Liability
Locked Account.
It is interesting to see that even The Washington Compost is starting to catch on.
The full read is interesting.
I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.
I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.
Excerpted from -- Obama’s simplistic view of income inequality - The Washington PostStatistics show rising income inequality in the United States. But, contrary to the impression created by the Occupy protests, and media coverage thereof, statistics also show that Americans worry less about inequality than they used to.
* * * *
Maybe Americans are Okunites as in Arthur Okun, the late Yale economist and author of the 1975 book, Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff.
Okun saw free markets as a source of unparalleled human progress and of big gaps between rich and poor. Indeed, he argued, markets are efficient partly because they distribute economic rewards unevenly. Government should try to smooth out income stratification, but such efforts risk undermining incentives to work and invest.
Hence the big trade-off: channeling income from rich to poor, Okun wrote, was like trying to carry water in a leaky bucket. He wanted to move money from rich to poor without leaking so much economic growth that the whole process became self-defeating.
The American public intuitively shares Okuns concerns. * * * *
* * * *
In short, the public wants fairness but retains a healthy skepticism about the federal governments ability to achieve it.
As such, Gallups numbers do not bode well for President Obamas effort, launched in a Dec. 6 speech at Osawatomie, Kan., to win reelection as a soak-the-rich populist.
The president, like Okun, acknowledged that the free market created prosperity and a standard of living unmatched by the rest of the world. But he explained the recent rise in inequality too simplistically, as the result of financial deregulation and the breathtaking greed it enabled.
And rather than tackle the big trade-off directly, Obama tried to sidestep it. Rising inequality hurts us all, he argued, implying that more widely distributed income would essentially pay for itself through higher growth. He alluded to a recent study showing that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
* * * *
The full read is interesting.
I think it gets to heart of why the whole Occuturd wail about "income inequality" has never resonated with me.
I don't wanna live in a grey world where we all have to "earn" roughly the same amount no matter what we do or how hard we labor or how clever our inventions and products might be. Accordingly, I ENDORSE income inequality. It's ok that some people make more than I do. If I want more, I can work harder or smarter.