A Warning on Income Inequality, From Wall Str

[White Crane Feather]

I aint going to try to refute it, but its basic premise that wealth inequality doesn't matter runs counter to all the economic evidence. Its as simple as that so I don't think theres anything to refute in his essential point.

He can doggedly hold to his opinion all he like, but it doesn't make it true.

Br Cornelius

Dosnt matter to whom? What evidence? My assertions are not my own. It's what every first your economics or business student learns. Yes there are inequalities and it sucks for somone to be poor, -----I know I have been poor all my life until the investments I made in myself and the one that the government wisely made in me a pell grant ( Opportunity for education for young people is the one of the few entitlements I believe in) came to fruit about ten years ago. ----

The only thing I see perceived inequalities good for is envy. Poverty in America has nothing to do with income inequality. It's a socioeconomic problem stemming from certain localized cultural issues, and the simple fact that human beings follow bell curve shaped averages of productive behavior.

In the US, you can go to college and find a decent job or start a business if you really want to. Unfortunately you will have to give up a lot of free time, partying, watching television, playing video games, iPhones, tablets etc etc etc. You may have to work for crap while you do it, and you may have to eat top ramen over rice for weeks at a time. ( mix eggs in with it like i used to), but its here. Why people are so busy complaining instead of makeing changes for themselves is beyond me...... Oh wait I actually do know why.

I would like to see some evidence how this perceived income inequality has damaged the economy. Examples please? Once you understand economics you will understand that wealth is created not transferred. The "rich" are not stealing more and more money from everyone else. They are creating more value for everyone else. It's the only way they get rich. The things that the rich can do to damage an economy are already mostly illegal. It just has to be enforced properly. This is a different challenge.

[Guest]

Dosnt matter to whom? What evidence? My assertions are not my own. It's what every first your economics or business student learns. Yes there are inequalities and it sucks for somone to be poor, -----I know I have been poor all my life until the investments I made in myself and the one that the government wisely made in me a pell grant ( Opportunity for education for young people is the one of the few entitlements I believe in) came to fruit about ten years ago. ----

The only thing I see perceived inequalities good for is envy. Poverty in America has nothing to do with income inequality. It's a socioeconomic problem stemming from certain localized cultural issues, and the simple fact that human beings follow bell curve shaped averages of productive behavior.

In the US, you can go to college and find a decent job or start a business if you really want to. Unfortunately you will have to give up a lot of free time, partying, watching television, playing video games, iPhones, tablets etc etc etc. You may have to work for crap while you do it, and you may have to eat top ramen over rice for weeks at a time. ( mix eggs in with it like i used to), but its here. Why people are so busy complaining instead of makeing changes for themselves is beyond me...... Oh wait I actually do know why.

I would like to see some evidence how this perceived income inequality has damaged the economy. Examples please? Once you understand economics you will understand that wealth is created not transferred. The "rich" are not stealing more and more money from everyone else. They are creating more value for everyone else. It's the only way they get rich. The things that the rich can do to damage an economy are already mostly illegal. It just has to be enforced properly. This is a different challenge.

Watch the vid I posted and then read the research papers. There are plenty of peer reviewed pieces of research which demonstrate clear correlations between income inequality and multiple societal dysfunctions. Its a choice that people make to not do anything about that and live in a society which is inturn socially dysfunctional. There is equally a body of economic research which shows that GDP suffers when income inequality is large.

People (with qualifications) have been studying this for decades and the evidence is clear. A first year economics degree will tell you how thinks work in an ideal world - not how they work out in reality.

Even the IMF acknowledges that when income inequality is high economic growth suffers;

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf

I will follow the evidence - not opinions.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[White Crane Feather]

Watch the vid I posted and then read the research papers. There are plenty of peer reviewed pieces of research which demonstrate clear correlations between income inequality and multiple societal dysfunctions. Its a choice that people make to not do anything about that and live in a society which is inturn socially dysfunctional. There is equally a body of economic research which shows that GDP suffers when income inequality is large.

People (with qualifications) have been studying this for decades and the evidence is clear. A first year economics degree will tell you how thinks work in an ideal world - not how they work out in reality.

