Smart Man Discusses Income Inequality

[The Rabbi]

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

I don't care if I earn eleventy gajillion times less... that is on ME... it is not the job of government to do anything at all to help equalize outcome.. only to allow all of us the freedoms to succeed or fail all on our own, apply to any job we want (not get it), quit for whatever reason we want, be free to ask for more money (and be prepared for the company to use their freedom to say yes or no)

This thought that government is supposed to pat you on the back, make you feel better, make companies pay, etc is fucking ludicrous

It is if they want to avoid massive uprisings.

Another red herring.
You could open your own fish market.

 

[rightwinger]

What's the magic number where it goes from being bad to good? The fact is it's not the difference in incomes that matters, it's how those incomes are obtained. If they rich get their money by voluntary exchange of goods and services for cash, that's all to the good. If they get it by greasing the palms of politicians, sucking up to government bureaucrats or being an Obama campaign donor, then that is harmful to society.

Is there a magic number? Of course not
Is a severe disparity of wealth good for the country? Of course not

The question is ....We have been executing policies that encourage income and wealth to go to the "job creators" with an understanding that it would trickle down in terms of jobs and a surging economy. It didn't work

So why aren't we dismantling those policies?

Why don't you explain what "severe disparity f wealth" means and why it is bad for the country?

This should be amusing. Cue images of banana republics.

40% of Americans 2 tenths of a percentage of the wealth

Why do we continue programs that help those laughingly named "Job Creators" ????

 

[tooAlive]

Is there a magic number? Of course not
Is a severe disparity of wealth good for the country? Of course not

The question is ....We have been executing policies that encourage income and wealth to go to the "job creators" with an understanding that it would trickle down in terms of jobs and a surging economy. It didn't work

So why aren't we dismantling those policies?

Why don't you explain what "severe disparity f wealth" means and why it is bad for the country?

This should be amusing. Cue images of banana republics.

40% of Americans 2 tenths of a percentage of the wealth

Why do we continue programs that help those laughingly named "Job Creators" ????

It would be more accurate if you didn't use a pie graph next time. That implies wealth is finite. It's not.

 

[g5000]

And......some fun facts about our wonderfully fair economy.....with nice pictures.

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

This video is wrong in that it assumes wealth is finite. It's not. Wealth isn't like a pizza or a pie. So simply because some people have more money, others don't automatically have to have less.

Also, wealth isn't distributed in America. It's earned. Say what you want about inheritance or a corrupt few; here we earn our wealth. The only wealth that is distributed is done so by the government in the form of handouts. From food stamps to big bailouts.

You did not watch the film. That much is obvious.

 

[g5000]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

There is natural income inequality and unnatural income inequality.

Natural income inequality rises from some people working harder than others, being smarter than others, and being luckier than others.

Unnatural income inequality comes from legislative tilting of the playing field to the advantage of a few at the expense of the many.

We have a very legislatively-induced unnatural income inequality.

 

[tooAlive]

And......some fun facts about our wonderfully fair economy.....with nice pictures.

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

This video is wrong in that it assumes wealth is finite. It's not. Wealth isn't like a pizza or a pie. So simply because some people have more money, others don't automatically have to have less.

Also, wealth isn't distributed in America. It's earned. Say what you want about inheritance or a corrupt few; here we earn our wealth. The only wealth that is distributed is done so by the government in the form of handouts. From food stamps to big bailouts.

You did not watch the film. That much is obvious.

I did actually.

What's wrong with my statement?

 

[rightwinger]

Why don't you explain what "severe disparity f wealth" means and why it is bad for the country?

This should be amusing. Cue images of banana republics.

40% of Americans 2 tenths of a percentage of the wealth

Why do we continue programs that help those laughingly named "Job Creators" ????

It would be more accurate if you didn't use a pie graph next time. That implies wealth is finite. It's not.

It falls back to JFKs "A rising tide lifts all boats" doesn't it?

But in todays economy "A rising tide only lifts the yachts"

 

[g5000]

This video is wrong in that it assumes wealth is finite. It's not. Wealth isn't like a pizza or a pie. So simply because some people have more money, others don't automatically have to have less.

Also, wealth isn't distributed in America. It's earned. Say what you want about inheritance or a corrupt few; here we earn our wealth. The only wealth that is distributed is done so by the government in the form of handouts. From food stamps to big bailouts.

You did not watch the film. That much is obvious.

I did actually.

What's wrong with my statement?

Your statements about the man in the video assuming wealth is finite are so far off base its ridiculous. It's a non sequitur since the man was not even in that ballpark.

 

[tooAlive]

40% of Americans 2 tenths of a percentage of the wealth

Why do we continue programs that help those laughingly named "Job Creators" ????

It would be more accurate if you didn't use a pie graph next time. That implies wealth is finite. It's not.

It falls back to JFKs "A rising tide lifts all boats" doesn't it?

But in todays economy "A rising tide only lifts the yachts"

Rising tide or not, that doesn't stop people from swimming.

Although if all you're doing is waiting for "the tide to lift you up," I'm not surprised if you end up on the lower end of the spectrum. In fact, I think that's one of the biggest problems today.

 

[tooAlive]

You did not watch the film. That much is obvious.

I did actually.

What's wrong with my statement?

Your statements about the man in the video assuming wealth is finite are so far off base its ridiculous. It's a non sequitur since the man was not even in that ballpark.

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

 

[Polk]

How can we explain the unwillingness of many lower and middle class Americans to recognize the value in preventing the toxic inequality that we now face?

1. The never-ending belief that they'll strike it rich someday.
2. Racist attitudes that result in even very poor whites opposing measures to help the poor because they see it as code for helping minorities.
3. Lack of awareness of the levels of income inequality that exist.

 

[Polk]

I did actually.

What's wrong with my statement?

Your statements about the man in the video assuming wealth is finite are so far off base its ridiculous. It's a non sequitur since the man was not even in that ballpark.

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

It's not an assumption that wealth is finite. It's that income inequality is a drag on economic growth.

 

[DiamondDave]

Massive gaps in income inequality eventually lead to an uprising, and not the kind that the USMB Right Wing Nuts fantasize about.

Massive elimination of freedoms lead to uprisings too

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is time that we talked about full employment as a goal of public policy

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

With the stock market having gone up the way it has, I'm expecting the "job creators" to start doing their thing.

What is their "thing"?

 

[tooAlive]

Your statements about the man in the video assuming wealth is finite are so far off base its ridiculous. It's a non sequitur since the man was not even in that ballpark.

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

It's not an assumption that wealth is finite. It's that income inequality is a drag on economic growth.

There will always be income inequality. In fact, there will always be inequality of some sort.

Regardless, it's not a problem. How does it affect you or me if a rich banker has 40 billion versus 400 billion? Would some of his money somehow find its way to me if he didn't have it? Why should it? And if I was offering a product or service, would I get to charge more if that banker somehow had less money? I don't think so.

The only problem with income inequality is envy.

 

[regent]

It is not the corporation's or Business's job to make sure that income is distributed so that American retains a middle class and thus a democracy, that is govenment's job.

But:
suppose government becomes controlled by corporations?
Suppose corporations use their money to buy politicians?
Suppose corporations use their money to convince the American people that income distribution is communistic?
Suppose the Supreme Court declares corporations people?

It could all be done in America and it just takes money.

 

[Polk]

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

It's not an assumption that wealth is finite. It's that income inequality is a drag on economic growth.

There will always be income inequality. In fact, there will always be inequality of some sort.

Regardless, it's not a problem. How does it affect you or me if a rich banker has 40 billion versus 400 billion? Would some of his money somehow find its way to me if he didn't have it? Why should it? And if I was offering a product or service, would I get to charge more if that banker somehow had less money? I don't think so.

The only problem with income inequality is envy.

That's a strawman. No one in this thread is arguing about where some level of income inequality will exist. The question is if the current level is justified.

And yes, it's a massive problem. If that "rich banker" and his pals control most of the resources in society, that creates a society that will grow at a slower rate because there will be less innovation and productivity.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

It's not an assumption that wealth is finite. It's that income inequality is a drag on economic growth.

There will always be income inequality. In fact, there will always be inequality of some sort.

Regardless, it's not a problem. How does it affect you or me if a rich banker has 40 billion versus 400 billion? Would some of his money somehow find its way to me if he didn't have it? Why should it? And if I was offering a product or service, would I get to charge more if that banker somehow had less money? I don't think so.

The only problem with income inequality is envy.

It doesn't affect me

However, I DO question why my government continues economic policies that enable him to increase his wealth. America has been sold a bill of goods that we need to funnel money to the wealthy and as a result we will get a booming economy and trickle down jobs

It hasn't worked........why do we continue doing it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

It's not an assumption that wealth is finite. It's that income inequality is a drag on economic growth.

There will always be income inequality. In fact, there will always be inequality of some sort.

Regardless, it's not a problem. How does it affect you or me if a rich banker has 40 billion versus 400 billion? Would some of his money somehow find its way to me if he didn't have it? Why should it? And if I was offering a product or service, would I get to charge more if that banker somehow had less money? I don't think so.

The only problem with income inequality is envy.

Ridiculous.

It affects you and me because the majority of Americans do not have enough income to purchase the things they need and still have some money with which to buy things they want. The entire economy suffers.

Thick in the fucking head nutter.

 

[tooAlive]

It's not an assumption that wealth is finite. It's that income inequality is a drag on economic growth.

There will always be income inequality. In fact, there will always be inequality of some sort.

Regardless, it's not a problem. How does it affect you or me if a rich banker has 40 billion versus 400 billion? Would some of his money somehow find its way to me if he didn't have it? Why should it? And if I was offering a product or service, would I get to charge more if that banker somehow had less money? I don't think so.

The only problem with income inequality is envy.

That's a strawman. No one in this thread is arguing about where some level of income inequality will exist. The question is if the current level is justified.

And yes, it's a massive problem. If that "rich banker" and his pals control most of the resources in society, that creates a society that will grow at a slower rate because there will be less innovation and productivity.

Again, if the banker had 40 billion versus 400 billion, how would that improve what you and I produce? How would that change what you and I innovate?

What proof do you have that income inequality leads to economic stagnation? Because as far as I can tell, we've always had a very lopsided income allocation curve; and our innovation and production has been one of the best in the world.

So I'd like to know why you say that income inequality is directly related to innovation and production.