Income Inequality

[magisme]

Nah, you choose 1980 because you think it's all about the Reagan Revolution.

I never claimed 1980 was a turning point.

[foghat43]

Also, there are at least three unproven assumptions in the way the question/debate has been framed:

1) That income inequality is an unnatural or "bad" thing that needs to be "fixed". (And if it is...how much inequality is acceptable....where do you draw that totally arbitrary line that determines what is a "fair" amount of income inequality?)

I'm fine with that argument as long as the person making it is fine with how natural it also is that, when the inequality reaches an always indeterminable breaking point, those without start aiming weapons at those with.

So there is an assumption in that statement that it is immoral to take something from someone by force...correct? That was point #3. Now that we have established that...we can easily dismiss all forms of compulsory collectivism since they are based on the assumption that it is OK to take something by force from one man and give it to another. And in fact that last phrase that I have underlined in your quote is a perfect description of how the State itself operates in a collectivist system...those without start aiming the weapons of the State at those with thereby attempting to forcefully redistribute wealth. Or the State could even be the "those without" since the State never produces anything...it only takes...via taxation (force). If it's not OK for those without to start using violence as a means to get what they want...why is it OK for the State to do so on their behalf? As Murray Rothbard said...the State is nothing more than a gang of thieves writ large.

And..if/when it does reach that breaking point...well, that's why we have the 2nd amendment, concealed weapon permits and assualt rifles...so when the have-nots/the State comes knocking at your door...you can exercise that inalienable right to protect your life, liberty and property.

Nope. If we're gonna start down the philosophical road with musings on the "natural" then we're also going to have to accept that morality is a contingent means to justify a particular organization of power. I won't accept for a second that it is somehow inherently or naturally immoral to take something by force. In fact, I'd probably argue nothing has ever been taken any other way.

Well, of course when you use the word “take” it necessarily implies the use of coercion or force. But I wasn’t trying to make a distinction between taking something without force (which I agree makes no sense) versus taking something with force. The distinction is between producing something (e.g. earning an income, growing food, etc.) or receiving something in a legitimate way (e.g. inheritance, gifts, etc.) versus taking something (such as theft). Or the distinction can be made between non-compulsory collectivism and compulsory collectivism, etc.

Is it moral for Mr. Jones to take (by force, coercion, violence) the resources that Mr. Smith has obtained through non-violent means (work, farming, etc.)?

A simple example to make the point: Mr. Smith has $100 dollars, but Mr. Jones has none. Mr. Jones robs Mr. Smith at gunpoint and takes $50 from him. We have now obtained the desired result, i.e. both men now have the same amount of $. Even though we now have “equality” and even if Mr. Jones maybe had good reasons for doing what he did, most people would still not excuse his actions and condone theft at gunpoint as the moral thing to do…right? It’s not OK to initiate aggression or violence against the life, liberty or property of another person…right? And if it’s not OK for individuals to do it, then it’s not OK for other individuals (even those wearing a government uniform) to do it for them on their behalf…right?

This is one of the fundamental flaws of compulsory collectivism and the politics of envy/class warfare…I personally don’t want to live in an authoritarian society that is founded upon State sanctioned violence against the life, liberty and property of certain individuals or groups.

Now…you may disagree. Obviously in this country the vast majority of folks are OK with the scenario I outlined above. The election of guys like Obama easily proves that. The Mr. Jones can easily out vote the Mr. Smiths. And I get that those of us who place a high value on liberty, free markets and non-aggression are in the minority. However, if you think that the scenario I’ve outlined above is OK (either because it is “natural” or morally OK to take by force)…well, then your entire argument is self-defeating. On the one hand you are saying that it is not OK “for those without to start aiming weapons at those with”, but on the other hand you seem to be saying that it is natural, inevitable or morally OK (or at least morally neutral) for this to happen and even for the State to sanction/institutionalize it. Either taking stuff by force is OK or it isn’t…but you can’t have it both ways. If it’s wrong for the have-nots to initiate aggression against my life, liberty and property then it’s also wrong for the State to do so.

