If Google weren't afraid of "monopoly" accusations — and the resulting regulatory scrutiny — and started treating Yahoo! as a real competitor, Ms. Mayer's company would've gone the way of Radio Shack and Woolworth years ago.

I suppose, it is good for the rest of us while it lasts, but the moment Yahoo! actually does start performing (if that ever happens), Google may decide to take the gloves of...

Oct 1929 through 1940, when the war effort began really rolling. So FDR had nothing to do with it.

But was the high level of stratification due to "trickle down" at all? Or, maybe, the policy does not really have anything to do with the wealth-consolidation you decry?

What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"?

It actually didn't really start until the 80s, and if you'll recall, that era was prefaced by several recessions and double digit inflation in the 70s, a similar stoppage of wealth growth as in the 30s.

So, things were bad before the "trickle down" started? Is that what you are saying?

Just perhaps that was the stated economic policy of the Reps as they rolled back taxes on the wealthy?

If it really was "the stated policy", where is your link to the statement?

the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.

Higher taxes on the rich mean their wealth growth rate is slowed, as the flow in is slowed.

Not necessarily — it depends on how those "higher taxes" are spent. If, for example, they are given back to them (think Solyndra or Tesla motors), it may be the exact opposite.

In 2009 the top 50% of income-tax payers paid 97.75% of the total tax. Do you suppose, the bottom 50% could pay much less than 2.25% — and would it help them, even if it could be arranged?

So, as suspected, you don't have any substantiation to your claim, that the "top 1%" impoverishes everybody else. Class warfare much?

Red-herring - the last several presidents can be shown to be both

It is not "red herring" because that's what this sub-thread is all about — when JDAustin pointed out, Obama failed to reign-in overly invasive police, an "insightful" AC countered with "trickle down economics" (which was a false "red herring" of its own, of course).

Because otherwise we'd have that paragon of politics Palin instead of Biden to make fun of?

Sarah Palin made no obvious mistakes — in fact, she anticipated Putin invasion into Crimea. Joe Biden, on the other hand, was beyond mockery from day one -1: when he claimed, that "we, along with France kicked Hezbolla out of Lebanon". Show me anything comparably stupid from Sarah Palin, I dare you...

Or perhaps that ever American loving Romney, as long as you're not 1 in 2 Americans?

I don't care, whether President loves me — I'd find it outright creepy if he did. I want him to effectively execute policy I find agreeable. Obama's only saving graces come from his failing to execute some of his disastrous plans.

Reps killed their own chances in 2008.

Whatever killed their chances (somehow vastly more people knew, what Palin spent on wardrobe than that Biden was once caught plagiarizing), it was to the detriment to the country.

Me too!

tell me how we are one iota better off today with the democrat in the White House.

Your justifiable disappointment in both parties leads you to renouncing both of them equally, which is not justifiable in the slightest.

Had a Republican won, we would've still been capturing enemies to be held in Guantanamo — instead of simply killing them. Osama bin Laden would've been on trial, rather than fallen victim to extrajudicial killing .

Putin would not have dared to invade Ukraine. Gaddafi — who has made amends with US after seeing the capture of Saddam Hussein on TV — would've remained in charge of Lybia, instead of that country plunging into chaos. We wouldn't have left Iraq in such haste, which would've kept ISIS in check.

Domestically we would not have had the grossly unpopular Obamacare forced upon us with such vigor, most people — proponents and detractors alike — could not even understand the proposed law before the voting took place.

Republicans and Democrats are an inbred family, sleeping together for the past three generations.

Though the less principled "centrists" or "pragmatists" of the two parties do meet in the middle like stalactites and stalagmites, as those geological phenomena they too come from opposite ends.

Are you saying they could work? [...] My read of you is

I am saying, you need to subscribe to my newsletter.

Trickle-down economics is essentially saying let's dump all the money up top

Whose money? Who is to do the dumping?

This is what occurred in reality [...] upper 0.5 - 1% at levels not seen since the 1940s

In 1930-40-ies we were governed by an Illiberal icon — was FDR a proponent of "trickle down"? He certainly is not denounced as such by bashers of RethugliKKKans... What makes you think, the wealth-concentration you dislike so much in the second half of 20th century was due to "trickle down economics"? In fact, what makes you think, the policy was practiced at all — whatever effect it did or did not have on wealth-consolidation?

the top 1% is gathering it back quickly, impoverishing everyone else.

This statement implies fixed size "bucket" (which you just said is not the case) and zero-summed game — somebody's gain must be somebody else's loss, according to this logic.

What leads you to these conclusions and can you substantiate them?

Meanwhile, I can easily demonstrate, how the "hope and change" President turned out to be either incompetent or a fraud — and thus undeserving of the office, to which hysterical Illiberals have elected him — twice. My demonstration would solidly support JDAustin's comment while planing the "insightful" AC, who tried to muddle the waters with a (false) tu quoque...

But citations don't work.

That'd be all, thank you.

If only "hopey changey" remained as unobviously wrong — and perhaps even right — the trickle-down economics, which you seem to deride without any clear reasons or citations.

The default government stance is that these things are legal, until proven illegal

That sounds reasonable — it is certainly the stance, I'd like applied to me.

This default stance clearly indicates that our government is against its people.

Huh?! Why? Where? What is the "clear" indication of this antagonism?

We live in a police state.

We are certainly witnessing increasingly assertive police. But, as one well-moderated poster inquired in an earlier discussion: "If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?"

So, if — as seems to be /.'s overwhelming opinion — it is Ok to trust FCC to determine, what's "fair", why wouldn't we place the same trust in the FBI's sense of fairness?

Citations needed. Badly...

Well, how about Saudi Arabia and the Bush clan?

You alleged "exploitation" of poor people in other countries by US corporations. I asked for citations and you are replying with Saudi, Bush clan, and CIA?

That's not a citation — that's FUD. Which corporation, which country, when and how?

USA typically has a number of CIA agents working out of each of its embassies

Yes.

where they identify people who are advocating for workers rights and opposed to exploitation by the foreign corporations

Citations?

then help the oppressive dictatorships make such people disappear

Citations?

Didn't think so...

"Unless they ask the IRS to make you accountable to them"

There is a better way

I was referring to the use of the IRS as an anti-opposition weapon by a sitting President.

The problem with the banana republic governments that are kept in power by the US military

Off-topic. I was talking about corporations and government of the same country.

using the US military to "promote America's interests" - where "America's interests" are not freedom or democracy but instead the interests of a small number of rich Americans who stand to benefit from having their corporations exploit poor people in other countries

Citations needed. Badly...