Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[The Rabbi]

In order for that to be true, you would have to document that there is not wholesale movement both up and down...

Let's see how long it takes to shred your premise:

Nationally:
New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


Globally:
That means the formerly poor citizens of giant countries could become a lot richer and still barely show up in the data.
The result is that 2.5 billion people have seen their standards of living rise toward those of the billion people in the already developed countries — decreasing global poverty and increasing global equality. From the point of view of individuals, economic liberalization has been a huge success.
"You have to look at people," says Professor Sala-i-Martin. "Because if you look at countries, we do have lots and lots of little countries that are doing very poorly, namely Africa — 35 African countries." But all Africa has only about half as many people as China.
The rich did get richer faster than the poor did. But for the most part the poor did not get poorer. They got richer, too. In exchange for significantly rising living standards, a little more internal inequality is not such a bad thing.
The Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer. Or Do They?

So, if I were a liberal, I'd be screaming that you were a liar...
but I'll simple announce that you have been shown to be abysmally incorrect.


Maggie, You’re not yourself today- I noticed the improvement immediately.

Excuse me, but you (as usual) continue to post OPINIONS that support your position. In order to get into your latest debating point (that the rich earn their money the old fashioned way), we would then need to get into educational opportunities. See what I mean? It's impossible to debate you when you consistently post a plethora of examples that demand sub-topics be included. I would love to debate education with you, so why don't you start a thread? This one has become too cumbersome and I don't have the time right now, but promise to return.

"I would love to debate education with you"

I'm down for it!

Progressive vs. traditional?

The destruction of rationality due to liberalism?

Erosion of universities?

Vouchers?

Charters?

Effects of unions?

Conservative vs. liberal perspective?

You don't think these would be ' too cumbersome'?

Better to ignore the stupid bitch and find someone who can engage in intelligent debate. MM simply posts irrelevant crap and then runs away from it.

 

[jillian]

All 'men' are "created" equal. After the point of a persons "creation" or conception it's fair game.

so you believe we should live in a dickensian nightmare where there are a few rich people and the rest of the country is poor?

do the words banana republic mean anything to you?

You evince the kind of misunderstanding of society regularly found in the left's adherents.

1. What is the definition of poor? Is same to be compared to needs, or wants? To the world or to one's neighbor?

2. Where does personal responsibility enter into the result?

3. Why does your post seem to imply that once poor, one is relegated to the same level of existence forever. This suposition is, of course, provably false.

4. Are you familiar with the concept of capitalism? I recommend that you study the recent history of Estonia vis-a-vis Finland.

5. Left-wing social programs? From Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980: “In 1964 we declared ‘War on Poverty.” In 1968 13% of Americans were poor. From 1968 to 1980 we increased social welfare payments by 400%. In 1980 13% of Americans were poor.”

6. Would I be correct in believing that you would subscribe to The American Victimization Thesis:

a. During the ‘Bush Years’ taxes on the wealthy have been slashed.
b. If your parents were rich, you’ll be rich. Otherwise, no chance.
c. Government is the answer to whatever ails us.
d. Ambition, determination, grit and sweat count for nothing.
e. Neither personal responsibility nor merit are necessary.
f. Whatever your personal failures, shortcomings, and weaknesses, your troubles are caused by anyone and everyone except youself.
g. It’s not that I don’t want to succeed, it’s that I can’t succeed.
h. The deck is always stacked against me.
i. Anyone who is poor or black or short or old or handicapped or female or gay or uncoordinated shouldn’t even try.
j. The Constitution guaranteed me ‘Life, Liberty, and Happiness!’
k. The government must make sure we are all equal in everything.
l. The government should make poor people rich and rich people poor!
m. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Kanye West.
n. There must be more I can complain about!

more of your pseudo intellectual BS?

no thanks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

so you believe we should live in a dickensian nightmare where there are a few rich people and the rest of the country is poor?

do the words banana republic mean anything to you?

You evince the kind of misunderstanding of society regularly found in the left's adherents.

1. What is the definition of poor? Is same to be compared to needs, or wants? To the world or to one's neighbor?

2. Where does personal responsibility enter into the result?

3. Why does your post seem to imply that once poor, one is relegated to the same level of existence forever. This suposition is, of course, provably false.

