U.S. Economy Is Increasingly Tied to the Rich

[bamacre]

Can someone please crack open WhipperSnapper's computer case, and see what kinds of video card and processor he has? We may need to sell those off, replace them with more value-oriented products and use the proceeds to pay for my health care and food. I'm sitting here hungry as hell and he wants to play video games at 1080p?

 

[Craig234]

Why is it it appears the larger the govt grows the gap between rich and poor increases?

Because you're an ignoramus.

You don't have a clue about any correlation between government 'size' and income distribution.

Let's see, wealth concentration last peaked just before the Great Depression - under 'small government', because the issue had to do more with the financial sector's behavior.

It was under FDR - with his much larger government 'size' - that the wealth concentration
went down for decades.

Oh look, there's Reagan's changes, like slashing the top tax rate, and the increasing of the concentration.

But wait, didn't it increase under Democrat Bill Clinton, too? Yes - Clinton didn't reverse the Reagan changes. He *did* increase taxes on the rich, not enough to stop this.

Oh look at that, George Bush greatly increasing government spending - and the concentration of wealth went up more.

The 'size of government' affecting income concentration has a little to do with something you don't mention - what the government policies and tax rates are.

Perhaps because when govt grows the people who benefit most are the rich?

When the government repealed Glass-Steagell, it didn't make the government 'grow'; yet it did shift wealth to top top from others as a net effect.

When the government taxes the rich more to expand medical care for all, it makes the government 'grow', but it reduces the concentration of wealth.

 

[xj0hnx]

No, because they probably deserve higher wages than what they are receiving. Not because "it makes us feel good".

Deserve? Who determines who "deserves" what?

 

[spidey07]

Deserve? Who determines who "deserves" what?

Some entity or government other than yourself. Haven't you figured this out yet? It's the progressive way.

 

[xj0hnx]

Some entity or government other than yourself. Haven't you figured this out yet? It's the progressive way.

Sheesh, and here I thought that if I wasn't making enough I should get another job that pays better, thanks, I'll call my Congressman and demand better pay.

 

[khon]

Some entity or government other than yourself. Haven't you figured this out yet? It's the progressive way.

I'm guessing you're a big Glenn Beck fan.

Same brand of hateful paranoia.

 

[spidey07]

I'm guessing you're a big Glenn Beck fan.

I have no idea who he is, but leftist sure do love him.

So answer the question - Who or what should determine how much somebody should or can make?

 

[Kappo]

Because you're an ignoramus.

You don't have a clue about any correlation between government 'size' and income distribution.

Let's see, wealth concentration last peaked just before the Great Depression - under 'small government', because the issue had to do more with the financial sector's behavior.

It was under FDR - with his much larger government 'size' - that the wealth concentration
went down for decades.

Oh look, there's Reagan's changes, like slashing the top tax rate, and the increasing of the concentration.

But wait, didn't it increase under Democrat Bill Clinton, too? Yes - Clinton didn't reverse the Reagan changes. He *did* increase taxes on the rich, not enough to stop this.

Oh look at that, George Bush greatly increasing government spending - and the concentration of wealth went up more.

The 'size of government' affecting income concentration has a little to do with something you don't mention - what the government policies and tax rates are.



When the government repealed Glass-Steagell, it didn't make the government 'grow'; yet it did shift wealth to top top from others as a net effect.

When the government taxes the rich more to expand medical care for all, it makes the government 'grow', but it reduces the concentration of wealth.

What is the wealthiest entity in the US? The government. And you want them to have more power and more wealth. So what you are REALLY saying is that you don't like concentrated wealth when someone actually earned it.

 

[khon]

I have no idea who he is, but leftist sure do love him.

So answer the question - Who or what should determine how much somebody should or can make?

Their ability.

 

[spidey07]

Their ability.

Phew, for a minute there I could have sworn you were going to say "to each according to their needs"

 

[khon]

Phew, for a minute there I could have sworn you were going to say "to each according to their needs"

And there goes the marxist reference.

I swear its getting hard to tell you and Glenn Beck appart

 

[xj0hnx]

Their ability.

So if someone has the ability to build a guitar, they should be paid more even if the market doesn't need any more guitars, or is full of guitar makers?

 

[shortylickens]

We are just exiting a recession. It is no shock that the lower/middle class gets hit the hardest from a recession vs the upper class.