Bottom line…if it is wrong to take something by force and against the owner’s consent, then compulsory collectivism is founded upon a flawed premise. And if it is not wrong…well, then…you have no moral/intellectual ground to stand on when “those without start aiming weapons at those with”. And if an entire system or worldview is based on and contingent upon a flawed premise, well…

It boils down to one question…is it OK for a person to initiate aggression against the life, liberty and property of another person? Libertarians say “no”. Pretty much everyone else says “yes”.

[magisme]

Again, I don't believe anything is inherently or naturally right or wrong. The lion chases the gazelle. The lion catches the gazelle. The lion eats the gazelle. If the gazelle had a gun and the wherewithal to use it, it would have shot the lion. Be careful if you're a human lion. It's not right. it's not wrong. It is what it is.

Edited July 12, 2014 by magisme

[foghat43]

Though my educational background is in politics and not economics, I have had a lot of exposure to some conservative/liberatarian authors out there. Believe it or not, I use to be fairly conservative/liberatarian in my early late teens and early 20s. Then I opened my eyes to what the other side was suggesting and felt it more compelling. How I did that was by not solely engaging in one side of the debate.

You can think whatever you want about me, but history and many parts of the world has a way of proving the libertarian vantage point as wrong. Read up on what happened in the 1890s/1900s or travel to places like India/Somalia/Pakistan/Bangladesh and tell me how well the libertarian ethos is serving their respective populations.

Believe it or not, I use to be fairly liberal/collectivist and even bought into Keynesianism. Then I opened my eyes to what the other side was suggesting and felt it more compelling.

Shall we look at the history of collectivism/Statism (Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc.)?

And if I'm not mistaken...this entire post is dedicated to discussing the failure of collectivism to produce the desired results in the US.

So, yeah...let's talk history...please. We see the failures of your worldview on a daily basis. Oh, wait...I forgot...mere mundanes cannot trust what they see with their own eyes (like the decreased purchasing power of the dollar)...they need the State's elites to provide them with the correct "interpretation" of the facts.

You are mistaken, because no where in Magisme's OP is there even the hint that this topic is about explaining growing inequality as a result of "collectivism".

You also err in believing that progressivism has been on the rise, since the conservative ethos has dominated the US political landscape since being ushered in by Reagan's first presidential election. Progressivism/new deal government activism was its strongest from the 1940s to the late 1970s, when inequality was at its lowest.

And we've been over your last point before. If you're going to criticize the Fed's monetary policies for the devaluation of the dollar, you then have to give them credit for the rise in wages that went along with it.

The topic under discussion is income inequality in the US. The discussion has touched on the causes and even Magisme stated that he wanted to hear from both sides of the spectrum, i.e. the Statists/big government folks (collectivism) versus the small/no government folks. You brought up worldviews...so I was comparing mine with yours. You brought up looking at specific examples throughout history...so I offered some for you to consider. If we are discussing a topic that has to do with the economy in the US...well, it's kinda hard not to bring Keynes and collectivism (your worldview) into the discussion. And if we are discussing a failure (i.e.income inequality) of an economic system that is based on Keynesian/collectivist ideas (again, your worldview) and which has been greatly influnced by that worldview since at least the 1930s, then I think it is certainly fair and valid to point out that collectivism has been a massive failure in the US (in regards to income equality anyway...you know...the issue we are discussing) and throughout history (Stalin, Mao, etc.) I'm sorry if you find these to be inconveninet truths that don't fit your narrative...

My criticism of the Fed and it's policies applies to the Left and the Right, progressives and conservatives alike...last time I checked there are no Establishment Republicans calling for an end to the Fed. And pointing out moral/philosophical flaws in a system transcends your attempts to narrow it down to one specific era, cause or group in power. If a system is fundamentally flawed...it's just as flawed in the 30's, or the 80's or 2014 and regardless of who is in power. And as I've said in the past the whole Left vs. Right dichotomy isn't even valid and I despise all forms of collectivism (both the GOP version and the Left's version). Both parties are fundamentally statist/collectivist/authoritarian at their core. There may be some variation in degree or how it gets applied and worked out in policy, but both are fundamentally statist.

As to your last point...you argument assumes 1) that that there was in fact a rise in wages, 2) that the rise in wages was equal to or greater than the rise in costs/prices, 3) that creating the illusion of wealth by printing money out of thin air creates actual wealth, and lastly 4) that I have witnessed no decrease in the buying power of my income. All these assumptions are debatable at best, downright false at worst. And #4 is not even debatable. Now go google another chart to show me that the reduction of my purchasing power that I can see with my own eyes is just an illusion because some guy working for the government says that there is no real inflation...

Edited July 12, 2014 by foghat43

[foghat43]

Again, I don't believe anything is inherently or naturally right or wrong. The lion chases the gazelle. The lion catches the gazelle. The lion eats the gazelle. If the gazelle had a gun and the wherewithal to use it, it would have shot the lion. Be careful if you're a human lion. It's not right. it's not wrong. It is what it is.

Fair enough...I believe there is a distinction between humans as moral agents trying to find a way to live together, form societies, etc. versus animals instinctually hunting their prey. I think it is morally wrong for a hungry man to murder another man and take his food, but I don't think it is morally wrong for a lion to kill a gazelle. To me there is a huge difference. But as I said...if it just boils down to Darwin's survival of the fittest and there is no moral factors to consider...then you have no moral/intellectual basis for condemning collectivists (like Stalin) or the have-nots when they "start aiming weapons at those with”. So it's a totally self-defeating perspective. If there is no right or wrong then one cannot say that we "should" be concerned about society, or the well-being of others or income inequality. The "should" implies that it is "right" to care and "wrong" not to care. So again, it's a self-defeating argument.

Edited July 12, 2014 by foghat43

[magisme]

Again, I don't believe anything is inherently or naturally right or wrong. The lion chases the gazelle. The lion catches the gazelle. The lion eats the gazelle. If the gazelle had a gun and the wherewithal to use it, it would have shot the lion. Be careful if you're a human lion. It's not right. it's not wrong. It is what it is.

Fair enough...I believe there is a distinction between humans as moral agents trying to find a way to live together, form societies, etc. versus animals instinctually hunting their prey. I think it is morally wrong for a hungry man to murder another man and take his food, but I don't think it is morally wrong for a lion to kill a gazelle. To me there is a huge difference. But as I said...if it just boils down to Darwin's survival of the fittest and there is no moral factors to consider...then you have no moral/intellectual basis for condemning collectivists (like Stalin) or the have-nots when they "start aiming weapons at those with”. So it's a totally self-defeating perspective. If there is no right or wrong then one cannot say that we "should" be concerned about society, or the well-being of others or income inequality. The "should" implies that it is "right" to care and "wrong" not to care. So again, it's a self-defeating argument.

I suppose my use of the word "worse" and "bad" in OP implies a moral judgment. I didn't mean it that way. I meant from a civilizational perspective. Things can't continue the way they're going without massive upheaval, so I meant "bad" and "worse" in that sense, not in the sense that I believe there is a "should" out there.

Edited July 12, 2014 by magisme

[foghat43]

Again, I don't believe anything is inherently or naturally right or wrong. The lion chases the gazelle. The lion catches the gazelle. The lion eats the gazelle. If the gazelle had a gun and the wherewithal to use it, it would have shot the lion. Be careful if you're a human lion. It's not right. it's not wrong. It is what it is.

Fair enough...I believe there is a distinction between humans as moral agents trying to find a way to live together, form societies, etc. versus animals instinctually hunting their prey. I think it is morally wrong for a hungry man to murder another man and take his food, but I don't think it is morally wrong for a lion to kill a gazelle. To me there is a huge difference. But as I said...if it just boils down to Darwin's survival of the fittest and there is no moral factors to consider...then you have no moral/intellectual basis for condemning collectivists (like Stalin) or the have-nots when they "start aiming weapons at those with”. So it's a totally self-defeating perspective. If there is no right or wrong then one cannot say that we "should" be concerned about society, or the well-being of others or income inequality. The "should" implies that it is "right" to care and "wrong" not to care. So again, it's a self-defeating argument.

