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.
Actually income inequality has been discussed by a large variety of people, not just liberals. Basic income was considered seriously as far back as Nixon with his proposals, Milton Freidman, and even some libertarians who have came to see it as a replacement for our current system.
"Huge income disparity remains Russia’s “main problem,” with the earnings of the richest Russians being 16 times higher than those of the poorest citizens – a gap comparable to that registered in the United States, President-elect Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.
“Over the past few years, this gap has virtually not become smaller,” Putin, the current prime minister, told the State Duma in his last annual report to parliament before his inauguration as president in May."
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Hmmm....yes and no. large economic and social disruptions can change that, and historically that happens when inequality gets too high.
I know what happens, why it's not desirable, et al. However, there isn't anything that can realistically be done. You can have some sort of welfare system that transfers the wealth, but that isn't really going to change the inequality structure.
Most concerned doesn't mean no one else is concerned. As I said earlier in the thread, even I am concerned by it. Not thinking that "basic income" is the answer doesn't mean I don't care.
So your concerned about it, so what solutions do you have to fight it?
I'm guessing the solutions are the same as fighting crony capitalism.
Pretend to not support it and turn a blind eye to it, and rage against people that speak up about it though.
Right?
Printing money really isn't growing the economy in a positive way.
Agreed. The Bailout was a horrible decision. The CEO's then took the bailout money and used it to bonus themselves millions. When if things would have run their natural course they would have been out of a job.
So your concerned about it, so what solutions do you have to fight it?
I'm guessing the solutions are the same as fighting crony capitalism.
Pretend to not support it and turn a blind eye to it, and rage against people that speak up about it though.
Right?
I don't "rage" against people that speak up about it.
Here are my solutions:
1) Get rid of as much of the red tape as possible that slows business growth and hiring.
2) Reduce corporate tax rates and tax incentives for offshoring. Close loopholes and reduce the power to carve out too many loopholes to reduce crony capitalism.
3) Reduce the power of unions.
4) Impose strict penalties for hiring illegal immigrants and eliminate welfare for illegal immigrants, causing them to self-deport. Deport any illegal immigrants who are found or who are arrested for committing even the most minor crimes. Impose taxes on money sent to countries from which a high number of illegals come.
5) Improve our education system and make higher education more widely accessible (yes, there should be some funding for this), in addition to improving vocational education options.
Without some context or methodology I'm not sure how precise that actually is. Most of the data going back to the 50's or so has the economy performing better under D presidents and Congress was controlled by D's with a few exceptions.
I still stand by my position. Inequality has and will continue to grow.
The odd thing about the economic growth under Obama's Admin is that it was extraordinarily weak, while the income gap increased the most.
Quote:
"As I testified this week before the congressional Joint Economic Committee, at 2.1 percent average real growth, the U.S. is lagging far behind the 4.1 percent average recovery pace of the post-war business cycles. The Reagan recovery averaged 5 percent annual growth at the same point as the Obama recovery."
Also, it's important to consider who is controlling Congress during these periods of growth.
that's actually a tough one
currently no-one controls congress
congress= both houses
currently repubs have house of reps....liberals have house of senate
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.
