Wealth inequality

[MikeK]

1982 was 50%

1988 was 28%

You're right. And I apologize for the unintentional error, which is corrected in the updated chart I posted below it.

 

[MikeK]

Yes, he created the New Deal, and it did not end anything. The end of WWII ended the depression.

Which is comparable to saying planting seeds does not eventually produce blossoms, then plants, then fruit.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, he created the New Deal, and it did not end anything. The end of WWII ended the depression.

Which is comparable to saying planting seeds does not eventually produce blossoms, then plants, then fruit.

Actually planting seeds does not always produced plants, then blossoms, then fruit--you got a bit of that out of order there --I have planted plenty of seeds that produced nothing but a reduction in my bank account and net worth, however insignificant that might have been. And however well intended FDR's policies might have been, there are many lettered economists who now admit that he not only did not end the Depression, he prolonged it. And his policies have resulted in a massive entitlement albatross that year by year has since increased the drag on the U.S. economy, makse wealth acquisition ever more difficult to obtain, most especially for those who are just now getting started.

Here's just one opinion on that. There are many many more.

"Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."

In an article in the August issue of the Journal of Political Economy, Ohanian and Cole blame specific anti-competition and pro-labor measures that Roosevelt promoted and signed into law June 16, 1933.

"President Roosevelt believed that excessive competition was responsible for the Depression by reducing prices and wages, and by extension reducing employment and demand for goods and services," said Cole, also a UCLA professor of economics. "So he came up with a recovery package that would be unimaginable today, allowing businesses in every industry to collude without the threat of antitrust prosecution and workers to demand salaries about 25 percent above where they ought to have been, given market forces. The economy was poised for a beautiful recovery, but that recovery was stalled by these misguided policies."
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Not only did Roosevelt's seeds not sprout, but they took up a lot of ground that should have been used for more productive (i.e.) private purposes.

You mentioned earlier that you are a socialist, not a Marxist. I didn't accuse you of being either and you can call yourself whatever you want.

But if you believe you are entitled to what other people earn just because they have more than you do, that is a Marxist concept. If you believe the government should make wealth essentially equal across the board, that is a Marxist concept. If you believe it is wrong that so much property should be owned by so few, that is a Marxist concept.

 

[Bern80]

Did anyone else notice how the idiot that made this video made some stupid assumptions, misrepresented some facts, and conflated things that are not equivalent?

The main thing I noticed is that he called the inequity 'unfair'. I guess I just don't see how that can be the case. How is it unfair that the top 1% have more than the bottom 20%. They don't have money that belongs to that 20%. They didn't steal it from them. They didn't promise anyone x income for life. I can't get my head around that. That changes the concept of this inequity from efficacy about whether such inequity can work to a moral concept. To call it unfair is to say that it is moral for wealth to be distributed more equitably. There are all kinds of logistical implications on society for that to work.

 

[PaulS1950]

Every publicly held corporation in the USA shares their profits.
It is divided among the stockholders equal to the amount of stock they hold. This is non-taxable income as long as the stocks are not sold. When you do sell the stocks you have to pay income tax and capitol gains taxes. The shareholders are the owners of the businesses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not going to spend a lot of time on this, I'll just take on this snippet:




Does everyone not understand that the nature of capitalism strongly discourages these polyanna ideals? That the goal of such capitalists is profit rather than profit sharing? That the two are mutually antagonistic if not mutually exclusive? That such companies strive to make the most at the least cost of doing business, jobs being the primary cost, and therefore the last thing they want to increase? That companies, and rich people, and capitalism, are specifically not there to enrich other people?

OK then. Let's quit hanging ideals of how we wish the world worked over the ways it actually does.

Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?

I wish--oh, how MUCH I wish--the teachings of 19th century classical liberalism was mandatory curriculum in school any more.

But it can be summed up in one sentence written by Adam Smith: "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Business and commerce works best, most efficiently, most effectively, and most to the benefit of ALL when it is done ethically, responsibly, and for the purpose of achieving profit. Anything else is guaranteed to produce less affluence for all but those in government or who are necessary for government to prosper.

I think you just repeated what I said; the goal of capitalism is profit. And profit sharing undermines that profit. Therefore it's not rational or reasonable to ascribe altruistic communistic (small c) motives to capitalists from which that very system discourages them, nor is it reasonable to expect them to behave in ways counter to their own interests as capitalists. That's all I'm saying.

And RE the first line: "Do you understand that capitalism is the concept of receiving reward for one's productivity?" -- no, what you've just described is wages. Capitalism is the concept of receiving reward in return for creating/selling some product or service. That creation has capital costs -- material, physical plant, labor... and those costs work against profit, therefore they must be kept to a minimum -- not a maximum. It's in the capitalist's interest to spend less on materials, less on physical plant, and less on labor. Thus the incentive is not to hire more people; it's to hire fewer.

