35 soul-crushing facts about American income inequality

[Uncensored2008]

your the idiots who deny sience

When did you hold a seance, Truthy?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Please get your GED before posting again.

Truthy gots her gallon of Kroger Vodka, she don't needs no GED...

 

[Uncensored2008]

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all.

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

 

[Bombur]

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all.

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

View attachment 45803

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

 

[danielpalos]

Still nothing but diversion; mr. hardworker for everything but a good argument.?

Sober up. post something approaching rational, and I'll do my best to address it seriously.

You haven't been serious since we debated the drug war.

 

[sakinago]

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all.

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

View attachment 45803

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

 

[Bombur]

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all.

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

View attachment 45803

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

 

[sakinago]

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all.

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

View attachment 45803

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

 

[danielpalos]

It is why we need benchmark Standards for full employment of any given resource or public policy.

 

[Bombur]

The study you provided doesn't counter my arguments at all.

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

View attachment 45803

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

Just because you link a study in your post that doesn't mean it supports your argument or counters the person you are arguing against. You still have to logically apply the information in the study to the argument. This is where you fell on your face with straw men and just general confusion about what the study meant and what my argument was.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

I never referenced Krugman or ThinkProgress.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Income mobility doesn't have much to do with the fact that people make more money as they get older. Income mobility has to do with how your income relates to the income of your parents.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.

Measuring income mobility over small periods of time like you did doesn't make much sense because income mobility is mostly concerned about long term income potential as opposed to yearly income.

Once again, income mobility was a topic that was brought up by someone else. I think it is a distraction from the real issue which is growing income inequality. There are a lot of ways to address income mobility without necessarily addressing the degree of income inequality. That said, income mobility is a much bigger issue in a nation with massive income inequalities and income inequalities does make income mobility more difficult.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

 

[sakinago]

Except directly and expressly.

This figure on page two of the analysis of income mobility demonstrates it well

View attachment 45803

Mobility remains dynamic, even as the gap between highest and lowest quintile has widened.

That may be true. This study however, directly refutes your claims.

You initially claimed that income mobility in socialist states was greater than in the USA - when pressed to support that claim, you backed away from a hurry, and made the absurd claim that income mobility had vanished in the USA.

You didn't need to - it is quite obvious from your posts.

Ah, so you have absolutely no clue at all regarding the subject at hand.

Income mobility is the movement of people from one quintile of wealth to another.


Again, you don't know what you are talking about. The ability of a population to cross economic strata is the primary indicator of upward mobility. Can those at the bottom move up.

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

 

[Bombur]

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

Income inequality is impacted by regulations. A regulation can make income inequality better or worse. There are a lot more issues with regards to income inequality than regulations though.

When discussing income inequality people are talking about the degree on income inequality and how that is changing over time. Income mobility is a similar and somewhat related to income inequality but it is a different topic.

Your understanding of economic growth is severely myopic.

 

[danielpalos]

I didn't initially claim that income mobility was greater in socialist states. You asked for a comparison, I provided one, you ignored it.

The study you provided doesn't deal with people increasing their income as they get older. It deals with intergenerational mobility which is about the relationship between parents and children.

Like I have said many times before, income mobility is an incredibly complicated issue. What that means is that there are a lot of variables to the equation and it would be very hard to pinpoint the impact of any single variable, like income inequality or government involvement. I will also provide a quote from your own link that helps demonstrate a bit of the complexity of this issue and helps refute your earlier point about "socialist" countries.

"We find substantial variation in both relative and absolute mobility across CZs. Relative mobility is lowest for children who grew up in the Southeast and highest in the Mountain West and the rural Midwest. Some CZs in the U.S. have relative mobility comparable to the highest mobility countries in the world, such as Canada and Denmark, while others have lower levels of mobility than any developed country for which data are available"

There are a lot of ways to help or hinder income mobility. The relationship between income inequality and income mobility is mostly a side show. One that is brought up to distract the argument away from the really important issue which is income inequality.

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

Why end the regulation of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; and let supply and demand lower our Tax burden?

 

[bedowin62]

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

Why end the regulation of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; and let supply and demand lower our Tax burden?

you're babbling

 

[bedowin62]

soul-crushing Fact #36. it got worse with Progressives in charge of things

 

[danielpalos]

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

Why end the regulation of our wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; and let supply and demand lower our Tax burden?

you're babbling

You say that because you don't have a clue or a Cause; and it shows.

 

[danielpalos]

soul-crushing Fact #36. it got worse with Progressives in charge of things

thanks to progressives, we are not getting as Hoovervilled as we used to.

 

[bedowin62]

soul-crushing Fact #36. it got worse with Progressives in charge of things

thanks to progressives, we are not getting as Hoovervilled as we used to.

Fact #38: The Left will make any excuse under the sun to blame it on other people, and not their failed ideology

 

[sakinago]

I'm sorry but income inequality is the side show, and happens when income mobility is hindered. Income inequality is a fake argument buzz word talking point, that at it's base suggest that govt needs to regulate. When you only get "income inequality", and reduced income mobility when those in power make it happen. What are lobbyist for? Many lobby for regulation, and sure sometimes they argue against, but mostly for so that the little guy can't afford to grow or be competitive. Both republicans and dems are fostering cronyism, but you're a fool to think dems and progressives are not guilty of it. And here we are arguing about which party does it more.

