Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

devoish (98.81)

What's Coming Next?

Recs

24

June 15, 2011 – Comments (61)

Between 1917 and 1929 US average annual incomes grew by $935 dollars. All of that growth went to the top ten percent of income earners.

Between 1929 and 1933 US average incomes fell by $6200 dollars. The top ten percent absorbed half those losses, half was borne by the bottom 90%.

Between 1933 and 1980 US average incomes increased by $31,767 dollars. The top ten percent got 31% of that increase.

Between 1980 and 2008 US average incomes grew by $11,714 dollars. The richest 10% got 98% of that growth and the bottom 90% got 2%.

I chose 1917 because that was when the data in the chart begins. I chose 1929 because that was when the depression begins. I chose 1933 because that was when liberal handouts began. I chose 1980 because that was when tax policy shifted to the benefit of already wealthy people, and social policy shifted against unions and became pro business. I chose 2008 because that is when the data ends.

So the last time the financial rewards for the efforts of an entire Nation were so badly lopsided we resolved it with four years of losses a depression and the rise of organised labor and strict regulatory control of the financial industry.

So far this time around we have bailed out the financial industry and hung out organised labor. Which means things will probably get much worse, outside the financial industry, because it is the investment industry - some of us here? - who are the most unproductive and overcompensated people in the United States.

Best wishes,

Steven

61 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 15, 2011 at 6:59 PM, chk999 (99.98) wrote:

If socialism is really a productive way to live, why are there so few socialist countries and why are they doing so badly?

Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela have all done poorly. After Humala was elected in Peru, the stock market there dropped by 12%. Why hasn't socialism powered them past the decadent western powers? Why did China only really ignite when it allowed private enterprise to quietly take root?

Report this comment
#2) On June 15, 2011 at 8:26 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

chk999,

PUhleeeese? Socialism? get a grip on the hyperbole already.

 PS. Qatar nationalised its oil industry in 1957 when its next biggest industry was pearl diving and has been held up by our resident free marketeer and anarchist as an exemplary free market.

Norway nationalised its oil industry and is doing quite fine.

Humala promised a bigger share of his countrys natural resources to its citizens at the expense of its investors. I guess 12%? Such a policy would benefit the vast majority of US citizens to, but not those few who sit in front of their computers trading shares.

Venezuela citizens might be adjusting better than you think, and better than some news outlets would have you believe.

I would not hold up China as an example of capitalisms success just yet, by your standards it is still an overregulated Socialist regime, by mine it is Communist.

The real question might be why are the countries with more Socialist policies than the USA has the only countrys doing better?

Of course namecalling a post Socialism will not work as derogatory forever. Sooner or later most Americans will work to benefit each other, not a select few investors.

Sorry.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

 

Report this comment
#3) On June 15, 2011 at 8:35 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

 PS. Qatar nationalised its oil industry in 1957 when its next biggest industry was pearl diving and has been held up by our resident free marketeer and anarchist as an exemplary free market.

Once again, this complete dipsh*t has no idea what he is talking about. When Al Thani took power from his father, this place was a hole in the ground.  After years of free market reforms, Qatar became the richest nation per capita on Earth.

It's also a monarchy, meaning the wealth of the nation is separate from the state.  

We've covered this, but our resident dipsh*t is a judgmental fool with no concept of how other nations operate.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#4) On June 15, 2011 at 8:42 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Thanks for making me read an article about Peru.

Humala told supporters Sunday night he'd work to convert a decade-long economic boom that is the envy of Latin America into "the great motor of the social inclusion Peruvians desire." He says he'll do so by taxing windfall mining profits and exporting less natural gas so Peruvians get it cheaper.

Ok so he wants "a decade long economic boom" to benefit more Peruvians and fewer stockholders.

But Humala failed to win over the business elite and most of the news media, which campaigned openly against him. They fear he's a Velasco reincarnate.

As he rose in popularity, stockholders sold off shares in Lima's exchange

Makes sense, less for investors, more for the workers - equality or at least a little closer, even if it is not "socialism'.

His base was the one in three Peruvians who are poor – in Peru's rural highlands its closer to two in three.

Wow! a one decade economic boom that left one in three Peruvians poor. I guess the "boom" was for the foreign investor class.

Such an economic boom night be considered lacking success.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#5) On June 15, 2011 at 8:57 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Steven, I hate to rain on your "one size fits all" parade, but there will always be both winners as well as losers in life. Just like in school, some kids gets A's, some kids flunk out, and everywhere in between. Your liberal stance sounds like a wonderful theory, and I suppose in fantasyland it could work, but in the real world some people get ahead and some fall dreadfully behind, and there's really nothing you can do to change this. Some people get a low-paying job and never even attempt to break out of the doldrums. I pay my taxes, which help the poor, and I advocate helping those who are in need, but I also advocate the have-nots have some personal responsibility and realize life is about personal decisions, and no one is going to make better decisions for you than you. Fortunately the poor in America live in the most compassionate society on Earth. Imagine how "organized labor" would be faring in Cuba or North Korea, or all those sweat shops in China.  

Report this comment
#6) On June 15, 2011 at 9:18 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

David david, david,

You might hurt my feelings calling me a complete dipsh*t as though I have nothing to work toward. Or you might embarrass yourself. You are correct though, we covered this, Qatar did something you call "stealing" when it took BP's privately owned property.

For anyone who is interested, here is david's reply to my "models" blog". http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/models-continued/182816 

We were such friends back then, but let me make a correction. It was the late 70's that Qatar stole BP's property, not the late 50's.

That's right, I said "stole" because thats how you described such actions when Venezuela did the same thing.

This negotiating pay and benefits thing in a public forum is fun, isn't it?

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#7) On June 15, 2011 at 9:44 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

To all three of you,

I am sorry you don't like the evidence I have presented.