Capitalism does not have goals, even if it did the goal would not be profit. If capitalism had a goal it would be adding value, profit sharing in no way detracts from that goal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Again the question that every citizen should ask himself/herself. Is it more important to take money from the rich? Or is it more important to increase revenues to the U.S. treasury.

Does anybody here understand that every dollar that government takes out of the private sector, whether from the rich or the poor, is a dollar that is not available to the private sector to save so that others have money to borrow, invest so that companies can grow, or spend to expand the economy? Every dollar that the government takes is a dollar not available to hire people, increase wages, increase benefits?

And does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the means to save more money, so that others have money to borrow?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who have the most means to invest so that companies can grow and provide more jobs and opportunity for more people?

Does anybody here understand that it is the rich who are in the position to hire people and give those people opportunity to enrich themselves?

Raising taxes on the working class means less money to spend on things they want. So when we talk about raising taxes on the rich the working class mentality preconsciously assumes the same effect will apply -- which simply is not the case.

Wealth in the working class is measured in the thousands of dollars. Wealth in the upper economic levels is measured in the multi-millions and billions. So when we raise taxes on the rich all it does is make them a little less rich, but still rich, and still able to buy the things they want -- or hire employees to facilitate their current and expanding ambitions. The notion that raising taxes on corporations limits their ability to hire is a misconception which is based on a preconscious projection of the working class mentality.

Hiring employees is not the same as buying a new diswasher, which is an expense, a loss. One does not hire an employee without a clear vision of ultimate derived profit. Hiring an employee is an investment, not a loss. So this notion that taking an extra million dollars in taxes from a corporation which is worth half a billion will limit that corporation's ability to engage in new ventures and to hire new employees is a handy deception the likes of the Koch Brothers have imposed on the working class mind, where it makes sense by association.

Taxing the rich doesn't impede their ability to do anything! In order to negatively affect the bottom line of most corporations it would be necessary to raise their taxes 400% or more. Because their wealth, and the wealth of their principals, is beyond the comprehension of the working class mentality. The upper economic levels are in possession of more than 90% of this Nation's wealth!

Another question:

What is more important? To make rich people pay more? Or to make it possible for more people to become rich?

One has nothing to do with the other!

Evidence of that is plainly seen in the fact that the most prosperous and productive years in our history, the decades between the late 1940s and the early 1980s (when "Reagonomics" was foisted on us) was attended by a 91% tax rate on the upper economic levels. Our prosperity diminished in proportion with the decreasing upper level tax rate.

It's there in black & white for all to see. Here's a quick look:

The income tax rate of $200,000 annual income, or more:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

Tell me something, what were government revenues over that period of time?

 

[Pogo]

"Captialism does not have goals" ---

Nor do your posts apparently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Captialism does not have goals" ---

Nor do your posts apparently.

Capitalism is an economic system, economic systems do not have goals. Goals are the end toward which effort is directed, not whatever the fuck it is you think makes it logical for you to claim that money thinks.

 

[MikeK]

Not only did Roosevelt's seeds not sprout, but they took up a lot of ground that should have been used for more productive (i.e.) private purposes.

You mentioned earlier that you are a socialist, not a Marxist. I didn't accuse you of being either and you can call yourself whatever you want.

But if you believe you are entitled to what other people earn just because they have more than you do, that is a Marxist concept. If you believe the government should make wealth essentially equal across the board, that is a Marxist concept. If you believe it is wrong that so much property should be owned by so few, that is a Marxist concept.

There were two ways the Great Depression could have ended. One way would have favored the upper economic class but allowed the unemployed and suffering working class to slip more deeply into poverty and languish there for several more years. But rather than continuing Hoover's policy of focusing all government support on the endeavors of the corporate oligarchy, whose reckless greed had brought about the collapse, and to hope for some largesse to "trickle down," as in "Reaganomics" and what it caused in the 80s, Roosevelt favored the Keynsian (demand side) approach and he focused available government resources on the programs I laid out in an earlier message. The effect was immediate and progressive relief for the working class (including my own family), which left the right wing corporatists of that era pissed off and complaining, just as they are doing today.

As far as the rich are concerned, Roosevelt was a failure who did nothing to end the Depression, and they're right -- for them! But it's too bad today's generation is so far removed from the working class survivors of that era, because those folks had a far different tale to tell. There is a reason for Franklin Delano Roosevelt's phenomenal popularity with the People. In their own words, he brought them out of the Depression.

