This 6 minute video sums up the shocking facts of American wealth and inequality

[Cecilie1200]

Here are the facts about why wealth inequality is bad:
Here's Why Income Inequality Really Is A Big Deal - Business Insider

It is clearly bad for our country. Either debate the facts or stop pretending it's not bad.

Try to stop being impressed by "lots of charts and graphs" and actually read for comprehension. That article actually says nothing more than your posts do: some people are richer than others, and we don't like it. *yawn*

Can you read? So child well being is not important to you? More children dropping out of high school isn't important? You don't care about more crime? I'm sure social mobility isn't important in your eyes. haha Your a joke.

Can you THINK? Someone yells, "Child well-being!" and you just go off half-cocked, rushing into whatever they tell you. You don't bother to question WHO is measuring the "child well-being", or HOW they're measuring it, or even what they think "child well-being" IS.

Jesus Christ, can you be any more gullible and simpleminded without elective surgery?

 

[Brain357]

"Wilkinson and Pickett claim that ‘more equal societies almost always do better’ – a universalist, sweeping statement – which cannot be substantiated by most of their data."

Vague and undefined, sort of like all of Brain's *facts*....

"The book’s success, itself a tipping point, taps into deep psychological yearnings and liberal guilt about affluence, inequality and the direction of our society in recent years. This is wish-fulfilment and what Isaiah Berlin called the propensity of human beings to want to make the mess of the world into ‘symmetrical fantasies’ (6)"

....

"Time and time again the interviewer, Iain Ferguson, mentions neo-liberalism and other political concepts, reads ‘The Spirit Level’ in this way, and gets replies which are filled with liberal vagueness and a lack of political intelligence. "

...

"‘The Spirit Level’ isn’t on its own, but part of an industry of books including Layard’s ‘Happiness’ (9), Oliver James ‘Affluenza’ (10) and Neal Lawson’s ‘All Consuming’ (11), which reflect the growth of a health and well-being and anti-consumerist trend. There is in this a profound loss of confidence in progress: once felt to be the exclusive property of the left, but now they feel seized by the liberationist forces of the market. And then there is the whiff of nostalgia, a yearning for a simpler time which was more egalitarian and filled with less choice and ‘stuff’."

...
"There is a deep, moralising, middle class liberal superiority in all of this: of people who have gained from the labour market and consumed enough preaching at the rest of us."

So true.

"This industry, ‘Happiness’, ‘Affluenza’, ‘The Spirit Level’ and ‘All Consuming’ are a manifestation of the times we are living in: of a deep sense that something has gone wrong, a sense for meaning, structure and the desire for an over-arching interpretation for what has happened to our societies. Instead, serious research and political work need to be undertaken which goes back to fundamentals, asks difficult questions and does not try to create a new faith, religion or groupthink to challenge the existing order and orthodoxies."






The Fantasyland of ?The Spirit Level? and the Limitations of the Health and Well-Being Industry | openDemocracy

Are there some sort of facts in all that or your link? Cause I'm not seeing them. I don't see any statistics or anything. Seems to be all fluff. But if there are some good statists please pull them out and post.

Of course you're not seeing them. You didn't read her post any more than you read your own article.

Then point them out like I said. You keep posting essentially nothing.

 

[RKMBrown]

Small example, but here is an example of government being oppressive instead of helpful to the new wanta be small businessman or women in society. I built with my own two hands a nice sized produce shed on my property, and I put in a small parking lot by their stipulations and rules, and I also built a green house along with plenty of room for growing locally grown vegetables to sell, and then I filled out the proper permit forms for seasonal operations, but then shockingly I was denied the operational permits to therefore operate the thing. I went to some meetings about it all, and found out that I was really being denied because there was the promotion of a farmers market in the city in which the city wanted to drive all available participants and buyers to this market having no competition involved by way of doing this, so they engaged in stamping out the competition by use of government power in which they abused in the situation I thought. I made my observations clear to them, and later on they sent out some reps to my place, and began telling me how I could operate even with none of the necessary permits needed, because I was growing my own products to sell. I still don't know why they don't issue more licenses or permits to people whom want to start up a small business or why they don't support such a concept, but as I learned about all of this, it was as clear as the nose on ones face as to what was going in all of this sort of stuff. It's either they have their own interest in which they are protecting, for which usually is a conflict of interest to their office and duties or it is that they are protecting corporate interest in the area by means of oppressing another, and it all leads up to being anti-small business on their part, but no one can put their finger upon it because they use zoning codes and all sorts of other rules made up, and then the oppressive regulations to make the small guy think he cannot break into that world, while they end up with the other hand getting the kick backs from all of those whom he or she is protecting by way of that government office in which is being used and abused in these ways.

