Pope and news

  • Thread starter Thread starter billcu1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ridgerunner said:
The majority of the very highly paid are only at that pinnacle for a short time. They’re like professional athletes in that way. High pay for awhile, difficult not to spend a lot of it because of the milieu they’re in, then down to ordinary wages or nothing at all. If they exerted effort to save it, they’re in good shape. If not, they’re not.
Click to expand...
Do you have some data to back this up? While it may be true that CEOs may only have the job for a short period of time ( I would need to see the data though), it is not like they go from working on the shop floor to becoming CEO. People move up through the ranks and even when they are not in the pinacle, they often spend a lot of time in the top 1%. For example, I know a CFO who has held his job for about 10 years and in each of those years has made at least $1 million. Will be become CEO, who knows, but even if he does for two years, it is not like he will spend much time earning average money.
 
franklinstower said:
That is a loaded question

I think what the Pope is saying can be done–* I am not saying the government should necessarily be the ones regulating it. * Listening to christian radio I was made aware of a Christian man who had a gift for business. He was just really good at it. His business made a few million dollars a year and he gave every cent of it to charity after his salary. The salary he chose for himself was 70000 a year…

My point is not to argue for a certain way of going about this. This whole topic quickly evolves into a Democrat vs Republican argument and it shouldn’t-- my point is that it can be done and it should be done*** if our primary concern is God, heaven, and the well-being of humanity. First we have to make sure our wills*** are actually in line with the teachings of Christ-- then we can figure out a myriad of ways of going about it.
Click to expand...
Yup.

People fall for the common fallacy that if you do not want the government to do something, it means you don’t want it done.

Don’t want the government in health care? You don’t care about the health needs of the poor.
Don’t want the government mandating a living wage? You want poor people to stay in poverty.
Don’t want the government giving charity? you are against charitable giving.
etc. etc.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Do you have some data to back this up? While it may be true that CEOs may only have the job for a short period of time ( I would need to see the data though), it is not like they go from working on the shop floor to becoming CEO. People move up through the ranks and even when they are not in the pinacle, they often spend a lot of time in the top 1%. For example, I know a CFO who has held his job for about 10 years and in each of those years has made at least $1 million. Will be become CEO, who knows, but even if he does for two years, it is not like he will spend much time earning average money.
Click to expand...
I have seen the stats on it, posted previously here on CAF. But I don’t have time right now to go on a search.

All of us know people who were on top a long time and people who didn’t last long in the high pay group. One of highly successful Fortune 100 companies which I follow churns the upper echelons about every five years, and when it happens, it’s pretty much a clean sweep because new CEOs want people they select in the upper echelons, not somebody else’s choice.

And formerly highly paid execs who are involuntarily separated from their companies are not the most desired by other companies. Reading the handwriting on the wall a long way off is a skill some possess, but not all do.
 
JimG said:
The type of society you envision has some merit. I don’t think it would be workable though in a nation of 320 million people, most of whom do not share your vision.

But even if they did, let’s suppose everyone operated without concern for accumulating wealth, only wishing to live at a minimal lifestyle. The foreseeable effects would be a diminution in gross domestic product, resulting in decreased employment, and perhaps more poverty, perhaps a national or global depression. Also, if no one accumulates wealth to take care of themselves in old age, the expense will fall to their family or their government. But the government in such a society might not have the resources to help.

I’m just thinking on paper here. Surely one would want a family to earn enough to support their children, perhaps to pay for their schooling, to pay for medical care, and other things. And to save enough to take care of future unexpected emergencies or hard times.

Yes, I realize that Jesus told the rich young man to sell all that he had, give the money to the poor, and then come follow him. That would give a one time boost for the poor. But if everyone did it, would everyone then be poor?
Click to expand...
I’m a big fan of Mr. Money Mustache, and he had a great article on what would happen if everyone became ultra-frugal.

mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/09/what-if-everyone-became-frugal/
 
Ridgerunner said:
I have seen the stats on it, posted previously here on CAF. But I don’t have time right now to go on a search.

All of us know people who were on top a long time and people who didn’t last long in the high pay group. One of highly successful Fortune 100 companies which I follow churns the upper echelons about every five years, and when it happens, it’s pretty much a clean sweep because new CEOs want people they select in the upper echelons, not somebody else’s choice.

And formerly highly paid execs who are involuntarily separated from their companies are not the most desired by other companies. Reading the handwriting on the wall a long way off is a skill some possess, but not all do.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is one of definition. How do you define the high pay group? If it is the top 1%, there is likely to be a very high rate of persistence in the top 1% group. Persistence in the top 5% is likely even higher. But without actual data to show income data over time, we really cannot say much one way or another.
 
Washington (CNN)Congressional Republicans hope Pope Francis leaves his liberal-leaning views at the Vatican.

