How Unequal Can America Get Before We Snap?

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

Did you even watch the video?

Do you believe he was lecturing to the poor at Berkeley?

Berkeley costs about $32,646 per year.

That means that a 4 year degree from Berkeley costs about $130,584.

And how many of those people are borrowing that money?

I wonder how many millionaires were in that crowd hmmmmm...

His rubber band example about the snap, is absurdity at it's finest.

He brushed off every legitimate argument right off the start without actually being able to brush them off.

He openly declares wealth to be relative pretty much, which is just stupid. Wealth shouldn't be relative. It should be absolute.

His entire premise is based off the assumption that wealth inequality is bad, he never explains why it is bad.

One of the very first arguments he mentioned against him, destroys his entire point.

The poor today, are richer than the rich 150 years ago. End of argument. Who cares if the poor today can't remember what life was like 150 years ago. They are better off, end of story, and if they want to rebel for more, then they are in the wrong.

 

[Vylo]

Suddenly Obama is not so bad .America is a crazy place and probably where hell is .

Syria has that on lock down ATM. Also see Nigeria.

 

[Aldebaran]

staff edit.

Actually, I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that Obama encourages people to be envious of each other, and then he uses that envy to make promises to fulfill their envy with what they want.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Ah, the ole "the rich don't pay their fair share" argument.

Its not fair share it is no share in untaxable earned income . Now put 100 billionaires together and go trillions of untaxable earned income. Plain robbery right? A poor man would do the same except a 1040 tax bracket is automatic (Same Billionaires Company in no choice for the laborer) deductions .

 

[seashale76]

Part of the issue is how the US deliberately let things like textile laws expire back in the 90s. The result has been that a lot of those jobs were eliminated here in this country- and companies moved over seas. Great for Asia- not so great for the people that need those jobs here at home. The move to global trade agreements and corporate greed has really made income and class disparity an even worse problem. It seems that nothing came along to replace those old factory jobs that could provide a living wage for people.

Maneuvering laws back into place and perhaps giving tax breaks for corporations to move back to the US would be a start.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Snap coming soon!!!
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/quantitative-easing-was-a-bust-lets-try-higher-wages-instead/

 

[morningstar2651]

And how many of those people are borrowing that money?

It takes high income to take out loans that large.

His rubber band example about the snap, is absurdity at it's finest.

Elaborate on this.

He brushed off every legitimate argument right off the start without actually being able to brush them off.

Did he brush them off or not?

He openly declares wealth to be relative pretty much, which is just stupid. Wealth shouldn't be relative. It should be absolute.

I think I'll listen to the expert economist rather than the amateur. Can you can explain why he's wrong or do you just WISH he was wrong. Your wishing doesn't make it so.

His entire premise is based off the assumption that wealth inequality is bad, he never explains why it is bad.

He probably expects his audience to already understand the basics.

The poor today, are richer than the rich 150 years ago. End of argument. Who cares if the poor today can't remember what life was like 150 years ago. They are better off, end of story, and if they want to rebel for more, then they are in the wrong.

Just because you're smarter than a caveman doesn't mean you're smart.

 

[pat34lee]

Has there ever been a time in recorded history where the few didn't own or control the majority of resources?
Kings, queens, other rulers and conquerors. Today, politicians, and corporate owners.

Did you know that 10 corporations control almost everything you buy?
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy-2012-4

Chances are, the majority of all of them are owned by a few families.

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

It takes high income to take out loans that large.

Elaborate on this.


Did he brush them off or not?

I think I'll listen to the expert economist rather than the amateur. Can you can explain why he's wrong or do you just WISH he was wrong. Your wishing doesn't make it so.

He probably expects his audience to already understand the basics.

Just because you're smarter than a caveman doesn't mean you're smart.

1) You can be poor and take out huge loans. When I took out over 200,000 for college and my JD, my parents made 20,000 a year, and I wasn't working so my income was zero.

