neo classical economics- looked good on paper

[Rshermr]

Pure freedom (security, health, happiness, etc...) doesn't exist. We should just give up on that as well? Seriously, you don't see how that's a silly argument? You could make it about any ideal goal. The question is whether it's better to attempt moving toward the ideal, or away from it. If you think the ideal sucks, then say so. Otherwise, why wouldn't we want to strive toward it?



That's easier than thinking about, I suppose.

So, that is simple enough. Here, this is a simple article. One of many, many, many out there saying the same thing. You could not have missed it had you tried. All say the same thing. Which is that income inequality is out of control:

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened
Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth as Rich-Poor Gap Widened - Bloomberg

No one that I am aware of is suggesting what conservatives say liberals are, which is that income levels should be equal. No one. But the great disperity is a problem, without much doubt, in the minds of most. And yes, much of that is due to the monopoly power of corporations. Which you seem not to want to believe.
The problem is not simple. It is money in politics, it is monopoly power of corporations, it is the lack of increases in earnings of those other than the top 1%. If you prefer to not believe it, and to not educate yourself on what is being said on both sides of the issue, that is your right. But it simply makes you ignorant. The majority of economists, and particularly the majority of impartial economists, believe that the problem of income inequality is a major issue.

What ideal are you looking for. I suspect that we all have different ideas on what economic perfection is. And for me, it is not dependent on economic system. I could care less if it is socialism, capitalism, totalitarianism, or what. As long as people are the best off under the system that they live and work within. And what economists are saying is not that we need to move toward any specific system, but that we need to consider the issues of income inequality. If you would rather not, then fine. Stay ignorant. Your call.

Again, so that you do not attack the straw man again, I am not suggesting pure equality is either good or possible. It is not. Nor is anyone else, if you would only read the information out there. Sociology, by the way, does not suggest that. Only nut cases who want to attack anyone that questions the capitalist ideal say that. The rest of the world is trying to find a combined system that WORKS for the people that work in the economy.

Top 1% Got 93% of Income Growth

How much of the income growth, coming out of a recession, is the proper amount for the top 1% to get? Why?

Please show all your work.

What are you paying, me boy. Oddly enough, I do not spend time trying to educate the ignorant unless I am paid. Well, by the way. Otherwise, you take it on. Educate us, oh great economic mind.

 

[dblack]

Dblack asks:

Why should income inequality be under control? Who should control it, in your view?

In needs to be at some level, or under control, to avoid a bad economy. I am not here to spend an hour educating anyone. You could read. A simple google search on the problems of income inequality would give you the reasons of economists. Or, you could consider reading a bit of what some of the above links took you to. I do not really believe you want an answer, however.

Then why did you bother answering? I'm definitely interested in what you have in mind, because I'm convinced centralized control over our economic decisions is antithetical to free society. And that sounds like what you're advocating.

I don't want a government preoccupied with our economic well-being. Just as I don't want a government preoccupied with our spiritual well-being. Economic freedom lets us create the kind of economy we, as a society, want, rather than subjugating enterprise to coercive state power.

I agree to a point. The collusion of economic power and political power is the problem. But it goes both ways. We need to separate economic power and political power in much the same way we've separated religious power and political power.

To a point. What level of money controlling politics is ok with you???

None. What level of politicians controlling our money is ok with you?

It goes both ways??? Did you think that we need to worry about the gov controling private corporations???

We need to worry about government controlling us, on behalf of corporations. That's what happens when government gets in bed with business. We get 'reform' like ACA, that serves the interests of corporations ahead of those of citizens.

Yes. We need to seperate economic power from political power. That is, we need to take money OUT of politics.

But, just as we came to realize with religion, you can't keep money out of politics unless you likewise keep politics out of 'money'. As long as the state assumes the power to meddle in our economic decisions, people and businesses will strive to steer it toward their own agenda.

 

[Rshermr]

So the toddster says:
Damned if I know.

No kidding.

Which is another way of saying damned if you know.

But I believe 93% to the upper 1% is too much.

93% of what?

Income growh from the start of the great republican recession in 2008 until the article was written, at the end of 2012.

Dig out the actual income growth dollar amount in 2010 and we can discuss what the proper amount should be.

Why??? Are you trying to make the point that we were still in the great republican recession 2010. Did you want to only talk about the recession years??? Why???

all of which seem to think that heavy income redistribution toward the wealthy is a good deal.

We could discuss income growth in the richest county in the nation.
The one that you think is a good deal.

Nah. You do not discuss. You just post dogma.

How would you suggest I show you ''all you work".

