Can there ever be too much income inequality?

[rdean]

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

Ahhh, finally someone who shows a little bit of common sense.

Rdweeb, Crispy .... and truthdont'matter are all irrational whackjobs. Bill Mayer would be proud of them.

Yea, but it wasn't until Republicans deregulated Wall Street who were then able to take over the mortgage market that this became an issue. Wall Street saw an opening. Paid Republican politicians, the best money can buy, to make was illegal - legal. All neat and tidy. No one going to jail. Billions of money hoarded. Republicans see what they did as a HUGE, HUGE success.

Why are you so happy with something that has damaged the country so? They have a place for people who want to see America brought down. It's called "al Qaeda".

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Dean your efforts to promote Obama are failing miserably. Find the positives about him and promote them instead of this fringe bullshit that means squat beyond class warfare.

 

[Dragon]

It's an important question, and the obvious answer is yes. The better question, the harder one to answer, is whether there can be too much income equality. I'm inclined to think the answer is yes to that, too, but can't prove it based on history the way I can the other.

In all real historical situations we can examine, here or elsewhere, the economy has performed better the closer to equality a society has become. That's because investment is driven by consumer demand which becomes stronger as incomes become more equal. Economic growth increases, unemployment declines, and economic downturns become less severe and shorter.

If there is a "too much" point where incomes are too equal, it would happen because of a decline of incentive, so that people no longer feel motivated to work for their own gain. However, we have never reached that point in history, which means we would be better off a lot more nearly equal than we are now.

 

[WillowTree]

How do you square income disparity and job losses with the States that give sanctuary to 20 million or so illegal aliens? The people pouring across the border are highly skilled educated people now are they? This is a man made disaster.









Thanks libs.

 

[Listening]

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.

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

You mean BarneyFrankgate ?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

First, Clinton did not reign over anyone.

Second, thinking liberals have REPEATEDLY noted Clinton's role in the matter. You are projecting your inability to accept inconvenient truth upon those of us who INSIST upon doing so.

No, LL, I am merely giving you a FACT.

It was under the admin of WJC that derivatives were BY LAW, not regulated.

Understand they didn't just NOT regulate, they wrote a NEW law that specifically made REGULATION of dereivatives NOT legal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's plenty of GUILT to go around and Clinton owns HIS share of it.

Isn't it great when one agrees with a nutter.....and they STILL argue. The point I was making was not disputing the fact tha Clinto owns blame....but the bullshit that liberals do not know this or hold him accountable for it. Duh.

 

[Listening]

Dean your efforts to promote Obama are failing miserably. Find the positives about him and promote them instead of this fringe bullshit that means squat beyond class warfare.

I think that is the point.....there are not any positives.

His health care bill is dead...one way or the other.

 

[Listening]

First, Clinton did not reign over anyone.

Second, thinking liberals have REPEATEDLY noted Clinton's role in the matter. You are projecting your inability to accept inconvenient truth upon those of us who INSIST upon doing so.

No, LL, I am merely giving you a FACT.

It was under the admin of WJC that derivatives were BY LAW, not regulated.

Understand they didn't just NOT regulate, they wrote a NEW law that specifically made REGULATION of dereivatives NOT legal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's plenty of GUILT to go around and Clinton owns HIS share of it.

Isn't it great when one agrees with a nutter.....and they STILL argue. The point I was making was not disputing the fact tha Clinto owns blame....but the bullshit that liberals do not know this or hold him accountable for it. Duh.

Totally disagree. Most liberals I know disliked and still dislike him. They think he abandoned them.

Clinton was a great example of a moderate president who did what good moderate presidents do.......get involved in sex scandals so the GOP lead congress can push the country towards prosperity.

 

[bripat9643]

That's all Marxist horseshit. Under the Ancien Régime, taxation probably never amounted to more the about 5% of GDP. That's the historical average for monarchies. Food shortages were caused by bad harvests, not by inequalities of wealth. Furthermore, inequalities of wealth under a monarchy are the result of aristocratic privilege. Under capitalism, some people receive more because they earn more. Steve jobs earned every time he ever received.

Comparisons between the aristocracy under a monarchy and the rich under capitalism aren't valid. Only a Marxist would even venture to make such an idiotic comparison.

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

 

[Dragon]

Under the Ancien Régime, taxation probably never amounted to more the about 5% of GDP.