2) He did not brush them off. He likes to think he did.

3) He spent 20 minutes talking about how there are arguments that wealth inequality isn't bad, then he goes on to ignore those arguments and talk about how wealth inequality is bad.

4) Plenty of expert economists think he wrongs, anyone from the Chicago school of thought, would disagree with this semi-keysian clown.

5) Intelligence is also for the most part, absolute. Caveman and humans aren't even the same on a genetic tree, comparing the two is stupid. All our grades are objectively based in lower education, everyone can get As, only higher education curves sometimes, and that if anything has to do with competition, rather than absolute intelligence.

Also intelligence and wealth are different things. The bottom line is, all this argument just stems from a evil part of human nature.

The envy that the poor shows the rich is wrong.
Just because it's human nature doesn't mean we nourish it or give it any respect. Rape is probably some part of our nature too, and yet we don't accept it at all, why should we accept the desire for humans to take things from people who have more?

 

[morningstar2651]

Has there ever been a time in recorded history where the few didn't own or control the majority of resources?
Kings, queens, other rulers and conquerors. Today, politicians, and corporate owners.

Did you know that 10 corporations control almost everything you buy?
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-10-corporations-control-almost-everything-you-buy-2012-4

Chances are, the majority of all of them are owned by a few families.

I understand this, and I'm not arguing for income or wealth equality. I'm arguing against extreme wealth and income inequality.

The Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed in 1906 that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. This observation, now known as the Pareto principle, applies to a lot of things.

But like I said, inequality itself isn't the problem - the growing inequality is the problem. If wealth diverges faster than the economy grows, then the vast majority of people are worse off as a result.

If you need a crash course on GDP and inequality in the context of macroeconomics then I recommend heading over to Khan Academy. Their videos are free.

 

[morningstar2651]

1) You can be poor and take out huge loans. When I took out over 200,000 for college and my JD, my parents made 20,000 a year, and I wasn't working so my income was zero.

2) He did not brush them off. He likes to think he did.

3) He spent 20 minutes talking about how there are arguments that wealth inequality isn't bad, then he goes on to ignore those arguments and talk about how wealth inequality is bad.

4) Plenty of expert economists think he wrongs, anyone from the Chicago school of thought, would disagree with this semi-keysian clown.

Is that like Keynesian economics? Tell me what this Chicago clowns know that this keysian clown does not.

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

Is that like Keynesian economics? Tell me what this Chicago clowns know that this keysian clown does not.

"What The Inequality Warriors Really Want"

http://www.hoover.org/research/what-inequality-warriors-really-want

Mr. Cochrane is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

There ya go, you don't want to take my word for it but the word of a expert economist. Maybe a professor of finance at one of the top 5 MBA schools, and a senior fellow at the Standard's Hoover Institution will convince you, that Mr. Berkeley visiting professor is talking out of his behind.

 

[morningstar2651]

"What The Inequality Warriors Really Want"

http://www.hoover.org/research/what-inequality-warriors-really-want

Mr. Cochrane is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

The word Keynesian appears once in that entire article. Are you even trying?

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

The word Keynesian appears once in that entire article. Are you even trying?

You realize the one of the strongest arguments for wealth inequality is through the idea of "sticky wages" and through the fact that the poor spend more. That is the standard argument behind why wealth inequality is bad for the economy.

The article clearly addresses, that even assuming those two premises are true (both which are Keynesian economic viewpoints), curing wealth inequality will still not improve either.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, if you can't see how the video spouts the basic premise of a Keynesian ideology, you must never have studied both the Chicago school of thought and contrasted it with a Keynesian ideology.

 

[morningstar2651]

You realize the one of the strongest arguments for wealth inequality is through the idea of "sticky wages" and through the fact that the poor spend more. That is the standard argument behind why wealth inequality is bad for the economy.

The article clearly addresses, that even assuming those two premises are true (both which are Keynesian economic viewpoints), curing wealth inequality will still not improve either.

