[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by laughingbunny 

True, the bad financial state of the poor is not the responsibility of wealthy people, I guess the world will always stay the same in the core even though the surface might change for a short while

I don't believe that's true, either. I personally believe I'm responsible, and work hard to back that up (put my "money where my mouth is"), but I don't hold others to that same ideal.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Define "improve"

To make better in any permanently substantive way.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

To make better in any permanently substantive way.

You don't think reduced wealth inequality would improve the poors lives?

[Laminar]

He said the poor can't help but give their wealth back to the rich. I think he was addressing some kind of one-time event where wealth is taken from the rich and given to the poor, instead of policies that help promote wealth equality.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

He said the poor can't help but give their wealth back to the rich.

I agree, but I also think that has very little to do with how income inequality has increased.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

This thread was primarily about the shutdown and then it sort of evolved into the debt ceiling too, since they started to combine. Then it evolved into talk about the debt ceiling and whether it should be raised ever again.

Then badkosh said Africans deserved to die from unclean water so I graphically rolled my eyes. Somehow I crossed the line here.

If you're talking ACA, in you're in the wrong thread; You might have better luck here. Or start a new thread. It'd be timely considering open enrollment has started and the website seems to be a piece of shit.


Done.


Any animated gif is now considered a lolcat? Are you 70 years old?


That's a good reminder. I'll have to keep an eye I don't fall too far down the hole and become a parody of a poster. That said, wasn't my previous usage in the thread addendums to news I posted or my own opinion, rather than vacuous commentary?

I questioned whether the reason nothing is being done to have clean water was due to natural selection of the locals. I never said they DESERVED TO DIE. What was the reason for the long list of brands again? What was the agenda?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You don't think reduced wealth inequality would improve the poors lives?

Did I say that? I'm not sure I know what "wealth inequality" really means to most people, anymore. I know the party talking points, but the typical Left and Right dogma on the subject is embarrassingly oversimplified.

Left: "You have too much and we deserve more of it. Fill up this bowl."
Right: "Beg pardon, but that's not a bowl, it's a sieve. See the big holes in it?"

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Did I say that? I'm not sure I know what "wealth inequality" really means to most people, anymore. I know the party talking points, but the typical Left and Right dogma on the subject is embarrassingly oversimplified.

Is this oversimplified?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Did I say that?

It's a question. Yes, there's a tone of surprise.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm not sure I know what "wealth inequality" really means to most people, anymore. I know the party talking points, but the typical Left and Right dogma on the subject is embarrassingly oversimplified.

It means this to me:


Edit: And this:

[el chupacabra]

… .

[subego]

That's a good analogy. Politics is very much what goes around comes around.

The problem is the Tea Party. They don't play that game. You have people who are willing to immolate themselves here.

You can't reason with someone who's willing to (figuratively) die for their cause.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

You can't reason with someone who's willing to (figuratively) die for their cause.

And willing to (figuratively) take you with them.

[laughingbunny]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I don't believe that's true, either. I personally believe I'm responsible, and work hard to back that up (put my "money where my mouth is"), but I don't hold others to that same ideal.

What I mean is people can only be responsible for them selves.
But they can always help everyone by providing opportunities to people who needs it, so people aren't born with the same abilities, but they have the same amount of opportunities

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Your CNN Fact Check says the claim is "in dispute", not that it doesn't look like members of Congress are exempt. Now for why there's absolutely nothing disputable about the claim;

Per Section 1312 of the ACA, as part of Senator Chuck Grassley's "good enough for thee, good enough for me" amendment -- all of Congress and staffers must either get their health care coverage from a health plan created by Obamacare or through an Obamacare exchange. The problem is, Obamacare exchanges do not allow tax-exempt employer contributions to health care premiums. The only subsidies available to individuals on Obamacare are the premium tax credits for individuals who are under 400% of the federal poverty line. The concern of Congresspeople regarding "brain drain" among staffers subjected to the same law as you and me is that the overwhelming majority of these staffers are over 400% of the federal poverty line. ($46k for an individual) Modifications made to Grassley's amendment means Congress and aides can receive tax-exempt contributions from their employer regardless of income. How big is this contribution? Congress and staff receive no less than 75% of their insurance subsidized by their employer. You can "fact-check" all you want, that's an exemption plain and simple. It is one set of rules for you and a different set of rules for them.

