Fixing Inequality

[Indeependent]

Market forces almost always do benefit certain groups more than other groups.

So what?

If market forces combine to make investment in buggy whips a valuable thing, then the fact that I am not in the group that made such an investment means that (unlike those who did) I will not be reaping that benefit.

Does the fact that others DID make the investment deprive me of anything? Nope. I lost the opportunity of my own volition. The gained the benefit of THEIR own volition. But their good fortune did NOT come at MY expense.

The market forces in question are not for buggy whips but market forces that impact labor markets. The result of these market forces is that less people are employed than would be employed without these market forces. This results in inefficiencies in the labor market.

I will limit the issue to just one thing so that you can keep up.

False.

It is BECAUSE of market forces (like supply and demand a better product, etc) that Microsoft was able to make "stuff" that EMPLOYED so very many people AND, in the process, ALSO created lots of OTHER support industries with the resulting DEMAND for labor.

There is not a shred of logic or "fact" in your utterly baseless claim that absent market forces MORE people would be "employed."

Market forces may well be inefficient. But they are far more efficient long term than the human beings who would try to impose their own form of "order" on such things.

You couldn't prove-up your claim if your life itself depended on it.

Are you including Bill's H1-B and off-shoring wet dream come true?

 

[Bombur]

YOU didn't ask whether there CAN be SOME such forces.

Go back and read the drivel you had actually posted.

NOW, of course, I understand your need to modify and quibble.

Shit. Nobody would want to be saddled with the simplistic tripe you have posted.

SOME market forces CAN, from time to time, and under SOME conditions, adversely impact (at least temporarily) employment.

And what might YOUR "fix" for that be?

No I didn't ask. I simply stated the fact. Which you claimed was false.

I am glad you were so quick to correct your rather ridiculous mistake and that we can all agree that market forces can impact employment.

Now let me suggest another possibility. That those same market forces that push down wages/employment help employers lower costs potentially increasing their compensation.

It appears you can't even understand the words YOU chose to use.

Let me help you out.

IF and when you choose to make a limited assertion, you may QUALIFY the assertion. For example, "it is SOMETIMES the case that ...." Until you figure this out, the blame for YOUR unique lack of clear expression lies entirely in your own hands.

HTH.

Ohh stop being so tedious and address the points or not. I DID qualify the assertion BTW.

If you are going to be a tedious bore at least be right.

 

[Contumacious]

You can't fix inequality because people are inherently unequal.

They have different skills, desires, motivations and intelligence.

Therefore people will never ever be equal all we can hope for is the law is applied equally to all people and we can't seem to do that so maybe we should concentrate our efforts there first.

Exactly.

.

 

[Brain357]

So the son of rich parents is doing well and that's upward mobility for you? He's come up from the bottom right? Haha. You really don't get it.

Ah, the simplistic, coloring-book world of the leftist. "You have money, and your son is successful, so he's successful because you have money!" Yeah, and Obama is President, and the sky is blue, so the sky must be blue because Obama is President.

God forbid you should read the part where he told you he made his kid work for things instead of just handing them to him.

My mom gave me 1 year to move out. I hated her for it. She said she hoped I did the same with my kid.

My kid opted to move out right away.....but he had a year to stay if he wished.

Dam, he was poor. Studio apartment in Brooklyn NY with roaches, no elevator and windows stuck closed with paint. No car and no place to keep it if he had one.

Sure, he started out comfortable while growing up....but as an adult?

He started somewhat poor.

Now he is comfortable and moving ahead.

And if you ask him?

Moving out was the best thing he ever did. It motivated him to strive for the better things in life.

I hate to break this to you, but that isn't upward mobility. He was not born to a poor family and moved up. He was born to a rich family and has maintained. He merely pretended to be poor for a while. But living in a studio apartment doesn't change he was born to rich parents. Is this what all the rich think? You can pretend to be poor for a little while and that's the same as actually growing up poor? I guess when your stock go down your poor and when they go up again that's upward mobility? haha

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why would we want to fix inequality if it aint broken?

Is it broken?

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

Gates makes a shit load more than I do.

His considerable wealth has never compelled me to be any less affluent than I otherwise would have been. In fact, his wealth is an outcome of his brains, talent and industry which has served a lot of people to get wealthier (directly and indirectly).

Things like wages are determined in markets.

HTH

Well, thank you for that painfully "duh" non sequitur, Captain Obvious. Wanna tell us what in the post you quoted this was apropos of?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Market forces almost always do benefit certain groups more than other groups.

So what?

If market forces combine to make investment in buggy whips a valuable thing, then the fact that I am not in the group that made such an investment means that (unlike those who did) I will not be reaping that benefit.

Does the fact that others DID make the investment deprive me of anything? Nope. I lost the opportunity of my own volition. The gained the benefit of THEIR own volition. But their good fortune did NOT come at MY expense.

The market forces in question are not for buggy whips but market forces that impact labor markets. The result of these market forces is that less people are employed than would be employed without these market forces. This results in inefficiencies in the labor market.

I will limit the issue to just one thing so that you can keep up.

Is it possible that you could limit the issue to something that isn't vague blather you picked up from an economics textbook and neither understand nor have any idea how to apply to a specific scenario?

 

[Cecilie1200]

"All men are created equal"
I have read and studied our founding documents over and over and I still haven't found the part that says, "All men shall die equal".
Would one of you Liberal Obama lovers please show me?

How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote.

If you are going to limit your understanding of equality and liberty off of the beliefs of slave owners you are not going to get very far with me.

And where does any of that appear in our founding documents? Please cite the specific passages.

If you are going to tout your intellectual and moral superiority to the Founding Fathers, you're going to get nowhere with me . . . unless derisive laughter was, in fact, your goal.

 

[Bombur]

"All men are created equal"
I have read and studied our founding documents over and over and I still haven't found the part that says, "All men shall die equal".
Would one of you Liberal Obama lovers please show me?

How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote.

If you are going to limit your understanding of equality and liberty off of the beliefs of slave owners you are not going to get very far with me.

And where does any of that appear in our founding documents? Please cite the specific passages.

If you are going to tout your intellectual and moral superiority to the Founding Fathers, you're going to get nowhere with me . . . unless derisive laughter was, in fact, your goal.

Are you denying that slavery was allowed?

 

[Bombur]

Market forces almost always do benefit certain groups more than other groups.

So what?

If market forces combine to make investment in buggy whips a valuable thing, then the fact that I am not in the group that made such an investment means that (unlike those who did) I will not be reaping that benefit.

Does the fact that others DID make the investment deprive me of anything? Nope. I lost the opportunity of my own volition. The gained the benefit of THEIR own volition. But their good fortune did NOT come at MY expense.

The market forces in question are not for buggy whips but market forces that impact labor markets. The result of these market forces is that less people are employed than would be employed without these market forces. This results in inefficiencies in the labor market.

I will limit the issue to just one thing so that you can keep up.

Is it possible that you could limit the issue to something that isn't vague blather you picked up from an economics textbook and neither understand nor have any idea how to apply to a specific scenario?

Want a specific example? Chinese manipulation of the USD.

 

[Bombur]

Why would we want to fix inequality if it aint broken?

Is it broken?

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

You don't know why unemployment and underemployment are a problem?

Ohh dear.

 

[KevinWestern]

Why would we want to fix inequality if it aint broken?

Is it broken?

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

 

[Contumacious]

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

Exactly, what Ayn Rand called the "Aristocracy of Pull".

.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

there are certain people, like Bombur, who feel that, in the long run, it can become a serious problem. And maybe it will. I have yet to be convinced, but I am still on the fence.

However, the masses see it as a problem from a selfish standpoint. They simply don't like the fact that others make SO MUCH MORE than they do.

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

HOW they succeed is our business?

A B and C are all filthy fucking rich.

I mean, let's assume Person A does the Gates thing and gets rich without cheating.

Let's assume Person B is a son of some industrialist and basically his job is to "clip coupons" (as though lots of people still do such a thing).

Person C steals it outright and sells boatloads of illegally imported controlled substances as a lucrative sideline to his thievery.

I am all for making C disgorge his ill-gotten "wealth."

But if we EXCLUDE the pilferers and cheaters, and the only wealthy folks we concern ourselves with are those like A who earn it themselves and persons like B who got their wealth via "inheritance" and random good luck, do any of the rest of us get to do anything about those "B" types?

Should we have any rightful claim to make against them?

I don't think so.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And don't even get me started on that whole "question" of "how much wealth is too much?"

The question ITSELF, in my view, is entirely bogus.

 

[KevinWestern]

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

HOW they succeed is our business?

A B and C are all filthy fucking rich.

I mean, let's assume Person A does the Gates thing and gets rich without cheating.

Let's assume Person B is a son of some industrialist and basically his job is to "clip coupons" (as though lots of people still do such a thing).

Person C steals it outright and sells boatloads of illegally imported controlled substances as a lucrative sideline to his thievery.

I am all for making C disgorge his ill-gotten "wealth."

But if we EXCLUDE the pilferers and cheaters, and the only wealthy folks we concern ourselves with are those like A who earn it themselves and persons like B who got their wealth via "inheritance" and random good luck, do any of the rest of us get to do anything about those "B" types?

Should we have any rightful claim to make against them?

I don't think so.

Would you be able to rephrase? Not sure I fully follow.

Let me restate. I can care less if a person who provides a great service or product to society becomes wildly rich from it. That's a GOOD thing; it gives society motivation to innovate and create. However what I have a problem with is a person becoming wildly rich because they bribed a politician who created legislation that put the competition out of business - for example. Crony capitalism is at epidemic levels right now.

I'm not saying I have all the answers on how to fix that, I'm just saying it's a problem.

Also, I don't care a whole lot about criminals who get rich by importing drugs; they are simply fulfilling a demand, and I believe they deserve the money they earn. It's the swine who get rich by STEALING money or get rich by rubbing shoulders with all the right people despite having an inferior product or service.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote.

If you are going to limit your understanding of equality and liberty off of the beliefs of slave owners you are not going to get very far with me.

And where does any of that appear in our founding documents? Please cite the specific passages.

If you are going to tout your intellectual and moral superiority to the Founding Fathers, you're going to get nowhere with me . . . unless derisive laughter was, in fact, your goal.

Are you denying that slavery was allowed?

Epic fail.

Let's try this again, you obtuse shitforbrains, and I wouldn't advise making me clarify your reading comprehension of your own fucking posts after this.

You said this: "How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote."

I asked you to cite the specific parts of our founding documents to which you referred. At no time was either of us discussing the very generalized concept of whether or not slavery was allowed, and for you to bring it up as though it in any way addresses my post or applies to the topic at hand is exactly the same as you saying, "Yes, I was full of shit, and you were correct when you pointed out that I was full of shit, and I can't admit how badly I've just stepped on my dick in public."

So your next post will contain citations of the specific passages of our founding documents which you referenced, or it will be an admission that you're both a liar and an ignoramus. And believe me, no matter what you say or how brilliantly you think you are covering your ass and backpedaling when you do not provide those citations, that IS what it's going to say, and everyone here will know it.

I eagerly await the waving of your white flag, pusbag, because we both know how this is going to play out, don't we?

 

[Indeependent]

I just keep waiting for them to explain WHY it's a problem, or a potential problem, and all they do is keep restating that it is, as though proof = number of times you can say it.

Here is my viewpoint, I’ll try to keep it quick and concise.

I’m not against people who are talented and worthy making a lot of money and succeeding; that’s the American dream, and will only better our society. However I AM against people making a lot of money and succeeding simply because they know the right people and have the money/power to control the legislation. It wasn’t 50 years ago when it was considered highly unethical for the head of a Defense Committee to attend a fundraising party with powerful Defense Lobbyists, whereas now this sort of thing is commonplace. Ethics are no more.

America is quickly becoming less of a place where you can pull yourself up from your bootstraps and more of a place where the only individuals who truly succeed on a major level are those who are already well connected and already members of dynastic families and societies.

Why is this a problem? It's a problem because success is quickly becoming less and less about talent. Those who potentially can make the BEST STUFF and do the BEST THINGS for society are being trumped by those who already have hundreds of millions of dollars and can bribe a congressperson to pass a law that puts the BEST GUY out of business. Crony Capitalism is trending upward, not the other way around like it should be.

HOW they succeed is our business?

A B and C are all filthy fucking rich.

I mean, let's assume Person A does the Gates thing and gets rich without cheating.

Let's assume Person B is a son of some industrialist and basically his job is to "clip coupons" (as though lots of people still do such a thing).

Person C steals it outright and sells boatloads of illegally imported controlled substances as a lucrative sideline to his thievery.

I am all for making C disgorge his ill-gotten "wealth."

But if we EXCLUDE the pilferers and cheaters, and the only wealthy folks we concern ourselves with are those like A who earn it themselves and persons like B who got their wealth via "inheritance" and random good luck, do any of the rest of us get to do anything about those "B" types?

Should we have any rightful claim to make against them?

I don't think so.

Gates got rich by cheating.
Use Jobs next time.

 

[Bombur]

And where does any of that appear in our founding documents? Please cite the specific passages.

If you are going to tout your intellectual and moral superiority to the Founding Fathers, you're going to get nowhere with me . . . unless derisive laughter was, in fact, your goal.

Are you denying that slavery was allowed?

Epic fail.

Let's try this again, you obtuse shitforbrains, and I wouldn't advise making me clarify your reading comprehension of your own fucking posts after this.

You said this: "How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote."

I asked you to cite the specific parts of our founding documents to which you referred. At no time was either of us discussing the very generalized concept of whether or not slavery was allowed, and for you to bring it up as though it in any way addresses my post or applies to the topic at hand is exactly the same as you saying, "Yes, I was full of shit, and you were correct when you pointed out that I was full of shit, and I can't admit how badly I've just stepped on my dick in public."

So your next post will contain citations of the specific passages of our founding documents which you referenced, or it will be an admission that you're both a liar and an ignoramus. And believe me, no matter what you say or how brilliantly you think you are covering your ass and backpedaling when you do not provide those citations, that IS what it's going to say, and everyone here will know it.

I eagerly await the waving of your white flag, pusbag, because we both know how this is going to play out, don't we?

So slavery is not allowed in our founding documents?

Did people just forget to tell the south?

 

[KevinWestern]

And where does any of that appear in our founding documents? Please cite the specific passages.

If you are going to tout your intellectual and moral superiority to the Founding Fathers, you're going to get nowhere with me . . . unless derisive laughter was, in fact, your goal.

Are you denying that slavery was allowed?

Epic fail.

Let's try this again, you obtuse shitforbrains, and I wouldn't advise making me clarify your reading comprehension of your own fucking posts after this.

You said this: "How about the part of our founding documents where the rich can literally own other people. Or that part where it is only the land owners that can vote."

I asked you to cite the specific parts of our founding documents to which you referred. At no time was either of us discussing the very generalized concept of whether or not slavery was allowed, and for you to bring it up as though it in any way addresses my post or applies to the topic at hand is exactly the same as you saying, "Yes, I was full of shit, and you were correct when you pointed out that I was full of shit, and I can't admit how badly I've just stepped on my dick in public."

So your next post will contain citations of the specific passages of our founding documents which you referenced, or it will be an admission that you're both a liar and an ignoramus. And believe me, no matter what you say or how brilliantly you think you are covering your ass and backpedaling when you do not provide those citations, that IS what it's going to say, and everyone here will know it.

I eagerly await the waving of your white flag, pusbag, because we both know how this is going to play out, don't we?

I believe there were quite a few laws drafted by our founding fathers that condoned slavery. The Constitution - I believe - once had a provision that basically said that slaves who made it to free states weren't in effect "free". What exactly would you call that?