Wealth inequality-how it affects the economy

[MaggieMae]

No we don't. Dumb ass.

What don't we have, dipshit?

issue

a cheap labour force................

Do you want one? We could always hire more illegals.

 

[Samson]

What don't we have, dipshit?

issue

a cheap labour force................

Do you want one? We could always hire more illegals.

Now i understand why the Obama Administration will not secure the borders

 

[MaggieMae]

On topic: I don't know why people think 'wealth" needs to be "distributed" equitably. As long as there are no legal barriers to earning money, what is the problem? Some people will always make more money than other people. So what?

My OP says nothing about forced wealth distribution. It simply described the way it was (when, ironically, nothing was forced), compared to the way it is now, and I put forth the reasons I thought it had changed.

 

[MaggieMae]

we could go completely internal......nothing in or out....a closed society.....

We could live in caves and eat rocks too. How's that going to work out for us?

wouldn't need to live in caves or eat rocks.....just live in a closed society where we make sell and buy within our own country.....

Isn't that basically what the New Right (tea party, libertarians, etc.) want anyway? Of course I'm not sure they'd want to give up the convenience of factory produced jiffy foods for the microwave and cheap hiking boots made in China, but it's the thought that counts.

 

[MaggieMae]

Who do realize that when the wealthy and corporations paid more taxes, we had more American jobs, and less outsourcing?

Uh....the wealthy's share of total taxes paid has increased, not decreased. We also have the second highest, soon to be highest, corporate income tax rates in the world.

But who actually pays it?

 

[MaggieMae]

Yeah, so even more Evul Politicians can waste the money.

You mean OUR Congresspeople?

When have they ever foolishly spent a dime of taxpayer money?

The Iraq Fiasco comes to mind.

Not just the cost to taxpayers for the war, but now the nation-building and the ongoing health and welfare of the Iraqi people. As long as this topic is already derailed by cute comments, and speaking of Iraq, at the time Halliburton was being rewarded all the no-bid contracts over there for everything from pipeline repair to laundry service, it was noted that Halliburton also was guilty of offshoring 17 of its subsidiaries to the Caymens. So not only were we paying actual war costs out of the war chest, and paying Halliburton huge cost-plus fees, and while they were screwing the Pentagon even on those contracts by overbilling, Halliburton wasn't even paying their share of taxes back into the United States Treasury!!! Did anyone care back then? Where was the round the clock reporting by FoxNews on Halliburton's triple-dipping? I mean after all, their journalists seem to do such a fine job reporting 24/7 on other alleged government ripoffs, like the blitz they did on Acorn. (There, now the thread is completely derailed. Game on.)

 

[manu1959]

You mean OUR Congresspeople?

When have they ever foolishly spent a dime of taxpayer money?

The Iraq Fiasco comes to mind.

Not just the cost to taxpayers for the war, but now the nation-building and the ongoing health and welfare of the Iraqi people. As long as this topic is already derailed by cute comments, and speaking of Iraq, at the time Halliburton was being rewarded all the no-bid contracts over there for everything from pipeline repair to laundry service, it was noted that Halliburton also was guilty of offshoring 17 of its subsidiaries to the Caymens. So not only were we paying actual war costs out of the war chest, and paying Halliburton huge cost-plus fees, and while they were screwing the Pentagon even on those contracts by overbilling, Halliburton wasn't even paying their share of taxes back into the United States Treasury!!! Did anyone care back then? Where was the round the clock reporting by FoxNews on Halliburton's triple-dipping? I mean after all, their journalists seem to do such a fine job reporting 24/7 on other alleged government ripoffs, like the blitz they did on Acorn. (There, now the thread is completely derailed. Game on.)

when halliburton got no bids under clinton were you this concerned....

 

[Toro]

Improvements in child wellbeing in rich countries might depend more on reductions in income inequality rather than further economic growth, according to a study published today on bmj.com.

Poorer children fare less well than richer ones in each society. But a recent UNICEF report detailing 40 indicators of child wellbeing, said children in the UK and the USA fared worse than in any of the other rich countries. The new research examines whether the damage is done by being poor, or by being poorer than others.

To answer this question, the authors examined whether measures of child wellbeing were most closely related to average income (material living standards) or to the scale of income differences (inequality) in each society.

The authors studied these relationships in two different settings: among 23 rich countries, and then, independently, among the 50 states of the USA (and District of Columbia).

Among the 23 rich countries, the UNICEF index of child wellbeing (covering material wellbeing, health and safety, educational wellbeing, family and peer relationships, unhealthy and risky behaviours, and subjective wellbeing) was unrelated to average income, but was strongly related to the size of the income differences between rich and poor within each country.