When he addresses a joint session of Congress Thursday during an event that will be broadcast around the world, a large number of House and Senate Republicans want the leader of the Catholic Church to keep a lid on his progressive attitudes on climate change, immigration, guns and capitalism.

In interviews with CNN, a wide array of GOP lawmakers argued that the Pope’s message should stay away from the political fights consuming Washington, and many expressed strong disapproval of the fiery views he’s espoused since taking over the papacy in 2013.

cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/pope-francis-congress-republicans-politics/
 
Dwyer said:
I can only guess who the Pope is specifically referring to but perhaps maybe this businessman is one of them?

Do you have a link about the Pope’s statement that wealth of some are increasing “exponentially”?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_A._Cohen
Click to expand...
I see. Corrupt capitalism is indeed a bad thing. The only way can think of exponential growth would be if someone was making 20-30,000 a year and sold stock to go public then they could become a billionaire. I don’t know anything about this man so I can’t say.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
I think the problem is one of definition. How do you define the high pay group? If it is the top 1%, there is likely to be a very high rate of persistence in the top 1% group. Persistence in the top 5% is likely even higher. But without actual data to show income data over time, we really cannot say much one way or another.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the very top has a lot of persistence. But it won’t tell a person everything anyway. It would not tell us what someone’s capital gain is, particularly if it isn’t recognized yet. “Paper profits” aren’t reflected anywhere.
 
SWolf said:
I’m a big fan of Mr. Money Mustache, and he had a great article on what would happen if everyone became ultra-frugal.

mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/09/what-if-everyone-became-frugal/
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link to the article. He makes the point that if everyone lived frugally, their excess earnings could be used for savings and investment, and it is the savings and investment, (not consumerism) which actually drives economic growth and innovation.

Of course, if everyone simply gave away their excess instead of investing, the results might be different, unless the money given away eventually found its way to become investment capital.
 
Ridgerunner said:
I don’t think the very top has a lot of persistence. But it won’t tell a person everything anyway. It would not tell us what someone’s capital gain is, particularly if it isn’t recognized yet. “Paper profits” aren’t reflected anywhere.
Click to expand...
If we are looking at wealth, which would include unrealized capital gains, then I would think there is quite a bit of persistence. As far as income, in the lower part of upper end, the top 5% to 1%, there is probably quite a bit of persistence because a lot of that income comes from labor income. If you are talking about the 0.01%, that is likely to be much more variable.
 
JimG said:
Thanks for the link to the article. He makes the point that if everyone lived frugally, their excess earnings could be used for savings and investment, and it is the savings and investment, (not consumerism) which actually drives economic growth and innovation.
Click to expand...
Actually, they are both important for economic growth. In the US, it tends to be the investment component that is much more volatile, so when we go into a recession investment falls much more than consumption. The mix of consumption and investment will be different for each economy. China has investment at about 40% of its economy. The only way they can sustain that is because they export. If they stop exporting they will be in trouble. In the US, investment is about 15% of GDP. I think we certainly have room to expand the investment component.
Of course, if everyone simply gave away their excess instead of investing, the results might be different, unless the money given away eventually found its way to become investment capital.
Click to expand...
It depends on what the recipients do with the money. When I was in college I received gifts from relatives and those gifts were basically invested in human capital. In the long run society will be wealthier if some of the gifts are invested. It is hard to tell a starving family to save though.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
If we are looking at wealth, which would include unrealized capital gains, then I would think there is quite a bit of persistence. As far as income, in the lower part of upper end, the top 5% to 1%, there is probably quite a bit of persistence because a lot of that income comes from labor income. If you are talking about the 0.01%, that is likely to be much more variable.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t doubt there is a lot of persistence in unrealized capital gains. Even then, though, death has a way of spreading it out.

When it comes to labor income in the top 1% for one person, I think that’s not very long-lasting from what I have read. Maybe I can find the stats on it. If the top 5% is a two-earner household, that wouldn’t be too hard to keep going for a very long time. That would be two professionals, neither of which is at the top of their profession.
 
Seamus_L said:
He won’t tolerate it ? Strange choice of words.
Click to expand...
Why strange? Think of who he speaks for. I think the Pope is dead right. He is echoing the words of Scripture, from the prophets down through the ages to Christ Himself. There is no more scathing critique of selfish accumulation of material wealth than the Bible itself; re-interpretation-almost-to death-notwithstanding…

The contemporary prosperity Gospel is a false Gospel. The picture of Christ as a benevolent endorser of man’s endless grasping pursuit of things material (patting man gently on the head as he spreads his nets wider to take more of everything for himself, leaving the scraps behind for others) is also a lie.

