Guest Post: Spreading The Wealth Around

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

Spreading The Wealth Around

Under Obama, corporate profits have soared to all-time highs:

Rentiers are doing better than ever; rental income has exploded and almost doubled since the recession (bubble-watchers — this is a huge one):

Yet employment still hasn’t recovered:

Income inequality under Obama has grown at a faster-rate than under Bush or Clinton:

All that debt Obama acquired, and all the stimulus did work to redistribute wealth and income — it worked to redistribute wealth and income toward the well-connected crony capitalist groups that funded Obama into office.

Obama can talk all he likes about cutting taxes for the middle class; the data shows who Obama’s redistribution policies have overwhelmingly favoured.

Of course, leftists and statists often end up favouring the super-rich. That’s been the underlying reality of communism — politburos, bureaucrats, technocrats, party members all benefit at the expense of everyone else (in spite of all that proletarian rhetoric).

Inviting the state to carve up national income and redistribute it is an invitation to corruption, and graft. Obama talks an updated version of the old communist rhetoric about redistributing wealth to the working class — he even adopted Stalin’s slogan “forward” — yet just like Stalin the reality of his policies is more wealth for the richest and most well-connected. What a surprise.

He continued and expanded the Bush bailouts of failed companies. He reappointed Ben Bernanke, who has hovered in his helicopter above Wall Street throwing out money to the well-connected rentiers and corporations. And his stimulus package went to his own donors like Solyndra who frittered away the loans he guaranteed.

That’s been the reality of “spreading the wealth around”. When will we wake up?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
malek's picture

Always makes me wonder why deriding "trickle down" as the ultimate evil is anyhow better than using "trickle down" as the ultimate justification for the status quo.

Both approaches are pure marketing blabber to me, more obfuscating the point than clearly making one.

Don Keot's picture

Which came first, the buyer or the producer?

F. Bastiat's picture

As documented by Igor Shafarevich in his seminal works "Socialism in our Past and Future" and "The Socialist Phenomenon", there are three main activities of all "socialists" engaged in "socialism":

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

Frankly, there's little that the Hawaiian Allende engages in that does not fit into one of those three categories.


Bob's picture

Could you be more specific . . . because he's really pulled the wool over my eyes. 

Is it his empty, politically opportunistic sentiments about gays?

F. Bastiat's picture

David Limbaugh's book "The Great Destroyer" details the Hawaiian Allende's attacks upon private property, the family, and Christianity in great detail. It should be required reading.

To summarize a few points regarding the regime's attacks upon private property, the family, and Christianity

1. Attacks upon private property: Mainly waged by the EPA, but also attempting to be waged via HHS and the inaptly named perversion called Obama "care".
2. Attacks upon the family: Forcing the militant homosexual agenda upon the US military and upon private businesses
3. Attacks upon Christianity: The regime's attacks upon Catholic freedom of conscience via the Obama "care" perversion

While there are countless others, the three cited above provide a brief introduction to the war upon civilization being waged by the Hawaiian Allende's regime.




GMadScientist's picture

The more you put your hand behind your head to scratch your ear, the sillier that pablum sounds.



F. Bastiat's picture

I understand your confusion. Folks tend to forget that "Critical Race Theory" is simply marxism recast from a "class struggle" into a "race struggle".

GMadScientist's picture

I see a bifurcation based on rational intelligence.

Bob's picture

Not nice to pile on, and I apologize for that, but I gotta give it to you since that was my exact thought.  WTF?

kekekekekekeke's picture

those gays really made an impression on you huh

dizzyfingers's picture


Get real. He was a grafting crook before he ever got out of Chicago, like all pols are. The Mafia is their model.

LetThemEatRand's picture

100% agreement he is a crook.  

azzhatter's picture

The world would be a slightly better place if Obama remained a cum stain on his momma's dress. But some other pig fucker would have been elected and our collective assholes would still be in pain. A revolution by the people for the people is the only answer

kekekekekekeke's picture

Randroids are junking you without reading

midtowng's picture

"leftists and statists often end up favouring the super-rich"

 There are two problems with this statement: 1) leftists and statists are not the same thing and rarely believe the same things, and 2) this same author will go to great lengths to claim that leftists want to redistribute money away from the "job providers" (i.e. the super-rich). YOU CAN'T HAVE BOTH! The leftists can't both favor the super-rich AND want to take away their money.

