View Single Post
Old 12-17-2007, 01:01 PM   #140 (permalink)
host
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Host, as an economic matter wealth inequality increases during eras of rapid technological advancement. This has been borne out time and again. As the advances consolidate and more people adapt to them, the degree of inequality eases. If you want an explanation of why that is, read Alan Greenspan's book. He has a whole chapter explaining it. Hint: it has next to nothing to do with government policies or taxation.

And Host, you still haven't explained why you think income inequality in and of itself is a problem. What does inequality do that you object to, other than simply be unequal? We live in a country where the poor people are obese, you know. I would posit that inequality is a function of variance of human traits: just like I'll never be as good-looking as George Clooney, or as entrepreneurial as Sergey Brin, many others will never be as good as I am at what I do and won't make anywhere near as much money. They'll make up for it in other ways - there will be things they are blessed with or good at that I'm not. For example, they won't have a disabled child like I have.

This focus on income inequality to the exclusion of every other kind of inequality is a form of dehumanization and a refusal to recognize that every person is different, and is good at different things.
I'm short on time....yer lucky....

Loquitur, Greenspan also urged homebuyers to "take advantage" of "flexible rate" and ARM mortgages, so they could "save money" paying lower monthly payments than with higher, fixed rate mortgage terms, just as the FED began to reverse it's short term interest rate cutting, circa 2004.

The two decades after WWII saw huge techno innovation and the peak of union membership in the US. Inequity decreased until union membership began it's decline....

The risk of income inequity can be seen in the US "gini neighborhood", look at the neighboring countries on my list posted on this page. Gross inequity (We are at it's doorstep) serves up increased crime, civil unrest, and the likes of Cesar Chavez....


Obesity and poverty:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

Quote:
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/2007/0...facts-data.htm
From Kathy Gill,
Your Guide to US Politics.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
Labor Day Facts & Data


....There has been a steady increase in concentration of income in the upper 20 percent and an even greater concentration in the upper 5 percent.

In 1967, the upper fifth accounted for 43.8 percent of aggregate income, and in 1998, 49.2 percent. Concentration in the top 5 percent accounts for most of that increase, increasing from 17.5 percent to 21.4 percent from 1967-1998. For 2006, the top 5 percent took home 22.3 percent of all money income.

Gini Index
The Gini Index of Income Inequality (definition) is another way to examine income distribution. By this measure, "distribution of income among American families tended to become more equal in the two decades after World War II."

The measure has become steadily more unequal since WWII, whether or not non-income sources such as food stamps (but not employer-provided non-wage benefits) are included. In the current Census report, the figure is basically unchanged (46.9 versus 47.0) although it has shown a steady increase over time. For example, in 2002, it was 46.2; in 2000, it was 40.8; in 1967, it was 39.7.

The US has the highest Gini index of any advanced nation, suggesting a society divided by income in a manner far greater than Europe.

For example, CIA Factbook records the following Gini indices: Denmark (23.2), France (26.7), Germany (28.3), Japan (38.1), Mexico (54.6) and the United Kingdom (36.8)....
From one of my prior posts in another thread.
Quote:
....We need this "reform", today:

Republican Eisenhower was president when the top rate was <a href="http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php">91 percent</a> (on annual income above $400,000), when new college graduates often worked for less than $4000 per year....and the <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html">Gini coefficient was 35.1</a>....it's 44 now.

The U.S. has experienced political shifts, beginning with the the "great depression" in the 1932 elections, that transferred the presidency to a democrat.......and democrats dominated in the executive and legislative branches, with the exception of the 8 year Eisenhower presidency, for the next 36 years. Compared to later republican presidents, Eisenhower could be described as a "centrist".

Today on a webpage at the Milton S. Eisenhower Foundation site, (Milton was the late younger brother of republican president Dwight Eisenhower,) the following is displayed:
Quote:
http://www.eisenhowerfoundation.org/..._economic.html

.......With an eye to Thomas Jefferson's warning against the antidemocratic "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations," the United States needs to return corporate taxes to the levels in force during the Eisenhower administration. We also need to increase the top marginal tax rate for the super-rich to about 50 percent. This would still be far below the top marginal income tax rate of 91 percent during the Eisenhower administration.

Repealing the tax cuts given to the super-rich would return more than $85 billion per year from the richest 5 percent of the population. Returning to corporate tax rates in force during the Eisenhower administration could increase tax revenues by roughly $110 billion more per year. Returning to a 50 percent top marginal inomgcome tax rate far below the top rate in the Eisenhower administration could capture as much as $90 billion more per year from the richest 2 percent of the population.

At the same time, we should provide tax cuts to the 150 million hard-working workers who are struggling because they can't afford to buy all they need. Millionomgaires don't need additional spending money. Workers, middle-class Americans, and the poor do. Their spending will stimulate the economy more effectively, help busiomgnesses, and be more fair to the Americans who need fairness the most. There is amomgple economic evidence that putting money in the pockets of average Americans stimulates the economy much more than further lining the pockets of the rich........
host is offline  
 

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 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54