crisis hold amoung respectable think tanks like Hoover?" "Does Michael Moore have any sources for these outlandish claims other than his liberal ego?"

[Guest]

America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It's just that it's not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich ... The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 ... -not-broke

Questions for debate:

1. Is the recent financial crisis the result of theft by the richest 1% of the population from the poorest 99%?

2. If so, what should be done about it?

Moore is a guy who is wealthy becuz of capitalism and at the same time decries it. He seems to think he is the voice of the people, and he is probably the voice of some, but he is far from an intellectual giant on the issues of government and maybe in reality altogether. (IMHO).

Our financial crisis is the result of greedy politicians (Reps and Dems) and the failure of "democracy." Democracy is only good for a season, then once people find the cracks, it falls apart. Hence, our problems. We have no real money at all if you consider what we owe China. We have a President who thinks the only way to fix things is to throw money at it....and a citizenry who expects him to throw money at them. So, my answer to 1 is no. And, hence, that answers no 2.

[Question Everything]

The real answer to the question depends on how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. Income figures for this are unavailable at this time. However:

From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers. But the lion’s share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises. Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/03/ ... ity-gains/

[Board]

The real answer to the question depends on how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. Income figures for this are unavailable at this time. However:

From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers. But the lion’s share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises. Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/03/ ... ity-gains/

I could not agree more. My company IPO'd in 2007 at $20 per share. We currently sit at over $50 per share. I have not seen a raise in 4 years because we "are not meeting our numbers" yet we pay a $.08 dividend to the shareholders. My team has been reduced from 10 staff to 2. Our CEO however chose to double his salary from $2 million to $4 million and he exercises his stock options every chance he gets. We follow him on the insider trading reports and he clear $20 million per year in stock sales alone. Our staff in North America has reduced from over 1200 people to less than 600.

Now you tell me... who is to blame for the layoffs? We have been buying companies at a rate of 2 per year. We recently paid $150 million for a company yet those of us who work here don't deserve a raise. Our management team tells us "we are lucky to have a job".

This mentality is criminal. It is crippling the plight of the American middle and lower class. CEO's like mine are thieves who simply know how to work the system to their benefit and couldn't care less about the people they walk on.

[Question Everything]

I would like to say at this point that I have no problem with people making huge incomes, as long as they did something worthy of that money, in other words they produced through their efforts something of greater or equal value what they got in compensation. A billion dollars a year is fine with me, but you gotta earn it. Rigging the system to favor you over anyone else does not count as earning it.

[Guest]

The real answer to the question depends on how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. Income figures for this are unavailable at this time. However:

From mid-2009 through the end of 2010, output per hour at U.S. nonfarm businesses rose 5.2% as companies found ways to squeeze more from their existing workers. But the lion’s share of that gain went to shareholders in the form of record profits, rather than to workers in the form of raises. Hourly wages, adjusted for inflation, rose only 0.3%, according to the Labor Department. In other words, companies shared only 6% of productivity gains with their workers. That compares to 58% since records began in 1947.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/03/ ... ity-gains/

I disagree. It shows "how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. ". It does not mean it created the economic crisis. Even in the great depression there was rich people, poor people, and a middle class--just the bar changed on each. the percent ratio doesnt have to be impacted.

[Question Everything]

I disagree. It shows "how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. ". It does not mean it created the economic crisis. Even in the great depression there was rich people, poor people, and a middle class--just the bar changed on each. the percent ratio doesnt have to be impacted.

I am not saying that it created the economic crisis. I am saying that this is a big smoking gun in favor of the idea that the economic crisis was deliberately caused by the very rich, and they did it to make themselves even richer at our expense. Note that I said "smoking gun", not "proof".

[Guest]

I disagree. It shows "how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. ". It does not mean it created the economic crisis. Even in the great depression there was rich people, poor people, and a middle class--just the bar changed on each. the percent ratio doesnt have to be impacted.

I am not saying that it created the economic crisis. I am saying that this is a big smoking gun in favor of the idea that the economic crisis was deliberately caused by the very rich, and they did it to make themselves even richer at our expense. Note that I said "smoking gun", not "proof".

It was your own OP: 1. Is the recent financial crisis the result of theft by the richest 1% of the population from the poorest 99%?

But neither do I see it as a smoking gun of nothing except it indicates "how the top 1% (who had much control over what happened) fared when compared with the bottom 99% in 2009 and 2010. " If you can connect this top 1% to something more than the fact that they made the top 1% then I could see a case.