I will look more into this when I can. Lest you think I would automatically defend this, it seems like either something shady is going down here, or there is something that wasn't planned out as well as it could have been, or both - either not good. I dunno, I don't know much about this issue. I also wasn't claiming that the CNN page claimed that it was false, just that it isn't a given that it is true either based on their assessment. I'll reread that page and dig more elsewhere, when/if I have the time.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's a question. Yes, there's a tone of surprise.


It means this to me:
*pictures and graphs*

The government can't fix that, only education and changes in habits can.

The way it's been for, well, forever, is that regular folks are crap for handling finances, whether it's because they pre-emptively buy what they can't yet afford (on credit) or piss cash away on frivolous BS, or both (most likely). It doesn't matter, the vast majority of people are wretched at handling the economics of their lives. Unfortunately, this also goes for the government too, because if they were better at it, most would be in the private sector doing it.

I'm going back to the previous analogy, the bowl and sieve (strainer) bit. Something I've learned is, it really doesn't matter what you extract from the "rich", because it's going to end up back in their pockets. It pours out from the top bowl, goes through the sieve, and collects in another bowl that the public doesn't see. (Hint: the wealthy own both bowls and are renting the sieve to you.) Personally, I no longer care if they raise individual tax rates >$250k to 90+%. It doesn't fix anything, because we can make any amount of income we want.

No, the only way to counter any of this is for the general public to learn how to take care of their own money, stop looking at it as a consumable, and work to make it grow. This helps to close the holes, letting less get away from them, and empowers individuals to positively change their "place" in the world. Then it's no longer about money anymore, it's about things that mean much more, such as; self-determination, community, and legacy, just to name a few.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's a good analogy. Politics is very much what goes around comes around.

The problem is the Tea Party. They don't play that game. You have people who are willing to immolate themselves here.

You can't reason with someone who's willing to (figuratively) die for their cause.

Eh, they're a distraction, not much more. "Hey, look over here!"

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

That's a good analogy. Politics is very much what goes around comes around.

The problem is the Tea Party. They don't play that game. You have people who are willing to immolate themselves here.

You can't reason with someone who's willing to (figuratively) die for their cause.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

And willing to (figuratively) take you with them.

Okay, the sweet irony here is that we didn't have to come to a shutdown to delay the Individual mandate and with many Democrats now calling for one, it seems even Tea Partiers couldn't save Democrats from themselves. And with perhaps the most embarrassing rollout of a program in US history, the left are walking in lock-step behind "YES THE GOVT CAN!" and right over a cliff.

People say they want change -- bullshit. They can't stomach change. The dreaded Tea Party is the only bloc with enough integrity to actually challenge its base, unlike those that have given this Administration a virtual pass on no-bid contracts, unprovoked military action, torture, croneyism, Gitmo, habeas corpus rights for "enemy combatants" now offered by remote-control airplane, complete lack of transparency and shut-out of the media, wiretapping now extended by the NSA through the AP, Brazil, Germany, France, you, me..., IRS targeting political foes, and those damned lobbyists "writing legislation for the GOP" have all, but entirely owned this Administration through the ACA. You don't want change, you want (D)s elected and you're perfectly willing to "hold the country hostage", "blow up the economy", immolate yourselves, and figuratively or otherwise take all of us with you. As long as the (D) wins -- period.

Let's not pretend this intense hatred for a bloc of voters has to do with anything other than their relative success in thrusting ideals you don't appreciate.

[ebuddy]

Wealth is not distributed, it is assumed. While Federal revenues and outlays continue to rise year-over-year, wealth disparity continues to rise year-over-year. You continue to ask your government to do more for you which requires their marriage to Big Corp and then you wonder why wealth continues to concentrate among the top 5%. This isn't going to change because, again -- those who decry wealth disparity as a "distribution" problem don't want change.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The government can't fix that, only education and changes in habits can.

The way it's been for, well, forever, is that regular folks are crap for handling finances, whether it's because they pre-emptively buy what they can't yet afford (on credit) or piss cash away on frivolous BS, or both (most likely). It doesn't matter, the vast majority of people are wretched at handling the economics of their lives. Unfortunately, this also goes for the government too, because if they were better at it, most would be in the private sector doing it.

So you posit that it's a cultural issue? Because there are plenty of other developed first world countries that don't suffer the same wealth disparity that the US has.

[BadKosh]

How do liberals run their household money? Run up the credit cards, beg the credit card companies to raise the limits on the cards so they can use that money to pay the interest on the other credit cards...or do you try to live within your means? Heaven forbid they are RADICALS who live within their means.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The government can't fix that, only education and changes in habits can.

The way it's been for, well, forever, is that regular folks are bribe for handling finances, whether it's because they pre-emptively buy what they can't yet afford (on credit) or piss cash away on frivolous BS, or both (most likely). It doesn't matter, the vast majority of people are wretched at handling the economics of their lives. Unfortunately, this also goes for the government too, because if they were better at it, most would be in the private sector doing it.

I'm going back to the previous analogy, the bowl and sieve (strainer) bit. Something I've learned is, it really doesn't matter what you extract from the "rich", because it's going to end up back in their pockets. It pours out from the top bowl, goes through the sieve, and collects in another bowl that the public doesn't see. (Hint: the wealthy own both bowls and are renting the sieve to you.) Personally, I no longer care if they raise individual tax rates >$250k to 90+%. It doesn't fix anything, because we can make any amount of income we want.

No, the only way to counter any of this is for the general public to learn how to take care of their own money, stop looking at it as a consumable, and work to make it grow. This helps to close the holes, letting less get away from them, and empowers individuals to positively change their "place" in the world. Then it's no longer about money anymore, it's about things that mean much more, such as; self-determination, community, and legacy, just to name a few.

Your point about people being wretched about handling their own economics is well taken, I agree with that.

However, the huge disparity in income in this country also has a great deal to do with politics and the march towards deregulation of everything.

In a number of other countries, huge bank frauds and fraudulent mortgages and such are relatively unheard of because these sorts of structures are the pillars of society.

I don't know what percentage point to assign to the profits of the 1 or 2 percent that come at the expense of the little guy, but that is indeed a problem perpetuated by both government and big corporations.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

How do liberals run their household money? Run up the credit cards, beg the credit card companies to raise the limits on the cards so they can use that money to pay the interest on the other credit cards...or do you try to live within your means? Heaven forbid they are RADICALS who live within their means.

Do they stroke their cats and cackle while doing this?



People living outside of their means is a people problem, not a liberal or conservative problem. You realize that half of this country doesn't even vote? It is thought that generally speaking 10% of the country is firmly ideological, the rest of the voting public are swing voters/independents. Statistically this would account for a very small percentage of the population being identifiably liberal, yet any income distribution graph shows that there are far more than this very small percentage living in the low and middle class.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The government can't fix that, only education and changes in habits can.

Oh bullshit. The wealth gap hasn't increased because people are dumber than they used to be. I would attribute a large part of the problem to uncontrollable consumerism, but that doesn't explain the disparity in wage growth and distribution.

I'd be wary of intrusive measure, but Government can fix it if you're crazy enough; Instituting a salary cap would dramatically shift the share of wealth and income. Don't believe me? Look at the NBA. Their "middle-class" is seen as overpaid. Yes, there's an argument to be made that the wage cap prevents some teams from being competitive in the free-agaent market, but I don't see it as any different than the real word where people would rather live in Texas or New York. Newsflash Milwaukee: The amount of money you would need to pay LeBron to play there would decimate the franchise.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The way it's been for, well, forever, is that regular folks are crap for handling finances, whether it's because they pre-emptively buy what they can't yet afford (on credit) or piss cash away on frivolous BS, or both (most likely).

The hilarious part is this is exactly what the private sector has been encouraging for the past 30-40 years. They got what they wanted (constant consumers and revenue) but they don't want to deal with the downside now that its become increasingly visible and topical.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I'm going back to the previous analogy, the bowl and sieve (strainer) bit. Something I've learned is, it really doesn't matter what you extract from the "rich", because it's going to end up back in their pockets.

