Reply With Quote
It has as much to do with unemployment as any other macroeconomic factors, but it's not inherently related to unemployment. You can have high or low unemployment in a unequal society as much as an equal one.
Who said the government is filling the void, and why is the a precursor to the solution?
I know I've said numerous times in this forum and I teach the same every semester:
By examining extremes it is easy to see that there can be "too much" and "not enough" inequality. The extreme of "not enough" is that everyone makes the same amount and it is easy to see how this Socialist Utopia creates disincentives to certain work (why devote your life studying to take the liability of being an ER surgeon when you only make as much as the fry cook?) and falls apart. The extreme of "too much" is that one person controls 99.9% of the wealth, leaving everyone else fighting for the scraps. It is easy to see how this would quickly fall apart (probably in quite bloody fashion, as well).
The questions facing us right now are those of a) how much is too much? b) how did they get this way? c) what can we do about it?
In the long run, if we do nothing, the market will eventually correct itself with a massive contraction of the business cycle. I believe 100% that markets are generally self-correcting, however there should not be a misunderstanding of how markets self-correct. They don't do so quickly or painlessly.
I leave this forum to debate questions a, b and c. I've gotta go take my Ferrari in for service.
It has as much to do with unemployment as any other macroeconomic factors, but it's not inherently related to unemployment. You can have high or low unemployment in a unequal society as much as an equal one.
How does this affect me?
of course it does.
income growth for the 99% has been flat, even declining, so they consume less and/or go into debt (make the lending financial sector VERY HAPPY) to try maintain standard of living.
income growth to the 1% is not all spent by the 1%, stays rolling around in the corrupt financial sector, rather than in the Real (productive) Economy
extreme, corrupt inequality like in USA now floats only the boats of the 1%. the people on the bottom can't find (good) jobs, so they can't spend, aren't taxes, etc, etc.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 09-11-2013 at 12:12 PM.
I aint seen a dime yet, monkeyboy.
However, at retirement time:
was asking Pusher to clarify his position. Hard for me to give an opinion until I fully understand what the other side is saying.
I know I've said numerous times in this forum and I teach the same every semester:
By examining extremes it is easy to see that there can be "too much" and "not enough" inequality. The extreme of "not enough" is that everyone makes the same amount and it is easy to see how this Socialist Utopia creates disincentives to certain work (why devote your life studying to take the liability of being an ER surgeon when you only make as much as the fry cook?) and falls apart. The extreme of "too much" is that one person controls 99.9% of the wealth, leaving everyone else fighting for the scraps. It is easy to see how this would quickly fall apart (probably in quite bloody fashion, as well).
The questions facing us right now are those of a) how much is too much? b) how did they get this way? c) what can we do about it?
In the long run, if we do nothing, the market will eventually correct itself with a massive contraction of the business cycle. I believe 100% that markets are generally self-correcting, however there should not be a misunderstanding of how markets self-correct. They don't do so quickly or painlessly.
I leave this forum to debate questions a, b and c. I've gotta go take my Ferrari in for service.
A. How much is too much is difficult to quantify, but generally I would say the richers are making too much when they negatively affect my ability to earn more. At this point, you owning a Ferrari and filling buckets of money has no affect on me. However, I'm open to the argument that money unduly influences elections so I'll support reasonable campaign finance regulation.
B. Most richers are 1st generation, about 80%, according to the work done by Dr. Tom Stanley, author of "The Millionaire Next Door". I'm aware of the distinction between income and assets, but are your truly a richer if you spend everything you make? I prefer to define richer as people owners of assets. Most richers have a bachelors, are married to a teacher, live well below their means, and own a business.
C. The first step is that someone has to believe a better life is available to them and not accept the narrative that the richers, racists, or system holds us back. Our system isn't perfect, but everyone can create a better life for themselves. Maybe not drive a Ferrari or own an iphone 5s, but everyone can get a decent education and a good job, though our job market can be 100x better, and or start business.
My beliefs based on my experiences.
Dammit.For the first time ever, the top 10% earned over 50% of the income.
Dr. Emmanuel Saez's inequality stats for 2012 published:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-...comes-2012.pdf
I think I'm only in the top 20%.
If they only own half of everything, they should only pay half the taxes!
THe government does not fill the void but does redistribute via taxes and govt transfers. My point was that would be less necessary if richers would voluntarily pay a living wage.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 09-11-2013 at 07:35 PM.
The 1 Percent Have Won 95 Percent Of The Recovery, So Let’s Cut Food Stamps!
MSNBC’s Ned Resnikoff reports:
The House of Representatives is expected Thursday to take up a proposal which could make somewhere between 4 and 6 million Americans ineligible for full SNAP benefits, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Called the Nutrition Reform and Work Opportunity Act, the law would reduce SNAP funding by $40 billion over the next decade—nearly double the $20.5 billion which House Republicans originally tried to cut out of the food stamp program two months ago.
The Congressional Budget Office has stated that food stamps are the government’s most effective form of stimulus.
Every $1 billion cut from the program kills 13,718 jobs, according to the Center for American Progress. Still, we need to cut the deficit!
But we can’t do it by taking away tax breaks for hedge fund managers, corporate jets or retirement accounts with millions of dollars in them.
We need to cut the deficit in a way that punishes the people who are already being punished in this economy, which brings us to the second reason Republicans want to cut food stamps.
You see, we are creating a “safety hammock” that’s making life too easy for the poor. We’re creating unemployment by paying people to not work, even though most SNAP benefits go to children and the elderly.
The New York Times‘ Paul Krugman took on this nonsense in July:
Do you really believe that Americans are living lives of leisure on $134 a month, the average SNAP benefit?
Still, let’s pretend to take this seriously. If employment is down because government aid is inducing people to stay home, reducing the labor force, then the law of supply and demand should apply: Withdrawing all those workers should be causing labor shortages and rising wages, especially among the low-paid workers most likely to receive aid. In reality, of course, wages are stagnant or declining — and that’s especially true for the groups that benefit most from food stamps.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-1-pe...t-food-stamps/
MSNBC, Center for American Progress, Der Kruginator and National Memo.
It's like a moonbat parade!
On second thought, forget the blackjack.I aint seen a dime yet, monkeyboy.by
However, at retirement time:
TBMSNBC, Center for American Progress, Der Kruginator and National Memo.
It's like a moonbat parade!
I post moonbat op eds that I dont read.
boutons..would you like a list of threads where you ran away like the little non-thinking you are after being slapped? Because coward.
"I see that this is a one sided blame game rather than ask to see that this is the natural result of the policies of the government - the whole government, not just one party.
The Dodd-Frank credit policies, the fact that we have no budget, the gridlock that makes any fiscal planning impossible, and the specter of future taxes have insured that the low interest rate and easy money policies of the Fed are only benefiting the government and the wealthy.
All of the uncertainties caused by the lack of a comprehensive government fiscal plan are deterring many businesses from expanding and creating opportunity for the middle and lower class. As a result, people like Warren Buffett can buy profitable Heinz with newly generated low interest debt. Microsoft, rather than counting on increased revenue from current products is buying Nokia's handset business to get a bigger piece of the uncertain pie. The only opportunity in this environment if for the rich.
Is the answer to increase transfer payments? Are handouts ever going to be as beneficial to the non-rich as opportunity? I don't think so."
And if only poor freeloaders weren't getting all those handouts, we'd have at least 60%! [/richer]
And the hookers!
What would be the purpose of a Richer Internet ($$$.richernet.bux™) without blackjack and hookers? C'mon dude!
See, if you watched Futurama, you would've gotten that joke. But you don't, because you're too rich.
I have each episode hand drawn for my viewing pleasure while I relax with a goblet of chilled peasant blood. I'll have my minions draw that episode up tonight.See, if you watched Futurama, you would've gotten that joke. But you don't, because you're too rich.
Make sure when you start laughing to begin with an M. MUAHAHAHAHAH is much more villainous than your everyday peasant sort of HAHAHAHAH.
*takes notes*
handouts to the financial sector don't get spent, QE only gives the criminal finance types more money to gamble with in the Casino.
handouts to the poor gets spent 100% and immediately in the Real Economy.
opportunity?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
