A question for the right on how to return to an economy where everyone prospers

[Craig234]

A rising tide lifts all boats.
- Quoted by President John Kennedy

Question for the right: how can the US return to the approximate distribution of wealth in the nation by the end of the liberal era', say after JFK/LBJ around 1970?

I've posted many times evidence of the massive shift away from historical norms in wealth distribution since Reagan - how the economy doubled in size while zero of the doubling went to the bottom 80%, and only a little to the next 99%; how the top 1% have more than doubled their share of income, the top 0.01% far more increase than that; the 'L curve' showing a boggling distribution of wealth; a return to the highest concentration of wealth in the industrialized world, passing before the great depression; a skyrocketing of executive compensation from 25 times workers to several hundred times; Wall Street making 40% of all profit instead of 10-15%.

This thread is not to discuss any defense of this trend, any argument about whether to reverse the trend. If you want to do that, hit 'back' and start your own thread.

But if any on the right are willing to agree that we should reverse the trend, this thread is to ask you how to do it.

You have the left's solutions and plans, no need to repeat them.

I've yet to see a single real plan from the right how to do this - there is sometimes some vague agreement, some vague claim like trickle-down economics claiming it'll help with the goal (money to the 'job creators' will create growth and wealth helping everyone, the facts contradict), but no plan IMO.

I see broad opposition to taxes, name-calling of 'class warfare' of liberals' policies, defense of 'laissez-faire' and 'free trade' and 'union busting', nothing for this.

So, can any right wing person offer a plan with specific measures, and any evidence supporting why it would work, to reverse the increasing concentration of wealth, and return to the levels of the 60's? After that, the policy can hold steady there. Whatever policies that are feasible in modern America are ok - not looking for 'bring back slavery' or 'colonization' or similar.

 

[matt0611]

I don't see distribution of wealth as a problem in my world as long as their are protections that stop people that have a lot of wealth from abusing it.

As long as everyone's wealth is increasing, which it would under a true free market, then I really couldn't care less how much Bill Gates is making as long as everything is voluntary and there's no fraud or criminality etc

That being said, I think government spending should be drastically reduced (gotta start with the military and corporate handouts) and we should eliminate the income tax on the bottom 80% of Americans.

I have a lot more ideas on how we can become prosperous again, but I have a feeling my words will fall on deaf ears so I'll save my breath.

 

[Craig234]

I don't see distribution of wealth as a problem

I don't care. Let me repeat for the hard of reading:

This thread is not to discuss any defense of this trend, any argument about whether to reverse the trend.

As long as everyone's wealth is increasing, which it would under a true free market, then I really couldn't care less how much Bill Gates is making as long as everything is voluntary and there's no fraud or criminality etc

Everyone's wealth isn't increasing, and we have a massive increase in concentration of wealth. This isn't to debate whether that's ok.

This is to discuss how someone on the right would reverse it. A vague, ideological phrase like 'true free market' you blithely allege is magic pixie dust doesn't count.

Specific policies. Things that sounds like bills Congress could pass.

Again:

can any right wing person offer a plan with specific measures, and any evidence supporting why it would work, to reverse the increasing concentration of wealth, and return to the levels of the 60's? After that, the policy can hold steady there.

That being said, I think government spending should be drastically reduced (gotta start with the military and corporate handouts) and we should eliminate the income tax on the bottom 80% of Americans.

OK, that's some start of a plan.

Which military spending? There are military contracts in every one of the 435 congressional districts, and they fight hard to keep them. What would you cut, how much, and how do you suggest we get is passed by Congress? How would any of those savings be directed to address the wealth concentration issue, instead of just being neutral if not benefiting the rich?

Similar questions for corporate handouts. Most agree corporate America largely owns a majority of Congress. How would you change that or get your cuts passed?

What cuts specifically, how much do they total? How much would that change the distribution of wealth?

Eliminating the income tax on the bottom 80% of Americans - would you just increase the deficit by that amount, or increase the taxes on the top 20%?

If the bottom 50% already don't pay income taxes, that wouldn't help them right?

Having said all that - it is good to see a 'right-winger' seem to endorse some moves that seem constructive for society. But there's a lot more to the issue.

 

[Corn]

LOL thread title fail. What period of time exactly was it that "everyone" was considered prosperous?