This logic always bother me because if you're right, doesn't it mean we should mug the rich since it would placate the masses and not effect the rich on the long run?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And with perhaps the most embarrassing rollout of a program in US history

Example 1A of why I've cut down on my responses. The hyperbole is unbearable.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So you posit that it's a cultural issue? Because there are plenty of other developed first world countries that don't suffer the same wealth disparity that the US has.

If the US is a larger consumer culture than those other first world countries, than he wouldn't be incorrect that its partly cultural.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

So you posit that it's a cultural issue? Because there are plenty of other developed first world countries that don't suffer the same wealth disparity that the US has.

Exactly.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Exactly.

I'm surprised you agree with this, maybe I phrased it incorrectly.

Here's my question:

Is the US's large wealth disparity solely a result of stupid people consuming stupidly, or is it caused by a political and economic system that favors the wealthy, ensuring that the interests of the wealthy are enforced by every level of government (everything from police removing unfavorable protesters to congresspeople coding into law polices that favor the wealthy)?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm surprised you agree with this, maybe I phrased it incorrectly.

Here's my question:

Is the US's large wealth disparity solely a result of stupid people consuming stupidly, or is it caused by a political and economic system that favors the wealthy, ensuring that the interests of the wealthy are enforced by every level of government (everything from police removing unfavorable protesters to congresspeople coding into law polices that favor the wealthy)?

Can't it be both?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Wealth is not distributed, it is assumed. While Federal revenues and outlays continue to rise year-over-year, wealth disparity continues to rise year-over-year. You continue to ask your government to do more for you which requires their marriage to Big Corp and then you wonder why wealth continues to concentrate among the top 5%. This isn't going to change because, again -- those who decry wealth disparity as a "distribution" problem don't want change.

This assumes that the marriage between government and corporations is tethered to fraud and abuse. There will always be some element of fraud and abuse, but I think we should start with sinking our efforts into reducing this fraud and abuse. This seems to be something we can all agree upon, right?

I would say that a significant percentage of the income disparity is due to some form of fraud and abuse, depending on how this is defined. I mean, if all of the lobbyists were to disappear overnight, don't you think that this would have a profound effects on that income distribution?

Your arguments along these lines seem to come back to how corporations are needed for the government to do their job, but I disagree with this notion that with this must come with the ability to do anything and everything, completely unchecked.

Your counter argument to this might be the notion that regulation costs money and invites more corruption, but haven't we had enough history of seeing the inevitable outcome of having lax regulation? How about we try some efficient regulation with processes to minimize rampant abuse and corruption for a while? It costs us to *not* have oversight just as it costs us to have oversight, but if you still aren't in favor of a single corruption-prone entity overseeing this, how about adopting one of my best ideas yet that I was yammering on about before, and that is decentralized regulation?

Decentralized regulation would be openness and transparency (which will be tough in and of itself), and then NGOs creating something like Snopes or Wikipedia to expose this fraud and abuse in an accurate way that is not activist in tone, designed to manipulate emotions?

Until we try something along these lines, we'll have the outcome that we have now.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I'm surprised you agree with this, maybe I phrased it incorrectly.

Here's my question:

Is the US's large wealth disparity solely a result of stupid people consuming stupidly, or is it caused by a political and economic system that favors the wealthy, ensuring that the interests of the wealthy are enforced by every level of government (everything from police removing unfavorable protesters to congresspeople coding into law polices that favor the wealthy)?

In my opinion, both, but the greater contributor is the latter.

What do you think about my idea of decentralized regulation?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is the US's large wealth disparity solely a result of stupid people consuming stupidly, or is it caused by a political and economic system that favors the wealthy, ensuring that the interests of the wealthy are enforced by every level of government (everything from police removing unfavorable protesters to congresspeople coding into law polices that favor the wealthy)?

IMO it is caused by the former, and is amplified by the latter. It's analogous to runaway nuclear reaction that if you don't get ahead of, will literally blow up in your face. There is a critical point (just like in my analogy) and we are approaching that point faster each day.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Can't it be both?

