For TruthMatters On Inequality

[Kathianne]

I just stumbled across this, perhaps you could glean an idea or two?

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=111307C


Debates about income inequality continue to come to the forefront. Dani
Rodrik recently claimed on his blog that market fundamentalists view "recent
trends in wealth and income inequality through pink eye glasses."
Similarly, Paul Krugman has written an entire book on inequality and even
claims there has been a return to the Gilded Age. These claims are clearly
lacking as they are framed through a false dilemma and are predicated on a
weak measure of prosperity.

Those who are concerned with income inequality often present their argument
as though there are two choices. One can either side with the market
fundamentalists whose "blind faith" claims that the market will work itself
out or they can side with "realists" who believe government intervention is
necessary to correct for this market failure. However, this is a false
dilemma. As Arnold Kling so eloquently explained, there are many of us who
concede that markets fail, but we are much more concerned with government
failure. And there is certainly reason to believe that the government will
fail to equalize economic outcomes. For example, the most frequent solution
to income inequality, and the one advocated by Krugman in nearly every
interview about his book, is higher taxes on those at the top of the income
scale. While this may give the appearance of lessening inequality, in
actuality it does very little. Essentially, it is equivalent to twisting
the ankle of the fastest runner in the world in an attempt to make other
runners faster. In no way does this make other runners faster.

Even looking beyond the likelihood of government failure, there is a far
more important reason for lacking trepidation about income inequality.
First, income inequality is a static measure of well-being. Looking at an
individual's or group's share of income at a given point in time tells us
very little. In fact, even looking at the trends in income inequality is
futile. The fact that individual's rarely remain in the same income group
throughout their lives suggests that looking that a group defined as "poor"
or "middle class" or "rich" is irrelevant.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, is the simple fact is that income
inequality is a poor measure of prosperity. In reality, economic growth and
innovation will do more to help the poor and the middle class than any
conceivable government policy.

In Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Joseph Schumpeter discusses the
benefits of capitalism at long length. Perhaps his most important argument
is the one in which he explains why invention and innovation benefit those
with lower incomes a great deal more than those who are rich. He points out
that, "it is the cheap cloth, the cheap cotton and rayon fabric, boots,
motorcars and so on that are the typical achievements of capitalist
production, and not as rule improvements that would mean much to the rich
man." Imagine, for example, washing clothes without a washing machine. To
whom did the washing machine benefit more? It was the individuals who could
not hire others to wash their clothes.

Unfortunately, Schumpeter's message seems to have fallen on deaf ears among
the supposed market realists. They have become too focused on imperfect
measures of prosperity and, to make matters worse, they advocate policies
that merely propose an aesthetic solution. Those of us with "pink eye
glasses" are not necessarily market fundamentalists; we merely recognize the
fact that there are better measures of prosperity and that there is more to
fear from the government than from markets.

Josh Hendrickson teaches economics at Wayne State University. He also
maintains the blog entitled, "The Everday Economist."

[Trigg]

IF you want an answer you might try first replacing all the big words in the article.:coffee:

[truthmatters]

Concentration of wealth is not the aim of a democracy and does not further its strength.

[Kathianne]

Concentration of wealth is not the aim of a democracy and does not further its strength.

So are we talking democracy or capitalism? Hmmm? How does income reallocation help a democracy? How might it hurt our economic system? Which is capitalism btw?

[truthmatters]

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905334

sugested reading

[Kathianne]

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905334

sugested reading

Thanks but I prefer this

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/168/2196z1azt4lpilitbdparrowc5.jpg

[OCA]

http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-American/dp/0767905334

sugested reading

No, you explain your own friggin words just exactly how it benefits a society to take from producers and give to non-producers.

[truthmatters]

A great book but there was alot of things that have happen since this was published.

[Kathianne]

A great book but there was alot of things that have happen since this was published.

Oh many things have changed, but not the basics. Somehow I think your suggested reading would fall quite short.

[truthmatters]

It pays to keep learning instead of relying only on things written 250 years ago.

[OCA]

With money comes power and with power comes money, its how it should be.

