Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[The Rabbi]

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.

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.

U.S. debt led to increased foreign investment. Did you really write that? And you accuse others of being obtuse??
And the result of foreign investment was cheaper imports? Do you actually think that?
Maybe you can explain why a foreign company would want to undercut its own products by building and expanding in the U.S. when they can simply import the same products and sell them cheaper.
Really, a little knowledge is a ridiculous thing.

 

[Barb]

YOU are a ridiculous thing. This is established fact. What I posted too.

 

[MikeK]

80 percent of millionaires are first generation rich. Fact

In the context of this discussion the word millionaire can refer to someone who somehow acquires one million dollars or nine-hundred-million dollars. The vast majority of American millionaires occupy the former category (or thereabout) and are not the focus of criticism.

The object of this discussion is not criticism of wealth but of excess, because excessive wealth translates to excessive political power the effect of which is clearly manifest in the corruption of our government.

In an earlier message I have arbitrarily fixed on the figure of twenty million dollars in assets as the point at which government should prohibit further accumulation -- frankly in the interest of preserving the American democracy. But whether twenty million or somewhat more or less, there is no question that something must be done to interrupt what clearly is a drift toward plutocracy and inevitable fascism.

So the question is not how many Americans are millionaires but how many possess enough wealth to effectively bribe their way to significant political power.

 

[Jeremy]

Before I left yesterday I asked Maggie what an acceptable level of wealth inequality would be but she was only able to respond in typical arrogant fashion with condescension and avoidance, ie.

Ah shaddap, moron. You're wasting my time. Find your own fucking percentages and start your own thread.

So I send this question out to anyone who wants to answer. Top 50% of income earners owning 50% of the capital maybe? I am not saying, with this post, that I think the current levels are acceptable. Obviously, too much wealth in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing.

 

[The Rabbi]

YOU are a ridiculous thing. This is established fact. What I posted too.

The only established facts are that you have no idea what you are talking about. You post contradictory opinions and then refuse to defend either of them. You blather on about stuff with no understanding of what you are saying, leading you to whoppers like increased debt results in larger foreign investment (still scratching my head over that one).
Then when called on it you insult people or claim it as fact or change the subject.

 

[The Rabbi]

Before I left yesterday I asked Maggie what an acceptable level of wealth inequality would be but she was only able to respond in typical arrogant fashion with condescension and avoidance, ie.

Ah shaddap, moron. You're wasting my time. Find your own fucking percentages and start your own thread.

So I send this question out to anyone who wants to answer. Top 50% of income earners owning 50% of the capital maybe? I am not saying, with this post, that I think the current levels are acceptable. Obviously, too much wealth in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing.

My opinion is that as long as there is a legally equal opportunity for people to make money and amass wealth then there is no percentage one way or another that matters.
Once amassing wealth is legally limited to certain people or classes of people then even complete equality of results are unacceptable.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Once amassing wealth is legally limited to certain people or classes of people then even complete equality of results are unacceptable.

Rabbi,

Has anyone in this thread suggested that the ability to amass wealth should be restricted to certain people or classes? If so, please point me to the message (I'm curious)? If not, what issue in discussion here does the above comment address?

 

[MaggieMae]

Before I left yesterday I asked Maggie what an acceptable level of wealth inequality would be but she was only able to respond in typical arrogant fashion with condescension and avoidance, ie.

Ah shaddap, moron. You're wasting my time. Find your own fucking percentages and start your own thread.

So I send this question out to anyone who wants to answer. Top 50% of income earners owning 50% of the capital maybe? I am not saying, with this post, that I think the current levels are acceptable. Obviously, too much wealth in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing.

Frankly, I don't care how much wealth they "own." I just want some of it trickled down so that the working people who run the machinery that make wealthy people wealthy at least reap some benefit from it by earning the kind of money they need to keep the big wheels turning, and thus the economy rolling along. Not too long ago it WAS that way: EmployERS were vying for the best employEES and they were willing to compete by offering competitive wages and benefits. An engineer never had to worry about finding a job. Now for every engineering job there are hundreds of applicants and they'll take whatever low wages are offered. WHAT HAPPENED?

 

[MaggieMae]

Before I left yesterday I asked Maggie what an acceptable level of wealth inequality would be but she was only able to respond in typical arrogant fashion with condescension and avoidance, ie.

Ah shaddap, moron. You're wasting my time. Find your own fucking percentages and start your own thread.

So I send this question out to anyone who wants to answer. Top 50% of income earners owning 50% of the capital maybe? I am not saying, with this post, that I think the current levels are acceptable. Obviously, too much wealth in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing.

