"Inequality," Problem or Fool's Errand?

[DGS49]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

 

[Third Party]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

Poverty is a state of consciousness, not net worth-look at Howard Hughes.

 

[DGS49]

Ben Shapiro often quotes a study by [I think it was] the Hoover Institute that concludes that if you (1) finish high school, (2) get a job, and (3) don't have kids until you are MARRIED, then your chances of being chronically poor drop to single digit percentages. Not a very high standard, eh? Conversely, according to the Census Bureau, a white single-parent household is three times more likely to be in poverty than a Black household with husband and wife present. So how does that White Privilege thing work again?

 

[danielpalos]

The confusion may be the difference between merely being Poor and official poverty.

And, inequality is the problem. Socialism is about equality and our Constitution expressly declares equal protection of the law.

"We could have solved simple poverty, Yesterday; but, there is too much social horror in it for the right wing."

 

[Dekster]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

 

[Third Party]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

And yet the masrket and employment numbers are way up-better than obma ever had

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena.

Velocity of money = useless stat.

 

[danielpalos]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

How would a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage make the velocity problem worse?

 

[danielpalos]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

And yet the masrket and employment numbers are way up-better than obma ever had

Nobody takes right wingers seriously about economics.

 

[Dekster]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

And yet the masrket and employment numbers are way up-better than obma ever had

The employment rate is up because worker participation is down. People have just stopped trying and therefore don't get counted. Of course the market is up. That is where all the damned money gets trapped. You know what is also up, P/E ratios. When you are guaranteed that at least 5% of the already $6T or so in retirement accounts will get added to the pool chasing the same stocks the market has nowhere to go but up over time. That is $6T not in circulation and 5% of income taken out of circulation which is why we have a velocity problem.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

And yet the masrket and employment numbers are way up-better than obma ever had

The employment rate is up because worker participation is down. People have just stopped trying and therefore don't get counted. Of course the market is up. That is where all the damned money gets trapped. You know what is also up, P/E ratios. When you are guaranteed that at least 5% of the already $6T or so in retirement accounts will get added to the pool chasing the same stocks the market has nowhere to go but up over time. That is $6T not in circulation and 5% of income taken out of circulation which is why we have a velocity problem.

That is $6T not in circulation

If I buy $1000 worth of stock, my $1000 isn't in circulation? Where is it?

 

[Dekster]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

And yet the masrket and employment numbers are way up-better than obma ever had

The employment rate is up because worker participation is down. People have just stopped trying and therefore don't get counted. Of course the market is up. That is where all the damned money gets trapped. You know what is also up, P/E ratios. When you are guaranteed that at least 5% of the already $6T or so in retirement accounts will get added to the pool chasing the same stocks the market has nowhere to go but up over time. That is $6T not in circulation and 5% of income taken out of circulation which is why we have a velocity problem.

That is $6T not in circulation

If I buy $1000 worth of stock, my $1000 isn't in circulation? Where is it?

In the hands of someone who bought $993 worth of stock

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Developed and Developing world have experienced a great increase in "inequality" in recent times.

"The Poor" are at a rather static level but The Rich are able to amass more and more into their own estates, largely due to dramatic advances in technology. I mean, Shit, thirty years ago you would have had a hard time describing to the average person what "Facebook" was; now its owner is richer than God.

But it seems to me that focusing on Inequality and defining it as a problem is more of a political assertion than an economic one.

On the one hand, we have The Poor. Well, as Jesus reminded us, we will always have the poor. And The Poor, for the most part is not a defined group of people. MOST working-class people are usually poor when they are young, and are poor again at some time or times during their lives. It is entirely normal. For illustration, a typical college graduate in this country will have a Net Worth of less than zero for the first several years of his adult life. I know that was the case with me and my wife - both college graduates. And it's worse now, as college debt has exploded.

But the real problem is not poverty, it is ENDEMIC poverty. Multi-generational poverty. People who are born poor, have little chance of escaping poverty, and bring poor babies into the world, with no better chance of escaping poverty than they had. Now THAT's a problem, and not many people would dispute that.

So government should, can, and does do many things to attack endemic poverty. Education, subsidies, job training, counseling, and so on.

On the other side of the "Inequality" situation, you have people who are amassing greater wealth than ever before.

Why is that a problem? If they are stealing money or doing something illegal to amass that wealth, it is a problem, but the mere earning of astronomical incomes and accumulating wealth is not a problem. Even if the employees in that entrepreneur's business are earning minimum wage, it's not a problem. If those people are worth more, or if they are dissatisfied, or if they resent the income of the person at the top, they are free to leave. But nobody is forcing them to work there for minimum wage.

By defining the problem as "Inequality," the implication is that accumulating wealth is somehow a problem that government needs to address. And the only real "solution" is confiscatory taxes.

So I'm with you when you say "we" need to fight endemic poverty, but what exactly is the problem with the accumulation of wealth (as long as it's done legally)?

In short, the "problem of inequality" is bullshit.

We have a velocity problem, especially in M1 which is the consumption arena. If we are in a consumption economy, that is not a very good sign at all. Not sure how it can be fixed. $15MW would make it worse. Tax and distribute to the poor might help, but if you gave me the money, I would just invest it or pay down debt which wouldn't help the velocity problem which is why Trump tax cuts really did nothing. They went to the wrong people as far as stimulation goes.

And yet the masrket and employment numbers are way up-better than obma ever had

The employment rate is up because worker participation is down. People have just stopped trying and therefore don't get counted. Of course the market is up. That is where all the damned money gets trapped. You know what is also up, P/E ratios. When you are guaranteed that at least 5% of the already $6T or so in retirement accounts will get added to the pool chasing the same stocks the market has nowhere to go but up over time. That is $6T not in circulation and 5% of income taken out of circulation which is why we have a velocity problem.

That is $6T not in circulation

If I buy $1000 worth of stock, my $1000 isn't in circulation? Where is it?

In the hands of someone who bought $993 worth of stock

So it's not out of circulation?

 

[danielpalos]

equal protection of the law is about equality; there is no mistake in that.