Br Cornelius

I watched the video as you were probably typing. He was showing evidence of stress, health issues, mental illness etc etc etc. But not how incomes or economy's are damaged. So I guess I'm not understanding your argument. Are saying income inequality damages the economy and creates more poverty or are you saying its unhealthy. Living rich is very unhealthy. In many ways. He was not speaking about poverty or damage to economies, he was talking about consequences. I agree we all should just live in a wigwam and eat acorns, hunt, and fish. We would be healthier, happier, and live longer in peace.

But that's not reality either is it. I'm not going for a second to deni that making it in a business world dosnt have consequences.( How come he did not mention Japan and stress levels) It does. The entire point is that we can choose the consequences or not.

He also dosnt have a clue where violence comes from or where income equity actually comes from. As I have stated these are socioeconomic not because there are rich people here. It has nothing to do with inequality, it has nothing to do with opertunity because its all here in abundance for the takeing. We have severe cultural problems. He is also comparing countries that are the size of our smaller city's in terms of population. The Nordic countries have what about 5 mil a piece in population. The US has about 300 million people with extremely diverse histories, back grounds, and genetic liniag with a bumpy 270 or so year history still recovering from social problems from slavery, war, and a bazillion other things. Comparing the the countries is completely apples and oranges.

What he also fails to mention is that these "income equal" countries are heavily invested in the US, Sigapore, etc etc. Yes they actually are the rich guys of the global economy with only what 5 million people to support with extremely strict enforced immigration laws. Maybe we should tax them to help the rest of us. How likely do think Denmark is to open its boarders to Mexico?

Yes I am aware that academia dosnt always understand the real world. Uniquely so. I own my own business. The picture is so much larger than "income inequality." Those calling for "equality" are not doing it based on economic facts. The Poor in the US are the most overweight poor people on earth.

Edited August 12, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Jeremiah65]

I own my own business. The picture is so much larger than "income inequality." Those calling for "equality" are not doing it based on economic facts. The Poor in the US are the most overweight poor people on earth.

The bolded section is totally irrelevant to the conversation...that is bordering on ad hominem...

I lined this out before and I will say it again...cause why?...cause I am right...

If the people do not have disposable income, they cannot buy anything but the bare necessities. The ramifications for this becoming more and more prevalent is an ever diminishing GDP...less products being bought...less services being hired...which results in less employment...less money in the markets...down and down she goes...like a terd circling the toilet bowl.

I also own my own business. I am fortunate to be freelance and don't need employees...but I also know lots of associates that have employees.

If you pay a decent wage...you have a happier employee. He feels his efforts have meaning. He can go home...proud of the effort he put forth that day. He gets to the house, tells his wife to skip the heat of the kitchen, he's taking her out for dinner and a movie. They get in the new car they bought...have dinner, grab a movie and as they walk back to their car, they window shop for new furniture and appliances.

THIS was the USA about 25 to 30 years ago...wanna know what happened? Greedy b@stards...that's what happened. But...they are in effect scr*wing themselves...as they push the envelope of how little they can get away with paying...there is less money to buy the garbage they are now importing from Asia...

What goes around comes around.

I am not at all demanding a higher minimum wage...I am speaking out against greed. Pay a decent wage...don't wait on a GOV mandate to do the right thing in the long run.

Edited August 12, 2014 by Jeremiah65

[Guest]

The bolded section is totally irrelevant to the conversation...that is bordering on ad hominem...

I lined this out before and I will say it again...cause why?...cause I am right...

If the people do not have disposable income, they cannot buy anything but the bare necessities. The ramifications for this becoming more and more prevalent is an ever diminishing GDP...less products being bought...less services being hired...which results in less employment...less money in the markets...down and down she goes...like a terd circling the toilet bowl.

I also own my own business. I am fortunate to be freelance and don't need employees...but I also know lots of associates that have employees.

If you pay a decent wage...you have a happier employee. He feels his efforts have meaning. He can go home...proud of the effort he put forth that day. He gets to the house, tells his wife to skip the heat of the kitchen, he's taking her out for dinner and a movie. They get in the new car they bought...have dinner, grab a movie and as they walk back to their car, they window shop for new furniture and appliances.

THIS was the USA about 25 to 30 years ago...wanna know what happened? Greedy b@stards...that's what happened. But...they are in effect scr*wing themselves...as they push the envelope of how little they can get away with paying...there is less money to buy the garbage they are now importing from Asia...