In a pre-industrial economy, there's not as much of a tax base to begin with and the country can't afford as much in the way of social services. 5% under those conditions can be a lot, especially when it's taken mainly from poor people, the nobility being exempt.

Besides, who said taxes were the only or even the main engine of income equality? There was also hereditary land ownership in those days, hereditary titles, the privileges of the Church, and the whole machinery of the monarchy supporting those things.

It's not an exact parallel here, but the main points exist. We have a country being bled dry to enrich a privileged minority, and the country is fed up with it. We have a government that serves the interests of that privileged minority, and the country is fed up with it. We are ripe for revolution if nothing is done to fix these problems.

And of course, the usual array of idiots arrives on cue to try to turn this into a stupid partisan slap-fest . . .

 

[Truthmatters]

Horseshit.

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Ah but you miss one critically important part of that problem, Chris.

It was under the reign of Willian Jefferson Clinton, that the decision was made NOT TO REGULATE dereivatives.


So blaming Bush II for that particualr aspect of this failing economy isn't exactly fair, is it?

We would not have a dereivatives problem if WJC et al hadn't prevented the Commodities regulators from doing their job.

actually, there were some measures of regulation in the bill that were not implemented under the last administration....the bill passed under clinton was NOT completely regulation free.

so very true Care and so few know the whole facts of it.


Its why they could sell shitburgers as AAA.


Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wall Street ran a $516 trillion dollar derivatives Ponzi scheme during the Bush administration that destroyed the world economy.

Actually, if you use 2006 numbers the total of toxic derivatives is 1.5 Quadrillion. That's 1,500 Trillion for you and me. And under the Obama administration that's being moved to FDIC protection piece by piece.

Although Bankers haven't completely destroyed and consolidated the world economies yet, they are working on it.

And what has Obama done to stop it? He employs Goldman Sachs CEO's and G.E. executives in his Cabinet.

Partisan hacks need to get off this idea that electing one or the other political party will solve anything.

Only mass protest like OWS will start the needed changes. They don't know why things are fucked up, but they do know that they are.

 

[bripat9643]

Under the Ancien Régime, taxation probably never amounted to more the about 5% of GDP.

In a pre-industrial economy, there's not as much of a tax base to begin with and the country can't afford as much in the way of social services. 5% under those conditions can be a lot, especially when it's taken mainly from poor people, the nobility being exempt.

Most of the major industrial powers of Europe, prior to WW I, were monarchies, and they had taxation rates of around 5% of GDP. The low rate has nothing to do with being "pre-industrial." It has to do with being monarchies, which don't rape and pillage the populace like democracies do.

Besides, who said taxes were the only or even the main engine of income equality? There was also hereditary land ownership in those days, hereditary titles, the privileges of the Church, and the whole machinery of the monarchy supporting those things.

I think I made the point that income inequality under a legal aristocracy is not the same as income inequality under free market capitalism.

It's not an exact parallel here, but the main points exist. We have a country being bled dry to enrich a privileged minority, and the country is fed up with it. We have a government that serves the interests of that privileged minority, and the country is fed up with it. We are ripe for revolution if nothing is done to fix these problems.

Parasites on the government payroll are the reason the country is being "bled dry." The rich produce the abundance we enjoy today. The rich produce the iPhone, flat screen TVs and the computer.

And of course, the usual array of idiots arrives on cue to try to turn this into a stupid partisan slap-fest . . .

Your case being a perfect example. It was partisan Marxist propaganda from the get-go.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Rdean must be concussed from that!!

 

[Liability]

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?

rdork:

covering your underlying premise with miles of shit in an attempt to conceal your premise is quite dishonest of you.

Income inequality is none of your fucking business. If Person "A" has a job which his employer values VERY highly, and "A" thus earns shitloads more than person "B" whose job is neither all that difficult nor requiring skills that can't be provided by innumerable OTHER people, what the fuck right do YOU (or anybody else) have to complain about the inequality in their earnings?

How the fuck is it ANY of YOUR business?

The usual lib answer to this pretty basic question consists of the facially ridiculous mantra of accusing all opponents of your views of "greed!" (and so forth) in the hope of evading the real question. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your always unpersuasive fallacy-based sophistry, dork.