Tough doo doo poops, and excellent name calling. Congratulations on the quality of your rebuttals. but for most Americans, their paychecks are worth more than their investments and they probably don't give a care about your Peruvian stock investments.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#8) On June 15, 2011 at 10:20 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

I see plenty of opinion from you, but who/what is the source of information you cite as evidence? You have not provided any evidence yet.  

Don't forget how the UAW, commonly known as organized labor, capitalized off the restructuring of GM and Chrysler. They were not "hung out" like you claim organized labor is. It seems you have a case of selective memory.  

Yes, it's really a case of "tough doo doo" despite your disdain for this long-standing fact throughout the history of mankind. The most successful will usually negotiate a better deal than the masses or the least fortunate. You will never change this fact. Ever.

 

 

Report this comment
#9) On June 15, 2011 at 10:22 PM, lquadland10 (< 20) wrote:

Dear Dev. Did you factor inflation and taxes into your numbers? Also We make more due to the devaluation of the dollar. If a dollar is now worth 3 cents from the time the FED took over are we really making more money or is it just the same or less.

Report this comment
#10) On June 15, 2011 at 10:47 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Why am I supposed to care what Qatar did in the 1970s?  Are you retarded?

Maybe you should ask your messiah to bomb them.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#11) On June 15, 2011 at 10:48 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

lquadland10,

Calculations: All incomes are in 2008 dollars. Between any two years, the share of growth in average incomes accounted for by the richest 10% is 10% of the growth in the average income of the top 10% divided by the growth in the overall average income; the share of growth in average incomes accounted for by the bottom 90% is 90% of the growth in the average income of the bottom 90% divided by the growth in the overall average income. These shares are represented in the pie chart. In periods where one or more categories saw negative income growth and one or more categories saw positive income growth, the pie chart simply represents the group that saw growth, and the text provides details. In periods where every category saw income losses, the pie chart shows shares of losses, and the text provides details.

Thanks for asking. I apologise for forgetting to include the link to the source. http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/pages/interactive#/?start=1917&end=2008 

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#12) On June 15, 2011 at 10:58 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

David,

Great comment, and thank you for refraining from profanity, religious demagoguery or other such useless commentary.

Please, go away and write us another longwinded post.

Perhaps call every climate scientist a liar or something.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#13) On June 15, 2011 at 11:01 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Let's examine the Economic Policy Institute, who supplied this data the author of this blog clings to as his Gospel:

About the Economic Policy Institute

Board of Directors | Experts: Economists and researchers | General staff | Contact EPI | Contribute to EPI

The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank, was created in 1986 to broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers. Today, with global competition expanding, wage inequality rising, and the methods and nature of work changing in fundamental ways, it is as crucial as ever that people who work for a living have a voice in the economic discourse. 

EPI was the first — and remains the premier — think tank to focus on the economic condition of low- and middle-income Americans and their families. Its careful research on the status of American workers has become the gold standard in that field. Its encyclopedic State of Working America, issued every two years since 1988, is stocked in university libraries around the world. EPI researchers, who often testify to Congress and are widely cited in the media, first brought to light the disconnect between pay and productivity that marked the U.S. economy in the 1990s and is now widely recognized as a cause of growing inequality.

EPI's staff includes eight Ph.D.-level researchers, a half dozen policy analysts and research assistants, and a full communications and outreach staff. EPI also works closely with a national network of prominent scholars. The institute conducts original research according to strict standards of objectivity, and couples its findings with outreach and popular education. Its work spans a wide range of economic issues, such as trends in wages, incomes, and prices; health care; education; retirement security; state-level economic development strategies; trade and global finance; comparative international economic performance; the health of manufacturing and other key sectors; global competitiveness and energy development. Its research is varied, but a common thread runs through it: EPI examines issues through a "living standards" lens by analyzing the impact of policies and initiatives on the American public.

From its findings, EPI publishes books, studies, issue briefs, popular education materials, and other publications; sponsors conferences and seminars; briefs policy makers at all levels of government; provides technical support to national, state, and local activists and community organizations; testifies before national, state, and local legislatures; and provides information and background to the print and electronic media. Over the course of a year, EPI is called upon hundreds of times to inform policy debates, citizens' group meetings, and educational forums.

EPI is typically cited in the media more than 20,000 times per year, including more than 15,000 mentions per year in print and online media. EPI is mentioned and/or its staff are seen or heard by over 300 million television or radio viewers or listeners per year.

EPI has always demanded a high standard of quality in its research because of its desire to be a credible participant in public debates and a reliable source of information and analysis for policy makers, the press, community activists, academics, corporate leaders, labor union officials, and the general public. Its methods for ensuring that its research methodologies and outcomes are exemplary include the use of highly qualified researchers and multiple reviews by outside experts, including those who are known for disagreeing with EPI's values. In-house researchers maintain their standing in the academic community by publishing findings in prestigious peer-reviewed academic journals, like the American Economic Review and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Its founders include Jeff Faux, EPI's first president; economist Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University; Robert Kuttner, columnist for Business Week and Newsweek and editor of The American Prospect; Ray Marshall, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas-Austin; Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at UC Berkeley; and economist Lester Thurow of the MIT Sloan School of Management.

EPI is a 501(c)(3) corporation. In 2005 through 2007, a majority of its funding (about 53%) was in the form of foundation grants, while another 29% came from labor unions. EPI also receives support from individuals, corporations, and other organizations.

http://www.epi.org/pages/about_the_economic_policy_institute/

 

Report this comment
#14) On June 15, 2011 at 11:14 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

devoish,

I told you before.  It's been two and a half years.  STOP REFERENCING ME IN YOUR F*CKING POSTS

You're a complete loser and an idiot. Not to mention a judgmental prick with zero understanding of the Middle East.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#15) On June 15, 2011 at 11:24 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

How many people has Obama killed?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On June 15, 2011 at 11:31 PM, tomlongrpv (82.54) wrote:

You know there is one really good question you posed:  "The real question might be why are the countries with more Socialist policies than the USA has the only countrys doing better?"  We ought to be asking that question more.  Set aside the statist totalitarian regimes, most socialist countries today are found in Europe and most have better standards of living for most people than the USA does.  I suspect that a good part of the reason is found in the income redistribution policies you discuss in this post.

