On October 06 2012 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
Oh yeah?
Explain me how speculating on derived product, or any purely financial speculative movement helps capital to reach anything at all? I'm not talking of raw materials: I know it's supposed to make the market more fluid, which would actually be very true if it was done in reasonable proportions, which is far from being the case.
If a company's stock price goes up it makes it easier / cheaper for them to raise money. That means more real investments the company can make become viable, and so more real investment happens. The converse is true that if a company's stock goes down it makes it harder for them to make real investments. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - obviously we don't want companies over investing any more than we want them under investing.
Derivatives like calls and puts play similar but different roles. Ultimately the derivative will do the same thing - the buying or selling of a stock. But the structure of the derivative gives the market greater efficiency in price discovery - finding the 'right' price for a financial asset that will limit both under and over investing.
You can start by watching this video:
And then, you will have everything you need to know about how wonderful speculation is and how much it helps society: http://www.finance-watch.org/
I don't see what the problem is. Ten years ago we were complaining how speculators made prices too low. Now we're complaining that prices are too high. Speculators bet that prices will both go up and down... they help find the right price and reduce volatility. Unless you can present some evidence that the market prices is the wrong price then I don't see where the discussion can go.
? I think you didn't watch the video and didn't look at the website.
On October 06 2012 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
Oh yeah?
Explain me how speculating on derived product, or any purely financial speculative movement helps capital to reach anything at all? I'm not talking of raw materials: I know it's supposed to make the market more fluid, which would actually be very true if it was done in reasonable proportions, which is far from being the case.
If a company's stock price goes up it makes it easier / cheaper for them to raise money. That means more real investments the company can make become viable, and so more real investment happens. The converse is true that if a company's stock goes down it makes it harder for them to make real investments. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - obviously we don't want companies over investing any more than we want them under investing.
Derivatives like calls and puts play similar but different roles. Ultimately the derivative will do the same thing - the buying or selling of a stock. But the structure of the derivative gives the market greater efficiency in price discovery - finding the 'right' price for a financial asset that will limit both under and over investing.
And then, you will have everything you need to know about how wonderful speculation is and how much it helps society: http://www.finance-watch.org/
I don't see what the problem is. Ten years ago we were complaining how speculators made prices too low. Now we're complaining that prices are too high. Speculators bet that prices will both go up and down... they help find the right price and reduce volatility. Unless you can present some evidence that the market prices is the wrong price then I don't see where the discussion can go.
? I think you didn't watch the video and didn't look at the website.
The video provided no evidence that markets aren't working properly or that speculators are having a negative effect. The video just speculated that they are making things bad.
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape.
If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets.
Since we are talking about the widening gap between rich and poor, here is an interesting fact to consider.
The Washington DC region has emerged from the recession looking even more affluent compared with the rest of the country, boasting seven of the 10 counties with the highest household incomes in the nation, new census numbers show.
Ten of the 15 richest counties in the nation are in the Washington suburbs, with Loudoun and Fairfax counties in the No. 1 and No. 2 spots, according to the website Main Street [...]
As other areas of the nation saw huge job losses and declining property values during the recession, the D.C. suburbs maintained their stability, in part because of government, defense and technology jobs.
Good to see my predictions have thus far come true- Debates will be one sided every time (including and esp the VP debates) in favor of the GOP--Obama will win Ohio and thus the election.
On October 06 2012 04:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:
On October 06 2012 02:40 sam!zdat wrote: Doesn't Romney's plan involve one of those magical things where you cut taxes and the economy grows so you get more taxes? i.e. increase revenue by cutting taxes? Maybe that's the answer
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
Oh yeah?
Explain me how speculating on derived product, or any purely financial speculative movement helps capital to reach anything at all? I'm not talking of raw materials: I know it's supposed to make the market more fluid, which would actually be very true if it was done in reasonable proportions, which is far from being the case.
If a company's stock price goes up it makes it easier / cheaper for them to raise money. That means more real investments the company can make become viable, and so more real investment happens. The converse is true that if a company's stock goes down it makes it harder for them to make real investments. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - obviously we don't want companies over investing any more than we want them under investing.
Derivatives like calls and puts play similar but different roles. Ultimately the derivative will do the same thing - the buying or selling of a stock. But the structure of the derivative gives the market greater efficiency in price discovery - finding the 'right' price for a financial asset that will limit both under and over investing.
And then, you will have everything you need to know about how wonderful speculation is and how much it helps society: http://www.finance-watch.org/
I don't see what the problem is. Ten years ago we were complaining how speculators made prices too low. Now we're complaining that prices are too high. Speculators bet that prices will both go up and down... they help find the right price and reduce volatility. Unless you can present some evidence that the market prices is the wrong price then I don't see where the discussion can go.
? I think you didn't watch the video and didn't look at the website.
The video provided no evidence that markets aren't working properly or that speculators are having a negative effect. The video just speculated that they are making things bad.
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
Your basis of comparison is Bangladesh, an incredibly unique country facing a host of idiosyncratic challenges in addition to being ranked 1st worldwide in number of starving children? Come on, you can do better than that.
well we all know 30 years ago the U.S. was like bangladesh.
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape.
If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets.
Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982, on both an absolute and a relative basis.
Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects.
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
Why do people do this? "Hey, we're better than that random third-world country, so we must be doing well!"
How about we gain some actual perspective and compare ourselves to countries that are, oh I don't know, at least a little more culturally, politically, and/or economically similar? Like, oh I don't know, Canada, Germany, Australia, Finland, etc.
On October 06 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote: I love it when people defend capitalism by saying things like "hey, it's better than Bangladesh."
Makes my job so much easier.
His argument is that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth. Focusing on the specifics of the nation of Bangladesh is to completely ignore the central point he was trying to make. I guess your job is to beat up straw men.
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
Why do people do this? "Hey, we're better than that random third-world country, so we must be doing well!"
How about we gain some actual perspective and compare ourselves to countries that are, oh I don't know, at least a little more culturally, politically, and/or economically similar? Like, oh I don't know, Canada, Germany, Australia, Finland, etc.
The US is not at all similar to any nation in Europe, and not Canada either. It doesn't take much thought or even life experience to understand the reasons why. Statistical comparisons between them are really absurd, but they are popular because they fit the narrative so well.
On October 06 2012 04:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:18 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote: [quote]
Yup, its the same system that has been systematically dismantled by economists time and time again.
Cut taxes for the mega wealthy so that they decide they have too much money and thus decide to make up jobs for people to work. In the end, you get more jobs, since the ultra wealthy are not obsessed over their financial growth at all. In fact, they get tired of having so much money.
Trickle down economics was somehow relevant (although I don't think it ever worked the way Adam Smith - and now Mitt Romney - described it), before the stock market became a giant casino of speculation on derived products, raw materials, and other completely unproductive activities of that kind.
In other word, it all sounds good, and would make a bit of sense if capital was systematically invested in the real economy. Since it's not anymore, trickle down economics is a giant joke to justify the vertigineous and exponential rise of inequalities these last thirty years.
Say thanks to Reagan to have sabotaged his own theories with the massive deregulation of the financial sector.
Mitt isn't really advocating trickle down economics. He's not offering a tax cut to the rich to grow the economy.
Financial markets help capital reach the real economy quicker, not slower.
Oh yeah?
Explain me how speculating on derived product, or any purely financial speculative movement helps capital to reach anything at all? I'm not talking of raw materials: I know it's supposed to make the market more fluid, which would actually be very true if it was done in reasonable proportions, which is far from being the case.
If a company's stock price goes up it makes it easier / cheaper for them to raise money. That means more real investments the company can make become viable, and so more real investment happens. The converse is true that if a company's stock goes down it makes it harder for them to make real investments. But that's not necessarily a bad thing - obviously we don't want companies over investing any more than we want them under investing.