My opinion is that as long as there is a legally equal opportunity for people to make money and amass wealth then there is no percentage one way or another that matters.
Once amassing wealth is legally limited to certain people or classes of people then even complete equality of results are unacceptable.

Nobody is talking about legally limiting the amount of money someone can make. After all this time, and you still don't get what I'm saying. Nevermind, then.

 

[Jeremy]

Before I left yesterday I asked Maggie what an acceptable level of wealth inequality would be but she was only able to respond in typical arrogant fashion with condescension and avoidance, ie.

Ah shaddap, moron. You're wasting my time. Find your own fucking percentages and start your own thread.

So I send this question out to anyone who wants to answer. Top 50% of income earners owning 50% of the capital maybe? I am not saying, with this post, that I think the current levels are acceptable. Obviously, too much wealth in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing.

Frankly, I don't care how much wealth they "own." I just want some of it trickled down so that the working people who run the machinery that make wealthy people wealthy at least reap some benefit from it by earning the kind of money they need to keep the big wheels turning, and thus the economy rolling along. Not too long ago it WAS that way: EmployERS were vying for the best employEES and they were willing to compete by offering competitive wages and benefits. An engineer never had to worry about finding a job. Now for every engineering job there are hundreds of applicants and they'll take whatever low wages are offered. WHAT HAPPENED?

I think , as far as today's economic situation is concerned, it just has to do with the continued uncertainty in the market. Coorperations and small businesses may ,in some cases, be sitting on a 'bunch of money' but they are waiting for a little more stability before they invest in more employees. No one is certain where the economy will be a week, month or year from today. And there is also a lot of uncertainty when it comes to new economic and financial regulations. I agree that there is some hording going on, but for good reason. As far as the broader picture of wealth inequality I think it all comes down to the "Darwinian" aspect of capitalism. Survival of the fittest so to speek. But I'm not an economist, just an observer.

 

[The Rabbi]

[...]

Once amassing wealth is legally limited to certain people or classes of people then even complete equality of results are unacceptable.

Rabbi,

Has anyone in this thread suggested that the ability to amass wealth should be restricted to certain people or classes? If so, please point me to the message (I'm curious)? If not, what issue in discussion here does the above comment address?

The question was what an acceptable level of wealth would be. If the level became "unacceptable" then that would imply some kind of action needed to correct it. That action might be special permits. It might be confiscatory taxes. It could be lots of things.
But all of them would serve to restrict wealth building to certain classes of people. And that's what I oppose.

 

[MikeK]

The question was what an acceptable level of wealth would be. If the level became "unacceptable" then that would imply some kind of action needed to correct it. That action might be special permits. It might be confiscatory taxes. It could be lots of things.

But all of them would serve to restrict wealth building to certain classes of people. And that's what I oppose.

If a federal ruling were issued that all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars if not disposed of within ninety days will be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service, are you implying that everyone left with that level of wealth, or anyone acceding to that level of wealth in the future, would be inducted into a special social "class." If so, please define that class.

And I don't understand what circumstances would restrict wealth-building to "certain classes of people." What "classes?" And why?

If you, for example, managed to accumulate twenty million dollars in personal assets you would ipso facto belong the the class of wealthy Americans who live in fine homes in the best neighborhoods, drive fine cars, wear fine clothes, send their children to Princeton, Harvard or Yale and never wait longer than ten minutes in doctors' offices. And that is perfectly fine.

I have no problem with wealth and there always be a wealthy class, a poor class and a middle class in a properly administered capitalist democracy. But I have a big problem with the kind of excessive wealth which is capable of undermining the vibrantly healthy economy and social structure which was fostered and nourished by FDR's New Deal. And I believe the way to reverse the destructive economic trend which was set in motion by the dottering corporatist bastard, Ronald Reagan, in 1981, is to impose a limit on how much wealth (power) any individual citizen may control and to confiscate the fortunes which should never have been permitted to accumulate in the first place.

I don't know about you but I presently belong to the lower level of the middle class, where I am quite comfortable. I wish I belonged to the wealthy class where I would be extremely content with twenty million dollars worth of assets. And anyone who wouldn't be content with that kind of wealth is nothing but a greedy, gluttonous sonofabitch!

 

[The Rabbi]

What class would that be? It would be the class of people who have one dollar or more less than $20M.

I do not know how you define "excessive" in terms of capital accumulation. Maybe if you can give a definition we can talk about it.

Twenty million dollars sounds like a lot. But in reality it isn't. I wont buy a lottery ticket unless the pot is $100M. I really could not do everything I wanted with $20M.

