To Restore Prosperity, We Must Increase Economic Freedom

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If people want prosperity for the US, income inequality has to be addressed.

of course thats perfectly absurd and liberal. If you steal from the rich they have less incentive to create prosperity and less money with which to create it. Liberalism begins with the perfect absense of thought, sadly. Sorry.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

When you buy a new TV at Best Buy, that money transfers from you to Best Buy, to their employees, shareholders, and suppliers. They then re-spend the money elsewhere. When you pay taxes or fees to a government, it transfers to the treasury, then to government employees and providers, who then re-spend the money elsewhere.

The two phenomena are not terribly different.

actually its like night and day. If you have one government employee at twice the pay of his free market counterpart ( the usual ratio) that means the government has destroyed the real contribution to society of 2 private sector workers and replaced it with 1 liberal government bureaucrat who makes little or no real contribution to our standard of living. The government employee is for the most part , in effect, a leech.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's crazy. All governments that have attempted to bring about by force income equality have failed or pushed their people into lives of squalor. All economists that prefer prices set by markets (virtually all) prefer income inequality.

I am pretty sure you messed up when you edited that quote. I am also pretty sure it was an accident.

The words in your post are still crazy even if they were quoted from Kiwiman's post. We're together with the fact that inequality is necessary and past attempts at income equality have been disastrous.

\

I agree, they are crazy, I was just jibing you about attributing them to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If people want prosperity for the US, income inequality has to be addressed. A person would fairly hard-pressed to find any economist who thinks that income inequality is good, but would have no problem finding economists who think income inequality is bad for the economy.

How does income inequality negatively affect the economy?
How does income inequality negatively affect the economy?

How Does Inequality Affect Economic Growth?
CONVERSABLE ECONOMIST: How Does Inequality Affect Economic Growth?

IMF: Income inequality is bad for economic growth
IMF: Income inequality is terrible for economic growth - The Washington Post

And Now, Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal
Read more: Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal

Is rising income inequality a serious problem?
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~lkenwor/soc150b1-isrisingincomeinequalityaseriousproblem.pdf

Raskin Says Income Inequality Among Americans Undermining Economic Growth
Raskin Says Income Inequality Among Americans Undermining Economic Growth - Bloomberg

Income inequality: It's a problem. Here's why.
Income inequality: It's a problem. Here's why. - CSMonitor.com

Is income inequality worse than a lack of mobility?

Income inequality is a lack of mobility.

No it is not.

 

[expat_panama]

...Income inequality is a lack of mobility.

No it is not.

In your dreams Quant.

In real life governments that pushed for equal incomes have had to shoot people that tried to leave. Income equality means mobility is punished by death.

 

[sparky]

and that upper quintle mobility is what? billionaires becoming multi billionaires?

somehow i'm supposed to have faith in that, while they are making their 'move' at the expense of the majority?

'splain it....

~S~

 

[Skull Pilot]

To restore prosperity let everyone keep more of their own money and force the government to spend less.

 

[jillian]

...Income inequality is a lack of mobility.

No it is not.

In your dreams Quant.

In real life governments that pushed for equal incomes have had to shoot people that tried to leave. Income equality means mobility is punished by death.

no. income inequality is where rich people have to put barbed wire fences around their property and have armed guards to keep out the vast majority of the population.

have fun with that. maybe you'd like peru.

 

[editec]

If one looks at the economic history of the USA both back when the US government was small, there were no taxes, we were on the GOLD standard, and there was no welfarem and if we compare it to the time after that when those conditions changed?

What do we see?

We see that the economy, during both periods, had wild swings and crippling depressions.

We see that the libertarians claim that the government is the CAUSE of the instability of the market and the economy is nothing but a persistent CANARD.

The fact is that economy waxes and wanes with or without government regulations.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without a gold standard.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without incomes taxes.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without the WELFARE state.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IOf one looks at the economisc history of the USA both back when the US government was small, there were no taxes, we were on the GOLD standard, and there was no welfare and compare it to the time after that when those conditions changed?

What do we see?

We see that the economy, during both periods, had wild swings and crippling depressions.

We see that the libertarians claim that the government is the CAUSE of the instability of the market and the economy is nothing but a persistent CANARD.

The fact is that economy waxes and wanes with or without government regulations.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without a gold standard.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without incomes taxes.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without the WELFARE state.