4. Are you familiar with the concept of capitalism? I recommend that you study the recent history of Estonia vis-a-vis Finland.

5. Left-wing social programs? From Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980: “In 1964 we declared ‘War on Poverty.” In 1968 13% of Americans were poor. From 1968 to 1980 we increased social welfare payments by 400%. In 1980 13% of Americans were poor.”

6. Would I be correct in believing that you would subscribe to The American Victimization Thesis:

a. During the ‘Bush Years’ taxes on the wealthy have been slashed.
b. If your parents were rich, you’ll be rich. Otherwise, no chance.
c. Government is the answer to whatever ails us.
d. Ambition, determination, grit and sweat count for nothing.
e. Neither personal responsibility nor merit are necessary.
f. Whatever your personal failures, shortcomings, and weaknesses, your troubles are caused by anyone and everyone except youself.
g. It’s not that I don’t want to succeed, it’s that I can’t succeed.
h. The deck is always stacked against me.
i. Anyone who is poor or black or short or old or handicapped or female or gay or uncoordinated shouldn’t even try.
j. The Constitution guaranteed me ‘Life, Liberty, and Happiness!’
k. The government must make sure we are all equal in everything.
l. The government should make poor people rich and rich people poor!
m. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Kanye West.
n. There must be more I can complain about!

more of your pseudo intellectual BS?

no thanks.

Once again, a pithy post by Jillian...

you mean that you aren't able to handle even one of the questions?

Glad to see you work to ability.

 

[Againsheila]

Total Equality! Nothing else!

1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.” Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’
The above essentially from Robert Bork, "Slouching Toward Gomorrrah"

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

Total equality? Only a rabid Bircher/Borker would believe that and find some obscure articles to "prove" it. What is wrong is that there is no longer a LEVEL playing field.

In order for that to be true, you would have to document that there is not wholesale movement both up and down...

Let's see how long it takes to shred your premise:

Nationally:
New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


Globally:
That means the formerly poor citizens of giant countries could become a lot richer and still barely show up in the data.
The result is that 2.5 billion people have seen their standards of living rise toward those of the billion people in the already developed countries — decreasing global poverty and increasing global equality. From the point of view of individuals, economic liberalization has been a huge success.
"You have to look at people," says Professor Sala-i-Martin. "Because if you look at countries, we do have lots and lots of little countries that are doing very poorly, namely Africa — 35 African countries." But all Africa has only about half as many people as China.
The rich did get richer faster than the poor did. But for the most part the poor did not get poorer. They got richer, too. In exchange for significantly rising living standards, a little more internal inequality is not such a bad thing.
The Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer. Or Do They?

So, if I were a liberal, I'd be screaming that you were a liar...
but I'll simple announce that you have been shown to be abysmally incorrect.


Maggie, You’re not yourself today- I noticed the improvement immediately.

Um...how about the billionaires??????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Total equality? Only a rabid Bircher/Borker would believe that and find some obscure articles to "prove" it. What is wrong is that there is no longer a LEVEL playing field.

In order for that to be true, you would have to document that there is not wholesale movement both up and down...

Let's see how long it takes to shred your premise:

Nationally:
New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


Globally:
That means the formerly poor citizens of giant countries could become a lot richer and still barely show up in the data.
The result is that 2.5 billion people have seen their standards of living rise toward those of the billion people in the already developed countries — decreasing global poverty and increasing global equality. From the point of view of individuals, economic liberalization has been a huge success.
"You have to look at people," says Professor Sala-i-Martin. "Because if you look at countries, we do have lots and lots of little countries that are doing very poorly, namely Africa — 35 African countries." But all Africa has only about half as many people as China.
The rich did get richer faster than the poor did. But for the most part the poor did not get poorer. They got richer, too. In exchange for significantly rising living standards, a little more internal inequality is not such a bad thing.
The Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer. Or Do They?

So, if I were a liberal, I'd be screaming that you were a liar...
but I'll simple announce that you have been shown to be abysmally incorrect.


Maggie, You’re not yourself today- I noticed the improvement immediately.

Um...how about the billionaires??????

What about the billionaires?

 

[MaggieMae]

In order for that to be true, you would have to document that there is not wholesale movement both up and down...