You are just arguing for the sake of arguing, if you can't see how the video spouts the basic premise of a Keynesian ideology, you must never have studied both the Chicago school of thought and contrasted it with a Keynesian ideology.

You're making a lot of assumptions.

 

[FanthatSpark]

"What The Inequality Warriors Really Want"

http://www.hoover.org/research/what-inequality-warriors-really-want

Mr. Cochrane is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

There ya go, you don't want to take my word for it but the word of a expert economist. Maybe a professor of finance at one of the top 5 MBA schools, and a senior fellow at the Standard's Hoover Institution will convince you, that Mr. Berkeley visiting professor is talking out of his behind.

Going to post first paragraph in your link and debunk it.

Progressives decry inequality as the world’s most pressing economic problem. In its name, they urge much greater income and wealth taxation, especially of the reviled top 1% of earners, along with more government spending and controls—higher minimum wages, “living” wages, comparable worth directives, CEO pay caps, etc

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/16/quantitative-easing-was-a-bust-lets-try-higher-wages-instead/

This being real life scenario in what is happening as we type I beg to differ that my reality is just that...reallity.

 

[classicalhero]

Taxing the 1% more in spite of the fact that they already pay most of the income taxes. There is only so much more money you can squeeze out of people before they take their money else where and you are left with a big hole in taxation.

 

[rambot]

Extreme Income inequality is a DETRIMENT to the capitalist system. At some point the people paranoid about socialism will realize that; either to the system's demise or through healthy changes in the system that spread income in a way that is of benefit to the system.

 

[rambot]

"What The Inequality Warriors Really Want"

http://www.hoover.org/research/what-inequality-warriors-really-want

Mr. Cochrane is a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.

There ya go, you don't want to take my word for it but the word of a expert economist. Maybe a professor of finance at one of the top 5 MBA schools, and a senior fellow at the Standard's Hoover Institution will convince you, that Mr. Berkeley visiting professor is talking out of his behind.

The "when all is said and done quote" from the article:

So when all is said and done, the inequality warriors want the government to confiscate wealth and control incomes so that wealthy individuals cannot influence politics in directions they don’t like.

So the problem is that poor people would have an ACTUAL voice in how the government is run and what kind of benefits the government could do for them instead of SOLELY having rich people have that influence (creating an opportunity to make themselves richer [instead of poor people wanting the same thing]. That sounds like a living hell for the 1%ers. Good thing they don't have to worry about that right? I mean, stupid poor people; why should THEY get any control over the politics that govern them?

All of the possible points he made in this article (some admittedly pretty sound) are undermined by the ultimate takeaway that makes this guy sounds like a movie villain.

Edit:
And the last paragraph:

Prosperity should be our goal. And the secrets of prosperity are simple and old-fashioned: property rights, rule of law, economic and political freedom. A limited government providing competent institutions. Confiscatory taxation and extensive government control of incomes are not on the list.

The fact is he does NOT want prosperity to be "our" goal in the American "inclusive" sense. He wants rich people to get/stay rich; that's all. And it's funny that "confiscatory taxation and extensive government control of incomes" don't equate to prosperity for him....and yet there are more than a few countries where many citizens would consider themselves prosperous with those exact things in place.

 

[FanthatSpark]

Taxing the 1% more in spite of the fact that they already pay most of the income taxes. There is only so much more money you can squeeze out of people before they take their money else where and you are left with a big hole in taxation.

Nope. Taxable income who made billions here plays hide and go seek in offshore accounts so it can not be taxed . Question. What was the incentive for hostile take over of this government? 90% a 1%ter paid before JFK, good incentive that eh? Thus, a long term take over of this government that has taken years to implement termed long term investment. Each President and congress minutely tipped the scale in bumps . Today it is 80% middle and poor pay 20% 1%ter. Watch Robert Reich's video inequality as a real live Multi Millionaire tells you how he pays 18%.