Findings were similar among the 50 states of the USA. Data were analysed for teenage births, juvenile homicides, infant mortality, low birth weight, educational performance, high school drop-out rate, the proportion of children overweight, and mental health problems. All were more strongly related to the scale of income inequality in each state than to its average income.

Low standards of child well-being linked to greater income inequality

 

[MaggieMae]

Huh? No one's suggesting anything, moron. Just stating the fact which clearly is that not too long ago the economy WAS more functional for everyone.

Its was "more functional for everyone?"

A. WTF does "more functional" mean?

B. Does "Everyone" include Women and Blacks?

Re-read the OP. It wasn't meant to be refined down to demographics, only the fact that people then had more spendable income. SPENDABLE is the operative word. It has nothing to do with race, gender, or even age.

 

[Samson]

Not just the cost to taxpayers for the war, but now the nation-building and the ongoing health and welfare of the Iraqi people. .....

Did anyone care back then?

Where was the round the clock reporting by FoxNews on Halliburton's triple-dipping?

I mean after all, their journalists seem to do such a fine job reporting 24/7 on other alleged government ripoffs, like the blitz they did on Acorn. (There, now the thread is completely derailed. Game on.)

Maybe you should write a letter to Obama and ask him when he's gonna make all this right.

 

[MaggieMae]

Correction: except for unions (which are bleeding out our country with the help of their big government cronies), we have a free market in labor. Contrast that with the Communist Serfs that live in squalor in China.

Correction: The US Chamber of Commerce has far more clout and a helluva lot more money to influence Washington for their causes than do all the labor unions combined.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce grows into a political force - Los Angeles Times

The chamber spent more than $144 million on lobbying and grass-roots organizing last year, a 60% increase over 2008, and well beyond the spending of individual labor unions or the Democratic or Republican national committees.

The chamber is expected to substantially exceed that spending level in 2010.

 

[MaggieMae]

Huh? No one's suggesting anything, moron. Just stating the fact which clearly is that not too long ago the economy WAS more functional for everyone.

Its was "more functional for everyone?"

A. WTF does "more functional" mean?

B. Does "Everyone" include Women and Blacks?

MM's definition of functional must mean that people who normally have a lower standard of living were able to live it up on (tax payer back stopped) debt until the piper came a callin' for his pay.

Yeah, that's it. Idiot...

 

[Samson]

Its was "more functional for everyone?"

A. WTF does "more functional" mean?

B. Does "Everyone" include Women and Blacks?

MM's definition of functional must mean that people who normally have a lower standard of living were able to live it up on (tax payer back stopped) debt until the piper came a callin' for his pay.

Yeah, that's it. Idiot...

Well????

Instead of refuting someone else's definition, you might provide your own.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why do you think Big Business has so much power and control? Big Government enables it via regulations which Rig The Game.

For once try seeing it the other way around. By their massive lobbying efforts under the umbrella of the USCC, many industries have won the right to self-police which results in contamination in meat packing plants, lax oversight of the distribution of prescription drugs, minimal OSHA inspections, and even more currently of interest, ignoring the very simple check for valid Social Security Numbers to avoid hiring illegal aliens.

If we didn't have a Big Government to provide Cronyism Benefits, there would be no point in such lobbying.

Regulations are designed to protect the big, incumbent companies - oft written by the companies themselves. If you think that provides Consumer Protection, think again.

Just sayin'.

Did you just argue my case for me?

 

[The Rabbi]

Improvements in child wellbeing in rich countries might depend more on reductions in income inequality rather than further economic growth, according to a study published today on bmj.com.

Poorer children fare less well than richer ones in each society. But a recent UNICEF report detailing 40 indicators of child wellbeing, said children in the UK and the USA fared worse than in any of the other rich countries. The new research examines whether the damage is done by being poor, or by being poorer than others.

To answer this question, the authors examined whether measures of child wellbeing were most closely related to average income (material living standards) or to the scale of income differences (inequality) in each society.

The authors studied these relationships in two different settings: among 23 rich countries, and then, independently, among the 50 states of the USA (and District of Columbia).

Among the 23 rich countries, the UNICEF index of child wellbeing (covering material wellbeing, health and safety, educational wellbeing, family and peer relationships, unhealthy and risky behaviours, and subjective wellbeing) was unrelated to average income, but was strongly related to the size of the income differences between rich and poor within each country.

Findings were similar among the 50 states of the USA. Data were analysed for teenage births, juvenile homicides, infant mortality, low birth weight, educational performance, high school drop-out rate, the proportion of children overweight, and mental health problems. All were more strongly related to the scale of income inequality in each state than to its average income.

Low standards of child well-being linked to greater income inequality

First rule of statistics: Correlation does not equal causation. And the UN is always in favor of income redistribution.

 

[MaggieMae]

Every "big" business started out as a "small" business.
Small businesses still provide the majority of the jobs.
If the number and wealth of big businesses has grown, logic tells me that small businesses have done well for themselves by growing in to a "big" business.

Well that's not exactly how it happened on a larger scale, although I'm sure it's true in some cases. Big business, mega corporations like General Electric, Monsanto, General Mills, Bank of America, Hilton Hotels, even News Corps, all grew via the art of consolidation--buying up smaller like industries and then making their own rules. Kinda like totalitarianism in the private sector.

If you don't like it, then you should be very critical of the federal laws and regulations which make it very difficult to grow a small company into a larger one.

I am. But I also know that it's difficult for a small business to grow at all and still maintain their unique status of proof of the American Dream. As soon as they do, some bigger business will start making buyout offers and before you know it, poof, there goes another one that used to pride itself on being a home grown success story.

That said, I return to my original question and that is when people speak of allowing free enterprise (capitalism) to correct itself, why doesn't it also correct the inequities in the ability to compete by small businesses?

 

[MaggieMae]

Well then last year was a joyful one for GE and Exxon's shareholders, and I sure hope they gave their employees GIANT bonuses, because they figured out how to pay no taxes at all.

GE, Exxon Paid No U.S. Income Taxes in 2009 - ABC News

I'm sure the Obama Administration shall investigate......

Eventually?


Maybe in 2011????

After tropps are removed from Afghanistan.

At what point did you lose your mind and regress back to acting like you're ten years old? When you first joined the board, I thought you were quite sane. Now you're just another asshole. Just because you have one doesn't mean you have to act like one.

 

[MikeK]

Ya lets seize everyone's money over say 2 million and let the Government redistribute it. You guys are such idiots. Envy is ugly.

Not two million. Twenty million.

And if you understood the damage that unconstrained accumulation of assets has done and is doing to this country you wouldn't be accusing those of us who do understand it of being envious. And the idiocy belongs to those who think there is nothing wrong with some Americans accumulating multi-billion dollar fortunes while millions of others are slowly being reduced to poverty.

Of course I envy anyone who has managed to acquire twenty million dollars worth of assets and I wish I could do it. But beyond that level wealth becomes the kind of power which has corrupted our political system and is transforming our democracy into a monarchy. I do not envy that kind of power. I fear it -- as do all good Americans.


"Behind every great fortune lies a great crime." (Honore de Balzac)

 

[MaggieMae]

The Iraq Fiasco comes to mind.

Not just the cost to taxpayers for the war, but now the nation-building and the ongoing health and welfare of the Iraqi people. As long as this topic is already derailed by cute comments, and speaking of Iraq, at the time Halliburton was being rewarded all the no-bid contracts over there for everything from pipeline repair to laundry service, it was noted that Halliburton also was guilty of offshoring 17 of its subsidiaries to the Caymens. So not only were we paying actual war costs out of the war chest, and paying Halliburton huge cost-plus fees, and while they were screwing the Pentagon even on those contracts by overbilling, Halliburton wasn't even paying their share of taxes back into the United States Treasury!!! Did anyone care back then? Where was the round the clock reporting by FoxNews on Halliburton's triple-dipping? I mean after all, their journalists seem to do such a fine job reporting 24/7 on other alleged government ripoffs, like the blitz they did on Acorn. (There, now the thread is completely derailed. Game on.)

when halliburton got no bids under clinton were you this concerned....

Did they get contracts for service work like doing the Army's laundry in the Balkans? In any event, Halliburton's federal contracts never exceeded $1 billion during the Clinton administration, while they received between $8 and $10 billion for overseeing aspects of the Iraqi reconstruction. I don't think anyone denies Halliburton's expertise in certain areas, but other US contractors were more than capable of executing many of the contracts that were automatically awarded to Halliburton or its subsidiaries.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not just the cost to taxpayers for the war, but now the nation-building and the ongoing health and welfare of the Iraqi people. .....

Did anyone care back then?

Where was the round the clock reporting by FoxNews on Halliburton's triple-dipping?

I mean after all, their journalists seem to do such a fine job reporting 24/7 on other alleged government ripoffs, like the blitz they did on Acorn. (There, now the thread is completely derailed. Game on.)

Maybe you should write a letter to Obama and ask him when he's gonna make all this right.

It's far too late to make it right. Maybe, however, it's time for people like you to stop blaming Obama for everything wrong with the economy and society in general.