Let's see how long it takes to shred your premise:

Nationally:
New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


Globally:
That means the formerly poor citizens of giant countries could become a lot richer and still barely show up in the data.
The result is that 2.5 billion people have seen their standards of living rise toward those of the billion people in the already developed countries — decreasing global poverty and increasing global equality. From the point of view of individuals, economic liberalization has been a huge success.
"You have to look at people," says Professor Sala-i-Martin. "Because if you look at countries, we do have lots and lots of little countries that are doing very poorly, namely Africa — 35 African countries." But all Africa has only about half as many people as China.
The rich did get richer faster than the poor did. But for the most part the poor did not get poorer. They got richer, too. In exchange for significantly rising living standards, a little more internal inequality is not such a bad thing.
The Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer. Or Do They?

So, if I were a liberal, I'd be screaming that you were a liar...
but I'll simple announce that you have been shown to be abysmally incorrect.


Maggie, You’re not yourself today- I noticed the improvement immediately.

Excuse me, but you (as usual) continue to post OPINIONS that support your position. In order to get into your latest debating point (that the rich earn their money the old fashioned way), we would then need to get into educational opportunities. See what I mean? It's impossible to debate you when you consistently post a plethora of examples that demand sub-topics be included. I would love to debate education with you, so why don't you start a thread? This one has become too cumbersome and I don't have the time right now, but promise to return.

"I would love to debate education with you"

I'm down for it!

Progressive vs. traditional?

The destruction of rationality due to liberalism?

Erosion of universities?

Vouchers?

Charters?

Effects of unions?

Conservative vs. liberal perspective?

You don't think these would be ' too cumbersome'?

No, and you might be surprised to see my opinions on all of the above. But not here, because then it will become you and me with a few stragglers who will talk about the original subject of the thread. I hate it when that happens. Copy that into a new thread under EDUCATION, and I'll find it. Promise. But I've only got about another hour to play today.

 

[MaggieMae]

Excuse me, but you (as usual) continue to post OPINIONS that support your position. In order to get into your latest debating point (that the rich earn their money the old fashioned way), we would then need to get into educational opportunities. See what I mean? It's impossible to debate you when you consistently post a plethora of examples that demand sub-topics be included. I would love to debate education with you, so why don't you start a thread? This one has become too cumbersome and I don't have the time right now, but promise to return.

"I would love to debate education with you"

I'm down for it!

Progressive vs. traditional?

The destruction of rationality due to liberalism?

Erosion of universities?

Vouchers?

Charters?

Effects of unions?

Conservative vs. liberal perspective?

You don't think these would be ' too cumbersome'?

Better to ignore the stupid bitch and find someone who can engage in intelligent debate. MM simply posts irrelevant crap and then runs away from it.

When have I run away? By not kowing to Jeremy's frothing contributions? I have a normal life, unlike you who apparently is able to play politics at your computer 24/7. So who feeds you while you sit at a computer screen all day?

And oh yeah, for someone who leaps in and accuses others of ad hominem attacks, you sure don't hesitate to let loose with your own insults, hypocrite. So please please PLEASE, little man, put this "stupid bitch" on iggy like you promised!!!

 

[Againsheila]

In order for that to be true, you would have to document that there is not wholesale movement both up and down...

Let's see how long it takes to shred your premise:

Nationally:
New figures from Smart Money show that only 3% of millionaires inherited their wealth. That means 97% earned their vast fortune themselves. Smart Money also reports that 80% of millionaires are extra thrifty shoppers. Many of them even clip coupons! "

Millionaires clip coupons and other secrets of the rich! on clarkhoward.com

"In the Millionaire Next Door," Stanley and Danko tell us that "most of America's millionaires are first-generation rich." They earned their money themselves. Not through inheritances or dad's teachings. "Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy."
Secrets of becoming a millionaire [Archive] - NFL Football Picks | College Football Picks

" 80% of U. S. millionaires are first generation affluent. Contrary to popular belief, most people are not born into wealth. They earn their money the old fashioned way, they work for it."

