“Income Inequality”: A Crisis of Stupidity

[SAYIT]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

Not when the wealthiest can simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities under our form of Capitalism, regardless of the equality preferred by our form of socialism.

Wow ... you really are monumentally stupid but thanks for playing.

 

[SAYIT]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

Too bad the wealthiest know how to simply purchase better socialism than the rest of us (under our form of Capitalism). silly goose

You are like a child, DP:
socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

FDR's brand of socialism qualifies.

The gov't does not own nor does it run America's businesses. Grow up and remove your silly socialist shades.

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.” - Calvin Coolidge

 

[danielpalos]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

Not when the wealthiest can simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities under our form of Capitalism, regardless of the equality preferred by our form of socialism.

Wow ... you really are monumentally stupid but thanks for playing.

Having nothing but fallacy to work with is even more stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

Too bad the wealthiest know how to simply purchase better socialism than the rest of us (under our form of Capitalism). silly goose

You are like a child, DP:
socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

FDR's brand of socialism qualifies.

The gov't does not own nor does it run America's businesses. Grow up and remove your silly socialist shades.

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.” - Calvin Coolidge

Government is socialism. And, government proved it during WWII. Why not acquire and posses a clue and a Cause.

 

[SAYIT]

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

Too bad the wealthiest know how to simply purchase better socialism than the rest of us (under our form of Capitalism). silly goose

You are like a child, DP:
socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

FDR's brand of socialism qualifies.

The gov't does not own nor does it run America's businesses. Grow up and remove your silly socialist shades.

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.” - Calvin Coolidge

Government is socialism. And, government proved it during WWII. Why not acquire and posses a clue and a Cause.

Yeah ... I get it. Everything is socialism. Air is socialism. Light is socialism. God is socialism. Like I said ... you are terminally stupid.

 

[danielpalos]

Too bad the wealthiest know how to simply purchase better socialism than the rest of us (under our form of Capitalism). silly goose

You are like a child, DP:
socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

FDR's brand of socialism qualifies.

The gov't does not own nor does it run America's businesses. Grow up and remove your silly socialist shades.

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.” - Calvin Coolidge

Government is socialism. And, government proved it during WWII. Why not acquire and posses a clue and a Cause.

Yeah ... I get it. Everything is socialism. Air is socialism. Light is socialism. God is socialism. Like I said ... you are terminally stupid.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that; socialism starts with a Social Contract not a Capital Contract.

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

 

[SAYIT]

You are like a child, DP:
socialism

1. a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

FDR's brand of socialism qualifies.

The gov't does not own nor does it run America's businesses. Grow up and remove your silly socialist shades.

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.” - Calvin Coolidge

Government is socialism. And, government proved it during WWII. Why not acquire and posses a clue and a Cause.

Yeah ... I get it. Everything is socialism. Air is socialism. Light is socialism. God is socialism. Like I said ... you are terminally stupid.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that; socialism starts with a Social Contract not a Capital Contract.

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

In fact, I'm merely mocking your insipid mantra but like most loony lefties you aren't bright enough to get the joke. Socialism, as all knowledgeable people know, starts with the gov't confiscating the "means of production, distribution, and exchange" ... in other words, that which is currently owned and operated by America's private sector.
Yeah, those who built it have something to say to those of you who think they can steal it from us:

 

[danielpalos]

FDR's brand of socialism qualifies.

The gov't does not own nor does it run America's businesses. Grow up and remove your silly socialist shades.

“After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world. I am strongly of the opinion that the great majority of people will always find these the moving impulses of our life.” - Calvin Coolidge

Government is socialism. And, government proved it during WWII. Why not acquire and posses a clue and a Cause.

Yeah ... I get it. Everything is socialism. Air is socialism. Light is socialism. God is socialism. Like I said ... you are terminally stupid.

Only the clueless and the Causeless say that; socialism starts with a Social Contract not a Capital Contract.

It really is that simple, except to the Right.