There will always be winners and there will always be losers in society, it is not anybody's responsibility and benefits a society in no way, shape or form to reapportion wealth and make everyone even.

[truthmatters]

I dont seek even I seek fair and democracy sustaining ideas.

[JohnDoe]

No, you explain your own friggin words just exactly how it benefits a society to take from producers and give to non-producers.
who are the producers, and who are the nonproducers?

can the producers produce, without the worker?

[OCA]

I dont seek even I seek fair and democracy sustaining ideas.


No you don't, you seek to punish people for working hard and achieving. You seem to think that having money and power breeds only evil and corruption, it does not.

I think you have a green streak of envy, in fact I think all wealth reapportioners have this streak.

Our Democracy and our politics has money involved influencing it and it always will, our dilemna lies in figuring out how to acquire enough money and power to get in the game............it can be and is done by individuals everyday in America.

I love the way the game is played, if earners, who by the way reinvest in the economy creating new businesses and jobs(when was the last time some poor lazy slob created a new job?), keep earning and reinvesting then we all benefit all the way down the food chain, this is a proven fact. Reapportionment has never worked...........anywhere.

[truthmatters]

No you don't, you seek to punish people for working hard and achieving. You seem to think that having money and power breeds only evil and corruption, it does not.

I think you have a green streak of envy, in fact I think all wealth reapportioners have this streak.

Our Democracy and our politics has money involved influencing it and it always will, our dilemna lies in figuring out how to acquire enough money and power to get in the game............it can be and is done by individuals everyday in America.

I love the way the game is played, if earners, who by the way reinvest in the economy creating new businesses and jobs(when was the last time some poor lazy slob created a new job?), keep earning and reinvesting then we all benefit all the way down the food chain, this is a proven fact. Reapportionment has never worked...........anywhere.


Nope you do not get to deside what and why I believe what I believe. You just continue to tell yourself those lies if you wish but they are still lies.

[truthmatters]

who are the producers, and who are the nonproducers?

can the producers produce, without the worker?


Itsa a real key to how he sees average working Americans huh?

[Kathianne]

who are the producers, and who are the nonproducers?

can the producers produce, without the worker?

So they should all be paid the same? Producers earn profits, workers earn salaries. Most of us don't like to take the risks involved with owning our own business. Things like health insurance, 401k's, etc., encourage workers to keep being workers.

[manu1959]

I dont seek even I seek fair and democracy sustaining ideas.

fair is relative.........

[OCA]

who are the producers, and who are the nonproducers?

can the producers produce, without the worker?

Producers, achievers........middle class, the rich.

Non-producers, bums, dumbasses content to work low paying dead end jobs with no personal initiative to better themselves and move up...........lazy fucks existing on welfare, both of whom bitch about producers, usually out of jealosy and envy.

Workers, if they are competent, punctual, dedicated and hardworking will move up by virtue of those traits through payraises, added benefits etc. etc.

[truthmatters]

So they should all be paid the same? Producers earn profits, workers earn salaries. Most of us don't like to take the risks involved with owning our own business. Things like health insurance, 401k's, etc., encourage workers to keep being workers.

Where did anyone sugest this?

Why do you see only in black and white?

[Kathianne]

Where did anyone sugest this?

Why do you see only in black and white?
What exactly DO you see? Besides the point. You argue for taking from the rich and giving to the non-rich, whoever any of them are. You don't say 'take and give', you say 'inequalities' and rectifying them. Same thing.

[OCA]

So they should all be paid the same? Producers earn profits, workers earn salaries. Most of us don't like to take the risks involved with owning our own business. Things like health insurance, 401k's, etc., encourage workers to keep being workers.

Exactly, these clowns who complain about corporations and the rich always seem to overlook the risk people take when starting a new venture or investing their money, they think "hey the owner just got a 2008 mercedes for 150,000, bastard should have given some of that to us"

[manu1959]

Where did anyone sugest this?

Why do you see only in black and white?

you do when you suggest that people that can not do what i can should get what i have earned .......

i am color blind ......

[truthmatters]

What exactly DO you see? Besides the point. You argue for taking from the rich and giving to the non-rich, whoever any of them are. You don't say 'take and give', you say 'inequalities' and rectifying them. Same thing.


