Lets talk about income inequality

[ClosedCaption]

A symptom of the disease. I'm against inflationary monetary policy, central planning and federal government encroachment. You like these things. If you didn't you wouldn't be addressing a symptom of the disease as the disease itself.

Are you for it or not?

it doesn't matter. That's not the problem. I dont care either way. The problem is that legislators have the ability to run favors for sectors of the economy in the first place. Government watching itself for a check on contributions is like when they passed that law regarding insider trading, then turned around and quietly repealed it.

You're addressing this symptom as though it would cure the disease. it wont.

Neither does your opinion because you don't have one or at the very least you refuse to take a position while attacking (and making up) other peoples positions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either

In other words, it is a self correcting problem.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

A symptom of the disease. I'm against inflationary monetary policy, central planning and federal government encroachment. You like these things. If you didn't you wouldn't be addressing a symptom of the disease as the disease itself.

absolutely agree. that policy and ballooning government spending is strangling the growth of household income, not wealth distribution.

That's why they wanted a fiat currency. Imagine if FRN were actually backed by a true asset? What would happen if the government taxed or borrowed exclusively without the ability to inflate M1 and M2?

We would have gone completely bankrupt decades ago. Or the people would have been able to keep the parasites in a complete and true check.

 

[ClosedCaption]

it is not about inflation - it is about the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% and the other 99% - and it is the same proportion for the last 40 years.

Inflation makes impact on absolute numbers, not on the rate or a share if the part in the whole.

Ok I'm listening...You're saying that the top 1% aren't earning more than 40 years ago or just the amount of wealth?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Are you for it or not?

it doesn't matter. That's not the problem. I dont care either way. The problem is that legislators have the ability to run favors for sectors of the economy in the first place. Government watching itself for a check on contributions is like when they passed that law regarding insider trading, then turned around and quietly repealed it.

You're addressing this symptom as though it would cure the disease. it wont.

Neither does your opinion because you don't have one or at the very least you refuse to take a position while attacking (and making up) other peoples positions.

You're not very bright I can tell. So I'll leave you to that dark space you call thought.

 

[Vox]

A symptom of the disease. I'm against inflationary monetary policy, central planning and federal government encroachment. You like these things. If you didn't you wouldn't be addressing a symptom of the disease as the disease itself.

absolutely agree. that policy and ballooning government spending is strangling the growth of household income, not wealth distribution.

That's why they wanted a fiat currency. Imagine if FRN were actually backed by a true asset? What would happen if the government taxed or borrowed exclusively without the ability to inflate M1 and M2?

We would have gone completely bankrupt decades ago. Or the people would have been able to keep the parasites in a complete and true check.

that is what the parasite fears and that is the reason we have what we do and where we are now.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually heres an article about it...

Dangers of Income Inequality
Here is a good article on income inequality from Joseph Stiglitz. It's only coincidence that I am posting so much from Stiglitz lately, I stumbled across this today looking at other blogs.

I think the dangers he presents are real and the arguments he makes valid. Some highlights:

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.

While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin.

Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.

Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.

The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.

Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.

The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.

With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.


The economy and the society as a whole become more and more unstable as income inequality gets worse and worse. I can't stress enough how important it is that this issue be addressed, yet I get the feeling that nothing will be done and that it may already be too late.

The government's role in society is to pursue and provide for the common good of the society for which it serves. Yet, lately, the government has served the pockets of the rich very well, while the common good is suffering.

Christian Economics: Dangers of Income Inequality

What happened since that article was written?

 

[Vox]

it is not about inflation - it is about the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% and the other 99% - and it is the same proportion for the last 40 years.

Inflation makes impact on absolute numbers, not on the rate or a share if the part in the whole.

Ok I'm listening...You're saying that the top 1% aren't earning more than 40 years ago or just the amount of wealth?

nope. the WEALTH distribution is THE SAME as 40 years ago.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

it is not about inflation - it is about the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% and the other 99% - and it is the same proportion for the last 40 years.

Inflation makes impact on absolute numbers, not on the rate or a share if the part in the whole.

Sure it is. Decreased purchasing power plays a significant roll in the wealth gap.

 

[Vox]

it is not about inflation - it is about the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% and the other 99% - and it is the same proportion for the last 40 years.

Inflation makes impact on absolute numbers, not on the rate or a share if the part in the whole.

Sure it is. Decreased purchasing power plays a significant roll in the wealth gap.

except wealth distribution did not change.

look at the table.
it fluctuates around 60-65% for the 99% and 35-40% for the 1% for the last 40 years. actually even longer, with the better proportion for the 99% during the Nixon and Ford years - the last time.
Even 2007 was better than now - but the difference was ~ 2%

BTW gap was bigger during Clinton years - 61% vs 38% and narrowed during Bush years

 

[ClosedCaption]

Actually heres an article about it...

Dangers of Income Inequality
Here is a good article on income inequality from Joseph Stiglitz. It's only coincidence that I am posting so much from Stiglitz lately, I stumbled across this today looking at other blogs.

I think the dangers he presents are real and the arguments he makes valid. Some highlights:

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.

While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin.

Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.

Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.

The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.

Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.

Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.

The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.

With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.


The economy and the society as a whole become more and more unstable as income inequality gets worse and worse. I can't stress enough how important it is that this issue be addressed, yet I get the feeling that nothing will be done and that it may already be too late.

The government's role in society is to pursue and provide for the common good of the society for which it serves. Yet, lately, the government has served the pockets of the rich very well, while the common good is suffering.

Christian Economics: Dangers of Income Inequality

What happened since that article was written?

Sun rose and set, seasons change, people were born and people died

 

[Erand7899]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either

Income inequality has never caused any society to crumble. Societies crumble because envious asses stir up unrest among those on the lower tier of the society, and other asses in political power attempt to quiet the unrest with largess from the treasury. Sound familiar?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either

In other words, it is a self correcting problem.

You ever seen a self correcting cookie?

 

[ClosedCaption]

it is not about inflation - it is about the percentage of wealth held by the top 1% and the other 99% - and it is the same proportion for the last 40 years.

Inflation makes impact on absolute numbers, not on the rate or a share if the part in the whole.

Ok I'm listening...You're saying that the top 1% aren't earning more than 40 years ago or just the amount of wealth?

nope. the WEALTH distribution is THE SAME as 40 years ago.

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

 

[Edgetho]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

People don't behave poorly because they're poor.

They're poor because they behave poorly

 

[ClosedCaption]

I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.

Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?

Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either

Income inequality has never caused any society to crumble. Societies crumble because envious asses stir up unrest among those on the lower tier of the society, and other asses in political power attempt to quiet the unrest with largess from the treasury. Sound familiar?

Societies crumble because of jealousy? Any other intangibles? How about because of sadness?

 

[zeke]

So now the republican story concerning the wealthy getting richer and the rest of us getting by, is that it's no different now than the past 40 years.

And you all seem to believe that. Of course, you all believed Mittens would win the White House. So what's that tell ya?

But if the wealthy control the same amount and the middle class was more prosperous and holding more of the nations wealth, I guess the poor people must of been even poorer. Is that correct?
It must be. There is only so much wealth to hold.

But you all don't have a problem with any of that.

If the ultra wealthy controlled 50% of the nations wealth, would that be good? How about 75% What is the magic number where the wealthy control our wealth and income where you think it might cause a problem? And what might that problem be?

 

[Vox]

Ok I'm listening...You're saying that the top 1% aren't earning more than 40 years ago or just the amount of wealth?

nope. the WEALTH distribution is THE SAME as 40 years ago.

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

income inequality does not matter at the very end.
what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

 

[Vox]

So now the republican story concerning the wealthy getting richer and the rest of us getting by, is that it's no different now than the past 40 years.

And you all seem to believe that. Of course, you all believed Mittens would win the White House. So what's that tell ya?

But if the wealthy control the same amount and the middle class was more prosperous and holding more of the nations wealth, I guess the poor people must of been even poorer. Is that correct?
It must be. There is only so much wealth to hold.

But you all don't have a problem with any of that.

If the ultra wealthy controlled 50% of the nations wealth, would that be good? How about 75% What is the magic number where the wealthy control our wealth and income where you think it might cause a problem? And what might that problem be?

stop screeching. the wealth distribution has never been 50-50. neither has it been 75% of the wealth in the hands of the hated 1%. It was up to 80% once in the hands of 99% - and it was during REPUBLICAN administration

1% accumulates more wealth during dimocrap administration - the gap was much bigger during Clinton, than during Bush and increased during obama again.

 

[zeke]

nope. the WEALTH distribution is THE SAME as 40 years ago.

Wealth Distribution? Ok, what happened to income inequality? I'm confused..

income inequality does not matter at the very end.
what matters is the whole WEALTH inequality.

and the latter did not change much for the last 40 years.

as a country we did accumulate wealth - and the distribution of it's accumulation is the same as 40 years ago.
which just proves that income per se is not the main driver of wealth accommodation.

Hey ain't that confusing. I thought you said that the growing inequality of wealth and income doesn't matter. Now you write that income inequality is not what matters. "What matters is the whole WEALTH inequality."

SO explain if you can, what does it matter?