Making money: The path to becoming a millionaire - by Terry Marsh - Helium

"The vast majority of today's millionaires did not inherit their money -- they're self-made."
Richistan


Globally:
That means the formerly poor citizens of giant countries could become a lot richer and still barely show up in the data.
The result is that 2.5 billion people have seen their standards of living rise toward those of the billion people in the already developed countries — decreasing global poverty and increasing global equality. From the point of view of individuals, economic liberalization has been a huge success.
"You have to look at people," says Professor Sala-i-Martin. "Because if you look at countries, we do have lots and lots of little countries that are doing very poorly, namely Africa — 35 African countries." But all Africa has only about half as many people as China.
The rich did get richer faster than the poor did. But for the most part the poor did not get poorer. They got richer, too. In exchange for significantly rising living standards, a little more internal inequality is not such a bad thing.
The Rich Get Rich and Poor Get Poorer. Or Do They?

So, if I were a liberal, I'd be screaming that you were a liar...
but I'll simple announce that you have been shown to be abysmally incorrect.


Maggie, You’re not yourself today- I noticed the improvement immediately.

Um...how about the billionaires??????

What about the billionaires?

I think your study is off....it ignores the richest people in the nation, the $billionaires.

How many of them worked their way up or inherited their wealth? You've completely ignored the Walmart Family, Bill Gates and the rest of the richest people in our country in your attempt to convince us that the uber wealthy "worked" their way up. Today, many people who own homes are considered millionaires.

 

[Barb]

So the notion that companies went overseas because the currency was manipulated is false from the outset.

If that were the only factor cited, you would have a point. It was not, and you don't. You latched onto ONE item, figured you had yourself a "gotcha" moment, and ran with it.

Oy.
Here is your post:

His borrowing, the trade imbalance, and the devaluation of the dollar is what led to (once) US corporations off-shoring manufacturing in the search for ever lower wage platforms to compete. Even the most conservative political science scholars cede this point.

So please explain how "borrowing, trade imbalance, and devaluation of the dollar" (the last makes dollars cheaper, not artificially high) would induce companies to go overseas.
It isn't a gotcha moment, it's a gotcha thread, and you're the gotchee.

They went in search of low wage labor platforms to compete with the cheaper imports , duh. Like I said before, you don't have to chops to demand anything.

 

[sparky]

anyone care to do the math....?

Gini coefficient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[topspin]

80 percent of millionaires are first generation rich. Fact

 

[maineman]

80 percent of millionaires are first generation rich. Fact

given inflation, I wonder what that percentage would be for billionaires....

my guess: a LOT lower

 

[The Rabbi]

If that were the only factor cited, you would have a point. It was not, and you don't. You latched onto ONE item, figured you had yourself a "gotcha" moment, and ran with it.

Oy.
Here is your post:

His borrowing, the trade imbalance, and the devaluation of the dollar is what led to (once) US corporations off-shoring manufacturing in the search for ever lower wage platforms to compete. Even the most conservative political science scholars cede this point.

So please explain how "borrowing, trade imbalance, and devaluation of the dollar" (the last makes dollars cheaper, not artificially high) would induce companies to go overseas.
It isn't a gotcha moment, it's a gotcha thread, and you're the gotchee.

They went in search of low wage labor platforms to compete with the cheaper imports , duh. Like I said before, you don't have to chops to demand anything.

Ah. OK, so it had nothing to do with artificially high dollar, low dollar, trade imbalance or devaluation of the dollar.
So your earlier post was a crock of shit. At least we agree on something.
And they were not "low wage labor platforms" (whatever that means). They went in search of low labor unit cost situations.

 

[sparky]

none are so blind who will not see......

 

[PoliticalChic]

Um...how about the billionaires??????

What about the billionaires?

I think your study is off....it ignores the richest people in the nation, the $billionaires.

How many of them worked their way up or inherited their wealth? You've completely ignored the Walmart Family, Bill Gates and the rest of the richest people in our country in your attempt to convince us that the uber wealthy "worked" their way up. Today, many people who own homes are considered millionaires.

Why does it seem that the origin of this question is neither economics nor philosophical, but, rather, personal?

How does it harm you if a neighbor is better off, even a billionaire?
Why, instead, does it not serve as motivation?