Derivatives like calls and puts play similar but different roles. Ultimately the derivative will do the same thing - the buying or selling of a stock. But the structure of the derivative gives the market greater efficiency in price discovery - finding the 'right' price for a financial asset that will limit both under and over investing.
And then, you will have everything you need to know about how wonderful speculation is and how much it helps society: http://www.finance-watch.org/
I don't see what the problem is. Ten years ago we were complaining how speculators made prices too low. Now we're complaining that prices are too high. Speculators bet that prices will both go up and down... they help find the right price and reduce volatility. Unless you can present some evidence that the market prices is the wrong price then I don't see where the discussion can go.
? I think you didn't watch the video and didn't look at the website.
The video provided no evidence that markets aren't working properly or that speculators are having a negative effect. The video just speculated that they are making things bad.
Yeah, well, have you watched the whole video?
Yes I did watch the whole thing and I stand by my statement that they didn't provide any evidence that the speculation is having a negative effect.
On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape.
If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets.
Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982.
Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects.
Ok, so let's make a list:
In the last thirty years:
- richs got MUCH MUCH richer
... meanwhile,
- poors got poorer - middle class income didn't improve - the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit - unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.
It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period.
Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case.
On October 06 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote: I love it when people defend capitalism by saying things like "hey, it's better than Bangladesh."
Makes my job so much easier.
His argument is that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth. Focusing on the specifics of the nation of Bangladesh is to completely ignore the central point he was trying to make. I guess your job is to beat up straw men.
Um.
The only argument one can abstract from his analogy is that the "vector value" of equality and absolute wealth adds up in such a way as to make the US a more desirable place to live than Bangladesh. This is a totally useless claim for obvious reasons. It's not a straw man to point out the utter facility of one's opponents' comparisons.
On October 06 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote: I love it when people defend capitalism by saying things like "hey, it's better than Bangladesh."
Makes my job so much easier.
His argument is that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth. Focusing on the specifics of the nation of Bangladesh is to completely ignore the central point he was trying to make. I guess your job is to beat up straw men.
Absolute wealth doesn't mean jack shit if only a fraction of the population sees the colour of it.
You can very well have absolute help growing and 90% of the people situation getting worse. Oh wait, that reminds me president Bush mandates, how funny.
In all seriousness, what matters is that people's situation improves. Period. And "people" are not Romney and his billionaires friends.
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
Why do people do this? "Hey, we're better than that random third-world country, so we must be doing well!"
How about we gain some actual perspective and compare ourselves to countries that are, oh I don't know, at least a little more culturally, politically, and/or economically similar? Like, oh I don't know, Canada, Germany, Australia, Finland, etc.
Because I'm ultimately trying to make the point that economic growth is more important than economic equality at the moment. The countries you list have certain features that allow them to provide economic equality as a luxury of their prosperity. Economic equality is not the reason why Canada is a rich country, it's something the government can afford to provide because they're already rich.
Think of it this way. Google can afford to basically give away all these great services (Maps, Gmail, wi-fi and Chromebook on Virgin America) because they're a highly profitable company. Those things don't make Google more profitable. If RIM talked about providing those same services, we'd call them crazy. The company is bleeding money, why the hell are they giving things away?
On October 06 2012 04:59 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:44 coverpunch wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 04:11 BluePanther wrote:
On October 06 2012 03:44 Biff The Understudy wrote: Trickle down economics is saying: the most you give to the rich, the best for everybody. It's a flat lie out in todays coordinate.
No, that's not at all what it means. It means you amass wealth first, and worry about distribution later. A rich upper class is more beneficial to poor people than a poor upper class.
Don't play with words. It means it's better to leave money to the rich rather than trying to redsitribute it in any way because with this money the richs will create jobs that will benefit everybody.
Considering how much the ultra rich have benefited the last thirty years, we should live in some kind of paradise right now.
