wealth concentration

[Vic]

Excessive economic inequality can lead to economic downturns. Like now. It's hard to have a dynamic healthy economy when too many of the consuming public cannot afford the goods being produced.

Meh. The reality is that reality is often counter-intuitive, and most people are idiots, especially when they let idealism blind them to what's right in front of their face. Case in point: socialism/communism in practice creates the worst of wealth inequalities, and capitalism functions best in a relatively egalitarian environment.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
Excessive economic inequality can lead to economic downturns. Like now. It's hard to have a dynamic healthy economy when too many of the consuming public cannot afford the goods being produced.

Meh. The reality is that reality is often counter-intuitive, and most people are idiots, especially when they let idealism blind them to what's right in front of their face. Case in point: socialism/communism in practice creates the worst of wealth inequalities, and capitalism functions best in a relatively egalitarian environment.

Yes, because those Evil Socialist© European mixed market countries have loads of poor and homeless lying all over the place.
Good thing in the USA we have no such problems and the rich do not own 99% of the wealth.
And you call others blind idealists?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Vic
Excessive economic inequality can lead to economic downturns. Like now. It's hard to have a dynamic healthy economy when too many of the consuming public cannot afford the goods being produced.

Meh. The reality is that reality is often counter-intuitive, and most people are idiots, especially when they let idealism blind them to what's right in front of their face. Case in point: socialism/communism in practice creates the worst of wealth inequalities, and capitalism functions best in a relatively egalitarian environment.

Yes, because those Evil Socialist© European mixed market countries have loads of poor and homeless lying all over the place.
Good thing in the USA we have no such problems and the rich do not own 99% of the wealth.
And you call others blind idealists?

Those "Evil Socialist© European mixed market countries" are in many instances more free market capitalist than is the US. And even so, yes, they all do have loads of poor and homeless lying all over the place, or at least just as much as the US does. And they all have a rich elite who own almost everything. Ideology doesn't make for pretty rainbows, not even yours.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Vic
Excessive economic inequality can lead to economic downturns. Like now. It's hard to have a dynamic healthy economy when too many of the consuming public cannot afford the goods being produced.

Meh. The reality is that reality is often counter-intuitive, and most people are idiots, especially when they let idealism blind them to what's right in front of their face. Case in point: socialism/communism in practice creates the worst of wealth inequalities, and capitalism functions best in a relatively egalitarian environment.

So your intellectual masturbation doesn't deny the simple fact:

Wanna be wealthy? Then be so, nothing is stopping you. That's the beauty of liberty. There is nothing stopping one from being one of the "evil rich".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Vic
Excessive economic inequality can lead to economic downturns. Like now. It's hard to have a dynamic healthy economy when too many of the consuming public cannot afford the goods being produced.

Meh. The reality is that reality is often counter-intuitive, and most people are idiots, especially when they let idealism blind them to what's right in front of their face. Case in point: socialism/communism in practice creates the worst of wealth inequalities, and capitalism functions best in a relatively egalitarian environment.

So your intellectual masturbation doesn't deny the simple fact:

Wanna be wealthy? Then be so, nothing is stopping you. That's the beauty of liberty. There is nothing stopping one from being one of the "evil rich".

:roll:

Why is it, spidey, that you have become kind of like McOwen, but just the other side of the same coin?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Craig234
You wouldn't destroy your credibility so utterly if you did not lie in your posts about others' positions.

You ignorantly throw out 'socialist' as name-calling when my views don't match the meaning of the word as you use it. You say I'm for salary caps; I have said the opposite.

You throw out words like 'massive' regulation to cloud the lack of anything but mush in your comments. Are you for zero regulation? For 1000 times as much as we have now?

Somewhere betweeen? Then you have to define "massive", becuase I'm not for "massive" regulation. I'm for adding regulation that's missing that we need, and removing regulation that's wasteful or misguided - pretty much like any typical American. The issue lies in discussing the specific regulation - something you completely fail to do in yor blather.

Your closing comment is just as bad in another way. It's too vapid to say much about, yet immoral and shortsighted at the same time.

You think maybe Warren Buffet likes being in the top 1% as he speakd out for social justice on behalf of the 'average American', as he worries about their welfare?