So are you saying that it doesn't matter if we have a government that is too big, too expensive and too far reaching?

 

[editec]

IOf one looks at the economisc history of the USA both back when the US government was small, there were no taxes, we were on the GOLD standard, and there was no welfare and compare it to the time after that when those conditions changed?

What do we see?

We see that the economy, during both periods, had wild swings and crippling depressions.

We see that the libertarians claim that the government is the CAUSE of the instability of the market and the economy is nothing but a persistent CANARD.

The fact is that economy waxes and wanes with or without government regulations.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without a gold standard.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without incomes taxes.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without the WELFARE state.

So are you saying that it doesn't matter if we have a government that is too big, too expensive and too far reaching?

What I am suggesting to you, Frank, is that pretty much everything you think you know about the macroeconomy is wrong.

 

[Skull Pilot]

IOf one looks at the economisc history of the USA both back when the US government was small, there were no taxes, we were on the GOLD standard, and there was no welfare and compare it to the time after that when those conditions changed?

What do we see?

We see that the economy, during both periods, had wild swings and crippling depressions.

We see that the libertarians claim that the government is the CAUSE of the instability of the market and the economy is nothing but a persistent CANARD.

The fact is that economy waxes and wanes with or without government regulations.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without a gold standard.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without incomes taxes.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without the WELFARE state.

So are you saying that it doesn't matter if we have a government that is too big, too expensive and too far reaching?

What I am suggesting to you, Frank, is that pretty much everything you think you know about the macroeconomy is wrong.

I don't remember discussing the macro economy with you, Dick.

If regulation and government programs don't stop economic swings and if we will have economic swings no matter what (which btw is exactly my position) then why spend so much taxpayer money on big government when people would undoubtedly be better off during economic swings if they kept more of their own money?

 

[expat_panama]

...governments that pushed for equal incomes have had to shoot people that tried to leave. Income equality means mobility is punished by death.

no. income inequality is where rich people have to put barbed wire fences around their property and have armed guards to keep out the vast majority of the population...

We agree. Most people want to live where the can have incomes not equal to others, and most people want to leave areas where incomes have to be equal.

 

[expat_panama]

If one looks at the economic history of the USA both back when the US government was small, there were no taxes, we were on the GOLD standard, and there was no welfarem and if we compare it to the time after that when those conditions changed? What do we see? We see that the economy, during both periods, had wild swings and crippling depressions...

I didn't see that at all.

Let's look together. We know that US dollars stopped being gold certificates in '33, and that we had federal income taxes became the revenue mainstay in 1941. Now let's see the historical record on US economic "wild swings and crippling depressions" --

What I get is that income taxes came in when gold and wild swings went out.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If one looks at the economic history of the USA both back when the US government was small, there were no taxes, we were on the GOLD standard, and there was no welfarem and if we compare it to the time after that when those conditions changed?

What do we see?

We see that the economy, during both periods, had wild swings and crippling depressions.

We see that the libertarians claim that the government is the CAUSE of the instability of the market and the economy is nothing but a persistent CANARD.

The fact is that economy waxes and wanes with or without government regulations.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without a gold standard.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without incomes taxes.

The fact is that the economy waxes and wanes with or without the WELFARE state.

Does that mean that government is useless? Or does it really mean you are trying to make a point and blew it?

 

[Katzndogz]

Economic swings are a consequence of economic freedom and capitalism. They occur naturally. The point isn't to stop them, it's to keep the swings from becoming too big. The more government tinkering, the worse these swings are.

 

[expat_panama]

...The more government tinkering, the worse these swings are.

Unless you're a maniac anarchist, you prefer to live where there's a functioning government around to do its 'tinkering', except then you don't call it "tinkering."

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

were on the GOLD standard,

of course we were never on a true gold standard for very long. If I'm wrong please say when were on a true gold standard??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The more government tinkering, the worse these swings are.

this is true. We assume the Fed is watching the money supply and the FDIC has us all insured etc etc so why be careful about what's going in. The wise caring bleeding heart liberal Federal monopoly has us all protected.

 

[expat_panama]

...the Fed is watching the money supply and the FDIC has us all insured etc etc so why be careful about what's going in...

What, so now America's worse off with the FDIC?