Mmm, we kind of do live in a paradise compared to 30 years ago.
Think of it the other way around. Bangladesh is a much less unequal society than the US. But would I trade places with a person from Bangladesh? No. Hell no.
You have to look at absolute wealth as much as relative wealth.
How good you guys are at making sophism, it's awesome. What the hell is Bengladesh even doing there? Inequalities have increased exponentially, and guess what, unemployement too, and poor people got poorer, and we got a massive debt. So the theory is flat wrong, because apparently since the super wealthy are doing extremely well, everything should be in a great shape.
If you think everything is great, well, we probably live on different planets.
Uh, I told you what my point was, that you can't just look at relative inequality and say things are good or bad. Lives in the OECD are far better in 2012 than they were in 1982.
Does that mean inequality is not a problem? No, but our highest priority should be economic growth, not equality. Nobody's plans, Obama's or Romney's, will work if we are indeed in a lost decade and America's GDP in 2022 is only 10% larger than it is today. And you cannot encourage economic growth if you are busy stifling investments by reallocating funds on social equality projects.
Ok, so let's make a list:
In the last thirty years:
- richs got MUCH MUCH richer
... meanwhile,
- poors got poorer - middle class income didn't improve - the state nearly bankrupt with a huge debt becausse of tax deficit - unemployement has risen enormously.
Republican fallacy: What should we do... errrrrrr... cut taxes for the richest so that they get richer. Makes perfect sense.
It's fine, if you like the rich to be richer and everybody else to fuck off, yeah, it has been great. That's probably what Romney and his friend are also thinking. But please, don't insult logic by saying that it benefits everybody. It didn't, it doesn't, it won't period.
Now, on a moral point of view, the founders of liberalism were justifying inequalities because everybody was suppose to benefit from the rich people's wealth. It is not the case.
Government spending has been increasing steadily for decades. In addition, this spending itself has grown proportionately greater in entitlements and lower in defense. Therefore, your connection between reduced taxes and income inequality is flawed for two reasons:
1) Government spending has not been restricted to tax revenue. 2) The income gap has been increasing despite the persistent rise in government expenditures and entitlement spending.
On October 06 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote: I love it when people defend capitalism by saying things like "hey, it's better than Bangladesh."
Makes my job so much easier.
His argument is that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth. Focusing on the specifics of the nation of Bangladesh is to completely ignore the central point he was trying to make. I guess your job is to beat up straw men.
Absolute wealth doesn't mean jack shit if only a fraction of the population sees the colour of it.
You can very well have absolute help growing and 90% of the people situation getting worse. Oh wait, that reminds me president Bush mandates, how funny.
In all seriousness, what matters is that people's situation improves. Period. And "people" are not Romney and his billionaires friends.
But do you understand that there's no scenario in which the economy grows in a way that the poor get richer but the rich stay the same or get poorer?
On October 06 2012 05:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 06 2012 05:08 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On October 06 2012 05:04 sam!zdat wrote: I love it when people defend capitalism by saying things like "hey, it's better than Bangladesh."
Makes my job so much easier.
His argument is that absolute wealth matters more than relative wealth. Focusing on the specifics of the nation of Bangladesh is to completely ignore the central point he was trying to make. I guess your job is to beat up straw men.
Absolute wealth doesn't mean jack shit if only a fraction of the population sees the colour of it.
You can very well have absolute help growing and 90% of the people situation getting worse. Oh wait, that reminds me president Bush mandates, how funny.
In all seriousness, what matters is that people's situation improves. Period. And "people" are not Romney and his billionaires friends.
But do you understand that there's no scenario in which the economy grows in a way that the poor get richer but the rich stay the same or get poorer?
What, you've thought of all the scenarios?
(replace "the economy" with "our particular historically embedded way of running an economy" and I'll agree with you)
edit: there's certainly no logical necessity for this proposition. What an absurd claim.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CgJ87.png)