   You need to chose how you want to demonize the other ideology (and thus playing into the hands of the status quo). Being inconsistent about demonizing the blue/red team means you are failing in your efforts to defend the status quo.

TrulyBelieving's picture

Ok midtowng, since you no doubt have great understanding as to what a leftist is and what a statist is and their differences are, please educate us the unwashed.

nmewn's picture

"2) this same author will go to great lengths to claim that leftists want to redistribute money away from the "job providers" (i.e. the super-rich)."

Ok, you've clearly been drinking.

My wife is not "super-rich" or I wouldn't be working still providing the bulk of the income and she wouldn't be driving a six year old car...although she did just hire sombody last week.

So far you're 0 for 2 midtowng, unless you want to pull forward "ists" ;-)

F. Bastiat's picture

Regarding "socialists" at least, Igor Shafarevich wrote the seminal works on the subject. As documented by Shafarevich in "Socialism in our Past and Future" and "The Socialist Phenomenon", there are three main activities of all "socialists" engaged in "socialism":

1. Attacking private property
2. Attacking the family
3. Attacking Christianity

At least that much we can all agree on.

I am Jobe's picture

Must find ways to stave the beast. If enough folks stand up it will be done. I am afraid the country is too Narcissistic  and divided over which IPHONE app and/or the color of their cars.

F. Bastiat's picture

Cut off my cable service and got rid of my TV six years ago; one of the best decisions I've made.  It all adds up.

Shizzmoney's picture

Article today in the Boston Globe details this more, and how my generation (18-35) has basically become a band of hard working, low income earning, indebted renters.

You know why we aren't buying houses Ben, Barack and Mitt?


ElvisDog's picture

Yep, I'm sorry to say but except for a few lucky winners of the job lottery your generation will be known as the "Generation $9 an hour".

LetThemEatRand's picture

Who could have predicted that saddling the young with trillions in non-dischargeable student loans would have a long-term negative effect on the economy?  

LetThemEatRand's picture

The problem with you guys is that you simply refuse to accept that this was intentional.  A lot of people became (and are still becoming) wealthy in the student loan racket.  They knew the endgame and they didn't care.   Do you think Mozillo didn't know that housing prices would collapse one day?   Economic theory is fun.  Economic reality is that the oligarchs you want to put in charge of the world will set it on fire if there's profit in it.

nmewn's picture

I'm pretty sure Mozillo is not an adherent to Mises or Hayek...more of a Krugman or Keynes.

LetThemEatRand's picture

None of the above. He was an adherent to how much money Mozillo could make regardless of the damage he would cause in the process.  This is where you guys just completely miss the point.  


Of course he was a trickle down guy.  Here's a quote from Mozilo in 2004: "I must admit that the upcoming election has exacerbated my concerns in that a Kerry win could cause a serious disruption in the economy if he is successful in rolling back a substantial portion of the tax breaks initiated by Bush. It is the wage earners $200,000 and over that are the drivers of the economy and that is the group that Kerry has stated that he will attack. This could clearly cause a major bump in the road."

nmewn's picture

"He was an adherent to how much money Mozillo could make regardless of the damage he would cause in the process."

Mozillo was/is a parasite who was paid (mostly) in stock options. If you think I'm going to defend the compensation committie of Countrywide or Mozillo you have rocks in your head.

But to your point, no one working at the counter in a Starbucks can afford to hire anyone...and when did "rich" become anyone making 200k?...stop with the class warfare crap.

LetThemEatRand's picture



Ironically, many of the people currently working at Starbucks are there because the oligarchs have destroyed small businesses and manufacturing in the West, leaving fewer and fewer business owners and builders of things, and more and more baristas, greeters, stockers, waiters, etc.

F. Bastiat's picture

Unleashing American prosperity is as simple as eliminating the EPA and the IRS.  Along with the Department of "Interior". Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments would be good, too.

LetThemEatRand's picture

If only Rick Perry had been able to remember the third one....

prole's picture

Was it the elimidation of the division of paid Trolls on the internets?

GMadScientist's picture

Because everyone knows corporations use the money they don't pay in taxes to create jobs instead of granting larger bonuses or buying gold toilets!

Because EPA "regulations" (pointless bureaucratic wristslaps, at best) are "stifling" the economy?

Tell us:

Precisely what kind of GDP boost could we expect from a complete dismantling of the EPA?

What new industries could be formed with the EPA gone?

What kind of job growth would be "unleashed"?

