via the Republican Party about 30 years ago.

That is absolutely not true.

The fact that so many people don't get that is why things are such a mess.

Governments print moremoney EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Not to mention that money is made and lost every single day without "currency" to back it up.

Money is not a zero-sum game. To make it, someone did not have to "lose" it.

That is a ridiculous uneducated argument.

Proven: There's Not Enough Money In The World
Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:45 PM EDT
world-news, money, satire, politcs
By aktylor
Advertise | AdChoices

People of the world, we have a problem.

If you take the estimated amount of currency in the U.S., Asia and Europe, and then round it up to the nearest hundred billion (to account for the fact that a lot of nations don't actually know how much money is in their country), and then turn it all into U.S. dollars, you'll come up with $34,370,000,000,000 dollars. That's $34 trillion. And if you divide that by the number of people on the planet, which is over 6.6 billion, you get $5,203.60. That means there there's only five thousand dollars available for every man, woman and child on the planet!

In other words, there simply isn't enough money in the world.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American household spends more than five thousand dollars on food every year. If we split up the world's piggy bank, Americans will be living in the dark and walking around naked within months. So much for being a tourist destination.

You have to have five thousand dollars in most bank accounts to avoid convenience charges.

Even the ruthless banker in your monopoly game gives you $23,277 to get started (that's how much buying power $1,500 had in 1934).

http://aktylor.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/19/790371-proven-theres-not-enough-money-in-the-world

Do you actually think that is all the value of everything in the world?

If you do, you are extremely poorly educated.

enough money in the world. If you have information to educate me. I am open ears. I do not know everything. I know a lot less than there is information available.

Currency is the physical manifestation of money, but there is never enough currency to cover the amount of money.

The United States economy is approximately $15 trillion. We only have about 1.6 Trillion in the M1 money supply. Does that mean that every dollar in the United States economy was churned almost ten times? Of course not. What it does mean that millions of transactions take place electronically every single day between businesses, banks, and others that are never converted into currency, they are done in dollars, or money.

This doesn't take into account physical assets like cars, homes, property, or stocks. Those are less liquid forms of "money" but they still represent money and wealth.

The value of all of the assets in the United States economy is $188 trillion dollars.

The reason that the base of the Republican party -- lower- and lower-middle-income whites -- love the top 1% is that they think they (both the lower whites and the top 1%) are "hard-working real Americans" and are obsessed about all the money they think is going to welfare (in their minds, mostly to blacks, minorities and immigrants) and to foreign aid. It is conservative David Brooks, by the way that said in the PBS Newshour that the base of the Republican Party is lower- and lower-middle-income whites. I'll take his word for it, I haven't looked into it. I've seen polls showing that college educated professionals lean Democratic.

Also, the Republican base believes the meme that the wealthy are the "job creators". They've probably never been exposed to the fact that there are no jobs without consumer demand, and that corporations are sitting on $2 trillion in cash because there's not enough demand for their products to justify the investment of that cash. (Part of the reason that they haven't been exposed to that argument is that we Dems too much tend to huddle in our save havens like DU and endlessly message each other, rather than going out onto mixed message boards with the facts.)

Then there is that famous 2000 poll result -- 19% think they are in the top 1% and another 20% think that -- though they aren't in the top 1% -- they will be in the top 1% some day. That's 39% who think they are top 1% or on their way there. Think what the poll results would be if the question asked about being in, say, the top 10% -- betcha it would be at least 80% who think they are there or on the way.

I'm going to use this occasion to drop in some inequality statistics. Ask a rightie, "so, how much inequality do you think is the right amount?" (Crickets)

Virtually all of the productivity gains since 1979 have flowed to the top 1% of income earners. - David Frum, Newsweek 7/2/12

The Top 1% and percent of the nation's income: 1928: 23.9%, Late 1970's: 8 to 9%, 2007: 23.5% (includes capital gains) - The Nation 7/19/10

The Newsweek 1/13/12 article by Niall Ferguson has very similar, is probably the source of the above: "According to Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, the share or total income going to the top 1% of families has more than doubled since 1979, from below 10% to a peak of nearly 24% in 2007 (it has since fallen, but not by much). The share going to the super-rich -- the top 0.01% -- has risen by a factor of 7."

(David Frum is the former Bush adviser or somesuch that has turned lefty in the last year or two or so. Its odd that Niall Ferguson would write about growing inequality {he wrote the Newsweek cover story hit piece on Obama 3 or so weeks ago}

Average HOUSEHOLD Income (2007 $) -- post-transfer and post-tax incomes.
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Year 1979 2007 %increase
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Top 1% (P1) 350,000 1,300,000 271.4%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Mid 60% (Q2+Q3+Q4) 44,000 57,000 29.5%
[div style="display:inline; font-size:1.37em; font-family:monospace; white-space:pre;"] Bottom 20% (Q5) 15,500 17,500 12.9%

[font size=2]Lane Kenworthy, using data from the Congressional Budget Office
http://lanekenworthy.net/2010/07/20/the-best-inequality-graph-updated/
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/collections.cfm?collect=13 [/font]

The following is a pithy summary of much of the above for the message board wars:

[font color="blue"]In inflation-adjusted dollars, after taxes and after transfers -- From 1979 to 2007 the top 1% increased their income by 271% while the middle 60% increased by only 30%. Virtually all the productivity gains since 1979 has gone to the top 1%. Their share of the nation's income has increased from about 9% to 24%. [/font]