In fact, I'm merely mocking your insipid mantra but like most loony lefties you aren't bright enough to get the joke. Socialism, as all knowledgeable people know, starts with the gov't confiscating the "means of production, distribution, and exchange" ... in other words, that which is currently owned and operated by America's private sector.
Yeah, those who built it have something to say to those of you who think they can steal it from us:

No, it doesn't; it only happens that way in the movies.

Socialism starts with a social Contract not a Capital contract.

This is socialism: Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

Only the right is too clueless and too Causeless to have anything more than fallacy instead of a valid argument.

Eminent domain (with socially Just Compensation) is socialism bailing out capitalists and capitalism.

 

[Andylusion]

I certainly wouldn't cut education...Reform it? **** yes....

Having a country of idiots that work as slaves for global corps that are unregulated is bullshit.

Every single time we look around the world, we see that government schools to horrifically bad, compared to privately run pay-for-service, capitalist based schools.

I just read about Pakistan. The government has a highly paid, completely free school system. Now 'high pay' is relative to Pakistan wages. Teachers are paid very well, schools are completely funded, education is 100% free.

Yet the private schools, charge for each student, and have teachers that are paid a mere fraction as much as the public schools, and often meet in rented warehouse space... yet the test scores of these capitalist based educated students, routinely completely obliterate the test scores of the public school students.

I found that to be true here in Columbus Ohio as well. When I looked up how much money they were spending per student, the most expensive, was Columbus Public schools. The cheapest, or school spending the least per student, was a private Columbus Academy. Yet, the highest test scores in central Ohio, was Columbus Academy, and worst test scores were Columbus Public.

Equally, the school in Chile, which is largely privatized, still has public schools. But the absolute worst, cheapest, least expensive, worst performing private school in Chile.... still has better test and education results, than the free public schools.

Lastly, you mention being a slave for global corporations.

If you don't want to be a slave, you have some options. Go live in the mountains, and eat rabbit and squirrels, and whatever you can grow on the dirt by your shack.

But if you want to live anything like a modern civilized life, you are going to be a slave to someone. There is no alternative, no other method, no second option.

I was working with this one guy who decided to quit his job, because he didn't want to be told what to do. So he sat at home, and his wife (who made good money) threatened to divorce him if he didn't get a job. So he started a business by himself..... guess what he found out? The customers requested he do stuff, and he said no, and they fired him (stopped buying his service), and he went out of business. He ended up back at the job he left.

You are going to be a slave to someone. Now in our country, you can choose who that is, but you are going to be ordered around by someone.

Unless you choose to be a 'boy toy' for some rich middle aged cougar, who doesn't require anything from you other than to look nice, and show up for social events, you are going to take orders from someone. You are either going to work for an employer, or you are going to work for a customer, or you are going to work for a politician (in some government job), and you will do as you are told, or you will not have a job.

People who think they shouldn't be order around by anyone, usually end up very poor, or very bitter, or a combination of both.

 

[Andylusion]

Neat theory and all - but this has been studied and compensation for specific jobs -- and it has not risen at thenrate of 400% like the executive salaries have since te late 70s but has remained relatively flat

And productivity is UP, so theyre not working any less hard.

If you dont feel this is an issue, then ----- no hope for the closed mind says the man with the key ring and doesnt know the key.

There is no evidence that the poor are poor because the rich are rich.
In fact, it is the capital risk-taking of the rich that has powered America's economic engine.

The reason the poor are poor in America is two fold.

1. They are young and think they should be rich but forgot they actually have to earn it. Or......

2. They vote for libs because they promise to give them a nickel instead of making conditions better for jobs to grow and employ them

True story. I retired from a large manufacturing company and had a friend who hired within a week of myself. He was a big left winger, oh boy, he hated EVERYTHING republican. He was the salt of the earth though, a real nice guy with a wonderful family.

18 or 19 years ago, he won the Illinois lotto to the tune of around 380,000 bucks because of multiple winners. He came to me and asked about a financial advisor, so I set him up with someone I knew was not a crook.

Within 10 months, his story changed tremendously. He was no longer a left winger, and was now a staunch conservative, lol. He was trying to hide money from the tax code, investing in none taxation bonds, setting up trusts, etc, etc; all the time bitching that the government was trying to steal his money.