You would have to show actual number and use math, not your feelings.
There, there, don't cry.

Again, me boy, there is no way to do so, as you know. Look up subjective and compare it to objective. And then go forth comparing the data already studied by economists. Or, you could just go back to your bat shit crazy con web sites that all say, as do you (coincidentally, I am sure) that income distribution is no problem.
And cry??? Why would I do that. I would laugh, but you really are not that funny.
__________________

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So the toddster says:
Damned if I know.

No kidding.

Which is another way of saying damned if you know.

But I believe 93% to the upper 1% is too much.

93% of what?

Income growh from the start of the great republican recession in 2008 until the article was written, at the end of 2012.
Why??? Are you trying to make the point that we were still in the great republican recession 2010. Did you want to only talk about the recession years??? Why???

all of which seem to think that heavy income redistribution toward the wealthy is a good deal.

We could discuss income growth in the richest county in the nation.
The one that you think is a good deal.

Nah. You do not discuss. You just post dogma.

How would you suggest I show you ''all you work".

You would have to show actual number and use math, not your feelings.
There, there, don't cry.

Again, me boy, there is no way to do so, as you know. Look up subjective and compare it to objective. And then go forth comparing the data already studied by economists. Or, you could just go back to your bat shit crazy con web sites that all say, as do you (coincidentally, I am sure) that income distribution is no problem.
And cry??? Why would I do that. I would laugh, but you really are not that funny.
__________________

93% of what?

Income growh from the start of the great republican recession in 2008 until the article was written, at the end of 2012.

It's funny that you don't even know what your own stupid article said.

Why??? Are you trying to make the point that we were still in the great republican recession 2010.

If income only grew $1, is it awful the top 1% got 93 cents?

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no monopoly that is not granted by the government. Monopoly does not explain income disparity. Companies do not own the government.
Your entire premise is flawed. Your knowledge base sucks. And frankly you're a crap human being.

Again proving his ignorance, there is Rabbi. I did not say monopolies, me boy. As you know. I said monopoly power. And yes, monopoly power exists. In private business, in government, in labor unions, and on and on. Really, Rabbi. Is it that you are that stupid. Or is it that your audience, other cons, are that stupid in your little pea brain.

Please cite examples of "monopoly power" in private business, me boy. This ought to be good.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

On the other hand, there is NO economy in the world without significant gov involvement. That would be a libertarian economy, except more to the right.

Lovely straw man argument.

And, me boy, if you check, there are NO libertarian economies out there. None. Nada. Zip.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not economic theory.

And you have the brass to go around arrogantly calling others ignorant?

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

 

[f252863]

had you watched the documentary you fucktard you'd know that the pols in D.C. are merely doing what their masters (wall st banksters & the FED [their creature]) are telling them to do.

And you call this capitalism?

This is crony government and it leads to wealth aggregating at the top.

I think you're confused.

 

[The Rabbi]

Lovely straw man argument.


Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not economic theory.

And you have the brass to go around arrogantly calling others ignorant?

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

It's a reducto ad absurdum fallacy. If we can't show a single example of pure laissez faire capitalism then it discredits that it would ever work. Or something like that. I can't figure out what his position is, other than to spew crap and piss people off.

 

[Rshermr]

Lovely straw man argument.


Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not economic theory.

And you have the brass to go around arrogantly calling others ignorant?

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

You are arguing against yourself. America has never been a successful libertarian economy. Ever. So, as I said, consistently, there never has been a successful libertarian based economy.

 

[Rshermr]

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

It's a reducto ad absurdum fallacy. If we can't show a single example of pure laissez faire capitalism then it discredits that it would ever work. Or something like that. I can't figure out what his position is, other than to spew crap and piss people off.

Ah. I can show you successful socialist economies. However, you believe in a falacy. A successful libertarian economy. Good for you. And you see nothing wrong with your line of thought??? Because believing in an ideal that CRATERS EVERY SINGLE TIME makes sense to you??? Good for you. Go ahead and believe in it. There may be room on that island. But hurry. It will crater too before it ever becomes successful.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You are arguing against yourself. America has never been a successful libertarian economy. Ever. So, as I said, consistently, there never has been a successful libertarian based economy.

I was arguing against a smug and pretentious twirp, who has made the grave error of buying into the mirage of his own intellectual superiority.

Was, that is.

 

[The Rabbi]

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

It's a reducto ad absurdum fallacy. If we can't show a single example of pure laissez faire capitalism then it discredits that it would ever work. Or something like that. I can't figure out what his position is, other than to spew crap and piss people off.