What the question CALLS UPON YOU TO DO, if you have any analytical skill or appreciation of honest debate (which I wouldn't bet on) is for you to put your "argument" in the form of a governing philosophy which JUSTIFIES the position you take. This I am most eager to see. But I ain't holdin' my breath.

 

[Dragon]

Most of the major industrial powers of Europe, prior to WW I, were monarchies, and they had taxation rates of around 5% of GDP. The low rate has nothing to do with being "pre-industrial." It has to do with being monarchies, which don't rape and pillage the populace like democracies do.

The United States at the same time period also had a low tax rate, and France in the early 20th century was not a monarchy, nor in reality was Great Britain (the U.K. is a democratic republic that pretends it's still a monarchy and maintains the royal family as a profitable tourist attraction). The only industrial power that truly qualified was Germany (I count Austria and Russia as still being pre-industrial) and the German monarchy fell at the end of the war.

The transition from the forms of an agrarian society (monarchy, hereditary nobility, a forced-labor lower class, subordination of women to men, state religion, etc.) to those of an industrial society (democratic republic, paid labor, gender equality, religious liberty, etc.) is not instantaneous; we had to fight a civil war in this country before our forced-labor lower class was freed for example. The same is true of the increase in public services which requires higher tax revenues. It takes a while before an industrialized economy can grow to producing enough wealth that the people feel such services are affordable, and for them to grow fed up enough with the abuses of a capitalist economy to demand them.

I think I made the point that income inequality under a legal aristocracy is not the same as income inequality under free market capitalism.

Perhaps, but "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron, so that makes no practical difference. About the only difference between income inequality under a legal aristocracy and that under capitalism as it is actually practiced is that the former included formal hereditary titles and land-based income. While those are differences to be sure, they are not significant in terms of the provocation of public unrest.

Parasites on the government payroll are the reason the country is being "bled dry." The rich produce the abundance we enjoy today. The rich produce the iPhone, flat screen TVs and the computer.

Both those statements are untrue. The employees of the rich actually produce those things; the rich simply enjoy the fruits of other people's labor, and the reason why ordinary people are suffering is because real wages have declined while the cost of living has increased. It's entirely attributable to increasing shares of the national wealth going to a tiny minority at the top.

 

[Seawytch]

First, Clinton did not reign over anyone.

Second, thinking liberals have REPEATEDLY noted Clinton's role in the matter. You are projecting your inability to accept inconvenient truth upon those of us who INSIST upon doing so.

No, LL, I am merely giving you a FACT.

It was under the admin of WJC that derivatives were BY LAW, not regulated.

Understand they didn't just NOT regulate, they wrote a NEW law that specifically made REGULATION of dereivatives NOT legal.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there's plenty of GUILT to go around and Clinton owns HIS share of it.

Isn't it great when one agrees with a nutter.....and they STILL argue. The point I was making was not disputing the fact tha Clinto owns blame....but the bullshit that liberals do not know this or hold him accountable for it. Duh.

Yup...this liberal blames Clinton for NAFTA, DADT, DOMA and the repeal of Glass/Stegal.

Just a quick question though...was he the driving force behind any of them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Top 1% of USMB Poster have 40% of the posts! This must end!

 

[bripat9643]

Most of the major industrial powers of Europe, prior to WW I, were monarchies, and they had taxation rates of around 5% of GDP. The low rate has nothing to do with being "pre-industrial." It has to do with being monarchies, which don't rape and pillage the populace like democracies do.

The United States at the same time period also had a low tax rate, and France in the early 20th century was not a monarchy, nor in reality was Great Britain (the U.K. is a democratic republic that pretends it's still a monarchy and maintains the royal family as a profitable tourist attraction). The only industrial power that truly qualified was Germany (I count Austria and Russia as still being pre-industrial) and the German monarchy fell at the end of the war.

ROFL! You have a special talent for weaseling. The UK was a real monarchy prior to the WW I. So was Germany, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, and Italy. All these countries were industrializing rapidly. Monarchies have low tax rates because they have nothing to gain by bribing the populace with their own dollars. On the other hand, scumbag politicians under democracy have everything to gain with such policies. Economic well being improved much faster under monarchies than it has since democracy came into vogue.

