Jump to content

Income Inequality


magisme

Recommended Posts

I'm reading Plutocrats the rise of the New Super Rich book that is in the best seller lists.

I don't think it's really as simple as poor people want more money, it has wider effects on things.

0.01% of families in US make 23 mil dollars

0.09% 2 mil

1% 1 mil

10% 250k

90% 30k

or something like that.

The Kuvnet curve illustrates it. It's like a hill on a graph.

We start out as monkeys equal, as the country gets more sophisticated the income inequality widens to a peak at the top. At that point the culture is meant to be sophisticated enough to re-distribute the wealth. That has happened throughout history. Always been plutocrats.

there's been Gilded ages before, but this time maybe because there's two Gilded ages, Technology and Globilization driving them both in West (US) and East (China). This time there are ways to avoid re-distributing the wealth and still keep people happy. We can make food, housing, phones, transportation cheaper. So, that large 90% maybe not have that much cash but there lives are still quite advanced. It's not life and death situation.

If you take iPods as example. 6,000 US skilled workers share 500 mil profits per year, the rest of the production jobs are farmed out to Phillipines/China and they get paid nothing. So there's this hollowing out of the middle classes. Which is kind of what the American Dream was, manufacturing jobs and averages people getting a pretty good life.

In a different age, the income inequality might last 10 years then people would get to poor and a revolution might happen.

But in this case, people in the US may just accept the situation as it is in the most of the world. With hierarchy of super rich that look after this lower workforce who don't do much real work but enjoy simple pleasures like a 7/11 microwave burrito and a can of red bull.

the 90% are meaningless and just here to enjoy what they can with as little work as possible. Whether you make 100k or 10k you are still the 90%. You don't do any skilled work. That's fine you want more you work more, but you are constrained as there are limited skilled jobs. It's like you either a genius or a dumbass. The geniuses make the technology to entertain the idiots. No offense to myself intended. And that's fine really isn't it.

But the only problem is it kind of dumbs down the majority 90% to brainwashed drones. What that means long term is kind of like a bad sic-fi movie. It's kind of like that Matt Damon movie Elysium. Wheres there super rich living off earth in luxury and down on the ground people are living in hell. But it's like hell with iPods and Nike and Mister Donuts. It's like a super advanced ghetto.

Edited by wasted
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Well, track it. Do you not think there's a relationship between the rise of neo-conservativism (less government, less regulation, less taxation) that commenced with Reagan's presidency in 1980 and the growing inequality over that same time period?

BTW, have you read the book that I referenced?

Edited by downzy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The super rich are beyond politics in a way. Its the realities of tech and globalization that means they can create huge profits for themselves. they tend invest their wealth back into luxury products as well. so its never redistributed. it would really just be out of the goodness of their hearts like bill gates to give it all back. bill 50 billion, buffet 50 billion, the rest of us share 50 billion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG Downzy you don't mean it... You seriously don't think we need more government? More Big Brother to tell us how to live our lives?


wasted, you are making a lot of sense, except for the part about 10% of us making 250k... just 10%...really?


Downzy do you think John Lennon, had he lived, would have followed his own words, the words to the song Imagine? Do you think he would have lived by those words? Did he when he was alive? No, he didn't! Do you think that is the way a civilization would make it? No it isn't. It was just a song... a beautiful song... but it was just a song.

Edited by AdriftatSea
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Well, track it. Do you not think there's a relationship between the rise of neo-conservativism (less government, less regulation, less taxation) that commenced with Reagan's presidency in 1980 and the growing inequality over that same time period?

BTW, have you read the book that I referenced?

No, I think it has much more to do with the Fed's policies. And you and I even have very different notions on what neo-conservatism is...

For example...

"The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down – even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced – and they certainly should have been – but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." - Ron Paul (Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/ron-paul/neo-conned/)

Not to mention QE which was a gift to the wealthy...

Apparently Keynesian central planning and a fiat monetary system have failed to bring about the collectivist utopian dream of "income equality" and prosperity for all. Perhaps it's time we tried some other ideas. Or, wait...maybe your ideas just need another 100 years to develop, or the Fed just needs to print more money...you know just keep "continually moving the goal posts, like a born-again Christian who keeps preaching about the coming rapture"...the collectivist dream will become reality...eventually. Nevermind that income inequality is getting worse, not better.

Haven't read the book, don't intend to. Sorry.

Edited by foghat43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel dumb as hell in a thread like this because I can't quote authors n shit.

I don't like to read books and I don't care about graphs and charts because they suck. And if I were to read a book it would have to be about something cool like titties or guitars, not some schmuck cocksucker talking about Wallstreet.

But I am the owner of a sucessful business with 8 employees and I've got the education that is most important in life, basic education/street knowledge/common sense. I digress so carry on!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OMG Downzy you don't mean it... You seriously don't think we need more government? More Big Brother to tell us how to live our lives?

wasted, you are making a lot of sense, except for the part about 10% of us making 250k... just 10%...really?

Downzy do you think John Lennon, had he lived, would have followed his own words, the words to the song Imagine? Do you think he would have lived by those words? Did he when he was alive? No, he didn't! Do you think that is the way a civilization would make it? No it isn't. It was just a song... a beautiful song... but it was just a song.

Those are the figures I read for US families in Plutocrats the rise of the new super rich by Freeland. I'll check…yes, those are the numbers. It's average family income in 2010.

That's kind of the point, the middle class is shrinking. 1 in 10 families ear 250k a year.

But it's the drop off to the 90% on 30k that's maybe worrying. As in if you aren't elite on 200k, probably like new talent skilled tech worker pretty smart, then you probably on 30k-60k.

Which isn't the end of the world, we got mcdonalds and budweisser and monday nite football. but you might get bored stacking shelves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I'm talking about.

I think the big gov't people need to somehow come to terms with the flat out fact that government is much larger and spends much more money than it ever has before with the idea that we need MORE gov't. And they need to understand that the liberal/conservative paradigm is nonsense, and just because someone doesn't support the welfare state doesn't mean that they don't want to help alleviate inequality

And small gov't people need to address whether inequality has increased as a result of deregulation of certain industries and welfare "reform."

You guys rock. I hope this debate keeps going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I recall correctly (it's been a while) most of the increase in income inequality in western countries in the post-WW2 era has happened due to 'skill-biased technological change' and increased trade (and probably migration in some areas), through shifts in returns between different types of labour and from labour to capital and network effects that decrease mobility. So increased income and wealth inequality is a negative side effect of processes that are actually good. Therefor I don't see tackling the deep underlying causes of inequality to be either feasible nor desirable. Post-process approaches (redistribution basically) seems to me to be a better idea.

And governments are extremely complex entities and the act of government is extremely complex, you can't describe it by a single metric where it gets bigger or smaller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?)

2) That another person deserves, or should have (or however you want to phrase it) to have part of the money that I have earned.

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

Until these presuppositions have been proven, the rest of the discussion is pointless.

Edited by foghat43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by foghat43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I'm talking about.

I think the big gov't people need to somehow come to terms with the flat out fact that government is much larger and spends much more money than it ever has before with the idea that we need MORE gov't. And they need to understand that the liberal/conservative paradigm is nonsense, and just because someone doesn't support the welfare state doesn't mean that they don't want to help alleviate inequality

And small gov't people need to address whether inequality has increased as a result of deregulation of certain industries and welfare "reform."

You guys rock. I hope this debate keeps going.

