yes sir...let's keep up the ad hominem attacks...that'll move the ball down the field.
if you can't argue against their arguments, argue against THEM...
that will, at least, establish your moral superiority
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
US income inequality at record high
- Thread starter Tony Flow MMMM
- Start date
- Status
yes sir...let's keep up the ad hominem attacks...that'll move the ball down the field.
if you can't argue against their arguments, argue against THEM...
that will, at least, establish your moral superiority
Fair enough. However, I have yet to see anything leaning toward proof that it is, in fact, harder to make it out of poverty here than either other places, or other times in this place. So it is a two-way street. How can one say, with impunity, that things are "unfair" here?
(By the way, I grew up pretty poor myself. So I guess that somehow qualifies me to comment? As if people who did not are somehow "not allowed" to comment on poverty?)
yes sir...let's keep up the ad hominem attacks...that'll move the ball down the field.
if you can't argue against their arguments, argue against THEM...
that will, at least, establish your moral superiority
I'm not looking for moral superiority I'm looking for legitimate, honest debate. Claiming caveman had it worse than poor people in Jersey does not qualify.
It's long been my view that there is an ideal tax rate, which is not defined necessarily by the largest amount of tax revenue, but rather by the largest GDP which results from government spending.
In other words, IMHO we need a certain amount of government spending on infrastructure, defense, and general public requirements. Spend less than that, the roads crumble, bridges fall down, hurricanes or tornados don't get predicted, etc. Spend too much and the tax burden becomes too restrictive.
Many folks are too quick to dismiss all government spending as wasteful and all government projects as boondoggles. Yet history has several shining examples of government projects which spurred this nation's growth, providing a phenomenal return on investment (and which private industry couldn't or wouldn't do). The Transcontinental Railroad completed in 1869 is a good example; it opened up the west for development.
The Panama Canal is another. Private industry tried but failed; massive American government funding (highly criticized at the time) completed what has now become one of the most important waterways in the world (and it was vital during World War 2).
The Interstate Highway System of the 1950's and 1960's is yet another. Again, it took massive government funding, but the interstates are vital for American business; not just for the truckers or regular drivers, but look at the number of businesses that grow up around Interstate interchanges. Private industry could not achieve the success of the Interstate system.
Again, I do believe that too much taxation will choke off the economy as well. There must be a balance; merely screaming that "taxes are too high and should be cut" is unrealistic.
Cavemen probably had it a lot better than poor people in Jersey just by the fact that they didn't live in Jersey.
To work one's tail off to get good grades in high school, stay out of trouble with the law, not impregnate any girls/do not become a pregnant girl, go to college and apply oneself, apply oneself in his chosen career, and stay married to only one person for life. How's that?
Why would I take offense at that? I've been blessed to have lived my entire life in the United States of America, so of course I've never been truly poor. And neither have you.
Trying to avoid politics and using history as a guide, it appears that past episodes of gross inequality has led to revolutions, uprisings, etc. This is currently happening throughout much of the Middle East.
The Russian, American, and most other revolutions came about from unequal economic conditions. Yes, I fully realize that each of those noted nations took drastically different courses following their respective revolutions.
Leaving moral judgements out of it, based on similar historical conditions, I'd expect serious social unrest if this trend continues.
Right from the very beginning the US had a government controlled and funded:
Navy, Army, Post Office, Legal System, etc.
ALL of which are "socialist".
That's an awesome post Bill!
I could add many more examples, but I think you stated it pretty well.
Umm, no. There are forms of government that lie between socialism and anarchy. Socialism has to do with central production of goods and redistribution of wealth. None of the things you mentioned have any direct link to socialism.
There is zero evidence that an optimal "Laffer" tax rate provides for the healthiest economy.
that's also absurd....to advocate with we live without the government providing the things you listed is to advocate anarchy...no one is doing that...complete straw man
what we are discussing here is "how much else should government be doing"?
those things you describe are the basic functions of all government.....i mean, if government doesn't do THEM what do we have a government for.
to say that they are socialist just boggles the mind....especially because your implied position is "see, government does those socialist things, so anything else government wants to do is OK".....
also preposterous
so if we are against government handouts...that means we are against the Navy....and that means we are against all government...and that means we are anarchists....is that your logic?
Socialism has to do with government ownership or control of means of production or provision of a service.
TVA? Socialism.
Post Office (at the time it was founded) - socialism.
Actually my father never got out of the eighth grade, My mother had 8 kids. I know things that may surprise you.
And even though I am not thrilled with this nation it did give me an opportunity to not only get educated but to get ahead.
As I've mentioned I've been fortunate enough to spend time working in a lab. This allowed to meet many people from around the world. And talk with them
I just got out of a nice hot shower and yes I appreciate it.
I recently read Jared Diamonds book Gun Germs and steel.
A surely appreciate that shower. Man it is living large!
you need to go back and re-read history...
the American Revolution did NOT come about because of unequal economic conditions....preposterous!
it came about because we were governed with no say in HOW we were governed
Dave, I always enjoy your posts.
Yes, part of it was governance, but I think most colonists would have accepted things as they were if so much American wealth wasn't going to England. I think the governance issue was a result of the economic inequalities between the colonies and England. In other words, how they were being governed was by taking much their wealth which eventually became untenable.
At any rate, my main point was that historical periods of great inequality has usually led to uprisings, revolutions, etc. The French revolution fairly fits my thesis as well.
No, it's pure capitalism.
Private police forces, private courts, etc.
If the government is providing or controlling any means of production or provision of a service - it's an example of socialism.
The US is mixed economy, made up of capitalist and socialist segments.
If you're having a discussion about the government doing something... well, I'll throw out a quote for you:
You're haggling price.
As a purely anecdotal response to this, when I think I'm having a rough day, I remind myself that there's 2 billion people who'd gladly trade me.
- Status