Wanitng to make good money and wanting society to treat the poor well are not mutually excluive. You might also see Robert Kennedy, in my sig, for another example.

It's the moral midgets who fail to have any concern about society's welfare while pursuing their own interests - whether they're selfish and successful, or the sort of incompetent wannabees who oppose their own interests hoping that fighting for the wealthy will rub off somehow - who are the problem. IMO we need people to not look at only their own needs but society's more broadly, and if you disagree with that as you clearly do from your comments, I think you lack values and are bad for the society.

If you want to be part of the top 1%, there's a right way and a wrong way to go about it. A right way is to try to do things like ensuring there are no unfair roadblocks to people getting there; wrong ways include crime and selfish actions that *unfairly* advantage you. Whether you are in it or not, you have moral obligations to the other 99%, too. Not worrying about that would change 'the American dream' into the American tyranny filled with 1% very rich and the masses suffering miserably.

Oh, you didn't mean that. Well then learn to say what you mean better, because that's what you said. You sound like the worst sort of selfish petty wannabe rich in the post.

You could serve well as the antonym for noblesse oblige, if you have any noblesse.

This is classic, so now your getting on an even higher horse and making such brazen statements as "think you lack values and are bad for the society"

Ahh yes, Craig, arbiter of all which is fair and just who decides which opinions are "good" for society and which should be silenced...

Would you rather those who share my opinion be banished to some distant land so the "progressives" such as yourself can create the true camelot that you so seek? you and Capt. should join a club as last I checked he was petitioning for me to be sent away to the land of the unwashed, the great state of NH.

And to clarify, that is exactly what I meant...so don't expect any backpeddling here.

I disagree with your whole premise of a so called "right way" and "wrong way" of gaining success/wealth, either you're in or your out and it has to do with net worth, not how much you care about someone's feelings...or bettering society....typically that eventually comes to those who make it as they have nothing better to do with all of their money..

"Coffee's for closers only."

I am all for unfair advantages so long as I am the one benefitting from them

I never said anything about not caring for the welfare of society, however I did say that I am against any govt regulation with regards to compensation and I do not have a problem with "wealth concentration" in the US, well maybe when it comes to the Kennedys, I would love to see them stipped of their wealth and power but that is another story.

And sure, I want to be rich, as do I presume millions of other Americans...so sue me, not everyone can be as self ritcheous as you Craig....I am envious and yet here *you* and your kind are bitching about the wealthy and how they abuse the system....I say which is worse as both accomplish nothing and nothing will change (thankfully!)

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed

Originally posted by: Vic
Excessive economic inequality can lead to economic downturns. Like now. It's hard to have a dynamic healthy economy when too many of the consuming public cannot afford the goods being produced.

Meh. The reality is that reality is often counter-intuitive, and most people are idiots, especially when they let idealism blind them to what's right in front of their face. Case in point: socialism/communism in practice creates the worst of wealth inequalities, and capitalism functions best in a relatively egalitarian environment.

Yes, because those Evil Socialist© European mixed market countries have loads of poor and homeless lying all over the place.
Good thing in the USA we have no such problems and the rich do not own 99% of the wealth.
And you call others blind idealists?

Those "Evil Socialist© European mixed market countries" are in many instances more free market capitalist than is the US. And even so, yes, they all do have loads of poor and homeless lying all over the place, or at least just as much as the US does. And they all have a rich elite who own almost everything. Ideology doesn't make for pretty rainbows, not even yours.

There's rich and poor everywhere, but let's not play the "oh, its all the same" game. The Gini coefficient is a pretty accurate and well-established measurement and it does tell us that wealth is evenly distributed in Europe than in the US by quite substantial margin.





Anyway, as a believer in a meritocratic society, the problem I have with excessive wealth concentration is that it leads to class stratification and a far less meritocratic society. If money and power is concentrated in a small class, they will naturally and many times unconsciously use that money and power to further their own interests and keep their own power and status and ultimately hurt the interests of others. With each generation, the odds will be stacked against the lower classes, the gap will widen and one's position in life will increasingly be determined by which class they were born in, not what their abilities and talents are. Sorry, but that's just not the kind of society I (and thankfully, many, many others) want to live in.