 

[matt0611]

What I mean by true free market is that there are no corporate handouts, no special treatments, special deals, picking winners and losers etc

I'd end the wars, close down most of the bases, retire carrier groups, etc. I'd like to see the military budget about 300-350 billion.

Under my plans, we would have a balanced budget amendment, so there wouldn't be any deficit or debt to worry about. Government spending would be scaled back.

I'd really like to end the drug war, this is a massive plague on minorities and has torn families and communities apart, it has done a lot of harm to people and fills our prison with a lot of people who haven't hurt anyone. This will save us a lot of money as well and generate more legitimate businesses and jobs.

I'd like to see the minimum wage eliminated. Economists are pretty universally opposed to the minimum wage, its simply a barrier to entry for people. There are a lot of kids and teenagers, especially minorities, that are unemployed and this will help them get entry level jobs to learn skills or simply make money doing part time work.

I'd like to see the elimination of the corporate income tax. Why are we taxing corporations? Tax the wealthy when they get paid. Eliminate all the deductions and just go to something like a 30-35% flat rate for the wealthy, treat wages, dividends, capital gains, all the same. This will bring a lot of jobs back to the united states and get them hiring people again. Gonna be hard to compete with 0% tax on profits. This will also let american companies expand faster and attract more capital.

 

[Rainsford]

Craig raises a fair point, I think. Lots and lots and lots of studies have demonstrated that while income and wealth per capita are steadily increasing, average wealth for all but the richest people has been pretty stagnant for a fairly long time now.

Returning to a state where a rising tide really does lift all boats requires wealth to stop being redistributed upwards and being distributed a bit more evenly. I'm not sure how that can happen though, since our current political climate is such that we greatly prefer class warfare when the rich are winning than the other kind.

 

[glenn1]

Everyone's wealth isn't increasing, and we have a massive increase in concentration of wealth. This isn't to debate whether that's ok.

This is to discuss how someone on the right would reverse it. A vague, ideological phrase like 'true free market' you blithely allege is magic pixie dust doesn't count.

Specific policies. Things that sounds like bills Congress could pass.

There is no magic solution. Wealth will continue to accrue to those with the skill sets that provide the most economic value, and those without will continue to languish. 30 or 40 years ago you might be able to drop out of high school and get a decent job in a factory as an unskilled laborer, nowadays if that job hasn't been outsourced to the third world it's been automated.

 

[momeNt]

I like Matt's fiscal policies.

I would start a gold standard immediately. The Federal Reserve has proven itself to be poor stewards of our money and it's interest rate manipulation has exported much of our wealth overseas in the form of "sustainable" trade deficits which leave our middle class and economy devoid of manufacturing competitive products.

 

[Craig234]

What I mean by true free market is that there are no corporate handouts, no special treatments, special deals, picking winners and losers etc

I'd end the wars, close down most of the bases, retire carrier groups, etc. I'd like to see the military budget about 300-350 billion.

Under my plans, we would have a balanced budget amendment, so there wouldn't be any deficit or debt to worry about. Government spending would be scaled back.

I'd really like to end the drug war, this is a massive plague on minorities and has torn families and communities apart, it has done a lot of harm to people and fills our prison with a lot of people who haven't hurt anyone. This will save us a lot of money as well and generate more legitimate businesses and jobs.

I'd like to see the minimum wage eliminated. Economists are pretty universally opposed to the minimum wage, its simply a barrier to entry for people. There are a lot of kids and teenagers, especially minorities, that are unemployed and this will help them get entry level jobs to learn skills or simply make money doing part time work.

I'd like to see the elimination of the corporate income tax. Why are we taxing corporations? Tax the wealthy when they get paid. Eliminate all the deductions and just go to something like a 30-35% flat rate for the wealthy, treat wages, dividends, capital gains, all the same. This will bring a lot of jobs back to the united states and get them hiring people again. Gonna be hard to compete with 0% tax on profits. This will also let american companies expand faster and attract more capital.

I appreciate the attempt to provide some policies for this.

Unfortunately, a lot of them read as 'right wing generic agenda', having no apparent benefit on the concentration of wealth - and some harmful.

'No corporate handouts' - a good one, for how much money? Aren't there some 'corporate handouts' that are good for society, say, the R&D credit?

'no special treatments, special deals' is too vague to discuss; specifics.