But more government doesn't mean spending more money. When I refer to Hacker and Pierson's notion of policy drift, it's not in respect to what the government doesn't spend on, but what policies it doesn't enact to counter abuses in the banking industry, tax code, and labour relations. It's been a number of years that I last read their book so I can't quote directly, but here's a brief summary from Wikipedia regarding the political consequences of the last 35 years:

"Hacker and Pierson describe the political action that has "abandoned the middle class" in the US in favor of making "the rich richer" in the last 30+ years as being the work of "modern, efficient organizations operating in a much less modern efficient political system."[24] Those organizations strove successfully to cut taxes (estate and capital gains taxes) and tax rates for the wealthy, and to eliminate or prevent of any countervailing power or oversight of corporate managers—including private litigation,[25] efforts to empower boards of directors and shareholders,[26] the regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)[27] and labor unions."

"The action in financial markets, corporate governance, industrial relations, and taxation,[29] came from both changing policy and preventing it from being changed -- "drift". Policy changes include tax cuts and legislation such as the 1999 Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act that repealed the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act and allowed the merger of consumer banks, investment banks, and insurance companies.

Drift, or preventing policy changes to keep "pace with changing economic conditions," included not updating labor laws in response to new corporate anti-union tactics, not enacting stock option regulations in response to changing executive pay packages, and not updating securities regulations in response to the growth of dangerously risky but profitable Wall Street speculation.[29] One example is an attempt in 1993 by Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) to "moderate the explosion of CEO pay, not through burdensome interference but through the simple enforcement of honest, transparent accounting" by through requiring the expensing of stock options by corporations. They were prevented by "legions of businesspeople" and intervention by congress, led by Senator Joe Lieberman.[30] Another is the "carried-interest" loophole (costing tax payers about $4 billion/year) which allows hedge fund managers — some of the richest people in the US — to pay only 15% tax (the capital gains rate) on income they receive from investors, though the money is a paycheck received for services, not investment income.[31][32]"

Though this process came as part of what the authors describe as a "transformation of American government", it has been overlooked by the public, the media, and recent political science studies. They focus on the more entertaining, fast-moving and easy-to-follow "electoral spectacle" of politicians and their campaigns for office, instead of "what the government actually does" — the more complex, and "frankly boring," organization-driven making of laws and policy.[33] But that the latter is what is really important is reflected in how much more money is spent on lobbying (officially $3 billion a year, unofficially much more[34]) than election campaigns",[35] and the growth in corporate public affairs offices in the nation's capital (100 in 1968, 2500 in 1982).[36]

These highly effective organizations include business groups like Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Business, (p. 120) anti-tax groups like Club for Growth and Americans for Tax Reform. (p. 208) Along with them came a new generation of think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute. Officially non-partisan, they focused on "shifting public opinion and policy" in a conservative direction, rather than traditional `objective' policy advice.[37]

Again, it's not about spending per se (though in fairness, most other recessions were met with an increase of government jobs to pick up the slack, the most recent recession saw some of the biggest cuts in government employment), but more to do with the failure of government to adapt legislation and regulation to meet modern times.

If I recall correctly (it's been a while) most of the increase in income inequality in western countries in the post-WW2 era has happened due to 'skill-biased technological change' and increased trade (and probably migration in some areas), through shifts in returns between different types of labour and from labour to capital and network effects that decrease mobility. So increased income and wealth inequality is a negative side effect of processes that are actually good. Therefor I don't see tackling the deep underlying causes of inequality to be either feasible nor desirable. Post-process approaches (redistribution basically) seems to me to be a better idea.

And governments are extremely complex entities and the act of government is extremely complex, you can't describe it by a single metric where it gets bigger or smaller.

Except the U.S. has experienced far greater inequality than other developed nations that can't be explained as a result of "skill-based technological change." More from Hackers and Pierson:

"Most economic experts" agree that the 30-year trend in America of greater inequality is a natural economic/historical trend of economic rewards for those with educational achievements and workplace skills. The authors do not. The income distribution hasn't followed a pattern of "the 29% of Americans with college degrees pulling away" from those who have less education. It's the top 1% that have pulled away from the top 20%, and most especially "the top 0.1% or even 0.01%" that has grown richer than the rest of the population.[11]