What goes around comes around.

I am not at all demanding a higher minimum wage...I am speaking out against greed. Pay a decent wage...don't wait on a GOV mandate to do the right thing in the long run.

Your counter to White Crane says it all really. Sure there are economic consequences and there is economic research to prove it.

At this stage White Crane is just repeating Neo-Liberal dogma without any contextual analysis.

And White Crane - each of those social consequences has a direct economic cost (loss of life, costs of supporting illegitimate children, increased health care costs, etc etc etc) and the talk clearly highlighted this.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[Gromdor]

That's not the way it works. You can cry all you want, but actions is what moves the market. The employer will raise his wage when his low wage does not attract enough employees or the quality of employee that he needs to conduct business. This is how we Acheive equilibriums through choices not crying.

My guess is that there are not a lot of minumum wage earners engaged in political and economic manipulation. Those people tend to make a bit more using emotion instead of reason.

I disagree. Actions happen by crying just as much as by reason. And the free market- especially the stock market is extremely emotion driven.

[danielost]

I disagree. Actions happen by crying just as much as by reason. And the free market- especially the stock market is extremely emotion driven.

only at.h a gun to your had does crying get things done.

[Jeremiah65]

I disagree. Actions happen by crying just as much as by reason. And the free market- especially the stock market is extremely emotion driven.

Well....

The truth is, we don't really have a free market. Pretty sure most of us that consider themselves to be liberty minded realize this. The markets are now controlled by corporations, their lobbyists, the politicians they bought and their cronies on down the line. Regulations for the sake of "regulating away" your competition is not free markets. Laws telling people what they can and cannot buy...what they can put in or take out of their body...is not free markets.

Free markets only work when they are really free...and in today's world...they are not. Look out at the world in rose colored glasses if people must...but what they perceive is not what really is.

[Guest]

Well....

The truth is, we don't really have a free market. Pretty sure most of us that consider themselves to be liberty minded realize this. The markets are now controlled by corporations, their lobbyists, the politicians they bought and their cronies on down the line. Regulations for the sake of "regulating away" your competition is not free markets. Laws telling people what they can and cannot buy...what they can put in or take out of their body...is not free markets.

Free markets only work when they are really free...and in today's world...they are not. Look out at the world in rose colored glasses if people must...but what they perceive is not what really is.

Though I agree with your general sentiment, the reality is any statement about the Free market is fantasy economics and wishful thinking. there never was and never has been a free market as such so what one would look like is pure speculation on our parts.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[White Crane Feather]

The bolded section is totally irrelevant to the conversation...that is bordering on ad hominem...

I lined this out before and I will say it again...cause why?...cause I am right...

If the people do not have disposable income, they cannot buy anything but the bare necessities. The ramifications for this becoming more and more prevalent is an ever diminishing GDP...less products being bought...less services being hired...which results in less employment...less money in the markets...down and down she goes...like a terd circling the toilet bowl.

I also own my own business. I am fortunate to be freelance and don't need employees...but I also know lots of associates that have employees.

If you pay a decent wage...you have a happier employee. He feels his efforts have meaning. He can go home...proud of the effort he put forth that day. He gets to the house, tells his wife to skip the heat of the kitchen, he's taking her out for dinner and a movie. They get in the new car they bought...have dinner, grab a movie and as they walk back to their car, they window shop for new furniture and appliances.

THIS was the USA about 25 to 30 years ago...wanna know what happened? Greedy b@stards...that's what happened. But...they are in effect scr*wing themselves...as they push the envelope of how little they can get away with paying...there is less money to buy the garbage they are now importing from Asia...

What goes around comes around.

I am not at all demanding a higher minimum wage...I am speaking out against greed. Pay a decent wage...don't wait on a GOV mandate to do the right thing in the long run.

Yes.... All what you said us true. This is capitalism. The companies you mentioned will not higher quality people because quality people will not put up with it and ultimately they will not succeed and the competitors the were smarter how they treated people will do better. All of what you said seems sound to me. That us of course unless you vote to bail them out. Then nothing changes.

[White Crane Feather]

Your counter to White Crane says it all really. Sure there are economic consequences and there is economic research to prove it.

At this stage White Crane is just repeating Neo-Liberal dogma without any contextual analysis.