I think it can, but what's so different between the US and other countries? Are Americans really that much more consumerist?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

I think it can, but what's so different between the US and other countries? Are Americans really that much more consumerist?

Thats the impression I get from foreigners, yes. In particular we have a "disposable" society that promotes throwing out things that break and replacing them, rather than repairing them.

I wonder if the iPhone might be a good measure – in the US it seems a good chunk of people update regularly. If the European numbers were similar, the theory might be wrong.

[Laminar]

I'd be really interested in seeing data on that.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh bullshit. The wealth gap hasn't increased because people are dumber than they used to be. I would attribute a large part of the problem to uncontrollable consumerism, but that doesn't explain the disparity in wage growth and distribution.

I wonder why I waste my time if you're simply going to be obstinate and refuse to pay attention. "Ooooh, he's talking down to us now!" **** it. If you're going to sit and swear at me when I'm trying to help, then I'll take the gloves off too. You expect that because of your personality (generally confrontational) that I'll continue to "work around" you, you're sadly mistaken. Don't mistake civility for weakness.

The hilarious part is this is exactly what the private sector has been encouraging for the past 30-40 years. They got what they wanted (constant consumers and revenue) but they don't want to deal with the downside now that its become increasingly visible and topical.

Agreed, that's what I was saying WRT to the credit issue. Borrowing and spending your way out of debt isn't a long term solution. Whether it's through gross taxation or rampant consumerism, it's all wealth redistribution. "Oh no, he's talking bad about capitalism!" Yep, sure am. It has issues, especially when it's fueled by seemingly endless amounts of credit. Credit cards are every bit as harmful to our society as draconian tax laws, because every time money changes hands the "Angel's Share" goes missing. I'll get back to you in a second.

However, the huge disparity in income in this country also has a great deal to do with politics and the march towards deregulation of everything.

In a number of other countries, huge bank frauds and fraudulent mortgages and such are relatively unheard of because these sorts of structures are the pillars of society.

No, it's because people in other 1st world countries do a better job of saving, investing, and don't buy every god-damned thing coming and going, especially not on credit. Education, WRT to money matters, in the USA, is abysmal. Damned majority of people don't even understand how APRs work.

This logic always bother me because if you're right, doesn't it mean we should mug the rich since it would placate the masses and not effect the rich on the long run?

That's one way, and it may eventually come to that. However, without the other parts of the equation; temperance and fair judgement, we'll be back to where we are now within 20-30 years. Listen, I'm a Libertarian, not a pure capitalist, that means I'm for individual liberty, first and foremost. I don't believe that entirely open markets are our salvation any more than I believe that pure socialism is the answer, but the reality is that any system can work if we factor out ignorance, greed, and waste. Fix greed? Not really, but the other 2/3rds of the formula is tenable. Liberty != Money, but it isn't the antithesis to it either.

Government and corporations, right now, are the same thing. They're both designed to separate you from your money and pass it on to the people in the background, the fix is to save more and spend/waste less. You can become obscenely rich in the background (Left) or the foreground (Right) just by changing strategies, I have several contingencies. Left or Right doesn't matter, the "rate of return" is surprisingly similar.

No, we can't turn on a dime, but we don't have to, gradual change is enough. The graphs you showed are synonymous with our transition to becoming a disposable society to when credit cards and debt spending became the economic solution du jour. If you want to understand how economics works (macro and micro) by adapting the Laws of Thermodynamics; re. when we went from tax laws being a couple paragraphs, to over 10,000 pages long, that's an obvious sign that something went very wrong. The more complex the machine, the less efficient it becomes.

The US government has been bought, and that's a tricky fix because anyone that goes into politics ends up selling themselves out (back to, "the people who want to be life-long politicians are the ones who shouldn't be there"), so there's no easy solution politically. Also, a half dozen entities own the Fed and getting it back could be bloody, but eventually will have to be done. A silent, intellectual revolution is the answer, conserving and saving, winning a war of attrition by starving the "beast" (or "machine", if you'd rather), and that requires discipline and willpower, two things Western society (particularly the USA) doesn't seem to value as much as it once did.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it's because people in other 1st world countries do a better job of saving, investing, and don't buy every god-damned thing coming and going, especially not on credit.

