Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bullshit. In the past 30 years the poor saw their incomes stagnating, while the incomes of 1% had increased hundreds percents.

Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.

Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.

The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots. That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect. It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.

How else would you prefer it? You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?

To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle. And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.

There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used.

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.

Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.

Guess why? Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?

OR

Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!

Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor. You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.

No thanks... not interested.

 

[itfitzme]

Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.

Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.

The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots. That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect. It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.

How else would you prefer it? You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?

To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle. And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.

There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used.

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.

Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.

Guess why? Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?

OR

Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!

Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor. You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.

No thanks... not interested.

False choice. And, both choices are complete bullshit.

 

[Iceweasel]

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

I don't think they are proud of the debt, he sure wasn't. However, they did say:

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."




Ronald Reagan | The White House
Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.

In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used.

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.

Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.

Guess why? Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?

OR

Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!

Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor. You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.

No thanks... not interested.

False choice. And, both choices are complete bullshit.

Isn't it ADORABLE how when the usual suspects come, they always show up LONG IN ASSERTION but woefully short of a soundly stated reasoning which could potentially sustain their otherwise: BASELESS ASSERTION.

I guess I will NEVER tire of their feckless nature.

It makes me feel SO SMART!

And I'm sure the brighter bulbs already know that I'm not too bright, but compare to THESE DIM BULBS, I appear as the SUN!

 

[georgephillip]

There are few who would screw it over as severely as Obama has.

The twin draft-dodgers, Dick and Dubya, come to mind:

"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will ultimately cost between $4 trillion and $6 trillion, with medical care and disability benefits weighing heavily for decades to come, according to a new analysis."

Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan wars will keep mounting - Los Angeles Times

The LA times? Yeah, right. We believe that.

That's utter horseshit. Furthermore, most of the costs for Afghanistan were incurred under Obama. How many $trillions is Obamacare going to cost ultimately? $100 trillion? How much is Obama's shitty socialist economy going to cost, $200 trillion? So far it's been costing over $1 trillion every year.

Obama would have incurred no costs in Afghanistan if Dick and Dubya hadn't launched a pair of illegal invasions and occupations, remember?

"The single largest accrued liability of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is the cost of providing medical care and disability benefits to war veterans,” she said. “Historically, the bill for these costs has come due many decades later.”

"The report noted that the peak year in compensation for World War I veterans was 1969, and World War II veterans saw the largest payments from the government in the late 1980s.

"Payments to veterans of Vietnam and the first Gulf War are still rising, Bilmes wrote."

Study puts total price tag for Iraq, Afghanistan wars at more than $4 trillion | TheHill

Bush and Clinton and Obama serve the same shitty masters, but the latter's shitty economy got its start when rich parasites nearly collapsed the global economy in late 2007

 

[Bombur]

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

I don't think they are proud of the debt, he sure wasn't. However, they did say:

"Taming the lion called government spending was another key component of the plan – the “third leg of the stool.” Here, too, President Reagan did what he said he would do. During his Administration, growth in government spending plummeted from 10% in 1982, to just over 1% in 1987. With inflation factored in, Federal spending actually went down in 1987 – the first time that had happened in well over a decade."




Ronald Reagan | The White House
Dealing skillfully with Congress, Reagan obtained legislation to stimulate economic growth, curb inflation, increase employment, and strengthen national defense. He embarked upon a course of cutting taxes and Government expenditures, refusing to deviate from it when the strengthening of defense forces led to a large deficit.

In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression.

Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.

 

[georgephillip]

When I started working in 1977 minimum wage was 2.30. Today minimum wage is 7.25. The discussion is about the rich getting richer with the argued reason being minimum wage is to low. Yet, minimum wage has kept up with inflation thus spitting in the face of the argument.

As for your ability to live on minimum wage in California.. move to somewhere else. California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Libtardian taxes, welfare, and the dot com boom really busted minimum wage living there.

But hey if you "californians" want $20min wage in cali go for it. Not my state.

Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.

If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.

Higher by a small %. The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation. Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.

You claimed the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.

In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.

Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.

"[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.

"From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.

$22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images

 

[Iceweasel]

Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.

Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.

 

[georgephillip]

Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.

That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

What affect, if any, did the 1980s Oil Glut have on Reagan's "American Miracle?"

"The 1980s oil glut was a serious surplus of crude oil caused by falling demand following the 1970s Energy Crisis. The world price of oil, which had peaked in 1980 at over US$35 per barrel ($99 per barrel today), fell in 1986 from $27 to below $10 ($57 to $21 today)."

1980s oil glut - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thereisnospoon]

There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used.

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.

Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.

Guess why? Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?

OR

Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!

Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor. You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.

No thanks... not interested.

False choice. And, both choices are complete bullshit.

Your reply is non responsive.
Check your history. Each time government involves itself in the marketplace by regulating or taxation for the purpose of stimulating the economy, disaster soon followed.
Additionally, no modern society has even been able to tax itself into prosperity.

 

[georgephillip]

It's rare that a liberal is honest about Reagan. Debt went up, partly military since the cold war was still on and Peanuthead cut it so drastically like Democrats love to do. But don't overlook the fact that the Democrats increased spending and reneged on the deal to cut spending ($3 to every $1 in tax hikes) so Reagan gets blamed for the debt and raising taxes. While completely ignoring the extreme cut to begin with.

So go ahead prove that the spending helped the economy instead of those tax cuts. And pay attention to what happened when. And try to do it without name calling.

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.

Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?

"Tripling the National Debt -

"As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Your figures showing how the minimum wage has kept up with inflation appear to be based on unadjusted 2012 dollars.

If you compare your numbers to those that have been adjusted for the inflation that's occurred between 1979 to 2012, the minimum wage was actually higher in 1980 than where it was in 2012.

Higher by a small %. The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation. Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.

You claimed the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.

In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.

Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.

"[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.

"From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.

$22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images

Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.

Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?

"Tripling the National Debt -

"As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?

"the government was left with less money to spend."
And what did the Congress do? Continued to spend at the same pace.
Fiscal irresponsibility.
You libs whine and bitch because the poor government doesn't have enough to spend.
So fucking what...
As long as the essential functions of government are fully funded the rest of it can just wait until things get better. We as a nation do not have a blank check. There is no magic pot of money from which every swinging dick in DC can take to their State or District.
If government were kept on the short leash of "dollar in dollar out spending", we would not be in this $17 trillion mess.

 

[georgephillip]

Seriously I don't know what your argument was.

If you want to claim that Reagan didn't push Keynesian economic theories effectively it might help if you actually made an argument instead of playing meaningless semantic games.

That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

Higher by a small %. The discussion was talking about it being 250%+ low your chart shows, at best you could argue that it's 10% lower than the highest it's ever been adjusted for inflation. Your chart also shows that it's much higher than the average minimum wage over the time scale shown, as adjusted for inflation.

You claimed the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.

In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.

Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.

"[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.

"From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.

$22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images

Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.

It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.

 

[Bombur]

Your response is a non sequitur, meaning that it does not follow the point to which it responded.

Stagnated lower incomes in capitalist cultures, do not provide for a conclusion that contests the standing point that 'the poor' in capitalist countries are vastly better off than the poor in non-capitalist cultures.

The reason is that the economies in Capitalist economies EXPAND, and that expansion, AXIOMATICALLY raises ALL economic lots. That the increase is larger for the highest producing individuals is the simple result of cause and effect. It's the intrinsic design of the natural order.

How else would you prefer it? You you prefer that those who produce the least, realize an equal result with those who produce the most?

To require that, you'd have to dismiss incentive and reward as natural principle. And to do that, you'd have to be an imbecile.

There was income inequality in 1979 and there always will be. The graph demonstrates growing income inequality.

Incomes for those groups haven't always been stagnant.

Everyone benefits from changes in technology.

Capitalism is still going to be used.

People will still have an incentive to improve their lives. If anything there will be more of an incentive if growth is shared.

Our nation is in part better off because we have acted united as a nation. Our poor fought and bled and died for our country. People have come to our country because back home their nations no longer valued them and the US benefited greatly because we recognized their value and everyone prospered.

Yes, the graph shows a growing distinction between the least and the most affluent.

Guess why? Is it because over the last 20 years CAPITALISM WAS UNLEASHED?

OR

Over the last 20 years the US Economy has been suffering greater levels of strangulation by ever increasing and chronic interference from and liabilities DUE SPECIFICALLY TO: SOCIALIST POLICY!

Wherever you find socialism, you find the GREATEST DELTA between rich and poor. You will also find the largest number of poor and the lowest number of RICH.

No thanks... not interested.

Interesting theory. The problem is that if you actually look at other countries and measure their income inequality and try and measure their government involvement in their economies there is no correlation let alone causation.

Meanwhile the competing theory is that it comes down to changing markets. Is there anything actually impacting the US labor market that would cause this slow change? Well yes there is in the form of a trade deficit. But what about the strong growth in the upper class and hey look people are buying more. Both great things but at what cost?

There are theories that fit both our understanding of economic and reality. Then there are theories like yours that are based on blind ideology that has no basis in reality or theory.

 

[Iceweasel]

Interesting theory. The problem is that if you actually look at other countries and measure their income inequality and try and measure their government involvement in their economies there is no correlation let alone causation.

Meanwhile the competing theory is that it comes down to changing markets. Is there anything actually impacting the US labor market that would cause this slow change? Well yes there is in the form of a trade deficit. But what about the strong growth in the upper class and hey look people are buying more. Both great things but at what cost?

There are theories that fit both our understanding of economic and reality. Then there are theories like yours that are based on blind ideology that has no basis in reality or theory.

You haven't supported anything. All you do is offer assertions and insults. What do you mean there is no causation with government involvement? Government has no impact on economies? WTF? The reality is that yo think you know more about economics than people here who have been there and done that. All you know is what your Econ101 gray ponytailed professor told you. No sale!

 

[Bombur]

Government debt spending and putting money in the hands of people who will spend it sure sounds Keynesian to me.

Rather than engaging in labeling I'm hoping that you'll try to prove that it turned the economy around. It was on the rebound well before the debt was accrued.

Increases in the debt started with the late 80's recessions and increased even more with the 82 recession. A lot of the increase in spending was due to military spending which would establish increased spending levels into the future.

It was all very effective. Reaganomics worked. I am not sure why people try and act like Reagan didn't use debt spending to help the economy when he so clearly did.

 

[Bombur]

Interesting theory. The problem is that if you actually look at other countries and measure their income inequality and try and measure their government involvement in their economies there is no correlation let alone causation.

Meanwhile the competing theory is that it comes down to changing markets. Is there anything actually impacting the US labor market that would cause this slow change? Well yes there is in the form of a trade deficit. But what about the strong growth in the upper class and hey look people are buying more. Both great things but at what cost?

There are theories that fit both our understanding of economic and reality. Then there are theories like yours that are based on blind ideology that has no basis in reality or theory.

You haven't supported anything. All you do is offer assertions and insults. What do you mean there is no causation with government involvement? Government has no impact on economies? WTF? The reality is that yo think you know more about economics than people here who have been there and done that. All you know is what your Econ101 gray ponytailed professor told you. No sale!

So are you actually denying the truth in what I said or just complaining that I am educated?

Are you denying that other countries have less income inequality and yet more socialist governments than the US? Are you denying the importance of markets in determining income inequality growth? Are you denying the impact globalization has had on US trade?

I am honestly curious how your thought process works and how far I have to push you before you start complaining that I am educated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I can't even tell what you argument is anymore. Are you now giving credit to Democrats for "Reaganomics" or are you trying to parse every cost and benefit out giving all the blame to Democrats and all of the praise to Republicans?

None of this changes the fact that the government implemented Keynesian economics to get out of the recession as the Federal Reserve was forced to increase interest rates even though the economy was crashing. Nothing like large increases in government debt and large foreign capital inflows to help an economy get back on its feet.

Reaganomics?

Are you speaking of the idea where Government is seen as a threat to individual liberty, its powers, as a result starkly limited, its commerce limiting regulations slashed, it's cultural corrupting prohibited and the individual freed to exchange goods and services to the mutual profit of both parties, which, having profited the means of the individual to fulfill their needs, axiomatically profits the collective?

Or are ya talking about the fabled "Trickledown" projected upon Reagan, by the Progressive cult, wherein the POWERFUL seize the property of others and dole it out slowly to those 'down the cultural ladder'?

I doubt you're speaking of the former and expect you're referring to the latter, being wholly ignorant of the latter representing Keynesian Economics and Socialist (Progressive) governance.

Did the Gent from GE triple the national debt?

"Tripling the National Debt -

"As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion."

10 reasons why Ronald Reagan was the worst president of our lifetime - Orlando liberal | Examiner.com

Which one percent of the US population became even richer from Reagan's profligate borrowing?

As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the government was left with less money to spend.

That's awful! How much lower were revenues when Reagan left office, compared to when he was elected?

 

[thereisnospoon]

That's called projection. Look it up. You claimed it was debt spending that increased the economy. To support that, you misrepresent around others' arguments and try to talk over them then argue against the misrepresentation. I didn't think for a minute that you could back up your assertions and challenged you to also try not to engage in ad hominems. That's intellectually dishonest.

REAGANFOUNDATION.ORG | REAGANOMICS
Almost as soon as the Inaugural ceremony was over, President Reagan set his sights on Capitol Hill. From day one, he and his team worked tirelessly to get Congress to pass legislation to put the economy back on track. Even a near-fatal assassination attempt did not slow him down. While still recovering, he summoned Congressional leaders to the White House to twist their arms. Ronald Reagan may have been the first President to wear pajamas to a meeting with the bipartisan Congressional leadership. He wanted them to know he meant business.

His efforts paid off. In August 1981, President Reagan signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which brought reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses and incentives for savings. So began the Reagan Recovery. A few years later, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought the lowest individual and corporate income tax rates of any major industrialized country in the world.

The numbers tell the story. Over the eight years of the Reagan Administration:

20 million new jobs were created
Inflation dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1% by 1988
Unemployment fell from 7.6% to 5.5%
Net worth of families earning between $20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%
Real gross national product rose 26%
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988

So impressive was the Reagan Recovery that at the G7 Economic Summit in 1983, when it was obvious the President’s plan was working, the West German Chancellor asked him to “tell us about the American miracle." That was quite a turnaround from two years earlier, when President Reagan outlined his economic recovery plan to an unconvinced group of world leaders. Now, however, they all wanted to know how he did it, so he told them: reducing tax rates restored the incentive to produce and create jobs, and getting government out of the way allowed people to be entrepreneurs. From there, the free marketplace operated as it was supposed to.

You just explained the economic recovery without referencing the largest increase in government debt since WW2. That happens when you reference websites that are re-writing history to suit their political agenda.

You claimed the minimum wage increased "a helluva lot more than 275%" between 1979 and 2007.

In fact the current minimum wage is 32% below what it was in 1968 and 8% below what it was in 2010 when adjusted for inflation.

Had the minimum wage increase matched that of the richest 1% of Americans over the last six decades it would stand at $22.62 an hour.

"[Such a large increase] may seem outlandish, but previous research indicates American workers have just about earned it. Worker productivity has more than doubled since 1968, and if the minimum wage had kept pace with productivity gains it would have been $21.72 last year.

"From 2000 to 2012 alone workers boosted their productivity by 25 percent yet saw their earnings fall rather than rise, leading some economists to label the early 21st century a lost decade for American workers.

$22.62/Hr: The Minimum Wage if it had Risen Like the Incomes of the 1% » Sociological Images

Then there is the "cost". A symptom no one in support of the magical mandate ever considers.
The fact is, everything is relative. Costs rise, prices rise.
And the real indignity here is nearly ever union contract has in it a condition where wages are indexed to the federal min wage. Meaning, if the federal min wage is increased, union worker's wages must also increase relative to the new mandate.
This minimum wage thing is not about the workers. It's about politics. It's vote buying.

It's about equality of opportunity to share equally in the steadily rising US productivity over the last forty years. If the minimum wage increase during that time period had matched that of the richest 1%, so would all other income quintiles. The richest 1% earned about 8% of US income in the 70s and they earn almost 25% today. Their gain didn't come from working harder or from longer hours; it came from bribing politicians from both parties for favorable tax and trade policies. Had US workers shared proportionally in the productivity gains since the 80s, the richest 1% would have much less and everyone else would have more. Relatively speaking, you can think of it as Economic Democracy.

Share? There is no "share"....What someone else's income may be is nobody else's business.
Productivity rises with for example, technology, education and technical training. Productivity is realized when fewer people are required to increase output.
The most wealthy people are not the stereotypical blue blooded Greenwich CT mansion dwelling people you equate with wealth. The fact is most wealthy people work very hard to earn their wages. They also take the highest risk.
The one constant is this. Higher education and better training lead to higher wages. It has to be that way.
BTW, opportunity is EARNED. Not given. Not deserved.
There are far too many of us who work hard so that we may EARN opportunity to see it given away to those who refuse to make it their business to improve their skill set so that they are in the running for higher pay.