Where did I say that ?

[OCA]

What exactly DO you see? Besides the point. You argue for taking from the rich and giving to the non-rich, whoever any of them are. You don't say 'take and give', you say 'inequalities' and rectifying them. Same thing.

Inequalities=unfair that there are rich and poor.

[truthmatters]

I advocate for supportig programs in America with tax dollars that make sound fiscal sense to improve our countries ability to compete in the world market and sustain a decent living enviroment for Americans.

[truthmatters]

Inequalities=unfair that there are rich and poor.


Nope that is just talking points from your side.

[Kathianne]

Exactly, these clowns who complain about corporations and the rich always seem to overlook the risk people take when starting a new venture or investing their money, they think "hey the owner just got a 2008 mercedes for 150,000, bastard should have given some of that to us"

Yup, lots of workers make over $200k per year, but they could make more if they go on their own. Then again, they lose that 200k until they hit the upswing, pretty high risk if you have a family.

Since WWII businesses have both chosen to give and been forced to give retirement funds, health insurance and other benefits that make it easy for workers to feel 'safe.' It does not encourage a climate of new industries. Now when an industry gets caught short and the worker hasn't been vested, or the company played with money, but now is going into bankruptcy. Whoops, the worker was taken advantage of for sure, but also taking risks he wasn't aware of.

Trying times when your employer is basically a small version of what so many want the government to be a big version of. Problem is, they are winning and don't see the parallels.

[manu1959]

Nope that is just talking points from your side.

nope it is what you are advocating .....

those that can not do for themselves must be taken care of by those that can ....

i believe in choice ..... let the rich choose to help .... don't make them

[OCA]

Nope you do not get to deside what and why I believe what I believe. You just continue to tell yourself those lies if you wish but they are still lies.


Well here is the deal, instead of linking us to some stupid fucking book or some dumb article why don't you for the first time on DP explain in your own words exactly what you mean.

I pretty much think I nailed you on this subject but i'm willing to listen.

[manu1959]

Well here is the deal, instead of linking us to some stupid fucking book or some dumb article why don't you for the first time on DP explain in your own words exactly what you mean.

I pretty much think I nailed you on this subject but i'm willing to listen.

because she has no original thoughts or opinions.....her entire personality is lifted.....

[OCA]

I advocate for supportig programs in America with tax dollars that make sound fiscal sense to improve our countries ability to compete in the world market and sustain a decent living enviroment for Americans.

And what makes sound fiscal sense to Liesmatter you all are asking? Programs that enact wealth reapportionment, Lies wants to reward non producers and contributors with basically what would amount to more welfare.

[Kathianne]

I advocate for supportig programs in America with tax dollars that make sound fiscal sense to improve our countries ability to compete in the world market and sustain a decent living enviroment for Americans.

Tell me, what is the world market and how do you think the US should be competing in it? What is a decent living environment and how should the government provide for it. What programs would make 'sound fiscal sense' in improving our country's ability to compete?

[manu1959]

I advocate for supportig programs in America with tax dollars that make sound fiscal sense to improve our countries ability to compete in the world market and sustain a decent living enviroment for Americans.

i will give you a few programs.....

close all foreign military bases.....unless they are full funded with a profit margin by the host country ..... all excess military man the us borders

cut off all forigen funding and spend it on US infrastruture and "new deal" projects thus eliminating pork barell spending.....

if you want welfare or food stamps or if you are homless....i will give you a job doing the jobs americans won't do thus displacing all the illegals which i will then arrest and deport to their home contry .....

lastly if 8 years is the term limit for a president ...same goes for every other elected office in the land.....

[Kathianne]

i will give you a few programs.....

close all foreign military bases.....unless they are full funded with a profit margin by the host country ..... all excess military man the us borders

cut off all forigen funding and spend it on US infrastruture and "new deal" projects thus eliminating pork barell spending.....

if you want welfare or food stamps or if you are homless....i will give you a job doing the jobs americans won't do thus displacing all the illegals which i will then arrest and deport to their home contry .....

lastly if 8 years is the term limit for a president ...same goes for every other elected office in the land.....