The simple fact is the Great Depression did not mean the same thing for both levels of American society. For the unemployed lower class it meant crushing poverty and hopelessness. For the upper class it was an inconvenience, a pause in further expanding their financial hoards. When the WPA and CCC paydays began lifting the working class out of the increasing depth of poverty, for them it was the end of the Depression, the end of a kind of suffering and degradation the rich can't even imagine. For the upper class, who had never stopped dining on prime rib, the end didn't come until after the War and the industrial boom when they could resume stacking up the millions and rejoin the financial aristocracy.

 

[Bern80]

"Captialism does not have goals" ---

Nor do your posts apparently.

The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

 

[Againsheila]

"Captialism does not have goals" ---

Nor do your posts apparently.

The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

 

[Meathead]

"Captialism does not have goals" ---

Nor do your posts apparently.

The point trying to be made is that there seem to be some that believe capitalism is supposed to assure an outcome. Some have called capitalism a failure and use that wealth inequity clip that's been floating around as evidence of that. The point Quantum is making is a system can't fail at something it wasn't designed to accomplish. Nothing about Capitalism says everyone will have at least enough to get by. Or everyone will have x amount of money. Or provide a certain standard of living.

Capitalism is a failure, so is socialism. We need to find the best combination of the two. No one denies that some people deserve more than others. What we are debating is how MUCH more they deserve. Does anyone really believe that a CEO deserves more than 500 times what his average employee deserves? Or that the top 1% in our nation deserve 90% of our wealth, leaving nothing for the working people on the other end of the scale?

Capitalism is a failure?! Why then do those other failed economies invariably revert to capitalism once other systems have exhausted the wealth of the nations which had implemented extreme measures to redistribute wealth. Capitalism is the only economic system that is true to human nature. Anything else is doomed for failure, as ultimately are those who espouse them.

 

[MikeK]

Capitalism is a failure?! Why then do those other failed economies invariably revert to capitalism once other systems have exhausted the wealth of the nations which had implemented extreme measures to redistribute wealth. Capitalism is the only economic system that is true to human nature. Anything else is doomed for failure, as ultimately are those who espouse them.

Both capitalism and socialism are flawed and dangerous systems if left to achieve their respective extremes. As has been clearly demonstrated by the phenomenal success of the period between the '40s and the '80s, the ideal system is capitalism which is held in check by certain socialist regulations (e.g., Glass-Steagall).

The problem with Laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism, as we recently have seen, is it begins to feed on itself. More specifically, the most successful element of the system (the super-rich) compulsively hoard the Nation's wealth resources, depriving the less fortunate of the means (wage stagnation) to nourish the economy by circulating money.

In addition, absent the controlling regulations, the kind of maneuvering explained in the video, Inside Job, which is offered free in my signature line (belowl), is inevitable and quite destructive. This kind of maniplation of the financial sector could not occur with the necessary (socialistic) regulations in place.

 

[Meathead]

Capitalism is a failure?! Why then do those other failed economies invariably revert to capitalism once other systems have exhausted the wealth of the nations which had implemented extreme measures to redistribute wealth. Capitalism is the only economic system that is true to human nature. Anything else is doomed for failure, as ultimately are those who espouse them.

Both capitalism and socialism are flawed and dangerous systems if left to achieve their respective extremes. As has been clearly demonstrated by the phenomenal success of the period between the '40s and the '80s, the ideal system is capitalism which is held in check by certain socialist regulations (e.g., Glass-Steagall).

The problem with Laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism, as we recently have seen, is it begins to feed on itself. More specifically, the most successful element of the system (the super-rich) compulsively hoard the Nation's wealth resources, depriving the less fortunate of the means (wage stagnation) to nourish the economy by circulating money.

In addition, absent the controlling regulations, the kind of maneuvering explained in the video, Inside Job, which is offered free in my signature line (belowl), is inevitable and quite destructive. This kind of maniplation of the financial sector could not occur with the necessary (socialistic) regulations in place.

Do you honestly think that ludicrous conspiracy theories are productive in an argument regarding economic systems? Given your paranoid delusions, I fully expect you lack the clarity of thought to understand.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism is a failure?! Why then do those other failed economies invariably revert to capitalism once other systems have exhausted the wealth of the nations which had implemented extreme measures to redistribute wealth. Capitalism is the only economic system that is true to human nature. Anything else is doomed for failure, as ultimately are those who espouse them.

Both capitalism and socialism are flawed and dangerous systems if left to achieve their respective extremes. As has been clearly demonstrated by the phenomenal success of the period between the '40s and the '80s, the ideal system is capitalism which is held in check by certain socialist regulations (e.g., Glass-Steagall).

The problem with Laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism, as we recently have seen, is it begins to feed on itself. More specifically, the most successful element of the system (the super-rich) compulsively hoard the Nation's wealth resources, depriving the less fortunate of the means (wage stagnation) to nourish the economy by circulating money.

