Income inequality in the United States.

[CuzzinJack]

Originally Posted by Will

NOW, income inequality CAN and HAS gotten a bit too far out of hand. But again, the left FAILS to understand it.


Extra-normal Income inequality did NOT lead to the great crash of 1929, or the subsequent Great Depression. It was CAUSED by the same thing that helped CAUSE the great crash - a speculative bubble. It was curbed NOT by any government tax changes, but by the crash itself. Those who benefited most from the bubble lost the most when it burst. Obviously the poor suffered more PHYSICALLY with unemployment and the depression economy, but the wealth gap shrunk because the top lost more wealth.


Fast forward to today. Any extra-normal increase in the income inequality gap was brought about by the most recent speculative bubble. HOWEVER, unlike with the great crash of 1929, THIS TIME those who benefited most from the bubble actually suffered THE LEAST thanks to government intervention. Wall Street firms were bailed out, and the housing market CONTINUES to be artificially inflated.


So, in sum:


#1. Complaining about income inequality itself is IRRATIONAL. It is a natural byproduct of economic expansion and LITERALLY cannot be stopped, short of instituting some sort of communist economic system. Income inequality is also meaningless as a measure of how well off the lower classes are if their income is increasing as well. A man who makes $50,000 living next to a man making $1,000,000 is MUCH better off than a man making $20,000 living next to a man making $100,000.


#2. IF one is of the RATIONAL belief that we are currently seeing EXTRA-NORMAL income inequality (a sentiment I actually agree with), the cause is government intervention which prevented the natural hit to that gap that should have occurred with the bursting of the housing bubble and ensuing market decline. TAXES had NOTHING to do with it, NOR WILL RAISING THEM CHANGE ANYTHING WITH REGARD TO THE GAP. Again:

I agree with most of this but have to ask - --would there have been 'speculative bubbles' if the the great inequalities didn't exist in the first place ?

As for the cause of 'bubbles' and 'crashes' there is but one ---- GREED

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by Joecooool

Absolutely.

By the way, your study is flawed. Poor people don't own many of these appliances, they rent subsidized housing that has these things.

Colbert: Poor not living down to conservatives’ expectations*|*Raw Replay

BULLSHIT!!! I been there SEEN that......

they steal the lux items, and pay nothing for rent one way or another....much less various supports....child, food, even utility....like DC by law subsidized the bums and so the regional electric company adds the inner city supports on to the suburban working stiff's bills.....

so they do drugs to buy the luxury cars I can't afford on MY dime, and the crooked legal syste, enables that and other crimes....

It's all a result of specious PROGRESSIVE logic taught in our skools since grade ONE....much less through law skool....

[78SA]

Equal income is a fantasy of the communist mind.

[VITE1]

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Rich Man, Poor Man - YouTube

How many of the bottom 50% are getting public assistance?

How many failed to stay in school?

How many had kids they could not afford?

How many are Single family homes?

How many are complete and utter failures ?

Why you continue to support policies that subsides failure is beyond reason.

Let me make this very Clear.

F**k them. In almost all cases they did it to themselves and they deserve to earn their way back to prosperity by working hard, saving and stop doing stupid things.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

I agree with most of this but have to ask - --would there have been 'speculative bubbles' if the the great inequalities didn't exist in the first place ?

As for the cause of 'bubbles' and 'crashes' there is but one ---- GREED

Milton Friedman Tells Phil Donahue Why Socialism Fails - YouTube

[LATB]

Originally Posted by 78SA

Equal income is a fantasy of the communist mind.

e.g. OP

[MattW]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Uh, no. Wanting more money does not necessary = GREED.

"Greed!" is the cry of the Loser.

It's greed if the money is in someone else's pocket. It's legitimate enterprise if the money is in your pocket.

* * *

Phil, you post this as if it's supposed to mean something? As if this is in some way significant, or something which needs to be altered in some way? As if we should care about this?

I am not going to sit around feeling guilty because I earned my way to a comfortable life with hard work and effective use of the tools I have at hand. Them as can, do; them as can't, don't - and the Devil take the hind-most.

[CuzzinJack]

Originally Posted by TxAg

IMHO, yes.



Uh, no. Wanting more money does not necessary = GREED.

Please explain why you think ''yes'' ...

And i was talking about bubbles and crashes when i used the word ''greed ..