Whats happening? The rich are spending just as much as usual while the poor and middle class are saving their pennies. That generally tends to skew things.

Bingo.
As unpleasant as it might seem, the rich often do us favors. Spending like mad compared to everyone else is a good thing. The whole point of money is a medium of exchange. If it sits around doing nothing its basically useless. If it circulates its useful. The rich generally keep it circulating better than the poor.

 

[PokerGuy]

Their ability.

And what is the mechanism for judging someone's ability, and how much they should be paid? Oh, of course, government can do that.

 

[StageLeft]

We are just exiting a recession. It is no shock that the lower/middle class gets hit the hardest from a recession vs the upper class.

Whats happening? The rich are spending just as much as usual while the poor and middle class are saving their pennies. That generally tends to skew things.

No it's not just exiting as a source of this. Middle/lower have been effectively flat for decades now as the rich chomp up the extra bites of pie growth.

 

[khon]

And what is the mechanism for judging someone's ability, and how much they should be paid? Oh, of course, government can do that.

Nope.

It is funny to see how mistaken you guys are about progressive views though.

 

[xj0hnx]

No it's not just exiting as a source of this. Middle/lower have been effectively flat for decades now as the rich chomp up the extra bites of pie growth.

You do realize that people move in and out of the classes right? Someone that was lower middle class five years ago, may very well be upper class today, or vise versa. People's places in the class structure isn't static.

 

[khon]

So if someone has the ability to build a guitar, they should be paid more even if the market doesn't need any more guitars, or is full of guitar makers?

Of course not.

Don't you guys get tired of being wrong ?

 

[Cogman]

Of course not.

Don't you guys get tired of being wrong ?

Tell us what your views are, I'm dieing to know. Right now you are playing the 'nah nah nah. You don't know me!' game without letting us know where you opinion is.

 

[bamacre]

It's not overly complex. The rich are getting richer during the bubbles, and the poor are getting poorer during the bursts. There was a chart HuffPo had a while back which showed unemployment numbers broken down by class, and of course, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be unemployed. If you want to stop the shrinking of the middle class, you gotta get rid of the busts, and if you want to get rid of the busts, you gotta get rid of the bubbles. And if you want to get rid of the bubbles, you gotta get rid of the Fed. It's been said by the Austrians that monetary inflation leads to the destruction of the middle class, we're just proving them correct.

 

[drebo]

It's not overly complex. The rich are getting richer during the bubbles, and the poor are getting poorer during the bursts. There was a chart HuffPo had a while back which showed unemployment numbers broken down by class, and of course, the poorer you are the more likely you are to be unemployed. If you want to stop the shrinking of the middle class, you gotta get rid of the busts, and if you want to get rid of the busts, you gotta get rid of the bubbles. And if you want to get rid of the bubbles, you gotta get rid of the Fed. It's been said by the Austrians that monetary inflation leads to the destruction of the middle class, we're just proving them correct.

Inflation is an implicit tax on the poor. Wages rarely pace inflation, and thus inflation causes the buying power of the poor to decrease.

Bailouts to big businesses and banks does nothing but cause inflation. A "bailout" to the businesses that employ the vast majority of middle and lower class people (a.k.a. small businesses), even if it were just in the form of low-interest, secured loans, would have probably been a lot more effective at staving off the problems we're seeing.

As it is, small businesses aren't being helped by the government activities (and in some cases are actually being HURT by them), and thus their employees aren't doing too well either.

Deflation would help the people at the bottom considerably.

 

[sandorski]

The Ideologically Blind can't See. Film of the Fail at 11.

 

[drebo]

The Ideologically Blind can't See. Film of the Fail at 11.

Oooh, is this a biography about you?

 

[StageLeft]

You do realize that people move in and out of the classes right? Someone that was lower middle class five years ago, may very well be upper class today, or vise versa. People's places in the class structure isn't static.

Yes but there is actually not that much class mobility in the US; most people live and die in the class to which they were born, the rich perhaps being a more substantial exception because the group is comparatively small; i.e. a lot of rich are first-gen.

 

[khon]

Tell us what your views are, I'm dieing to know. Right now you are playing the 'nah nah nah. You don't know me!' game without letting us know where you opinion is.

Their questions made it pretty clear that they basically think progressive and communist are the same thing, and I reached the limit for how many times I can politely point out the difference long ago. So I kept it short and simple instead, as seemed appropriate given the intended audience.