Share of pre-tax household income received by the top 1%, top 0.1% and top 0.01%, between 1917 and 2005.[12][13]

Nor has this rise in inequality taken place in many other developed economies. Western Europe and Japan, "haven't seen anything like the rise in inequality America has." Inequality in France and Switzerland has actually fallen; in Germany it's remained the same; and in Ericsson's Sweden and Sony's Japan it's moved up only slightly.[11][14]

The relative lack of skill of American workers can't be blamed, as there isn't one. There is no gap between American workers and those of Europeans, Canadians, et al., measured in years of schooling.[15] America's more extreme stratification has not come with any benefit of faster economic growth or more social mobility than its peer countries. Economic growth per capita was essentially the same in the US as that of the 15 core nations of Europe through 2006.[16] America's self-image as the land of the American Dream and rags-to-riches success notwithstanding, the share of those brought up poor or middle class who succeeded in becoming rich (i.e. the social mobility), is now less than in almost all other developed countries.[17]

Two areas related to income distribution where the US differs quite a bit from other developed countries are executive pay and unionization. Unions as a whole have been a force for raising pay and benefits for those with lower income. The percentage of workers belonging to unions has had a marked decline in the US not mirrored in other affluent countries such as America's neighbor Canada,[18] despite a similarity in the "structural features" of the two countries economies and their workers' "propensities to join a union."[19] Increase in the relative pay of CEOs in the US — from 24 times the earnings of the typical worker in 1965 to 300 times in 2007 — is much greater than in Europe. It takes a different form than those countries — deferred compensation, "guaranteed hours on corporate jets, chauffeurs, personal assistants, apartments, even lucrative consulting contracts". (This "camouflaged" compensation need not become public knowledge as American business law does not require its reporting.)[20]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Well, track it. Do you not think there's a relationship between the rise of neo-conservativism (less government, less regulation, less taxation) that commenced with Reagan's presidency in 1980 and the growing inequality over that same time period?

BTW, have you read the book that I referenced?

No, I think it has much more to do with the Fed's policies. And you and I even have very different notions on what neo-conservatism is...

For example...

"The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down – even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced – and they certainly should have been – but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." - Ron Paul (Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/ron-paul/neo-conned/)

Not to mention QE which was a gift to the wealthy...

Apparently Keynesian central planning and a fiat monetary system have failed to bring about the collectivist utopian dream of "income equality" and prosperity for all. Perhaps it's time we tried some other ideas. Or, wait...maybe your ideas just need another 100 years to develop, or the Fed just needs to print more money...you know just keep "continually moving the goal posts, like a born-again Christian who keeps preaching about the coming rapture"...the collectivist dream will become reality...eventually. Nevermind that income inequality is getting worse, not better.

Haven't read the book, don't intend to. Sorry.

Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing. Taxes haven't gone down? Yeah, I guess if history started in 1989, Paul might have been correct. Regulations are higher than ever? Really? Might want to talk to someone who has worked on Wall Street for more than 40 years. Here's a little graph that renders Paul's point on regulation as moronic:

finwage.jpg

Right, let's not read what might contract your worldview. Let's live in ignorance because it's just easier that way. FFS.

OMG Downzy you don't mean it... You seriously don't think we need more government? More Big Brother to tell us how to live our lives?

wasted, you are making a lot of sense, except for the part about 10% of us making 250k... just 10%...really?

Downzy do you think John Lennon, had he lived, would have followed his own words, the words to the song Imagine? Do you think he would have lived by those words? Did he when he was alive? No, he didn't! Do you think that is the way a civilization would make it? No it isn't. It was just a song... a beautiful song... but it was just a song.

Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with respect to John Lennon.

Again, it's not about "more government," but government that counters the abuses of capitalism. Go read the history of the late 19th century and early 20th century. These are not new problems and they have been dealt with before without having government be overly burdensome. Read the passages I posted above regarding the deregulation of the financial industry.

there's always been income inequality. When ever there was a depression or great depression there was also some Robber Barons getting rich. It's just now globalization as doubled the inequality.