We are now both retired, I still talk to him about once a month, and he lives in Florida right off the Gulf. He is now worth over 3 million, is still a conservative, and hates Obysmal.

Oh yeah, did I mention he is African American?

So you see, it really does boil down to those who don't have it, wanting to take it from those who do to finance their grand ideas. But most of the time, when someone suddenly makes it, the light of reality clicks in. Legal robbery through excessive taxation by using cute buzzwords like "income inequality" is just that, legalized theft.

As long as someone made their money legally, who the hell is anyone to tell them they have to give some of it to someone else because of so called "compassion?" Of course, the ones trying to take it from you are always the ones defining the meaning of "compassion," now aren't they, lolol!

Those people are honestly a sandwich short of a full picnic basket.

Yeah, this is exactly why I honestly believe we shouldn't have universal suffrage. The founding fathers of our country understand that giving everyone the right to vote, was a bad idea.

The people that should vote, are the people who have directly invested into the country. People who have something to lose.

There is nothing more destructive than allowing people who have nothing invested in the country, the right to control the country.

You can vote for even the most destructive of policies, no matter how damaging they are to the country, if you think you have nothing to lose. You can vote for anyone that will promise freebies from the government... if you believe the myth that it will not harm you.

Take rent control in New York. Thousands of rentals left condemned and vacant in a city with thousands of homeless.... why? Because they can't be rented profitably under rent control. Thus they are abandoned. Why would any push a policy that harms the public? Because the public believed it wouldn't harm them. They believed it would only harm the rich landlords.

This is exactly why people with no invested interest in the country, shouldn't be allowed to vote. The founding fathers were right. And we know they were right, from examples like this right here.

This socialist democrat, left-winger... the moment he realized he had something to lose, the moment he realized that the people who propose to give out freebies, meant to take from people like him.... suddenly he's not a left-winger anymore.

Reminds me of Michael Jackson, writing the song "man in the mirror" saying everyone should give to make that change.... then spent the remainder of his life, hiding as much money as he could from taxes. What a shock.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the Right complains about public education in our modern Information Age; what can you not learn on Internet. Youtube has a lot of documentaries and tutorials; many schools also have online curricula.

I guess the Right is just too lazy to be proactive and use self-initiative and "hard work" to pick up their cluelessness and Causelessness, slack.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Name a top 10 educational system that isn't government....Norway = government, Japan = government, etc. You think that is bad to be kicking our ass?

 

[Andylusion]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

This is misleading for a lot of reasons. First off this premise is often very dependent on looking at well being in very crude ways. For example it tends to place an emphasis on superficial things like consumer goods while failing to account for other things like crime rate and their place in the social order.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on transfer payments to be true. So if we really want to claim that rising tides lift all ships we also have to make sure we are not arguing to cut benefits with the next breath.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on the emotional arguments attributed to increases in technology that make everyone see life as getting better but technological progress only does so much for the poor.

Are we talking about crime, or about economics?

The two are completely separate issues.

China by most estimates had a very low crime rate, prior to 1978, and 63% of the population lived below the poverty line of $2 a day.

If you try and claim that it's the government transfers of wealth that raise all boats, then why is it we had at one point, 4th generation welfare recipients? Why is it, that the those who have been living off the government for decades, are still the lowest levels of the wealth scale?

If anything, those transfers have kept some boats from raising with the rest.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If anything, those transfers have kept some boats from raising with the rest.

true enough, welfare is not a safety net at all, its an intergenerational house used to cripple people and then buy their votes. If it was a safety net I'd be all for it.

 

[Andylusion]

Name a top 10 educational system that isn't government....Norway = government, Japan = government, etc. You think that is bad to be kicking our ass?

Depends. 'Government run', is generally (in a broad context), worse than privately run education.

I think the first I should mention, is Poland has been one of the largest dramatic shifts in education outcomes, when the scrapped the publicly funded communist era model, in favor of a more free-market system. As a result, Poland went from being one of the lower education standards in the EU, to now being in the top ten.... and shockingly has the highest amount of privately educated students in the EU.