Like I said before, I'd be really interested in seeing research on this.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

No, it's because people in other 1st world countries do a better job of saving, investing, and don't buy every god-damned thing coming and going, especially not on credit. Education, WRT to money matters, in the USA, is abysmal. Damned majority of people don't even understand how APRs work.

The US economy is also too tied to our boom and bust cycles, and thus US banks have a pretty bad global ranking in terms of safety:

World’s 50 Safest Banks 2013 | Global Finance

According to this there are 6 Canadian banks in there considered safer than the safest US bank.

[BadKosh]

The main problem I see is you can't fix stupid.
People don't realize they may be self destructive.
People with tin foil hats can't be reasoned with without education, and the ability to explain in simple terms why something won't work, or will work.
People are lazy and will slack off, look for 'easy' solutions in the short terms because they don't get the long term implications.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The US economy is also too tied to our boom and bust cycles, and thus US banks have a pretty bad global ranking in terms of safety:

World’s 50 Safest Banks 2013 | Global Finance

According to this there are 6 Canadian banks in there considered safer than the safest US bank.

I largely switched to Swiss and German banks some time ago, US banks don't even blip in the top 25. Ah, I see one at 31 now, below 2 that are in China, that's comforting.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I wonder why I waste my time if you're simply going to be obstinate and refuse to pay attention. "Ooooh, he's talking down to us now!" **** it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you're going to sit and swear at me when I'm trying to help, then I'll take the gloves off too. You expect that because of your personality (generally confrontational) that I'll continue to "work around" you, you're sadly mistaken. Don't mistake civility for weakness.

If you think I've forgotten Mr. "Harsh but fair" you're sadly mistaken. I'll keep an eye on my outbursts, though.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Agreed, that's what I was saying WRT to the credit issue. Borrowing and spending your way out of debt isn't a long term solution. Whether it's through gross taxation or rampant consumerism, it's all wealth redistribution. "Oh no, he's talking bad about capitalism!" Yep, sure am. It has issues, especially when it's fueled by seemingly endless amounts of credit. Credit cards are every bit as harmful to our society as draconian tax laws, because every time money changes hands the "Angel's Share" goes missing. I'll get back to you in a second.

I agree that credit has played a part of the problem, but honestly all I think it did was delay everything rather than cause it.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's one way, and it may eventually come to that.

So, what's more radical, a wage cap or massive taxes? I suppose the former because we did have a 90% top rate in this country decades ago.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Liberty != Money, but it isn't the antithesis to it either.

Sure. Power seems to be the antithesis to Liberty. The problem being Money = Power so...

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Government and corporations, right now, are the same thing.

I can't grasp this argument. Because money? Influence? Control? Government passes laws and funds social welfare, so no, they aren't the same to me. Maybe if you're rich enough that the government can't "touch" you it feels that way.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The graphs you showed are synonymous with our transition to becoming a disposable society to when credit cards and debt spending became the economic solution du jour.

I'm not sure I agree. When did credit become commonplace? I see a surge in the rate of inequality in the 80s which coincides with a couple of things:

• The greedy 80s. The banking industry took off and it was me me me
• Simplification/elimination of tax brackets and rates
• Drop in taxes across the board
• Large drop in the top tax rate
• Rise of CEO pay in respect tot he average worker (this happened more in the 90s)

...and god knows what else I don't remember, socially, economically, and politically. Economic globalization? Manufacturing died in the 80s, right (I remember the Made in USA commercials).

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you want to understand how economics works (macro and micro) by adapting the Laws of Thermodynamics; re. when we went from tax laws being a couple paragraphs, to over 10,000 pages long, that's an obvious sign that something went very wrong. The more complex the machine, the less efficient it becomes.

There are trade-offs. But complexity surely makes it easier to hide wrongdoing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I largely switched to Swiss and German banks some time ago, US banks don't even blip in the top 25. Ah, I see one at 31 now, below 2 that are in China, that's comforting.

I agree with you, don't think I don't, I'm just saying that the fraud and abuse tied to some big American corporations like these banks is a part of the whole crazy big income gap too.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Example 1A of why I've cut down on my responses. The hyperbole is unbearable.

