Smart Man Discusses Income Inequality

[LoneLaugher]

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.

Bullshit.

 

[Katzndogz]

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.

The forced surrender of wealth is theft.

 

[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.

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.

You still haven't explained to me how you'd be any better off if the banker had 40 billion versus 400 billion.

So far all I know is that you're pissed off because you don't have as much money as you'd like to have, and are pointing the finger at the banker that has a lot more than you. You single him out as the cause of your problems, yet can't explain to me how you'd be any better off if he wasn't.

I'll say it again. The only problem with income inequality is envy. You seem to be proving my point very well.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

A rich banker can influence legislation with greater impact than you, mostly to his advantage and not to yours. It's really that simple, we live in a plutocracy; sadly you and others like you seem oblivious to that reality.

 

[tooAlive]

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.

Bullshit.

Really? So some 100 years ago, men like Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, John Pierpont Morgan, Henry Ford and John Rockefeller did not have disproportionately more income than the rest of the American people?

As far as I know, the US Government was even bailed out by Morgan at one point. And if you're telling me that production and innovation during those times was stagnant, I have no idea what sort of history book you've been reading.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The forced surrender of wealth is theft.

Nobody is forcing them to surrender wealth. We are merely advocating that we relook our policies that enable him to accumulate future wealth. Why subsidize billionaires?

 

[wihosa]

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.

Fact is that income inequality in the US is much higher since the "Reagan Revolution". It has gotten to the point it is preventing economic growth. Splashing money over the top does not help the bottom because it never "trickles" to the bottom. Raising the minimum wage would inject money at the bottom creating a tide that will lift all boats.

 

[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.

A rich banker can influence legislation with greater impact than you, mostly to his advantage and not to yours. It's really that simple, we live in a plutocracy; sadly you and others like you seem oblivious to that reality.

Yes, we absolutely do live in a plutocracy. And yes again, the rich banker can absolutely influence legislation with his or her bargaining power.

So, what's the solution? Do you think the government will willingly cut them off knowing they provide them with so much money? Why would they help out the poor and middle class if they know they're practically dependent on them?

 

[Polk]

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.

It all comes back to basic economics. Marginal propensity to consume decreases for each additional dollar you have on hand. A society with less income inequality is a society that consumes more. Someone has to produce the goods that are consumed, which increases output and the level of employment. This results in higher profits, which leads to increased investment in research and development. Now, you can take this too far, in that efforts to reduce inequality create such a drag on capital formation and returns to capital that the added cost is not worth the benefits of further reduction in inequality.

The best evidence of the impact of income inequality comes from our own history. The period of greatest growth in American history (1950s and 1960s) were also the period where income was most widely distributed. On the other hand, there was a sizable rise in gains going to those at the very top in the lead-up to the largest collapses in American history (1929 and 2008).

 

[tooAlive]

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.

The forced surrender of wealth is theft.

Nobody is forcing them to surrender wealth. We are merely advocating that we relook our policies that enable him to accumulate future wealth. Why subsidize billionaires?

Because the billionaires practically run the government.

They get perks in exchange for their generous contributions. You guys are here condemning big businesses and corporations, yet you fail to over look the biggest business of them all. The one that is responsible for setting the rules.

The US Government. Blame the private companies all you want, but the ones responsible for the corruption you see are the same ones you're praising and defending at all cost.

 

[Avatar4321]

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people and where both the extremely wealthy and the poor are adequately represented.

This wealth redistribution mess is nonsense. I remember when Obama tried to destroy Joe The Plumber when Obama was caught on camera talking about wealth redistribution to him. Now it's actually being discussed in the open like it's a legitimate policy.

I've got a better idea; Study in school, work hard, keep at it and maybe you'll get a good payday. In other words, let's keep America free instead of turning it into one big money grab that chases all of the wealth out of the country.

And there is the problem muddy and you are to stupid to understand it. Used to be, when you did all the things you mentioned; school, work hard, etc, you would most assuredly find a decent to excellent job. Not that bullshit of "maybe you'll get a good payday"

Now that the rethugs have pretty much destroyed that ability to find a good paying job,
the dream turns into a nightmare. A college degree with 40 thousand in debt and a 9 dollar an hour job is not the American Dream I grew up on.

Maybe it is for you.

And here is the problem. You want to find a decent job. You don't want to put in the effort to create the job of your dreams. You just want to wait around until someone gives you what you want.

And you wonder why you are never going to become wealthy.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

The forced surrender of wealth is theft.

Nobody is forcing them to surrender wealth. We are merely advocating that we relook our policies that enable him to accumulate future wealth. Why subsidize billionaires?

How are any billionaires subsidized?

 

[tooAlive]

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.

It all comes back to basic economics. Marginal propensity to consume decreases for each additional dollar you have on hand. A society with less income inequality is a society that consumes more. Someone has to produce the goods that are consumed, which increases output and the level of employment. This results in higher profits, which leads to increased investment in research and development. Now, you can take this too far, in that efforts to reduce inequality create such a drag on capital formation and returns to capital that the added cost is not worth the benefits of further reduction in inequality.

The best evidence of the impact of income inequality comes from our own history. The period of greatest growth in American history (1950s and 1960s) were also the period where income was most widely distributed. On the other hand, there was a sizable rise in gains going to those at the very top in the lead-up to the largest collapses in American history (1929 and 2008).

That's not what I'm arguing. Of course people with more money will spend more money. That's not just basic economics, that's common sense.

What you have yet to answer is how will the rich banker having 40 billion versus 400 billion effectively put more money into the pockets of the poor and middle class? Are you telling me that somehow the supply of money is limited and the rich must release some of it back into the "money pool" so others can get their hands on it? I'd strongly disagree.

And I'd go further back another 50 to 60 years from then. How was income inequality back in those days? I'd argue that was the period of greatest growth and innovation the world has ever seen. And from my understanding, there were only a handful of millionaires back then.

 

[Darkwind]

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

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people and where both the extremely wealthy and the poor are adequately represented.

You really should see someone about your drug problem.

Only a delusional person would think that, and it would be right after they were done chasing purple unicorns under a marmalade sky.

 

[Polk]

This wealth redistribution mess is nonsense. I remember when Obama tried to destroy Joe The Plumber when Obama was caught on camera talking about wealth redistribution to him. Now it's actually being discussed in the open like it's a legitimate policy.

I've got a better idea; Study in school, work hard, keep at it and maybe you'll get a good payday. In other words, let's keep America free instead of turning it into one big money grab that chases all of the wealth out of the country.

And there is the problem muddy and you are to stupid to understand it. Used to be, when you did all the things you mentioned; school, work hard, etc, you would most assuredly find a decent to excellent job. Not that bullshit of "maybe you'll get a good payday"

Now that the rethugs have pretty much destroyed that ability to find a good paying job,
the dream turns into a nightmare. A college degree with 40 thousand in debt and a 9 dollar an hour job is not the American Dream I grew up on.

Maybe it is for you.

And here is the problem. You want to find a decent job. You don't want to put in the effort to create the job of your dreams. You just want to wait around until someone gives you what you want.

And you wonder why you are never going to become wealthy.

This rests on the assumption that hard work pays off. There is little reason to believe that true. It's certainly true for some people, but when a child born to upper class parents who drops out of high school has a greater change of being upper class himself than a child from lower classes who has an advanced degree, that tells you this argument about merit is glossing over something major.

 

[Polk]

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.

It all comes back to basic economics. Marginal propensity to consume decreases for each additional dollar you have on hand. A society with less income inequality is a society that consumes more. Someone has to produce the goods that are consumed, which increases output and the level of employment. This results in higher profits, which leads to increased investment in research and development. Now, you can take this too far, in that efforts to reduce inequality create such a drag on capital formation and returns to capital that the added cost is not worth the benefits of further reduction in inequality.

The best evidence of the impact of income inequality comes from our own history. The period of greatest growth in American history (1950s and 1960s) were also the period where income was most widely distributed. On the other hand, there was a sizable rise in gains going to those at the very top in the lead-up to the largest collapses in American history (1929 and 2008).

That's not what I'm arguing. Of course people with more money will spend more money. That's not just basic economics, that's common sense.

What you have yet to answer is how will the rich banker having 40 billion versus 400 billion effectively put more money into the pockets of the poor and middle class? Are you telling me that somehow the supply of money is limited and the rich must release some of it back into the "money pool" so others can get their hands on it? I'd strongly disagree.

And I'd go further back another 50 to 60 years from then. How was income inequality back in those days? I'd argue that was the period of greatest growth and innovation the world has ever seen. And from my understanding, there were only a handful of millionaires back then.

Money is misleading, since it's really just a proxy representing real output. The quality of real output is not fixed, but policy can certainly change it's rate of growth. Going back to the late 19th century really doesn't help your point, because the economy spend most of that period in absolute shambles.

 

[wihosa]

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.

It all comes back to basic economics. Marginal propensity to consume decreases for each additional dollar you have on hand. A society with less income inequality is a society that consumes more. Someone has to produce the goods that are consumed, which increases output and the level of employment. This results in higher profits, which leads to increased investment in research and development. Now, you can take this too far, in that efforts to reduce inequality create such a drag on capital formation and returns to capital that the added cost is not worth the benefits of further reduction in inequality.

The best evidence of the impact of income inequality comes from our own history. The period of greatest growth in American history (1950s and 1960s) were also the period where income was most widely distributed. On the other hand, there was a sizable rise in gains going to those at the very top in the lead-up to the largest collapses in American history (1929 and 2008).

That's not what I'm arguing. Of course people with more money will spend more money. That's not just basic economics, that's common sense.

What you have yet to answer is how will the rich banker having 40 billion versus 400 billion effectively put more money into the pockets of the poor and middle class? Are you telling me that somehow the supply of money is limited and the rich must release some of it back into the "money pool" so others can get their hands on it? I'd strongly disagree.

And I'd go further back another 50 to 60 years from then. How was income inequality back in those days? I'd argue that was the period of greatest growth and innovation the world has ever seen. And from my understanding, there were only a handful of millionaires back then.

Yes put the money into the people's hands, they will spend the money, the billionaire can't possibly spend all his money. There are mountains of cash being held by billionaires with nowhere to go. Why do you think interest rates are so low right now?

 

[Zoom-boing]

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

And I don't care if you live in poverty for the rest of your miserable life. But it is the job of government to tax the ultra wealthy at a level where they are paying for all the benes they have bought with bribes, I mean campaign contributions, from the Federal Government.

Cause it sure as fuk ain't my job to suck it up so the ultra wealthy can have more.
If you want to give the ultra wealthy your pay check, have at it. No ones stopping you from sending them a check. Just pick one out and send them money. They won't mind.

Love how you guys put all the blame on the wealthy but nary a word about the politicians role in it all. The problem isn't the ultra wealthy bribing those in government, per se, it's that those in government take the bribes and as long as they are perfectly fine with being for sale, someone will be offering to buy them. The 545 should be tossed out on their collective asses.

 

[wihosa]

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

And I don't care if you live in poverty for the rest of your miserable life. But it is the job of government to tax the ultra wealthy at a level where they are paying for all the benes they have bought with bribes, I mean campaign contributions, from the Federal Government.



Cause it sure as fuk ain't my job to suck it up so the ultra wealthy can have more.
If you want to give the ultra wealthy your pay check, have at it. No ones stopping you from sending them a check. Just pick one out and send them money. They won't mind.

Love how you guys put all the blame on the wealthy but nary a word about the politicians role in it all. The problem isn't the ultra wealthy bribing those in government, per se, it's that those in government take the bribes and as long as they are perfectly fine with being for sale, someone will be offering to buy them. The 545 should be tossed out on their collective asses.

So bribery is a one way street? Those taking the bribes-criminals those doing the bribing - just businessmen?

 

[tooAlive]

It all comes back to basic economics. Marginal propensity to consume decreases for each additional dollar you have on hand. A society with less income inequality is a society that consumes more. Someone has to produce the goods that are consumed, which increases output and the level of employment. This results in higher profits, which leads to increased investment in research and development. Now, you can take this too far, in that efforts to reduce inequality create such a drag on capital formation and returns to capital that the added cost is not worth the benefits of further reduction in inequality.

The best evidence of the impact of income inequality comes from our own history. The period of greatest growth in American history (1950s and 1960s) were also the period where income was most widely distributed. On the other hand, there was a sizable rise in gains going to those at the very top in the lead-up to the largest collapses in American history (1929 and 2008).

That's not what I'm arguing. Of course people with more money will spend more money. That's not just basic economics, that's common sense.

What you have yet to answer is how will the rich banker having 40 billion versus 400 billion effectively put more money into the pockets of the poor and middle class? Are you telling me that somehow the supply of money is limited and the rich must release some of it back into the "money pool" so others can get their hands on it? I'd strongly disagree.

And I'd go further back another 50 to 60 years from then. How was income inequality back in those days? I'd argue that was the period of greatest growth and innovation the world has ever seen. And from my understanding, there were only a handful of millionaires back then.

Yes put the money into the people's hands, they will spend the money, the billionaire can't possibly spend all his money. There are mountains of cash being held by billionaires with nowhere to go. Why do you think interest rates are so low right now?

Great. You want poor people to have money. That's very noble of you.

Now explain to me, how will having the billionaire go from 400 to 40 billion actually put money into their hands?