PDA

View Full Version : SP - wealth gap damaging the economy



Dave Gray
08-05-2014, 07:35 PM
Here is the article: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-the-wealth-gap-is-damaging-the-u-s-economy/

I don't think the very wealthy much care. They have assets spread globally in companies seeking tax breaks elsewhere.

Dave Gray
08-05-2014, 08:13 PM
An effective troll then!

ron ll
08-05-2014, 08:16 PM
An effective troll then!

Yup. Sucked me right in. I was expecting a wink and a ya betcha from our favorite maverick.

hanleyclifford
08-05-2014, 08:33 PM
It's actually a damn good article.

David G
08-05-2014, 10:07 PM
I hope enough voices join the chorus to reverse the pendulum's swing further and further into the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism. It's long overdue.

Dave Gray
08-05-2014, 10:23 PM
I am happy to see some people have spent time to read the article.

Waddie
08-05-2014, 11:14 PM
Helping Americans gain more education, such as college degrees, could help narrow the gap and expand the economy, given that wages of college grads are double that of high school grads, S&P notes. While raising the minimum wage would lift 900,000 above the poverty line, it also carries a tradeoff, such as the potential for some job losses, the report added.

So if Americans weren't so dumb they would be more wealthy. Makes sense if there are a great surplus of good paying jobs requiring college degrees out there. Oh, wait, 25% of college grads are underemployed and living in their parent's basement......... many of them work at Starbucks and Walmart........

Thomas Piketty is an apologist for his own disastrous policies in France.

In a global economy there isn't anything much that can be done to curb inequality.

And we've seen inequality play out before. Here's a good article on the topic;

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/15/capitalism%E2%80%99s-deeper-problem/

regards,
Waddie

Keith Wilson
08-06-2014, 07:05 AM
Good article. Although it should be obvious, it isn't to everyone.


In a global economy there isn't anything much that can be done to curb inequality.You had better pray that this isn't true. Increasing inequality, if it is not reversed by changes in policy and law, almost always ends with mobs of angry men with guns, and bodies hanging from lampposts.

However, I think you're dead wrong. There are many things one can do do decrease inequality; look at most of the rest of the developed world. Look at history What happened between 1935 and 1980? The increase in economic inequality since then was a result of deliberate decisions. Economies are human constructions, not forces of nature.

http://tommytoy.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f3a4072c970b0153918ab6a1970b-550wi

hanleyclifford
08-06-2014, 07:30 AM
The Oligarchy will come down - one way or another.

Too Little Time
08-06-2014, 08:10 AM
I am happy to see some people have spent time to read the article.

I had read the S&P article, but only to see how they defined income. They include capital gains in income. And only in the footnotes do they make it clear that "capital gains" means "realized capital gains."


The key to getting America back on a path to more sustainable growth is boosting the purchasing power of the middle class and drawing people out of poverty, S&P wrote.

Some people who post here are in the 1%. They try to give the perception that they are "middle class." Are they in for a surprise.


The key to getting America back on a path to more sustainable growth is boosting the purchasing power of the middle class and drawing people out of poverty, S&P wrote.

Without massive changes in the current distribution of wealth this will increase the wealth and income gaps.

Waddie
08-06-2014, 10:34 AM
Keith Wilson; You had better pray that this isn't true

Maybe you better read this article.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/15/cap...eeper-problem/





(http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/15/capitalism%E2%80%99s-deeper-problem/)

Keith Wilson
08-06-2014, 10:55 AM
I did. I think he's wrong. History shows clearly that capitalism's tendency toward concentration of wealth can be controlled, if we have the political will to do it. This requires controlling the influence of wealth in politics. It's not easy, but it is possible. The alternatives are far worse.

Osborne Russell
08-06-2014, 11:18 AM
I did. I think he's wrong. History shows clearly that capitalism's tendency toward concentration of wealth can be controlled, if we have the political will to do it. This requires controlling the influence of wealth in politics. It's not easy, but it is possible. The alternatives are far worse.

Yes, and it seems to me that you have resolve to do it constantly. You can't just do it once and go back to looking at the L.L. Bean catalog.

David G
08-06-2014, 11:22 AM
I did. I think he's wrong. History shows clearly that capitalism's tendency toward concentration of wealth can be controlled, if we have the political will to do it. This requires controlling the influence of wealth in politics. It's not easy, but it is possible. The alternatives are far worse.

Just so. The tendency is inherent. But we've managed a balance for the vast majority of our history. And, on those occasions when we've swung too far toward laissez-faire, we've managed to swing back before the Bastille is stormed and heads begin appearing on pikes. Today's Republican party seems absolutely All In on helping the monied interests break that good and remarkable record.

Waddie
08-06-2014, 06:29 PM
Sorry, guys, I gotta disagree here. We haven't "balanced" wealth for most of our history. In fact, wealth inequality is the norm for most of history, and in the few times we've attempted to equalize it we didn't even come close. The gap's always been fairly large between the 1% and the rest of us. It's just now getting larger, like it did back a couple hundred years ago during the first global economy.

Now I'm sure your weapon of choice against this trend is to use the blunt tool of government to re-distribute the wealth but that didn't work very well last time either, if you read the article I linked. It was other forces that finally made some headway, but then we got inequality based on socialism, and now good old capitalistic inequality again.

They've already tried your approach (government) in France, where it hasn't worked out too well. They're not impressed with Piketty any more. His policies, the ones he advocated for and helped get adopted, like a huge tax on wealth, have tanked the French economy, encouraged expansion in government spending and helped million of Frenchmen get into the unemployment line. And the rich are simply moving out, if not physically, they are sending their money to be babysat elsewhere. So they're giving up on the 75% tax on the rich....... it just didn't get the job done......

For you see. NO ONE COUNTRY can successfully legislate change against the mobility of great wealth in a global world. No one country can stand alone. If there is to be any real progress in wealth equality it will have to come through the joint efforts of almost every country working together, so that no safe havens are left. A tall order and probably impossible, at least in our generation. But as the globe gets smaller, and perhaps people recognize their common interests, it could happen. But my money's on revolution first. Too bad we signed all those "free trade" agreements which ignored all this.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/15/capitalism%E2%80%99s-deeper-problem/

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/24/france-finally-abandons-that-75-percent-tax-on-the-wealthy/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/28/france_thomas_piketty_capital_in_the_twenty_first_ century

Dave Gray
08-06-2014, 07:12 PM
I am not sure I am impressed by this article, http://billmoyers.com/2014/07/15/cap...eeper-problem/. The fun thing about history is, there is a lot of it and you can generalize and draw parallels however you wish and you won't necessarily be wrong. When I first read this article it struck me as an essay for college credit. The feeling persisted the second time around.

Too Little Time
08-06-2014, 08:37 PM
I did. I think he's wrong. History shows clearly that capitalism's tendency toward concentration of wealth can be controlled, if we have the political will to do it. This requires controlling the influence of wealth in politics. It's not easy, but it is possible. The alternatives are far worse.

Show us a plan thart makes it possible.

Some numbers:

Wealth of the top 1% (10%): $30 ($60) trillion.

Annual growth of that wealth $2 ($4) trillion.

Distributed among the 100 million families $20K ($40K) each year to each family.


And that is just to keep the wealth distribution about constant.

Big task.

ccmanuals
08-06-2014, 08:45 PM
The one piece missing from this conversation is not so much the wealth gap, which of course has been growing, but the disappearing middle class. The middle class is what made this country great and we need to understand why it's diminishing.