But there are exceptions even of a government run system.. If the government run system, is run as if it is a private education system... then it will have the results of a private education system.

The US system is highly fractured. K-12 education, is generally highly socialized and publicly run. And the K-12 education, is terrible. Just terrible.

Higher education, college and university level, is quite a bit less socialized, and as a result, we many of the best world class higher education institutions.

So while our socialized K-12 system compares very poorly internationally, our college and universities, compare very well internationally.

Even then, the move government funded the higher eduction institution is, the lower it performs internationally. Most of the highest reputation higher education institutions are all private. Harvard, Princeton, Yale.... so on.

So comparing the US, to another country is dubious, because you are mixing high performing private education systems, with terribly performing socialized education. Thus our capitalists based schools, end up making our socialized schools look good, when you mix them together.

Even so, you mention Japan. Are Japanese schools good? Yes they are. But then there is a reason.

First education beyond the basics isn't a right. It is something to be earned, and students are expected to earn it. Completely contrary to the left-wing argument popularized by Bush, that "no child should be left behind", Japan takes the exact opposite approach. Children are most definitely left behind, if they don't perform.

In fact, you are guaranteed nothing behind middle school. If you don't meet the entrance exams for high school..... you simply don't go to high school.

In the US, you have public schools with remedial classes for the basics of reading and writing and arithmetic, and public colleges and universities, have similar remedial courses for all the same.

Not so in Japan. If you can't pass the examine, for minimal basic education... you don't get a Pre-Math course 090.... you simply don't go to high school... you don't go to college.... you certainly don't go to university.

Moreover, Japan doesn't have a free education system either. You must pay to have your child educated. If you don't pay, then your child doesn't go to school.

Again, completely different than the 'free education for all' socialized system here in the US.

Many of the school systems you claim are government run, and yet in the top 10, are often highly capitalist. And even in those systems, private generally do better than public schools... in Norway, Finland, and so on.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Name a top 10 educational system that isn't government....Norway = government, Japan = government, etc. You think that is bad to be kicking our ass?

Depends. 'Government run', is generally (in a broad context), worse than privately run education.

I think the first I should mention, is Poland has been one of the largest dramatic shifts in education outcomes, when the scrapped the publicly funded communist era model, in favor of a more free-market system. As a result, Poland went from being one of the lower education standards in the EU, to now being in the top ten.... and shockingly has the highest amount of privately educated students in the EU.

But there are exceptions even of a government run system.. If the government run system, is run as if it is a private education system... then it will have the results of a private education system.

The US system is highly fractured. K-12 education, is generally highly socialized and publicly run. And the K-12 education, is terrible. Just terrible.

Higher education, college and university level, is quite a bit less socialized, and as a result, we many of the best world class higher education institutions.

So while our socialized K-12 system compares very poorly internationally, our college and universities, compare very well internationally.

Even then, the move government funded the higher eduction institution is, the lower it performs internationally. Most of the highest reputation higher education institutions are all private. Harvard, Princeton, Yale.... so on.

So comparing the US, to another country is dubious, because you are mixing high performing private education systems, with terribly performing socialized education. Thus our capitalists based schools, end up making our socialized schools look good, when you mix them together.

Even so, you mention Japan. Are Japanese schools good? Yes they are. But then there is a reason.

First education beyond the basics isn't a right. It is something to be earned, and students are expected to earn it. Completely contrary to the left-wing argument popularized by Bush, that "no child should be left behind", Japan takes the exact opposite approach. Children are most definitely left behind, if they don't perform.

In fact, you are guaranteed nothing behind middle school. If you don't meet the entrance exams for high school..... you simply don't go to high school.

In the US, you have public schools with remedial classes for the basics of reading and writing and arithmetic, and public colleges and universities, have similar remedial courses for all the same.

Not so in Japan. If you can't pass the examine, for minimal basic education... you don't get a Pre-Math course 090.... you simply don't go to high school... you don't go to college.... you certainly don't go to university.

Moreover, Japan doesn't have a free education system either. You must pay to have your child educated. If you don't pay, then your child doesn't go to school.

Again, completely different than the 'free education for all' socialized system here in the US.

Many of the school systems you claim are government run, and yet in the top 10, are often highly capitalist. And even in those systems, private generally do better than public schools... in Norway, Finland, and so on.

we have by far the best colleges in the world because they are competitive and the worst lower schools in the world because they are not, they are liberal union schools.

 

[Bombur]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

This is misleading for a lot of reasons. First off this premise is often very dependent on looking at well being in very crude ways. For example it tends to place an emphasis on superficial things like consumer goods while failing to account for other things like crime rate and their place in the social order.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on transfer payments to be true. So if we really want to claim that rising tides lift all ships we also have to make sure we are not arguing to cut benefits with the next breath.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on the emotional arguments attributed to increases in technology that make everyone see life as getting better but technological progress only does so much for the poor.

Are we talking about crime, or about economics?

The two are completely separate issues.

China by most estimates had a very low crime rate, prior to 1978, and 63% of the population lived below the poverty line of $2 a day.

If you try and claim that it's the government transfers of wealth that raise all boats, then why is it we had at one point, 4th generation welfare recipients? Why is it, that the those who have been living off the government for decades, are still the lowest levels of the wealth scale?

If anything, those transfers have kept some boats from raising with the rest.

We are talking about measuring the standard of living. A person in an American ghetto may have a cell phone but that doesn't say that much about what their life is actually like. You can calculate a number that establishes their income in a given year in cash and services but once again that only says so much about their life.

Crime is relevant in establishing what kind of society or neighborhood an individual lives in. There is a monetary value for living in a neighborhood with low crime that is not reflected unless crime is considered. Crime is just one of many factors that can make it difficult to compare two unlike things.

 

[danielpalos]

If anything, those transfers have kept some boats from raising with the rest.

true enough, welfare is not a safety net at all, its an intergenerational house used to cripple people and then buy their votes. If it was a safety net I'd be all for it.

How would you recognize a true social safety net that resorts to the socialism of equality, Person on the Right.

 

[Andylusion]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

This is misleading for a lot of reasons. First off this premise is often very dependent on looking at well being in very crude ways. For example it tends to place an emphasis on superficial things like consumer goods while failing to account for other things like crime rate and their place in the social order.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on transfer payments to be true. So if we really want to claim that rising tides lift all ships we also have to make sure we are not arguing to cut benefits with the next breath.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on the emotional arguments attributed to increases in technology that make everyone see life as getting better but technological progress only does so much for the poor.

Are we talking about crime, or about economics?

The two are completely separate issues.

China by most estimates had a very low crime rate, prior to 1978, and 63% of the population lived below the poverty line of $2 a day.

If you try and claim that it's the government transfers of wealth that raise all boats, then why is it we had at one point, 4th generation welfare recipients? Why is it, that the those who have been living off the government for decades, are still the lowest levels of the wealth scale?

If anything, those transfers have kept some boats from raising with the rest.

We are talking about measuring the standard of living. A person in an American ghetto may have a cell phone but that doesn't say that much about what their life is actually like. You can calculate a number that establishes their income in a given year in cash and services but once again that only says so much about their life.

Crime is relevant in establishing what kind of society or neighborhood an individual lives in. There is a monetary value for living in a neighborhood with low crime that is not reflected unless crime is considered. Crime is just one of many factors that can make it difficult to compare two unlike things.

Crime is not something that changes because of an economic system, or an education system.

If we adopted a Finish economic system... there would still be crime in the ghettos. If we adopted a Chinese economic system... there would still be crime in the ghettos. We adopted a French health care system... there would still be crime in the ghettos.

The solution to crime, is a better law enforcement, punishment, and justice system.

The topic of this thread, is income inequality, not crime.

Thus when you talk about 'quality of life', we're referring to the economic quality of life.

Changing an economic system, will not have any affect whatsoever on crime.

The socialist idea somehow income inequality causes crime, and that if we could eliminate it, then crime would go away, is absolutely bonkers, with zero real empirical support.