 

[Vic]

Hey, I've been to Canada many times. I don't care what gini says, there are plenty of homeless.

 

[bdw300]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: XMan
The only issue I take is the concept that wealth is a finite resource. It's not, not anymore. The days of royalty hoarding gold in the palace are long gone.

It is finite. It changes over time, but is never infinite. At any one time, there is a certain amount of wealth, distributed a certain way.

For example, there's only so much beachfront in California. That is part of the wealth. It might be used for public beaches, or many smaller homes, or a few massive properties.

Utter nonsense. The supply of wealth is not limited in the way physical commodities are. This is one of the biggest fallacies among socialists of all stripes today. The wealth pie is not fixed. One man's gain is not another's loss. The fact that people like Bill Gates and Michael Dell have amassed large fortunes does not mean you are poorer as a result. On the contrary, these men have created products which have improved the lives of millions across the globe. You personally have benefited greatly from their innovation both directly and indirectly...and whatever personal wealth you might have transferred to them by buying their products is peanuts compared to the amount of new wealth CREATED by those products.

Millions of consumers and businesses across the globe have had tremendous gains in productivity as the result of personal computers and various types of software created by people like Gates and Dell.. These products opened an entirely new world of ideas that were impossible before. They enabled goods to be created and distributed exponentially better than they were a generation earlier. The amount of time saved and productivity gained by the products of Gates, Dell, and Brin is impossible to calculate, but needless to say it has created trillions in new wealth that did not exist before and would not exist otherwise. The pie GREW with the innovations of these men, and that new wealth was shared with all of humanity without the need for government planning or conscious thought.

This is what happens in a free economy. It will continue happening and the pie will continue to grow so long as we have an economic climate that is favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators...one that does not punish success in the name of some arbitrary definition of "fairness" or "equality". If you have your way and politicians follow the leftist line of worshiping equality (of outcome) more than freedom, the pie will certainly stop growing and will eventually begin shrinking until we all end up equally poor and miserable, sharing a very tiny pie like the oh-so-equal citizens of North Korea.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bozack
Personally if given the choice I would rather be a part of the top 1% than bitch about how unfair it is not to be them...

I hate to point this out, as you seem to think that you've written something noble, but who WOULDN'T rather be part of the top 1%?


Edit: I think the point of this thread is that the fraction of the economy owned by the top 1% is the greatest it's ever been, and continues to grow. And - even though the total U.S. economy has grown - the ABSOLUTE wealth of middle and lower classes has DECLINED.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bdw300

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: XMan
The only issue I take is the concept that wealth is a finite resource. It's not, not anymore. The days of royalty hoarding gold in the palace are long gone.

It is finite. It changes over time, but is never infinite. At any one time, there is a certain amount of wealth, distributed a certain way.

For example, there's only so much beachfront in California. That is part of the wealth. It might be used for public beaches, or many smaller homes, or a few massive properties.

Utter nonsense.

What's utter nonsense is you saying that, because of your poor reading comprehension.

You are confusing the false statement "the amount of wealth is static" with the quite correct statement I actually said, 'the amount of wealth is finite'.

The supply of wealth is not limited in the way physical commodities are.

No; it's limited in a didderent way, but it is finite.

This is one of the biggest fallacies among socialists of all stripes today.

You should not use words you clearly don't understand. I don't know a single right-winger here who can use the word socialist and mean more than "poopyhead" by it.

The wealth pie is not fixed.

See above. "Not fixed" is not the same as "not finite". Not fixed allows for Bill Gates to make a neat new program that increases wealth. It does not increas wealth infinitely.

One man's gain is not another's loss.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.

The fact that people like Bill Gates and Michael Dell have amassed large fortunes does not mean you are poorer as a result. On the contrary, these men have created products which have improved the lives of millions across the globe. You personally have benefited greatly from their innovation both directly and indirectly...and whatever personal wealth you might have transferred to them by buying their products is peanuts compared to the amount of new wealth CREATED by those products.

They have not created infinite wealth.

