Jump to content

Income Inequality


magisme

Recommended Posts

Well I can't read that top one. It looks like the Nile breaking off into its tributaries in the Nile Delta or summat.

As for the top 0.01% getting richer. .. money breeds money but it can be a curse. I mean look at the period of the Gfc. The average income of the top 0.01% halves to 20 million... obviously speaks volumes that this shits tied up in investments and their success being your income as opposed to some salary you put in hard graft for.

Edited by Johnny Drama
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could go into a long Lennyesque spiel on that but I'm on a phone :lol:

Please do. I'm playing dumb a bit here because I'd still like a conversation to kick off. I'd love to hear your thoughts, though.

Edit: I mean when you're not on the phone.

Edited by magisme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I think is interesting is that (from what I read just yesterday actually) is that the average bull market lasts 4.4 years, yet, as you said mags, we're coming up on year 6 with this one. The fact that it's becoming a significantly higher than average bull market I think could explain for why income gaps are growing - obviously, the rich are getting richer with a bull market, especially one that's lasting longer than it should.

edit: obviously that's not the only reason, but I'd say it's definitely a factor.

Edited by Mansin Humanity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The countries with the happiest and healthiest populations in the world tend to be those with the lowest levels of income inequality. The problem is the dominant economic model is based around profound levels of inequality, in the control of a very small, very rich group of people who have become remarkably good at hanging on to more money than a human being could ever possibly need and convincing everyone else that it is in fact their fault they are not in a similar position.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I highly recommend watching Robert Reich's documentary on the issue. Reich makes points that cannot be argued....not by anyone with any sense. (Or their own agenda).

It's available on Netflix. This is the trailer for it:

Edited by Kasanova King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. I read a bunch of his work in college. His heart is certainly in the right place, but if he's still harkening back to the days of strong labor unions, then I think he's barking up the wrong tree. We do not have an economy conducive to mass unionization anymore.

I haven't seen the doc, so I might be way off base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Reich doesn't have his own agenda? "Income inequality" and the politics of envy are a favorite strategy of the Left. Inequality “is the defining issue of our time” according to Obama. And yet the greatest income inequality in America is in the electoral precinct where Obama won his largest majority: Washington, D.C. What is he doing about it there?

So some people have more wealth and income than others. What's the problem? I'll keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. If you believe that you deserve some of what I earn, please explain why.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that the inequality is getting worse and worse, and at an increasing pace. You want to keep your cash? Fine. But the disparity will only go so far, and then it will snap back violently. And unless you're a multi-millionaire (maybe you are) you're getting fucked by monetary policy that has exactly jack shit to do with what people deserve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know. I read a bunch of his work in college. His heart is certainly in the right place, but if he's still harkening back to the days of strong labor unions, then I think he's barking up the wrong tree. We do not have an economy conducive to mass unionization anymore.

I haven't seen the doc, so I might be way off base.

Maybe in terms of "era" but the labor unions have little to do with what his overall points are.

So Reich doesn't have his own agenda? "Income inequality" and the politics of envy are a favorite strategy of the Left. Inequality “is the defining issue of our time” according to Obama. And yet the greatest income inequality in America is in the electoral precinct where Obama won his largest majority: Washington, D.C. What is he doing about it there?

So some people have more wealth and income than others. What's the problem? I'll keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. If you believe that you deserve some of what I earn, please explain why.

No, actually he doesn't anymore. The guy has long been retired from politics. The documentary is purely educational. You should watch it, maybe you'll learn something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we're being fucked by the current monetary policy, the Fed, QE, etc. And I'm all for abolishing the Fed and restoring a free market system. The irony is that those who are supposedly so concerned about "income inequality" are the very ones who defend the Fed's transfers of wealth to Wall Street, QE, etc.

Edited by foghat43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Reich doesn't have his own agenda? "Income inequality" and the politics of envy are a favorite strategy of the Left. Inequality “is the defining issue of our time” according to Obama. And yet the greatest income inequality in America is in the electoral precinct where Obama won his largest majority: Washington, D.C. What is he doing about it there?

So some people have more wealth and income than others. What's the problem? I'll keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. If you believe that you deserve some of what I earn, please explain why.

This doesn't address inequality of opportunity and generally leads to a distribution of resources which is grossly unbalanced. Those at the "bottom" of the inevitable pyramidal wealth distribution pattern created by a low-tax, low income economy generally (excluding conveniently anecdotal exceptions of self-made multi-millionaires, of whom there are very few) do not find their way out of it.

This idea that how much you earn is always proportional to how strong and smart you are, or hard you work is a pure myth. There is so much luck involved. Some people say "Life's not fair" and are fine with that, personally I find that view abhorrent and believe it leads to a divided, exploitative and unsustainably hedonistic society. The societies where those who earn more contribute more to the public domain generally see the benefits spreading through every stratum and sphere of society, making that community a stronger, happier, safer place to live with greater opportunities for children from all sorts of backgrounds to advance to their full potential (whatever that may be) rather than having their path in life decided by where and to whom they are born.