Great Depression, had far worse living conditions, and far greater poverty, than anything in the ghettos today, and crime was barely a fraction of what it is today.

Even into the 1950s, people in the poorest areas, lived relatively crime free.

Then in the 1960s to the present, we've had massive welfare, food stamps, public housing, and more government aid programs.... and crime is rampant.

If anything, welfare allows more crime. Honestly, most criminals don't make enough with petty theft, and stealing car stereos, to live off of. The only reason they can make a career out of crime, and not starve to death homeless, is because we keep paying their living expenses.

If anything, welfare and government aid creates the crime, you claim lowers their standard of living.

 

[Bombur]

...The right is complains everyday that the least wealthy in the US are not really poor enough when compared to the more Capitalist, third world.

Nonsensical nonsense.
All rational people know that a rising tide raises all ships (though not necessarily equally).
Only loony lefties and anarchists try to make your consistently silly arguments.

This is misleading for a lot of reasons. First off this premise is often very dependent on looking at well being in very crude ways. For example it tends to place an emphasis on superficial things like consumer goods while failing to account for other things like crime rate and their place in the social order.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on transfer payments to be true. So if we really want to claim that rising tides lift all ships we also have to make sure we are not arguing to cut benefits with the next breath.

It is also a premise that tends to rely on the emotional arguments attributed to increases in technology that make everyone see life as getting better but technological progress only does so much for the poor.

Are we talking about crime, or about economics?

The two are completely separate issues.

China by most estimates had a very low crime rate, prior to 1978, and 63% of the population lived below the poverty line of $2 a day.

If you try and claim that it's the government transfers of wealth that raise all boats, then why is it we had at one point, 4th generation welfare recipients? Why is it, that the those who have been living off the government for decades, are still the lowest levels of the wealth scale?

If anything, those transfers have kept some boats from raising with the rest.

We are talking about measuring the standard of living. A person in an American ghetto may have a cell phone but that doesn't say that much about what their life is actually like. You can calculate a number that establishes their income in a given year in cash and services but once again that only says so much about their life.

Crime is relevant in establishing what kind of society or neighborhood an individual lives in. There is a monetary value for living in a neighborhood with low crime that is not reflected unless crime is considered. Crime is just one of many factors that can make it difficult to compare two unlike things.

Crime is not something that changes because of an economic system, or an education system.

If we adopted a Finish economic system... there would still be crime in the ghettos. If we adopted a Chinese economic system... there would still be crime in the ghettos. We adopted a French health care system... there would still be crime in the ghettos.

The solution to crime, is a better law enforcement, punishment, and justice system.

The topic of this thread, is income inequality, not crime.

Thus when you talk about 'quality of life', we're referring to the economic quality of life.

Changing an economic system, will not have any affect whatsoever on crime.

The socialist idea somehow income inequality causes crime, and that if we could eliminate it, then crime would go away, is absolutely bonkers, with zero real empirical support.

Great Depression, had far worse living conditions, and far greater poverty, than anything in the ghettos today, and crime was barely a fraction of what it is today.

Even into the 1950s, people in the poorest areas, lived relatively crime free.

Then in the 1960s to the present, we've had massive welfare, food stamps, public housing, and more government aid programs.... and crime is rampant.

If anything, welfare allows more crime. Honestly, most criminals don't make enough with petty theft, and stealing car stereos, to live off of. The only reason they can make a career out of crime, and not starve to death homeless, is because we keep paying their living expenses.

If anything, welfare and government aid creates the crime, you claim lowers their standard of living.

Crime is impacted by all sorts of things. Economics is absolutely one of them. Your claim to the contrary is based off of extremely flawed thinking as there are a lot of factors that go into crime that are changing in your comparisons through time.

Your assertion that crime is tied to government programs lead to crime is a massive assumption that doesn't line up with what is seen in other countries.

Meanwhile the entire discussion about the cause of crime is not even the point I was making. I was talking about measuring quality of life between various groups. Crime is absolutely part of that equation no matter what caused it.

So you are wrong on two counts.