Ah. I can show you successful socialist economies. However, you believe in a falacy. A successful libertarian economy. Good for you. And you see nothing wrong with your line of thought??? Because believing in an ideal that CRATERS EVERY SINGLE TIME makes sense to you??? Good for you. Go ahead and believe in it. There may be room on that island. But hurry. It will crater too before it ever becomes successful.

No, you cannot. There are no successful socialist economies. If there has never been a "libertarian economy" (whatever the hell that means) then how could it have cratered every single time?
You are an arrogant twep, and a know-nothing as well.

 

[Dot Com]

not one source provided by any rw'er on this page. Quelle surpise!!!..... NOT :zzz:

You people need to learn some debating skills or read a book every now & then.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

You really so dense to believe that people would sit through an hour and a half of your drippy, politically motivated "documentary"?

Really?

 

[HenryBHough]

not one source provided by any rw'er on this page. Quelle surpise!!!..... NOT :zzz:

You people need to learn some debating skills or read a book every now & then.

Doggone liberals always whining for other to do their work for them. You people really need to learn to use an encyclopedia (it's a book) or at least a browser.

 

[Iceweasel]

not one source provided by any rw'er on this page. Quelle surpise!!!..... NOT :zzz:

You people need to learn some debating skills or read a book every now & then.

I posted one earlier and quoted the definition of free market capitalism. You didn't agree with it, for reasons that remain a mystery, you attacked the author of the article instead of explaining what was wrong with the accepted terminology. You don't have debating skills, you insult and snivel to moderators when people give it back to you.

 

[bripat9643]

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

It's a reducto ad absurdum fallacy. If we can't show a single example of pure laissez faire capitalism then it discredits that it would ever work. Or something like that. I can't figure out what his position is, other than to spew crap and piss people off.

Liberals can't even state what their ideal of a perfect society is, let alone show us an example of one.

 

[bripat9643]

It is indeed. A political philosophy, that is. As we all know. Which suggests an extreme laissez-faire economy. Look it up, me dear. You see, there are, in the real world, libertarian economists. There just is no such thing as an economy that follows the libertarian ideal.

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

You are arguing against yourself. America has never been a successful libertarian economy. Ever. So, as I said, consistently, there never has been a successful libertarian based economy.

Was America successful in 1914 or not?

 

[bripat9643]

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

It's a reducto ad absurdum fallacy. If we can't show a single example of pure laissez faire capitalism then it discredits that it would ever work. Or something like that. I can't figure out what his position is, other than to spew crap and piss people off.

Ah. I can show you successful socialist economies.

No you can't.

However, you believe in a falacy. A successful libertarian economy. Good for you. And you see nothing wrong with your line of thought??? Because believing in an ideal that CRATERS EVERY SINGLE TIME makes sense to you??? Good for you. Go ahead and believe in it. There may be room on that island. But hurry. It will crater too before it ever becomes successful.

You obviously don't know what a fallacy is. When has a libertarian society ever "cratered?"

 

[Rshermr]

Except that America has not had a laissez-faire economy, let alone one anybody could call "extreme", for about a century now. So you now have two straw man arguments in one.

And you can drop the condescending "me dear" crap.

You are arguing against yourself. America has never been a successful libertarian economy. Ever. So, as I said, consistently, there never has been a successful libertarian based economy.

Was America successful in 1914 or not?

That is a matter of opinion. But America was not a libertarian economy in 1914. And was just 15 years from the great republican depression. Nice try, dipshit. But you are truly showing your ignorance again, which is, by the way, epic. The economic boom from 1914 to 1918 is explained herein (I know you can not read, but perhaps you know someone who can read and explain it to you):

When the war began, the U.S. economy was in recession. But a 44-month economic boom ensued from 1914 to 1918, first as Europeans began purchasing U.S. goods for the war and later as the United States itself joined the battle. "The long period of U.S. neutrality made the ultimate conversion of the economy to a wartime basis easier than it otherwise would have been," writes Rockoff. "Real plant and equipment were added, and because they were added in response to demands from other countries already at war, they were added precisely in those sectors where they would be needed once the U.S. entered the war."

Entry into the war in 1917 unleashed massive U.S. federal spending which shifted national production from civilian to war goods. Between 1914 and 1918, some 3 million people were added to the military and half a million to the government. Overall, unemployment declined from 7.9 percent to 1.4 percent in this period, in part because workers were drawn in to new manufacturing jobs and because the military draft removed from many young men from the civilian labor force.
The Economics of World War I

A boom financed by war and government spending. Yup, sounds like a libertarian utopia. Jesus.