We’re not done.
Wealth should not be concentrated in the hands of casinos like Citigroup.
3 Likes
Mansplaining is not whenever a man says something you don’t like. It is when a man explains something to a woman about women.
This is just garden variety condescension.
1 Like
I’m calling it now, if Hillary wins, Jamie and a few of his good pals will be going bye bye via the Warrenator.
2 Likes
Translation Dimon see’s the possibility of jail time.
Oh yeah… Good catch…
That’s the first person I thought of when reading Manziel’s tripe.
~OGD~
I’m not sure what you are talking about, and it isn’t exactly about shoes, alright.
This is about the fact that rich people, by and large, spend less money than the average poor person.
If that’s your position, you’re wrong. Rich people individually spend quite a bit more than others. In the aggregate they don’t, because of their low numbers, and they spend a smaller percentage of their income in consumer goods.
Okay…answer me this- are you or someone you know wealthy? Are you or someone you know part of that “one percent?” Because, unless you speak from absolute personal experience, I can tell you that the majority of the wealthy people I have known, don’t spend as much as everyone thinks they do. Oh, they invest, they spread the money amongst themselves, but they don’t actually buy as a whole as much as people think they do.
That really needed to be a one-fingered salute to Jamie-kins et al.
I agree, “mansplaining” is a pejorative on par with “slut shaming”, and one could easily see Dimon’s same words being directed at a man. The intent is to demean the messenger in order to negate the message. Poor choice of words.
In fact, the old New England liberal Republicans were far more liberal than just about anyone left in the Democratic Party, except for Warren and Sanders.
They were. And Warren and Sanders, of course, are New Englanders themselves. My years in Vermont felt like governance heaven, right down to the town meeting level.
“Manziel” Is Jamie Dimon’s handle.
In response: 1. Yes, I do, several (most of them professional athletes, some of them businesspeople). 2. I agree that they don’t spend as much as most people think they do, but they do spend more than most people because a.) they have more money to spend and b.) that for which they spend money is more expensive. Frankly, I don’t understand why you even want to debate the point. We’re in agreement (I think) that as consumers the middle class is far more important than the wealthy, but that’s not due to their individual purchases. It’s because there are many times more consumers in the middle class which spend more in the aggregate, and will do so even more greatly as their incomes rise.
We are debating this because you are not really understanding my point.
The well off people I’ve known, especially those who have old money, yes, they do buy a lot of things, but they also tend not to buy something, wear it once, and then get rid of it. They buy stuff that lasts and wear it for a very long period of time.
They’ve also managed to convince themselves that “earning money” is the same thing as “figuring out clever ways to take other people’s money without actually giving them anything in return.” They’re absolutely sure that pickpocketing on a grand scale is a productive economic activity.
3 Likes
Sigh. It’s not because of their low numbers. It’s because, however much of what they take in gets spent, the overwhelming majority of it gets put into the kinds of savings vehicles like stocks, and hedge and PE funds that reporters, like most people, wrongly persist in calling “investments.”
The problem is that, unlike the poor and middle class, they simply cannot spend as as they make in ways that create or spur demand, and they do not invest what they can’t spend in the very small proportion of investment vehicles–venture capital, IPO’s, direct investments into businesses they own and run, new corporate debt instruments, or real estate development–that actually create jobs.
So you have had so many germane real life experiences as a bankruptcy law professor and on issues of the treasury and as a Democratic Party strategist that it allows you to make such a statement with such assurance eh? I will go out on a limb here and say Elizabeth Warren is not the one full of baloney.
1 Like
Well, we know what an impossibility that is!
1 Like
I agree with that, the wealthy spending great sums on financial vehicles don’t create jobs. The middle class and poor create much more consumer demand in the aggregate. But the average wealthy person spends more on goods – more expensive food, clothing, automobiles, appliances, electronics and so forth – than the average middle class person. That’s both logic and fact. Unlike the non-wealthy, they spend in excess of need (although not as high a percentage of their income). The typical middle class man may own one Timex watch; a wealthy person may own several Rolexes, one for each suit. Average Joe drives a Ford or Toyota; Richie Rich has a Mercedes, Porsche and maybe a couple of more vehicles. In sum, the middle class – because its numbers are many times greater than the wealthy – spends more money (and would spend even more, if wealth were more evenly distributed). But that’s not what Artemisia was suggesting, but instead claiming wealthy people don’t spend as much on an individual basis, which is simply false.