No, we didn't. We went through a bubble and conentration of wealth in which most got nothing, but the top got enormous amounts. You should read the book "Bad Money".
Hm, 1993 tax increase on the top 2%. Right predicted the economy would be destroyed; the opposite happened.
If people had self control and were wise savers there would not be a need for wealth redistribution. Saving would create a deflationary pressure on the price of goods and services and all the things we like to buy-- and would ensure they remained affordable. Instead of everybody all at once shifting their expenditures and banking more cash (like we have now, which, as in all recessions, worsens the economic situation), they would be doing it all along, and growth would have been less boom/bust and more steady.
By the way, why haven't we hanged Greenspan yet? He warred against savings by slashing interest rates. I guess people could have been more involved in the stock market and timed their exit but it's taken me a very long time to come to a point where I feel reasonably comfortable entering and exiting the market.
By the way, why haven't we hanged Greenspan yet? He warred against savings by slashing interest rates. I guess people could have been more involved in the stock market and timed their exit but it's taken me a very long time to come to a point where I feel reasonably comfortable entering and exiting the market.
That was a fluke, just like Clinton's "balanced budget" (not even touching on unified accounting), courtesy the computer and spreadsheets replacing the typewriter. A bimbo could have balanced that budget. Not hating on Clinton, at least he was reasonably pro free market.
Of course it was a fluke. Just because every right-wing commentator and politician guaranteed the doom of the economy if it passed in the greatest test ot whose economic ideology was correct in decades did the opposite of what evey right-winger predicted, it was just a fluke. And those damn big spending democrats increased the deficit so much!
You could really predict the hacks' comment about 'fluke' when they were proven wrong.
Were there some flukey aspects? Yes. Did it also debunk the right? Yes.
My, my, my. Aren't you just a bit presumptuous? For that to be true, you'd have to assume that everyone with a job is making enough to pay for their lives. That is not the case. There are many people who work full time, some with more than one job, whose total income leaves them below the poverty line.
For those whose lives are only marginally close to breaking even, it takes only one mid sized medical or other emergency to leave them stone broke and unable to continue their lives.
And of course, even in your imaginary world of wise, self controlled savers, with employement ranging from 95 - 15% in an economy where businesses are down sizing and closing, there are those qualified and formerly employed people who currently have no job.
All of that is sad. When, at the same time, some of the very Wall Street robber barons who gave us the current economic catastrophy are picking up their mega buck bonuses and golden parachutes or crying about it if they can't. There is no excuse for that.
There are people who came by their wealth honestly through good work and contributions to society. I don't begrudge them their wealth, and given the opportunity, I'd gladly join their ranks, but I wouldn't object if some part of my good fortune was allocated to providing minimum survival assistance to those who are unable to do so on their own.
AreaCode707
Lifer
- Sep 21, 2001
- 18,447
- 133
- 106
Wealth redistribution should happen "naturally". That is, redistribution should be done by taxing luxuries. The more outrageous the luxury, the more the tax. Necessities shouldn't be taxed much, if at all. Income taxes are a ridiculous way to tax wealth because it becomes a game of "who has the best accountant" to avoid them, and people will do things like shell corporations, alternative legal entities, bank accounts in other countries to avoid it.
Flat tax everyone (well, more or less... do a very simple tiered tax) and jack up the luxury taxes and everyone wins.
Flat tax everyone (well, more or less... do a very simple tiered tax) and jack up the luxury taxes and everyone wins.
That does not mean I have no conscience, it means that my views of right and wrong are different from yours. Not living within your own means, taking money from others when it is not freely given, et cetera... that is unconscionable to me. Thanks for letting me know you are utterly intolerant of other perceptions. :thumbsdown:
I don't mind giving my money to the poor. I do mind the government taking a dollar, wasting 90 cents of it and giving the last 10 cents to the poor.
Doesn't sit well with me
Doesn't sit well with me
If I remember the numbers correctly the wealthiest in this country owned 10% of everything in 1980 and own 20% now.
If that's not redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is.
If that's not redistribution of wealth, I don't know what is.
I'd be fine with that, only if you include property and nearly all forms of investments as luxuries.
