Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

From 1941 to the 1960's we had high taxes on the rich and high wages. The taxes were invested in education and infrastructure and the high wages created consumer demand. Now we have low taxes for the rich and low wages, so 23% of total income goes to the top 1%.

70% of our economy is consumer demand. Too much money in too few hands starves the economy of demand.

Raise the minimum wage and tax capital gains as income.

Yet most of the left wingers on these forums blame Reagan, but IT WAS JFK that did the first big tax decrease on the highest marginal bracket, by 21% and he reduced corporate taxes as well while only reducing taxes on the lowest bracket by 6%. Major Supply Side economic move. I'll bet you call it trickle down.
When you say there is too much money in the hands of a few, do you think if that money was redistributed to the 2 or 3 lower quintiles they would invest that money to create jobs? You are totally economics challenged.

A nice argument for slavery.

I agree! Your left wing intentions have made 2 whole generations slaves to excessive welfare.

Good job.

I always do a good job. Sorry about your inability.

 

[dnsmith35]

A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.

Nice, non-argument. Good job.

The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.

You are arguing that paying people at the bottom does nothing to create jobs.

Apology accepted, Captain Needa.

If in fact that had been the premise to which you responded you may have had a point. But the post to which you responded did not say that at all. I said, "THE BOTTOM 2 OR 3 QUINTILES DON'T CREATE JOBS," dumb ass.

 

[dnsmith35]

The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "making a profit".

Yes, it two primary ways, fiscal and monetary policy. IE printing money which tends to cause inflation and lower interest rates artificially which also tends to cause inflation. That is exactly what happened in the Housing Balloon and subsequent crash.

Increasing the money supply will most likely increase prices, that's basic monetary theory, equation of exchange
MV=PQ

Agreed as to what your claim is.

Wow! You don't realize that the government spends money off shore? Gives away money off shore in foreign aid? Where do you think that money comes from? Under the mattress? It comes out of our economy and is never replaced.

Zombie - That's not "overhead", that's foreign aid. Overhead is a government clerk pegging away at a calculator and filing forms, as opposed to the paychecks received by the hypothetical workers who were the intended beneficiaries of the hypothetical government program. Overhead is what I need to tack on to billing in order to account for my electric bill, licenses, keeping my lawyer on retainer, etc.

You can call it what you wish, but overhead in the description you give DOES GO BACK INTO THE ECONOMY. Foreign aid and expenditures over seas does not. It is lost to the economy.

Is it your contention that Keynes was wrong because of foreign aid?

Nope! That is not what I said dumbass. Learn to read. I said Keynesian attempts to stimulate the economy tend to drag out the recovery rather than bring it to an end because all the money used to stimulate the economy came out of the economy minus what you don't want to call overhead.

If you want to give me a lecture on stagflation that's one thing; but let's leave the starving kids in poor countries out of this.

Stagflation? Like Jimmy Carter caused? I am not talking about that. And the starving kids in poor countries need help before our "relatively poor" in this country does. You sure are a greedy ass.

Going back to JFK's attempt at supply side economic theory of giving money to investors and corporations in the form of a 21% reduction to the marginal rate of the highest bracket while giving the lower bracket only 6% rate cuts, and on top of that he cut corporate income taxes hoping to help an economic recovery, which would have ended without his meddling. I was all for it at the time, but have since gotten a lot of economics education through a Masters degree. What could he have done to help more? Spent money directly on infrastructure programs starting immediately. As it was the rich got richer.

Keynesian economics sounds great, especially to the masses who may actually believe its going to help them But instead of giving money to people to spend, spending on infrastructure it stimulates job growth directly much more if you contract for big infrastructure jobs. TVA and Boulder/Hoover Dam come to mind.

You're talking about Kennedy's Tax Cuts. You would prefer infrastructure programs.

Okay... How is that not Keynesian economics?
Was it not Keynes who said:

It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
​

If Keynes actually said that he was more stupid than I previously thought he was. A proper approach to contracting infrastructure using all of the dollars you idiots what to throw at the less wealth will create as much spending with multiplier effect as giving the money, further habituating the poor as a class, and would give that same number of people jobs. Simple math, which apparently challenges your thinking as much as economics.

 

[dnsmith35]

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.​

rotflmao! Do you read the ignorant crap you post?
speaking of being too ignorant to debate, go look in the mirror and do some formatting.
yep, zombie, you sure do. The point was simple. I asked george a question. He didn't answer it, and chose to go off on a tangent. Then he chided androw for not accepting his tangent, and you fell right into the dumbass pit right after george.

Those were Androw's exact words, hence in italics, fed back to him for saying something stupid. You obviously missed that, and then went on to crow over something stupid.

Good Job! When does your puppet show commence?

I miss nothing you say, but I note your are as stupid as a fence post, and you seem to be proud of it.

