Easy way to double the net worth of 60% of all US households

Quote from futurecurrents:

So everyone agrees that the current, historically high levels of wealth inequality is bad for ethical, economic and political reasons. Right?
More...

Since your just a goddamn genius, why dont you tell us when the poor have ever had more than they do today????
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

Well, it's reasonably obvious, innit? Let me illustrate by using an analogy...

Nancy Pelosi is a reasonably senior lawmaker in the US government. Her personal views on guns and gun control are well known and openly stated, if I am not mistaken. According to the logic you're applying, am I to conclude that Pelosi's views are those of the US Congress and the government more broadly? And, if not, why should they be disregarded?
More...

You're trying to dig your way out of this one, but it's not fooling anyone.

A long argued "conspiracy theory" among those who carry water for the Fed (such as yourself) has been that the Fed is engaged in QE to drive the price of assets (like stocks, for instance). When a Fed governor comes out and legitimizes it, it makes those yelling conspiracy theory pretty much run for cover. And it's doggone funny to boot!

Edit: I suppose I should add that you, personally, may not have been saying QE wasn't about asset prices (I don't remember if you held that position or not, and I don't care) but there have been a number of bloggers and media heads, as well as folks like Ricter on this board that have stated there was no correlation to asset prices at all. As if it was so hard to see.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

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?
More...



Good questions. I would say let the public decide but then there is the danger of tyranny by the masses isn't there?

But yet, the public must decide, just as we have done all along. Ultimately, fairness, better/worse is determined by the majority. But that majority may be fooled by a beguiling, powerful minority.
 
Quote from Tsing Tao:
You're trying to dig your way out of this one, but it's not fooling anyone.

A long argued "conspiracy theory" among those who carry water for the Fed (such as yourself) has been that the Fed is engaged in QE to drive the price of assets (like stocks, for instance). When a Fed governor comes out and legitimizes it, it makes those yelling conspiracy theory pretty much run for cover. And it's doggone funny to boot!
More...
What exactly am I supposed to be digging myself out of? As far as I am aware, I have never made any categorical statements, especially regarding "conspiracy theories".

At any rate, there's really no point having a discussion, since, clearly, you're not willing to engage in a conversation. I am pleased to at least have provided you with some amusement.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:
Good questions. I would say let the public decide but then there is the danger of tyranny by the masses isn't there?

But yet, the public must decide, just as we have done all along. Ultimately, fairness, better/worse is determined by the majority. But that majority may be fooled by a beguiling, powerful minority.
More...
Or, alternatively, the powerful minority in question could actually be right...

Anyways, I personally don't think some sort of wealth redistribution by decree to address inequalities would make things better. And I personally see the risk of it making things a lot worse.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

Or, alternatively, the powerful minority in question could actually be right...

Anyways, I personally don't think some sort of wealth redistribution by decree to address inequalities would make things better. And I personally see the risk of it making things a lot worse.
More...

But the very structure of governmental regulations or lack thereof essentially acts as a decree, one that increasingly favors the wealthy. With this wealth there is now, more than ever, power over our government. It feeds on itself. Plutocracy being the danger.

One way redistribution for sure makes things better is by reducing poverty.
 
Quote from futurecurrents:
But the very structure of governmental regulations or lack thereof essentially acts as a decree, one that increasingly favors the wealthy. With this wealth there is now, more than ever, power over our government. It feeds on itself. Plutocracy being the danger.

One way redistribution for sure makes things better is by reducing poverty.
More...
Well, even if what you say is true and the system excessively favors the wealthy, there can only be a relatively small number of wealthy people. Given that decisions in a democracy are made by a larger majority of non-wealthy people, it all ends up balancing itself out, innit?

As to reducing poverty, over which horizon are we talking about here? I am pretty familiar, in a variety of ways, with one of the grandest redistribution projects ever attempted in history. Curiously, in spite of the expected reduction of poverty and misery, it actually ended up producing a lot more of it.
 
Quote from Martinghoul:

I am pretty familiar, in a variety of ways, with one of the grandest redistribution projects ever attempted in history. Curiously, in spite of the expected reduction of poverty and misery, it actually ended up producing a lot more of it.
More...

The fact of the matter is liberals would rather see everyone be dirt poor then see some people be more successful than others.

They always bitch about the widening gap between the rich and poor but the fact of the matter is the poor has never had it better than they do today, so what is their solution?

Ideas like Obamacare, destroy more middle class people and make them worse off than they were before, all in the name of "equality".......

Liberalism is a disease of the mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top