Millions of consumers and businesses across the globe have had tremendous gains in productivity as the result of personal computers and various types of software created by people like Gates and Dell.. These products opened an entirely new world of ideas that were impossible before. They enabled goods to be created and distributed exponentially better than they were a generation earlier. The amount of time saved and productivity gained by the products of Gates, Dell, and Brin is impossible to calculate, but needless to say it has created trillions in new wealth that did not exist before and would not exist otherwise. The pie GREW with the innovations of these men, and that new wealth was shared with all of humanity without the need for government planning or conscious thought.

Let's say you're right, and they created trillions in new wealth, growing the pie. That shows the amount of wealth is not *static*. It does not show it's inifite. Trillions are not infinity.

Are you getting it yet, having it repeated?

This is what happens in a free economy. It will continue happening and the pie will continue to grow so long as we have an economic climate that is favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators...one that does not punish success in the name of some arbitrary definition of "fairness" or "equality".

One that does not allow the excessive concentration of wealth.

If you have your way and politicians follow the leftist line of worshiping equality (of outcome) more than freedom, the pie will certainly stop growing and will eventually begin shrinking until we all end up equally poor and miserable, sharing a very tiny pie like the oh-so-equal citizens of North Korea.

I really hate talking to parrots. You have this little pull string and out come the words worshippingeqaulityofoutcomesocialistleftistequallypoor...

It's not a conversation, it's you mouthing things you don't understand and me wasting the time to write responses you don't really read.

Trying to talk to someone who equates liberal policies such as the nation has largely followed as it does its best economically with North Korea is an utter joke.

You are the height of idiocy to say that, and you will need to get better if you want me to see any point to bother wasting more time.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: bdw300the pie will continue to grow so long as we have an economic climate that is favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators...

The flaw in your reasoning is that although the pie (the total wealth of the U.S.) has grown, the piece of that pie owned by the average member of the middle and lower classes has gotten smaller. Thus, our current system is leaving more and more people LESS well off, even as the "haves" are doing better and better.

In a nutshell, you're arguing that the following is a good thing:

Before:
Total real wealth = $100.
Distribution: A has $60; B, C, D, and E each have $10.

After:
Total real wealth = $200.
Distribution: A has $180; B, C, D, and E each have $5.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: shira
I hate to point this out, as you seem to think that you've written something noble, but who WOULDN'T rather be part of the top 1%?


Edit: I think the point of this thread is that the fraction of the economy owned by the top 1% is the greatest it's ever been, and continues to grow. And - even though the total U.S. economy has grown - the ABSOLUTE wealth of middle and lower classes has DECLINED.

Noble, since when have I ever posted something noble?

 

[bdw300]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You are confusing the false statement "the amount of wealth is static" with the quite correct statement I actually said, 'the amount of wealth is finite'.

In most instances, finite implies a limitation..a fixed maximum. There really no limitation to the amount of wealth that can be created...none. Certain things have no maximum quantity that can be attained..wealth, information, knowledge...All are potentially infinite.

The supply of wealth is not limited in the way physical commodities are.

No; it's limited in a didderent way, but it is finite.

Again...no, it is not finite. The dictionary definition of finite is 1 a: having bounds; having definite or definable limits. I'm sorry but there is no limit to the amount of productivity gains that can be achieved through innovation and new technology. New wealth will continue being created by these things long after we are dead...though obviously it will never reach infinity...Nothing actually does, except perhaps the size of the universe.

The wealth pie is not fixed.

See above. "Not fixed" is not the same as "not finite". Not fixed allows for Bill Gates to make a neat new program that increases wealth. It does not increase wealth infinitely.

Nobody said it does. You are playing word games buddy. I've seen dozens of your posts over the past few months and most make the same assumption...that because some have a large amount of wealth, other people are necessarily FORCED not to have it...that a gain for a few means a loss for the many. This is fixed pie rubbish and I'm simply pointing it out.

Let's say you're right, and they created trillions in new wealth, growing the pie. That shows the amount of wealth is not *static*. It does not show it's inifite. Trillions are not infinity.

Fine Craig. This is the 4th time you've brought up infinity and I grant you the point.. Bill Gates has created (and is creating) much wealth for the world, but NOT an infinite amount. You are correct. I'm pleased to see you making progress on the issue though. Admitting that new wealth can be created by the ideas of a businessman is certainly a first for you. All hope is not lost

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: bdw300the pie will continue to grow so long as we have an economic climate that is favorable to entrepreneurs and innovators...