'picking' - again, specifics. Sometimes, I think that's ok. If the government says 'we're picking to subsidize green energy over high pollution energy because of the benefits to society', I think that's ok. On the other hand, when the government gives tens of billions preferentially to Goldman Sachs because of political connections, not so ok.

On the military budget, let's say you cut 100 or 200 billion. How do you ensure that savings helps reduce the concentration of wealth?

Government balanced budget - doesn't say what's cut, what the harmful impact is; a lot of that money helps 'average Americans'.

'Slashing the government's spending' is a dream of the rich, who have little use for all this 'money for society' stuff. More harm than help to concentration of wealth.

The drug war - good points, but a politically incorrect question is, how much money does the illegal drug trade put into the poor community? How many people in the black market make money they otherwise wouldn't? But let's say it has net benefits - it's not clear how much ending the drug war would reduce concentration of wealth.

The minimum wage is IMO directly harmful to reducing the concentration of wealth.

Ya, it's a barrier of entry, for good reason - because it keeps the 'wage negotiations' from leading to what they used to, 'the employee has to eat and the business doesn't, so you'll take a slave wage to eat'. It helps build the middle class, benefiting people making above it as well. Another dream of the wealthy - turning labor into economically slave labor. Terrible policy.

I think you might be on to something with the last one. But it needs progressive tax increases matching the corporate tax reductions - to prevent that from becoming a 'policy benefiting the rich', offloading more taxes onto average Americans. But I've seen a liberal economist support the same thing.

Back in the 50's and 60's, corporations paid a far larger share of the nation's tax burden - allowing the people to pay less - but it's worth looking into.

I'm not sure how far we've gotten to reversing the problem, but it seems like some steps towards it. How far do you think those items reduce the concentration?

 

[Craig234]

I like Matt's fiscal policies.

I would start a gold standard immediately. The Federal Reserve has proven itself to be poor stewards of our money and it's interest rate manipulation has exported much of our wealth overseas in the form of "sustainable" trade deficits which leave our middle class and economy devoid of manufacturing competitive products.

Again, this isn't 'post the right-wing ideology and dream agenda'. We had the fed, we didn't have the gold standard, during the period I cited with less concentration of wealth, so it's hard to see how that agenda is essential for reducing it; or how it might help. You're suggesting a change to free trade to increase manufacturing here?

 

[matt0611]

Again, this isn't 'post the right-wing ideology and dream agenda'. We had the fed, we didn't have the gold standard, during the period I cited with less concentration of wealth, so it's hard to see how that agenda is essential for reducing it; or how it might help. You're suggesting a change to free trade to increase manufacturing here?

I really don't want to turn this thread into a "gold standard" thread. But we were in a pseudo-gold standard during the time that you mention. The dollar was worth 1/35th oz of gold.

IMO, this helps the poor and middle class keep their savings without getting into more risky securities and eliminates the "inflation tax", it also stops the secret diversion of the wealth that goes on as the Fed and government pump money to the rich.

It also encourages the government to be more careful with our tax money because they can't print.

I won't say anymore on this because I don't want to derail your thread.

 

[soccerballtux]

just gotta make it possible for small businesses to be created and thrive.
We've pretty much removed all of that now haven't we.

 

[Craig234]

I really don't want to turn this thread into a "gold standard" thread. But we were in a pseudo-gold standard during the time that you mention. The dollar was worth 1/35th oz of gold.

IMO, this helps the poor and middle class keep their savings without getting into more risky securities and eliminates the "inflation tax", it also stops the secret diversion of the wealth that goes on as the Fed and government pump money to the rich.

I won't say anymore on this because I don't want to derail your thread.

To be fair, to the extent you think those agenda items will reduce the concentration of wealth, they're relevant, but I don't really see it.

Economists I think are good seem to pretty universally oppose the gold standard; its ending doesn't appear to me linked to the causes of this concentration.

I agree though that they will tend to derail the topic, unless there's a pretty clear case to discuss that they're a major solution to the concentration.

 

[Craig234]

just gotta make it possible for small businesses to be created and thrive.
We've pretty much removed all of that now haven't we.

Specific policies?

 

[dmcowen674]

I've yet to see a single real plan from the right how to do this - there is sometimes some vague agreement, some vague claim like trickle-down economics claiming it'll help with the goal (money to the 'job creators' will create growth and wealth helping everyone, the facts contradict), but no plan IMO.

