Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.
Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?
I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.
Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?
I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.
Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?
Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either
Dangers of Income Inequality
Here is a good article on income inequality from Joseph Stiglitz. It's only coincidence that I am posting so much from Stiglitz lately, I stumbled across this today looking at other blogs.
I think the dangers he presents are real and the arguments he makes valid. Some highlights:
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent.
While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride.
Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin.
Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.
An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity.
Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.
The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.
But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride.
Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever.
Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth.
The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.
With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation.
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.
The economy and the society as a whole become more and more unstable as income inequality gets worse and worse. I can't stress enough how important it is that this issue be addressed, yet I get the feeling that nothing will be done and that it may already be too late.
The government's role in society is to pursue and provide for the common good of the society for which it serves. Yet, lately, the government has served the pockets of the rich very well, while the common good is suffering.
The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.
I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.
Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?
I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.
Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?
Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either
The wealth gap is the direct result of central planning by the federal reserve and federal government. You know, the very entities you cherish so much and continue to petition them for more of what they offer....yeah, that's right. You ask for it because of ignorance.
The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.
I noticed you didn't bold this part. Belief bias, or an oversight.
I have been told it causes crime, gun violence, and is unfair. I say that it isn't a problem and that life ain't fair.
Anyone want to tell me why I am wrong?
Its not a problem because there are always rich and poor. But when the gap is too large those societies crumble. By crumble I don't mean like a delicious cookie either
The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office.
I noticed you didn't bold this part. Belief bias, or an oversight.
Now everybody will see this and see how you're ok with this:
So you are for or against unlimited campaign contributions?
I'm against it for the reasons you quoted above. How about you?
I noticed you didn't bold this part. Belief bias, or an oversight.
Now everybody will see this and see how you're ok with this:
So you are for or against unlimited campaign contributions?
I'm against it for the reasons you quoted above. How about you?
A symptom of the disease. I'm against inflationary monetary policy, central planning and federal government encroachment. You like these things. If you didn't you wouldn't be addressing a symptom of the disease as the disease itself.
A symptom of the disease. I'm against inflationary monetary policy, central planning and federal government encroachment. You like these things. If you didn't you wouldn't be addressing a symptom of the disease as the disease itself.
Now everybody will see this and see how you're ok with this:
So you are for or against unlimited campaign contributions?
I'm against it for the reasons you quoted above. How about you?
A symptom of the disease. I'm against inflationary monetary policy, central planning and federal government encroachment. You like these things. If you didn't you wouldn't be addressing a symptom of the disease as the disease itself.
Are you for it or not?