The flaw in your reasoning is that although the pie (the total wealth of the U.S.) has grown, the piece of that pie owned by the average member of the middle and lower classes has gotten smaller. Thus, our current system is leaving more and more people LESS well off, even as the "haves" are doing better and better.

In a nutshell, you're arguing that the following is a good thing:

Before:
Total real wealth = $100.
Distribution: A has $60; B, C, D, and E each have $10.

After:
Total real wealth = $200.
Distribution: A has $180; B, C, D, and E each have $5.

The only problem with your assumptions is that things do progress over time. Back in feudal days the royalty owned essentially everything and the peasants fought over table scraps.

Today, familes in, say, the bottom 10% of America have access to luxuries like microwaves, air conditioning, computers, Internet, television, etc., etc. Fifty years ago that would be almost unthinkable. I'd much rather be in the lower 10% today than 50 or 100 years ago. The same will be true 50 or 100 years from now.

I'd argue with your distribution model, as well as the assumption that wealth is growing more concentrated in the hands of a few people. If that were the case, the number of millionaires and billionaires would be going down, not up.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/25/pf/record_millionaires/

http://marketplace.publicradio...ionaires_growing_fast/

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Wheezer
"concentration of wealth"

I thought communism was supposed to take care of that.

No one here is discussing eliminating the concentration of wealth; we all favor some. Some of are discussing the *excessive*, *extreme* concentration of wealth you are blind to.

opinions are like assholes everybody has one.

You in your lifetime will probably never make a billion dollars but just because you cannot does not mean that someone who is intelligent enough and capable should not have the opportunity.

Is a billion dollars *extreme* or *excessive*?

I don't think so personally but then the homeless guy on the corner who is begging for change may think so, so it is all subjective and how do you determine what is "fair"?

Why should what you think feel or believe to be correct guide what someone else can or should do?

 

[Jhhnn]

What shira offered isn't incompatible with your assertion wrt millionaires, XMan.

As a group, those at the top have grown a lot richer, while those at the midpoint and below have grown poorer.

And you ignore the information in your own links when you reach your conclusions, that the growth in the number of millionaires in 2004 was due largely to the real estate bubble, now popped. And the second piece is a remarkable fit of fluffery talking about the demand for services by the wealthy, which is inherently incapable of replacing all the american jobs lost in the manufacturing sector alone...

I mean, yeh, that's what we need more of- jobs "serving" the wealthy. How lame.

 

[piasabird]

Wealth concentrations has nothing to do with politics. Plenty of wealthy Left Wingers out there. You people are silly and ignorant that describe all weathty people or fat cat corporate CEO's as republicans. You are a silly silly people.

Wealthy people just use whatever system or political agenda that they preceive will make them wealthier. The only political persuasion they have is Greed!

 

[Jhhnn]

That's profoundly misinformed, piasabird, and symptomatic of the denial among the conservatives in the middle class as to how their opinions have been shaped, and by whom.

You obviously don't realize that much of the money contributed to charity by wealthy rightwingers doesn't go to the salvation army, at all, but to thinktanks devoted to formulating and propagating the Rightwing pitch. Like this-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...9/ST2008060900950.html

Follow the money, honey, if you want to understand how it works.

You won't find a list like that wrt Liberal donors, at all, because the structure doesn't exist on that side of the political spectrum.

One might think that middle class conservatives would find it a bit disconcerting that what they believe in has been carefully formulated, tested, and spoonfed to them by the paid pundits of the ultra-wealthy, but the state of denial is apparently so profound and all encompassing that they just can't even consider it...

So, uhh, just go back to worshipping at the altar of Ronnie! or at the new shrine, the altar of The Sarah!, just as you're supposed to do, go right on believing what you've been taught to believe... ever wonder why and how conservatives all basically look at the world the same way? How'd that happen? Why isn't there more divergence of thought, assuming there's much actual thought at all?

Too deep? Yeh, I figured as much...

Edit-typo

 

[JS80]

As long as there are anti-competitive laws, concentration of wealth is a good thing.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JS80
As long as there are anti-competitive laws, concentration of wealth is a good thing.

