Can there ever be too much income inequality?

[editec]

[

I would NOT say "entirelly worthless".

But the problem described DOES make economics an ART rather than a science.

Macro vs. Micro has to be considered in the discussion. Micro does a pretty good job in places where you have a limited set of variables. I would say the world of gasoline and diesel is a good case. Sulfuric Acid is also a commodity that responds to supply and demand.

But Macro models of complex economy are very difficult to assemble. So far, it seems that nobody has created one that will give an answer that anyone trusts or have proven worthy of trust.

That's a good point, Listening and one I should have thought to point out.

Yes I do think that one can do rathr good studies in MICRO that will isolate variables to determine things like price elasticity.

But MACRO seeks to describe an entire economy with the plethoria of varibles that we know of, and the variables that we might not even recognize, too.

Basically we could probably do a better job of creating macro-economic models if:


1. All people were actaully identical Homo economicus that is the underpinning of all schools of thought in economic theory; and

2. If nothing ELSE changed in the world, no wars, no famines, no weather, no new technologies, no changes at all actually ever happened.

3. IF nobody ever REACTED to changes in the economy regardless of those changes.

Sadly for the student and Masters of economic theory, that is not the way world works.

Every day the economy is a different thing than it was yesterday.

And worse, we often don't even recognize the changes until long after they've occurred or are occurring.

To get a truly perfect model of the current state of the economy is, of course, not possible.

And predicting and dealing with things like BUBBLES?

Hell even today economists are debating how to even determine IF an asset type is bubbling.

There does not appear to be any formula that one can apply to asset pricing that describes or warns that that particualr asset type is a bubble.

Take real estate for an example.

We could probably all sense that the price of real estate was too high, right?

But we could have sensed THAT for damned near 30 years and not have predicted WHEN the market would finally correct.

You know when I started thinking that the price of RE was too high compared to incomes?

In 1978.

I was right, more or less for nearly 30 years before the collapse I'd expected to happen ANY DAY finally happened.

And FWIW, I still think the price of RE is too damned high.

My economic modeling of the RE market obviously leaves something to be desired, doesn't it?

No, economic modeling, despite all its metric analysis is always going to be an ART, rather than a science, folks.

And the ISOLATING of factors problem that economic has is the same problem every social science problem has.

We can make educated guesses of course, but as to expecting any social science to get it exact?

NEVER gonna happen.

 

[Listening]

[

I would NOT say "entirelly worthless".

But the problem described DOES make economics an ART rather than a science.

Macro vs. Micro has to be considered in the discussion. Micro does a pretty good job in places where you have a limited set of variables. I would say the world of gasoline and diesel is a good case. Sulfuric Acid is also a commodity that responds to supply and demand.

But Macro models of complex economy are very difficult to assemble. So far, it seems that nobody has created one that will give an answer that anyone trusts or have proven worthy of trust.

That's a good point, Listening and one I should have thought to point out.

Yes I do think that one can do rathr good studies in MICRO that will isolate variables to determine things like price elasticity.

But MACRO seeks to describe an entire economy with the plethoria of varibles that we know of, and the variables that we might not even recognize, too.

Basically we could probably do a better job of creating macro-economic models if:


1. All people were actaully identical Homo economicus that is the underpinning of all schools of thought in economic theory; and

2. If nothing ELSE changed in the world, no wars, no famines, no weather, no new technologies, no changes at all actually ever happened.

3. IF nobody ever REACTED to changes in the economy regardless of those changes.

Sadly for the student and Masters of economic theory, that is not the way world works.

Every day the economy is a different thing than it was yesterday.

And worse, we often don't even recognize the changes until long after they've occurred or are occurring.

To get a truly perfect model of the current state of the economy is, of course, not possible.

And predicting and dealing with things like BUBBLES?

Hell even today economists are debating how to even determine IF an asset type is bubbling.

There does not appear to be any formula that one can apply to asset pricing that describes or warns that that particualr asset type is a bubble.

Take real estate for an example.

We could probably all sense that the price of real estate was too high, right?