The crowd it brought in may have well done more business than 1.4 million dollars worth.
ebaycj
Diamond Member
- Mar 9, 2002
- 5,418
- 0
- 0
linky:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whor...rica/power/wealth.html
Not really true. Who knows how much "got away" and is now sitting in the basement of UBS' vault though.
trenchfoot
Lifer
- Aug 5, 2000
- 15,839
- 8,430
- 136
The premise of this thread starts off with a heavily biased and unrealistic view of why this Nation of ours stands head and shoulders above most other Nations, no matter their political/socio/economic doctrines.
From there it quickly went full bore into fantasy land ala Bush,Cheney and the ultra rich who brought us this present financial debacle.
The OP is a proponent of this PROVEN FAILED ideology that had its way from 2000-2008, of which most of us are suffering through its aftermath at this very moment.
I guess some people never learn. It's why this whole mess is destined to repeat itself over and over and over again.
From there it quickly went full bore into fantasy land ala Bush,Cheney and the ultra rich who brought us this present financial debacle.
The OP is a proponent of this PROVEN FAILED ideology that had its way from 2000-2008, of which most of us are suffering through its aftermath at this very moment.
I guess some people never learn. It's why this whole mess is destined to repeat itself over and over and over again.
A long term trend line on cyclic data is perfectly acceptable. All it shows is that private investment has slowed overall since the '60s despite an enormous tax cut for the rich since that period. You cant draw any other conclusions from a long term trend line on cyclical data...
The paper goes on to find what does drive the economy, public and private investment. The graphs and data show that very clearly.
You are playing the "god exists because you can't prove he doesn't" card. If it doesn't do anything, then tax cuts for the rich are not driving the economy. Thus, through basic 5th grade level logical thought... You can conclude that the tax cuts are not necessary.
I would like to see data on how much private investment is in fact the poor and middle classes 401ks, vs. hedge funds, corporate, and other private investment. I honestly do not know what the ratio is.
Economics truly does approach epistemology. You can consider all of the thousands of variables all you want... The fact is, the data doesn't add up to verify the claim that supply-side economics works in any form.
The status quo arguments against capitalism are:
- The rich are not righteous enough to help those less fortunate at their own discretion.
- The poor do not chose to be helpless, and can only gain the capacity to better themselves through handouts.
- Hence, we need the government to mandate a redistribution of wealth.
Yes there are many glaring examples of greed and an inability to be prosperous in this world, but there are also a handful of individuals who do share their wealth at their own discretion, as well as a handful of individuals who do chose not to better themselves and instead leech off of others.
I don't know what the correct answer is, but I know the government should not mandate my conscience- it's an act as immoral as the "unconscious" people it targets. Charity and Philanthropy should be a choice of the individual, in the same sense that it is once's choice to strive from nothing, to something.
- The rich are not righteous enough to help those less fortunate at their own discretion.
- The poor do not chose to be helpless, and can only gain the capacity to better themselves through handouts.
- Hence, we need the government to mandate a redistribution of wealth.
Yes there are many glaring examples of greed and an inability to be prosperous in this world, but there are also a handful of individuals who do share their wealth at their own discretion, as well as a handful of individuals who do chose not to better themselves and instead leech off of others.
I don't know what the correct answer is, but I know the government should not mandate my conscience- it's an act as immoral as the "unconscious" people it targets. Charity and Philanthropy should be a choice of the individual, in the same sense that it is once's choice to strive from nothing, to something.
The number one argument against unfettered capitalism is that those at the top eventually amass enough power, influence, and wealth to make any systematic adjustments needed to perpetuate the cycle.
Paratus
Lifer
- Jun 4, 2004
- 17,658
- 15,870
- 146
I've got a compromise idea.
For excessive corporate profits, instead of taxing them to nothing or allowing them to flow upwards as 500% bonuses to the top, how about writing a law that forces a certain amount of the profits to be distributed as bonuses to the entire employee base of the company. This way the money stays with the folks who earned it yet more of the wealth reaches more of the people.
If corporations can flow the money up hill they can certainly flow some down hill as well.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter