Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[KevinWestern]

There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions. Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years. FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.

Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):

(1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability, (2) creating uncertainty in the politico-economic environment, which (3) reduces investment, ultimately (4) reducing growth of an economy.

If you have another study from a highly reputable institution (that covers a similarly diverse range of data) that reaches a different conclusion, I'd love to see it (in the spirit of debate).

 

[Contumacious]

Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):

(1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability, .

That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.


.

 

[KevinWestern]

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):

(1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability, .

That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.


.

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.

 

[Bombur]

Why the U.S. Has Lost Manufacturing Jobs

By Michael S. Rozeff

January 31, 2014

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by ending its extremely costly interventions overseas and reducing its military establishment..... the reduction in government spending .... matched by tax cuts, then the economy would be given a big leg up to adjust to productive lines of work. The U.S. is over-investing in phantom security.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by scrapping Obamacare and freeing up the medical sector of the economy, thereby making it more competitive and producing lower costs and higher quality.

The U.S. government could help American workers tremendously by making Social Security optional for them.


.

OK cut military spending.

I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient than the horrible Frankenstein monster that is our current system. So I agree with the general problem but there is a lot more evidence supporting UHC than there is in the idea the free market will solve our problems.

Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.

If you want legit conservative ways to improve things look to the corporate tax code. The way it works in the US is relatively unique in that it hurts US production and favors foreign production. Other nation's tax codes do the opposite.

You can also look at Chinese manipulation of our currency. That is not really anything either side is for.

You can also look at regulations from a trade perspective. Having common regulations with Europe and Canada can help facilitate trade.

I think it is pretty obvious that UHC is far more efficient

Based on what? The British system? The Canadian system? The USPS?

Making SS optional would just put more pressure on people to make good decisions and save for themselves.

You're right, we can't treat adults like adults, that would cut into the Dem voter base.

Every single UHC system of a major industrialized nation is more efficient than the US. The US system is way better because we spend way more but it is horribly inefficient. In large part because we failed to take advantage of market economies and when we tried to we created broken ones that had little to no chance of providing the market pressures needed.

 

[Bombur]

Feel free to post actual data to prove me wrong.

I have to prove you wrong even when you don't even bother to clearly argue your reasoning?

That doesn't seem right.

You have a problem with basic math? Tough fucking shit, either prove me wrong using whatever you want, or pretend I didn't actually make a point.

You didn't prove the point you thought you did that is for sure.

 

[Redfish]

Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):

(1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability, .

That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.


.

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.

Yes, and capitalism is the only system that achieves that. Under the socialistic plans desired by most liberals all of the money and all of the power is concentrated in a very small group of super elites, and everyone else is EQUALLY poor and miserable.

a free market capitalist system elevates the income of the entire population by creating more wealth. Sure, some have more than others, so what?

 

[KevinWestern]

That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.


.

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.

Yes, and capitalism is the only system that achieves that. Under the socialistic plans desired by most liberals all of the money and all of the power is concentrated in a very small group of super elites, and everyone else is EQUALLY poor and miserable.

a free market capitalist system elevates the income of the entire population by creating more wealth. Sure, some have more than others, so what?

Hey I'm a fan of capitalism - I said that it's "the best system we've got". However obviously you can have a capitalist society where the wealth is more evenly distributed, and a capitalist society where it is extremely stratified.

When we reach a state like the latter, we should consider "doing something about it" if you don't want to suffer the negative consequences like a revolution - for example - which will kill investment and economic growth.

I'm just stating fact, that's all.

 

[Bombur]

There is not a shred of evidence that income inequality causes recessions or depressions. Tightening the money supply is what caused the financial panic in 1929. It's not what caused the depression to continue for 12 years. FDR's economic policies are what caused it to continue.

Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.

 

[Redfish]

Income inequality leads directly to more volatile economic cycles. If you want to talk about why I will happily do so.

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.

Do you just make this shit up as you go, or is someone feeding it to you? That is one of the most ignorant posts I have seen in a long time.

 

[Bombur]

Really? Where is the evidence for that?

The income of the 1% is way more volatile than that of the bottom 99%. This is in large part to the way they make money (capital investment) You can see large increases in the income of the top 1% and large decreases as well.

As more and more income is concentrated in that 1% the ups and down of the economic cycle become more pronounced.

In addition the government is becoming more and more reliant on income taxes as a source of income and therefor there will be larger swings, both up and down, in tax revenues. Failure to account for this has already shaped our last/current recession and will likely have an even bigger impact on the next one unless government learns to plan better.

Do you just make this shit up as you go, or is someone feeding it to you? That is one of the most ignorant posts I have seen in a long time.

LOL

I guess this conversation isn't really fair because I actually know what is going on in the world and you just having talking points from people who are in the business of manipulating you.

 

[Contumacious]

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible.

Low income --should be bad - for the recipient. But some folks are UNmotivated.

But "society" , by which you mean taxpayers and producers should not be adversely affected. They should be allowed to exercise their right to stand their ground and defend their wealth using deadly force if necessary.

.

 

[OnePercenter]

You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?

Yes.

Right, and I'm the queen of England.

So you're a cross-dresser?

 

[OnePercenter]

The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason. After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.

So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?

Because Obama nearly added as much to the national debt ($7+ trillion) in 5 years as all presidents combined have ($10 trillion) in 230 years... you jagoff Dumbocrat!

How much of that was due to programs started by BushCo?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The US has spent $2 billion each week in Afghanistan for over 10 years and the Iraq war cost us over $4 trillion for absolutely no reason. After ten straight years of constant war and torture, The War Against Terrorism is as close to being won as the 40-year-old war on drugs which was started over complete lies.

So why does every jagoff GOP shill claim to be the party of "fiscal responsibility" and blame Obama for the country being broke?

Because Obama nearly added as much to the national debt ($7+ trillion) in 5 years as all presidents combined have ($10 trillion) in 230 years... you jagoff Dumbocrat!

How much of that was due to programs started by BushCo?

Obama couldn't end them?
Why is he so weak?

 

[Iceweasel]

How much of that was due to programs started by BushCo?

All of it of course. 85 more trillion and maybe he will scratch the surface of the BushCo debt. That's for reminding of that idiotic expression as well.

 

[OnePercenter]

$16.5M minus $495k.

You realized $16.5 million in a taxable account and only paid 3%?

We've been over this before with him a dozen times. He's lying. The dumb ass is talking about revenue, not profit. He knows someone that paid 500k on 16.5m in revenue and he thinks it makes him smart to say it was him, even though he has no clue what a business is, or the simple fact that businesses don't pay taxes on revenue. Guy's an idiot.

Let me make it simple. $16.5M income, $495k taxes.

 

[OnePercenter]

How much of those gains did you realize?

$16.5M minus $495k.

I see you don't understand the meaning of "gain."

Do you actually think you're fooling anyone?

Why would I want to fool anyone?

 

[OnePercenter]

What's funny is that he gets it, but yet he doesn't get it....

(Hint: if you're "bright" enough to figure out people will not accept high taxes, how can you be so stupid as to support high taxes )

What's even funnier is that he believes there's actual money in the Social Security Trust Fund. That's the sure sign of the terminally naïve.

That is really amazing considering politicians on both sides have openly admitted that the fund was pillaged years ago and has been operating as part of the general budget for about 70 years now.

Learn something.

snopes.com: Social Security Changes

 

[RKMBrown]

FICA is a tax based on income.
The issue being discussed was Reagan's skyrocketing revenues produced from tax cuts.
Reagan spiked FICA taxes and three-quarters of taxpayers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. It's hypocritical to claim revenue increases in the 80s were due to tax cuts on 25% of the population without mentioning the tax increases experienced by the other 75%.

SS is supposed to be a program funded by the people that receive it. It's not supposed to be like progressive income tax where the upper income folks are forced to foot the bill for the income folks. Are you incapable of understanding that?

I agree that is the case for the majority of the "pension" plan part of SS. The problem is the transfer payment for the low end of the spectrum. I also consider disability and unemployment to be programs that should be funded with a progressive tax.

Yeah no kidding. All libtards want to command the rich to bend over and serve them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, in Bombur's defense, according to this study conducted by the Department of Economics at Harvard, which draws on research from over 70 different countries (1960-1985, so rather recent data):

(1) Income inequality increases socio-political instability, .

That merely means that the parasites find it easier to steal, loot and plunder than to acquire a marketable skill.


.

But the fact of the matter IS that income inequality at a certain level is a bad thing for society and should be avoided if possible. I don't condone people "stealing, looting, or plundering", I just are a rational person who realizes that these things will always occur no matter what. You can't stop it, and therefore you need to learn to work with it.

No it doesn't.

The US has been living with higher levels of income inequality than any country in that study for decades. That alone proves that, despite the conclusions of those studies, that income inequality does not trigger social instability. Feel free to speculate on the actual problems given the new data.