But we could have sensed THAT for damned near 30 years and not have predicted WHEN the market would finally correct.

You know when I started thinking that the price of RE was too high compared to incomes?

In 1978.

I was right, more or less for nearly 30 years before the collapse I'd expected to happen ANY DAY finally happened.

And FWIW, I still think the price of RE is too damned high.

My economic modeling of the RE market obviously leaves something to be desired, doesn't it?

No, economic modeling, despite all its metric analysis is always going to be an ART, rather than a science, folks.

And the ISOLATING of factors problem that economic has is the same problem every social science problem has.

We can make educated guesses of course, but as to expecting any social science to get it exact?

NEVER gonna happen.

One other thing I always try to keep in mind is the economics is about equilibrium. It often does not say anything about rate. One of the issues we have today is that the rate at which the economy adjusts is pretty fast....and like an earthquake....can cause a lot of pain and suffering.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

Income inequality?

What is that? code for socialism?

One would only think that anyone that would use that phrase would want "income equality" which is socialism er communism.. You know - a government dictated economy that distributes equally..

Yet asshats like yourself claim you're not socialists?

 

[The T]

Bill Mayer asked Grover Norquist that question. It took Grover a full 30 seconds of hemming and hawing to kind of answer it. Grover said yes, but he wasn't sure how much that could be.

Then Grover proceeded to lie again and again, but Bill pulled out a cheat sheet that his staff put together to counter the lies. He left Grover sputtering.

Later, Ron Christie was lying. The guys on the panel were all over him until Christie brought up some bill to work on America's infrastructure that Ron said Republicans support, but Democrats opposed. Bill said he hadn't heard of the bill so he couldn't argue. Then he said too often Republicans bring something up Bill can't argue about because he never heard of it,, then Bill has his staff investigate it and almost always finds out the Republican was full of shit and lying. I'm surprised when they aren't.

Grover Norquist and Ron Christie. What a couple of fools. Seriously.

People are protesting because they want jobs, not money, JOBS!

Christie said Obama should be in Washington working with Republicans, not turning America against the Republicans. As if they would work with Obama? Seriously?

Income inequality?

What is that? code for socialism?

One would only think that anyone that would use that phrase would want "income equality" which is socialism er communism.. You know - a government dictated economy that distributes equally..

Yet asshats like yourself claim you're not socialists?

Income inequailty is code for redistribution, code for equal outcome, By force of government.

 

[Immanuel]

Why should I care if Michael Moore makes more dollars in a year than light bulbs produced by GE? Who gives a shit?

People should grow up and quit whining.

 

[boedicca]

In response to the OP: Yes.

When the political class and their bureaucrat henchmen are paid (with taxpayer dollars), far more than the private sector producers who pay the taxes, that is unacceptable inequality.

 

[Care4all]

In response to the OP: Yes.

When the political class and their bureaucrat henchmen are paid (with taxpayer dollars), far more than the private sector producers who pay the taxes, that is unacceptable inequality.

how about when a company is paid by our gvt to serve trays in the mess hall overseas getting paid $80k with tax payers money to do such, while the Army guy that used to dish up the food in his mess hall used to get paid 20k a year to do it.....both paid by our tax dollars???

is that inequality as well?

 

[FuelRod]

Redistribution itself is inequality.

 

[Listening]

A bump for the rich and income inequality....

Did you hear that Gates and Buffet talked 40 other billionaires into giving away part of their fortunes to charity ?

It will be a lot of money....

But nothing compared to what we are running up in deficits.

But we should tax them anyway...just because we can.

 

[Care4all]

Redistribution itself is inequality.

then all taxes are inequality....all taxes are taken from us and given to someone else, whether it be the guy paving the highway or the guy building the helicopter that we decided after billions spent, we didn't want or need anymore....or for the administrator or teacher, or for building a pipeline or a bridge to nowhere in Alaska....or to pay for the FAA at our airports....

taxes in any way, shape or form, are a redistribution of wealth....no????

 

[bripat9643]

Its why they could sell shitburgers as AAA.

Obama and the Dims are selling shit burgers by the truckload, and turds like you are sucking them up.