I see broad opposition to taxes, name-calling of 'class warfare' of liberals' policies, defense of 'laissez-faire' and 'free trade' and 'union busting', nothing for this.

So, can any right wing person offer a plan with specific measures, and any evidence supporting why it would work, to reverse the increasing concentration of wealth, and return to the levels of the 60's? After that, the policy can hold steady there. Whatever policies that are feasible in modern America are ok - not looking for 'bring back slavery' or 'colonization' or similar.

Nice try Craig, notice that the radical rich righties are avoiding your real question like the plague.

 

[davmat787]

Nice try Craig, notice that the radical rich righties are avoiding your real question like the plague.

Dave, you really need a break from the forums, and especially thinking about how everyone who has more than you must be evil. It isn't healthy to be spewing the same hate all the time, and I have noticed you have been on a slide recently. Just sayin...

 

[cubby1223]

See this is where this thread fails, it relies on the assumption that wealth redistribution equals economic prosperity.

To "the left", the economy is something you can directly control and adjust.

To "the right", the economy is something you can only influence little bits at a time.

The economy of the United States is 300,000,000 people with their own independent goals, motivations, capabilities, etc.


I do believe our past economic prosperity has been in large part do to social & political unrest in other parts of the world, and our ability to exploit that. Along with energy supplies.

There is no way to recreate 1970. Even if Craig has his way and redistributes all the wealth of this country to his choosing in an instant, it still does not recreate conditions of the past.


There are more involved that simply "how do we take more from the rich and give it to the poor". How do we acquire cheaper energy? Last time I checked, energy prices were not a function dependent on wealth distribution. Our auto industry used to be HUGE because no other country produced a car worth a damn, but that has all changed now, and this cannot be fixed by redistributing wealth. Is wealth redistribution the reason why mining for rare earth metals within our borders is being held up?

 

[Craig234]

Didn't read most

Let me repeat for the hard of reading:

This thread is not to discuss any defense of this trend, any argument about whether to reverse the trend.

I don't want to have to keep repeating the same thing on that.

 

[1prophet]

There is no magic solution. Wealth will continue to accrue to those with the skill sets that provide the most economic value, and those without will continue to languish. 30 or 40 years ago you might be able to drop out of high school and get a decent job in a factory as an unskilled laborer, nowadays if that job hasn't been outsourced to the third world it's been automated.

And among the greatest skill sets is buddies on the board, effective lobbying of congress, and making oneself too big to fail .

 

[Double Trouble]

The concentration of wealth is indeed alarming, creating a small rich class and a large poor class is a recipe for a third world country. However, you're essentially asking this question: "how do we redistribute wealth", without allowing for the reality that government attempts to redistribute wealth from one group to another is automatically going to be something conservatives disagree with. Thus asking conservatives how the government should redistribute wealth is a contradiction in terms. Thread fail. You ask questions asking for conservatives to answer, but then box in the possible responses such that any conservative couldn't do so.

 

[momeNt]

Again, this isn't 'post the right-wing ideology and dream agenda'. We had the fed, we didn't have the gold standard, during the period I cited with less concentration of wealth, so it's hard to see how that agenda is essential for reducing it; or how it might help. You're suggesting a change to free trade to increase manufacturing here?

What I am suggesting is not a change to free trade, but a change to monetary policies, these can also be done without a gold standard and with a federal reserve central bank, but the federal reserve must be filled with people who understand the damaging effects that manipulating the interest rate can have on an economy. Strength of the dollar to attract imports in the last 30-40 years has grown foreign debt holdings greatly and left us with a far smaller manufacturing base than if the dollar reflected the strength and balance of our economy. Our import/exports could have been balanced if the fed had not constantly sought to strengthen the dollar. Eventually this could be restored on either a gold or fiat currency.

 

[xBiffx]

Since we are never talking about distribution of weath but rather redistribution of wealth the OP is pointless. But its funny that one looks at it as distribution rather than acquirement. Makes it seem like there is a magical pot of gold or a baron somewhere that all this money comes from rather than wealth being anywhere and everywhere as long as you have the skills to obtain it.

 

[Ausm]

LOL thread title fail. What period of time exactly was it that "everyone" was considered prosperous?

In the Gop's mind (and I use that term loosely) when the top 2% have 95% of the nations wealth.

