I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?
Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so ******* ignorant?
Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat *****...I never expected any response from a brain dead moon-bat troll.....but if anyone else wants to take a shot at my question go for it.
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?
Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so ******* ignorant?
Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat *****...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
I wonder if the OP will ever respond tot he following. Wonder what he's afraid of?
Our economic system has raised more people out of poverty around the world than any other economic system in human history. Why are people on the left so ******* ignorant?
Question: Name any economic system better than ours? Go ahead...I'm sure we'll all be waiting with baited breath.
Are you happy with a slow economy?
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat *****...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
Graph: Real Gross Domestic Product
Graph: Real Gross Domestic Product
Did you notice the Bush tax cuts failed to give us a strong economy?
Looks like the Bush cuts in 2001 and 2003 did more than Obama's hike in 2012.
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat *****...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Who is....but the OP questions the underlying basis of our economic system. My question is simple. Name any economic system that is better?
The OP is an obvious left-wing moon bat *****...
Too much inequality slows an economy. Look at how slow ours is. What is wrong with recognizing that?
Inequality hurts economic growth, finds OECD research - OECD
Our economy was growing faster, before we enacted the higher minimum wage, which supposedly lowered inequality.
Besides that, I don't find the OECD research compelling. They look at two independent factors, and make a correlation. GDP = X Inequality (which is ambiguous) = Y.... therefore.... Y going up, equals X going down. And Y going down, equals X going up.
This is stupidity. While they document random facts all over the place, the link between GDP and Inequality, is nothing more than assumption and correlation.
Not sure what school you were educated at, but most of us were taught in school, that correlation does not equal causation. It's cold and snowing today, and Obama is still president, therefore Obama caused cold and snow. Darn Obama.
That's stupidity. It's dumb.
Plus there were numerous examples where equality was high, and GDP was crap. Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, China, India, and on and on and on. China prior to 1978, had 63% of the entire population earning $2 a day or less. All equal, and equally poor.
India is move away from equality, and what a shock, they are growing. Cuba too is moving away from Equality, and look they are growing. Venezuela is moving toward equality, and look they have to line up for hours, and be checked by military personnel to buy a loaf of bread at the store.
Here's is what you people on the left, fail to grasp. The reason the wealthy have wealth, is because they do things to have wealth. The reason poor people are poor, is because they do things to make themselves poor.
The article is wrong. Reading wrong, doesn't make it magically right. The only facts presented in the paper, are unrelated. "there is income inequality"... that's a fact. "The poor buy less stuff" That's also a fact. But to claim that it is inequality that is causing the problems, is garbage. It's an assumption. It's a "correlation equals causation" level of argument.
Now would the country do better, if the poor earned more? Sure. But in order for people to earn more, they have to produce more, and if a poor person does not wish to produce more, then the only method of reducing income inequality is to force those who do produce more, to earn less.
I have no debt and never use a credit card asshole. I am rather wealthy and retired at the age of 52. So, you don't know what the **** you are talking about.
"The system is set up purposely to enrich the rich and force debt on the rest of us"
Ok, the quote directly above, is the one I was responding to. Since you don't have debt, you have disproved the left-wing claim. The claim was that the "system" is setup to force the rest on debt. Since you have no debt, and have lived in the system for 52 years, apparently it didn't force you into debt. Congrats. You destroyed the left-wing claim.
Only a dumb ass would defend 8% of the world's population having 85% of the world's wealth
Dude.... YOU are the wealthy. *YOU*. It's amazing how self-destructive the left-wing is. If you get your way, you yourself will be the victim of your own ideology.
It reminds me of the Romans who slaughtered their wealthy, to confiscate their property to pay for the empire. Or the people who marched with Lenin for the sake of the Soviets, only to be slaughtered in the purges under Stalin.
The last time I read up on how much everyone would get, if we had wealth equality. *YOU* would end up with about $10,000. If we did exactly what you want, and demanded world wealth equality, you would lose everything but about $10,000.
So you tell me, who is the dumb ass in this conversation?
Maybe you prefer this study?
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-from-a-mainstream-source.html
I asked Beth Ann Bovino, the chief U.S. economist at S.&P., why she and her colleagues took on this topic. “We spend a lot of time trying to think about what’s the economic outlook and what to expect ahead,” she said. “What disturbs me about this recovery — which has been the weakest in 50 years — is how feeble it has been, and we’ve been asking what are the reasons behind it.” She added: “One of the reasons that could explain this pace of very slow growth is higher income inequality. And that also might also explain what happened that led up to the great recession.”
“From my research and some of the analysis I saw from others, when you have extreme levels of inequality, it can hurt the economy,” she said.
Because the affluent tend to save more of what they earn rather than spend it, as more and more of the nation’s income goes to people at the top income brackets, there isn’t enough demand for goods and services to maintain strong growth, and attempts to bridge that gap with debt feed a boom-bust cycle of crises, the report argues. High inequality can feed on itself, as the wealthy use their resources to influence the political system toward policies that help maintain that advantage, like low tax rates on high incomes and low estate taxes, and underinvestment in education and infrastructure.
Those ideas go back to John Maynard Keynes, and this year alone major books from academic economists have explored them (Atif Mian and Amir Sufi’s “House of Debt,” and the aforementioned Thomas Piketty’s “Capital in the Twenty-First Century”).
From 2009:
The usual economic data doesn't break down spending by income category. But wealthy consumers buy a disproportionate share of stuff, so it makes sense that any rise in spending could be attributed largely or entirely to them. The top 10 percent of earners account for 22 percent of all spending, for instance, according to Moody's Economy.com. The top 25 percent of all earners account for 45 percent of spending. The bottom 50 percent of earners, by contrast, spend just 29 percent of all the money in the consumer economy.
Why Rich Consumers Matter More
Seems to me that we owe a lot to those evil rich people for spending so much money and getting us out of the recession.
Imagine you own a restaurant in a town with one really rich guy and many poor. While that one guy is really rich he still only eats 3 times a day and everyone else can't afford to eat out. So your restaurant fails. Too much inequality slows an economy.
