Smart Man Discusses Income Inequality

[The Rabbi]

Wow.....a pinko professor?

Well I certainly welcome you to post your own data on the distribution of wealth in this country. It should be interesting

I never claimed I had any such data. I don't think it's even available. That's why the chart is almost certain bullshit. The fact that I don't have an alternative set of numbers doesn't make the ones posted correct. That's the logic of a true believer, not a scientist.

Even f it's true, so what?

 

[Mustang]

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

I've come to the conclusion that it's impossible to wake conservatives up to what's going on and why.

They've got their predetermined demons all lined up carefully for them by people who have their OWN agenda, and they respond almost as if on cue from a conductor.

I started a thread related to this subject a couple of days, and it went nowhere.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/281819-all-we-need-to-do-is-wake-up.html

Video Showing the Huge Gap Between Super Rich and Everyone Else Goes Viral - DailyFinance

In fact, I actually have a new idea for a thread, but I don't know if I can be bothered to create it.

It's an extremely brief overview of how and why the Reagan Democrats may ultimately come to reject the politics they've embraced for 30 years. Namely, it's because their voting loyalty to the GOP has ultimately gotten them little more than economic betrayal as those same representatives sold them out along with the American way of life.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's impossible to stir lolberals from their belief that one person gets ahead only when someone else gets behind. Or that we're all in this together and policies that discourage earning money discourage it all across the board.
Until lolberals realize this--which is never because they don't educate well--they will never be able to propose reasonable policies that will help growth for everyone.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

North Korea has economic inequality
The UK has economic inequality
Venezuela has economic inequality
Mexico has economic inequality
Russia has economic inequality
China has economic inequality

The US and its Capitalist economic system provides its citizens the best opportunity to close a gap when it comes to improve ones economic situation. Why would the US ever want to part away from this type of economy just so a ruling elite can take over and control the wealth and power and stifle upward mobility all in the name of fairness and redistribution?

 

[Polk]

And here is the problem. You want to find a decent job. You don't want to put in the effort to create the job of your dreams. You just want to wait around until someone gives you what you want.

And you wonder why you are never going to become wealthy.

This rests on the assumption that hard work pays off. There is little reason to believe that true. It's certainly true for some people, but when a child born to upper class parents who drops out of high school has a greater change of being upper class himself than a child from lower classes who has an advanced degree, that tells you this argument about merit is glossing over something major.

The opposite is certainly true: indolence and laziness lead to poverty. You're an example of that.

You know nothing about my personal life "Rabbi".

 

[Polk]

Wow.....a pinko professor?

Well I certainly welcome you to post your own data on the distribution of wealth in this country. It should be interesting

I never claimed I had any such data. I don't think it's even available. That's why the chart is almost certain bullshit. The fact that I don't have an alternative set of numbers doesn't make the ones posted correct. That's the logic of a true believer, not a scientist.

Except that the data is available...

 

[Polk]

And here is the problem. You want to find a decent job. You don't want to put in the effort to create the job of your dreams. You just want to wait around until someone gives you what you want.

And you wonder why you are never going to become wealthy.

This rests on the assumption that hard work pays off. There is little reason to believe that true. It's certainly true for some people, but when a child born to upper class parents who drops out of high school has a greater change of being upper class himself than a child from lower classes who has an advanced degree, that tells you this argument about merit is glossing over something major.

You should be directed to Dr. Ben Carson.

How does his infantile rant help your argument?

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

What's the magic number where it goes from being bad to good? The fact is it's not the difference in incomes that matters, it's how those incomes are obtained. If they rich get their money by voluntary exchange of goods and services for cash, that's all to the good. If they get it by greasing the palms of politicians, sucking up to government bureaucrats or being an Obama campaign donor, then that is harmful to society.

You're partly right, Bri. The wealthy pervert the government to feather their own nests at the expense of the society as a whole

But it DOES matter when wealth inequity gets too lopsided.

ASSET BUBBLES stem from when the very affluent find they are competing for assets with the other very affluent.