I would add, though, that as unpopular as it seems to be, the "bailouts" probably helped us avoid a depression and probably will end up costing the country only a tiny fraction of the figures initially doled out.  That being said, we would be foolish to let the free marketeers (and there really is no free market) dupe us into leaving things unregulated again. 

 

 

Report this comment
#17) On June 15, 2011 at 11:40 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.33) wrote:

Nevermind the debate on socialism for the time being...

 CHK, have you considered the possibility that a true free market economy would more fairly distribute the wealth to those that actually produce?

I'm not necessarily taking a stance on this either way. And definitely do not support communism/fascism. However, it is clear that whatever garbage system we're using now doesn't work for anyone who isn't a thief.....

... maybe I am taking a stance. 

Report this comment
#18) On June 15, 2011 at 11:42 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

 Devoish - Why did not you not reveal your "evidence" was coming from these Leftists until I asked for a link? Seems a bit too convenient for you to have "forgotten" it. These people are obviously slanted toward the unions and their causes... If I read their anti-business rhetoric Kool Aid over and over like you apparently do, I suppose I'd despise the wealthiest among us like you apparently do. I wouldn't let minor details such as unions need employers get in the way or the fact no union worker was never hired for a job by a poor person.  

-----

"EPI has always demanded a high standard of quality in its research because of its desire to be a credible participant in public debates and a reliable source of information and analysis for policy makers, the press, community activists, academics, corporate leaders, labor union officials, and the general public. Its methods for ensuring that its research methodologies and outcomes are exemplary include the use of highly qualified researchers and multiple reviews by outside experts, including those who are known for disagreeing with EPI's values. In-house researchers maintain their standing in the academic community by publishing findings in prestigious peer-reviewed academic journals, like the American Economic Review and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Its founders include Jeff Faux, EPI's first president; economist Barry Bluestone of Northeastern University; Robert Kuttner, columnist for Business Week and Newsweek and editor of The American Prospect; Ray Marshall, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of Texas-Austin; Robert Reich, former U.S. secretary of labor and professor at UC Berkeley; and economist Lester Thurow of the MIT Sloan School of Management.

EPI is a 501(c)(3) corporation. In 2005 through 2007, a majority of its funding (about 53%) was in the form of foundation grants, while another 29% came from labor unions. EPI also receives support from individuals, corporations, and other organizations."

Report this comment
#19) On June 16, 2011 at 12:22 AM, motleyanimal (97.54) wrote:

How many Americans really understand how the economy works? How many Americans have ever lived below their means for years, long enough to accumulate enough capital to invest and create wealth? It's not like these are state secrets. Nearly everyone has had the opportunity to do what is needed to create a financially secure life. But nooooooooo. You had to have that Escalade, the many vacations, the big house, 12 credit cards and more children than you can afford. Me, I was 40 years old before I bought my first new car. I paid for it with cash.

Report this comment
#20) On June 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, Test098 (< 20) wrote:

Devoish, great post.  For mm5525 above me, great to see the yahoo finance boards coming in and messying up my watch list and sometimes interesting research with your newly found BOLDS .  I feel the same way and am 30% strong company dividends and 70% cash.... sometimes doing due dillegence on porte's newest find if it looks good.  I want to go more in but with so much money at the top it seems like a rigged game at this point except for dividends and options.

Report this comment
#21) On June 16, 2011 at 12:42 AM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Tom,

Set aside the statist totalitarian regimes, most socialist countries today are found in Europe and most have better standards of living for most people than the USA does. 

Have you ever been to Europe?  I've been to almost every country in Europe over the last ten to fifteen years.  Your assessment is not anywhere close to the truth. 

Socialist economists like to make up the value of public service benefits in Europe and add that to the supposed wealth of the people.  The numbers are arbitrary and have no meaning.  (Much like the numbers in this blog, as they have no basis in reality.)  No one in Spain, Greece, Portugal, Ireland, England, France, Germany, Austria, etc actually believes the lie that they wealthier than Americans.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#22) On June 16, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Starfirenv (< 20) wrote:

U.S. workers' income share hits record low .  Who needs that pesky middle class.  Let them eat cake!

Report this comment
#23) On June 16, 2011 at 1:05 AM, FleaBagger (34.02) wrote:

By your own chart, average US incomes fell between 1977 and 1981, while the incomes of the richest 10% grew. Carter made poor Americans poorer. From 1981 to 1989, the "bottom 90%" (a humorous term in America, but I'll go with it) got richer in inflation-adjusted terms. Reagan made poor Americans richer.

Not that there aren't tremendous problems with the way your stats are compiled and the interpretation and so forth, but I just wanted to tweak you with pointing out that Reagan did better than Carter on your stupid chart. 

Report this comment
#24) On June 16, 2011 at 6:52 AM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Wow,

Quite the bunch of angry free marketeers aren't you? Poking you is like poking a religion or something.

Starfire,

Nice link, the BLS data basically matches the chart I provided.

Dakrare,

Thank you for the reply, our resident freedom lovers get pretty insulting when you express something they do not want to hear, and it is nice to get some positive feedback.

Motleyanimal,

I do not include you among the angry. Your points are good ones concerning personal responsibility and taking on debt. They do not address the lack of financial rewards for productivly employed Americans and the overcompensation of capital distorting prices.

mm5525,

Everybody on this board is smart enough to read the "corporate leaders" right before " labor union officials" you highlighted as though who reads your data makes it incorrect or somehow biased. Your calling someone "leftist" does not make them so, especially since it is only published data they have offered here. Data certainly is not leftist, it is just data. Your replies seem to indicate a right wing bias of idiotic etremity though, and I suggest most seventys type Conservatives would not want you speaking for them.

Nobody here doing an ounce of due diligence is going to consider you anything but a political shill until you make seven picks, or at least one.

