Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I decided in the other thread that you are to ignorant to have a real discusion on economic policy, or structured breakdown of an economy on a macro scale.If they cannot convince people that wealth is a zero-sum game, then they have no argument, and they know it.
It does not matter how many times you repeat this nonsense -- it is still nonsense.
Economy is not a zero-sum game because new wealth is constantly created -- but in no way it can justify high inequality. Top 1% spending millions on luxury goods when millions Americans struggle is deeply unfair.
It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.
I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.
Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).
It came at expense of my share of GDP,
My growth of GDP didn't cost you a thing.
It still halved my share of the pie. And I just went to great lengths to explain why it matters.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society
Doubling GDP isn't contributing to society? LOL!
You're funny.
And you have a memory of a 6-year girl -- in you example you have pocketed all those 15.6 trillion of the new wealth, so no, you have not contributed a single penny to the society. Not a single penny.
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone.
You're right, the perfect equality of Communism is better.
You are never tired of playing dumb, are you?
Communism and a banana republic are not the only options.
Any society can benefit from some inequality, as it motivates people to work harder. I have no problem with a CEO or a prominent lawyer or a movie star making 10-20 times the average salary. But when those guys are pocketing 100s times the average income, it has nothing to do with motivation -- it only makes everyone else poorer, and it is unfair to the rest of us.
I decided in the other thread that you are to ignorant to have a real discusion on economic policy, or structured breakdown of an economy on a macro scale.If they cannot convince people that wealth is a zero-sum game, then they have no argument, and they know it.
It does not matter how many times you repeat this nonsense -- it is still nonsense.
Economy is not a zero-sum game because new wealth is constantly created -- but in no way it can justify high inequality. Top 1% spending millions on luxury goods when millions Americans struggle is deeply unfair.
Anyone who sees government as the primary mover in any successful economic model simply doesn't get it.
Wealth at the top does not take a single crumb of food off of the table at the bottom, or a dollar out of their pockets.
Until you can grasp that, I have nothing more to say to you regarding this.
I decided in the other thread that you are to ignorant to have a real discusion on economic policy, or structured breakdown of an economy on a macro scale.It does not matter how many times you repeat this nonsense -- it is still nonsense.
Economy is not a zero-sum game because new wealth is constantly created -- but in no way it can justify high inequality. Top 1% spending millions on luxury goods when millions Americans struggle is deeply unfair.
Anyone who sees government as the primary mover in any successful economic model simply doesn't get it.
Wealth at the top does not take a single crumb of food off of the table at the bottom, or a dollar out of their pockets.
Until you can grasp that, I have nothing more to say to you regarding this.
Yessir! You really didn't have to explain again what a moron you are, I got it the first time.
BTW, as I already explained to you how I see the role of the government -- not as "primary mover", whatever that means -- but it was obviously beyond your capacity to understand.
Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.
I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.
Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.
I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.
Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).
"You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind."
This progressive "notion" that profits realized by hard working individuals in the Private Sector rightfully "belongs to society" is fundamentally misguided. If profits belong to society then why isn't society accepting their share of the loss when a small business owner has a bad year?
People already pay for a great upbringing...people pay for education...people pay for infrastructure.
in you example you have pocketed all those 15.6 trillion of the new wealth,
Do you think it's possible to double GDP and keep it all in your pocket?
Pay no salary and no taxes?
Well said, if anything can be said to such a whiney and puerile pedant.It came at expense of my share of GDP,
My growth of GDP didn't cost you a thing.
It still halved my share of the pie. And I just went to great lengths to explain why it matters.
And you have a memory of a 6-year girl -- in you example you have pocketed all those 15.6 trillion of the new wealth, so no, you have not contributed a single penny to the society. Not a single penny.
You are never tired of playing dumb, are you?High levels of inequality are bad for everyone.
You're right, the perfect equality of Communism is better.
Communism and a banana republic are not the only options.
Any society can benefit from some inequality, as it motivates people to work harder. I have no problem with a CEO or a prominent lawyer or a movie star making 10-20 times the average salary. But when those guys are pocketing 100s times the average income, it has nothing to do with motivation -- it only makes everyone else poorer, and it is unfair to the rest of us.
It still halved my share of the pie.
And yet I took nothing from you. You can purchase as much as before.
No expense to you at all.
in you example you have pocketed all those 15.6 trillion of the new wealth,
Do you think it's possible to double GDP and keep it all in your pocket?
Pay no salary and no taxes? You have the economic understanding of a 6-year girl.
You are never tired of playing dumb, are you?
Trying to play down to your level.
"It's this belief that the economy is some fixed pie," said Ryan.
"That there's only so much money in America, it's fixed and that the job of the government is to redistribute the slices of the pie.
That's not true.
The job of government is to set the conditions for economic growth so we can grow the pie and everybody can get a bigger slice of the American pie."
Paul Ryan resurrects Obama¿s greatest hits (the Republican version) - Los Angeles Times
But is that TRUE? Let's look at the history of the USA and the gross domestic product. GDP as just ONE illustration of the "FIXED PIE FALLACY".
First the source of these FACTS.. Measuring Worth - Measures of worth, inflation rates, saving calculator, relative value, worth of a dollar, worth of a pound, purchasing power, gold prices, GDP, history of wages, average wage
Consider what the gross domestic product for this illustration the "PIE" of the USA was in 1790 $187 million.
The GDP (or PIE) in 2011 $15.94 TRILLION.
The PIE grew over 221 years by $15.093 TRILLION - an increase of 80,715% over 221 years!
So the next point of comparison is what does this relate to per person/ (capita)?
In 1790 there were 3.929 million people. The GDP per person was $1,024 (in 2005 dollars - inflation)
In 2011 there were 312.041 million people. The GDP per person was $42,671 (adjusted for inflation 2005 dollars)
This increase from 1790 to 2011 in per person GDP was over 221 years of 87,473% (adjusted for inflation).
So IF the PIE is FIXED and ONLY the government can re-distribute... HOW do we explain the growth of the PIE???
OK so you anti-growth, anti-capitalists say "YEA but all that is owned by as our current Prez says.."millionaires and billionaires"!!!
How many millionaires in 1790 in the USA? Don't know but in 1892 there were 4,047 Millionaires.
GDP in 1892 was $16.352 billion and per person adjusted for inflation was $5,147.
Again 2011 GDP $15,940 billion and per person $42,671.
Most people who become millionaires have confidence in their own abilities. They do not spend time worrying about whether or not their parents were wealthy. They do not believe that one must be born wealthy. Conversely, people of modest backgrounds who believe that only the wealthy produce millionaires are predetermined to remain non-affluent. Have you always thought that most millionaires are born with silver spoons in their mouths? If so, consider the following facts that our research uncovered about American millionaires:
* Only 19 percent receive any income or wealth of any kind from a trust fund or an estate.
* Fewer than 20 percent inherited 10 percent or more of their wealth.
* More than half never received as much as $1 in inheritance.
* Fewer than 25 percent ever received "an act of kindness" of $10,000 or more from their parents, grandparents, or other relatives.
* Ninety-one percent never received, as a gift, as much as $1 of the ownership of a family business.
* Nearly half never received any college tuition from their parents or other relatives.
* Fewer than 10 percent believe they will ever receive an inheritance in the future.
America continues to hold great prospects for those who wish to accumulate wealth in one generation. In fact, America has always been a land of opportunity for those who believe in the fluid nature of our nation's social system and economy.
More than one hundred years ago the same was true. In The American Economy, Stanley Lebergott reviews a study conducted in 1892 of the 4,047 American millionaires. He reports that 84 percent "were nouveau riche, having reached the top without the benefit of inherited wealth."
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/stanley-millionaire.html
In 2010 the U.S. had 3,100,000 millionaires in 2010
In 1892 total millionaires - 4,047
Growth of 3,098,108 millionaires or an increase over the 118 years from 1892 of 648%.
So regardless.. the GDP as a "PIE" doesn't look fixed from the perspective of the individual person.
Granted there are fewer agrarians (farmers- today ) then in 1790 so self sufficiency is not the case.
But when liberals/progressives/anti-capitalists talked about the "FIXED PIE".... there is NOT one at least compared to the GDP!
Healthmyths claimed the pie was infinite - then went forth to calculate the exact size of the pie, down to the dollar.That the pie is finite is needed for their lame-assed memes, including:
-'shipping' jobs overseas
''demand' (that is, overpaying public and union workers) equals jobs
- wealth 'equality'
.. and probably some more shit I am not thinking of at the moment.
If I bake a pie, the pie is mine, and the pie is a product of my creation. I didn't plant the wheat, or the fruit trees, but I paid those who did. I didn't mill the wheat, milk the cow, or raise the chickens that laid the eggs, but I paid those that did. I didn't build the oven, or the pie tin, but I paid those that did. I didn't create the electricity I used, but I paid for it.
The pie is mine, so keep your mooching fingers off of it. I don't owe you anything.
We all pay for roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, etc., and we all have a right to use that infrastructure. And since we all have access to the same public background, we all start out equal, and we progress at our own pace.
It came at expense of my share of GDP, which (presuming my income has not changed) is now half of what is used to be. But that is a simple arithmetic.
I think what you are trying to imply though, is that halving my share of the pie has not made me consume less in absolute terms -- and you are correct, it has not. Hence, as your reasoning goes, it is perfectly OK that my share of the pie was reduced as long as my real consumption has not suffered in the process. Well, I do not agree -- it is NOT OK.
You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind.
