Tired of winning yet?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Income inequality is a big problem in this country and will lead to big civil issues if it continues in it's current trend. Trump has only exacerbated the problem.

The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system that grew less progressive despite a surge in top labor compensation since the 1980s, and in top capital incomes in the 2000s. Continental Europe meanwhile saw a lesser decline in its tax progressivity, while wage inequality was also moderated by educational and wage-setting policies that were relatively more favorable to low and middle-income groups. In both regions, income inequality between men and women has declined but remains particularly strong at the top of the distribution.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/29/176271...equality-chart

"Income inequality is a big problem in this country"

Why is it a problem. If Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey earn another million dollars today, why is that bad? How would anyone be better off, if all wealthy people stopped accumulating wealth once they were middle class?

WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT' SNOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Oprah earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. Her wealth, does not cause, anyone else's poverty.

"Trump has only exacerbated the problem"

So did Obama. When the economy grows, the wealthy will always benefit more than regular folks, because they have more to invest. You cannot prevent that, and I can't imagine why you'd want to.

If Oprah earns another million today, she'll pay taxes on some, she'll spend some, she'll invest some, she'll save some in the bank, she'll give some to charity. ALL of those things, reduce the burden on the rest of us. So it's GOOD for you and I, if she gets richer.

I agree income inequality isn't fair, I completely agree. But one person's wealth, isn't the cause of anyone else's poverty (unless you're talking about Bernie Madoff). Liberals would do well to stop obsessing over the rich.

"The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system"

I disagree. It's largely due to luck (being born into money or marrying into money, two things I managed to completely avoid).

You think higher taxes reduce income inequality? Well I live in CT, which has insanely high taxes, it's purely liberal for 40 years, has and some of the worst income inequality on the planet. You'd be hard-pressed to find a state with more severe income inequality than CT, liberalism ha shad 40 years to cure income inequality, and of course it's made it worse.

We can debate the merits of slightly more progressive taxation, that's fine.

Continental Europe does not share a massive, open border with Mexico. If we kick out all of the Mexicans from the US, I promise you that income inequality will decrease. Should we do that? Is that what you propose?

We are a country that allows a large number of penniless, unskilled immigrants to enter. That creates income inequality, but that's OK, because we also provide, by far, the greatest upward economic mobility.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Income inequality is a big problem in this country"

Why is it a problem. If Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey earn another million dollars today, why is that bad? How would anyone be better off, if all wealthy people stopped accumulating wealth once they were middle class?

WEALTH IS NOT FINITE, IT' SNOT LIKE A PIZZA. If Oprah earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us. Her wealth, does not cause, anyone else's poverty.

"Trump has only exacerbated the problem"

So did Obama. When the economy grows, the wealthy will always benefit more than regular folks, because they have more to invest. You cannot prevent that, and I can't imagine why you'd want to.

If Oprah earns another million today, she'll pay taxes on some, she'll spend some, she'll invest some, she'll save some in the bank, she'll give some to charity. ALL of those things, reduce the burden on the rest of us. So it's GOOD for you and I, if she gets richer.

I agree income inequality isn't fair, I completely agree. But one person's wealth, isn't the cause of anyone else's poverty (unless you're talking about Bernie Madoff). Liberals would do well to stop obsessing over the rich.

"The income-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive educational inequalities, combined with a tax system"

I disagree. It's largely due to luck (being born into money or marrying into money, two things I managed to completely avoid).

You think higher taxes reduce income inequality? Well I live in CT, which has insanely high taxes, it's purely liberal for 40 years, has and some of the worst income inequality on the planet. You'd be hard-pressed to find a state with more severe income inequality than CT, liberalism ha shad 40 years to cure income inequality, and of course it's made it worse.

We can debate the merits of slightly more progressive taxation, that's fine.

Continental Europe does not share a massive, open border with Mexico. If we kick out all of the Mexicans from the US, I promise you that income inequality will decrease. Should we do that? Is that what you propose?

We are a country that allows a large number of penniless, unskilled immigrants to enter. That creates income inequality, but that's OK, because we also provide, by far, the greatest upward economic mobility.

Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect and also why the stockmarket is so high
The new complexity science analysis describes the flows of money through the economy, not just the overall activity. It shows that there are two cycles of activity that have to be balanced against each other. The first is that workers earn salaries and consume goods and services. The second is that the wealthy invest in production and receive returns on their investments. The two loops have to be in the right balance in order for growth to happen. If there is more money in the worker loop, there aren't enough products for them to purchase. If there is more money in the investment loop, consumers don't have enough money to buy products so investment doesn't happen.

The paper shows that before 1980, there was too much money in the worker/consumer loop. That money was chasing too few products, giving rise to dangerously increasing inflation. After 1980, likely because of the Reaganomics tax changes, the balance tilted the other way. There was too much money in the investor loop and the result was a series of recessions. The Federal Reserve repeatedly intervened by lowering interest rates to compensate workers' low wages with increased borrowing, in order to increase consumption.