My apology was not for making you do a little work to find the data set, but to others on this board, and most especially to the authors of the interactive data.

Flea,

I know you have been taught to say things like that, but I do not think you are smart enough to figure out any flaw in this data on your own. It would take far more ability than you have shown us cheerleading for David.

Go for it though. I would like to be wrong about you. Presumably you have already found something tremendous before you posted that something exists? Tell us please, tick tock, you're on the clock!

Frankydontfailmenow,

Thank you for being thoughtful. I do not believe that "free markets" can exist for more than a fleeting time. If everybody had equal spending power and incomes, and was working for some other reason than increased financial reward, then some of the freemarkets theorys about people choosing with their wallets would be possible. But when someone is forced to choose the cheapest because someone else is receiving the reward for their efforts, not so much.

David,

Thank you for the insults. Perhaps we should rewrite one of your posts removing the derogatory adjectives about Keynes or Krugman and see if there is any real substance buried away in there somewhere.

Thank you all for the "recs" and for reading.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#25) On June 16, 2011 at 9:37 AM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

At least you are no longer calling data coming from an organization where a third of their funding comes from labor unions as "evidence" anymore.  

Report this comment
#26) On June 16, 2011 at 11:16 AM, Frankydontfailme (27.33) wrote:

Devoish,

I'm not sure I understand your response. Why would they need equal spending power (impossible)?

For the record, I do believe government regulation is strictly necessary for true free markets.

Monopolies must be broken up. Corporations that steal (JPM, GS) must be forced to follow rules.

Will you elaborate? 

Report this comment
#27) On June 16, 2011 at 2:39 PM, tmathe85 (55.97) wrote:

Its not hard for a Socialist country like Norway to do well when they have massive oil reserves and a tiny population. Any social problem can be solved with massive amounts of cash monies.....duh

Report this comment
#28) On June 16, 2011 at 3:16 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

#2) On June 15, 2011 at 8:26 PM, devoish (99.44) wrote:

chk999,

PUhleeeese? Socialism? get a grip on the hyperbole already. 

 In the very same post devoish (99.44) wrote:

Norway nationalised its oil industry and is doing quite fine.

Humala promised a bigger share of his countrys natural resources to its citizens at the expense of its investors. I guess 12%? Such a policy would benefit the vast majority of US citizens to, but not those few who sit in front of their computers trading shares.

Venezuela citizens might be adjusting better than you think, and better than some news outlets would have you believe. 

Me thinks Steven speaks with forked tongue. 

He seems upset when someone calls him a socialist and then praises the virtues of Socialism in the same breathe.

How can someone promote a platform that they themselves are ashamed of? 

 Even worse, how does someone else agree and follow someone like that?

Report this comment
#29) On June 16, 2011 at 3:33 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Chris,

Nobody on this site agrees with or follows devoish.  They rec his posts if he manages to say something anti-free market without coming off too Marxist, which is rare.  

And certainly no one here actually believes the numbers put out by a DC establishment think tank.  Notice that they didn't cite their statistics and provide detailed methodology?  Just like some other "scientists" we know.

But that's Steven.  He's a hyper-Nationalist Socialist.  Everyone knows this.  DC is his lord and savior.  Even if they produce nothing but murderers and theives.  He'd support Bill O'Reilly over you and I, just as much as he would any liberal wonk.

Obama might kill hundreds of thousands by the time he's done, but at least the greedy free marketeers will be regulated, ROFL.  Like any good socialist, Steven is terrified by what free people might do, but completely silent when his state heroes murder innocent people.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#30) On June 16, 2011 at 6:34 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

David there are parts of Steven's agenda (very few) that I could agree with.

The problem is that he feels that he has a right to force that agenda on others and I can never agree with that.

Too many dictators rise to power by selling dreams to get others to accept oppression. 

Steven is also very anti-investor, which why it's OK for the state to steal from the corporation in his mind. He thinks somehow that the State will be able to step in and create jobs to replace the investments that are lost by people fearing being robbed of their investments by the State. The problem is that State employees have no motivation to innovate, invent, or even efficiently opperate a business. State owned businesses deteriorate because of that. 

He reminds me a lot of Chavez. If you take a Chavez speech and replace the words "United States" with "investors/bankers"  and then replace the word "people" with "organized labor", you come up with the average Devoish blog.

Somehow it's OK in both their minds to restrict the rights of people because the State knows what's better for them than they do.

The problem is when you give up rights, it's a long, hard road to get them back when you discover that the Utopia being sold to you is worse than what you had.

Now I ready myself of Devoish's painting of me...

What am I today?

Conservative?

Libertarian?

Will he call me a banker again?

Denier?

Or maybe he'll get it right once and figure out that I'm someone that's not going to give up my rights over a sales pitch.

I doubt it though. 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#31) On June 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Chris,

Thank you for interpreting my reply to chk999 for us. I simply thought he should know that some countrys he might consider socialist (I consider them a blend of Socialist and Capitalist policys) have done much better than the examples he knows about.

Chris and David,

I compared the current badly lopsided pay environment to the period right before the Great depression, and asked what happens next. I also pointed out what David and Chris have both described as a significant policy change for the worse, Roosevelt's and our entire countrys recognition that employees would be abused without being organised, and a time when most people believe that those policys were changed for the better with Reagans lower taxes, and ending support for unions.

I am not surprised that you are afraid that readers might conclude that the time you would sell us was a horrible socialist nightmare looks better than the times that more closely resemble your politics, with less Government interference in business.

And I feed on your fear of the fact. I feed on your namecalling, I feed on your weakness, and I feed on your desperate cries of liar liar, socialist.

Tastes like wonton soup and spineless spare ribs.

That was fun! I feel like I insulted you guys way better than you insulted me. :-)

But the data still stands.