Think of it -- what would this country look like if majority of people had the same living standards as 200 years ago because all new wealth created since then would go to a few creative individuals? Would you want to live in a country like that?
High levels of inequality are bad for everyone. And I do not believe that any creative person would go John Galt on the society because his efforts are rewarded by 20 times the average salary instead of 200 times or 2000 times (unless it is a matter of principle for him, in which case he is a misanthropic loser and we will be better without him anyway).
"You have not created your 15.6 trillion product in an empty space. You owe a lot to the society, which allowed you to get great upbringing, good education, and which gave you opportunity to innovate and profit from those innovations. So it would be deeply unfair if you pocket all this new wealth, leaving everyone else far behind."
This progressive "notion" that profits realized by hard working individuals in the Private Sector rightfully "belongs to society" is fundamentally misguided. If profits belong to society then why isn't society accepting their share of the loss when a small business owner has a bad year?
Why do you think it isn't? When some business has "a bad year" we all pay a price -- in lost income. Think about it -- would not we have much higher living standards if businesses were more efficient, if their owners would not make mistakes, or if they were not suffering from natural disasters, etc?
People already pay for a great upbringing...people pay for education...people pay for infrastructure.
Rich people have not paid enough -- that is the point. Imagine that some people pay a fixed price for a ride, but most get to rent a bike, while some lucky get a transatlantic flight in a business jet. Would that be fair?
Oh bejeebers. This is where the confusion comes in.Yeah, that's how forum trolls act -- neither accepting an answer, nor explaining why it might be wrong.
In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
Please show all your work.
Thanks!
Creating a new product in and of itself doesn't increase GDP, it' shifts the allocation and distribution of resources.
In all likelihood the guy who rides the jet OWNS the bikes that collectively PAID for the Jet ride!
SO??? What's your point?
Oh bejeebers. This is where the confusion comes in.In either case, your share of the pie increased at the expense of that individual(s).
US GDP is about $15.6 trillion. Think about your "share of the pie".
Now I create a brand new product and I make and sell $15.6 trillion worth.
Your income remains unchanged.
GDP doubles. My share is 50%.
How did this come at your expense?
Please show all your work.
Thanks!
Creating a new product in and of itself doesn't increase GDP, it' shifts the allocation and distribution of resources.
Adding value to any product increases wealth, and all who share in that endeavor share in that wealth. No one else is entitled to any portion of it.
If I bake a pie, the pie is mine, and the pie is a product of my creation. I didn't plant the wheat, or the fruit trees, but I paid those who did. I didn't mill the wheat, milk the cow, or raise the chickens that laid the eggs, but I paid those that did. I didn't build the oven, or the pie tin, but I paid those that did. I didn't create the electricity I used, but I paid for it.
And why do you think that what you have paid is a fair compensation to the society, which makes your labor so productive and allows you to enjoy the fruits of it?
The pie is mine, so keep your mooching fingers off of it. I don't owe you anything.
LOL, tell it to IRS
We all pay for roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, etc., and we all have a right to use that infrastructure. And since we all have access to the same public background, we all start out equal, and we progress at our own pace.
Infrastructure and public services is only a small part of what society gives to you. The biggest benefit is that you get to realize your potential, that is to be productive and creative and benefit form it.
If you were living alone in the wilderness, you'd be poor as a church mouse, and you'd be glad to die young. See the things in perspective now?
Oh bejeebers. This is where the confusion comes in.
Creating a new product in and of itself doesn't increase GDP, it' shifts the allocation and distribution of resources.
Adding value to any product increases wealth, and all who share in that endeavor share in that wealth. No one else is entitled to any portion of it.
Debatable. Your very ability to create wealth for yourself efficiently is only possible because you are a part of our society. You wouldn't be able to do that if you were living alone, or if you were living in some other form of social structure.
So it is only fair if you share your success with other members.
If I bake a pie, the pie is mine, and the pie is a product of my creation. I didn't plant the wheat, or the fruit trees, but I paid those who did. I didn't mill the wheat, milk the cow, or raise the chickens that laid the eggs, but I paid those that did. I didn't build the oven, or the pie tin, but I paid those that did. I didn't create the electricity I used, but I paid for it.
And why do you think that what you have paid is a fair compensation to the society, which makes your labor so productive and allows you to enjoy the fruits of it?
The pie is mine, so keep your mooching fingers off of it. I don't owe you anything.
LOL, tell it to IRS
We all pay for roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, etc., and we all have a right to use that infrastructure. And since we all have access to the same public background, we all start out equal, and we progress at our own pace.
Infrastructure and public services is only a small part of what society gives to you. The biggest benefit is that you get to realize your potential, that is to be productive and creative and benefit form it.
If you were living alone in the wilderness, you'd be poor as a church mouse, and you'd be glad to die young. See the things in perspective now?