In addition, absent the controlling regulations, the kind of maneuvering explained in the video, Inside Job, which is offered free in my signature line (belowl), is inevitable and quite destructive. This kind of maniplation of the financial sector could not occur with the necessary (socialistic) regulations in place.

the ideal system is capitalism which is held in check by certain socialist regulations (e.g., Glass-Steagall).

Do you feel Glass-Steagall prevented banks from writing bad mortgages?

 

[MikeK]

Do you feel Glass-Steagall prevented banks from writing bad mortgages?

No. Because that was not its purpose.

Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from making investments with depositors' money, mainly because the safety of those deposits is protected by the FDIC and if an investment goes bad and the investor bank cannot absorb the loss it ultimately is absorbed by the (FDIC) taxpayers.

There were many regulations which were repealed by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bush-1 and Bush-2 which have contributed to the kind of finagling that collapsed our economy and led to the upward (vertical) distribution of the Nation's wealth resource. The only reason I mentioned Glass-Steagall (which was repealed by Bill Clinton), is it the one which is most familiar to the general public. But there are many more, beginning with the ones Ronald Reagan repealed that led directly to the Savings & Loan scandal.

Simply stated, what these corrupt and/or incompetent presidents did by repealing all those socialistically modeled (People-oriented) regulations is to leave the Nation's wealth vulnerable to exploitation by crooked bankers and schemers in the finance industry (Wall Street), the most "successful" of whom would be serving major prison sentences had the regulations (preventive laws) not been repealed.

I should mention that because I am not an expert in these matters I would not have thought twice about the proudly smiling Bill Clinton's televised signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. But a close friend who taught Economics at Columbia told me about the probable consequences and suggested that Clinton must have been well compensated for doing it. Because Clinton is far too intelligent and too well educated to not know what he was leaving us vulnerable to.

And sure enough. . .

 

[MikeK]

Do you honestly think that ludicrous conspiracy theories are productive in an argument regarding economic systems? Given your paranoid delusions, I fully expect you lack the clarity of thought to understand.

If the best you have to offer is onanistic ad-hominem and personal insults you have demonstrated why anyone other than belligerent adolescents and intellectually limited adults would save considerable time and space by just placing you on Ignore, as I'm about to do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Do you feel Glass-Steagall prevented banks from writing bad mortgages?

No. Because that was not its purpose.

Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from making investments with depositors' money, mainly because the safety of those deposits is protected by the FDIC and if an investment goes bad and the investor bank cannot absorb the loss it ultimately is incurred by the (FDIC) taxpayers.

There were many regulations which were repealed by Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Bush-1 and Bush-2 which have contributed to the kind of finagling that collapsed our economy and led to the upward (vertical) distribution of the Nation's wealth resource. The only reason I mentioned Glass-Steagall (which was repealed by Bill Clinton), is it the one which is most familiar to the general public. But there are many more, beginning with the ones Ronald Reagan repealed that led directly to the Savings & Loan scandal.

Simply stated, what these corrupt and/or incompetent presidents did by repealing all those socialistically modeled (People-oriented) regulations is to leave the Nation's wealth vulnerable to exploitation by crooked bankers and schemers in the finance industry (Wall Street), the most "successful" of whom would be serving major prison sentences had the regulations (preventive laws) not been repealed.

I should mention that because I am not an expert in these matters I would not have thought twice about the proudly smiling Bill Clinton's televised signing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. But a close friend who taught Economics at Columbia told me about the probable consequences and suggested that Clinton must have been well compensated for doing it. Because Clinton is far too intelligent and too well educated to not know what he was leaving us vulnerable to.

And sure enough. . .

Glass-Steagall prohibited commercial banks from making investments with depositors' money, mainly because the safety of those deposits is protected by the FDIC and if an investment goes bad and the investor bank cannot absorb the loss it ultimately is incurred by the (FDIC) taxpayers.

Then it wouldn't have prevented the real estate bubble or crash.

The FDIC is funded by the banks.

But there are many more, beginning with the ones Ronald Reagan repealed that led directly to the Savings & Loan scandal.

Any specifics? Or just feelings?

 

[Meathead]

Do you honestly think that ludicrous conspiracy theories are productive in an argument regarding economic systems? Given your paranoid delusions, I fully expect you lack the clarity of thought to understand.

If the best you have to offer is onanistic ad-hominem and personal insults you have demonstrated why anyone other than belligerent adolescents and intellectually limited adults would save considerable time and space by just placing you on Ignore, as I'm about to do.

I have no idea why anyone but belligerent adolescents and intellectually limited ditz would think that espousing asinine conspiracy theories would impress anyone, but even more so in an unrelated dialogue of economic systems, By all means, place me on ignore.