Did you know that from 1941 until 1943 the incomes of the top ten percent took ten percent of all the income growth and the bottom 90% took 90%!? Maybe if the US citizens taxed the crap out of the top 10% of earners now, like we did then, and spent like drunken sailors now, like we did then, but built out infrastructure and energy independence now, instead of killing Germans like we did then, US citizens could command higher pay, more secure retirements, and energy independence so Obama doesn't go stealing Iraqi oil for Cheneys companys benefit or go bailing out investment banks on the advice of his good buddy Hank Paulson.

That would be like that dreaded Keynesianism but without the killing of Iraqis we got from the "we'll be small government guys".

Seems like a better plan to me than surrendering Democracy to the smallest Government of all,- a King.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#32) On June 16, 2011 at 7:53 PM, awallejr (80.08) wrote:


Well finally a spirited thread, which I am late to the party on.  I do find the 1980 to 2008 stats worth discussing.  It clearly suggests that the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. Personally I think the middle class is a dying class and the gap between the haves and have nots is widening.

I think it obscene that CEOs and corporate executives jacked up their compensation at paces far in excess of average workers' growth rate.  I read somewhere that the average CEO earns over 300 times what the average worker takes home. 

 

Report this comment
#33) On June 16, 2011 at 10:29 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

Thanks Steven, you are consistent if nothing else.

So to get this on the record...

You feel that Chavez and Humala have a more of a mix of socialism and capitalism than they are straight socialists.

What would pure socialism be in your opininon and please tell me why you would be against that?

Steven, I don't have a problem with organised labor. I have a problem with today's organised labor. I have a problem with a union that makes a campaign contribution to a President that in return steals from the retiree bondholders and hands that money over to the unions that ran those auto makers into the ground in the first place. I also have a problem with state employees making campaign contributions with my tax dollars to politicians that decide on their raises.

I also have a problem with forced healthcare.

Basically I have a problem with someone taking my rights away.  

I don't think that it's ethical to rob retirees to save unions that have been corrupt for years, though I do understand why poiticians do it. They have to keep that bribe money coming in. 

I am not surprised that you are afraid that readers might conclude that the time you would sell us was a horrible socialist nightmare looks better than the times that more closely resemble your politics, with less Government interference in business. 

I keep asking, but please move to Venuzeula. they have exactly what you are looking for with their perfect mix of socialism and capitalism.

Now on your praise of FDR for 1941-1943, you should really praise the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor. We needed people to die for a paycheck for the war machine and starving people lined up for the chance. We also had many business owners that stop making their normal products and started making products for the war machine. We borrowed the money to pay for it. I'm not sure that I can fault Keynesianism, because I've never really seen it practiced. We are very good at the first part and borrowing ourselves to the hilt to boost the economy, but we've never paid it back. Politicians know that it's suicide to pay it back.

Maybe if the US citizens taxed the crap out of the top 10% of earners now, like we did then, and spent like drunken sailors now, like we did then, but built out infrastructure and energy independence now, instead of killing Germans like we did then, US citizens could command higher pay, more secure retirements, and energy independence so Obama doesn't go stealing Iraqi oil for Cheneys companys benefit or go bailing out investment banks on the advice of his good buddy Hank Paulson. 

God, I really love this statement. I gotta break this one down.

Maybe if the US citizens taxed the crap out of the top 10%

...Citizens don't tax anybody, the government taxes the citizens

...The wealthy will leave and take their jobs with them

 and spent like drunken sailors now, like we did then

... we are even more than we did then

... we are planning on QE3 real soon

... does it strike you as strange, that in your brilliant opinion the solution is to spend more money after the collapse was caused by spending money that we didn't have.

but built out infrastructure and energy independence now 

... Hey, I'm all for spending it on infrastructure if we are going to spend money that we don't have, at least we have something to show for it.

... I'd be OK with energy independence investments too if an investment made sense. I would consider Geothermal investments or Natural Gas investments part of  infrastructure. I'm close to considering wind investments. If we spend on solar or ethanol though, we might as well throw the money out of helicopters.

instead of killing Germans like we did then, US citizens could command higher pay, more secure retirements, and energy independence so Obama doesn't go stealing Iraqi oil for Cheneys companys benefit or go bailing out investment banks on the advice of his good buddy Hank Paulson. 

... no instead we'll kill Iraqis and Afganis this time. We have Iranians and Syrians on the list but we need an excuse first.

... a secure retirement means that you don't have to be afraid that the government will steal your bond investments and hand them over to the auto unions.

... If we don't steal something from another country or destroy it's production enough to make our own exports popular again FDR's principles won't work. Part of the return of our spending money that we didn't have, was that war destroyed the production of other countries enough to make our products popular.

... energy independence will eventually kill the Cheney influence. Your plans of promoting things like ethanol make him stonger though. When people are throwing money at something that doesn't work, they aren't throwing money at something that does. You want to really kill his plans? Promote Geothermal. It works. It can make a significant impact on the country and the environment. I know it's not top priority with your political checklist because their aren't any mainstream politicians getting kick-backs from the geothermal industry, but it works economically.

It's funny that you paint David and I with the same brush, because basically we disagree. He'd tell you that too. In fact, my distorted views on government don't seem to fit any political box that's been put out by anybody. I don't buy anybody's BS either though.

Economically I totally agree with David, because I do understand economics.  Your plan on living on borrowed money forever doesn't float and the plan where government is capable of running a popsicle stand doesn't float either. We differ on on our perception of government and that differs because he doesn't think that we need one and I think that we need a small one that is decentralised. I'm also for consumer regulation and I think (I might be wrong) that he is against that type of regulation.

The fact that you try to project that my idea of good government would be a King just shows that you don't understand what my idea of good government is. I absolutely do not want to concentrate power. Concentrated power is what allows auto unions to rob retirees. My idea of good government would be a government that allows people to have more rights and expects them to take more responsibility.

It's certainly not going to be your view, where good government requires  people to surrender their rights and their hopes and dreams and just waits for the government to take care of them.