 

[matt0611]

I appreciate the attempt to provide some policies for this.

Unfortunately, a lot of them read as 'right wing generic agenda', having no apparent benefit on the concentration of wealth - and some harmful.

'No corporate handouts' - a good one, for how much money? Aren't there some 'corporate handouts' that are good for society, say, the R&D credit?

'no special treatments, special deals' is too vague to discuss; specifics.

'picking' - again, specifics. Sometimes, I think that's ok. If the government says 'we're picking to subsidize green energy over high pollution energy because of the benefits to society', I think that's ok. On the other hand, when the government gives tens of billions preferentially to Goldman Sachs because of political connections, not so ok.

On the military budget, let's say you cut 100 or 200 billion. How do you ensure that savings helps reduce the concentration of wealth?

Government balanced budget - doesn't say what's cut, what the harmful impact is; a lot of that money helps 'average Americans'.

'Slashing the government's spending' is a dream of the rich, who have little use for all this 'money for society' stuff. More harm than help to concentration of wealth.

The drug war - good points, but a politically incorrect question is, how much money does the illegal drug trade put into the poor community? How many people in the black market make money they otherwise wouldn't? But let's say it has net benefits - it's not clear how much ending the drug war would reduce concentration of wealth.

The minimum wage is IMO directly harmful to reducing the concentration of wealth.

Ya, it's a barrier of entry, for good reason - because it keeps the 'wage negotiations' from leading to what they used to, 'the employee has to eat and the business doesn't, so you'll take a slave wage to eat'. It helps build the middle class, benefiting people making above it as well. Another dream of the wealthy - turning labor into economically slave labor. Terrible policy.

I think you might be on to something with the last one. But it needs progressive tax increases matching the corporate tax reductions - to prevent that from becoming a 'policy benefiting the rich', offloading more taxes onto average Americans. But I've seen a liberal economist support the same thing.

Back in the 50's and 60's, corporations paid a far larger share of the nation's tax burden - allowing the people to pay less - but it's worth looking into.

I'm not sure how far we've gotten to reversing the problem, but it seems like some steps towards it. How far do you think those items reduce the concentration?

No "handing out" money at all. Of any amount.
We don't need "credits" of any sort, since there's no income taxes on corporations under my plan. No need to treat any companies differently.

The savings from the military would go to reducing spending so taxes can be eliminated from the middle class.

Balanced budget amendment. A lot of things would need to be cut, military, foreign aid, farm subsidies, whole federal departments. The important thing is that we have a balanced budget. This stops us from paying interest on our debt (we pay 100 billion every year on interest and that's with these low interest rates). It keeps the government more efficient because they only have a certain amount to work with. It stops them from running up huge debts that will only help them in the short term but do a lot of damage in the long run. It makes sure we're spending things on what we really need.

I know you never will, but you really should reconsider the minimum wage, no one says they have to hire anyone at all. It only stops people with low productivity from getting jobs. Competition prevents wages from going to 0. Do you get paid minimum wage? Why not? Think about it...
Minimum wage just hurts the poor and young people by keeping them unemployed.
Singapore doesn't have a minimum wage, they have a very high GDP per capita.

These measures won't do anything instantly, its something that would happen over the long run. Getting the federal government down to be more efficient, smaller, getting the income taxes off most Americans. Creating a better business environment by getting rid of corporate taxes. Simplifying income taxes on the top 20% to make sure they all pay.

We also need to fix the cost of college education. Its been going up more than inflation every year for a while, its causing kids to graduate with a mortgage and no house. This will do a lot to get the burden of debt off our young people and give them a better start. We need to get government out of the student loan business entirely, we need to stop giving out and guaranteeing loans. This will greatly increase the interest rates for getting these huge loans and make them almost impossible to get. This will greatly decrease the demand for college education and cause colleges to start lowering prices drastically. Allowing people to take out much smaller loans and making sure that they only major in things that they are sure they can pay them back. We are subsidizing all these expensive private colleges and over-inflating their tuition prices. There's no reason they should be this high. Its killing our young people.

We also, of course, need to completely change our healthcare system. Healthcare is too expensive and is a burden on the average american. (And no, not socialized medicine...and no, not the status quo either). That deserves its own thread though.

 

[soulcougher73]

I think your first mistake is thinking the right WANTS to do this