- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "Wealth Inequality in America: Its worse than you think" - Fortune
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:28 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:28 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Inequality is not bad in a society if A. all people have an equal opportunity to better themselves and B. we as a society agree that your basic needs should be a concern for all society i.e. you are not going hungry and you have a place to live and access to education and health care.
It's my scenario. Every other qualifier is excluded. Answer the question.
0
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:29 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
Conservatives need to fear rising income inequality because the great socialist revolutions in Russia and China came about due to great income inequality.
Russian and China were totalitarian states before the revolutions. See my post above.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:34 pm to Zach
quote:
I read the article and it doesn't address the basic question... Why is inequality bad?
Are you sure you read the article because it specifically posits:
quote:
So, why should we care that wealth inequality is so much greater than even the historic levels of income inequality? While inequality is a natural result of competitive, capitalist economies, there’s plenty of evidence that shows that extreme levels of inequality is bad for business. For instance, retailers are once again bracing for a miserable holiday shopping season due mostly to the fact that most Americans simply aren’t seeing their incomes rise and have learned their lesson about the consequences of augmenting their income with debt. Unless your business caters to the richest of the rich, opportunites for real growth are scarce.
Furthermore, there’s reason to believe that such levels of inequality can have even worse consequences. The late historian Tony Judt addressed these effects in Ill Fares the Land, a book on the consequences of the financial crisis, writing:
There has been a collapse in intergenerational mobility: in contrast to their parents and grandparents, children today in the UK as in the US have very little expectation of improving upon the condition into which they were born. The poor stay poor. Economic disadvantage for the overwhelming majority translates into ill health, missed educational opportunity, and—increasingly—the familiar symptoms of depression: alcoholism, obesity, gambling, and minor criminality.
In other words, there’s evidence that rising inequality and many other intractable social problems are related. Not only is rising inequality bad for business, it’s bad for society, too.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:34 pm to Zach
quote:
Russian and China were totalitarian states before the revolutions. See my post above.
conservatives still need to worry. argentina in 2001 had serious economic issues, and basically had a socialist revolt.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:35 pm to Zach
quote:
Which society would you prefer? A or B?
C. I don't give f*ck what other people make.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:36 pm to Ralph_Wiggum
quote:
A lot of Republicans get rich from government contracts in construction and defense.
Just stop.
LINK
quote:
The real estate giant chaired by Richard Blum, the husband of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, is cashing in on a new federal crisis.
Just a few years after the firm now known as CBRE Group collected more than $108 million from a contract to help the FDIC sell foreclosed properties, the company owned in part by Blum is selling off old post offices under an exclusive contract with the financially struggling U.S. Postal Service, records show.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:38 pm to BobBoucher
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:38 pm to Hawkeye95
I think there is an argument that as wealth inequality grows and the middle and lower classes lose ground and our politics become more controlled by money you set the stage for a populist like Hugo Chavez or going back in the day to a local socialist - Huey Long.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:38 pm to cwill
And the NYT had an article yesterday that said low income people will drive the Holiday shopping market. It's the old mantra "poor people should get free money because they will spend it."
Well, CWill, what do rich people do with money? Burn it in the fire place to impress their friends?
Well, CWill, what do rich people do with money? Burn it in the fire place to impress their friends?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:42 pm to Zach
quote:
And the NYT had an article yesterday that said low income people will drive the Holiday shopping market. It's the old mantra "poor people should get free money because they will spend it."
OK, but again, the article did provide an answer to your question. So did you not read the article or did you ignore the the "answer" so you could go on your own personal little diatribe?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:43 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
quote:
Wealth Inequality = Another meaningless liberal bitch fest
you didnt read it.
Of course he didn't, he just saw an opportunity for a meaningless bitch fest.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:46 pm to cwill
quote:
OK, but again, the article did provide an answer to your question. So did you not read the article or did you ignore the the "answer" so you could go on your own personal little diatribe?
Read your post quoted above 4 times. And then ask yourself "Do I actually sound like a pussy when I post."
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:47 pm to Zach
quote:
Well, CWill, what do rich people do with money? Burn it in the fire place to impress their friends?
rich people invest it, and that is a problem for our economy.
rightly or wrongly our economy is built on consumerism. We do not have a lack of $$ for investment at the moment, just look at corporate balance sheets - tons of cash. We lack investment opportunities b.c the average joe is just maxed out. If he had more cash in his hands, he would spend that cash. Generating investment opportunity.
I really think it would be tough to find an economist that would disagree with this. You might have economists that disagree that we should do this, but they all pretty much recognize is if you get $$ into lower income hands, it would drive quite a bit of economic activity.
The issue is are these economic policies sustainable. And I think many people recognize that they are not sustainable.
**forgot the not!
This post was edited on 10/31/14 at 3:48 pm
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:54 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
I really think it would be tough to find an economist that would disagree with this.
Then you don't know any.
quote:
it would drive quite a bit of economic activity.
At the cost of the activity it displaced, with an administrative and an efficiency cost on top.
quote:
rich people invest it, and that is a problem for our economy.
This is double-wrong. Investment is not a problem for the economy, in any context. And, in the long run, the rich's money does get spent. All you are talking about is displacing that spending. And you are doing so as though it is costless.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:55 pm to cwill
quote:
While inequality is a natural result of competitive, capitalist economies, there’s plenty of evidence that shows that extreme levels of inequality is bad for business.
Then what?
Inequality self regulates to something more sustainable without government intervention? Or is there a belief that the top 1% of all business owners keep growing their wealth in a bad for business climate?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 3:55 pm to Hawkeye95
Also, pop quiz regarding the CW on the poor consuming more:
1. Income and wealth inequality has increased in recent decades. If this is true, and
2. The rich save a higher percentage
What should happen to the national savings rate?
Has that thing happened?
1. Income and wealth inequality has increased in recent decades. If this is true, and
2. The rich save a higher percentage
What should happen to the national savings rate?
Has that thing happened?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 4:01 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
This is double-wrong. Investment is not a problem for the economy, in any context. And, in the long run, the rich's money does get spent. All you are talking about is displacing that spending. And you are doing so as though it is costless.
i am not advocating for these policies, I am just explaining them. Keynesian economics works very well at stimulating the economy. Its just not sustainable.
As for investments, if we had good investments, corporations wouldn't be sitting on so much cash, or doing buy backs.
Posted on 10/31/14 at 4:07 pm to 90proofprofessional
quote:
Also, pop quiz regarding the CW on the poor consuming more:
1. Income and wealth inequality has increased in recent decades. If this is true, and
2. The rich save a higher percentage
What should happen to the national savings rate?
Has that thing happened?
national savings rate includes public debt. debt has skyrocketed over the last few years, which makes it all out of whack.
LINK
Posted on 10/31/14 at 4:09 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
rich people invest it, and that is a problem for our economy.
What happens to that invested money? Is it not loaned out to businesses to create jobs?
Posted on 10/31/14 at 4:10 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
conservatives still need to worry. argentina in 2001 had serious economic issues, and basically had a socialist revolt.
Argentina is a third world country. See my post above.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News