The research shows that the way the government is regulating the economy is like driving a car with only the accelerator and without using the steering wheel. Steering means keeping the balance between the two loops in the right proportion. While Federal Reserve interventions have helped overcome the recessions, today, we are up against the guardrail and need to rebalance the economy by shifting money back to the labor/consumer loop.

Since 1980, consumers have accumulated trillions of dollars of debt, and the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. This is the result of government policy reducing taxes for the wealthy in the name of increasing economic activity. No matter how much money investors have, these so-called "job creators" do not create jobs when consumers don't have money to buy products. Increased economic activity requires both investment and purchase power to pay for the things the investment will produce.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...nomic.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...-economic.html

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect and also why the stockmarket is so high
The new complexity science analysis describes the flows of money through the economy, not just the overall activity. It shows that there are two cycles of activity that have to be balanced against each other. The first is that workers earn salaries and consume goods and services. The second is that the wealthy invest in production and receive returns on their investments. The two loops have to be in the right balance in order for growth to happen. If there is more money in the worker loop, there aren't enough products for them to purchase. If there is more money in the investment loop, consumers don't have enough money to buy products so investment doesn't happen.

The paper shows that before 1980, there was too much money in the worker/consumer loop. That money was chasing too few products, giving rise to dangerously increasing inflation. After 1980, likely because of the Reaganomics tax changes, the balance tilted the other way. There was too much money in the investor loop and the result was a series of recessions. The Federal Reserve repeatedly intervened by lowering interest rates to compensate workers' low wages with increased borrowing, in order to increase consumption.

The research shows that the way the government is regulating the economy is like driving a car with only the accelerator and without using the steering wheel. Steering means keeping the balance between the two loops in the right proportion. While Federal Reserve interventions have helped overcome the recessions, today, we are up against the guardrail and need to rebalance the economy by shifting money back to the labor/consumer loop.

Since 1980, consumers have accumulated trillions of dollars of debt, and the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. This is the result of government policy reducing taxes for the wealthy in the name of increasing economic activity. No matter how much money investors have, these so-called "job creators" do not create jobs when consumers don't have money to buy products. Increased economic activity requires both investment and purchase power to pay for the things the investment will produce.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...nomic.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-wealth...-economic.html

"Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect "

It's a different opinion. It doesn't "show" that I am incorrect.

"the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested "

Oh, I see. So the wealthy are all burying their money in their backyards? Or do they stuff it into their mattresses? Even if they put it in the bank, that's the money that banks use to loan money to people to buy houses and start small businesses. You can't make that wrong.

"because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. '

The stock market hasn't generated good returns for the last 10 years?

"so-called "job creators" "

I love these qualifiers you put on every fact that you don't happen to like. The economy is only "appearing" to grow, and people who start companies are only "so-called" job creators. Some facts are just facts, even the ones that go against your ideology.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Here is an explanation of why you are incorrect "

It's a different opinion. It doesn't "show" that I am incorrect.

"the wealthy have accumulated trillions of dollars of savings that is not invested "

Oh, I see. So the wealthy are all burying their money in their backyards? Or do they stuff it into their mattresses? Even if they put it in the bank, that's the money that banks use to loan money to people to buy houses and start small businesses. You can't make that wrong.
It's in the stock market

"because there is nothing to invest in that will give returns. '

The stock market hasn't generated good returns for the last 10 years?
The Stock market does not create jobs, if it did and went up X% we would have that many more jobs. Show me when that has occurred.

"so-called "job creators" "

I love these qualifiers you put on every fact that you don't happen to like. The economy is only "appearing" to grow, and people who start companies are only "so-called" job creators. Some facts are just facts, even the ones that go against your ideology.

You think you can create a product and a resulting job if you have no market?
Where is consumer debt today? Is it at historic levels?
You could read this also but you have to click the link to do so.
Otherwise you cherrypick the things you disagree with and don't look further
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/econuniversal

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You think you can create a product and a resulting job if you have no market?
Where is consumer debt today? Is it at historic levels?
You could read this also but you have to click the link to do so.
Otherwise you cherrypick the things you disagree with and don't look further
http://necsi.edu/research/economics/econuniversal

"It's in the stock market"

First you said their wealth is "not invested", then you say it's "in the stock market". Can't be both.

"The Stock market does not create jobs"

That is idiotic, of course it helps create jobs. Many, many companies go public, specifically to raise money to grow. Growth usually adds jobs.

"if it did and went up X% we would have that many more jobs. Show me when that has occurred. "

Not every cent goes to hiring more employees. But it's where companies raise a lot of money to grow.

"You think you can create a product and a resulting job if you have no market?"

Do you hear voices in your head or something? When did I ever say you could sell a product with no market for it? But in addition to having demand for the product, you need money to start the business first.

"Where is consumer debt today? Is it at historic levels?"

probably. And much of that is voluntary (often stupid) choices made by people who insist of living beyond their means. That's not the economy's fault, that's the fault of our culture, where we feel the need to have as much stuff as everybody else has. We all have the ability to reject that notion.