That competition drives up the price of producive assets to the point where they cease being good investments.

And why are they no longer good investments?

Because, thanks to the fact that the rest of us have less money, the economic activity declines thus making those assets prices ridiculous.

Then the bubbles burst and the economy falters.

I don't know how old you are but me, I've lived through six recessions in my adult working lifetime.

It gets old, man, mighty old, watching my nation continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
.

Exactly!

The wealth distribution curve is nothing but a gauge. The policies that I believe would have the desired effect of producing a smooth bell curve in the graph are fair and simple taxes and public budgets that are balanced by law.

Giving congress the power to customize taxes via our complicated monkey-pile of a tax code was a big mistake. Corruption that's perfectly legal is the worst possible kind.

 

[rightwinger]

What's the magic number where it goes from being bad to good? The fact is it's not the difference in incomes that matters, it's how those incomes are obtained. If they rich get their money by voluntary exchange of goods and services for cash, that's all to the good. If they get it by greasing the palms of politicians, sucking up to government bureaucrats or being an Obama campaign donor, then that is harmful to society.

You're partly right, Bri. The wealthy pervert the government to feather their own nests at the expense of the society as a whole

But it DOES matter when wealth inequity gets too lopsided.

ASSET BUBBLES stem from when the very affluent find they are competing for assets with the other very affluent.

That competition drives up the price of producive assets to the point where they cease being good investments.

And why are they no longer good investments?

Because, thanks to the fact that the rest of us have less money, the economic activity declines thus making those assets prices ridiculous.

Then the bubbles burst and the economy falters.

I don't know how old you are but me, I've lived through six recessions in my adult working lifetime.

It gets old, man, mighty old, watching my nation continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
.

Exactly!

The wealth distribution curve is nothing but a gauge. The policies that I believe would have the desired effect of producing a smooth bell curve in the graph are fair and simple taxes and public budgets that are balanced by law.

Giving congress the power to customize taxes via our complicated monkey-pile of a tax code was a big mistake. Corruption that's perfectly legal is the worst possible kind.

I have a simple metric

You want to give tax deductions for job creators?

Make them show they have created jobs first

 

[AVG-JOE]

Capitalism is dead, credit new king, says Duncan

HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — The world needs to clue in to changes to its economic system, including the death of capitalism, according to noted financial author Richard Duncan, who warns that attempts to turn back the clock on our credit-driven economies could be cataclysmic

What’s evolved is a new global economic paradigm that no longer follows the old script and won’t respond favorably to fiscal austerity, says Duncan, who believes the global economy has remained on the brink since the global crisis.

“I think this represents a new economic system,” Duncan told Marketwatch in a telephone interview from his office in Bangkok. “The biggest impediment the world faces in overcoming this crisis is the broadly held misconception that we are operating in a capitalist system.”

Recognizing that the world operates on a different set of rules from the laissez-faire capitalism of the 19th century is among the key arguments in Duncan’s 2012 book, “The New Depression: The Breakdown of the Paper Money Economy.”


While it might seem like an arcane economic question, Duncan said that, in fact, the stakes are huge.

Global policy makers are running out of time to take advantage of opportunities offered up by the new system to help resolve the crisis, or otherwise face sliding into a corrosive period of economic contraction and rising geopolitical tensions, he said.

“The danger is that this new economic paradigm will collapse through debt deflation,” Duncan said.

Stuck with ‘creditism’
Duncan sees the global economy as having undergone a fundamental transformation during the past 43 years. Since changes in 1968 that freed the Federal Reserve from holding physical gold in reserve against dollars in circulation, total global credit has expanded 50 times, or from about $1 trillion to $50 trillion in 2007.

Over that period, credit creation and consumption, or what Duncan calls “creditism,” took hold as the growth dynamic behind the global economy, displacing capitalism, which he says relied upon sound money, hard work and capital accumulation.