Uh, you presumably mean pro-competition or anti-monopoly laws.

And no, it's not. Ever hear of 'oligarchy'?

But the fact you continue to discuss it as a boolean - there's either 'concentration of wealth' or there's not - it shows you are not recognizing anything about the issue.

As has been said many times, it's a matter of how much concentration there it, where both too little and too much are counter productive.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: JS80
As long as there are anti-competitive laws, concentration of wealth is a good thing.

Uh, you presumably mean pro-competition or anti-monopoly laws.

And no, it's not. Ever hear of 'oligarchy'?

But the fact you continue to discuss it as a boolean - there's either 'concentration of wealth' or there's not - it shows you are not recognizing anything about the issue.

As has been said many times, it's a matter of how much concentration there it, where both too little and too much are counter productive.

You know something Craig...if wealth were finite, I think you and I might actually agree *in premise* on this issue. But, it isnt. And since it isnt, someone has to control it. Profit comes from all sorts of places...sales, invention, lucky investments. None of those can be controlled in a free market. So, the only way to spread out the wealth is for the government to decide who gets what. And how would THAT work? Every quarter you get a check in the mail, and those above the threshhold (whatever it may be) would get a deduction from their bank account?

Or look at it another way. Someone tossed out the idea of capping net worth. Lets say, 10 million. Now, a million gives you a pretty good lifestyle. 10 million gives you better. But if you think the two lifestyles are similar, youre sadly mistaken. So, given the wealth in this country, how would you set the limit? Hell, Im upper middle class but I have a friend solidly in lower class that tells me often "if I made what you do my problems would be over!". HA! So who decides what is enough? The government? One man's pig sty is another man's palace. And in a free society, who the FUCK is the government to decide what wealthy is?

Craig, I understand some of your premise for your position, but sadly, youre dreaming. In a FREE society, it just isnt doable. As was mentioned in another thread, you start making it disadvantageous to become wealthy, and those that create and have wealth will leave. And THAT is something this country DOESNT need. It will have a ripple effect, and affect those who benefit from the wealthy spending their millions.

 

[Ozoned]

Class envy,,,class warfare,,,it's not instinct, and it doesn't just suddenly occur to some one. It has to be invoked.

 

[Jhhnn]

Craig didn't advocate capping net worth, blackangst1, so your argument is made of straw.

And middleclass anecdotes don't carry well into the realm of the super rich, either.

Few middleclass conservatives realize just how wide the gap is between the vast majority of america and the super rich, or how large it's grown over the last 30 years. Nor are they willing to recognize the implications and the reality of those developments. As Warren Buffett points out, class warfare is ongoing, and his class, the rich class, is winning. Refernce these numbers from an unapologetically anti-tax organization-

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Pre- Reagan, the New Deal tax structure, Unions, and financial regulations created a sort of Detente, where income and wealth were distributed a lot more evenly than today, where those at the top couldn't use the power of wealth to run off with the whole pie. Differences obviously existed, just not quite so profound as we've achieved over the interim. Those who had wealth invested it and worked just as diligently towards making it grow as they do today, but the system forced them to share somewhat more. Just because they paid somewhat higher taxes didn't change their natures, or cause them to give up- they were still the same ruthless and greedy bastards they are today.

In 1980, the top 1% took home <9% of all taxable income, while today they take home >22%. They paid an average of >34% of their incomes in federal taxes back then, and even though their incomes have grown by leaps and bounds, they pay <23% today. And the sad truth is that income in the top 1% is skewed heavily towards the top, and that taxes within the top 1% are actually regressive, with the top 400 paying only 18% in federal taxes on incomes that average over $200M, the same rate as many who make ~$150K, who are merely in the top 5%. The rest of the lesser top 1% average ~23% in federal taxes.

Are you prepared to claim that's equitable? And are you prepared to deal with the consequences if that trend is allowed to continue? It's already become predatory, with the purchasing power of median incomes falling significantly over that time frame. How bad does it have to get before conservatives recognize that their view of economics is deeply flawed, something that's becoming more and more apparent in the current situation?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Craig didn't advocate capping net worth, blackangst1, so your argument is made of straw.

Never said he did. You fail at reading. I was simply addressing the issue at large. Go re-read.