And White Crane - each of those social consequences has a direct economic cost (loss of life, costs of supporting illegitimate children, increased health care costs, etc etc etc) and the talk clearly highlighted this.

Br Cornelius

No argument with you there. But it's not caused by what you are suggesting its caused by. Your evidence in the video did not address the real issues. Nor do they even understand the fundamentals of how and why we tax people, how a fiat economy really works. There is such a large gap in understanding basic economics here and hyper fixating on a perceived problem. Yes American poor are very well fed. I wasn't attacking anyone's credibility or character, I was pointing out that they are well fed compared to true poor people of the world. The standard for what is poverty and not poverty in most of the states would be rich in many other countries.

I'm still waiting for your evidence. You have presented nothing but a comparison of countries that are very very different places using data points to make all kinds if assumptive correlations. One of the first things you learn in any research class is that correlation is not causation. I used to Tudor statistics in college, his graphs are junk as evidence. . He even keeps saying it over and over again that they are not cherry picking data, its obvious its receiving a lot criticism so he has a defensive posture.

Let me ask you something. Where to you think a billionaire's wealth sits, comes from, and what does it do?

Edited August 12, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Guest]

No argument with you there. But it's not caused by what you are suggesting its caused by. Your evidence in the video did not address the real issues. Nor do they even understand the fundamentals of how and why we tax people, how a fiat economy really works. There is such a large gap in understanding basic economics here and hyper fixating on a perceived problem. Yes American poor are very well fed. I wasn't attacking anyone's credibility or character, I was pointing out that they are well fed compared to true poor people of the world. The standard for what is poverty and not poverty in most of the states would be rich in many other countries.

I'm still waiting for your evidence. You have presented nothing but a comparison of countries that are very very different places using data points to make all kinds if assumptive correlations. One of the first things you learn in any research class is that correlation is not causation. I used to Tudor statistics in college, his graphs are junk as evidence. . He even keeps saying it over and over again that they are not cherry picking data, its obvious its receiving a lot criticism so he has a defensive posture.

Let me ask you something. Where to you think a billionaire's wealth sits, comes from, and what does it do?

i told you to follow up on their research papers and gave you an IMF paper outlining the economic consequences. Your simply denying the research and the research clearly supports my statement - wealth inequality has negative economic and social consequences, absolute wealth (ie your poor but well fed Americans) doesn't have a relationship to these factors.

Since we are repeating ourselves and you don't seem willing to carry through with the research I will leave you with your dogma.

Your question in defence of the billionaire doesn't address the central question of tthe consequences of wealth inequality so it really isn't worth answering.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[White Crane Feather]

i told you to follow up on their research papers and gave you an IMF paper outlining the economic consequences. Your simply denying the research and the research clearly supports my statement - wealth inequality has negative economic and social consequences, absolute wealth (ie your poor but well fed Americans) doesn't have a relationship to these factors.

Since we are repeating ourselves and you don't seem willing to carry through with the research I will leave you with your dogma.

Your question in defence of the billionaire doesn't address the central question of tthe consequences of wealth inequality so it really isn't worth answering.

Br Cornelius

But it does. It so very important to understand that the wealth of a corporation and is operations are very important to the prosperity of a country. ( granted we keep a close eye on them and actually enforce our laws, which is a different issue)

I have read tons of papers on both sides. Inequality has always been a topic, but its the fad of the day to blame the economic down turn on the "rich and greedy" and Jump back onto the long dead horse that was buried in the sixties. His presentation was nothing new and full of faulty comparisons.

Look I have driven all over this country, visited towns, sat with people from all walks of life. The inner cities are very bad, but starting to get better do to massive corporate sponsorship from places like intel, google, apple, but everywhere else It's not that bad. It's very diverse and comes with a lot of problems, but all in all, most kids have their shots, can go to college if they want to, and if they try hard can have amazing careers in any field that they choose. Certain socioeconomic cultures prevent certain groups of at risk kids from takeing advantage if it, but by and large we do alright. This extreme jealousy aimed at our extremely successful is unwarranted and unsupported. If It were I would call it as I see it.