Don't forget Social Security and Medicare/caid. I think I hear sputtering?

[manu1959]

Don't forget Social Security and Medicare/caid. I think I hear sputtering?

social security should be privatized and run by goldman sachs with a third party peer review by their competitor ever quarter.....evry 8 years they switch rolls....

health care is a tough one.....the danish system actually worked pretty well....but denmark is the size of one state.....which actually may be the answer.....turn it over to the states and let them do it .... or you could use my social security model ..... or you could just use the model my company uses....each state could have a health plan they buy from one of the carriers and if you are in one of the government job programs you are covered...or your company covers you .... don't like your coverage...get a better job....

[Hobbit]

Hmm, so the title of the book is "Wealth and Democracy." There's your problem right there. A democracy is an idiotic, juvenile form of government in which ad populum arguments always win and the will of the individual is always squelched by the will of the mob. A democracy can only last until the have-nots realize they outnumber the haves and can vote for the government to take, by force from the haves and give to the have-nots. That's when society crumbles. In a constitutional republic, such as our government is supposed to be (slowly turning into an oligarchy, but that's another subject for another time), capitalism is the best wealth distribution system, as it allows individuals to directly affect how much everything is worth in the marketplace, from the goods they buy to their own labor. Some people say capitalism is unfair. Eu contraire, capitalism is the ONLY economic system that is fair, as the market can fairly assess the worth of ANY good or service without a biased, corruptible bureaucracy deciding what's fair.

[manu1959]

poof.................

[Said1]

A great book but there was alot of things that have happen since this was published.

What did you like best about it? That is, what was your favorite part, and why? :laugh2:

[avatar4321]

What exactly DO you see? Besides the point. You argue for taking from the rich and giving to the non-rich, whoever any of them are. You don't say 'take and give', you say 'inequalities' and rectifying them. Same thing.

good question. She never does answer this does she

[darin]

I get the feeling TM misses a KEY element between the "haves" and the have-nots (the workers/laborers).

To become a 'have' (business owner), one almost-always starts as a 'have not'. A 'worker'. A blue-collar, low-earning, sometimes-hungry person.

After HARD WORK, a little luck, the proper motivation, and HARD WORK, the have-not becomes a 'has-most-things'. That's where I am now. I have most things I need. I live comfortably. The diference between ME and the 'haves' is education and effort - the latter moreso.

I've never met a white-collar guy or gal; I mean a VERY WEALTHY person - who got there without putting in their dues. Without first going hungry a time or two.

Now - in TM's fantasy, the newly-formed Communist States of America has removed from me is the golden-ring. Removed from me is the idea - the DREAM - I could better my state through my OWN efforts. TM's CSA would mean my place in life is MORE determined by The State than by Me.

No thanks. I prefer Freedom - which means, at times, the freedom to FAIL.

[Said1]

I get the feeling TM misses a KEY element between the "haves" and the have-nots (the workers/laborers).

To become a 'have' (business owner), one almost-always starts as a 'have not'. A 'worker'. A blue-collar, low-earning, sometimes-hungry person.

After HARD WORK, a little luck, the proper motivation, and HARD WORK, the have-not becomes a 'has-most-things'. That's where I am now. I have most things I need. I live comfortably. The diference between ME and the 'haves' is education and effort - the latter moreso.

I've never met a white-collar guy or gal; I mean a VERY WEALTHY person - who got there without putting in their dues. Without first going hungry a time or two.

Now - in TM's fantasy, the newly-formed Communist States of America has removed from me is the golden-ring. Removed from me is the idea - the DREAM - I could better my state through my OWN efforts. TM's CSA would mean my place in life is MORE determined by The State than by Me.

No thanks. I prefer Freedom - which means, at times, the freedom to FAIL.


Not only that, but the sense of accomplishment and pride is removed when things are given. I seem to recall her bragging about being poor too. Good thing her husband makes 'loads'. :laugh2:

[carbonbased]

I don't know a whole lot about economy...

But it seems to be a correlation between monetary asset, power and responsability. If those ratios are tampered with, strange effect might occur?