Originally Posted by VITE1

[www.youtube.com/watch?v=p31-xQ2Rrz4]Milton Friedman Tells Phil Donahue Why Socialism Fails - YouTube[/url]

Carry capitalism to it's logical end and you end up with pretty much the same society as you do with socialism . When i use those definitions i mean the impure/corrupted ones we have seen throughout history ..Neither system has ever been allowed to 'work' without interferance . Both systems have ended up with very rich elites , downtrodden masses and have ulimately failed ..

Friedman mentioned Henry Ford which reminded me of something more on topic . Ford payed his workers a good wage because he knew they were his customers and his best advertisements .. If he had paid the bare minimum , used 'illegals' or gone for maximum profit (i.e been greedy) i think most of the US would still be riding horses ..

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

Please explain why you think ''yes'' ...

And i was talking about bubbles and crashes when i used the word ''greed ..



Carry capitalism to it's logical end and you end up with pretty much the same society as you do with socialism . When i use those definitions i mean the impure/corrupted ones we have seen throughout history ..Neither system has ever been allowed to 'work' without interferance . Both systems have ended up with very rich elites , downtrodden masses and have ulimately failed ..

Friedman mentioned Henry Ford which reminded me of something more on topic . Ford payed his workers a good wage because he knew they were his customers and his best advertisements .. If he had paid the bare minimum , used 'illegals' or gone for maximum profit (i.e been greedy) i think most of the US would still be riding horses ..

Ford WAS greedy. He was smart enough to realize that if he paid well his cars would sell. He had teams of accounts looking for every possible way to save a penny.


Today we are talking about paying people NOT TO WORK and supporting those who do not work enough. Most of the "Income inequity's" would be fixed if those in the lower 5th actually stayed in School and tried to work. look at the stats for the past 30-40 years. If you graduated HS then your income grew faster than inflation. If you did not you lost ground.

Why is it your's or My responsibility to help people who refuse to do the basic requirement to better their Standard of living? Why reduce mine because I did the right things and work over 60 hours a week for decades so I could be that much more financially secure. Call me greedy but F**k those that have failed all by themselves.

[jhammons01]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

Please explain why you think ''yes'' ...

And i was talking about bubbles and crashes when i used the word ''greed ..



Carry capitalism to it's logical end and you end up with pretty much the same society as you do with socialism . When i use those definitions i mean the impure/corrupted ones we have seen throughout history ..Neither system has ever been allowed to 'work' without interferance . Both systems have ended up with very rich elites , downtrodden masses and have ulimately failed ..

Friedman mentioned Henry Ford which reminded me of something more on topic . Ford payed his workers a good wage because he knew they were his customers and his best advertisements .. If he had paid the bare minimum , used 'illegals' or gone for maximum profit (i.e been greedy) i think most of the US would still be riding horses ..

Wait, you used Henry Ford, one of the worlds greatest capitalist to explain why socialism will work??

Does your brain hear/read the words you say/type?

[CuzzinJack]

Originally Posted by jhammons01

Wait, you used Henry Ford, one of the worlds greatest capitalist to explain why socialism will work??

Does your brain hear/read the words you say/type?

I wasn't doing that ..I was giving an example of how fair capitalism should /can work ..This thread is about massive inequalities , remember ..

Putting a fair share back into the pockets of the buying public (employees) equals growth .. Simple really ..Wealth is only created when value is added to raw materials through manufacturing , refining , crafting etc ..No money spread around means no buyers which means no market which means no conversion of raw materials , which equals no growth .. Geddit ..

You can't have a capitalist consumer system where the masses can't afford to consume ..

[mrvette]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

I wasn't doing that ..I was giving an example of how fair capitalism should /can work ..This thread is about massive inequalities , remember ..

Putting a fair share back into the pockets of the buying public (employees) equals growth .. Simple really ..Wealth is only created when value is added to raw materials through manufacturing , refining , crafting etc ..No money spread around means no buyers which means no market which means no conversion of raw materials , which equals no growth .. Geddit ..

You can't have a capitalist consumer system where the masses can't afford to consume ..

But OUR masses have to get off their ASSES and learn to work again, not set back getting fat of our taxes.....

[jhammons01]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

I wasn't doing that ..I was giving an example of how fair capitalism should /can work ..This thread is about massive inequalities , remember ..

Putting a fair share back into the pockets of the buying public (employees) equals growth .. Simple really ..Wealth is only created when value is added to raw materials through manufacturing , refining , crafting etc ..No money spread around means no buyers which means no market which means no conversion of raw materials , which equals no growth .. Geddit ..

