Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Turns out that high income inequality is massively worse for a country then reasonable wealth redistribution.
The problem with this idea is that the truly wealthy won't spread anything around. The wealthy elites who run the IMF & other banking scams, the major multinational corporations, the Democratic & Republican parties, these people aren't going to redistribute their wealth. They've written he tax code in such a way that they instead create foundations & think tanks that they control & then donate all their money to themselves, tax free so that they can fund political issues that will place them in line for more favors/money from the Government & Corporations. It's the guy who owns a a successful restaurant and makes $250k that will get taxed & redistributed to death, not the Rockefellers. This is the Progressive system in action.
One of the biggest jumps in productivity and quality of living in America happened after WWII when wealth was redistributed to 8.8 million veterans who took advantage of college tuition with paid living expenses, vocational training, low interest mortgages, low-interest business startup loans, a year of unemployment insurance and other programs introduced by the congress. This is what build the American middle class as we know, or rather knew it, and not some limitless greed of corporations and third-world business practices. Redistribution of wealth is good, if implemented wisely.
Which scenario is better for the economy? (Please check one.)
[ ] Give 50 millionaires a tax break, they'll go out and buy 50 widgets.
[ ] Give 50 million people a pay hike, they'll go out and buy 50 million widgets.
You present a false dichotomy.
If your objective is growth, you need to focus on capital formation. People with capital invest it in ways that create jobs. They start companies, they buy bonds in companies that are seeking capital to expand, and so on.
Yes. There is a good greed driving people to have a house with a full garage and there is Enron greed, driving people to cheat, lie and steal other peoples money...
Ben Bernanke averted a double dip recession. The country has not suffered from QE or any Obama policy. The only failure has been the Tea Party goons holding the global financial system hostage with their debt ceiling ransoms.
You have some sick double standards. Obama doesn't hold the magic wand to fix 30 years of Reagan destroying this country's economy.
It's amazing how far people will go to defend the very people that caused what they complain about. You care less about income disparacy. The only thing you care about is your partisan politics.
One of the biggest jumps in productivity and quality of living in America happened after WWII when wealth was redistributed to 8.8 million veterans who took advantage of college tuition with paid living expenses, vocational training, low interest mortgages, low-interest business startup loans, a year of unemployment insurance and other programs introduced by the congress. This is what build the American middle class as we know, or rather knew it, and not some limitless greed of corporations and third-world business practices. Redistribution of wealth is good, if implemented wisely.
That's all wrong. I'm not saying those programs did not exist, rather I'm saying they did not cause the result you think they caused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mason3000
The problem with this idea is that the truly wealthy won't spread anything around.
So?
You're just insanely jealous that others are more talented than you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
How long have I been saying that???
Since you're wrong, it doesn't really matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
I am not saying we should, but it makes sense. GDP will grow if you spend the money. Take from those with savings and give to those who don't save and more spending will occur.
It doesn't work that way.
For the Laws of Economics, what often seems logical is in reality illogical and very harmful or destructive.
Spending money does not increase GDP. In fact, just the opposite...government spending can actually decrease GDP, when government spending exceeds production.
Spending is not even part of the equation.
It's Gross Domestic Product, not Gross Domestic Spending.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
mircea does have her stuff together i will grant that, but there are occasions when she is wrong, but they are rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by surfman
I find it incredible that you're being mopped all over the floor by Mircea, and keep coming back for more. A person with a BA is a lot more credible than cutting and pasting from the IMF (International Money Fiends) and acting like it's remotely comparable.
I learned a long time ago that Mircea knows finance inside and out. Wisely, I rarely challenge her on such things. Don't ever get her started on fiat currencies.
That's all wrong. I'm not saying those programs did not exist, rather I'm saying they did not cause the result you think they caused.
I truly appreciate your input but without any supporting evidence it is what is: drive-by-posting or trolling.
Here, educate yourself:
Historians say the GI Bill contributed more than any other program in history to the welfare of veterans and their families and to the growth of the nation's economy. The bill is credited with preventing a post-war relapse into the pre- war Depression.
The authors make it clear that the education benefits of the legislation helped spur postwar economic growth by training legions of professionals. The GI Bill, they write, “made possible the education of fourteen future Nobel laureates, two dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, three Supreme Court justices, [and] three presidents of the United States.’’ It also greatly increased access to higher education for ethnic and religious minorities who had been previously excluded.
Turns out that high income inequality is massively worse for a country then reasonable wealth redistribution.
So why don't we just give all of our money to government and let the politicians decide which of their voters.... errrr...ummmm.... I mean which of their citizens, get the money?
I truly appreciate your input but without any supporting evidence it is what is: drive-by-posting or trolling.
Here, educate yourself:
Historians say the GI Bill contributed more than any other program in history to the welfare of veterans and their families and to the growth of the nation's economy. The bill is credited with preventing a post-war relapse into the pre- war Depression.
The authors make it clear that the education benefits of the legislation helped spur postwar economic growth by training legions of professionals. The GI Bill, they write, “made possible the education of fourteen future Nobel laureates, two dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, three Supreme Court justices, [and] three presidents of the United States.’’ It also greatly increased access to higher education for ethnic and religious minorities who had been previously excluded.
That educational system was privately owned and administered, and it's long dead and buried, what we have for higher education now is a freaking joke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