As it is, the currant movement is a political device to support an emotional position. In the end it will damage the middle class and achieve just the oposite of what it seeks. The US will never be a Denmark, but those us us the know better will do everything to stop it from becoming a china or Russia. Buy the way we already pay just as much in taxes as they do, offer free health care to those that need it. What else do you think it's going to accomplish. A sense of entitlement is not going to get us anywhere. I'd bet that even in the Nordic countries that don't have such an attitude. It's been awhile since I used to do country reports for all the VPs for an asset Managment firm, but I'm willing to bet contribution is a big part of their culture.

[Guest]

I will take the research over your opinion. Sorry but that just my evidence based approach.

The factors you list are simply aspects of the consequences of not addressing income inequality on a systematic level, classic blaming the poor for been poor. Not enlightening and not significantly baring on the issue.

When American income inequality was at its lowest 1950-1970 GDP growth was at its highest. When policy driven income inequality took hold after that GDP fell and has remained relatively low ever since. I am simply not going to bite on your dogma position.

In the same period over across the pond the UK vs Germany has seen a consistent correlation between higher GDP for Germany with its lower differential vs lower GDP for the UK with its consistently higher inequality. The german economy has weathered massive economic storms over the post war period and has consistently performed better than the UK economy - all whilst maintaining a degree of equality which makes the "social economy" the best performing one in Europe, meanwhile the UK flounders from one crisis to another with poor investment and an inability to set and achieve its economic goals. What does this tell us - that the assumption that high income players are the main drivers of growth cannot be taken as a fact and to base an economic model on this "supply side theory" is not evidence based.

You really have provided nothing other than your opinion here.

Here's a nice challenge - find me a single research paper which shows that income inequality greater than 5:1 creates a positive correlation with growth ? Should be easy if its so beneficial.

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[White Crane Feather]

I will take the research over your opinion. Sorry but that just my evidence based approach.

The factors you list are simply aspects of the consequences of not addressing income inequality on a systematic level, classic blaming the poor for been poor. Not enlightening and not significantly baring on the issue.

When American income inequality was at its lowest 1950-1970 GDP growth was at its highest. When policy driven income inequality took hold after that GDP fell and has remained relatively low ever since. I am simply not going to bite on your dogma position.

In the same period over across the pond the UK vs Germany has seen a consistent correlation between higher GDP for Germany with its lower differential vs lower GDP for the UK with its consistently higher inequality. The german economy has weathered massive economic storms over the post war period and has consistently performed better than the UK economy - all whilst maintaining a degree of equality which makes the "social economy" the best performing one in Europe, meanwhile the UK flounders from one crisis to another with poor investment and an inability to set and achieve its economic goals.

You really have provided nothing other than your opinion here.

Here's a nice challenge - find me a single research paper which shows that income inequality greater than 5:1 creates a positive correlation with growth ? Should be easy if its so beneficial.

Br Cornelius

Ill see what I can do, but your still making the same old mistake. correlation is not causation. It could very well be the opposite. During times of strong economic circumstances everyone was more wealthy, so GDP went up. You are trying to paint a symptom as a cause... This is a huge mistake.

Would you mind if I start with the basics first to show that correlation many times has nothing to do with causation. If you think you have indentifed cause based on what correlates, you and who ever wrote a paper like that is in serious statistical trouble.

And no... There are many poor that are poor because of serious socioeconomic/cultural problems. Some people are born into a culture of hopelessness. This is what we have to address very strongly.

Edited August 12, 2014 by White Crane Feather

[Guest]

In complex systems it is often impossible to definitively show cause and correlation - but when a consistent trend is seen - even within the same economy (ie the USA) its starts to be a very difficult case to prove there is no relationship. If we want to show that there is another relationship - then it beholds you to demonstrate it and show that it is a more credible explanation than that presented by the economics consensus. You haven't even come close to establishing a likely cause as yet and it is you who are attributing consequences as causes in this case.

the simple reality for America is that income growth for the majority has stagnated since 1980 with debt to income ratios massively expanding. Coupled to this is weak economic growth with a series of asset bubbles causing massive harm to the general economy. meanwhile the richest 10% have seen a 100% rise in income over the same period - they are not driving economic activity in any favourable way as your theory would claim.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

In a new examination of rising income disparity, the ratings agency Standard & Poor's says that current inequality levels are hindering U.S. economic growth, and the firm has cut its forecast accordingly.

