Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 160
Thanks Tree108Thanks

Thread: UpInequality

  1. #51
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    40,208
    Thanks
    42146

    From
    Nashville, TN
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Socialists!
    The founders hated the "Landed Aristocracy".
    Thanks from Babba, labrea and Panzareta

  2. #52
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,066
    Thanks
    48074

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    The founders hated the "Landed Aristocracy".
    Exactly. They wanted to avoid the development of an aristocracy. The Republicans are just fine with it.
    Thanks from labrea and Panzareta

  3. #53
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by Miller47 View Post
    Not totally disagreeing with you but...

    Investing is good for America.

    Average American invests in companies, those companies grow and employ more Americans.

    And it's as easy as putting a few hundred $ in a mutual fund.
    1. Average Americans don't have money to invest.

    2. The companies likely to be in a mutual funds portfolio aren't apt to be the same companies responsible for job growth.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  4. #54
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,632
    Thanks
    26021

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    i think its too soon to say where younger people will end up on the home buying, family establishing continuum.
    True but its doubtful they will have many children as previous generations did. They also put off home buying. Have definitely noticed a trend of younger people attending our local town meetings speaking out about how high local taxes are and why they have to pay when they don't have kids. I also have heard quite a few who don't think single people should be punished in their taxes.

  5. #55
    Member
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    3,789
    Thanks
    1067

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    1. Average Americans don't have money to invest.

    2. The companies likely to be in a mutual funds portfolio aren't apt to be the same companies responsible for job growth.
    The average American does invest. First there is Social Security, that IS an investment, not a good rate of return, but it is still an investment. Bound that the average American invests, and we will ignore the primary residence, in 401k type plans and of course IRAs

    As far as the mutual funds are concerned, they invest in different thing but most are invested in the 'economy at large' -- companies that obviously employ people

  6. #56
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    14,986
    Thanks
    4006

    From
    AK
    Quote Originally Posted by Æthelfrith View Post
    Joseph Stiglitz: "This should not come as a surprise: we have a political system that gives inordinate power to those at the top, and they have used that power not only to limit the extent of redistribution but also to shape the rules of the game in their favor, and to extract from the public what can only be called large gifts.”

    Nobel Laureate Economist Says American Inequality Didn?t Just Happen. It Was Created. - Evonomics
    Stiglitz spouts standard populist rhetoric. The vague references to bad rich people are endless.

    "we have a political system that gives inordinate power to those at the top" - Specifically what has been "given?" And who, specifically, are "those at the top?"

    "In a sense, that should be obvious: economic laws are universal, but our growing inequality— especially the amounts seized by the upper 1 percent" - More propagandist reference to the faceless "1%." And what was "seized" and how?

    This leftist rhetoric is cloyingly generic and chanted ad nauseam with the simple aim of creating and inflaming a feeling and perception of social and economic injustice. You hear the same message repeated more often than references to God and the Bible at church. These Media Matters talking points are more dogmatic than religion itself, which is an apt comparison. Leftists are methodically attempting to beat these talking points into people's heads until they are universally accept them as absolute truth, as economic gospel.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 28th September 2017 at 06:39 AM.
    Thanks from publius3

  7. #57
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    67,066
    Thanks
    48074

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Stiglitz spouts standard populist rhetoric. The vague references to bad rich people are endless.

    "we have a political system that gives inordinate power to those at the top" - Specifically what has been "given?" And who, specifically, are "those at the top?"

    "In a sense, that should be obvious: economic laws are universal, but our growing inequality— especially the amounts seized by the upper 1 percent" - More propagandist reference to the faceless "1%." And what was "seized" and how?

    This leftist rhetoric is cloyingly generic and chanted ad nauseam with the simple aim of creating and inflaming a feeling and perception of social and economic injustice. You hear the same message repeated more often than references to God and the Bible at church. These Media Matters talking points are more dogmatic than religion itself, which is an apt comparison. Leftists are methodically attempting to beat these talking points into people's heads until they are universally accept them as absolute truth, as economic gospel.
    Because of how election campaigns are funded, politicians have become more and more dependent on the wealthy to fund their campaigns. In return tax laws have been enacted that disproportionately help the wealthy pay lower taxes. Don't be obtuse. Those at the top refers to those with incomes well above the average.

    Again, the wealthy have seized a large portion of the wealth of this country through tax laws.
    Thanks from labrea

  8. #58
    Scucca Æthelfrith's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    6,944
    Thanks
    1460

    Zero economic comment from Neo, as usual. You seem to think saying leftist is sufficient for a valid comment. It isn't. Why don't you provide an economic justification for the current levels of inequality? Wouldn't that be splendid?

    Here's an example. How much money wealth is derived from the creation of economic benefit and how much is created through rent seeking behaviour? Jacobs (Extreme Wealth is Not Merited, Oxfam)empirically investigated it. And his findings? "The paper concludes that fifty percent of the world’s billionaire wealth is non-meritocratic owing to either inheritance or a high presumption of cronyism. Another 15 percent is not meritocratic owing to presumption of monopoly"
    Last edited by Æthelfrith; 28th September 2017 at 07:39 AM.
    Thanks from Babba and labrea

  9. #59
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    32,949
    Thanks
    25910

    From
    On a hill
    Quote Originally Posted by bajisima View Post
    True but its doubtful they will have many children as previous generations did. They also put off home buying. Have definitely noticed a trend of younger people attending our local town meetings speaking out about how high local taxes are and why they have to pay when they don't have kids. I also have heard quite a few who don't think single people should be punished in their taxes.
    Sounds like libertarian free staters who have moved to NH to take over and turn it into their version of paradise.
    Thanks from Panzareta

  10. #60
    Veteran Member bajisima's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    43,632
    Thanks
    26021

    From
    New Hampshire
    Quote Originally Posted by labrea View Post
    Sounds like libertarian free staters who have moved to NH to take over and turn it into their version of paradise.
    Not all. Lots of young people generally who have huge amounts of student debt don't feel its fair. We had one who spoke up who was over 100K in student debt and still living with their parents. Her friend got married and had kids right away and has all sorts of tax deductibles. She thought that was punishing her. She was the farthest thing from a libertarian. I remember a former poster here, Cicero, who also felt child deductions weren't fair. He wasn't a libertarian.

Page 6 of 16 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed