America is not broke...

[Marcus Aurelius]

Obama and Al Gore received Nobel prizes.....So they don't mean so much any more.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Obama and Al Gore received Nobel prizes.....So they don't mean so much any more.

But neither was in economics. They were in much more highly subjective areas. And we probably won't know for years whether or not that prize is validated...just like MLK, Jr.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Its here: http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...8&postcount=20

But its flawed. Doove doesn't seem to understand the difference between wealth and income.

Admittedly, i was using them somewhat interchangeably, but the premise is the same in that it all revolves around concentration of wealth. If you wanna muddy the debate, go right ahead.

I don't buy the premise that if the bottom 150 million have a Mercedes instead of a used Malibu that the wealth (or income, if you will) of the top people will increase an equivalent percentage. So your question is moot.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius

Obama and Al Gore received Nobel prizes.....So they don't mean so much any more.

And so did Madame Curie; what's your point?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Rakhir

To quote Ms. Thatcher "the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other people's money". To me that about sums it up.

The problem with Capitalism is that there is no longer a threat of Socialism.

The reality is that workers rights in this country were insured by that threat.

Southern states workers have good benifits because of Northern state unions! Once the bust those our mangements good will won't be so good. Workers need unions or the threat of one before they will come to the table.

Furthermore if when is that Socolist China going to run out of other people's money?

Do any of you Reaganites remember the meltdown of 2008? Capitalism saved by the State. I hope for ya'lls sake your weiners is longer than your memory.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by oden

By the way, who is going to say that hot ladies on this site need to give money to lazy women that don't take care of themselves and that dove must be with ugly women half the time just to spread his money around.

Using this silly analogy.....just WTF do you suggest we do with the ugly women?

What you fail to realize is that the top 400 pay a smaller % of their money in taxes than the vast majority of middle income folks do.

That is not good tax policy nor even close to fair....unless of course you are one of the top 400 wealthiest Americans

[pjorourke]

I we talking net worth or income? They are two different things.

Originally Posted by Doove

I don't buy the premise that if the bottom 150 million have a Mercedes instead of a used Malibu that the wealth (or income, if you will) of the top people will increase an equivalent percentage. So your question is moot.

That wasn't my question. I said assume that the bottom now have a net worth equal to a Mercedes and the top increased proportionally (all in today's dollars). Is that still a problem?

Come on Doove -- a little Socratic method here. I'm trying to understand your position by probing at the edges. The underlying question is does the absolute wealth of the "underclass" count in this inequality or just their position relative to the top. Here I am proposing a situation where the lower group is much better off (about 10x) but so is the top. Is this bad for society too?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

A long time ago I took a class called "Economics". We discussed how - in the real, non-utopian world - markets are never the simplistic, perfectly efficient models you learned about in high school and how thinking that they are leads you to economic ruin.

You're right. There is that damn crony capitalism -- where people bribe* those in power to take from someone else and give it to them. You know, the kind of people that can't win in the free market on their own.


*bribe is such an ugly word -- lets say support their campaigns financially or with workers.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You're right. There is that damn crony capitalism -- where people bribe* those in power to take from someone else and give it to them. You know, the kind of people that can't win in the free market on their own.


*bribe is such an ugly word -- lets say support their campaigns financially or with workers.

Which really shoots down both parties....one party takes bribes to take from big business, the other side takes bribes to take from workers.

Glad we got that straightened out! Our country is made up of crony capitalism.

We are at least making progress in these discussions.

What we are discussiong PJ is to keep the power in balance. Big business and workers should strive to work in harmony. That is not the case. That is why this crap in WI is so important in the fight to keep the balance of power from shifting further right.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

You're right. There is that damn crony capitalism -- where people bribe* those in power to take from someone else and give it to them. You know, the kind of people that can't win in the free market on their own.


*bribe is such an ugly word -- lets say support their campaigns financially or with workers.

You mean like the Koch brothers and the like funneling millions to campaigns like Wisconsin's Governor Walker? I'm sure that one slipped your mind.

[discreetgent]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I we talking net worth or income? They are two different things.



That wasn't my question. I said assume that the bottom now have a net worth equal to a Mercedes and the top increased proportionally. Is that still a problem?

Come on Doove -- a little Socratic method here. I'm trying to understand your position by probing at the edges. The underlying question is does the wealth of the "underclass" count in this inequality or just their position relative to the top. Here I am proposing a situation where the lower group is much better off (about 10x) but so is the top. Is this bad for society too?

And some of us are pointing out that the situation you propose is not even in the realm of the plausible; you are not at the edge you are off the deep end altogether.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

You mean like the Koch brothers and the like funneling millions to campaigns like Wisconsin's Governor Walker?

Yup, although I'm not sure what business the Koch's have in Wisconsin or what they personally get out of it. Other examples are Obama stiffing the GM mortgage holders to protect his UAW pals or funneling money to GE to create "green jobs".

I am the last guy here that is going to defend any form of crony capitalism or for that matter our tax system. But thats not what we are discussing -- the subject at hand is wealth inequality*. You know how we hate thread drift here.


*Maybe WTF will even share with us his beloved GINI coefficients and we can all poke our eyes out and go on.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by discreetgent

And some of us are pointing out that the situation you propose is not even in the realm of the plausible; you are not at the edge you are off the deep end altogether.

Thats irrelevant. It is a hypothetical question. The fact is that you can't answer the question can you?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

Yup, although I'm not sure what business the Koch's have in Wisconsin or what they personally get out of it. Other examples are Obama stiffing the GM mortgage holders to protect his UAW pals or funneling money to GE to create "green jobs".

.

Koch brothers have power plants. They gave the max to Gov WTF ever his name is. There was a provision that the Gov could sell the states power plants in a no bid process. Something kinda fishy there PJ. Crony Cap on both sides buddy, not sure why you turn your eye to one side.

But the real play in WI is donations. Seven of the top ten donators in the country are to the GOP , the other three are unions to the Dems.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJBGWH222KI&NR=1

[Bebe Le Strange]

At some point if we as a country keep going down this road, of economic inequality, where the majority end up being poor and illiterate, and the few are the wealthiest and the richest, you will see a revolt. It's not a "could happen, might happen" it will happen.

Eventually our middle class will be of a distant memory and the poor masses will decide they have had enough. I think that this is just the beginning in Wisconsin. It really is much more than just "collective bargaining" rights, it is about making cut backs in the wrong areas, teachers pay, firefighters pay, schools shutting down, and healthcare gone awry because we have the wealthiest in this country who control the lobbyists, and the media and protect their interests over the peoples interests.

William Henry Harrison "I believe and I say it is true democratic feeling, that all the measures of the government are directed to the purpose of making the rich richer and the poor poorer".

Andrew Jackson ""When the laws undertake... to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society...have a right to complain of the injustice to their government".