Income Inequality’s Ripple Effect

[usmcstinger]

Income Inequality’s Ripple Effect

Last week, Barack Obama, delivering the clearest and most powerful economic policy speech of his presidency at an event sponsored by the Center for American Progress, identified “the combined trends of increased inequality and decreasing mobility” as “the defining challenge of our time.” The week before, in his first papal exhortation, Pope Francis robustly criticized “trickle-down theories” of economic growth as having “never been confirmed by the facts” and as leaving behind the poor and vulnerable. Soon after being awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, Robert Shiller told the Associated Press that inequality was “the most important problem that we are facing now today.”

These concerns are serious. For the last three decades, the U.S. economy has been growing dramatically more unequal and less mobile by nearly every measure. The fact is that we don’t know nearly enough about what high inequality means for economic growth and stability. We need a better understanding of how inequality affects demand for goods and services and macroeconomic and financial imbalances. We are in the dark on whether and how inequality affects entrepreneurship, or whether it alters the effectiveness of our economic and political institutions, or how it affects individuals’ ability to access education and productively employ their skills and talents.

Meanwhile, dirt poor Christians will continue to believe what Fox News tells them.

While Socialists and Communists control every aspect of your life and wealth is limited to the government. One must be delusional to believe that citizens have any upward mobility ( except for members of the controlling minority ). Talk to the people who lived under these conditions in Poland, Hungary, East Germany and etc..

 

[editec]

I see. Are you aware that the French Revolution was against a Monarchy? Who will the rabble attempt to behead? Obama? He's got nothing he hasn't stolen through taxation.

<edited for cursing>.

It was a revolt by the have nots against the haves! When you have the majority of the wealth in the hands of a few that's exactly how bad it is, it doesn't matter what you call it. No country can long stand with the majority of it's wealth in the hands of a few. It doesn't matter if you call it a Monarchy or a Republic, the results are the same. Those who haven't learned from history are doomed to repeat it.

The concentration of wealth was no worse in France than it was in England. Why didn't the later suffer a violent revolution?

WRONG....England's government still worked. Taxation was fairER than in France, too.

Frances' monarchy was bankrupted...why?

Because the ARTISOs and the CHURCH, (who combined owned and control 80% of the economy) paid NO taxes. so the KING had no choice but to tax the peasants.