Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumWall Street expert shocks CNBC as he states Bernie Sanders is best for economy (VIDEO)
Asher Edelman, a Wall Street financial expert, explains with economics in very simple term why Bernie Sander is better for the economy. It was evident that he caught some of the wards of the plutocracy on the panel by surprise.
One of the panelists confronted Edelmans past statements that America has been in a recession for 15 years. His response was irrefutable.
I think it is pretty straightforward, Asher Edelman said. The average American has not had an increase in pay in over fifteen years. But things cost more in the marketplaces. He has been in a recession for fifteen years. Nothings changed for him. On the top, we are not in a recession. But eighty percent of Americans have been in a recession for at least fifteen years.
One of the panelists then stated that nobody realizes we are in a recession. Adelman hit back. Who is your nobody, Adelman asked. Another panelist attempted to come to her rescue implying that Adelman was trying an economic justice argument and not a strictly economic argument.
THE REST (with video):
http://egbertowillies.com/2016/03/11/asher-edelman-bernie-sanders-economy/
FreakinDJ
(17,644 posts)and to them Wall St is the economy
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)were you a poster on insessions. I considered you my friend there. Hi friend.
LiberalArkie
(15,719 posts)We are all friends over here in Bernies group.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)I miss many of my friends there. Time for new friendships, my friend
GardeningGal
(2,211 posts)I found it enjoyable to watch the other panelists get schooled in economics.
Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)Did you notice the look on the face (and mouth distortion) from the guy with the white shirt, When "Bernie Sanders" came out of his mouth.
GardeningGal
(2,211 posts)That's one of the reactions that made it so worthwhile.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)but some poor producer probably got fired for booking this expert
IT's gotta send a pucker through the Camp Weather vane sphincter too
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)The real life Gordon Gecco right?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Politics makes for strange bedfellows.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Gordon Geckko was based in part on Edelman. And you post a question as if you hadn't even read it.
and yes, sometimes politics does create strange bedfellows. But in this case, he's just reporting on his own understanding of what makes the economy strong, he's not identifying himself with any candidate. But from his experience, and what he says about the velocity of money...he's absolutely correct.
Hillary apparently does not "get it", and I'm thinking a lot of her supporters have pretty comfortable incomes (some here have even admitted as much) and they don't "get it" either. They are only interested in protecting the wealth at the top, or those rising to the top. Screw everyone else. We need peons who are desperate enough to work for the low wages we want to pay, and the establishment is right on track, as are the trade policies (which Clinton will be happy to support if she's elected).
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Bernie's Wallstreet Insider, Corporate Raider, and Top 1% of the Top 1%ers is better than Hillary's Wall Street Insider?
No skin off my nose.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)He is just stating a well known economic fact that many people tend to forget. But all economists know this.
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)He just endorsed him, on a talk show, on TV.
So let's all try to keep track of who is getting the Wallstreet Insider, Corporate Raider endorsements these days.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)who is running on a platform that will change the economic picture and the velocity of money. He did not say he was endorsing Sanders for President.
Maybe he is. Maybe he even wants to vote for him. But that is not what he said. He was asked who would be best for the economy and he answered honestly.
You sound scared, or angry. Why would his answer to a question make you scared or angry?
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Project much?
Sure sounds like an endorsement to me. Look - like I said before - if your happy, I'm happy. No skin off my nose.
Be well.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)because it goes against Hillary's philosophy, or you were hoping to smear Bernie by insinuating he has an 'in" with Wall Street, just like Hillary, because of this guy's answer to a direct question on economics.
This guy works on Wall Street (or did...don't know if he still does)...but he obviously understands a lot about economics theory, as his answer shows. Robert Reich, or Richard Wolff have both said this, probably many times. Like I said, it's a well known fact of economics. The trickle down economics of the Republicans has long been debunked, even though there are economists out there that try to cling to it.
It's actually rather unusual to hear a Wall Street biggy admit the truth about this fact of economics, because this goes against their methodology, of needing bigger and wealthier corporations (meaning offshoring jobs) to feed the greed. And Hillary is into Wall Street and trickle down economics...or at least she's never fought against it.
So yeah...you can pretend that you don't care...no skin...right!
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)Why do you need me to be angry or sad?
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)You are the one who involved yourself in this discussion because you felt the need to point out Bernie's connection to a Wall Street "endorsement". You know (as do I) that Hillary gets called out on her Wall Street connections, so you thought you could use this against Bernie...but it doesn't work, because this guy is not saying what a typical Wall street guy would say.
In fact what he is saying is beneficial to Bernie, whereas Hillary's Wall street connections are not beneficial to her, because they would never admit that this guy just might be right. They would say just the opposite, while endorsing Hillary. And that does not look good for her.
The point is, if you weren't scared of or angry at Bernie, you wouldn't waste your time trying to smear Bernie over something as silly as this, and then try to feign indifference.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)WTF does it matter if Edelman endorsed Bernie? Edelman isn't David effing Duke! He's not Michael effing Tyson. He's not that effing shit-eating-grin jerk that was on Bill Maher tonight that endorsed Trump.