Sounds like you wanted to convert the zoned purpose of a plot of land from ag/rural to commercial and got stymied?

To change zoning usually requires some amount of convincing. Your neighbors need to approve for example. Commercial use of land carries all kinds of issues.

If it was not a zoning change, then my recommendation is to expose them in one of the local papers. Most papers eat that kind of stuff up.

No it wasn't a zoning issue, because the zoning was limited commercial, and I think the meetings was all the publicity they needed or that it took, where as the voices got through to them (exposure they hate), and they sent out the investigative party to clear it all up. Still these kinds of things shouldn't be stumbled upon in the first place, because we should be a better country than this, but we are not.

I hear so many horror stories coming from good Americans when they are dealing with their local governments and such, that it is ridiculous what goes on, and so why is it that we need to have these kinds of stories and problems happening in the first place ?

No matter where you go there will be people.

Some people are good... some not.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Yeah, and if you'd actually read the whole article, instead of just the headline, you'd know it says that it's government intervention to make things "fair" that causes the damage.

Oops.

There is no oops. When inequality grows the government is always going to intervene. Like I've said wealth inequality leads to bigger government.

No, actually, the government is NOT always going to intervene. Only when envious dumb shits like you insist on it. So it's not the wealth inequality that leads to bigger government or is bad for the US economy: It's YOU. Stop being such a brain-damaged leftist sheep.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Are there some sort of facts in all that or your link? Cause I'm not seeing them. I don't see any statistics or anything. Seems to be all fluff. But if there are some good statists please pull them out and post.

Of course you're not seeing them. You didn't read her post any more than you read your own article.

Then point them out like I said. You keep posting essentially nothing.

Been there, done that . . . twice. And you conveniently skipped both of those posts.

 

[Brain357]

Of course you're not seeing them. You didn't read her post any more than you read your own article.

Then point them out like I said. You keep posting essentially nothing.

Been there, done that . . . twice. And you conveniently skipped both of those posts.

I must have missed it in all your posts of nothing.

 

[Rshermr]

I encourage you to watch the 6 minute video completely and keep an open mind.

I do understand this topic has been discussed thoroughly already, but I think it is interesting how it samples the perception of the issue by the American people.

Wealth Inequality in America - YouTube

Yes, that idiotic video shows how little economics liberals understand.

Or, your post shows how little bat shit crazy conservatives understand about economics.

 

[Rshermr]

It's the 'bad for the country' or 'good for the country' assessment that concerns me. In my view, the job of government is protecting freedom and ensuring justice. I specifically don't want a government that takes of the cause of making us 'better' people (richer, healthier, smarter, more productive, etc....).

Yes, but isn't it actually a by product of good governments actions, that creates an environment in which makes us (richer, healthier, smarter, and more productive, etc.) ???

If we don't have someway to monitor the playing field by a neutral office, then we can and will be abused, but it also is depending on the office as is held, and by whom it is that is controlling that office at any given time in which sets us up to be abused, and this be it in one way or another possibly, so I agree with the poster who said if we have a liberal controlling that office, then it will be a liberal fix, and such a fix may not suit the majority of Americans at all, but due to the power in which the office affords the people in charge of it, we could be abused by that office under such leadership, and that is a serious problem that we all face together in America as citizens.

So, you do or do not believe that the government should determine what needs to be done based on the requirements OF the citizens of the country? If folks do not like the movement of income to the wealthy from the middle class, then the government should not attempt to act in favor of the people??

 

[Rshermr]

In other words, you really have no frigging clue, other than reading the article titles and the names of the magazines.

No actually they agree with what I have been saying. You seem to have no clue.

Really? Allow me to quote from Forbes:

Rauch writes that "In a democracy, politicians and the public are unlikely to accept depressed spending power if they can help it. They can try to compensate by easing credit standards, effectively encouraging the non-rich to sustain purchasing power by borrowing. They might, for example, create policies allowing banks to write flimsy home mortgages and encouraging consumers to seek them. Call this the “let them eat credit” strategy.

Then “the economy, propped up on shaky credit, becomes more vulnerable to shocks. When a recession comes, the economy takes a double hit as banks fail and credit-fueled consumer spending collapses.”

In other words, the danger to the economy from wealth inequality isn't the inequality itself, but people like you, eating their livers out in envy of those with more, and the politicians who pander to you and try to interfere and make things "more fair".

But you don't seem to have caught any more of the article than just the headline. Why is that, I wonder? Is it because you didn't understand it, or because you never read it at all?

the quote was not from forbes, of course, but from a conservative nut case ex comedian. In an opinion piece, in forbes. Which is what forbes is all about. Stupid source.

 

[Rshermr]

No, I haven't lost anything. You have yet to state any *facts*. You post a link to a piece of bullshit propaganda, and you think that will serve.

It doesn't. You can't *win* with a faulty premise, and your premise, whatever it is, is massively faulty.

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”

I love this claim. Rich people are bad, because they save. Wow!

Now, me poor ignorant con tool, that was about the stupidest reading of a rational statement I have read today. Profound.

 

[Rshermr]

Since you like Forbes here is one stating how inequality is damaging the economy:
How Income Inequality Is Damaging the U.S. - Forbes

Those who make the least consume the most of their income; those who make the most tend to save a great deal, and for that reason, according to the economist Christopher Brown, at Arkansas State, “income inequality can exert a significant drag on effective demand.”

I love this claim. Rich people are bad, because they save. Wow!

Couldn't be their propensity for saving, rather than consuming, that helped them get rich, could it? Nah.

Or it could be your propensity to spend all of your times cruising the bat shit crazy con web sites that has made you ignorant. Just keep at it, and between you and your con buddy, you will have an IQ over 100. Barely. And only in combination.

 

[Rshermr]

Of course you're not seeing them. You didn't read her post any more than you read your own article.

Then point them out like I said. You keep posting essentially nothing.

Been there, done that . . . twice. And you conveniently skipped both of those posts.

Been there, as in the bat shit crazy con web sites. Done that, as in post nothing. Good for you. Admission is good for your soul. Assuming, of course, that you had one.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am Exhibit A of someone that is rich because they save.
I have never made more than 125K EVER in a year in my life.
My main vehicle is a 1999 Toyota with 296K miles on it.
I live in a 3 BR 2 bath home 1700 square feet.
I have almost 2 million saved in stocks, bonds, CDs and raw land paid for.
Anyone can do it as long as they do not depend on government.

 

[koshergrl]

So we have established the following:

Brain is incapable of actually citing the "facts" that he keeps raving exist...but which haven't actually been referenced.

Rushrmr is a troll, and most likely a sock, who has come to derail the thread to hide the fact.

Fun. Thread belongs in the rubber room.

 

[Brain357]

So we have established the following:

Brain is incapable of actually citing the "facts" that he keeps raving exist...but which haven't actually been referenced.

Rushrmr is a troll, and most likely a sock, who has come to derail the thread to hide the fact.

Fun. Thread belongs in the rubber room.

And we determined you ignore facts even when graphs and links are posted.

 

[koshergrl]

You haven't stated a fact yet. You just posted a link to propaganda and refuse to comment on it yourself.

loon.

 

[Brain357]

I am Exhibit A of someone that is rich because they save.
I have never made more than 125K EVER in a year in my life.
My main vehicle is a 1999 Toyota with 296K miles on it.
I live in a 3 BR 2 bath home 1700 square feet.
I have almost 2 million saved in stocks, bonds, CDs and raw land paid for.
Anyone can do it as long as they do not depend on government.

Nobody is denying it can happen. But clearly Denmark is now the land of opportunity.

 

[Gadawg73]

I am Exhibit A of someone that is rich because they save.
I have never made more than 125K EVER in a year in my life.
My main vehicle is a 1999 Toyota with 296K miles on it.
I live in a 3 BR 2 bath home 1700 square feet.
I have almost 2 million saved in stocks, bonds, CDs and raw land paid for.
Anyone can do it as long as they do not depend on government.

Nobody is denying it can happen. But clearly Denmark is now the land of opportunity.

Delta is ready when you are.

 

[Brain357]

I am Exhibit A of someone that is rich because they save.
I have never made more than 125K EVER in a year in my life.
My main vehicle is a 1999 Toyota with 296K miles on it.
I live in a 3 BR 2 bath home 1700 square feet.
I have almost 2 million saved in stocks, bonds, CDs and raw land paid for.
Anyone can do it as long as they do not depend on government.

Nobody is denying it can happen. But clearly Denmark is now the land of opportunity.

Delta is ready when you are.

I'm glad your ok with it. What a patriot you are.

 

[Gadawg73]

Nobody is denying it can happen. But clearly Denmark is now the land of opportunity.

Delta is ready when you are.

I'm glad your ok with it. What a patriot you are.

You are not very smart if you hold Denmark up as your model.
They have a huge problem with immigration, specifically Muslims.
They have a massive welfare state and the highest marginal tax rate in the world.
Only 3 of Denmark's 98 municipalities have a majority of adults working now compared to 59 in 2008.
The Danish government forces producers to finance the moocher class similar to what the left dictates here.
Wake the hell up, no one but a dumbass wants to be like Denmark.
We will never restore economic stability and economic growth here for all until we recognize and protect the right of THE INDIVIDUAL to keep and use the fruits of one's labor according to their own judgment.
The current growth and support of the moocher class here is immoral.