 

[eagleseven]

I really could not do everything I wanted with $20M.

I suppose if you intend to spend your fortune purchasing promising up-starts, $20M really won't cut it.

But, if you want to securely live yourself an upper-middle-class life without ever having to work again, $20M will do just nicely.

 

[eagleseven]

If a federal ruling were issued that all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars if not disposed of within ninety days will be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service, are you implying that everyone left with that level of wealth, or anyone acceding to that level of wealth in the future, would be inducted into a special social "class." If so, please define that class.

They would be the illegal class, in that they would have all their personal assets hidden in overseas accounts and various international financing schemes.

If I had more than $20M, I would be smart enough not to keep it where some bumbling middle-class bureaucrat could find and confiscate it. Perhaps I would copy senator Charlie Rangel's idea of purchasing a Caribbean Island off-the-books?

 

[Againsheila]

If a federal ruling were issued that all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars if not disposed of within ninety days will be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service, are you implying that everyone left with that level of wealth, or anyone acceding to that level of wealth in the future, would be inducted into a special social "class." If so, please define that class.

They would be the illegal class, in that they would have all their personal assets hidden in overseas accounts and various international financing schemes.

If I had more than $20M, I would be smart enough not to keep it where some bumbling middle-class bureaucrat could find and confiscate it. Perhaps I would copy senator Charlie Rangel's idea of purchasing a Caribbean Island off-the-books?

They already do keep their money in overseas bank accounts...what you think the wealthy trust the dollar? Not a chance. The Caimen (sp?) islands is where most of them keep their money now a days.

 

[MaggieMae]

Before I left yesterday I asked Maggie what an acceptable level of wealth inequality would be but she was only able to respond in typical arrogant fashion with condescension and avoidance, ie.

So I send this question out to anyone who wants to answer. Top 50% of income earners owning 50% of the capital maybe? I am not saying, with this post, that I think the current levels are acceptable. Obviously, too much wealth in the hands of too few is a dangerous thing.

Frankly, I don't care how much wealth they "own." I just want some of it trickled down so that the working people who run the machinery that make wealthy people wealthy at least reap some benefit from it by earning the kind of money they need to keep the big wheels turning, and thus the economy rolling along. Not too long ago it WAS that way: EmployERS were vying for the best employEES and they were willing to compete by offering competitive wages and benefits. An engineer never had to worry about finding a job. Now for every engineering job there are hundreds of applicants and they'll take whatever low wages are offered. WHAT HAPPENED?

I think , as far as today's economic situation is concerned, it just has to do with the continued uncertainty in the market. Coorperations and small businesses may ,in some cases, be sitting on a 'bunch of money' but they are waiting for a little more stability before they invest in more employees. No one is certain where the economy will be a week, month or year from today. And there is also a lot of uncertainty when it comes to new economic and financial regulations. I agree that there is some hording going on, but for good reason. As far as the broader picture of wealth inequality I think it all comes down to the "Darwinian" aspect of capitalism. Survival of the fittest so to speek. But I'm not an economist, just an observer.

Well thank you for posting some common sense for a change. Wasn't that easy?

 

[MaggieMae]

What class would that be? It would be the class of people who have one dollar or more less than $20M.

I do not know how you define "excessive" in terms of capital accumulation. Maybe if you can give a definition we can talk about it.

Twenty million dollars sounds like a lot. But in reality it isn't. I wont buy a lottery ticket unless the pot is $100M. I really could not do everything I wanted with $20M.

Would you at least hire a few competent assistants and pay them a decent salary so that they could live their lifestyle in the manner to which they've become accustomed? If so, then you deserve to have a yacht for all seasons.

 

[topspin]

I think wealth limits are hilarious and are so retorted that neither party would even consider.

 

[The Rabbi]

If a federal ruling were issued that all personal assets in excess of twenty million dollars if not disposed of within ninety days will be confiscated by the Internal Revenue Service, are you implying that everyone left with that level of wealth, or anyone acceding to that level of wealth in the future, would be inducted into a special social "class." If so, please define that class.

They would be the illegal class, in that they would have all their personal assets hidden in overseas accounts and various international financing schemes.

If I had more than $20M, I would be smart enough not to keep it where some bumbling middle-class bureaucrat could find and confiscate it. Perhaps I would copy senator Charlie Rangel's idea of purchasing a Caribbean Island off-the-books?

They already do keep their money in overseas bank accounts...what you think the wealthy trust the dollar? Not a chance. The Caimen (sp?) islands is where most of them keep their money now a days.

It's "Cayman"
Any proof or just talking out of your ass? Again.