Smart Man Discusses Income Inequality

[LoneLaugher]

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

 

[ScienceRocks]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And......some fun facts about our wonderfully fair economy.....with nice pictures.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM&feature=youtu.be]Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube[/ame]

 

[konradv]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

Fuck! You are a genius! You watched a 16 minute video already! Brilliant!

 

[AVG-JOE]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people and where both the extremely wealthy and the poor are adequately represented.

 

[Agit8r]

It is time that we talked about full employment as a goal of public policy

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

 

[konradv]

It is time that we talked about full employment as a goal of public policy

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

With the stock market having gone up the way it has, I'm expecting the "job creators" to start doing their thing.

 

[AVG-JOE]

'Cept it's demand among masses who can afford the stuff of their hearts desire and a robust middle class that creates jobs, not benevolent corporations.

 

[bripat9643]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

What's the magic number where it goes from being bad to good? The fact is it's not the difference in incomes that matters, it's how those incomes are obtained. If they rich get their money by voluntary exchange of goods and services for cash, that's all to the good. If they get it by greasing the palms of politicians, sucking up to government bureaucrats or being an Obama campaign donor, then that is harmful to society.

 

[bripat9643]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people and where both the extremely wealthy and the poor are adequately represented.

That's exactly how income is distributed. However, that still means the rich have the biggest share of income, and that leaves room for demagogues like Obama to demand that they pay more.

 

[Obamanation]

It is time that we talked about full employment as a goal of public policy

"The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation"
-- Thomas Jefferson; from letter to James Madison, (Oct. 28, 1785)

It is? I was just thinking it's getting to the point that it makes more sense to not work. Free health care, two full years of unemployment, food stamps --- shoot, if I mowed 3 yards a week at $75 cash per, I could have about the same disposable income as I have now...

 

[LoneLaugher]

The federal government is the employer of last resort. Lets put America to work. Any activity that the private sector ignores due to the degree of investment and / or low projection for returns should be immediately undertaken by the federal government.

 

[whitehall]

A guy who grew up and worked in a country that supports a phony monarchy is criticizing income inequality in the US? Surely you jest.

 

[bripat9643]

The federal government is the employer of last resort.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Lets put America to work. Any activity that the private sector ignores due to the degree of investment and / or low projection for returns should be immediately undertaken by the federal government.

How about building perpetual motion machines? When the private sector declines to do something, there's probably a good reason. That's why government projects almost always turn out to be financial disasters.

 

[tooAlive]

And......some fun facts about our wonderfully fair economy.....with nice pictures.

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

This video is wrong in that it assumes wealth is finite. It's not. Wealth isn't like a pizza or a pie. So simply because some people have more money, others don't automatically have to have less.

Also, wealth isn't distributed in America. It's earned. Say what you want about inheritance or a corrupt few; here we earn our wealth. The only wealth that is distributed is done so by the government in the form of handouts. From food stamps to big bailouts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Leftists have a goal of income inequality. Their goal is Cuba, which allegedly has the least inequality. Everyone is poor and miserable. This is the goal of the left: universal poverty and misery.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The federal government is the employer of last resort.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Lets put America to work. Any activity that the private sector ignores due to the degree of investment and / or low projection for returns should be immediately undertaken by the federal government.

How about building perpetual motion machines? When the private sector declines to do something, there's probably a good reason. That's why government projects almost always turn out to be financial disasters.

Like the Panama Canal? Just 'cause the USA was stupid enough to run it at cost from 1914 to 1999 doesn't mean it didn't turn out to be an extremely productive man-made resource for the people of Panama, built by a government.

Government is the tool of choice for projects that are too big or long-term in nature to garner the attention of the private sector. Government is also the tool of choice for projects that need doing, but are not profitable enough to attract the private sector. Last but not least, we entrust government with security and safety because private armies are scary

 

[LoneLaugher]

The federal government is the employer of last resort.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Lets put America to work. Any activity that the private sector ignores due to the degree of investment and / or low projection for returns should be immediately undertaken by the federal government.

How about building perpetual motion machines? When the private sector declines to do something, there's probably a good reason. That's why government projects almost always turn out to be financial disasters.

I underestimated your ability to be reasonable....and failed to properly couch my comment as to avoid your inevitable parsing of words.

Lets amend my statement to say " any necessary or beneficial activity ".

That is your cue to ask the stupid question...." But who gets to decide what is necessary or beneficial? ". Go ahead, genius.

 

[editec]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

What's the magic number where it goes from being bad to good? The fact is it's not the difference in incomes that matters, it's how those incomes are obtained. If they rich get their money by voluntary exchange of goods and services for cash, that's all to the good. If they get it by greasing the palms of politicians, sucking up to government bureaucrats or being an Obama campaign donor, then that is harmful to society.

You're partly right, Bri. The wealthy pervert the government to feather their own nests at the expense of the society as a whole

But it DOES matter when wealth inequity gets too lopsided.

ASSET BUBBLES stem from when the very affluent find they are competing for assets with the other very affluent.

That competition drives up the price of producive assets to the point where they cease being good investments.

And why are they no longer good investments?

Because, thanks to the fact that the rest of us have less money, the economic activity declines thus making those assets prices ridiculous.

Then the bubbles burst and the economy falters.

I don't know how old you are but me, I've lived through six recessions in my adult working lifetime.

It gets old, man, mighty old, watching my nation continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
.