Attempts to break the global economy’s reliance on credit creation as a driver and reboot back to earlier ways won’t work, said Duncan, who sees “sound money” policy recommendations as a recipe for disaster.

Underscoring the system’s dependence upon credit is the fact that there were only nine occasions in the past five decades when total system credit in the U.S. grew less than 2% annually.

However, each one of the slower credit-growth years was accompanied by a recession that ultimately was brought to an end by another round of massive credit creation, Duncan said.

Duncan believes that true capitalism died in 1914, when nations across Europe abandoned gold-backed currencies, running up huge deficits in preparation for what would come to be known as the Great War.

Capitalism isn't dead, it's just changing. In the 19th Century, any asshole who could afford an army could pretty much take whatever he fancied, ass-u-me-ing of course that it wasn't defended by another asshole with an army. It was then that things got complicated. Capitalism is healthy and changing as it should to fit our stage of evolution.

Simply put, the 21st Century will complete the transition from government, a tool of the powerful to government, a tool of the majority. What a game changer the Internet has become.

 

[AVG-JOE]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people and where both the extremely wealthy and the poor are adequately represented.

This wealth redistribution mess is nonsense. I remember when Obama tried to destroy Joe The Plumber when Obama was caught on camera talking about wealth redistribution to him. Now it's actually being discussed in the open like it's a legitimate policy.

I've got a better idea; Study in school, work hard, keep at it and maybe you'll get a good payday. In other words, let's keep America free instead of turning it into one big money grab that chases all of the wealth out of the country.

Don't think of it in terms of policy... it's a gauge, nothing more.

The point is to pursue tax and spend policies that are fair, transparent, balanced and predictable, using the income distribution graph as a gauge. If the graph skews to the funneling of wealth either up or down the food chain, something is unfair or out of balance.

The current skew in the US graph merely paints the picture of tax and spend policies that are unfair and out of balance.

It's important to remember that simple redistribution of the wealth would only make the gauge look good for a moment.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

What's the magic number where it goes from being bad to good? The fact is it's not the difference in incomes that matters, it's how those incomes are obtained. If they rich get their money by voluntary exchange of goods and services for cash, that's all to the good. If they get it by greasing the palms of politicians, sucking up to government bureaucrats or being an Obama campaign donor, then that is harmful to society.

Is there a magic number? Of course not
Is a severe disparity of wealth good for the country? Of course not

The question is ....We have been executing policies that encourage income and wealth to go to the "job creators" with an understanding that it would trickle down in terms of jobs and a surging economy. It didn't work

So why aren't we dismantling those policies?

Damn good question. The standing legacy of George W Bush is his establishing proof positive that his dad was right - Trickle Down Economics truly is Voodoo Economics.

 

[DiamondDave]

You're partly right, Bri. The wealthy pervert the government to feather their own nests at the expense of the society as a whole

But it DOES matter when wealth inequity gets too lopsided.

ASSET BUBBLES stem from when the very affluent find they are competing for assets with the other very affluent.

That competition drives up the price of producive assets to the point where they cease being good investments.

And why are they no longer good investments?

Because, thanks to the fact that the rest of us have less money, the economic activity declines thus making those assets prices ridiculous.

Then the bubbles burst and the economy falters.

I don't know how old you are but me, I've lived through six recessions in my adult working lifetime.

It gets old, man, mighty old, watching my nation continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
.

Exactly!

The wealth distribution curve is nothing but a gauge. The policies that I believe would have the desired effect of producing a smooth bell curve in the graph are fair and simple taxes and public budgets that are balanced by law.

Giving congress the power to customize taxes via our complicated monkey-pile of a tax code was a big mistake. Corruption that's perfectly legal is the worst possible kind.

I have a simple metric

You want to give tax deductions for job creators?

Make them show they have created jobs first

I have a simple area of support.. I support eliminating all tax deductions (along with all brackets, ceilings, floors, loopholes, exemptions, exceptions, etc)

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

Did he also do a study that demonstrates what happens if the government tires to fix things?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There will always be income equality for the simple fact that not everyone is equal.