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

Income inequality is impacted by regulations. A regulation can make income inequality better or worse. There are a lot more issues with regards to income inequality than regulations though.

When discussing income inequality people are talking about the degree on income inequality and how that is changing over time. Income mobility is a similar and somewhat related to income inequality but it is a different topic.

Your understanding of economic growth is severely myopic.

My understanding is based on history, look at Kennedy's tax plan and how that helped job growth and boosts tax recites. Look at the laize faire policy of Switzerland and how their economy/standard of living/overall happiness, has been just fine over the past 500 years. Singapore is another good example. Not all regulation is bad... But most is, and it just keeps growing. The answer is not to limit and consolidate those who have control. Or to just declare it's say it's too complicated and we don't understand, so let's let these people decide. That is essentially what your saying

 

[Bombur]

Income inequality happens fairly independently of income mobility. It is largely based on market factors while income mobility has more to do with individuals being able to enter into various markets based on their parents. So your first point was just wrong.

At its base is the assumption that there may be market factors that are impacting the degree of income inequality. For example the Chinese government manipulates the USD in order to boost their exports and reduce US imports. This act has a lot of winners and losers but one of the most important changes is that it reduces the market power of certain types of labor within the US. If you push down the price of US labor you help everyone who purchases US labor. So this results in a shift of power towards capital owners.

So when we look at income inequality growing we know that part of that change is a result of a government decision. The US government is the only one in the position to change this equation.

You also bring up crony capitalism which is a very complicated issue in the age of globalization. I would absolutely agree that this is a problem and I would also agree that both parties take part in it. I would also point out that there are a lot of reasons why both parties take part in it and if you really want to understand the issue you have to get at the root cause. So while I think there is plenty of common ground on crony capitalism it is much harder to find real world solutions.

Ah what you are referring to is not income inequality, it is opportunity inequality. This very much deals with cronyism. And yes china, Russia, and other various countries are able to manipulate the usd, but that is because we allow the usd to be manipulated, and it will fall. Even china through brute force policy cannot get the cyn to stop dropping. And yes globalization is tricky but that is what happens when power lets the macro economics stomp out the micro economics. The most basic law of economics is supply and demand, and when regulation or power or whatever creates fake supply, and fake demands that's when you start running into problems

No I am not talking about opportunity inequality.

China wants a weak currency to help exports.

Everything you said is total gibberish.

Try again.

Inequality based on things like your parents wealth, the class your in, possibly color? And It's not gibberish, what I'm talking about is power messing with supply and demand. Either creating an inauthentic supply of something or an inauthentic demand of something, usually done through regulation. Doing a highly regulated state contract will cost 3 times more than in the private sector, and that's because of regulation. But regulation is not just in the state industry, it creeps into virtually any industry you can think of. Regulation also interferes with progress, we've had the tech for the self driving car 6 years ago, just getting to that now, the telephone went 50 years almost with out any improvement. The hydrogen car has been stomped out by power a couple of times. The us patent office has shut down and slapped gag orders on about 5000 different inventions for the sake of helping out their campaign donors, granted some of those inventions might have already been invented and kept top secret, but not most of them

When people see things they don't like, they rush to have the government do something about it, when all that does, even with the best intentions, most of the time is make it worse. It's a hammer and nail, and most people have gotten use to using government as a hammer. With the best of intentions having the govt fix our problems is an end justify means philosophy concerning the power of the individual. It gives the govt more and more power, creates gatekeepers, and govt begins to serve itself instead of it's people. The thought that we need smart people in power to make decisions on behalf of the whole is not a new issue, and may be good for a while, but always winds up bad in the end. My point about china is they have been manipulating their own and our markets for a while, and they have been running on an overheated engine that needs 10% growth or else it comes crashing down. Now they are starting to see the slow down, and they are starting to panic.

Income inequality is impacted by regulations. A regulation can make income inequality better or worse. There are a lot more issues with regards to income inequality than regulations though.

When discussing income inequality people are talking about the degree on income inequality and how that is changing over time. Income mobility is a similar and somewhat related to income inequality but it is a different topic.

Your understanding of economic growth is severely myopic.

My understanding is based on history, look at Kennedy's tax plan and how that helped job growth and boosts tax recites. Look at the laize faire policy of Switzerland and how their economy/standard of living/overall happiness, has been just fine over the past 500 years. Singapore is another good example. Not all regulation is bad... But most is, and it just keeps growing. The answer is not to limit and consolidate those who have control. Or to just declare it's say it's too complicated and we don't understand, so let's let these people decide. That is essentially what your saying

Switzerland is a tiny country that was able to carve out a niche because it is surrounded by much larger nations with much larger economies. It is not really a lesson in reducing regulations but in comparative advantages and how nations relate to one another. Singapore is largely the same way in terms of finance but they also benefit from trade.

Regulations always have to be considered relative to how they impact trade between nations. That is why a lot of trade talks deal with attempts by larger more developed nations convincing smaller nations to increase their regulations. A large economy like the US can take a stand against something like air pollution but that won't stop a company from simply opening up a factory in China and polluting the air in China because the people in China who pay the cost of air pollution don't have the power to stop them.

Economic efficiency is obviously not the only consideration for a regulation. Markets are great at making certain types of value judgments but they are historically bad at making others. This includes everything from the health of workers, to the impact on the environment, to managing financial risk.