The transition from the forms of an agrarian society (monarchy, hereditary nobility, a forced-labor lower class, subordination of women to men, state religion, etc.) to those of an industrial society (democratic republic, paid labor, gender equality, religious liberty, etc.) is not instantaneous; we had to fight a civil war in this country before our forced-labor lower class was freed for example. The same is true of the increase in public services which requires higher tax revenues. It takes a while before an industrialized economy can grow to producing enough wealth that the people feel such services are affordable, and for them to grow fed up enough with the abuses of a capitalist economy to demand them.

Anyone who thinks Victorian England and Germany prior to WW I were "agrarian" is worth wasting bandwidth on. All the major countries of Europe were industrializing rapidly under the monarchies that existed prior to WW I. The United States did not industrialize because of the Civil War. The North was already industrialized. Tax increases under democracy are the result of class warfare. It has nothing to do with whether the country is industrialized. It has to do with whether a monarchy rules the country or whether the mob rules the country.

We still can't afford the welfare state. No country can afford it for long.

I think I made the point that income inequality under a legal aristocracy is not the same as income inequality under free market capitalism.

Perhaps, but "free market capitalism" is an oxymoron, so that makes no practical difference. About the only difference between income inequality under a legal aristocracy and that under capitalism as it is actually practiced is that the former included formal hereditary titles and land-based income. While those are differences to be sure, they are not significant in terms of the provocation of public unrest.

Free market capitalism is the only kind there is. Any other system is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Anyone who claims there is no difference between earning your wealth and having some despot hand it to you after expropriating it from the people who created it is too stupid to waste bandwidth on.

Parasites on the government payroll are the reason the country is being "bled dry." The rich produce the abundance we enjoy today. The rich produce the iPhone, flat screen TVs and the computer.

Both those statements are untrue. The employees of the rich actually produce those things; the rich simply enjoy the fruits of other people's labor, and the reason why ordinary people are suffering is because real wages have declined while the cost of living has increased. It's entirely attributable to increasing shares of the national wealth going to a tiny minority at the top.

They are both true. The employees of the rich would be creating diddly squat if the rich didn't provide them with the capital needed to do the job. The guy operating the steam shovel makes a good wage only because some capitalist provided him with a steam shovel.

If real wages have declined and the cost of living increased, it's only because government has multiplied the number of parasites and made it more costly to produce the goods and services we purchase. It's entirely attributable to the policies of the welfare state.

The price of Kerosene got cheaper every year before the government broke up Standard Oil. The rich do not cause prices to increase. Government does.

 

[Dragon]

The UK was a real monarchy prior to the WW I.

No, that isn't true. If it were true, then Queen Victoria would have been able to appoint her own Prime Minister and would have kept Disraeli and never had to suffer Gladstone. The powers of the Crown at the turn of the 20th century were no greater in practice than they are today. Real government is exercised by Parliament, and the real executive authority by the Cabinet. In theory the monarch can veto acts of Parliament and in theory the government acts on the monarch's behalf, so that we speak of "Her Majesty's government" or "the Royal Navy" or whatever, but this is a power that is never exercised and that all parties know would provoke a constitutional crisis if it were -- probably resulting in the end of the monarchy. The monarch wields, in actual practice, no legislative or executive power, and no judicial power even in theory.

So was Germany, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Sweden, Russia, and Italy. All these countries were industrializing rapidly.

Germany was a genuine industrial power. The others on your list generally were not, except Sweden (Russia for example would not become fully industrialized until the 1930s). I already acknowledged Germany as the anomaly; it did have a genuine monarchy (although the German monarch, though holding much more power than the King of England, was far from absolute) but, like other industrial countries, was in transition away from this system. The monarchy would be overthrown at the end of World War I and a genuine lasting democracy established at the end of World War II, after an abortive attempt between the wars.

Monarchy is an institution of agrarian civilization. In an industrialized context, if it survives at all, as it does in many places (England, Sweden, Japan) it is a powerless vestige retained for sentimental purposes. That so many monarchies existed in the early 20th century is because Europe was in transition still from its agrarian past to its modern future.

Monarchies have low tax rates because they have nothing to gain by bribing the populace with their own dollars.

Then perhaps you would like to present a comparison by tax rates in the early 20th century among:

1) Germany, which was a genuine industrial monarchy;
2) Britain, which was an industrial pseudo-monarchy; and
3) France and the United States, which were industrial republics and not monarchies at all, even in pretense.

