6 Ways Income Inequality Makes Your Life Worse

[The Rabbi]

Tell that to the Great Depression

Huh???

Oh, Thick One!
The artificial cocaine high produced by both parties resulted in a crash.
You DO remember Sep 2008?

I dont recall taking cocaine then. Maybe you do.
The Great Depression occurred in the 1930s. Were you taking cocaine then too?

 

[Indeependent]

Huh???

Oh, Thick One!
The artificial cocaine high produced by both parties resulted in a crash.
You DO remember Sep 2008?

I dont recall taking cocaine then. Maybe you do.
The Great Depression occurred in the 1930s. Were you taking cocaine then too?

You deny that Credit Bubbles and excessive Foreign Investment eventually results in an economic crash?

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, Thick One!
The artificial cocaine high produced by both parties resulted in a crash.
You DO remember Sep 2008?

I dont recall taking cocaine then. Maybe you do.
The Great Depression occurred in the 1930s. Were you taking cocaine then too?

You deny that Credit Bubbles and excessive Foreign Investment eventually results in an economic crash?

Does the business cycle periodically produce booms and busts? Is that your question? Because the answer is Yes, always. There is always a boom and bust cycle. Income inequality has nothing to do with it. Even the Fed, which I blame heavily for the mortgage meltdown, had little to do with the fact of a contraction in 2008. It is just something occurs and is going to continue occurring.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Huh???

The. Great. Depression.

Income. Inequality.

Make. Sense. Or. STFU.

I cant to you because you require sense.

The great depression was caused by it. Get it now? Now heres the part where you say "No it didnt" and call a name then run to your corner

 

[The Rabbi]

The. Great. Depression.

Income. Inequality.

Make. Sense. Or. STFU.

I cant to you because you require sense.

The great depression was caused by it. Get it now? Now heres the part where you say "No it didnt" and call a name then run to your corner

No income inequality did not cause the Great Depression. Sorry, fail. Total fail.

 

[Uncensored2008]

During the postwar years we built the world's largest consumption economy partly because our workers had such high wages.

In London?

I don't think so sparky.

Research the economic growth in the 50s and 60s and you will see what happens when consumers have a lot of spending money. This created a massive incentive for capital investment and job growth.

If I'm not a retard, I'll find that the infrastructure of Europe and Asia was in rubble, leaving the United States as the only economic power on the globe, creating a unique situation where global competition was not present. Without pressure from competition, manufacturing was able to pay labor rates that were out of sync with the global economy.

The malaise of the late 60's and 70's was mostly due to the re-emergence of viable manufacturing in Asia, particularly Japan, and slowly in Europe. The disastrous Keynesian policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, were a reaction to the crumbling monopoly that the USA had enjoyed. While these economic policies exasperated the problems, the cause was the reemergence of viable manufacturing in Japan and Europe.

Then came Reagan. He said that our high wage & benefit system was too expensive for suppliers, and created a disincentive for investment.

What I always wonder about you leftists is, if you have a valid point, why must you resort to such absurd lies?

So we listened to Reagan and we opened trade so that our suppliers could move to production to places with ultra cheap labor markets like China, Taiwan, and Vietnam. This resulted in massive profits for suppliers, the downside being a progressive lowering of wages/benefits for our workers, who now had to compete with oppressed Chinese labor markets for work.

While I realize that you are ignorant and uneducated, I marvel at the open fabrications you engage in. Sure, you have no actual knowledge of the subject and can only spew talking points from the hate sites that substitute for thought with you, by do you so utterly lack intellectual curiosity that you have never considered doing actual research?

As American wages went down, the new pro-business Reagan Economy aggressively expanded credit to consumers so that our great American families could continue to consume and keep our domestic consumption economy afloat. [Republicans get this, right? If workers don't go into Main Street stores and buy stuff, Main Street businesses die. This is why middle class purchasing power ("demand") is so absolutely vital to sustaining and growing jobs. This is why Reagan had to expand credit to fill the gap left by lost wages.]

Ah, so Reagan was an evil genius, even though he was senile and stupid, right comrade?

Of course you lack the knowledge to realize that the great credit expansion was actually in the 1990's, not the 80's - what you (or rather your masters who program you) dishonestly claim of Reagan, was actually a feature of the Clinton economy.

Among economists, personal debt is measured as a percentage of annualized household income.

Debt under Reagan for the average household DECLINED from 6.19% to 5.85%

Under Clinton, it rose from 4.66% to 6.61%

Household Debt Service and Financial Obligations Ratios

Here's the funny thing. The spectacular rise in credit created a multi-decade economic boom. However, as a consequence of debt-fueled consumption, Americans slowly lost their savings and went deeper and deeper into debt. [Meaning: the boom we saw in the 80s and 90s was over-reliant on consumer borrowing - and now... we're paying for it as a generation of consumers are too indebted to borrow. Even worse: they lack the good jobs to get out of debt. The result is that the economy will flounder for years/decades until we find a way to re-capitalize the middle class, which can no longer have the purchasing power in the aggregate to sustain economic growth]

The funny thing is what you claim is simply not true. Consumer debt declined under Bush, and has remained low under Obama.

Now I realize that you lack the education to lie about this, you merely spew the shit that Krugman posts on DailyKOS. Still, I fault you for your lack of intellectual curiously to validate what your rulers train you to bleat.

Today we are stuck with a terrible problem. China is the new center of global manufacturing. We have a middle class that spent the last 30 years going into debt. They can no longer borrow enough to consume at the needed volume to drive economic growth. And now we are stuck with a demand problem. The suppliers have more cash sitting on the sidelines than at any time in history, but they have no incentive to invest in the American economy because they lack consumers.

ROFL

And this is the excuse for Obama's utter failure. Curious, how will you explain the fact that after Obama is gone, there will suddenly be consumer confidence and renewed economic activity?

The REAL debt crisis is not among consumers, which is actually 4.83% - a relatively low level. Our problem is government debt.

We need to stop all this fluffy talk about equality and realize the following. Any economy that does not pay its workers enough to buy what they produce will eventually turn to credit, and then, when the credit runs out, the economy will flounder under a mountain of debt. Henry Ford, one of our great capitalists was right. He understood that he needed to pay his workers enough to buy the cars they produce - otherwise he would be stuck in a crisis of overproduction, which always leads to a recession (unless a sly rat like Reagan expands credit so that the economy can keep growing while, in the background, American families slowly destroy themselves with debt).

What you cannot grasp, because you depend on your rulers to think for you, is that we are in a global economy. You can mandate that button pushers be paid the same as doctors, but that will merely drive manufacturing to more sane venues, or to seek automation as a means of offering products in an economical way. Obama can place a moratorium on consumer goods from China or Europe, a repeat of Smoot Hawley that caused the Great Depression, but this will not create revenue streams that drive consumer demand.

We can repeat all of the Keynesian idiocy of the 70's - and seem determined to - including wage and price freezes, but this still will not create efficient and effective industry.

OR we can let the market heal the wounds that the federal government has inflicted on our economy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh, Thick One!
The artificial cocaine high produced by both parties resulted in a crash.
You DO remember Sep 2008?

The failure of Lehman Brothers was caused by income inequality?

The amazing things you learn from KOS fucktards.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

You deny that Credit Bubbles and excessive Foreign Investment eventually results in an economic crash?

Foreign investment?

ROFL

Fucking leftists....

 

[Edgetho]

During the postwar years we built the world's largest consumption economy partly because our workers had such high wages.

In London?

I don't think so sparky.

Research the economic growth in the 50s and 60s and you will see what happens when consumers have a lot of spending money. This created a massive incentive for capital investment and job growth.

If I'm not a retard, I'll find that the infrastructure of Europe and Asia was in rubble, leaving the United States as the only economic power on the globe, creating a unique situation where global competition was not present. Without pressure from competition, manufacturing was able to pay labor rates that were out of sync with the global economy.

The malaise of the late 60's and 70's was mostly due to the re-emergence of viable manufacturing in Asia, particularly Japan, and slowly in Europe. The disastrous Keynesian policies of Nixon, Ford, and Carter, were a reaction to the crumbling monopoly that the USA had enjoyed. While these economic policies exasperated the problems, the cause was the reemergence of viable manufacturing in Japan and Europe.



What I always wonder about you leftists is, if you have a valid point, why must you resort to such absurd lies?



While I realize that you are ignorant and uneducated, I marvel at the open fabrications you engage in. Sure, you have no actual knowledge of the subject and can only spew talking points from the hate sites that substitute for thought with you, by do you so utterly lack intellectual curiosity that you have never considered doing actual research?



Ah, so Reagan was an evil genius, even though he was senile and stupid, right comrade?

Of course you lack the knowledge to realize that the great credit expansion was actually in the 1990's, not the 80's - what you (or rather your masters who program you) dishonestly claim of Reagan, was actually a feature of the Clinton economy.

Among economists, personal debt is measured as a percentage of annualized household income.

Debt under Reagan for the average household DECLINED from 6.19% to 5.85%

Under Clinton, it rose from 4.66% to 6.61%

Household Debt Service and Financial Obligations Ratios



The funny thing is what you claim is simply not true. Consumer debt declined under Bush, and has remained low under Obama.

Now I realize that you lack the education to lie about this, you merely spew the shit that Krugman posts on DailyKOS. Still, I fault you for your lack of intellectual curiously to validate what your rulers train you to bleat.

Today we are stuck with a terrible problem. China is the new center of global manufacturing. We have a middle class that spent the last 30 years going into debt. They can no longer borrow enough to consume at the needed volume to drive economic growth. And now we are stuck with a demand problem. The suppliers have more cash sitting on the sidelines than at any time in history, but they have no incentive to invest in the American economy because they lack consumers.

ROFL

And this is the excuse for Obama's utter failure. Curious, how will you explain the fact that after Obama is gone, there will suddenly be consumer confidence and renewed economic activity?

The REAL debt crisis is not among consumers, which is actually 4.83% - a relatively low level. Our problem is government debt.

We need to stop all this fluffy talk about equality and realize the following. Any economy that does not pay its workers enough to buy what they produce will eventually turn to credit, and then, when the credit runs out, the economy will flounder under a mountain of debt. Henry Ford, one of our great capitalists was right. He understood that he needed to pay his workers enough to buy the cars they produce - otherwise he would be stuck in a crisis of overproduction, which always leads to a recession (unless a sly rat like Reagan expands credit so that the economy can keep growing while, in the background, American families slowly destroy themselves with debt).

What you cannot grasp, because you depend on your rulers to think for you, is that we are in a global economy. You can mandate that button pushers be paid the same as doctors, but that will merely drive manufacturing to more sane venues, or to seek automation as a means of offering products in an economical way. Obama can place a moratorium on consumer goods from China or Europe, a repeat of Smoot Hawley that caused the Great Depression, but this will not create revenue streams that drive consumer demand.

We can repeat all of the Keynesian idiocy of the 70's - and seem determined to - including wage and price freezes, but this still will not create efficient and effective industry.

OR we can let the market heal the wounds that the federal government has inflicted on our economy.

Bravo!!

Bravissimo!!

There's a little more. While Britain was far too socialist and had far too many taxes, people with wealth in the UK stopped investing it and spent it on personal luxury items.

This spurred the economy in the late 50's early 60's artificially.

When people stopped buying Rolls Royce's, however. Everything went to shit.

Guys, I was in Britain at one point in the mid 60's and I'm going to tell you.... It was an open sore on the asshole of the world. It was one step away from economic collapse and revolution.

Then along came Maggie. You people in the UK should get down on your knees and thank that brave lady every day for as long as you live. She saved the UK. Believe it.

While the Liar-In-Chief wouldn't even send a high-ranking member of OUR administration to honor one of the greatest politicians of all time, he still found time to Jet his entourage over to pay homage to a fucking terrorist in South Africa...


Obama's shameful Thatcher snub | Fox News

dimocraps are scum

 

[Avatar4321]

So stress can make you sick like I said. Why do you always do this? Ask a question like you dont understand. Agree with my response then disagree with the straw man you just made. Who (other than you) said that one side stresses and the other doesnt?

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

You did. When you argued that poor people are less healthy because they are stressed.

I didn't ask you a question? Really? You're going to go with that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...uality-makes-your-life-worse.html#post8533608

I count at least four. Granted, I was counting fast and could have missed one.

Did you answer any? No. You just got on some tangent about stress making people unhealthy implying that poor people are stressed and the rich aren't. But now you're pretending you didn't. Tell me, if no one brought it up, why are you talking about it instead of answering my questions?

Now i fully you to try to change the subject, probably throwing in an insult to pretend as if you're somehow better than me rather than changing the subject. Quite frankly, I don't care. You're just lying to yourself and the whole board can see that.

 

[Avatar4321]

And that's the great secret of life. There are no classes. They are political constructs created to divide people. They are used to stir up covetousness and envy in people. They are trying to get those who make less money angry at those making more while making those who make more resent those who make less.

But we don't have to play there game. There is no reason we should have issues with our brethren because they make more or less money than we do. But we have to choose not to hate, to covet, to envy. Or else they win.

I don't agree.

One of the most amazing features of Pre-Obama America was the vast middle class. A transitory stage where most Americans spent a good portion of their lives. The rotter societies of Europe have very solid barriers to to keep the working class in their place, but to the everlasting glory of America, our Capitalist system destroyed such barriers and anyone could rise to the level of his talent, or sometime his luck.

In Germany, if you are born to a factory worker, you will be a factory worker, and die a factory worker. It's a virtual caste system. But in America, the child of a factory worker could be a CEO, or a doctor, or an engineer, or anything they want. I suppose this is what you mean that there are no classes.

But from an economic sense, there very much are classes. I define "rich" as having enough wealth that one does not need to be employed in order to maintain their lifestyle. The Kennedys, the Feinsteins, the Kerry and Heinz klan, etc.

I report to the CEO of my company. He makes a lot of money, but I don't consider him "rich," because in order for him to maintain his lifestyle, he has to show up to work every day. He works harder than I do. He is UPPER middle class, but still a working stiff, still middle class.

Then there is the lower class, those who never keep a job for more than a few months at a time - just to build up UE credit. Who spend every dime the second they get it. Have a new iPhone, but get evicted for not paying their rent.

These are three, distinct economic classes. The good news is that people can and do transition from one class to another, constantly.

The beauty of this nation is we can disagree without any animosity. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on this. I have no doubt you have no problem with me disagreeing with you on it. That's what makes this nation truly great.

My main issue is there is no reason to divide us because of income. Just because someone makes alot of money doesn't mean they are my enemy. Nor does someone making less than me make them my enemy. We are brethren no matter how much success we have in life. And the fact is some may have hard times one time and good times another time. In fact, i think we all have times like that. We should not let them divide us on bogus class warfare.

 

[Edgetho]

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

You did. When you argued that poor people are less healthy because they are stressed.

I didn't ask you a question? Really? You're going to go with that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...uality-makes-your-life-worse.html#post8533608

I count at least four. Granted, I was counting fast and could have missed one.

Did you answer any? No. You just got on some tangent about stress making people unhealthy implying that poor people are stressed and the rich aren't. But now you're pretending you didn't. Tell me, if no one brought it up, why are you talking about it instead of answering my questions?

Now i fully you to try to change the subject, probably throwing in an insult to pretend as if you're somehow better than me rather than changing the subject. Quite frankly, I don't care. You're just lying to yourself and the whole board can see that.

To be a dimocrap, the first person you have to lie to is yourself.

And it just continues and continues and continues and continues and.......

 

[ClosedCaption]

Make. Sense. Or. STFU.

I cant to you because you require sense.

The great depression was caused by it. Get it now? Now heres the part where you say "No it didnt" and call a name then run to your corner

No income inequality did not cause the Great Depression. Sorry, fail. Total fail.

Must be an Echo or just your usual bullshitter tactics

 

[Avatar4321]

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

Oh I get it...this is when Avatar is going to wait until 3 pages later to claim he answered some shit and ask why I havent answered his question that doesnt exist.

Perfect

No. It's called this is when I work. One of these days im sure youll actually start having a conversation. I have hope for you

 

[ClosedCaption]

Why do you always avoid answering questions and use fallacies to make irrational points?

Who said one side stresses and another doesnt? You'll notice you didnt ask me a question but I did ask you one, that you ignored then asked why I ignore questions that arent there.

You seem to talk a lot about things that no one brought up at all...

You did. When you argued that poor people are less healthy because they are stressed.

I didn't ask you a question? Really? You're going to go with that?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...uality-makes-your-life-worse.html#post8533608

I count at least four. Granted, I was counting fast and could have missed one.

Did you answer any? No. You just got on some tangent about stress making people unhealthy implying that poor people are stressed and the rich aren't. But now you're pretending you didn't. Tell me, if no one brought it up, why are you talking about it instead of answering my questions?

Now i fully you to try to change the subject, probably throwing in an insult to pretend as if you're somehow better than me rather than changing the subject. Quite frankly, I don't care. You're just lying to yourself and the whole board can see that.

You're seriously going to try to argue that because Americans have more money, there is more of a chance of them being sick?.

