source of your "most of the 50 million" ad the 50 million number please?
Reagan is not great
- Thread starter nitro
- Start date
I would guess that Thomas Piketty would be quite chagrined to hear you say "there is no rational basis" for his arguments on why wealth is distributed as it is.
I developed my thesis on my own after looking at the data, much thought, further reading, and discussing my thinking with an economist friend. I was pleased to observe, however, upon reading "Capital in the 21st Century," that Piketty agreed with me. He is arguably the number one authority on wealth distribution and its history in Europe, Great Britain, and the United States, so that gives me great confidence that my ideas, with regard to the genesis of the current wealth distribution in the U.S. anyway, are correct.
The path that led us to this point got a boost with Reagan's administration, when compression of the tax rates was extreme. Of course, this was soon recognized as damaging, and some of this compression was therefore subsequently undone. More adjustment in the direction of greater progressivity is still urgently needed however. (You will recall that such was one of Sanders proposals, and a reason why I contributed to his campaign.) Rate compression coupled to lower rates on unearned income is the root cause of the wealth distribution we see. There are other secondary factors that contribute. These are in large part, however, not independent variables, because these secondary factors have been fueled by the core effects of the supply-side economics that started to be implemented in a serious way with Reagan and still haunt us today. (Corporate executive compensation is a factor, but the magnitude of its effect is not independent of tax structure.)
When you reduce the tax rate dramatically on the wealthy and raise it a little bit on the middle class, what is your idea of how that would affect wealth distribution over time? What is your idea of how this tax rate change would affect the proportion of unearned income in the various deciles of income distribution? If unearned income is taxed at a lower rate, even a few percent, than earned income, what would be the effect of compounding this rate difference over thirty-five years? How would redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy affect the demand for credit in the middle class? What would be the result of increasing demand for credit in the middle class on unearned income in the highest deciles of wealth distribution? When I look at wealth distribution as a function of time from the 1980s forward, I find that wealth grows exponentially in the upper deciles despite some of the bracket compression in the 1980s having been later undone. What should this tell me? Would this observation be supportive of, or counter, my thesis? Would you conclude that labor is getting exponentially lazier, and the wealthier are working exponentially harder?
(I hope not!)Finally, I would be most entertained if you would give me your explanation of how "50 million immigrants, most of whom are of welfare," [to quote one of the posts above] have managed to produce the wealth distribution that exists in the United States in 2016.
Last edited:
SMH. We've been through this repeatedly. You're obsessed with the Reagan tax rates.
The disparities you are so concerned about were driven by several obvious factors. One, the abandonment of the Rust Belt and its many highpaying industrial/manufacturing jobs. Two, an unprecedented explosion in CEO/ hedge fund compensation, much of which took place under Bill Clinton. Three, immigration, as discussed above. Four, FED policies that greatly favored the super rich at the expense of small savers and retirees.
We already had programs, like the earned income credit, EIC, which gave money to low income tax filers. It expanded under Reagan and Bush.
You totally ignore the fact that the Reagan marginal rate cuts were offset in large part by reductions in various tax dodges available to the rich. The rich have never paid the rates you imagine. Your whole thesis is severely flawed, but like with nitro, I know you will continue to gnaw on your bone.
The disparities you are so concerned about were driven by several obvious factors. One, the abandonment of the Rust Belt and its many highpaying industrial/manufacturing jobs. Two, an unprecedented explosion in CEO/ hedge fund compensation, much of which took place under Bill Clinton. Three, immigration, as discussed above. Four, FED policies that greatly favored the super rich at the expense of small savers and retirees.
We already had programs, like the earned income credit, EIC, which gave money to low income tax filers. It expanded under Reagan and Bush.
You totally ignore the fact that the Reagan marginal rate cuts were offset in large part by reductions in various tax dodges available to the rich. The rich have never paid the rates you imagine. Your whole thesis is severely flawed, but like with nitro, I know you will continue to gnaw on your bone.
This business of getting rid of the EPA , the IRA, etc. is prima facie ridiculous. The people proposing such nonsense seldom propose what they would do to replace the functions of these agencies, so one has to assume nothing. These are populist ideas promulgated by those who call themselves 'Libertarians,' but have nothing to do with classical libertarian philosophy, Chomsky calls them "anarcho capitalists." That seems to be a good fit.
It makes no sense whatsoever to blame our sorely needed government agencies for bad legislation, though they often bear some responsibility for bad regulation. We will make matters worse; not better, if we abolish these agencies without thought of the consequences. These agencies are charged with carrying out the will of Congress embodied by statute. The way to get a better result is to replace bad regulations and bad statutes with good ones.
IMO there should be thorough cost benefit analysis done before new regulations are adopted. It would seem that regulatory capture is rampant, with very large cost/benefit ratios when the benefit is looked at from the public's perspective. This unfavorable ratio is characteristic of regulatory capture. Also, there is no benefit to be attained, other than by lawyers or politicians, from unenforceable statutes -- or statutes that can only be enforced at high cost without commensurate benefit-- because the same benefit could be attained at lower cost via public awareness and education; yet we continue to pass such statutes. An example of would be "hate crimes" legislation. Although hate crimes occur and are deplorable they were already covered under existing statutes.
We have many other examples of faulty legislation being introduced for political reasons that is not supportable by logic. An example would be legislation making gun manufacturers responsible for crimes committed using the guns they make and legally sell. Sanders was right to vote against such legislation.
We need better legislators, especially those good at articulating the issues to a restless public. In that regard, Trump is not only incapable but actually dangerous. He is spreading fear, lies, innuendo, and unfounded conspiracy theories. He is a very dangerous individual in a democracy that is struggling with its own misdeeds.
Last edited:
You got it almost right but it wasn't the Fed it was Congress and the administration that was responsible. You do Reagan a disservice, because it wasn't just his administration. The GWB administration fell nearly as much under the charm of supply-side economics Reagan's did. And it is only the compounding over years that produces what we see, the immediate effect, by comparison, is almost imperceptible. That's characteristic of government actions that the public, including the mainstream media, never catches on to. Another example, the public does not understand the link between deficits and inflation. They never catch on that when you don't pay for a war by raising taxes*, you pay for it by buying bread.
Oh, they recognize that the price has gone up, and they call it inflation, but they never catch on that they've just done their part to chip in on the $6 million cost of killing an Iraqi ($24 million per family of four!).__________________
*that's how we paid of our WWII debt, but then we figured out another way to get the money and still get re-elected.
Last edited:
And in 2008, I'm guessing you'd have taken anyone over Obama...
...harebrained ideology and wishful thinking are equivalent to reality?
In 08 I wrote In my usual wise ass name, Howdy Doodie. 2012 Romney was head and shoulders a better choice than Obama who has done absolutely nothing to bring any justice to our corrupt financial system. Given the debacle of the financial crisis a republican president would have been impeached for such dereliction of duty.
I never said we should do away with the EPA, but it should not be used as a political club like it is now. The stupidity of that had cost us and prevented us from advancing our power grid towards nuclear whuch is far safer than the propaganda from idiot leftists still spew, and would be much more efficient. To be fair there is a little known fact that the oil and fossil fuel industries are in the same bed as the goofy fanatics on this issue. Watch Pandoras Promise on Netflix is you want to be educated on the subject