So no, it’s not strange at all to use those words if one considers whose words they really are.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Actually, they are both important for economic growth. In the US, it tends to be the investment component that is much more volatile, so when we go into a recession investment falls much more than consumption. The mix of consumption and investment will be different for each economy. China has investment at about 40% of its economy. The only way they can sustain that is because they export. If they stop exporting they will be in trouble. In the US, investment is about 15% of GDP. I think we certainly have room to expand the investment component.

It depends on what the recipients do with the money. When I was in college I received gifts from relatives and those gifts were basically invested in human capital. In the long run society will be wealthier if some of the gifts are invested. It is hard to tell a starving family to save though.
Click to expand...
Businesses are not going to spend until they feel it’s safe to do so. What about disposable income and consumer spending? Most of GDP is always personal expenditures. And they’re not going by GDP anymore. The numbers are still calculated though. Just like GNP. That’s the expenditure side too. What about income side of the GDP?

bea.gov/scb/pdf/2014/08%20August/0814_revisions_to_gdp_gdi_and_their_major_components.pdf

They’re using GDI now.

I thought I’d just say if anyone is interested. January fed funds as I am calculating it is showing 50% chance of raising fed funds to 25 basis points by January. And a 25% chance of raising them by 50 basis points by January.
 
seekerz said:
Why strange? Think of who he speaks for. I think the Pope is dead right. He is echoing the words of Scripture, from the prophets down through the ages to Christ Himself. There is no more scathing critique of selfish accumulation of material wealth than the Bible itself; re-interpretation-almost-to death-notwithstanding…

The contemporary prosperity Gospel is a false Gospel. The picture of Christ as a benevolent endorser of man’s endless grasping pursuit of things material (patting man gently on the head as he spreads his nets wider to take more of everything for himself, leaving the scraps behind for others) is also a lie.

So no, it’s not strange at all to use those words if one considers whose words they really are.
Click to expand...
This is the truth and it is amazing how easily we supposed followers of Christ forget it completely The Pope is right and if we cared at all we would every one of us be striving for real solutions.

My grandmother is very wealthy- she wants the government out of her wealth and hates any talk of redistribution. She will give to the charities she sees fit to give to and does not need the government dictating where and how much. This is great in theory but here is the reality.

1- She made a lot of money in the cattle business paying bottom dollar to illegals.

2- She made a whole ton of money in the electrical contracting business paying the lowest wages she could get away with…

3- She accumulated great wealth in this way and has way more than she will ever need.

4- She does not give a significant amount to any charities at all.

5- She goes to church every Sunday.
 
franklinstower said:
This is the truth and it is amazing how easily we supposed followers of Christ forget it completely The Pope is right and if we cared at all we would every one of us be striving for real solutions.

My grandmother is very wealthy- she wants the government out of her wealth and hates any talk of redistribution. She will give to the charities she sees fit to give to and does not need the government dictating where and how much. This is great in theory but here is the reality.

1- She made a lot of money in the cattle business paying bottom dollar to illegals.

2- She made a whole ton of money in the electrical contracting business paying the lowest wages she could get away with…

3- She accumulated great wealth in this way and has way more than she will ever need.

4- She does not give a significant amount to any charities at all.

5- She goes to church every Sunday.
Click to expand...
The only way this works is if we all have the SAME amount of income. If we have the SAME amount of income, the ambitious sacrificers among us will be de-motivated. Tax revenues from the top half of income earners will drop dramatically until the bills to run social programs can no longer be paid. The only things we’ll be able to afford will be basic food, clothing, and shelter, but at least pollution and consumption will decrease. But what will we do with all our spare time since there’s little MOTIVATION to be industrious?? Better hand out free birth control, abortion, legalize drugs, and destroy marriage so people can swing. People will need something to pass the time! LOL. Sprinkle in some gender confusion for the kiddies and watch the population fall faster. Now I can understand how the atheists want to elect Bernie Sanders. LOL! But it boggles the mind how the religious faithful can support Bernie. The communists will outlaw religion. Here it comes. Yay! Go Pope! Oh, wait. No. Now I’m rooting for the wrong team. :confused:
 
ManOnFire said:
The only way this works is if we all have the SAME amount of income. If we have the SAME amount of income, the ambitious sacrificers among us will be de-motivated. Tax revenues from the top half of income earners will drop dramatically until the bills to run social programs can no longer be paid. The only things we’ll be able to afford will be basic food, clothing, and shelter, but at least pollution and consumption will decrease. But what will we do with all our spare time since there’s little MOTIVATION to be industrious?? Better hand out free birth control, abortion, legalize drugs, and destroy marriage so people can swing. People will need something to pass the time! LOL. Now I can understand how the atheists want to elect Bernie Sanders. LOL! But it boggles the mind how the religious faithful can support Bernie. The communists will outlaw religion. Here it comes. Yay! Go Pope! Oh, wait. No. Now I’m rooting for the wrong team. :confused:
Click to expand...
I’m reading your post and, respectfully, trying hard to get what you’re saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top