You mean like "uncontrollable consumerism"? Spare me. I've not seen this decline in your responses, but if it makes the forum more bearable for you; consider all hyperbole as humor going forward.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you think I've forgotten Mr. "Harsh but fair" you're sadly mistaken. I'll keep an eye on my outbursts, though.

It's just nice to have conversation without confrontation, you know, like when talking with people in real life.

I agree that credit has played a part of the problem, but honestly all I think it did was delay everything rather than cause it.

Correct. It's many factors, the antitrust laws pushed all the players underground, but didn't change their activities. Now they control paper, not industry. However, the way to combat that as an individual is to be wise in your spending and stop buying into ever more creative ways of disposing of things.

So, what's more radical, a wage cap or massive taxes? I suppose the former because we did have a 90% top rate in this country decades ago.

Either is entirely avoidable, unless you change all the corporate tax laws. Those methods will only affect high earners with awful accountants.

Sure. Power seems to be the antithesis to Liberty. The problem being Money = Power so...

No, ignorance and apathy are the antithesis to liberty. People who are educated and diligent are much harder to fleece.

I can't grasp this argument. Because money? Influence? Control? Government passes laws and funds social welfare, so no, they aren't the same to me. Maybe if you're rich enough that the government can't "touch" you it feels that way.

Corporations control government, and shifts in ideology only shift the rules, they don't stop the game. Your second part hits the nail on the head, the "people in charge" can't be touched, because the way things are structured now, they can't be singled out. I've met some of these men and women, they aren't concerned about Law, except in ways that it can be used to further their interests.

I'm not sure I agree. When did credit become commonplace? I see a surge in the rate of inequality in the 80s which coincides with a couple of things:

For the government? Post WW2? Globalized banking and the loss of manufacturing were the biggest hits on financial equality, but that's fictitious too, because these are people who aren't even on the grid, they sit behind massive multinationals.

...and god knows what else I don't remember, socially, economically, and politically. Economic globalization? Manufacturing died in the 80s, right (I remember the Made in USA commercials).

NAFTA made a lot of people very happy, the ones you'd call "the wrong people". They hadn't partied so hard since 1913, when the Fed became semi-autonomous.

There are trade-offs. But complexity surely makes it easier to hide wrongdoing.

Wherever you create a wrinkle, you make a place where someone can hide money.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This assumes that the marriage between government and corporations is tethered to fraud and abuse. There will always be some element of fraud and abuse, but I think we should start with sinking our efforts into reducing this fraud and abuse. This seems to be something we can all agree upon, right?

Yes.

I would say that a significant percentage of the income disparity is due to some form of fraud and abuse, depending on how this is defined. I mean, if all of the lobbyists were to disappear overnight, don't you think that this would have a profound effects on that income distribution?

How do you propose to eliminate lobbyists who have the government's ear precisely because they have the wares government needs?

Your arguments along these lines seem to come back to how corporations are needed for the government to do their job, but I disagree with this notion that with this must come with the ability to do anything and everything, completely unchecked.

Without oversight of the oversight authority and related transparency, this is unfortunately a pipe dream. The larger the government becomes, the less comprehensible it is to the public and the less oversight they have into government action. Bureaucracies are endowed with budgets based on their expressed needs and spending occurs more to demonstrate need than address it. Before long, we discuss possible cuts in rates of increases with no real cuts in the bureaucracy itself. There is a lovable snow seal pup in peril within each.

Your counter argument to this might be the notion that regulation costs money and invites more corruption, but haven't we had enough history of seeing the inevitable outcome of having lax regulation?

One that the public hadn't already begun acting on? Not really. I give people a little more credit than this when in an environment requiring their engagement. We don't need an MMA to oversee the BP oil platform disaster or the HHS to oversee 10 years of reports on failed brake lines resulting in death or the SEC overseeing a market meltdown or the FHA overseeing a failed housing market. We can watch these things ourselves.

How about we try some efficient regulation with processes to minimize rampant abuse and corruption for a while? It costs us to *not* have oversight just as it costs us to have oversight, but if you still aren't in favor of a single corruption-prone entity overseeing this, how about adopting one of my best ideas yet that I was yammering on about before, and that is decentralized regulation?

