Federal Reserve chair calls income inequality the biggest challenge in next 10 years

Dec 2018
1,193
356
Florida
#41
Do you know anything about Marx? Of course he was an economist and a philosopher. It seems to me that you really do not understand Ayn Rand at all if you equate her career and writings with Marx. Ayn was not an economist, no one considers her an economist. Marx on the other hand was one of the most influential economists that ever lived.
Lmao! “Rand” isn’t an economist while also trying to run people down for their economic views by using her work as an insult. Then the hero worship of Marx mixed in. The irony is delicious.

Ps

Mussolini and Hitler were influential as well. That doesn’t mean someone’s work is GOOD.
 
Last edited:

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
72,401
61,456
So. Md.
#42
This is a bit? Fallacious? The rich ALWAYS be able to purchase the government. And if there are no rich? It will be the people IN government that will be rich and corrupt. Soviet Union? China? Cuba? France pre French Revolution. France after the revolution (during their revolutionary government)? France under Bonaparte? Nazi Germany? There are plenty of examples. Government will always be susceptible to bribes and corruption regardless of income equality because of the nature of what they do.

In America? You would have to make it illegal to lobby. And neither party will allow that.



No. But who do they buy from and where does that wealth go? How do they get wealthy? You can tax the rich and expect the poor to become rich or wealthy through tax. It just doesn’t work that way. It isn’t sustainable. The working class needs stable gainful work. And they need to be able to afford the things they are spending on. Life liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Our campaign and lobbying laws are such that politicians have become too dependent on big business and big money which means big business and big money have a much louder voice in our government and laws are written that favor them to the detriment of the rest of the population. My solution is to work out formulas for different offices and allow ONLY public financing of campaigns. No private money.

Lobbying is merely going to your elected official and advocating for something important to you. Everyone, even business interests, should certainly be able to do that. Outlawing it would be anathema to our form of government. The problem comes in where elected officials - and their staffs - are promised a lobbying job for particular industries once they're out of office. Elected officials and their staffs should be banned from lobbying for at least 10 years after they're out of office, if not permanently banned.

I don't expect the poor to become wealthy by taxing the wealthy at a higher rate. What I expect is that the wealthy pay a higher rate in taxes so that we can afford to do the things necessary to have a viable economy for ALL sectors of the economy. That money can go to upgrading and maintaining our infrastructure which is desperately needed in order for us to have a viable economy. That would give working class people stable and gainful work. That money could go to making a college education more affordable. As it is, young people put off buying houses because of their college debt, for example, which also means they don't purchase all the items you'd purchase for a home. If they're not buying stuff like that, fewer people are employed in the industries that supply and install those items. That tax money from the wealthy could go toward making health care more affordable and keep people from going into debt or bankruptcy because they got sick. And on and on.

Your vision is very shortsighted.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
71,530
39,475
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#43
Sure it is. If you make $200,000 a year? What do you care if your neighbor makes $200,000,000? How does that hurt you? It doesn’t. As a nation? Why bother measuring “income inequality” rather than economic mobility or quality of life of the lower classes? Access to long term stable employment options? Affordable housing? Vacation time? Off time? Disposable income? Ability to save?
All those things are related to income inequality, which feeds wealth inequality. The numbers alone tell you nothing; it is about the value of money relative to money supply, inflation and cost of living. In some countries, 200M of the local unit of currency unit might be spare change; in others, it exceeds the country's GDP. (Maybe not exactly, but you get the idea.) The ones who control all the money also control all the resources, and thus prices. 3% inflation probably would not noticeably affect a neighbor making $200M, but it is a killer for a neighbor making $20K, and inflation is related to money supply. If 1% of the population few friends control 40% of the money, the remaining 99% are fighting and scraping over the other 60%, meaning the 1% are effectively in control of the 99% and can affect their economic mobility. The greater the income relative to others, the greater the disparity; the greater the disparity, the more economic mobility can be limited. (@BigLeRoy is welcome to correct me on any or all of this.)

So yes, it does affect the poor person for the wealthy person to have an increasingly greater disparity. And that affects not just economic mobility, but quality of life; access to long-term stable employment; affordable housing; vacation time and (especially) sick time); disposable income; and ability to save. It is all part of a larger picture.
 
