• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
#241
NWB said:
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.
Click to expand...

undoubtedly the French Revolution fits your thesis...but not the American Revolution

the colonists were not one bit less well off than the people of England (barring, of course, that they were CULTURALLY less well off....England was vastly more urbanized)

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#242
nashvillebill said:
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.
Click to expand...

In my crowd it isn't that taxes are too high and should be cut. It that the money is not spent well.

A city local to me gets billions every year. It is still a drug and murder infest cesspool. It's my guess that the place get's 12 billion a year between fed and state monies.

If find that interesting since that the amount that funded the Marshall plan that rebuilt a continent. I am perplexed at how it can't rebuild a city. With a single influx of that cash we saved the free world yet we can't save a small city.
 
#245
Lonesomedave said:
undoubtedly the French Revolution fits your thesis...but not the American Revolution

the colonists were not one bit less well off than the people of England (barring, of course, that they were CULTURALLY less well off....England was vastly more urbanized)

davesignatureII-1.png
Click to expand...

Please allow me to plug Jared Diamond's book Guns Germs and Steel again. One of the points he makes isn't that the British were so well off. But that they were amazed at the high level of wealth in the US.
 
#248
BawanaRik said:
In my crowd it isn't that taxes are too high and should be cut. It that the money is spent well.

A city local to me gets billions every year. It is still a drug and murder infest cesspool. It's my guess that the place get's 12 billion a year between fed and state monies.

If find that interesting since that the amount that funded the Marshall plan that rebuilt a continent. I am perplexed at how it can't rebuild a city. With a single influx of that cash we saved the free world yet we can't save a small city.
Click to expand...

A few things:

1) The Marshall Plan didn't rebuild a continent. It rebuilt a majority of WESTERN Europe.

2) The Marshall Plan cost $800 billion dollars (adjusted for inflation) over 6 years. ~$133 billion per year.
 
#250
aborgman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Governments have always provided what might be considered "services." I suppose the U.S.P.S. could be a borderline example of socialism, but the Navy and Army? C'mon. There have been navies and armies long before the concept of socialism existed.
 
#251
Money being thrown at a problem does not fix it. Ever.

Now, money spent well, combined with effort from all for whom the money was intended, combined with a good plan, combined with good government/management, combined with innovation and inspiration, possibly.

But money itself solves nothing.

So, throwing a bunch of money at a high-crime area will accomplish zero with a corrupt government, lack of enthusiasm for change among those in the area, lack of organization, lack of a real plan, and lack of inspiration will accomplish exactly zero.

Therefore, counting the pennies per second spent at different times, in different geographical political and socioeconomic climates furthers the conversation the same amount .....exactly zero.

Unless any two scenarios have/had the exact same kind of plan, leadership, cooperation, inspiration, and innovation (which I find to be impossible to even quantify) then you have compared apples to oranges. The money itself is then relegated to being a mere ONE factor in a laundry list of factors that determine whether or not a growth, or regrowth, plan is successful. (And I would argue not even very high on the list.)
 
#252
Lee Moses said:
Governments have always provided what might be considered "services." I suppose the U.S.P.S. could be a borderline example of socialism, but the Navy and Army? C'mon. There have been navies and armies long before the concept of socialism existed.
Click to expand...

Most rational people feel that the government should provide services that they can't provide for them selves. The Post Office is a good example. The Ike Pike system AKA the National Defense Highway System is another.

Food for able bodied people. Not so much
 
#255
Lonesomedave said:
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

davesignatureII-1.png
Click to expand...

You need to read a bit deeper. This governing (control) by a led to economic inequality, as the money went to those in control.
 
#257
BawanaRik said:
Sorry 15 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
Click to expand...

The numbers range from about $12 billion to $20 billion in 1947 dollars.

Adjusted for inflation that is more like $120 billion to $200 billion in 2013 dollars.


The other way it can be looked at is that the Marshall Plan chewed up ~5.4% of US Gross National Product.

5.4% of the US GNP last year would be ~$850 billion.

So in terms of total hit to the economy of the USA, it was realistically the equivalent of the government spending $850 billion today.
 
#259
aborgman said:
The numbers range from about $12 billion to $20 billion in 1947 dollars.

Adjusted for inflation that is more like $120 billion to $200 billion in 2013 dollars.


The other way it can be looked at is that the Marshall Plan chewed up ~5.4% of US Gross National Product.

5.4% of the US GNP last year would be ~$850 billion.

So in terms of total hit to the economy of the USA, it was realistically the equivalent of the government spending $850 billion today.
Click to expand...

$115.3 billion when adjusted for inflation.
 
#260
aborgman said:
The numbers range from about $12 billion to $20 billion in 1947 dollars.

Adjusted for inflation that is more like $120 billion to $200 billion in 2013 dollars.


The other way it can be looked at is that the Marshall Plan chewed up ~5.4% of US Gross National Product.

5.4% of the US GNP last year would be ~$850 billion.

So in terms of total hit to the economy of the USA, it was realistically the equivalent of the government spending $850 billion today.
Click to expand...

850 billion dollars. Yeah they spend that. But I thnik the thing that amazes me is that my dollar is worth so little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back