It just depends on your perspective, is it "Me first", or is it "All of us first"? Your post seems very concerned with the disadvantages to yourself, rather than the potential advantages to your society as a whole. Which kinda says it all.

Edited by Graeme
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The societies where those who earn more contribute more to the public domain generally see the benefits spreading through every strata and sphere of society, making that community a stronger, happier, safer place to live with greater opportunities for children from all sorts of backgrounds to advance to their full potential (whatever that may be) rather than having their path in life decided by where and to whom they are born.

It just depends on your perspective, is it "Me first", or is it "All of us first"? Your post seems very concerned with the disadvantages to yourself, rather than the potential advantages to your society as a whole. Which kinda says it all.

I have no problem with those who earn more contributing more as long as it is voluntary. I do have a problem with forced redistributions of wealth. And you have no idea whether I am a "me first" or an "all of us first" person. I personally believe that people do have a moral responsibility to contribute to their communities...I just don't believe that the State has the right to force people to do so. Libertarians believe in the promotion of prosperity, health, welfare, for all. We just believe that the best way to achieve that is through a free society rather than one based on coercion, threats, State intimidation, and violence. We have some of the same goals we just disagree on the best way to achieve those goals.

Edited by foghat43
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to have Graeme contribute to this discussion, as I believe he has an extensive background in economics. Always nice to contributions from people who have actually studied something extensively.

The problem of vast inequality can be viewed through many different lenses. Political, economic, social - there are many ways one could explain why inequality has grown substantially in the last thirty years. Probably the best book I've read that explains inequality from a political perspective is by Paul Pierson and Jacob Hacker, called "Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer - and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class." It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done. Hacker and Pierson talk a lot about policy drift, where political inaction allows the kind of conditions to enable accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. Doing nothing in the face of a changing economic reality can be just as damaging as doing something. It's not just a partisan problem either, as many Democrats can be "rented" on a particular issue. NY Senator Chuck Schumer has gone to bat for the banking and finance industry many times, helping many banking reform bills to die or be watered down. There are many other examples in the book of politicians who one would count on fighting the moneyed interests but who so often align their votes with whichever way the campaign dollars fall.

Also a problem from the political sphere is that of attention, particularly by the vested and the general populations. Most voters do not pay attention to the minutia of policy, but it's where lobbyists and well financed individuals thrive. A good example of this is the Tax Reform Act of 1986, where much public and political attention was paid to the tax code. Republicans were able to get the Democrats to go along with lowering the rates of income taxes in exchange for the elimination of tax loopholes that were often only used by corporations and the wealthy. Everyone gave themselves a pat on the back when President Reagan signed the legislation into law, but once the general public stopped paying attention, many of the loopholes that were originally eliminated were reinserted into the tax code through various appropriation bills. The moneyed interests, through lobbyists and campaign donations, are still around after the mass public stops paying attention. It's how capital-gains taxes, estate taxes, the carried interest loophole, etc., are slipped into or modified within the tax code without much fan fare or attention. These changes in tax policy have had a tremendous effect on inequality in the U.S.

I could write forever on this topic from the political perspective. But to save myself, I do recommend anyone interested in this kind of stuff to pick up Hacker and Pierson's book. I wouldn't consider it a partisan book, as the authors attack politicians from both parties.

Edited by downzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, its a function of debt based money. Eventually all assets will be own by a very small minority of people.

Dow-Jones-100-YR-Chart.jpg

:rofl-lol:

Chart starts in 1913. Na coincidence, conspiracy nut, anti-semite for pointing that out. :blink:

Except this trend doesn't exist in other countries with a central bank. Sweden has the Sveriges Riksbank, which has been around since the 17th century. Norway has the Norges Bank, which has existed since the early 19th century. Many countries who have central banks do not experience levels of inequality as seen in the United States. So to pin this the notion of a central bank that issues fiat money is incorrect.

Let's also acknowledge that inequality was rampant well before the creation of the FED. This is what gets me about libertarians, it's as history started in 1913. Are we so willing to ignore the Gilded Age, the robber barons, and the moneyed trusts of the late 19th and early 20th century? Moreover, inequality in 2010 was on par, if not a little less, than it existed in 1860 (in the U.S.):

US_Inequality_Through_the_Centuries2.PNG

Pointing out an asset bubble, which is what you're doing in your response to Magisme's chart, is not akin to identifying the reasons for inequality. Between 1950 and 1983 the stock market saw some dramatic gains, but during this period the U.S. also experienced some its lowest levels of inequality ever:

income-inequality-usa-05.jpg

The relationship between stock-market value, money supply and inequality isn't causal. There are moments when it parallels (like in the 1920s and post 2000), but there are periods where they diverge (1950 - 1970).

Far more important to explaining gross inequality is industrial policy, labor policy, and tax policy. Also important is the process of globalization. There just aren't as many high-paying jobs for the less-educated. Use to be a time when a high school diploma could still net you a middle-class income. That no longer exists (or is extremely rare). With companies allowed to offshore production to countries with cheaper labor, it's put downward pressure on many forms of labour. It's part of the reason why wages have remained flat for the bottom 80 percent of income earners for the past 35 years.

Edited by downzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...