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve with most of the wealth in the hands of most of the people and where both the extremely wealthy and the poor are adequately represented.

The income distribution graph should form a smooth bell curve

It should? Why?

 

[AVG-JOE]

It's not inequality per se, but the size of the inequality, that's the point.

I don't care if I earn eleventy gajillion times less... that is on ME... it is not the job of government to do anything at all to help equalize outcome.. only to allow all of us the freedoms to succeed or fail all on our own, apply to any job we want (not get it), quit for whatever reason we want, be free to ask for more money (and be prepared for the company to use their freedom to say yes or no)

This thought that government is supposed to pat you on the back, make you feel better, make companies pay, etc is fucking ludicrous

And I don't care if you live in poverty for the rest of your miserable life. But it is the job of government to tax the ultra wealthy at a level where they are paying for all the benes they have bought with bribes, I mean campaign contributions, from the Federal Government.

Cause it sure as fuk ain't my job to suck it up so the ultra wealthy can have more.
If you want to give the ultra wealthy your pay check, have at it. No ones stopping you from sending them a check. Just pick one out and send them money. They won't mind.

The point is NOT to stick it to the wealthy any more than the point is to stick it to the middle class. The point is to treat all personal income as income and tax it at one rate with one deduction.

I'll bet we could run easy on 18% with a $40,000 deduction.

Business taxes are more complicated... the costs of production need to be deductible, and things like corporate jets and campaign contributions simply can not count as production costs.

Fair and simple.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is there a magic number? Of course not
Is a severe disparity of wealth good for the country? Of course not

The question is ....We have been executing policies that encourage income and wealth to go to the "job creators" with an understanding that it would trickle down in terms of jobs and a surging economy. It didn't work

So why aren't we dismantling those policies?

Why don't you explain what "severe disparity f wealth" means and why it is bad for the country?

This should be amusing. Cue images of banana republics.

40% of Americans 2 tenths of a percentage of the wealth

Why do we continue programs that help those laughingly named "Job Creators" ????

If you made refrigerators worth a grand a pop, who would you rather have as a market, six million working-class Monkeys, or six kings who between them own five million, nine hundred ninety nine thousand and ninety four Monkeys dressed as peasants?

The funny thing is that this ol' world has finally gotten to the point where it's in the best interests of the haves to maintain a healthy working class. As long as land and resources were simply there for the taking, the working class was just something to stand on, going forward they're a necessary market.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Richard Wilkinson: How economic inequality harms societies | Video on TED.com

Depends on your definition of "economic inequality" is is in these 57 states.

 

[AVG-JOE]

It would be more accurate if you didn't use a pie graph next time. That implies wealth is finite. It's not.

It falls back to JFKs "A rising tide lifts all boats" doesn't it?

But in todays economy "A rising tide only lifts the yachts"

Rising tide or not, that doesn't stop people from swimming.

Although if all you're doing is waiting for "the tide to lift you up," I'm not surprised if you end up on the lower end of the spectrum. In fact, I think that's one of the biggest problems today.

That's not the fucking point.

It's not personal, it's policies. Policies that play favorites. Legal favoritism is still favoritism.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I did actually.

What's wrong with my statement?

Your statements about the man in the video assuming wealth is finite are so far off base its ridiculous. It's a non sequitur since the man was not even in that ballpark.

I don't see how he implied that wealth wasn't finite.

The whole impression I got was that by the rich "hoarding" so much money, the poor and middle class were left with very little. By the video maker's own example, for the lower echelons of society to prosper, the ultra rich would have to surrender some of their amassed wealth.

Wealth isn't wallet size photos of famous Americans, it's resources.

And the point is not to pursue a physical redistribution of the wallet sized photos of famous Americans from those with big piles to those with smaller piles, the point is to pursue policies that create a fair and predictable market place.

Fair and simple rules, baby!

Giving congress the power to tax my corporation differently from the way they tax your employer was a big mistake. It effectively legalizes corruption.