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
Of course armed forces are not typically privately funded. But that does not place them under the umbrella of socialism. There is a whole lot more to socialism than funding, otherwise every government would be socialist.
Governments do, and have historically done, a number of things that do not relate to taking over the private sector or redistributing wealth. Most capitalists would agree that there are certain tasks for which the private sector simply is not suited--fire departments, police departments, and armed forces being among them.
It's not beyond mine. Where did Hank Paulson come from and end up? How about Geithner?
The foxes aren't in the hen house, they own the chicken farm.
This is also why we haven't seen any criminal convictions. Quiet frankly, I feel like these people committed treason, for all intents and purposes, and I am personally acquainted with Bank of America's criminal practices.
I don't know that they're not suited for it, I could be parsing, but the financial incentive perverts the intention and purpose of something like a fire or police department.
This is also, incidentally, why I believe health care should be socialized, but that's probably another kettle of rotten fish.
It isn't the be all and end all, but its a pretty big part of it, especially if you look at the base social and economic concepts.
I agree, not everything would work well in a purely private setting. Though just because something is run in a socialist fashion, doesn't mean it's a bad thing. I don't think there is any pure/totalitarian economic approach in an any developed nation, always a mixture.
This isn't directed at any specific post, but is just an amusing thought.
In my view, there are ideas that make good morals but poor economic theory. The labor theory of value is an example. "Work hard and follow the rules" is a good prescriptive moral message, that I embrace. But it's not a good descriptive statement of how the world works.
In my view, there are ideas that make good morals but poor economic theory. The labor theory of value is an example. "Work hard and follow the rules" is a good prescriptive moral message, that I embrace. But it's not a good descriptive statement of how the world works.
For those of you tossing around words like "uprising", I have a question.
Who would you protest TO, and what would you have them DO? I am serious. The idea just seems ridiculous to me. But perhaps if you help me wrap my head around what the end game would be I could see it as EXTREMELY ridiculous, rather than just "regular" ridiculous.
In all seriousness though, what building or office would be the proper one to stand outside to protest? What official or business person would be the intended target? And what would you have the "authorities" DO to make things "fair"? Would it involve actually TAKING money from some and just handing it over to others? Would it involve a 98% tax rate on some? Would it involve salary caps for CEOs (but certainly not for athletes, musicians, and movie stars)? Would it involve a profit cap on Wal-Mart?
What EXACTLY would create a "level playing field"? And vague ideals don't impress me. I need to see the PLAN. How do we bring about more equality of outcome (rather than just equality of opportunity like we have now)?
Who would you protest TO, and what would you have them DO? I am serious. The idea just seems ridiculous to me. But perhaps if you help me wrap my head around what the end game would be I could see it as EXTREMELY ridiculous, rather than just "regular" ridiculous.
In all seriousness though, what building or office would be the proper one to stand outside to protest? What official or business person would be the intended target? And what would you have the "authorities" DO to make things "fair"? Would it involve actually TAKING money from some and just handing it over to others? Would it involve a 98% tax rate on some? Would it involve salary caps for CEOs (but certainly not for athletes, musicians, and movie stars)? Would it involve a profit cap on Wal-Mart?
What EXACTLY would create a "level playing field"? And vague ideals don't impress me. I need to see the PLAN. How do we bring about more equality of outcome (rather than just equality of opportunity like we have now)?
Pass whatever you're on bro.
Everyone espousing the bootstraps approach, not everyone can start their own business. Who would work in the business? We need people to do the "menial" tasks that are much harder than going to college and getting a desk job will ever be, shouldn't they make such a wage that they can enjoy life?
Which is precisely why the Occupy! movement failed, IMO. They had no plan.
Compare for example the protests of the 1960's over the Vietnam war. Clearly defined problem (kids going to war) and simple solution (end the war). Easy message to get people excited over. Or the civil rights marches of the 50's and 60's....again, pretty clear problem (racial bias) and some well-defined solutions (end segregation, provide civil rights). Also there were highly visible spokesmen giving a consistent message (MLK, for example).
Contrast that to the Occupy! protests. Exactly what are they protesting? Okay, they are protesting the 1% folks. What does that mean? What solutions do they suggest? With no clear message, and no visible spokesman, they appeared to be rebels without a clue.
and, of course, a humanitarian system of physics would mean that if you fell off the empire state building, eg, you would fall slower so as not to be splattered when you hit the ground, whereas someone who jumped up would fall harder....
your ridiculous notion supposes that economic laws are not actually laws at all...just the way the rich have corrupted things to be...wrong
of course it is easier to get richer if you are already rich, and of course it is harder if you start out poor...that's the nature of nature....harder, but not impossible
to quote finger's post above (or at least, paraphrase)....who would you like to enforce your notion of how things OUGHT to be....some corrupt government person....would you have a team of ombudsmen....the millionaire Obama....the millionaire Romney?
who will see that it slows down the more money you have and speeds up the less?
nope...the way it works, and will continue to work, is that if you are poor, you will have to work extra hard and extra long, and extra smart, and have a few breaks, in order to not be poor.
that's not good, that's not bad...that's just the way it is and will continue to be.
crying about it makes as much sense as crying about the law of gravity when you hit the fiftieth floor of the empire state building on your way to the ground....sorry, but it just IS
The people who lack the TF to start the business work work in them.
And it's hardly all menial labor.
The Occupy people had a plan. Give them everything so they could spend it today and be broke tomorrow.
Remember that most of those people were in reality quite well off. There were a lot of lawyers and analysis of arrest records indicated they were from rich zip codes.
So then they wouldn't need things given to them? What were they doing there then? Perhaps they were there simply because they saw inequality and wanted to protest it, even though they were not the affected ones?
I was saying that not everyone can be at the top, even if they yank their bootstraps right off. No, it isn't all menial, but it is often stigmatized as such.
EDIT: I forgot how you like to argue tangential points that were not being discussed, sorry.
I don't have any super strong answers, and I don't represent anybody else at TB, but here are my humble thoughts...
Who are the protests directed at? I think that public protests can influence public opinion.
What would I have them do? Get informed, and vote.
How can "fairness" be enforced? Perfect fairness can't be enforced. That would be utopian. Some disparity is needed in order to give an economy room to grow. But it can reach a level where it ceases to have any moral justification, at which point massive economic disparity becomes a source of social instability and decay, rather than prosperity and security.
I'd say it's a little more subtle than that. "Value" is a human creation - we're free to define it however we want. The definitions we give it lead to certain types of economy. What is the purpose of an economy? What kind of economy do we want?
Is there such a thing as a descriptive moral message?
Can it even be defined?
- Status
