Do you think we have a crisis with income equality and/or economic mobility?

[Direckshun]

Both are currently at all time lows.

Do you believe we have a severe problem on this front, and what specifically do you believe is the solution to rectifying it?

I look forward to an illuminating thread.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Just one point, I'd like to address. Natural resources are not really as important as they are made out to be. Liberty is the bigger factor. Russia was abundant in such resources but didn't really use them as well as America. Same for South America. Hong Kong has little in natural resources yet they prosper.

People are the largest natural resource. Suppress them and economies will falter.

I don’t disagree. There were certainly smart, hard working, innovative, exceptional people and the Government did a fair job of staying out of the way for quite a while but, I think both the left and the right kid their selves to think Americans simply by birth are somehow endowed with greater intellect, work ethic and so forth than our competitors in other countries. I would argue that so many of us had it easy as children, and spoiled our children that the work ethic and self discipline to forgo immediate gratification and save for future hard times are concepts that while not dead, are at least taking a nap. For what it is worth I was raised to believe in Mom Apple Pie and Chevrolet I just don’t see the reality living up to the legend.

[FishingRod]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

There's a tremendous amount of truth to this, though I note that American industriousness and ingenuity helped them tap the natural wealth that the new country had to offer in a way that allowed them to maximize its potential.

Additional intelligent/aggressive decisions that led to a vastly stronger, wealthier United States including purchasing Alaska and conquering/taking the Southwestern US from Mexico.

I agree. Not saying it was nice of us to take ½ of Mexico just because we could but, it certainly was profitable.

[KC native]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Of course we do. It's one of the side effect of Keynesianism. And with QE, we're only making it worse. Not to mention the bailouts and etc. Leftists think there is a magic wand (or law) that can be waved (passed) to fix it, but what needed to happen was the liquidation of all the bad money in the economy and a new economy rising to take its place.

Leftists didn't want to take that medicine, though, and now they complain about the sickness that they've brought on and want to blame it on everyone but themselves and the broken system they rescued.

How are Keynesian policies responsible for income inequality? Same question regarding QE too.

Be specific too ****stick. None of your typical bullshit "free market. mises." BEP style rhetoric.

[FishingRod]

Back to the original question which kind of triggered my long windedness.

I would probably argue that the gap is not the biggest it has ever been but, the gap itself is nowhere near as relevant as what the Standard of living of the Middle class on down is. The argument can easily be made that the Average person has a standard of living at an all time high. Bigger houses, Better cars, More varieties of foods, More entertainment and information. better health , more of a safety net for the less fortunate.
Let’s say that Direckshun makes $250,000 a year and I make $25,000 and the government implements or repeals a policy that puts $50,000 more per year in direkshun’s pocket and adds $4000 to my own. The difference between our incomes is now even greater but I’m better off. If we changed this scenario to something that brought his income down to $150,0000 and raised mine to $28k the gap would be much smaller but, I assure you I would choose the first example over the 2nd because what I make matters to me and what he makes does not.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

Oh, now this is rich coming from a person who claims that we don't have a form of democracy....

This shows your reading in-comprehension makes you post such a mis-comprehension.


Note: I said we were a representative republic. That means people vote for their reps. reps who don't know, let alone follow the Constitution. However, elections do make us a democracy per se. You have your definitions skewed.

Oh and you're hijacking--AGAIN.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

This shows your reading in-comprehension makes you post such a mis-comprehension.


Note: I said we were a representative republic. That means people vote for their reps. reps who don't know, let alone follow the Constitution. However, elections do make us a democracy per se. You have your definitions skewed.

Oh and you're hijacking--AGAIN.

No we do not have a democracy, direct or indirect.

Who wrote this?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Donger

No we do not have a democracy, direct or indirect.

Who wrote this?

Just answerin' you, not going into full hijack. Bump your other thread where we argued this or start a new one.

In the meantime:




^^ The above will be cut and pasted into any more posts/threads on this topic.^^

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Just answerin' you, not going into full hijack. Bump your other thread where we argued this or start a new one.

Don't tell me what to do, neo-fascist. You don't own or run this board.

[BucEyedPea]

Did you say something? Well, it doesn't matter, I'm on my way out to the sponge docks for some Greek food for lunch with some friends. c'ya!

[BucEyedPea]

Okaaaay! I'm back. Donger, whether or not we're a democracy or a representative republic is not relevant to needing the people to change. Either form, requires people who haven't bought into central planning or entitlements.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Both are currently at all time lows.

Do you believe we have a severe problem on this front, and what specifically do you believe is the solution to rectifying it?

I look forward to an illuminating thread.

There is only one true way to eliminate income inequality and economic mobility and that is through force. Now what ideaology condones that? You are trying yet again to get people to side with or at least agree with this ideaology without actually calling it that as it would automatically be stigmatized.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by tredadda

There is only one true way to eliminate income inequality and economic mobility and that is through force. Now what ideaology condones that? You are trying yet again to get people to side with or at least agree with this ideaology without actually calling it that as it would automatically be stigmatized.

Nobody is trying to eliminate it and calling it a crisis is extreme; However, do you feel the US should have less economic mobility than a majority of our peers? That certainly doesn't promote healthy economic competition. I'm not for this thread as I think it's a multi-layered issue that has a ton of factors to it. It's not like you can vote for a change or two that will greatly change the status quo.

[tredadda]

Originally Posted by ChiliConCarnage

Nobody is trying to eliminate it and calling it a crisis is extreme; However, do you feel the US should have less economic mobility than a majority of our peers? That certainly doesn't promote healthy economic competition. I'm not for this thread as I think it's a multi-layered issue that has a ton of factors to it. It's not like you can vote for a change or two that will greatly change the status quo.

I do not feel the US should have less economic mobility than a majority of our peers.

[GloucesterChief]

Income inequality is not a problem if lots of wealth is being generated. Lack of income mobility is a problem, and that problem is usually government hamstringing businesses and preventing people from entering the market reducing competition for the already entrenched.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by tredadda

There is only one true way to eliminate income inequality and economic mobility and that is through force. Now what ideaology condones that? You are trying yet again to get people to side with or at least agree with this ideaology without actually calling it that as it would automatically be stigmatized.

Are you referring to collectivism such as socialism/communism?