 

[Staidhup]

Income inequality is just another progressive liberal catch phrase designed to promote class warfare and justify taxing all that work for the benefit of centralized governments managed by an elite class of self ordained parasites. Sad to think the founding fathers with all their collective wisdom couldn't comprehend that a new form or royalty would be replaced by the monarchy they so despised.

 

[SniperFire]

So..... if people are protesting that they want jobs, why are they mad at Republicans? Repubs haven't been in charge since 2006.


Can there ever be too many bad economic policies? Apparently for Dems, no.

You can pretty much set your watch on America's sharp economic decline from when Pelosi-Reid took control of Congress. :

December 2007 Marks Record 52nd Consecutive Month Of Job Growth.
Publication: Business Wire
Date: Friday, January 4 2008

More Than 8.3 Million Jobs Created Since August 2003 In Longest Continuous Run Of Job Growth On Record

WASHINGTON -- Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released new jobs figures - 18,000 jobs created in December. Since August 2003, more than 8.3 million jobs have been created, with more than 1.3 million jobs created throughout 2007. Our economy has now added jobs for 52 straight months - the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. The unemployment rate remains low at 5 percent.'

http://www.allbusiness.com/economy-economic-indi cators/economic-indicators/5848024-1.html




And then came.... Pelosi.

 

[Darkwind]

Here is what happens when there is too much income inequality....

Adherents of most historical models identify many of the same features of the Ancien Régime as being among the causes of the Revolution. Economic factors included hunger and malnutrition in the most destitute segments of the population, due to rising bread prices (from a normal 8 sous for a four-pound loaf to 12 sous by the end of 1789),[4] after several years of poor grain harvests. Bad harvests (caused in part by extreme weather from El Niño along with volcanic activity at Laki and Grímsvötn), rising food prices, and an inadequate transportation system that hindered the shipment of bulk foods from rural areas to large population centers contributed greatly to the destabilization of French society in the years leading up to the Revolution.

Another cause was the state's effective bankruptcy due to the enormous cost of previous wars, particularly the financial strain caused by French participation in the American Revolutionary War. The national debt amounted to some 1,000–2,000 million[citation needed] livres. The social burdens caused by war included the huge war debt, made worse by the loss of France's colonial possessions in North America and the growing commercial dominance of Great Britain. France's inefficient and antiquated financial system was unable to manage the national debt, something which was both partially caused and exacerbated by the burden of an inadequate system of taxation. To obtain new money to head off default on the government's loans, the king called an Assembly of Notables in 1787.

Meanwhile, the royal court at Versailles was seen as being isolated from, and indifferent to, the hardships of the lower classes. While in theory King Louis XVI was an absolute monarch, in practice he was often indecisive and known to back down when faced with strong opposition. While he did reduce government expenditures, opponents in the parlements successfully thwarted his attempts at enacting much needed reforms. Those who were opposed to Louis' policies further undermined royal authority by distributing pamphlets (often reporting false or exaggerated information) that criticized the government and its officials, stirring up public opinion against the monarchy.[5]

French Revolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Really?

The Aristocracy that took money from the poor (causing them to have less) is your argument?

We do not live under that kind of system. A rich person today does not come by his or her wealth by taking food or income away from the working class or the middle class.

That is the great myth of the wealth gap.

Wealth in our society and under our system is not a zero sum game. Therefore, it does not matter how much money one person has. This persons wealth does not detract from the income of anyone else.

In other words. Warren Buffet having billions of dollars does not take a single slice of bread off the auto workers table, it does not cause the IT worker to lose a single dime in education investment for his or her child, and it does not make the poor and more poor.

The income gap, or wealth gap is nothing but an envious class warfare trick designed to build resentment against those who have managed to make it in life, versus those who are still struggling to get to where they are.

In the end, this argument is nothing more than a way to pit the power of government (a real power, with guns and everything) against the perceived power of the wealthy (who have no direct power over your life) to the detriment of liberty.

You see, when the most powerful of us can be destroyed by government, how well do you think the rest of us will fare against that kind of corruption?