Moving money to people not willing to take responsability accordingly seems bad.
Demanding responsability from people with no power is totally inefficient.

[Hobbit]

I have a hypothesis. If all wealth in the world were scooped up and evenly distributed among all people living on this planet, then left alone, within a generation, all of the wealth would be right back where it was.

[truthmatters]

I am interested in programs which promote the health and wellbeig of our country.

Ensuring our populace is not starving , Is educated well enough to compete in the emerging global market and is healthy enough to keep the costs of medical care down for all of us.

Many here like to Pretend that is communism which is completely false.

All of these things would add to our abilty to compete and dominate the coming global economy. They would also ensure a decent life for all Americans and add to the tax coffers in the end.

[LOki]

I have a hypothesis. If all wealth in the world were scooped up and evenly distributed among all people living on this planet, then left alone, within a generation, all of the wealth would be right back where it was.I'm not sure you're exactly right, but close enough for government work. ;)

Certainly, wealth distribution would have exactly the same "unequal" appearance that it has now--there would be few that have a boatload, and a boatload that has few.

[manu1959]

I have a hypothesis. If all wealth in the world were scooped up and evenly distributed among all people living on this planet, then left alone, within a generation, all of the wealth would be right back where it was.

all you have to do is look a lottery winners to test your hypothesis......

[truthmatters]

It may not end up in the same exact hands but it would end up consolidating again.

This has been seen over and over throughout history. This is why the government of a Democracy that wants to survive has to look to regulations which keep the masses protected from those who are o the recieving ends of the consolidation. They seek to consolidate it into fewer and fewer hands until someone "wins" and is a vertual King. I dont mind people excelling through hard work but when their great grandaughter can buy and sell peoples lives because her great grandfather excelled I start to get pissed.

[manu1959]

It may not end up in the same exact hands but it would end up consolidating again.

This has been seen over and over throughout history. This is why the government of a Democracy that wants to survive has to look to regulations which keep the masses protected from those who are o the recieving ends of the consolidation. They seek to consolidate it into fewer and fewer hands until someone "wins" and is a vertual King. I dont mind people excelling through hard work but when their great grandaughter can buy and sell peoples lives because her great grandfather excelled I start to get pissed.

ya ted kennedy piss me off too.....

[truthmatters]

Do you only get pissed at people who have Ds behind their names?

[manu1959]

Do you only get pissed at people who have Ds behind their names?

nope....but i really wish you would get better grades.....

[truthmatters]

nope....but i really wish you would get better grades.....


Thats cute but it doesnt answer the question now does it?

[Kathianne]

Do you only get pissed at people who have Ds behind their names?

Not at all, just ask RSR or NM or OCA or Jimnyc or Pale. :laugh2:

[truthmatters]

Kathy you may very well not be that way but I think it was pretty clear that the comment was directed at manu1959.

[Kathianne]

Kathy you may very well not be that way but I think it was pretty clear that the comment was directed at manu1959.

and often his has joined me in 'questioning' some of those and others. :cheers2:

[manu1959]

Thats cute but it doesnt answer the question now does it?

what part of "nope" didn't you understand ....

[truthmatters]

and often his has joined me in 'questioning' some of those and others. :cheers2:


Not in any contact he has had with me.

Perhaps you could direct me to where he has?

[manu1959]

Not in any contact he has had with me.

Perhaps you could direct me to where he has?

why does it matter who i take the piss out of ....

what do want to do pass a regulation so it is more fair .....

[truthmatters]

I care about the survival of our democracy. I support perfectly legal protections of our economy.

[OCA]

I care about the survival of our democracy. I support perfectly legal protections of our economy.

In other words you look to punish earners, producers and contributors.

I know you think you are smart phrasing things the way you do but but you are as transparent as saran wrap.

Why do you get pissed at old money? And why do you classify people with money, old and new, as "buying and selling lives"? Has it ever occurred to you that people with money might not be "buying and selling people's lives as you so eloquently put it?

With money comes power and with power comes money, its the way it should be as I don't want some dumbass who earns 300 a week having power and being able to make monumental decisions.