If you are right, then France and the U.S. should have been taxed at a higher rate than Germany, especially the U.S. which had been a republic for over a hundred years (France only for about half that long, discounting the abortive First Republic).

While you're at it, take a look at historical taxation in Switzerland, which is probably the oldest democratic republic on the planet, and has never even had a monarchy at all.

On the other hand, if I am right that higher taxation is a product of the increased wealth and complexity of industrial society, not of democracy, then we should see all industrialized nations gradually increase their taxation as a percentage of GDP and correspondingly their spending on public services, regardless of type of government. And indeed that is what we do see. It doesn't appear instantaneously upon industrialization, but does grow over time.

Incidentally this growth is not without limit; there is always only so much that the people feel they can afford in terms of public spending. It's just a much higher limit in a rich country than in a poor one.

The United States did not industrialize because of the Civil War. The North was already industrialized.

I would say rather that it was the other way around: the Civil War happened because of industrialization. Because of industrialization, slavery became economically obsolete as well as morally repulsive, and this created an alliance between the Northern industrial and commercial elite and the emancipation movement, both represented by the Republican Party. The quasi-feudal planter elite, which remained locally strong in the South, tried to preserve its privileges, including the privilege of slave ownership, by seceding from the country. The attempt failed. It was a particularly painful part of our transition from agrarian to industrial, but yes, the transition had already begun before all this happened.

Tax increases under democracy are the result of class warfare. It has nothing to do with whether the country is industrialized.

An industrialized economy requires a lot of public spending that a pre-industrial economy does not, including:

1) Paved roads suitable for motorized traffic;
2) Airports, air traffic controllers, etc.;
3) Modern higher education to equip people to do the work an industrial economy needs, plus public spending on scientific research;
4) Regulation of broadcast communication, modern banking, and other complex activities that can't even exist in a pre-industrial economy;
5) Social welfare spending to meet needs that are met by large extended families in a pre-industrial economy;
6) Regulation to prevent a capitalist economy from breaking down, as it tends to do.

The need is seen, and an industrial economy also has the wealth to meet that need. Very little of it has anything to do with class warfare, actually. Most redistribution of wealth occurs through the results of labor law, immigration law, monetary policy, trade policy, and the distribution of the tax burden and its offsets to encourage investment, not by direct transfers of wealth.

Free market capitalism is the only kind there is.

No, it never has existed and never will. A capitalist economy is, by part-definition, an industrial economy, and that requires a high level of government involvement. This was true of the U.S. economy from the late 19th century on. Government subsidized the railroads and the banks, suppressed labor aspirations, encouraged high rates of immigration to provide cheap labor, and encouraged the growth of certain industries through its own purchases, as well as creating the very forms of capitalism itself, such as the limited-liability corporation.

Any other system is a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

Beginning early in the 20th century, government began shifting some of its efforts away from helping the rich to helping the rest of us; thus we got the "Progressive Era," and later the New Deal. In Europe, we saw the incorporation of Marxist demands, in part, into the system. But as noted above, this was not the beginning of government involvement in the economy nor even an increase. It was only a shift in direction, a change in motive, a change from supporting the elite to supporting the people as a whole. But the economy prior to the introduction of these socialist ideals was not "free market." It was still government controlled -- just for different people's benefits.

The employees of the rich would be creating diddly squat if the rich didn't provide them with the capital needed to do the job

Ever read Orwell's Animal Farm? I recall a passage as the pigs were trying to promote the revolution in which some dumb animal or other, probably a horse, objected, "But Mr. Jones feeds us! If he leaves, who will feed us?" You sound like that.

The rich do not produce capital any more than they do labor. They merely own it. If they did not, the capital would still exist, capital being in essence excess labor, labor over and above what is required to meet immediate needs. Allowing capital to accumulate in private hands is a way of accumulating it, no more.

If real wages have declined and the cost of living increased, it's only because government has multiplied the number of parasites and made it more costly to produce the goods and services we purchase.

Like much of what you're saying here, this is demonstrably untrue. If it were true, we should see a decline in fortunes across the board, from top to bottom, and we do not. At the same time as real wages have declined and the cost of living increased, corporate profits have soared, as has the income of the richest people. It's perfectly clear where the money's gone, and why.

It does indeed come down to government policies. But not the ones you're talking about.