If you do want to paint David and I with the same brush, you should do so by telling people that neither of us will blindly follow the BS spoon fed to us from the left or the right. Your BS seems to come solely from the left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#34) On June 16, 2011 at 10:37 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

awallejr,

Your welcome from all of us who got here first, and thank you for contributing.

Frankydontfailmenow,

I'm sorry I missed you. I was fighting the insults on my free thoughts delivered by those freedom lovers. 

My response to you was a response to something that wasn't in your comment. My brain glitched or something but I will try to explain the thoughts. First a reply to your thoughts.

In the entire history of the world, a "true free market economy" has never existed, or if it has, its life was fleeting before someone f'd it up. Thats obvious, so it is ridiculous to expect one to come along. Most of these free marketeers, at the first sign of regulation and especially something as huge as breaking up a monopoly would decide that it is no longer a "true free market economy" and by that definition one has never existed. It is possible to have a regulated market economy that works reasonably well, but we don't talk about that very much here anymore, because the freedom lovers sharply hurled barbs are used to supress historical facts that run contrary to their beliefs.

You know, like in this thread.

Now for the part I responded to that you did not talk about. Here's the idea. Often times the freedom folks tell us not to legislate because people vote with their dollars. The problem is that people with more dollars get more votes that way and Democracy is designed to try to balance that loss of freedom. So in a "true free market economy" as often defined without Democracy and legislation one possible solution is to make sure that everybody has equal dollars and therefore equal dollars to vote with. I still have no idea why this is where my reply to your post went.

Thank you for your patience with my reply,

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#35) On June 16, 2011 at 10:42 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Chris,

I am not taking the time to read your reply. You and David have wasted enough of our time hurling insults at me today.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#36) On June 16, 2011 at 10:46 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

#32) On June 16, 2011 at 7:53 PM, awallejr (81.59) wrote:

 

Well finally a spirited thread, which I am late to the party on.  I do find the 1980 to 2008 stats worth discussing.  It clearly suggests that the rich got richer while the poor got poorer. Personally I think the middle class is a dying class and the gap between the haves and have nots is widening.

I think it obscene that CEOs and corporate executives jacked up their compensation at paces far in excess of average workers' growth rate.  I read somewhere that the average CEO earns over 300 times what the average worker takes home. 

Awallejr, I do agree with you on executive compensation and I think that Devoish does as well. They strangle employee salaries to maintain those compensation packages. The problem is that not only do they hurt their employees, but they hurt their own businesses by destroying descretionary income. If we had a compentent government, they would have realised this and made corrections in executive pay. We have a government that lives off of bribes though and it was politically easier to make easy credit and keep the corporate bribes coming in.

What depresses me the most is that investors should be able to police this on their own and have failed. One of the first things that you are supposed to do is evaluate management. Management that gives away profits to maintain a compensation package is not good management. 

 

 

 

Report this comment
#37) On June 16, 2011 at 11:05 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

#35) On June 16, 2011 at 10:42 PM, devoish (99.44) wrote:

Chris,

I am not taking the time to read your reply. You and David have wasted enough of our time hurling insults at me today.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Really? please describe the insult?

Or are you just afraid to address my concerns?

Are you afraid of my breaking down your FDR wet dream?

Are you afraid of my explantion of the results of your dictatorship?

I can tell by your post that you are afraid, just let me know what you're afraid of. 

You should be a very open human being expecting everyone else to accept oppression to conform to your utopia. 

Or if you know someone has put forth an argument that you can't reply to, you can can make a fluffy marshmallow post that says that you are too good to read or reply.

I'll warn you that that fluffy marshmallow thing works better if you are at least willing to read though. 

 

 

Report this comment
#38) On June 17, 2011 at 1:33 AM, awallejr (80.08) wrote:

Management that gives away profits to maintain a compensation package is not good management. 

That's the real problem.  My few hundred shares voting against management income raises means nothing in the end.  And the "real" voters (institutions) don't really care.

Report this comment
#39) On June 17, 2011 at 1:45 AM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

LOL, notice how devoish refuses to address the fact that Obama is currently murdering for big oil in Libya.  Or that Obama is fighting covert wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

In general, notice how he avoids the subject of his establishment heroes murdering innocent poeple.

But we're supposed to believe this Hyper Nationalist Socialist has iour best interests at heart.  

He wants to regulate all of our lives, from the minute we wake up until we go to bed, for "our own good."  But the people he puts in charge are cold blooded murderers lke Barack Obama.  And why are we supposed to buy this?

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#40) On June 17, 2011 at 2:22 AM, mtf00l (47.15) wrote:

***Opinion***

My feeling is Obama is a pawn for the real power elite.  That being the case Obama isn't "killing" anyone.  He's just the poster boy.

That said my current fear is that Romney might win the election.  I heard people say about G. W. he was the righteous choice for religious good.  I hear similar things about Romney which leads me to believe in the name of whatever you call your higher power he will do even greater evil.

As has been pointed out by those intellectual few, anyone who would run for political office is corrupt anyway.  Kinda makes it a lose/lose all the way around doesn't it?

What's coming next?  Whatever the power elite will allow us to have.

Report this comment
#41) On June 17, 2011 at 4:33 AM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

  That being the case Obama isn't "killing" anyone.

Then what is he doing? If he gives orders to bomb innocent people, how is he innocent?

Don't let these disgusting cretins, whether they are Democrat or Republican, off the hook.  Obama, like GWB, is a cold blooded murderer.  Don't sugar coat it.  Don't rationalize it.  He is a murderer.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#42) On June 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Good morning Chris,

Telliing readers I want to run their lives is insulting. Feels to me like you are often telling us you want a set of rules that help you to run our lives for your benefit. Possibly we are both just presenting different thoughts for them to consider, like people in a free society might.

Saying I speak with a forked tongue is also insulting.