If this results in less regulation and subsequent wink-nod relationships between the authority and entity overall, yes.

Decentralized regulation would be openness and transparency (which will be tough in and of itself), and then NGOs creating something like Snopes or Wikipedia to expose this fraud and abuse in an accurate way that is not activist in tone, designed to manipulate emotions?

Until we try something along these lines, we'll have the outcome that we have now.

I can't think of a single entity above the fray of bias. This is generally counterintuitive to what we know of human nature. If I hear a report of a drug killing a person, I won't take that drug. If the government attempts to protect us from drug-death proactively, we may never learn of its life-saving qualities. I do not lean toward the assumption that regulation is necessary. If you have an idea that could decrease it overall, I'm in.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You mean like "uncontrollable consumerism"? Spare me. I've not seen this decline in your responses, but if it makes the forum more bearable for you; consider all hyperbole as humor going forward.

No, the:

And with perhaps the most embarrassing rollout of a program in US history

I figured, probably like Dakar, was referring to the ACA. The ACA isn't even fully in effect yet, so this is indeed hyperbole.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I do not lean toward the assumption that regulation is necessary. If you have an idea that could decrease it overall, I'm in.

I cannot wrap my head around what you think the outcome of having no regulation would be like, sorry, you'll have to explain this to me like I'm 12.

[ebuddy]

There are a number of countries with what is deemed a troubling wealth disparity and the US is not #1 on this list. You will not find the money-grubbing, cigar-chomping, free market capitalist stalwarts you might expect to see among the countries with poorer records. The problem? Aside from a lack of regard for aid of any kind in the narrative itself, the fundamental problems are Fed distortion of money, Fed distortion of commerce, Fed distortion of labor, and Fed distortion of the free market altogether. As these inevitable follies of a centralized authority increase, so too does wealth disparity.

People are neither 100% successful in their monetary strategy nor 100% failed in it. They will naturally move in and out of wealth. IMO, there are enough stupid rich people and smart poor people to dispel any notions that intellect has a critical role. What's left is what makes you and me who we are. How were we raised? What makes us attractive? How do we define success? How engaged are we to seize means or opportunities of achieving it? If the numbers still matter, you'll see a government that is staggering under its own weight; leaning on China with one arm around a printing press and the other around you and me, clumsily jabbing us in the rib cage with its pen. There's your hyperbole.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I cannot wrap my head around what you think the outcome of having no regulation would be like, sorry, you'll have to explain this to me like I'm 12.

Hey buddy, can you put your phone down a sec? I want to explain the difference between anarchy and sensible, rule of law.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Hey buddy, can you put your phone down a sec? I want to explain the difference between anarchy and sensible, rule of law.

So regulation creates anarchy?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are a number of countries with what is deemed a troubling wealth disparity and the US is not #1 on this list. You will not find the money-grubbing, cigar-chomping, free market capitalist stalwarts you might expect to see among the countries with poorer records. The problem? Aside from a lack of regard for aid of any kind in the narrative itself, the fundamental problems are Fed distortion of money, Fed distortion of commerce, Fed distortion of labor, and Fed distortion of the free market altogether. As these inevitable follies of a centralized authority increase, so too does wealth disparity.

People are neither 100% successful in their monetary strategy nor 100% failed in it. They will naturally move in and out of wealth. IMO, there are enough stupid rich people and smart poor people to dispel any notions that intellect has a critical role. What's left is what makes you and me who we are. How were we raised? What makes us attractive? How do we define success? How engaged are we to seize means or opportunities of achieving it? If the numbers still matter, you'll see a government that is staggering under its own weight; leaning on China with one arm around a printing press and the other around you and me, clumsily jabbing us in the rib cage with its pen. There's your hyperbole.

Which country has a greater wealth disparity?

[subego]

I couldn't be that patient. I'd have to Google it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I couldn't be that patient. I'd have to Google it.

I just did:

Map: How the world’s countries compare on income inequality (the U.S. ranks below Nigeria)

http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-da...#axzz2ifXRLGcu