 

[dnsmith35]

A nice argument for slavery.

Good job.

Nice, non-argument. Good job.

The moment some idiot brings up slavery, he's lost the argument.

The moment some idiot claims the other guy lost the argument on the grounds of rules he just made up, he admits he didn't know what the argument was in the first place.

You lose again dumb ass. It has been established since before you can't onto the forum, that suggesting any modern US issue resembles slavery is posted only by idiots and that is an automatic loss of the argument. You want to join the dumber dumb ass club with you and Chris as members.

 

[dnsmith35]

Wall Street ran a derivatives based Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
It wasn't the housing market.

Your harping on an incorrect cause of the recession proves your ignorance of the entire subject.

How did 4% of American homes being in foreclosure bring down the economy of Iceland?

Who the hell says it did? Not I. What may have brought down the economy of Iceland, and I have not seen any studies on the issue, would be the US Recession and economic slowdown the world over.

There was no Ponzi scheme, the government fiscal and monetary policy caused our housing balloon and crash. That caused the recession.

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

I have noticeD you have not produced a criminal trial. :LOL:Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.With government blessing!Wowee! One lady! She was absolutely responsible for the housing crash Wake up and smell the coffee, Freddie and Fannie competed hard to buy those loans, they lost, and now they want someone else to pay.

"The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.

"Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."

Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury

I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
Sure you will.
Bitch.

If you are not guilty in a criminal trial, IT IS NOT CRIMINAL FRAUD. One banking system chose to settle out of court and another banking system chose to object for what ever their reasons were and sued. Civil arguments are not crimes, and obviously you are not smart enough to figure that out. In fact you aren't smart enough to figure most everything out.

When are you going to address the Wachter and Levitin bull crap you threw out the other day?

When you get around to explaining why the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission used a variant of the word "fraud" 157 times to explain the origin of the crisis.

"As the commission found, the signs of fraud were everywhere to be seen, with the number of reports of suspected mortgage fraud rising twenty-fold between 1996 and 2005 and then doubling again in the next four years. As early as 2004, FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker was publicly warning of the 'pervasive problem' of mortgage fraud, driven by the voracious demand for mortgage-backed securities.

"Similar warnings, many from within the financial community, were disregarded, not because they were viewed as inaccurate, but because, as one high-level banker put it, 'A decision was made that "We’re going to have to hold our nose and start buying the stated product if we want to stay in business.’”

The reason there have been no convictions for criminal fraud in this latest looting is exactly the same as the reason why the looting occurred in the first place. Rich parasites funding the election campaigns and retirements of legislators and regulators who were empowered to prevent the epidemic of fraud.

The Financial Crisis: Why Have No High-Level Executives Been Prosecuted? by Jed S. Rakoff | The New York Review of Books

Actually I don't have to EXPLAIN DIDLY CRAP. Until there is a criminal conviction, the number of times a variant of fraud is stated means nothing. Fraud is a crime. The people in that CIVIL COURT did not try anyone for a crime. Companies frequently settle out of court to save the risk of losing more money. Thus far you have failed to prove your case about fraud.

I have no doubt that across this vast nation there were individuals who did commit fraud in some transactions, either a loan officer or a consumer, but the mass fraud you keep harping on has not been proved. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but you are stretching your excremental orifice out of shape.

 

[georgephillip]

"When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Was it not Keynes who said:

It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
​

If Keynes actually said that he was more stupid than I previously thought he was. A proper approach to contracting infrastructure using all of the dollars you idiots what to throw at the less wealth will create as much spending with multiplier effect as giving the money, further habituating the poor as a class, and would give that same number of people jobs. Simple math, which apparently challenges your thinking as much as economics.

Holy shit! You have no idea what you're talking about! I have never heard such idiotic drivel. Not only are you too stupid to understand anything Keynes said; you have just contradicted everything you said prior to this post in this exchange.
Where did you do your supposed graduate studies in economics, Glenn Beck University?

So let's summarize:
1) You are both too stupid and lazy to go look things up in a google search. That means you don't know how the internet works.
2) You oppose Keynesianism, primarily, because you don't really know what it is and cannot recognize anything written by Keynes. See item #1
3) You oppose Keynesianism because Keynesianism "allocates money to foreign aid", which Keynesianism doesn't, and only goes to show you're a moron.
4) You oppose Keynesianism because you don't understand the math Keynes presented in that passage and that means you don't understand how the Keynesian multiplier works. This makes your claim to graduate work in economics rather dubious.

 

[georgephillip]

Here's an 11 question exam on the basics of economic inequality in the US today.
There's a five minute time limit.
Average USMB score is around 4/11
My score was 0


Income Inequality 101

It opened my eyes to where I need to start in order to understand this subject

 

[dblack]

Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.

 

[georgephillip]

Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.

True, but what is their relationship?
Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?

 

[dnsmith35]

"When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.

It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.

Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.

Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.

But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other left wing and right wing biased sources and blow them out of existence.

Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.

 

[dnsmith35]

Was it not Keynes who said:

It is also obvious from the above that the employment of a given number of men on public works will (on the assumptions made) have a much larger effect on aggregate employment at a time when there is severe unemployment, than it will have later on when full employment is approached. In the above example, if, at a time when employment has fallen to 5,200,000, an additional 100,000 men are employed on public works, total employment will rise to 6,400,000. But if employment is already 9,000,000 when the additional 100,000 men are taken on for public works, total employment will only rise to 9,200,000. Thus public works even of doubtful utility may pay for themselves over and over again at a time of severe unemployment, if only from the diminished cost of relief expenditure, provided that we can assume that a smaller proportion of income is saved when unemployment is greater; but they may become a more doubtful proposition as a state of full employment is approached.
​

If Keynes actually said that he was more stupid than I previously thought he was. A proper approach to contracting infrastructure using all of the dollars you idiots what to throw at the less wealth will create as much spending with multiplier effect as giving the money, further habituating the poor as a class, and would give that same number of people jobs. Simple math, which apparently challenges your thinking as much as economics.

Zombie -

Holy shit! You have no idea what you're talking about! I have never heard such idiotic drivel. Not only are you too stupid to understand anything Keynes said; you have just contradicted everything you said prior to this post in this exchange.

No I did not. You are just too stupid to understand what I said. Where did you do your supposed graduate studies in economics, Glenn Beck University?

USC!

So let's summarize:
1) You are both too stupid and lazy to go look things up in a google search. That means you don't know how the internet works.
2) You oppose Keynesianism, primarily, because you don't really know what it is and cannot recognize anything written by Keynes. See item #1
3) You oppose Keynesianism because Keynesianism "allocates money to foreign aid", which Keynesianism doesn't, and only goes to show you're a moron.
4) You oppose Keynesianism because you don't understand the math Keynes presented in that passage and that means you don't understand how the Keynesian multiplier works. This makes your claim to graduate work in economics rather dubious.

1. I have every bit as much capability to use Google as you and George combined.
2. I oppose that part of Keynesianism which simply gives people money, either directly or through tax cuts because it tends not to work in ending a low business cycle. That includes JFK's concept of Supply side economics and all other trickle down economic theory.
3. I have never said that Keynesianism allocates money to foreign aid. That is an outright lie on your part. I did say that, and I consider that, when money is taken out of the economy and spent in ways that do not put every penny back into the economy is effectively "overhead."
4. I understand Keynesian better than you will ever understand. I reject some parts of Keynesianism because it serves no valid purpose in ending a recession. Multipliers are easy enough even for a monkey intelligence like you to understand. The point being that when a dollar is spent, it goes through many hands in the process of aiding the economy.

What is equally obvious is your 3rd grade economics understanding is reflected in every ignorant attempt to discuss an economic subject.

What is obvious as well is, the $500 billion spent in an attempt to use Keynesian theory to jump start the economy in recent years failed miserably. The main reason is because the $$$$s went to the same people targeted in our traditional safety net programs target, thus limiting what the money could have done.

Contrary to the ignorance of some socialist paradigm economists, the fastest way put money to work in the economy is to have VALID SHOVEL READY infrastructure needs which creates jobs IMMEDIATELY without having to wait for the "safety net people" to spend their money and hope it is spent to someone who is in saving mode instead of spending mode. During a recession, those who have money or can get enough to get by on other than the "safety net" people thus we lose the multiplier effect which generally occurs when $$$$s are spent. That also applies to big business who chose to save their cash until the economy is rising.

When you put millions to work in jobs building infrastructure (not the paltry few thousand Keynes suggested) that money goes into the economy with multiplier effect far in excess than GIVING IT TO OUR "SAFETY NET" PEOPLE.

What you have done, because you did understand what I really said, and what it really means, is come up with phony excuses and faulty implications.

Like I said before, you absorb the OPINIONS of left wing sites, (just like others absorb the opinions of right wing sites) instead of looking at the myriad studies which have published studies which has empirical data. If you do that, and analyze the data yourself (if you are smart enough which is questionable) you may come to a reasonable conclusion. Your parroting left wing talking points, which true liberals do not accept, wastes your time, the readers time, and the bandwidth of the internet connections.

 

[georgephillip]

"When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.

It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.

Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.

Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.

But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other left wing and right wing biased sources and blow them out of existence.

Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.

Let's look at the OECD study that Huffington drew from. The claim is made that income gains from 18 countries between 1975 and 2007 show the US 1% gained more than any other state in the survey.

Do you want to dispute that or the following?

"America’s top 1 percent of earners accounted for 47 percent of all pre-tax income growth over that time period. And that’s excluding capital gains, for God's sake.

"Throw in the rest of the top 10 percent, and you’re looking at a group that got four-fifths of all income growth between the Ford and George W. Bush administrations.

"The rest of us were left to scramble for the last one-fifth of extra income.

"If you add in capital gains, which typically accrue to the highest earners anyway, the picture is probably a lot worse."

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

 

[dnsmith35]

Here's an 11 question exam on the basics of economic inequality in the US today.
There's a five minute time limit.
Average USMB score is around 4/11



Income Inequality 101

It opened my eyes to where I need to start in order to understand this subject

I was amazed that I missed 4 of the 11 for 72.7% I tended to estimate a little low on those answers. I guess I need to start relooking at some of my opinions as well. And people wonder why I don't accept opinions unsupported by data, not even my own.

 

[georgephillip]

Here's an 11 question exam on the basics of economic inequality in the US today.
There's a five minute time limit.
Average USMB score is around 4/11



Income Inequality 101

It opened my eyes to where I need to start in order to understand this subject

I was amazed that I missed 4 of the 11 for 72.7% I tended to estimate a little low on those answers. I guess I need to start relooking at some of my opinions as well. And people wonder why I don't accept opinions unsupported by data, not even my own.

Congrats.
The last time I looked that placed you second on the USMB board.
Kimura missed one question.
You can find the thread in the Economy Forum, if you're interested.

 

[dnsmith35]

"When it comes to income inequality, no other developed economy does it quite like the U.S.A. If you need some proof, here it is:"

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

I don't question IF there is income equality. I don't agree with the left wing extremists as to WHY there is income inequality. As has been posted with links, the disparity is directly correlated to education, marital status, ambition and motivation, common human traits which are relevant to how much a person can earn.

It is obvious that some have quit school, stopped having ambition and motivation because they had been oppressed to some degree. What is equally obvious is, even with oppression, many of the same "oppressed" people have made the choice to succeed in spite of that oppression.

Also obvious is the fact that people who are referred to as "poor white" suffer from that problem as minorities.

Where does all of this start? In school, where the teacher and staff don't do enough to overcome the "failure syndrome" which is perpetrated in some groups of students. Teachers in particular cause many poor people to lose self esteem when they choose to castigate who do poorly on home work and class work instead of giving them the help they need. Most kids respond negatively to that castigation, and most kids who perform poorly can be helped if the schools give them the attention and positive help they need.

But you can take your Huffington article and stick it in with all the other left wing and right wing biased sources and blow them out of existence.

Don't believe opinions of so called "experts," instead look for the studies, skip past the author's conclusions and work to understand the data without being told how to think.

George - Let's look at the OECD study that Huffington drew from. The claim is made that income gains from 18 countries between 1975 and 2007 show the US 1% gained more than any other state in the survey.

I accept that.

Do you want to dispute that or the following?

"America’s top 1 percent of earners accounted for 47 percent of all pre-tax income growth over that time period. And that’s excluding capital gains, for God's sake.

"Throw in the rest of the top 10 percent, and you’re looking at a group that got four-fifths of all income growth between the Ford and George W. Bush administrations.

"The rest of us were left to scramble for the last one-fifth of extra income.

"If you add in capital gains, which typically accrue to the highest earners anyway, the picture is probably a lot worse."

The U.S. Is Even More Unequal Than You Realized

If we extended that out a few years that income spike went way down with the recession.

The top 1% get 20% of all income in the US. Their income growth more than doubled in that time period.

Yet when you look at even smaller segments the major income inequality occurred between the top .99% and the top.01% such that only a very small number of Americans participated in that high income inequality growth.

When extrapolating that high % of growth to the top .01% of the people, the TOTAL is not as large as imagined.

I think it is important to take into consideration how much the total is as related to the % of increase of their wealth. Only the top .01% have gotten the lions share of the growth, not unlike the Carnegies, the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, the Vanderbilts et al, in their day. That will not stop. That is one reason people look at the US's economic situation as a giant. People can aspire to grow wealth in an unlimited fashion if they have sufficient intelligence, education, motivation, and ambition plus the get up and go many steps further than the average Joe. Basically trying to compare our prosperity and growth to other countries, ESPECIALLY those that are smaller, is a futile endeavor.

 

[dblack]

Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.

True, but what is their relationship?
Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?

Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?

 

[georgephillip]

Poverty and income inequality aren't the same thing.

True, but what is their relationship?
Beyond a certain level, can we say income inequality becomes a necessary but not a sufficient condition for poverty?

Are you suggesting that, if income inequality wasn't allowed, there would be no poverty?

I don' think so.
Maybe if income inequality was reduced poverty would follow?
There will always be some inequality of incomes; however, what we've seen over the past forty years, I believe, has more to do with government tax and trade policies which have been implemented to benefit one percent of workers at the expense of the middle class.