I suppose my use of the word "worse" and "bad" in OP imply a moral judgment. I didn't mean it that way. I meant from a civilizational perspective. Things can't continue the way they're going without massive upheaval, so I meant "bad" and "worse" in that sense, not in the sense that I believe there is a "should" out there.

OK...so why "should" I be concerned about the preservation of civilization and trying to avoid massive upheaval?

If I have no moral obligation or basis for caring about others/civilization then it must boil down to pure self-preservation. In other words, a person wants to avoid upheaval not because he/she gives a damn about others, but only because of how it will impact them. Now remind me again how it's those evil libertarians who are the selfish, cold-hearted bastards who only care about themselves?? Not that you said that, but it has been implied by others on this forum.

And if the taking of human life is no different than the taking of animal life, and if there is no right and wrong but only self-preservation and survial of the fittest, then why not just round up the have-nots and send them to the gas chambers before they have a chance to inconvenience us with their massive upheaval?

And...ultimately...in a world without morals where we are all just fighting for self-preservation...why "should" I even care about self-preservation?

Edited July 12, 2014 by foghat43

[magisme]

Cuz biology.

And why don't we just round them up? People have tried that. it doesn't work. That's why more societies don't do it. We find alternative means of domination and call it progress.

[foghat43]

Cuz biology.

And why don't we just round them up? People have tried that. it doesn't work. That's why more societies don't do it. We find alternative means of domination and call it progress.

Biology? I thought we were discussing economics.

[magisme]

Cuz biology.

And why don't we just round them up? People have tried that. it doesn't work. That's why more societies don't do it. We find alternative means of domination and call it progress.

Biology? I thought we were discussing economics.

I meant that in response to your final question about why you should care about self-preservation. There is no should. You just do. It's what you are.

[foghat43]

Cuz biology.

And why don't we just round them up? People have tried that. it doesn't work. That's why more societies don't do it. We find alternative means of domination and call it progress.

Biology? I thought we were discussing economics.

I meant that in response to your final question about why you should care about self-preservation. There is no should. You just do. It's what you are.

I know...I got the point. I disagree with your naturalist perspective...I think there is way more to it than just biology.

But I agree with your other comment. The State is one of the most effective and powerful means that man has devised to dominate others...and that is why I oppose it.

[magisme]

Of course you disagree with it. I disagree with it too. We're the most fucked up biological creatures ever. We fundamentally misunderstand our very simple nature.

[foghat43]

Well, I think the misunderstanding about our natures is inevitable if one starts with the assumption that we are merely biological creatures and no different from animals who act purely on instinct. But I do not share that assumption so I'm coming from a different starting point than you...but that's a whole other thread for another day!

Besides we are supposed to be discussing income inequality. And per downzy's rules...we must stick to the specific topic with no deviation whatsover. For example, when discussing failed monetary policies it is unacceptable to actually discuss the underlying worldviews and ideologies that informed and guided those policies. So I'm sure discussing the nature of man will be in violation of those rules.

Edited July 12, 2014 by foghat43

[downzy]

Besides we are supposed to be discussing income inequality. And per downzy's rules...we must stick to the specific topic with no deviation whatsover. For example, when discussing failed monetary policies it is unacceptable to actually discuss the underlying worldviews and ideologies that informed and guided those policies. So I'm sure discussing the nature of man will be in violation of those rules.

It's not my thread, I'm not a moderator, talk about whatever you want.

What I won't engage in is broad and vague discussions over "world views" that does nothing but seek to generalize and mischaracterize. You refer to me as a "collectivists," but also in this thread you've referred to as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as "collectivists" as we all share the same perspective on the role of government within society. It's an absurd endeavour that often gets employed rather than discussing the actual matters at hand.

In this thread, as I understand it, the point of the discussion is the growth in income inequality. If you don't have a problem with increases in inequality, that's fine. But for many, it's a growing concern, as Magisme has noted that you'll often see a violent backlash to gross inequality.