"Standard & Poor's sees extreme income inequality as a drag on long-run economic growth," the report says. "We've reduced our 10-year U.S. growth forecast to a 2.5 percent rate. We expected 2.8 percent five years ago."

S&P looked at data from several major institutions, citing, for example, Congressional Budget Office figures on after-tax average income. For the top 1 percent of earners, that income rose 15.1 percent from 2009 to 2010; for the bottom 90 percent, income rose by less than 1 percent, "and fell for many other income groups." One of the primary, negative consequences of high income imbalances is that they lead to "economic swings" and boom-and-bust cycles, a la the Great Recession, according to the report. But another big problem, to which S&P economists devoted much of the report, is the effect of inequality on educational achievement and, by extension, earnings potential.

http://www.ibtimes.c...-growth-1649850

Lack of educational opportunity hitting social mobility and holding back economic growth. How many eminent bodies are you prepared to disagree with here ?

Another analysis pinpoint how rising income inequality directly hurts the markets, worth reading in full;

Rising income inequality reduces demand. It does so in two ways. First, it directly forces down the consumption share of GDP, and second, it reduces productive investment by reducing, as Eccles says, “the kind of effective demand for their products that would justify a reinvestment of their capital accumulations in new plants.”

Both of these factors are evident in the economy of the last 30 years.

http://carnegieendow...come-inequality

Br Cornelius

Edited August 12, 2014 by Guest

[White Crane Feather]

In complex systems it is often impossible to definitively show cause and correlation - but when a consistent trend is seen - even within the same economy (ie the USA) its starts to be a very difficult case to prove there is no relationship. If we want to show that there is another relationship - then it beholds you to demonstrate it and show that it is a more credible explanation than that presented by the economics consensus. You haven't even come close to establishing a likely cause as yet and it is you who are attributing consequences as causes in this case.

the simple reality for America is that income growth for the majority has stagnated since 1980 with debt to income ratios massively expanding. Coupled to this is weak economic growth with a series of asset bubbles causing massive harm to the general economy. meanwhile the richest 10% have seen a 100% rise in income over the same period - they are not driving economic activity in any favourable way as your theory would claim.

Br Cornelius

Sigh.... I said you already . The smart corporations and people know better. They picked up the pieces.

This created more demand which brought up everyone else's equity in the clean up. The increase in wealth starts after the problem, not before it. I explained what happened with the down turn. Of course during good times they are profiting as well.

Can you show or even have a simple line of logic how income inequality causes economic down turn? Or is it all based on whimsical correlations?

And you never answered my question. You dodged it. Where do you think wealth comes from? Without this basic understanding how do you even begin to understand how to evaluate information?

[Guest]

Sigh.... I said you already . The smart corporations and people know better. They picked up the pieces.

This created more demand which brought up everyone else's equity in the clean up. The increase in wealth starts after the problem, not before it. I explained what happened with the down turn. Of course during good times they are profiting as well.

Can you show or even have a simple line of logic how income inequality causes economic down turn? Or is it all based on whimsical correlations?

And you never answered my question. You dodged it. Where do you think wealth comes from? Without this basic understanding how do you even begin to understand how to evaluate information?

I suggest you read http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/23/economic-consequences-of-income-inequality to understand your error.

every time there is an asset crash the same wealthy people increase their wealth by hoovering up the pieces - each cycle increases the wealth inequality more and leaves the majority with more accumulated debt. this is exactly what has happened post 2008.

I suggest you stop sighing and start doing some of the reading i pointed you to.

As of yet all you have offered is your opinion - which i am not impressed by, but i'll give you that you are persistent in your error.

Br Cornelius

[White Crane Feather]

I suggest you read http://carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/23/economic-consequences-of-income-inequality to understand your error.

every time there is an asset crash the same wealthy people increase their wealth by hoovering up the pieces - each cycle increases the wealth inequality more and leaves the majority with more accumulated debt. this is exactly what has happened post 2008.

I suggest you stop sighing and start doing some of the reading i pointed you to.

As of yet all you have offered is your opinion - which i am not impressed by, but i'll give you that you are persistent in your error.