Asher Edelman doesn't know Bernie Sanders personally. What. Is. THE. Problem?
Blue Idaho
(5,049 posts)You are responding to a post that is now two and a half months old at this point - right?
ReRe
(10,597 posts)So should I not comment on it, since it is old news in your eyes?
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)see this again. Off to the FB with you...
rickford66
(5,524 posts)And, the Wall Street pundits still haven't figured it out ??
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This guy has seen beyond the bubble. The others are still in the bubble and refuse to imagine an alternative viewpoint.
It's actually a very simple concept. People with little means spend everything cent they earn and then some. Nothing is as stimulative to the economy as giving money to people that have little in terms of disposable income. It is not unusual to find that some people are driving twenty year old cars. The average car on the road today is right around ten years old! Families often don't have a flat screen TV. They don't own a smart phone. If these families earned more money they would upgrade their consumer goods stimulating the economy (big time).
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Also, Democrats are consistently better for the economy than Republicans, again, the media forgets this and one gets the impression that the media is trying to give people the impression the opposite is true. Also, Democrats have historically been more fiscally responsible, deficits fall during Democratic administrations and rise during Republican ones.
Nickel79
(81 posts)...of what Edelman said, which is not included in the OP:
When you have the top one percent getting money, they spend five-ten percent of what they earn. When you have the lower end of the economy getting money, they spend a hundred, or a hundred and ten percent of what they earn. As youve had a transfer of wealth to the top, and a transfer of income to the top, you have a shrinking consumer base, basically, and you have a shrinking velocity of money.
http://usuncut.com/politics/gordon-gekko-sanders/
He explains it in a manner literally anyone with a working brain can grasp, and I absolutely love that.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)ever-emergent, right-wing kleptocracy have pillaged the country. Roosevelt and the Democrats salvaging the nation from the Depression ; Attlee and the Labour Party in the Britain after WWII.
This time, they face a catastrophic economy, as a result of the said kleptocracy, by hook and by crook, shrugging off all restraints, checks and balances, and dramatically polarizing the country's wealth, to the enrichment of themselves and the wholesale immiseration of the populace.
Long before Karl Marx, Adam Smith had warned against the compulsive recidivism of the merchant class, always looking for ways and excuses for conspiring against the common good. But he could never have dreamed of the actual stratospheric level of villainy that was finally to eventuate.
cyberpj
(10,794 posts)In my lifetime it's been really obvious.
Don't know why it hasn't become some sort of theme song on how to tell them apart!
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)cyberpj
(10,794 posts)The tag line goes with the avatar.
It's not me just being fresh, lol!
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)you just keep encouraging me. The wink slays me ! Doesn't matter that the drawing's a bit 'minimalist' ! Even when they say it patronisingly/satirically, American women have a way of calling you, 'honey' that seems a bit special. Like when to female friends and relatives, my late wife would sometimes refer to me as 'His Lordship'.
cyberpj
(10,794 posts)I'm a Doctor Who fan; especially the newer reboot (although I watched the older versions as a kid with my older brother).
My avatar is of a Doctor Who character named River Song. She is wearing the spacesuit when she first crosses The Doctor's timeline on the new show, and although she knows him (intimately) from times they have been together in her past (revealed later that they were married) he doesn't recognize her at all because in his own timeline he hasn't yet met her. Her standard greeting each time she sees him is "Hello Sweetie....."
I'm sorry to hear you're only in your late twenties but have experienced the loss of a spouse; that's a hard one. I hope time and life will again bring you happiness.
Yes, American women can be pretty forward. Although I come from British stock so I also understand "proper reserve in one's emotions", lol. The wink was about you 'getting' the Doctor Who signature line, to illustrate a private joke that not many at DU get. I just assumed everyone in the UK was a Doctor Who fan.
Nope. No flirting here. I'm in my early sixties and found the love of my life at age 43. Another Anglophile (both of us fall into that category because The Beatles exploded into our teen years and we haven't stopped loving Great Britain ever since). Dear husband has actually been to London as a guest of singer Lisa Stansfield after he created and managed her website for several years. And we both attended the US premiere of her film Swing, meeting both Lisa and Huge Speer.
Check it out if you haven't seen it, it's a lot of fun (or rather, I should say, it's brilliant!):
Anyway, I'm glad I was able to clear things up.
You're safe with me.
Now off you go!
Joe Chi Minh
(15,229 posts)so, that's it.
Anyway I'm old and decrepit, but not averse(!) to getting 'the glad eye', and a spot of flirting by girls young enough to be my grand daughters. They're by far the bigger tear-aways it seems to me. We tend to be more nervous in that regard, I think. I'm glad you're happily married though. Can't beat it.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)This needs to be bumped back up. Needs much more conversation on this thread!
Thank you Triana. I missed this back on March 13th!