As I've illustrated in many of my posts, America's monetary policy has little to do with the increase in inequality. Foghat, you have provided no data, no evidence, and no particular argument that holds up to scrutiny that the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and its control over the nation's monetary policy is the cause for the rise in income inequality over the past 35 years. None. Instead, you resort to labels, generalizations, and bogus quotes from racists old kooks. Moreover, such an assertion fails comparative analysis, as many other nations with even higher indebtedness - that also have a similar centralized banking system - have far less inequality than found in the U.S.

[downzy]

Nah, you choose 1980 because you think it's all about the Reagan Revolution.

I never claimed 1980 was a turning point.

Well, isn't it?

You may not have claimed 1980 was a turning point, but many do. And if you refer to your graph on wages, you'll notice that it was around 1980 when wages between the lower 90 percent and the upper 10 percent started to pull away from each other.

I doubt very much we'd be having this conversation in the late 1970s since inequality was far less prevalent. There's a reason why many more people today want to talk about it. I don't know where inequality levels should lie, but most would agree that things have gotten a little out of whack in the last ten years. Guys like Ratbrain and Foghat may feel differently, but they're not indicative how most feel about this issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx

Edited July 12, 2014 by downzy

[downzy]

[magisme]

I think 1980 (generalizing that year as the beginning of the Reagan Revolution) was a turning point, and it led to a number of arguably unforeseen, arguably foreseen consequences that in addition to other interconnected factors - exponential technological advances, globalization, the dot com bubble, Lehman, TARP, full retard Fed - make the situation much more complex than anyone really wants to admit. I'm basically arguing nothing. I've never seen anyone pose a reasonable, "just," and realistic argument regarding the state of inequality, not only in America but in the world, certainly not one that takes into account that the world economy looks nothing like it did pre Reagan Revolution - what with financial "innovation" and such - and I have no idea whether something should or could be done about it myself either.

[downzy]

Except many other developed nations did not see a similar rise in inequality. No argument that globalization has a negative effect on unskilled-work, but not every country has seen similar results.

Edited July 12, 2014 by downzy

[magisme]

There are no other developed nations anymore. It's all connected. That's the problem. See what happens to them when the US and much of Europe go to hell over the coming years.

[wasted]

shit gone change.

but I guess the gov in a sophisticated society would bring in regulations so people putting together these tech gadgets get paid. it's just the technology has made it so easy to do. everything is so automated it doesn't warrant a decent pay check.

but maybe they will find ways to keep people happy. tv, games, movies, cheap clothes, cheap food is kind of like religion in the middle east.

just wait til the oil runs out. then we'll see some real shit.

[foghat43]

Besides we are supposed to be discussing income inequality. And per downzy's rules...we must stick to the specific topic with no deviation whatsover. For example, when discussing failed monetary policies it is unacceptable to actually discuss the underlying worldviews and ideologies that informed and guided those policies. So I'm sure discussing the nature of man will be in violation of those rules.

It's not my thread, I'm not a moderator, talk about whatever you want.

What I won't engage in is broad and vague discussions over "world views" that does nothing but seek to generalize and mischaracterize. You refer to me as a "collectivists," but also in this thread you've referred to as Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as "collectivists" as we all share the same perspective on the role of government within society. It's an absurd endeavour that often gets employed rather than discussing the actual matters at hand.

In this thread, as I understand it, the point of the discussion is the growth in income inequality. If you don't have a problem with increases in inequality, that's fine. But for many, it's a growing concern, as Magisme has noted that you'll often see a violent backlash to gross inequality.

As I've illustrated in many of my posts, America's monetary policy has little to do with the increase in inequality. Foghat, you have provided no data, no evidence, and no particular argument that holds up to scrutiny that the creation of the Federal Reserve Bank and its control over the nation's monetary policy is the cause for the rise in income inequality over the past 35 years. None. Instead, you resort to labels, generalizations, and bogus quotes from racists old kooks. Moreover, such an assertion fails comparative analysis, as many other nations with even higher indebtedness - that also have a similar centralized banking system - have far less inequality than found in the U.S.

So basically what you refuse to engage in is any discussion that might challenge the underlying presuppositions of your theories. What are you afraid of? So I can engage you about your "facts" but I can in no way challenge the grid through which you interpret those facts. How convenient for you. Unfortunately for you, economic policies and “facts” do not exist in a vacuum. Facts, evidence, statistics, etc. must be interpreted. And we all interpret them through the lens of a particular worldview. Again, since we are examining one particular aspect of a larger economic system (i.e. income inequality within the US economy over the past several decades) it is certainly not unreasonable to examine the ideology that has shaped the US economy and driven the agenda of many policymakers. So, yes, your worldview is fair game and I enjoy pointing out how morally/intellectually bankrupt it is. If you can’t even defend the fundamental and most basic presuppositions of your theories…well, you know what they say about a house built on sand…and all your pretty graphs and charts don’t mean a thing when the broader context and underlying worldview that shapes your analysis cannot stand up to scrutiny and logic. You may win a few skirmishes here and there by out-googling me with a chart or an excerpt from Wikipedia, but of what significance is that if you are losing the ideological war? I’ve noticed that you conveniently shy away from answering the tough questions about the ethics of your theories. And you get really defensive about the term “collectivist”. As I’ve explained in other posts, don’t get hung up on the label. It’s not my fault if some of those who share similar economic theories with you haven’t been nice guys like I’m sure you are. History is really, really not on your side…but you were the one who brought history into the discussion.

So, yeah…your worldview is absolutely fair game…and in a discussion about income inequality, it is both fair and reasonable to ask these types of questions and challenge the assumptions upon which the debate is framed…and it sparked an interesting discussion with Magisme.

1) Is income inequality an unnatural or "bad" thing that needs to be "fixed"? If so, by what standard are you judging it to be “bad”? [if it is purely based on self-interest/preservation (per my discussion with Magisme), then how is it that libertarians are the ones that get branded as cold-hearted and selfish?]

2) How much inequality is acceptable?....and where do you draw that totally arbitrary line that determines what is a "fair" amount of income inequality? On what basis or by what standard are you determining “fairness”?

3) On what basis does another person “deserve” (or however you want to phrase it) to have part of the money that I have earned?

4) Is it moral to take $ by force/violence (even at gunpoint or through threats of imprisonment, etc.) from Mr. Smith and give it to Mr. Jones?

Then once you get past these basic questions (if you can), then it may be appropriate to drill down and start looking at data, charts, facts, etc. I love how you say “as I’ve illustrated in many of my posts…”…LOL…as if that is the end of the matter…downzy has spoken. Maybe you want to tone that down to “as I have attempted to illustrate”??

But since you seem to have a fetish for graphs and crunching data, rather than discussing ideology and worldviews…here you go…

The Mystery Of Income Inequality Broken Down To One Simple Chart

“So, what happened to end America’s era of middle class prosperity? The fiat dollar happened.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/louiswoodhill/2013/03/28/the-mystery-of-income-inequality-broken-down-to-one-simple-chart/

So…as I’ve now illustrated…and that is the end of the matter.

Edited July 13, 2014 by foghat43

[Roush]

Basically, we're heading into England's Renaissance.

[foghat43]

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 there to "really make a difference"? If it's the defining issue of our time, why doesn't that deluded nitwit start in his own house and in his own backyard?

[Roush]

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 there to "really make a difference"? If it's the defining issue of our time, why doesn't that deluded nitwit start in his own house and in his own backyard?

Are you intentionally obfuscating the point, playing Devil's Advocate, or do you genuinely believe in what you're saying?

[foghat43]

Guys like Ratbrain and Foghat may feel differently, but they're not indicative how most feel about this issue: http://www.gallup.com/poll/166904/dissatisfied-income-wealth-distribution.aspx

Damn downzy...we are finally in total agreement about something...i.e., that my views are not indicative of the majority of Muricans. I didn't need a gallup poll to tell you that.