Lets copy two thoughts from your intrepretation of what I wrote

 Maybe if the US citizens taxed the crap out of the top 10%

...Citizens don't tax anybody, the government taxes the citizens

Leaving out any discussion of whether or not the authors of the Constition though we were a Government by the people and for the people and therefore we are taxing ourselves, I would like to know how you lost the tax collection portion of the policy when you wrote this

does it strike you as strange, that in your brilliant opinion the solution is to spend more money after the collapse was caused by spending money that we didn't have.

Now I don't think you can get your tongue to go down both forks of this road unless you have some magic car or something, but it is certainly educational for our readers to see you try. At least we can all see you read it, before you misunderstood it.

David,

I am not surprised to see that freedom of speech contrary to yours is not one of the freedoms you promote. Two and one half years ago I quickly learned that MIses and you are a marketing department, and not evidence based thought. You cannot take our freedom to reference all the bullsh*t you have posted publicly. But I'll tell ya, seems like you would if you could.

LOL, notice how devoish refuses to address the fact that Obama is currently murdering for big oil in Libya.  Or that Obama is fighting covert wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

I had actually considered posting a medly of leftish, hippy, union loving, liberal, folk songs written by people who really were fighting to end the wars of their times, but while the words to Obama's version are written, noone has sung it on youtube yet, and while I will sing, you probably do not want to hear me.

But I have you to do bash Obama, and this is an economic website, so I posted some data connecting income disparity with the depression and Government policy changes, and made a present day comparison. You seem to think that people might look at those facts and think the liberal wealth distributing policys look better than the ideas you support and accused me of manipulating data and basically ran around in circles screaming liar liar at me. While it was fun to watch for a few minutes, and very revealing to watch you want to supress my freedom to reference your public posts, really, who would want only the freedom to agree with you?

I have also noticed that you pretty consistently accuse people who disagree with you of using debating techniques to mislead or misdirect readers while actually using those very same techniques yourself.

For instance you seem to have found this very important.

LOL, notice how devoish refuses to address the fact that Obama is currently murdering for big oil in Libya.  Or that Obama is fighting covert wars in Yemen and Pakistan.

An astute reader might LOL, noticing that you are refusing to address, and distracting us, from the data in the original post.

Best wishes

Steven

Report this comment
#43) On June 17, 2011 at 9:36 AM, catoismymotor (71.79) wrote:

The issues with Obama are touched upon in this NPR story I heard this morning. I found it interesting. Hopefully the other convention metioned in the story will be covered too.

My best to you, all.

Report this comment
#44) On June 17, 2011 at 11:39 AM, andywd82 (46.83) wrote:

Wow!!! I haven't seen such hostility on this site before! what energy the critics muster! shame it is negative energy eating away at their health and happiness!

Anyone who wastes their energy (and precious time!) name-calling, insulting and generally being negative, is a bit foolish really!

The people judging Steven for their assumptions about his political leanings and outlook on life, should ask themselves "am i better off for having got all worked up?" or "what did i gain by using profanity and insults?"

For Steven to meet such hostility with grace and class in abundance, shows maturity and wisdom far greater than his aggressors will likely ever possess.

Keep up the good work Steven, I enjoy your posts and responses!

 

Report this comment
#45) On June 17, 2011 at 11:43 AM, catoismymotor (71.79) wrote:

Link for #43: http://www.npr.org/2011/06/17/137238072/liberal-bloggers-obama-not-our-boyfriend-anymore

 

Report this comment
#46) On June 17, 2011 at 1:07 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Andywd82,

Thank you for the support, but please be prepared to be attacked with the same hostility as i was. Somehow i feel the need to accept your compliment by acknowledging I have not always been so gracious, especially with those two.

Cato,

As someone who can remember when expressing the idea that Government should collect taxes to pay its bills made me a fiscal conservative with no understanding of markets and financial innovation, instead of a liberal, it sure is interesting how language has changed.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#47) On June 17, 2011 at 3:25 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

#42) On June 17, 2011 at 9:24 AM, devoish (99.45) wrote: 

Telliing readers I want to run their lives is insulting.

But you still promote the virtues of forced health care. In fact you want to take it a step farther by eliminating choice and going with a single payer.

You extoll the virtues of Chavez and Humala.

You are for the government robbing the pension funds of retirees and handing that money over to the unions.

You are for governments confiscating property of the corporations.

You are for government taking more tax money from population and using to decide what's best for their welfare.

As far you not understanding of the phrase "spending money that we don't have"...

You can tax every man, woman, and child 100% and you still wouldn't pay off the debt therefore any money that you spend is money that you don't have. You flawed idea that you would be able to spend more because you took more in, is a failure if you still have debt when you're spending the extra money.

Churchill said it best...

Trying to tax oneself to prosperity is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up by the handle. 

If you are insulted by someone saying that you are trying to run their life, you should stop trying to run it.

 

 

Report this comment
#48) On June 17, 2011 at 3:47 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

Chris,

Thank you for telling everyone what to think of what I wrote, they may share your intrepretation, I do not.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#49) On June 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

Are you saying that you are against any of those things that I mentioned in post #47 Steven?

I can post some links if you want. 

Report this comment
#50) On June 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Steven,

You have the freedom to post whatever you like here, and I don't see anyone taking that away from you.  I don't see anyone locking out your account, spamming your pages, or constantly trolling your blogs. 

I clicked on this post initially, not knowing you authored it.  I clicked from the main Fool page.  The first thing I see is yet another line from Steven attacking me. 

The only thing I've ever asked for is respect.  You can't give that.  I noted that after 2.5 years, you have spent zero minutes learning the Austrian School positions.  Even the simple ones. 

That respect is lacking. On the other hand, I have done a dozen blogs discussing rival economic theories, even those of your hero Marx.

A contrast with another blogger might make the situation more clear.  Do you remember zloj?  I had a great deal of respect for zloj, despite the numerous disagreements we had.  Though he never agreed with me, I engaged him in cordial and friendly debate whenever he wanted.  My interactions with zloj, whom I would happily call a friend, are enough evidence for any Fool reader to see that I have no interest in silencing the opposition.  Zloj took the two seconds it requires to find and read rival opinions.  You have never done that.  Zloj earned my respect and friendship.  You never have.

That's why I asked you to stop referencing me in your posts. I don't want to silence you.  I just don't respect you. 

But it's a waste of my time. You have no interest in learning what other people think.  It gets in the way of relaying the Establishment's schemes for the best way to run our lives.

As for the "data" you posted in the blog.  I went to their website.  They don't list any sources for the data given.  They don't list any methods they used for compiling the data.  In other words, there is no way to know if there is any truth to the claims they made.  There is no way to double check their work.  No way to reproduce the results.

That means you have to take them on faith.  I'm not big on that.  It is ironic, though, since accusing me of operating on faith is one of your favorite arrows. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#51) On June 18, 2011 at 10:29 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

As for the "data" you posted in the blog.  I went to their website.  They don't list any sources for the data given.  They don't list any methods they used for compiling the data.  In other words, there is no way to know if there is any truth to the claims they made.  There is no way to double check their work.  No way to reproduce the results.

!?! No F'n way! Are you telling all of us that when you said that American standard of livings went up more in the 1800's when we were on the gold standard than after we came off that you deduced that without any data concerning income distribution! Do you realise that means that one guy could have gotten all the GDP gains while every other Americans living standard suffered under that system! And you call that a Chicago School of Economics?! What is that some kind of stoner school where they just make things up?

As for respect, you have not written dozens of posts "discussing" rival economist theories. You have reduced yourself to calling everyone who understands the flaws in the extremes you take your theorys to a liar, rather than rethink your own positions or even look for balance. You are the worst kind of politician and your words in this thread and many of your posts speak for themselves and very badly.

Look a little harder.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#52) On June 18, 2011 at 10:55 PM, mm5525 (< 20) wrote:

Steven, I have noticed that whenever you get caught in quicksand you tend to ignore it and go on a rant instead. You admit you won't even read a full post from Chris where you get taken to task, and even when I asked you for your source of data you were calling as "evidence" you began attacking me for not making stock picks on this site and calling me some sort of name. Now you are attacking David for pointing out your data's source doesn't even show how on Earth they came up with the data, and you ignore this as well and attack him and refuse to admit he's right.    

Yet you cling to your data as if it were the Gospel, when a third of their funding comes directly from labor unions, because it simply coincides with your beliefs. These studies are just like polling. You can manipulate them to say whatever you want, and both sides do it.

I am sorry you don't like the fact the rich are getting richer, and union power is now under attack. The political pendulum swings both ways. Even though I have already addressed this fact, the rich are always going to get ahead in life. That's why they got rich in the first place. There will always be a gap between the have's and the have not's. Sometimes it will get better, sometimes it will get worse, but you will never change this fact. Ever.

Sometimes the middle class has to do something to get out of the middle class rather than just blame the rich for why they won't blame themselves. It's far easier to blame a nameless, faceless rich guy rather than blame the guy in the mirror.

  

  

Report this comment
#53) On June 19, 2011 at 12:06 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Yep. Comment #51 sums it up perfectly.  Thanks Steven. You have confirmed that I was correct to disrespect you.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#54) On June 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

mm5525,

Thank you for replying. I feel that I responded to Chris, and I found the data source, and methodology David was unable to find and you didn't try to.

The readers will judge who is full of crap for themselves. I feel pretty good about that.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#55) On June 20, 2011 at 6:17 AM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

The readers will judge who is full of crap for themselves. I feel pretty good about that.

You mean you are going to let the market work?  How libertarian of you!

and I found the data source, and methodology David was unable to find and you didn't try to.

No you didn't.  In comment #11, you copied and pasted their summary of the methodology.  Everyone can see that.  Where did the data come from?  How did they calculate the number people in each income bracket?  Etc etc.  That's not listed in your comment or on their website.

Reproduce their results.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#56) On June 20, 2011 at 3:03 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

David.

I found it. Much more than what I copied. But the resulting data is in front of you. Use the work your Chicago School or Mises has done to determine comparitive living standards when we were on the gold standard and afterward. 

I am sure data backing those arguments exists before you made them?

But you do not pay me to "reproduce their results" so you do not get my labor for free. For a one time fee of $500 I'll post the link to the original research that produced the data. 

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#57) On June 20, 2011 at 3:22 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Steven,

So you admit that you are taking this "resulting data" on faith.  Funny to see a faith-based Regressive exposed.

Thank you. Thank you Thank you.  You have made my day, Steven.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#58) On June 20, 2011 at 9:09 PM, devoish (98.81) wrote:

You're welcome You're welcome you're welcome.

but I don't see such an admission. I took nothing on faith. I read the methodology.

And apparently it is still the BEST available work. Better than yours.

Of course it does not make MY day that you don't know if I am holding the empty promise of an unfilled straight, or three Aces, and that we all know that your Mises Institute talked alot of standard of living BS, without the data to support it.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#59) On June 20, 2011 at 10:20 PM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

The longer this goes on, the better it gets.

You didn't read the methodology.  The summary statement summarizes their methodology, but it is not the method.  The method is not made available.  The data source is not cited.  

In other words, you're busted.  You were operating on faith.  You believed them without question.  

Just admit it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#60) On June 21, 2011 at 7:52 AM, ChrisGraley (31.54) wrote:

#54) On June 19, 2011 at 8:27 PM, devoish (99.43) wrote:

mm5525,

Thank you for replying. I feel that I responded to Chris, and I found the data source, and methodology David was unable to find and you didn't try to.

The readers will judge who is full of crap for themselves. I feel pretty good about that.

Best wishes,

Steven

So was your response that you agreed with what I posted in my last post or you did not? I must have missed it.

 

Report this comment
#61) On June 22, 2011 at 9:57 AM, whereaminow (61.20) wrote:

Chris,

I don't think Steven will respond to you.  When cornered, he buries his head in the sand and pretends like it never happened. 

David in Qatar

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement