Smart Man Discusses Income Inequality

[The Rabbi]

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.

The opposite is certainly true: indolence and laziness lead to poverty. You're an example of that.

 

[tooAlive]

Ignorance is not a defense or a point

Ignorance to what?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with income inequality because wealth isn't finite.

Now what does that have to do with why or why not wealth inequality is wrong? You just made a statement of fact and pretended that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Nothing wrong with rain because Rain is Wet!

Because it's a non-issue.

Wealth inequality is a non-issue because wealth isn't finite. Therefore it's pointless to argue against it, as it will always exist one way or another and eliminating it (artificially) wouldn't solve anything. Even socialist revolutions didn't solve wealth inequality as the wealth simply moved into the hands of the government officials.

 

[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" ????

Like I said, it was amusing. Posting little graphics is no substitute for a reasoned argument. Of course since you cant make a reasoned argument it's all you got.
Pitiful.

Remind us what your point is again?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Ignorance to what?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with income inequality because wealth isn't finite.

Now what does that have to do with why or why not wealth inequality is wrong? You just made a statement of fact and pretended that has anything to do with the topic at hand. Nothing wrong with rain because Rain is Wet!

Because it's a non-issue.

Wealth inequality is a non-issue because wealth isn't finite. Therefore it's pointless to argue against it, as it will always exist one way or another and eliminating it (artificially) wouldn't solve anything. Even socialist revolutions didn't solve wealth inequality as the wealth simply moved into the hands of the government officials.

Oh I see why you keep repeating yourself...It's because you are arguing against something no one said or is suggesting. There is no way to eliminate income inequality and no one is saying that. But there is something wrong with how unequal it is. Wouldnt you agree with that? Water isnt bad it's needed for life....but into your lungs its not a good thing

 

[boilermaker55]

Which some political sides do not understand in any fashion.
CEO Pay Grew 127 Times Faster Than Worker Pay Over Last 30 Years: Study
And as we all know some don't like to deal with facts nor do they like to read any site that does not give them the information they desire: CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

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

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

 

[zeke]

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.

Hey dude, no one but the republican party is telling you that. You described the famous "trickle down". You remember that fantasy don't you. The one that the rethugs sold as the reason the ultra wealthy needed more tax cuts. So that their money would them "trickle down" to others in the pool while floating all boats.

Bull shit then and bull shit now. But we agree on that evidentally.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Hey dude, no one but the republican party is telling you that. You described the famous "trickle down". You remember that fantasy don't you. The one that the rethugs sold as the reason the ultra wealthy needed more tax cuts. So that their money would them "trickle down" to others in the pool while floating all boats.

Bull shit then and bull shit now. But we agree on that evidentally.

The trickle down incentives have been a cornerstone of Republican economic theory for 30 years. While sold as a way to induce economic growth and increase jobs all they did was increase the wealth maintained by the super wealthy.

Given these failures....why do we continue these policies?

It is not envy, it is not redistribution of wealth

It is just discontinuing a failed policy

 

[The Rabbi]

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

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

Like I said, it was amusing. Posting little graphics is no substitute for a reasoned argument. Of course since you cant make a reasoned argument it's all you got.
Pitiful.

Remind us what your point is again?

That you cannot define what a "great inequality" of wealth is or state why it is bad for this country. A point you have never been able to refute, despite numerous opportunities.

 

[zeke]

But really? How in the hell do some of you rethugs on here dress yourselves in the morning. You guys are so fuking stupid.

It is not the fact there is disparity in income.

IT IS THE FACT THAT THE ULTRA RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND RICHER AND THE REST OF US ARE JUST TREADING WATER. OR FALLING BEHIND.

Good God you people are dumb. If wages for the rest of us had been growing at anywhere close to the same clip as the ultra wealth, we wouldn't be having this argument.\

But that has not been happening and that is the problem.

The rich getting much richer the rest of us sucking hind tit. That's a problem waiting to happen.

Right now the middle class is in shock. We can't believe that the American Dream is gone for our kids and grandkids. When we come out of our state of shock, we're gonna be pissed.

You know, after the Great Depression, when FDR was increasing tax rates and such, he also got throught Social Security and UE Insurance. FDR knew that if the rich were not made to pay a great deal more than they were paying, in an effort to make life better for the people who suffered so much, there would be civil unrest.

There could be again. You can't have stagnant wages, increasing costs of living and the ultra wealthy getting more and more and think something won't have to give.

But why so many of you defend the ultra wealthy at the expense of yourselves is amazing. And hard to understand.

 

[The Rabbi]

Which some political sides do not understand in any fashion.
CEO Pay Grew 127 Times Faster Than Worker Pay Over Last 30 Years: Study
And as we all know some don't like to deal with facts nor do they like to read any site that does not give them the information they desire: CEOs earn 380 times in pay more than average worker - Apr. 19, 2012

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

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

Why is it a problem that CEO pay grew so fast? CEOs are highly productive people. Technology has made them even more so. They certainly deserve at least that much.

 

[The Rabbi]

But really? How in the hell do some of you rethugs on here dress yourselves in the morning. You guys are so fuking stupid.

It is not the fact there is disparity in income.

IT IS THE FACT THAT THE ULTRA RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND RICHER AND THE REST OF US ARE JUST TREADING WATER. OR FALLING BEHIND.

You might want to consider some career training to make yourself more employable. It certainly isn't anyone else's fault.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Too Alive,

Your question......the one that you keep asking as if nobody has the answer....has been answered in this thread several times.

You are not intelligent enough to grasp it.

Whatever you say.

I've already made my point and you're incapable of refuting it. All you can concoct are class-envy driven remarks about how you have so little because others are greedy and have too much.

I knew I wasn't going to get much sense out of you, as envy and jealousy make it very hard to think rational thoughts. And once you give those feelings a place to plant their roots, it's very hard to get rid of them.

My main objective was to get to the people that haven't yet given those feelings priority in their lives. Hopefully you can find a way to break free. All the best.

Third time you have mentioned my feelings of jealousy over having so little. What kind of living do you think I earn? What are you basing your image of my financial status on?

 

[zeke]

But really? How in the hell do some of you rethugs on here dress yourselves in the morning. You guys are so fuking stupid.

It is not the fact there is disparity in income.

IT IS THE FACT THAT THE ULTRA RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND RICHER AND THE REST OF US ARE JUST TREADING WATER. OR FALLING BEHIND.

You might want to consider some career training to make yourself more employable. It certainly isn't anyone else's fault.

Sometimes I underestimate your stupidity. I shouldn't. Won't again. But god you are a dumb fuk.

 

[The Rabbi]

But really? How in the hell do some of you rethugs on here dress yourselves in the morning. You guys are so fuking stupid.

It is not the fact there is disparity in income.

IT IS THE FACT THAT THE ULTRA RICH ARE GETTING RICHER AND RICHER AND THE REST OF US ARE JUST TREADING WATER. OR FALLING BEHIND.

You might want to consider some career training to make yourself more employable. It certainly isn't anyone else's fault.

Sometimes I underestimate your stupidity. I shouldn't. Won't again. But god you are a dumb fuk.

I'm not the one complaining about how other people are getting ahead and I'm stuck. Cluck.

 

[bripat9643]

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" ????

Your pie chart is the work of some pinko professor at New York University. Why should anyone accept it as credible? How does anyone even know how much any person in this country is worth?

 

[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" ????

Your pie chart is the work of some pinko professor at New York University. Why should anyone accept it as credible? How does anyone even know how much any person in this country is worth?

Wow.....a pinko professor?

Well I certainly welcome you to post your own data on the distribution of wealth in this country. It should be interesting

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government is the employer of last resort.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Lets put America to work. Any activity that the private sector ignores due to the degree of investment and / or low projection for returns should be immediately undertaken by the federal government.

How about building perpetual motion machines? When the private sector declines to do something, there's probably a good reason. That's why government projects almost always turn out to be financial disasters.

Like the Panama Canal? Just 'cause the USA was stupid enough to run it at cost from 1914 to 1999 doesn't mean it didn't turn out to be an extremely productive man-made resource for the people of Panama, built by a government.

Government is the tool of choice for projects that are too big or long-term in nature to garner the attention of the private sector. Government is also the tool of choice for projects that need doing, but are not profitable enough to attract the private sector. Last but not least, we entrust government with security and safety because private armies are scary

Apparently you are ignorant of the fact that Teddy Roosevelt instigated a revolution in Colombia in which Panama gained its independence so Teddy could sign a treaty with them to build the canal. Yeah, private companies aren't able to stage coups in foreign countries like our government can.

The original canal attempt was privately financed, although it failed - mostly because the builders were unable to unable to do anything about the Yellow Fever problem.

Private companies have financed many big, long term projects. J.J. built a transcontinental railroad without a cent of government financing. The tunnel under the English channel was built entirely with private financing.

If it can't make a profit, then it doesn't have enough customers to justify the cost.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow.....a pinko professor?

Well I certainly welcome you to post your own data on the distribution of wealth in this country. It should be interesting

I never claimed I had any such data. I don't think it's even available. That's why the chart is almost certain bullshit. The fact that I don't have an alternative set of numbers doesn't make the ones posted correct. That's the logic of a true believer, not a scientist.

 

[rightwinger]

Wow.....a pinko professor?

Well I certainly welcome you to post your own data on the distribution of wealth in this country. It should be interesting

I never claimed I had any such data. I don't think it's even available. That's why the chart is almost certain bullshit. The fact that I don't have an alternative set of numbers doesn't make the ones posted correct. That's the logic of a true believer, not a scientist.

You don't have any data? Why am I not shocked?

Come on fingerboy.......you can do better than that

Guys from NYU.....must be a pinko

Why do conservatives embarrass themselves at every chance

 

[Avorysuds]

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

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

That was a dumb video made for political inferior people to get all worked up over. What the video does not tell the viewer is that the end graph is socialism when you incorporate it into society, not draw it on paper. The FEDs hand 40 billion a month to the rich, kinda hard for the middle class and poor to keep up even with that single factor alone, and it's only one factor.