Stress has no effect on our bodies is your opinion?

You seriously think the Rich don't get stressed?

You seriously think making the rich poor isn't going to stress more people out?

You didnt quote it so yea. Here it is. I asked a question you responded with a question. Now want to answer the question now or do this again in 2 pages?

 

[PixieStix]

The mantra of income inequality, is doing one thing....it is making the middle class disappear

 

[PredFan]

1. Income inequality forces Americans into debt.​

As the wealthy become wealthier, they create an “economic arms race in which the middle class has been spending beyond their means in order to keep up,” a 2013 study from the University of Chicago’s Marianne Bertrand and Adair Morse concludes.
“What you think you need depends on the context you find yourself in,” says Cornell economist Robert H. Frank, who has written about the “expenditure cascades.” “And standards tend to be local. When most of the income gains are going to the very top, the people around them feel relatively poorer and spend more because of that.” Lower- and middle-income Americans, in other words, are not forced to buy expensive cares or houses, but they feel pressured to do so, leading to an increase in the personal bankruptcy rate and a plummeting savings rate.

The wealthy bid up the the prices of real estate, create a boom in more expensive restaurants, bars, and grocery stores, and effectively price out their lower-income neighbors or force them to spend more to continue living in the community.

?Trickle-down consumption?: How rising inequality can leave everyone worse off

2. Income inequality makes America sick.​

Researchers at Harvard University’s School of Public Health found that women living in areas with large gaps between the “haves” and “have-nots” are at greater risk of being depressed and are nearly twice as likely to suffer from depression compared to the women living in areas that have a more equal income distribution.
Meanwhile, though American life expectancy has increased dramatically over past decades, research shows that those gains are going mostly to people at the upper end of the income ladder. Life expectancy of male workers retiring at 65 has grown by six years in the top half of the income distribution but only 1.3 years in the bottom half over the last 30 years, for instance. “Life expectancy has increased mainly among the privileged class,” Economic Policy Institute economist Monique Morrissey told the Washington Post. “For many people, raising the retirement age would amount to a significant benefit cut.”
The lack of health care providers in poorer communities and lack of education about health care conditions means that lower-income Americans are much more likely to develop and live with chronic medical conditions like diabetes or high blood pressure. A study by the National Urban League Policy estimates that U.S. health care disparities have contributed to $59.9 billion in excess spending, a price tag that will fall significantly as lower-income Americans start accessing health care services through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion.

How The United States' Growing Income Inequality Is Hurting Women's Mental Health | ThinkProgress

3. Income inequality makes America less safe.​

Statistical patterns show that crime rates increase with rising economic inequality. For instance, a 1999 Harvard analysis of the homicide rates in each state and the District of Columbia found that as the gap between the rich and the poor rose, the rate of homicide rose along with it. Income inequality alone accounted for “74 percent of the variance in murder rates and half of the aggravated assaults,” the research concluded. A 2002 World Bank study confirmed these results, concluding that homicide and an unequal distribution of resources are inextricably tied throughout the world.
The National Bureau of Economic Research has developed an even more precise number, reporting that “a twenty percent drop in wages leads to a 12 to 18 percent increase in youth crime.” Other analysis has found that a 1 percentage point increase in the Gini index (a measure of wealth inequality) produces, on average, a 3.6 percent increase in the homicide rate.

ftp://psyftp.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/sshrc2004/wilkinsonCrime.pdf

4. Income inequality makes America less democratic.​

A large body of research suggests that high inequality leads to lower levels of representative democracy and a higher probability of revolution, as poorer citizens become convinced that the government is only serving and representing the interests of the rich. And today’s political candidates and parties are relying more on deep pocketed campaign donors than at any other time since the early 1970s, when Congress first enacted campaign finance laws.
The Huffington Post’s Paul Blumenthal recently pointed out that “the top 0.01 percent of campaign donors — one percent of the one percent — contributed more than 40 percent of all the money spent in the 2012 elections.” Compare that to 1980, when the top 0.01 percent of campaign donors accounted for just under 15 percent of all the political contributions. Today’s rich also donate millions to Political Action Committees (PACs) and so-called 501(c)4 organizations in an effort to influence the politics and public policy. The Washington Post reported this month that the 17 groups that are funded by conservative donors Charles and David Koch “raised at least $407 million during the 2012 campaign” — more than Democrats and Republicans spent in the entire 2000 election.
Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser argues that as the rich become richer and secure more political influence, they support policies that make them wealthier at the expense of everyone else. “If the rich can influence political outcomes through lobbying activities or membership in special interest groups, then more inequality could lead to less redistribution rather than more,” he explained in a 2006 paper.

http://www.economics.cornell.edu/et17/Erik Thorbecke files/Socioeconomic impact.pdf
How The 0.01 Percent Underwrites, And Undermines, Politics

5. Income inequality undermines the American dream.

​

New research finds that while economic mobility in the United States has stayed flat for two decades, the distance between the richest Americans and the poorest has grown dramatically. So if social mobility is a ladder, this means “the rungs of the ladder have grown further apart (inequality has increased), but children’s chances of climbing from lower to higher rungs have not changed,” the researchers note.
This intergenerational mobility is significantly lower in the United States than in most other developed countries. The chances of a child moving out of poverty are about half as high in the U.S. as in Denmark, for instance, leading Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at England’s University of Nottingham, to conclude, “If Americans want to live the American dream, they should go to Denmark.”
Other research has found that economic mobility depends heavily on geography, and in particular, that areas with strong middle classes have higher rates. Places with lower and less progressive state income taxes, on the other hand, have lower rates of mobility.

Equality of Opportunity

6. Income inequality is undermining long-term economic growth.​

Societies with greater income inequality experience slower and less stable economic growth, a recent global comparison from the International Monetary Fund concluded, and see far shorter economic expansions.
They “are more vulnerable to both financial crises and political instability” and, if hit by external shocks, “often stumble into gridlock rather than agree to tough policies needed to keep growth alive,” the report found. As a result, American income trends suggest that current economic expansions “could last just one-third as long as in the late 1960s.”

How Inequality Hurts the Economy - Businessweek

All sorts of correlation not equaling causation happening here.

Merciful end to an idiotic thread.

 

[Avatar4321]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

Tell that to the Great Depression

So the Great Depression occured because of income inequality?

Really? I thought it was because people got greedy and dishonest trying to get money without thought about the consequences of their actions? I thought it was because people arrogantly assumed the market would always go up up up and took risk they shouldn't have. I thought it was because the government never stopped trying to fix and stop natural corrections to the market that created more and more problems for a prolonged period of time and prevented the natural recovery.

Silly me, I guess I shouldn't have listened to the economists and historians i got that from.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The beauty of this nation is we can disagree without any animosity. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on this. I have no doubt you have no problem with me disagreeing with you on it. That's what makes this nation truly great.

My main issue is there is no reason to divide us because of income. Just because someone makes alot of money doesn't mean they are my enemy. Nor does someone making less than me make them my enemy. We are brethren no matter how much success we have in life. And the fact is some may have hard times one time and good times another time. In fact, i think we all have times like that. We should not let them divide us on bogus class warfare.

On this I agree wholeheartedly. The one who makes a lot of money isn't who I despise, but who I emulate, so that I might enjoy their success. Sometimes I see high earners and decide it isn't worth the sacrifice. I've done the 5 days a week on planes thing in the past, and have no desire to do it now, even for a bit more cash.

 

[Edgetho]

Until democrats created the buzz word, there was no such thing as income inequality. There was success and failure.

Tell that to the Great Depression

So the Great Depression occured because of income inequality?

Really? I thought it was because people got greedy and dishonest trying to get money without thought about the consequences of their actions? I thought it was because people arrogantly assumed the market would always go up up up and took risk they shouldn't have. I thought it was because the government never stopped trying to fix and stop natural corrections to the market that created more and more problems for a prolonged period of time and prevented the natural recovery.

Silly me, I guess I shouldn't have listened to the economists and historians i got that from.

The Great Depression was started mostly by Nations that stopped paying their War Debts.

It was aggravated by people buying equities on margins as low as 2 and 3% and mindless protectionism

I don't know why people think of Financial Crises like the Great Recession and the Great Depression as America-Only problems. They weren't. Not by a long shot. Not by a BIG long shot.

If it had been just here, in America, we would recover from these things quickly. Happens all the time. A barely noticeable blip, and we're out of it.

When it's World Wide.... That's a problem.

Both the Great Recession and Depression were World Wide. To think that America, and America alone, caused either is foolish.

We may have exacerbated them (Smoot-Hawley, the CRA clusterfuck) but we didn't cause them