Destroying one crucial pillar of liberal ideology — "Wealth Inequality is bad"

Hyperbole obviously, but he has changed the narrative. Minimum wage careers and the like. People seem to have lost all hope and now want to fight for scraps. Now the American dream is making $15 an hour at McDs.

 

Thats very interesting, so how do you explain it and how much different is it than before?

Perhaps you could say this is just the usual western unemployment problem and not really due to any particular policy initiative from the current administration?

 

Cheap money policies, and class warfare makes optimism in the economy go down. Optimism counts for a lot you know.

No, not at all. We are still doing the funny money printing policies skewing the market, long term unemployment is slowing people getting back in the market, Obamacare is jacking up the costs to business and making the future uncertain, our debt rates are killing savings through inflation, our interest rates are so low we are pushing investors into more and more risky investments just to turn a profit.. Oh, but I blame the cheap housing money for the crash. That is obvious, and we are doing the same again. Less not learned.

 

This all seems like long term economic issues from the Bush admin and before. Cheaper money, and world inflation certainly are'nt a recent problem and certainly werent a thing Romney or McCain had any intention of solving. Thats fair enough isnt it?

Maybe fundamentally all the right really is bothered are your historically low taxes and paying for other peoples heathcare?

 

Romney wanted to get rid of Bernacke. He understood it, I disagree there. He also wanted to stop chinese currency manipulation, and I am assuming that meant worldwide currency manipulation with a countervailing duty rule. He had talked about it before, and WTO rules say we have to apply those evenly.

McCain and Bush were economic morons. But so is Barack Obama. Can we agree there? Bush didnt start it, and his administration did give some warnings, but never took the threat seriously. Yes, I will give you that for sure.

 

Yes we can agree, there is essentially a fundamental cross party consensus on fiscal policy that means QE is ok.

The disagreement is more about smaller matters such as welfare and taxes.

 

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=456

Edit: I better spell this out cause progressives have a hard time reading graphs or charts.

Since 1979, the lowest quintile of income earner has gone from an effective federal income tax rate of 0.0% to -(as in NEGATIVE) 9.3%.

The top quintile in the same period went from 22.7% to 21%.....

There goes your ridiculous talking point,

 

I see your point, and dodge it.

 

Do you not find it odd, that under the Obama administration, spending is essentially flat and deficits are decreasing despite the economy a Republican administration handed off?

 

I find it odd that you are pulling this information out of thin air.

 

Now let's see... Ctrl+c... ctrl+v... there. In your face!

 

Don't be stupid. The feudal system was a government system.

 

So, tell us how a poor, inner city kid with the same desire to grow and are "keen to try new stuff and learn" grow out of the deep hole that they were born into?

Your post is nothing more than a validation of "wealth begets wealth and poverty begets poverty" and why your original premise fails. Your comment also points to not only the negative consequences of wealth inequality but lack of access to opportunities for success.

In an interview with M. Night Shayalaman on the very subject, I heard him refer to our country as practicing "educational apartheid". Your comment indicates that's exactly the case.

 

Look it up, Cori. The information is easily accessible. But I won't do your work for you.

 

Actually, per rule #10 you actually HAVE to do this work. And although the information is generally true, where it's false is proscribing credit to the President. Who was against his idea before being for it, Mitt Romney style.

The Republican House(before it became cowardly and allied itself with the Democratic Congress) listened to the will of a growing number of Americans who said STOP.

By 2017, the national debt's expected to balloon to 20 TRILLION(with a T) dollars. 20 freaking trillion! In before our favorite economist tells us that the situation is precisely the same as when the debt was 4 million way back in the 1900's.

Except, it's not. There was room to grow in the American Economy in the 19th-20th centuries. Now, what government is expecting of our citizenry is simply impossible. We'e not going to create 3-4 trillion dollars of wealth. As it is now, our debt-gdp is slightly hovering over 100%. In coinciding with that 20 trillion number, the same projection over the next 3 years is 118% of the Debt-GDP.

It's an increase in debt that will not be met by production. If it could be met by production, then the economy would be stronger as a whole.

 

I wonder what this explains then? http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

You are confusing deficits with the national debt. No shocker there.

 

Something wrong with that?

Without your boss, you wouldn't have your wages, which is your share of the profit.

You profit from your boss's work.

 

I give you one last chance to provide a sound rebuttal. Or else, I shall have no choice but deem you intellectually unfit to be an worthy opponent in a debate.

What do you mean arguments are "bad"? This is the first time ever someone give me that kind of notion. Arguments are either valid or invalid, what do you mean by "bad"?

 

I find it quite amusing as no one from the left provided any argument at all — let alone a strong one. All I see the nay-sayers here do is yelling "I don't like it even if it is true!" as loud as they could.

 

To see a homeless person on the street and see an animal, not a human in distress, is profoundly anti-human. If you can't see humanity in the most vulnerable of society then I dare say you have lost your own humanity. Humans are social animals and we can only exist sanely in peaceful relation to each other. To see the huge wealth inequality in our society not as a bad thing is bat(*)(*)(*)(*) insane.

It is also puzzling how people can claim one's measure of wealth is proportional to their value. As if we lived in a meritocracy. One person paid twice the amount of another for the same hours is a stretch, but one person paid a thousand times more than another for the same hours? How can you justify that?

 

Always could use a rational voice from the left.

You are right about the middle class — I'm gonna get to it in a jiffy.

"Wealth inequality" isn't necessarily bad, as long as it was created "naturally", that is, a doctor drives a ferrari, an accountant drives a ford. It is bad if this doctor got to be a doctor by pulling strings, or his clinic is just a front, he got a relative in the gov't that can just print the money.

Or, more realistically, when Obama/Bush/Clinton/whoever decides to QE the heck out of the nation, rich people have most of their wealth in banking, investment, property and real estate market so no significant devaluation for them, but massive inflation for the poor and the middle class, so the wealth gap grows. I think that makes quite a lot sense to you.

You are right that the super rich's one ferrari can't create nearly as many jobs as ten accountants buying 10 fords — but only in auto industry. The surplus value, the extra money that rich man spent on the ferrari would have to go somewhere, it has to be earned by someone, then this someone has to spend it or he wouldn't have been desiring to make those extra money in the first place.

That's a little bit too conceptual. To put it more figuratively, a designer handbag costs only 20 bucks to make, but sold at 2000. A rich person buys it as present for his wife. Out of the 1980 bucks, 900 bucks went to the designer. The designer don't just stack up the money he earned in the bank (of course he has every right to), he could use the money to hold a party and in turn, must find a caterer (food industry, nothing to do with fashion business). Or better, he could keep going like this till he starts his own fashion house and hires other people.

 

Wages are not a cut of the profit, that's why they're called wages. This would only be true if you were paid a percent of the profit. We do not profit from our bosses' work. That is absurd.

 

You know, one solid refutation could easily destroy my argument than your finger in the ear and yelling "lalalalala" as hysterically as you can.