Easy way to double the net worth of 60% of all US households
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
Terrible logic. First of all, please don't use the word "reasonable" in the same sentence as her. Second, her views are EXACTLY the same views of the majority of her party in the House. In other words, her views reflect her party. The Fed does NOT have a political party. They have a mandate. They are suppose to be working together and making decisions together to accomplish the same goal. The House does NOT have the same goal and they are NOT working together. In fact, people vote for them specifically for that purpose. Thanks for playing for Marty!
Maverick, firstly, thank you for not answering my questions... Secondly, I didn't call Pelosi "reasonable". Thirdly, I didn't know that you thought you possessed mind-reading capabilities. As it happens, it appears you don't. The argument you have given above is certainly NOT my argument.
In response, however, to your point above. The Fed doesn't have a political affiliation, but the individual people on the FOMC have their individual personal views and opinions. They also vote individually in favor or against particular decisions designed to, indeed, accomplish the same goal. I was under the impression that Congress generally works, or is at least supposed to, work the same exact way.
My apologies. This statement could have been worded better "Nancy Pelosi is a reasonably senior lawmaker in the US government". Second, you never asked "me" any questions. I was simply responding to your response to someone else. I never said the Fed had a political affiliation or that it's individuals did not. You must be trying read my mind. And Marty, stick to your English parliament, our congress does NOT work that way.
The gun control analogy was ridiculous though. Just wanted to get that on the record.
My post, to which you volunteered a response, contained a couple of questions. You chose not to answer them, which I found a little unhelpful.
I never said that you said that the Fed had a political affiliation (in fact, you stated the opposite), so I am not trying to read your mind. As to Congress, if your view is as you have stated it, pls accept my sincere condolences.
Finally, my analogy has nothing to do with gun control specifically. Many other issues could be used, just as easily.
So everyone agrees that the current, historically high levels of wealth inequality is bad for ethical, economic and political reasons. Right?
There are many bad things out there. The trick is to not replace them with things that end up being infinitely worse.
Good point, but all we need is adjustment of what we have now. No? No need to get radical. We already redistribute wealth, and for good reason.
Yes, there's all sorts of compelling evidence that some degree of redistribution (in the form of taxes, for example) is necessary.
The question is how do you determine the extent of this "adjustment"? Who is going to decide what additional redistribution is, to use your terminology, "good for ethical, economic and political reasons"? How do you ensure that this "adjustment" actually makes things better, rather than worse? In fact, who is going to define "better" and "worse", and how?