Robber barons will exist regardless of an economic depression or boom. The country was doing very well at the dawn of the 20th century, but you still had people like John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie colluding within their own respective industries (oil and steel).

And as I have pointed out, globalization has not produced the same increases of inequality in all countries. Many countries in Europe have avoided the level of inequality that is rising in the U.S. Canada, while having a higher gini-coefficient than Europe, did not see a similar rise of inequality as the U.S. has seen in the last 30 years. I do agree that globalization is a factor, but government policy (or the lack thereof) matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Well, track it. Do you not think there's a relationship between the rise of neo-conservativism (less government, less regulation, less taxation) that commenced with Reagan's presidency in 1980 and the growing inequality over that same time period?

BTW, have you read the book that I referenced?

No, I think it has much more to do with the Fed's policies. And you and I even have very different notions on what neo-conservatism is...

For example...

"The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down – even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced – and they certainly should have been – but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." - Ron Paul (Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/ron-paul/neo-conned/)

Not to mention QE which was a gift to the wealthy...

Apparently Keynesian central planning and a fiat monetary system have failed to bring about the collectivist utopian dream of "income equality" and prosperity for all. Perhaps it's time we tried some other ideas. Or, wait...maybe your ideas just need another 100 years to develop, or the Fed just needs to print more money...you know just keep "continually moving the goal posts, like a born-again Christian who keeps preaching about the coming rapture"...the collectivist dream will become reality...eventually. Nevermind that income inequality is getting worse, not better.

Haven't read the book, don't intend to. Sorry.

Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing. Taxes haven't gone down? Yeah, I guess if history started in 1989, Paul might have been correct. Regulations are higher than ever? Really? Might want to talk to someone who has worked on Wall Street for more than 40 years. Here's a little graph that renders Paul's point on regulation as moronic:

finwage.jpg

Right, let's not read what might contract your worldview. Let's live in ignorance because it's just easier that way. FFS.

"Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing." Of course...anyone whoever disagrees with your stats/charts or your version/interpretation of the facts is always factually wrong. LOL. Hmmm...should I take Ron Paul's analysis or downzy's?...tough call....think I'll stick with Ron's. And I doubt if you even read the quote from Ron...for example, he makes a distinction between direct and indirect taxes that seems to have totally gone over your head. Direct taxes may go down, but the money still has to come from somewhere to pay for all the government spending. And that's where the Fed comes in (the indirect tax). The Fed's policies benefit the wealthy while hurting the poor and middle class (and yet the Left defends that insitution and it's policies). QE was a gift to the wealthy...but those on the Left want more and more QE. And in fact, your claim that government inaction is to blame is an indictment of the State rather than a call for more intervention. Perhaps there is government inaction because the government and it's cronies are in bed with the wealthy, the bankers, the corporatists, etc. So what we need is more intervention to set things right...LOL...talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop!

And I'm sure you have a library full of books on Austrian economics, libertarianism, anarch-capitalism, etc. that you have studied extensively (and yet you have failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of Austrian concepts) so that your worldview has been shaped by a fair and balanced search for truth...or do you just spew the same tired, old Keynesian views that we were all taught in government schools and universities.

And if you want to talk about worldviews...I find yours (which is based on a society not founded upon freedom, but rather founded upon compulsory collectivism, i.e. State sanctioned force and violence) to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Again, before we can really talk about root cause or possible resolutions for income inequality...you need to first be able to prove the fundamental pressupositions of your worldview...

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?)

2) That another person deserves, or should have (or however you want to phrase it) to have part of the money that I have earned.

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

Until these presuppositions have been proven, the rest of the discussion is pointless.

Edited by foghat43
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Well, track it. Do you not think there's a relationship between the rise of neo-conservativism (less government, less regulation, less taxation) that commenced with Reagan's presidency in 1980 and the growing inequality over that same time period?