Sep 2012
3,431
3,251
California
#44
Lmao! “Rand” isn’t an economist while also trying to run people down for their economic views by using her work as an insult. Then the hero worship of Marx mixed in. The irony is delicious.

Ps

Mussolini and Hitler were influential as well. That doesn’t mean someone’s work is GOOD.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Ayn is not recognized as an economist in any way by any economist or historian. Marx on the other hand is the most important historical figure in economics of the 19th century. Whether you agree with either of them is immaterial to this statement of fact. What basis do you have for claiming that Ayn was an economist? BTW, you might want to read more about the role of Marx in economic theory. His critiques of capitalism and his descriptions of the relationship between capital and labor are profound and well known by most if not all trained economists. This series of debates is worth putting on your podcast rotation. They debate all sorts of topics in a civilized manner, I list this one on Marx but there are tons of others on all sorts of issues.

 
Last edited:

Babba

Former Staff
Jul 2007
72,401
61,456
So. Md.
#45
Should we strive for total economic equality?
No. The wealthy certainly have an important role to play in a healthy economy. But they are eating up so much of the wealthy that doesn't go back into the economy. We should strive for as large a portion of the population in the middle class. In 1971 61% of adults were in the middle class. Today only 52% are.

A lot of it has to do with the rate at which the wealthy are taxed but also has to do with how Wall Street and investing works anymore. But that's a hole 'nother kettle of fish.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
71,530
39,475
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#46
No. The wealthy certainly have an important role to play in a healthy economy. But they are eating up so much of the wealthy that doesn't go back into the economy.
Indeed, the whole idea of trickle-down economics was that an influx of tax cuts to the wealthy would "trickle down" to the rest of the economy by spurring business investment and expansion. It does not work, and conservatives have given up that lie and, being honest for a change, just decided that wealthy people are entitled and deserve to be wealthy, and poor people deserve to be poor.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
68,000
27,133
Florida
#47
No. The wealthy certainly have an important role to play in a healthy economy. But they are eating up so much of the wealthy that doesn't go back into the economy. We should strive for as large a portion of the population in the middle class. In 1971 61% of adults were in the middle class. Today only 52% are.

A lot of it has to do with the rate at which the wealthy are taxed but also has to do with how Wall Street and investing works anymore. But that's a hole 'nother kettle of fish.
Many of the super-wealthy pay no income tax at all to this country.....like Trump. (they pay shady accounts and bribe rich congress critters to write laws that favor themselves but hurt our country~!)

It hurts the middle class because WE have to pay the taxes that Trump et al don't pay!
The GOP has convinced many of the weak minded that it's fair for them to pay taxes while the rich live off our welfare!!

Some of these idiots are right here on PH posting daily the lies they hear from Trump, Hannity, Limbaugh, Putin and the other enemies of the USA!
 
Dec 2018
1,193
356
Florida
#49
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Ayn is not recognized as an economist in any way by any economist or historian. Marx on the other hand is the most important historical figure in economics of the 19th century. Whether you agree with either of them is immaterial to this statement of fact. What basis do you have for claiming that Ayn was an economist? BTW, you might want to read more about the role of Marx in economic theory. His critiques of capitalism and his descriptions of the relationship between capital and labor are profound and well known by most if not all trained economists. This series of debates is worth putting on your podcast rotation. They debate all sorts of topics in a civilized manner, I list this one on Marx but there are tons of others on all sorts of issues.

You do realize I’m not the one claiming Rand is an ecnonomist right? The person who brought her up was trying to commentate on economic views of conservatives. Which...given she isn’t an economist? Hm?

As for Marxism? It failed. Much like other radical ideologies like fascism.
 
Dec 2018
1,193
356
Florida
#50
It's dishonest to pretend that the opposite of the idea of "income inequality" is that everyone makes the exact same amount of money. It's about how wide the gap is, not that there should be no gap at all.
No. It isn’t dishonest. It is pointing out the flaw in the idea. Because people on the wrong side of the gap will always have problems with how wide the gap is...until they are on right side. Are you willing to acknowledge that flaw? How do you suppose you would address that? What is the “acceptable” gap? What is the % that is ok for the 1% to have?
 

Similar Discussions