You can't have a capitalist consumer system where the masses can't afford to consume ..

"fair Capitalism" is called communism......by definition......

Henry Ford paying higher wages is a tactic in which an employer attracts a higher caliber of employee thereby producing a better end product by unfairly stacking the Ford team against the GM team.......capitalism at its finest moment

Too bad your unable to connect those very apparent dots.

I'll give you another example, In and out burgers here in Socal, they pay all their employees $11-$13 per hour to start, the kids working behind the counter are all clean dressed college students that hustle and speak clear English, the restaurant is clean the food is excellent, the service is fast and the lunch line is very very long as people are willing to wait for such fine hamburgers.....juxtaposed to the Burger King next door which is just the opposite dining experience for the same "type" of food.....but no long line at lunch.....

Burger King claims that they can't find American workers so they have to higher illegals, what they meant to say was they can't find American workers to work for minimum wage with no benefits, In and Out Burger has a long line of talented intelligent American citizens willing to take a position with them....

Please, you've completely confused Fairness with Communism.....I don't blame you personally, I blame the education system that you attended, they are the ones that failed you.

The fact that Burger King CAN hire the same employee is fair....they just chose to not pay the prevailing wages for a clean American Citizen.......claiming that Burger King and In and Out should pay the same wages is called "Communism" try to learn the difference

Ford paying higher wages only made his product a better product, thinking for a moment that all Auto Workers should be paid in equal basis would take that advantage away from Henry Ford and all car quality would suffer in the long run.......I know you won't understand......

[jhammons01]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

You can't have a capitalist consumer system where the masses can't afford to consume ..

let's play with this communistic ideology for shits and giggles.

What if you don't pay the workers enough? And nothing sells......communism steps in and says pay the workers more......

Capitalism stays the hell out of the way and private industry finds a way to produce a product that is cheap enough to sell in a down market......thereby correcting itself.....

your way leads to Greece

my way leads to America....the strongest economy the world has ever known......but hey why learn from success when Cuba is such a shining example of what you want........

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

You can't have a capitalist consumer system where the masses can't afford to consume ..

The problem in this country is that the lower class are their by design. Not the fault of the market. When their failures are supported over and over again by the government and their votes are used to perpetuate their consistent failure you have massive inequity.

Our educational system has failed them By design. Our Welfare system is designed to enslave vast protions of the American populace.

Again look at those with very low incomes. The vast majority FAILED on their own yet still manage to keep the roof over their head, Food on the table and a car in the garage. Imagine how much better they would do it thier was NO SAFTEY net. With no excuss for not staying in school, no support for kids they could not afford and no fall back when they spend thier days and night doing drugs or getting drunk. My bet is they would rise to the occasion and start producing.

And they will keep failing so long as the Progressive use them to promote their twisted social agenda.

[Luetic]

I like that we have the richest 'poor' people in the world.

they have a home
a car
a cell phone
cable tv
food, so much so that most of them are morbidly obese
they get their nails done
they get free health care



most of the world laugh at your qualification of "poor" here lol

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by Luetic

I like that we have the richest 'poor' people in the world.

they have a home
a car
a cell phone
cable tv
food, so much so that most of them are morbidly obese
they get their nails done
they get free health care



most of the world laugh at your qualification of "poor" here lol

Thats not the problem. It's that the Rich have so much more. Thats just wrong for the Progressive.

They forget that the poor have so much simply because they live in the richest country in the world. What they want is "Fair" what they will get is a Dictatorship.

[LATB]

Originally Posted by CuzzinJack

You can't have a capitalist consumer system where the masses can't afford to consume ..

incorrect...

folks need to learn to consume within their means...

and not feel entitled.

Just because there are million dollar yachts floating on the Destin Harbor...doesn't mean you have to have one.

Learn to be happy with your stake in life and don't behove those who work harder to achieve material things you do not have.

[vetteman9368]

How about we compare work ethics? Or swap 100,000 Ugandan poor for 100,000 US welfare poor. Just have them swap lives. Come back in 5 years and see how many of the US poor have even survived vs. how many of the Ugandan poor have made a success out of themselves in this country. It's not the income distribution that's the problem here

[BuckyThreadkiller]

Income isn't distributed.

It's either earned, or it's taken from those who did and given to those who didn't.