BTW, have you read the book that I referenced?

No, I think it has much more to do with the Fed's policies. And you and I even have very different notions on what neo-conservatism is...

For example...

"The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down – even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced – and they certainly should have been – but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." - Ron Paul (Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/ron-paul/neo-conned/)

Not to mention QE which was a gift to the wealthy...

Apparently Keynesian central planning and a fiat monetary system have failed to bring about the collectivist utopian dream of "income equality" and prosperity for all. Perhaps it's time we tried some other ideas. Or, wait...maybe your ideas just need another 100 years to develop, or the Fed just needs to print more money...you know just keep "continually moving the goal posts, like a born-again Christian who keeps preaching about the coming rapture"...the collectivist dream will become reality...eventually. Nevermind that income inequality is getting worse, not better.

Haven't read the book, don't intend to. Sorry.

Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing. Taxes haven't gone down? Yeah, I guess if history started in 1989, Paul might have been correct. Regulations are higher than ever? Really? Might want to talk to someone who has worked on Wall Street for more than 40 years. Here's a little graph that renders Paul's point on regulation as moronic:

finwage.jpg

Right, let's not read what might contract your worldview. Let's live in ignorance because it's just easier that way. FFS.

"Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing." Of course...anyone whoever disagrees with your stats/charts or your version/interpretation of the facts is always factually wrong. LOL. Hmmm...should I take Ron Paul's analysis or downzy's?...tough call....think I'll stick with Ron's.

And I'm sure you have a library full of books on Austrian economics, libertarianism, anarch-capitalism, etc. that you have studied extensivley so that your worldview has been shaped by a fair and balanced search for truth...or do you just spew the same tired, old Keynesian views that we were all taught in government schools and universities.

And if you want to talk about worldviews...I find yours (which is based on a society not founded upon freedom, but rather founded upon compulsory collectivism, i.e. State sanctioned force and violence) to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Again, before we can really talk about root cause or possible resolutions for income inequality...you need to first be able to prove the fundamental pressupositions of your worldview...

Except you provide no proof that Paul's argument is valid. Just ad hominens and lame generalizations. Google income tax rates, capital gain tax rates, estate tax rates over the past 70 years. Then ask if it squares up with Paul's assertion that taxes have never been higher.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait for it...wait for it..."It's not so much what the government has done that is responsible for increasing inequality, but what it hasn't done."...and there it is. We need more government, more political action, etc. At least your consistent, downzy...I'll give you that.

Well, track it. Do you not think there's a relationship between the rise of neo-conservativism (less government, less regulation, less taxation) that commenced with Reagan's presidency in 1980 and the growing inequality over that same time period?

BTW, have you read the book that I referenced?

No, I think it has much more to do with the Fed's policies. And you and I even have very different notions on what neo-conservatism is...

For example...

"The so-called conservative revolution of the past two decades has given us massive growth in government size, spending and regulations. Deficits are exploding and the national debt is now rising at greater than a half-trillion dollars per year. Taxes do not go down – even if we vote to lower them. They can’t, as long as spending is increased, since all spending must be paid for one way or another. Both Presidents Reagan and the elder George Bush raised taxes directly. With this administration, so far, direct taxes have been reduced – and they certainly should have been – but it means little if spending increases and deficits rise.

When taxes are not raised to accommodate higher spending, the bills must be paid by either borrowing or “printing” new money. This is one reason why we conveniently have a generous Federal Reserve chairman who is willing to accommodate the Congress. With borrowing and inflating, the “tax” is delayed and distributed in a way that makes it difficult for those paying the tax to identify it. For instance, future generations, or those on fixed incomes who suffer from rising prices, and those who lose jobs – they certainly feel the consequences of economic dislocations that this process causes. Government spending is always a “tax” burden on the American people and is never equally or fairly distributed. The poor and low-middle income workers always suffer the most from the deceitful tax of inflation and borrowing." - Ron Paul (Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/ron-paul/neo-conned/)

Not to mention QE which was a gift to the wealthy...

Apparently Keynesian central planning and a fiat monetary system have failed to bring about the collectivist utopian dream of "income equality" and prosperity for all. Perhaps it's time we tried some other ideas. Or, wait...maybe your ideas just need another 100 years to develop, or the Fed just needs to print more money...you know just keep "continually moving the goal posts, like a born-again Christian who keeps preaching about the coming rapture"...the collectivist dream will become reality...eventually. Nevermind that income inequality is getting worse, not better.

Haven't read the book, don't intend to. Sorry.

Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing. Taxes haven't gone down? Yeah, I guess if history started in 1989, Paul might have been correct. Regulations are higher than ever? Really? Might want to talk to someone who has worked on Wall Street for more than 40 years. Here's a little graph that renders Paul's point on regulation as moronic:

finwage.jpg

Right, let's not read what might contract your worldview. Let's live in ignorance because it's just easier that way. FFS.

"Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing." Of course...anyone whoever disagrees with your stats/charts or your version/interpretation of the facts is always factually wrong. LOL. Hmmm...should I take Ron Paul's analysis or downzy's?...tough call....think I'll stick with Ron's.

And I'm sure you have a library full of books on Austrian economics, libertarianism, anarch-capitalism, etc. that you have studied extensivley so that your worldview has been shaped by a fair and balanced search for truth...or do you just spew the same tired, old Keynesian views that we were all taught in government schools and universities.

And if you want to talk about worldviews...I find yours (which is based on a society not founded upon freedom, but rather founded upon compulsory collectivism, i.e. State sanctioned force and violence) to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Again, before we can really talk about root cause or possible resolutions for income inequality...you need to first be able to prove the fundamental pressupositions of your worldview...

Except you provide no proof that Paul's argument is valid. Just ad hominens and lame generalizations. Google income tax rates, capital gain tax rates, estate tax rates over the past 70 years. Then ask if it squares up with Paul's assertion that taxes have never been higher.

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.

I was actually editing my post when you responded...so you replied to an incomplete post of mine...let's try this again...

"Wow, your quote from Ron Paul is so full of factual inaccuracies it's almost not worth addressing." Of course...anyone whoever disagrees with your stats/charts or your version/interpretation of the facts is always factually wrong. LOL. Hmmm...should I take Ron Paul's analysis or downzy's?...tough call....think I'll stick with Ron's. And I doubt if you even read the quote from Ron...for example, he makes a distinction between direct and indirect taxes that seems to have totally gone over your head. Direct taxes may go down, but the money still has to come from somewhere to pay for all the government spending. And that's where the Fed comes in (the indirect tax). The Fed's policies benefit the wealthy while hurting the poor and middle class (and yet the Left defends that insitution and it's policies). QE was a gift to the wealthy...but those on the Left want more and more QE. And in fact, your claim that government inaction is to blame is an indictment of the State rather than a call for more intervention. Perhaps there is government inaction because the government and it's cronies are in bed with the wealthy, the bankers, the corporatists, etc. So what we need is more intervention to set things right...LOL...talk about the fox guarding the chicken coop!

And I'm sure you have a library full of books on Austrian economics, libertarianism, anarch-capitalism, etc. that you have studied extensively (and yet you have failed to demonstrate even a basic understanding of Austrian concepts) so that your worldview has been shaped by a fair and balanced search for truth...or do you just spew the same tired, old Keynesian views that we were all taught in government schools and universities.

And if you want to talk about worldviews...I find yours (which is based on a society not founded upon freedom, but rather founded upon compulsory collectivism, i.e. State sanctioned force and violence) to be both morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Again, before we can really talk about root cause or possible resolutions for income inequality...you need to first be able to prove the fundamental pressupositions of your worldview...

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?)

2) That another person deserves, or should have (or however you want to phrase it) to have part of the money that I have earned.

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

Until these presuppositions have been proven, the rest of the discussion is pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...