Br Cornelius

Well actually Cornelius you just proved my point. The economic down turn was not caused by the wealthy they just profited off of it. No surprise there, I told you they were smart thats why they are wealthy... Those that did not set themselves up to be hammered actually benefitted from the demand they participated in. But what you are failing to grasp is there is not a pie that everyone gets a slice of in a fiat economy. It dosnt work that way. Someone else being wealthy dies not take a chunk of potential from anyone else. This is why I keep asking you how wealth is created. Notice I say created.... Not taken. The smart and wealthy actually helped to reboot the system. Without that we might still be in the dredges.

[Guest]

Well actually Cornelius you just proved my point. The economic down turn was not caused by the wealthy they just profited off of it. No surprise there, I told you they were smart thats why they are wealthy... Those that did not set themselves up to be hammered actually benefitted from the demand they participated in. But what you are failing to grasp is there is not a pie that everyone gets a slice of in a fiat economy. It dosnt work that way. Someone else being wealthy dies not take a chunk of potential from anyone else. This is why I keep asking you how wealth is created. Notice I say created.... Not taken. The smart and wealthy actually helped to reboot the system. Without that we might still be in the dredges.

So it shows that the economy continually favours the rich and that has made the poor and middle class stagnate whilst asset prices have been driven upwatds by the rich. That has consequences for the whole economy and is a direct consequence of income inequality. The argument that fiat money can continually expand to allow the total wealth to grow is just bogus since the on the ground reality is that only the rich have seen significant growth in wealth whilst real average people have seen their incomes contract at exactly the same time.

Its not about blaming the rich (which is unproductive ultimately) - its about facing up to a situation which is unsustainable because more people are becoming poorer each year and this is killing the greater economy.

Br Cornelius

[White Crane Feather]

So it shows that the economy continually favours the rich and that has made the poor and middle class stagnate whilst asset prices have been driven upwatds by the rich. That has consequences for the whole economy and is a direct consequence of income inequality. The argument that fiat money can continually expand to allow the total wealth to grow is just bogus since the on the ground reality is that only the rich have seen significant growth in wealth whilst real average people have seen their incomes contract at exactly the same time.

Its not about blaming the rich (which is unproductive ultimately) - its about facing up to a situation which is unsustainable because more people are becoming poorer each year and this is killing the greater economy.

Br Cornelius

It expands and it contracts. there were many "rich" people made poor by the recession. The super rich are going to stay that way. But they don't stick their money under their mattresses they own companies that employ the middle class and nearly all of them are publicly owned. That's right public. Their wealth is our wealth. Emotional rhetoric will not change that. There is a reason why we produce the apples and googles of the world. And I'll say again the Nordic countries and their citizens are smart and heavily invested in US company's. your way of thinking would destroy much of that. Income inequality is not what you think is primarily because people have a nieve view of what money actually is and what it does.

Stealing from the rich is a bad bad idea. It will ruin what what made the US prosperous in the first place. If I were to post a graph showing the creation of entitlements and GDP over time what do you think a more country specific graph would look like. It's simple economics again. If you take money out if the economy via taxes you create unemployment. The scary part is that people actually think the federal government will take from the rich and actually give to the poor like a fantasy Robin Hood. We all know it will not happen that way.

Your heart is in the right place though. We all want better for people, but its completely delusional to think that higher taxes will benefit the poor it will only further erode the middle class and stifle future growth, send more business to India and elsewhere. People don't realize it but many of our largest employers of the middle class already have a toe out the door waiting for the the word of what you propose then proof they are gone if it happens. Let me tell you these companies do not pay minimum wage.

Any we both want the same thing. That's some common ground anyway.

[danielost]

The government should stay out of business, it doesn't understand it nor does it care. The job of government is to enforce laws , not make them, at least here in the USA . Obama is even more out of his element than any other president. He is use to government answering everything, but it can't.

[White Crane Feather]

The government should stay out of business, it doesn't understand it nor does it care. The job of government is to enforce laws , not make them, at least here in the USA . Obama is even more out of his element than any other president. He is use to government answering everything, but it can't.

Indeed his office is supposed to be a shield not a scepter.

[Gromdor]

I hate to say it, but our government is a business. A badly run one at that. It takes in revenue and provides services.

Here is a list of reasons why government and regulations have to exist for "free market capitalism" to exist btw: http://www.governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=13

Edited August 13, 2014 by Gromdor