(aside from waste reclamation centers...oh wait, you won't even need those...just find a pond or a ditch)


Harbanger's picture

The purpose of a business is to produce, not to create jobs.  Jobs are a consequence of productive growth.  Redistribution is not growth, it's stagnation.  If you haven't noticed, your ideology is melting down right before your eyes.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You have it exactly backwards.  Businesses are producing more than ever.  They are pratically making shit for free in China.   The CEOs of the big companies are making more money than ever before in history.   Supply side economics does not work.  It never has.  It never will.  The proof is before our eyes, yet ideologically blind individuals like you line up and say we need to give more to the wealthy as the solution.  Look at the graphs in this article.

Harbanger's picture

I can't understand why you care how much $ they pay the CEO (employee that can be fired), or how much he rips off a company.  If they "shareholders" accept it, they deserve it.  That's why certain businesses need to fail. 

"we need to give more to the wealthy as the solution"  Not at all.  All forms of social/corporate welfare are failing. 

Colonial Intent's picture

This free market global capitalism you espouse, any idea on a timeline for implementation?

Coz what we got now is not a free market, even i can see its rigged, clear out the corruption and it would be worth trying, same goes for the state apparatus.

ZeroGovt for president!

NidStyles's picture

You're just a fucking moron. We can fix weak, but sorry there's no cure for stupid, so you're screwed.

TrulyBelieving's picture

Up to your word tricks again lettemeatrand. No one in their right mind would want to give the rich more. Just sayin all have the right to keep what they earned, rich or poor or whatever. When will you lose your arrogance and agree that no man has the right to take from a fellow human to give to yourself or your cronies? And no govt has the right to collude with any business to set rules and regulations designed to destroy competition for that business. No govt has the right to create illegal agencies designed to stifle business thru regulation. So get off your big govt will fix all and just leave us alone to make a living. We dont need you or your big govt ideas.

GMadScientist's picture

So then what's the point of reducing their taxes? So they can "produce" more things that noone can afford to buy?

And tell me...what exactly do the TBTF "produce"?

(countdown to backpedaling "that's not what I mean by business" bandini in 3...2..1...)



jwoop66's picture

You're getting it, maybe, rand.   The oligarchs are the state.  Statism, in whatever form is Bad.    Statism destroys small and big business.   

Embrace the Constitution and the free market!     Small Govt!!


Strangely enough, I'm agreeing with most posts and Aziz on this one.   Cumbayfuckinya!

nmewn's picture



Is that so?

The government implements "public policy" and regulates that policy and someone with a manipulative mind takes personal advantage of that policy (again, all under the watchful eye of regulators) but it's only the "manipulator" who stands pilloried?

Just a theory ;-)

Matt's picture

You need $1 Million to open a new MacDonald's so you can employ people with some minimum wage jobs.

But really, this whole 99% vs 1% thing is nonsense when you see that most of the 1% are doctors, people who own small businesses, etc. 

Rich and Wealthy are two different things. Rich is having enough money to own a business or retire when you want. Wealthy is having so much money, your unborn grandchildren are gauranteeed to never have to work a day in their lives.

LetThemEatRand's picture

The brilliance of the oligarchs is that they have defined the class warfare in the manner you just described (e.g., anyone who is struggling, fighting against doctors and lawyers).  400 people in the U.S. control more wealth than half the population combined.  That is where the class warfare is real.  Yet guys like Mozilo always define the warfare as $200K and up versus everyone else.  That is code for $200M and up.

F. Bastiat's picture

Only a dyed-in-wool marxist uses terms like oligarch, plutocrat, and proletariat.

LetThemEatRand's picture

when you have absolutely nothing intelligent to say to defend your ideology against facts that contradict it, call the other guy a Marxist.   Well played.

F. Bastiat's picture

Class warfare, which is your schtik, is the primary tenet of marxism.  A 3rd grader could take your class warfare rhetoric and conclude that you're a marxist.

It's really not that difficult.

LetThemEatRand's picture

You are right, a typical third grader would be expected to employ your logic.

prole's picture

But you are a Marxist, and as far as stating facts, you have never stated one single fact on this board. All you have ever done is your slow-burn damage control for the state. You worship the state, and you hate loath and revile private enterprise and the free market (and individual liberty in general)

Who is the state? It is you Comrade!

GMadScientist's picture

Somehow people with the word 'Marxist' taped over their eyes never have difficulty seeing things as Marxist.

Reagan was a Marxist.