Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-26-2016, 01:01 PM
 
13,898 posts, read 6,445,026 times
Reputation: 6960

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
There's nothing wrong with income inequality. There's quite a lot wrong with oligarchy and feudalism.

Henry Ford, a man who knew a thing or two about capitalism, made sure that his workers earned enough money that they could afford to buy their own product. Nothing terrible happened to the economy.
And they made expensive things, they weren't 2 cent burger flippers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-26-2016, 01:03 PM
 
26,694 posts, read 14,565,372 times
Reputation: 8094
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike1003 View Post
My original point. They worked hard to get where they are today. Why the Hell should they "equalize their own incomes" or wealth??
Maybe because they advocate income equality?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 01:12 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,632 posts, read 14,943,387 times
Reputation: 15935
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812 View Post

At least the republican voters have woken up, and are trying to end this cronyism.
You're joking, right???!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 01:24 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
You're joking, right???!!!
Some are trying.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
What you notice if you look at the graphs is that income inequality increases during times of prosperity. It decreases during recessions. I prefer increasing income inequality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 01:33 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
What you notice if you look at the graphs is that income inequality increases during times of prosperity. It decreases during recessions. I prefer increasing income inequality.
The reason is bubbles. It's artificial. I've noted often times that those like yourself enjoy government welfare programs when it benefits you.

The Fed interjected billions of dollars of welfare into Wall Street. We weren't prosperous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,889,092 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The reason is bubbles. It's artificial. I've noted often times that those like yourself enjoy government welfare programs when it benefits you.

The Fed interjected billions of dollars of welfare into Wall Street. We weren't prosperous.
Please, the fed injected money and in times of labor surplus that money does tend to go to capitalists. Low inflation shows that the interjection of money has done no harm. Typically before the era of globalization (see Milton Friedman "Free to Choose") inflation tended to follow money growth by 18-24 months. Since the era of globalization it is taking both more money to produce a stimulus and more money to produce inflation since the money is mosly going to people with a lower propensity to consume than in the past. The fact is if the Fed prints too little money as it did in the 30's you have a much bigger problem. Low money supply was the chief cause of the Great Depression. Once again see Friedman's "Fre to Choose". The Fed has actually done a good job since the early 80's. Low inflation and relative prosperity. And. no, government will never eliminate the business cycle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 02:08 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by whogo View Post
Please, the fed injected money and in times of labor surplus that money does tend to go to capitalists. Low inflation shows that the interjection of money has done no harm. Typically before the era of globalization (see Milton Friedman "Free to Choose") inflation tended to follow money growth by 18-24 months. Since the era of globalization it is taking both more money to produce a stimulus and more money to produce inflation since the money is mosly going to people with a lower propensity to consume than in the past. The fact is if the Fed prints too little money as it did in the 30's you have a much bigger problem. Low money supply was the chief cause of the Great Depression. Once again see Friedman's "Fre to Choose". The Fed has actually done a good job since the early 80's. Low inflation and relative prosperity. And. no, government will never eliminate the business cycle.
Ask the people at the grocery store if inflation is low. Yes, the oil bubble popped which has helped but that was a massive tax on the poor and middle class.

It's not a "business cycle". It's artificially created bubbles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 02:08 PM
 
Location: West of Asheville
679 posts, read 812,320 times
Reputation: 1515
I would be more interested in effort inequality, or risk inequality. Why do some people have to work harder or risk more to get ahead?


Shouldn't everyone be able to sit on their ass and earn a million dollars a year and have none of their own money or time invested?


Of course I am joking, but that is where this silly issue is going.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2016, 02:10 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortgageboss View Post
I would be more interested in effort inequality, or risk inequality. Why do some people have to work harder or risk more to get ahead?


Shouldn't everyone be able to sit on their ass and earn a million dollars a year and have none of their own money or time invested?


Of course I am joking, but that is where this silly issue is going.
Joking? I missed the joke. That is what happened. Well, they did have to invest a little time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:48 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top