1.Cultural elites and intellectuals, such as Christopher Lasch, state that “economic inequality is intrinsically undesirable…Luxury is morally repugnant, and its incompatibility with democratic ideals, moreover, has been consistently recognized in the traditions that shape our political culture…[A] moral condemnation of great wealth must inform any defense of the free market, and that moral condemnation must be backed up with effective political action.” Christopher Lasch, “The Revolt of the Elites, and the Betrayal of Democracy,” p. 22
Extension of this view changes democracy into socialism: the political ‘one person, one vote,’ becomes the economic mandate of socialism.

a. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is, of course, but one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.” Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87

2. Since one cannot see any objective harm done to the less wealthy by another’s greater wealth, the explanation for the ‘economic equality imperative’ can only be envy. The resentment of luxury in another is evil, in that there is no benefit to depriving others with no gain to ourselves. What is the satisfaction of seeing the better off lessened.

a. President Clinton proposed raising taxes on the rich, even though it didn’t appear that it would increase tax revenues. A sizable portion of the public agreed, even under these circumstances. The motive can only be envy.

3. Sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s observation: “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.” Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

4. The unspoken assumption is that there is something morally wrong with inequalities. Where is the explanation of what would be a ‘fair share’ for the wealthy to give up? Irving Kristol, as editor of ‘Public Interest,’ wrote to professors who had written about the unfairness of income distribution, asking them to write an article as to what a ‘fair distribution’ would be; he has never gotten that article. Irving Kristol, “Neoconservative: the Autobiography of an Idea,” p. 166

5. Who are the rich that are so envied, and reviled? Entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, just plain Americans…not royalty. The reason to deprive them of rewards with no tangible benefits to oneself: envy.

a. Everyone, it seems, wants to believe that he is just as good as the next guy, and in a democracy, the government adds its authority by the ‘leveling’ process. “ But what his heart whispers to him, and the law proclaims, the society around him incessantly denies: certain people are richer, more powerful than he, others are reputed to be wiser, more intelligent. The contradiction between social reality and the combined wishes of his heart and the law, therefore incites and nourishes a devouring passion in everyone: the passion for equality. It will never cease until social reality is made to conform with his and the law’s wishes.” Pierre Manent, “An Intellectual History of Liberalism,” p. 107-8.

b. The tried and true strategy for coping with the knowledge that others are a cut above, is to find a way to bring down the more fortunate. “And so the leveling process grinds insensately on. The Wall Street Journal recently reprinted a Kurt Vonnegut story, which the paper retitled "It Seemed Like Fiction"…Vonnegut saw the trend and envisioned the day when Americans would achieve perfect equality: persons of superior intelligence required to wear mental handicap radios that emit a sharp noise every twenty seconds to keep them from taking unfair advantage of their brains, persons of superior strength or grace burdened with weights, those of uncommon beauty forced to wear masks.” Hard Truths About the Culture War

Look inward.

 

[maineman]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

 

[The Rabbi]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

We'll point out first that it isnt the same people in the top group from period to period. The actual membership shifts considerably.
Second, why should we extrapolate to the future, assuming that present trends will always continue? That makes no sense at all.
Finally, why should anyone be bothered by the idea that some people will always do better than others?

 

[Againsheila]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

We'll point out first that it isnt the same people in the top group from period to period. The actual membership shifts considerably.
Second, why should we extrapolate to the future, assuming that present trends will always continue? That makes no sense at all.
Finally, why should anyone be bothered by the idea that some people will always do better than others?

No, some of the people shift, most of them are there forever. Back in 1968, the top tax rate was 70% and minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. Now the top tax rate is what, 38% and it's put on those making a whole lot less than it was back in 1968 when it was only on the top people. Minimum wage has the lowest spending power in history and our economy is in the toilet. Quite simply, you want to improve the economy, put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it in THIS economy, not ship it overseas. RAISE the MINIMUM WAGE and watch how fast our economy improves, especially if you export all illegals at the same time.

 

[Barb]

so you believe we should live in a dickensian nightmare where there are a few rich people and the rest of the country is poor?

do the words banana republic mean anything to you?

You evince the kind of misunderstanding of society regularly found in the left's adherents.

1. What is the definition of poor? Is same to be compared to needs, or wants? To the world or to one's neighbor?

2. Where does personal responsibility enter into the result?

3. Why does your post seem to imply that once poor, one is relegated to the same level of existence forever. This suposition is, of course, provably false.

4. Are you familiar with the concept of capitalism? I recommend that you study the recent history of Estonia vis-a-vis Finland.

5. Left-wing social programs? From Charles Murray, Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950-1980: “In 1964 we declared ‘War on Poverty.” In 1968 13% of Americans were poor. From 1968 to 1980 we increased social welfare payments by 400%. In 1980 13% of Americans were poor.”

6. Would I be correct in believing that you would subscribe to The American Victimization Thesis:

a. During the ‘Bush Years’ taxes on the wealthy have been slashed.
b. If your parents were rich, you’ll be rich. Otherwise, no chance.
c. Government is the answer to whatever ails us.
d. Ambition, determination, grit and sweat count for nothing.
e. Neither personal responsibility nor merit are necessary.
f. Whatever your personal failures, shortcomings, and weaknesses, your troubles are caused by anyone and everyone except youself.
g. It’s not that I don’t want to succeed, it’s that I can’t succeed.
h. The deck is always stacked against me.
i. Anyone who is poor or black or short or old or handicapped or female or gay or uncoordinated shouldn’t even try.
j. The Constitution guaranteed me ‘Life, Liberty, and Happiness!’
k. The government must make sure we are all equal in everything.
l. The government should make poor people rich and rich people poor!
m. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Kanye West.
n. There must be more I can complain about!

Nice job of cherry picking to justify your usual extremism.

Oy.
Here is your post:

So please explain how "borrowing, trade imbalance, and devaluation of the dollar" (the last makes dollars cheaper, not artificially high) would induce companies to go overseas.
It isn't a gotcha moment, it's a gotcha thread, and you're the gotchee.

They went in search of low wage labor platforms to compete with the cheaper imports , duh. Like I said before, you don't have to chops to demand anything.

Ah. OK, so it had nothing to do with artificially high dollar, low dollar, trade imbalance or devaluation of the dollar.
So your earlier post was a crock of shit. At least we agree on something.
And they were not "low wage labor platforms" (whatever that means). They went in search of low labor unit cost situations.

The debt led to increased foreign investment, which inflated the dollar, which made imports cheaper, which led US businesses to offshore production.
Are you this willfully obtuse in real life, or do you only play simpleton for the net?

And if you don't know what a low wage labor platform is, you shouldn't even be on this thread.

 

[The Rabbi]

again... to bring this all back to where it started, the OP merely lays out the FACT that the richest 10% of our population has gone from owning 49% of everything in 1973 to owning 73% of everything 37 years later. Do the math folks. extrapolate that trend line. Do you really want to live in a country where the top 10% of the population owns..say...85% of everything? What about 95% of everything? What about 99% of everything? What about EVERYTHING? At what point does that sort of disparity begin to bother you?

We'll point out first that it isnt the same people in the top group from period to period. The actual membership shifts considerably.
Second, why should we extrapolate to the future, assuming that present trends will always continue? That makes no sense at all.
Finally, why should anyone be bothered by the idea that some people will always do better than others?

No, some of the people shift, most of them are there forever. Back in 1968, the top tax rate was 70% and minimum wage had the highest spending power in history. Now the top tax rate is what, 38% and it's put on those making a whole lot less than it was back in 1968 when it was only on the top people. Minimum wage has the lowest spending power in history and our economy is in the toilet. Quite simply, you want to improve the economy, put the money in the hands of the people who will spend it in THIS economy, not ship it overseas. RAISE the MINIMUM WAGE and watch how fast our economy improves, especially if you export all illegals at the same time.

Amazingly inept post.
For starters, the evidence is that "the wealthy" change all the time. Look at Forbes list of super wealthy from 1996 and then from 2010. Very few of the same people on both lists.
Second, the min wage is a great example of government interference in the private market. As an artificial floor on prices it serves to reduce demand for labor by artificially increasing the price. One result of this is to send even more jobs overseas. A second result is to increase unemployment among those already hard hit by the recession, specifically black teen agers and others just entering the workforce.
So if you want to punish entry level workers and black teens, go ahead and raise the min wage. The Chinese will thank you.