• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rich-Poor gap widening

I don't really think you can compare our economy to the one we had 150 years ago by any means at all.

Why is this important?
 
With charity they would. We didn't have a mass of starving people in the 1800s, yet there were no wage controls.



But it was much more free about 150 years ago.

people also grew their own food in the 1800's, pissed outside and lived in homes built by their own hands. tell me how that's remotely possible today.
 
My problem is too much government interferrance in the private sector.

I don't think it's "too much government interference" as much as it is improper government interference. There is a necessity for proper oversight and regulation, but I think as we stand today we are completely ass backwards on it. We regulate where we shouldn't and don't regulate where we should. And this causes a lot of problems in the end. Heck, the financial collapse was caused by improper government regulation.
 
Ever since Reagan drastically cut taxes for the wealthiest of Americans, the rich have been getting richer at an astronomical pace. Check out this interesting article that documents the growing disparity between the top1% of the population and the remaining 99%....

Separate but unequal: Charts show growing rich-poor gap - Yahoo! News
hang on, i will save some the effort ...
'why do you hate the rich'??...if you worked harder, you could be rich to!'......your not rich because of your poor choices or you don't work hard enough!'.....
 
With charity they would. We didn't have a mass of starving people in the 1800s, yet there were no wage controls.

I'm not sure we want to return to that world. And I doubt we could if we wanted to.


But it was much more free about 150 years ago.

More yes, and I'm not sure it was better. Read Workers on the Edge. We almost went socalist because conditions were so bad. And if you want to torture yourself, read progress and poverty. Largely the freemarket, with no regulations, poses problems. That's why we have very little of that left in the world today.

The trick, if there is one, is finding balance.
 
I don't think it's "too much government interference" as much as it is improper government interference. There is a necessity for proper oversight and regulation, but I think as we stand today we are completely ass backwards on it. We regulate where we shouldn't and don't regulate where we should. And this causes a lot of problems in the end. Heck, the financial collapse was caused by improper government regulation.

"improper", "too much", six of one, half dozen of another.
 
tell me how that's remotely possible today.

Well, all the beer applies pressure to the bladder as well as lowering inhibitions, and when a certain threshhold is reached.......
 
hang on, i will save some the effort ...
'why do you hate the rich'??...if you worked harder, you could be rich to!'......your not rich because of your poor choices or you don't work hard enough!'.....

Thanks. Now we can move on!!! ;)


:coffeepap
 
hang on, i will save some the effort ...
'why do you hate the rich'??...if you worked harder, you could be rich to!'......your not rich because of your poor choices or you don't work hard enough!'.....

Obama didn't work hard to get to where he's at?
 
people also grew their own food in the 1800's, pissed outside and lived in homes built by their own hands. tell me how that's remotely possible today.

It's very possible, today.
 
people also grew their own food in the 1800's, pissed outside and lived in homes built by their own hands. tell me how that's remotely possible today.

What does it matter?
 
I'm not sure we want to return to that world. And I doubt we could if we wanted to.

I'm only talking about the rules of that time, not the prosperity of that time. Obviously we are much better off now, but rules did not make us that way. If that was true then the Romans would have been as prosperous as we are now.

More yes, and I'm not sure it was better. Read Workers on the Edge. We almost went socalist because conditions were so bad. And if you want to torture yourself, read progress and poverty. Largely the freemarket, with no regulations, poses problems. That's why we have very little of that left in the world today.

The trick, if there is one, is finding balance.

Conditions were so bad? We were growing at a tremendous pace and again there is no evidence of mass starvation. Private charity worked. The business cycle back then and other problems were not caused by the free market. Look at state banks which caused the business cycle and other interventions that caused problems even back then.
 
I'm pointing out that wage controls and social safety nets are not necessary.

Remember the great depression? I believe baptist ministers begged for government help because they couldn't handle the charity load. However, even without that great crisis, it really is better to be poor today then it was then. That's improvement.
 
Remember the great depression? I believe baptist ministers begged for government help because they couldn't handle the charity load. However, even without that great crisis, it really is better to be poor today then it was then. That's improvement.

Improvement because of economic growth not because of new rules and regulations!

Also, remember who brought on the great depression: the central bank, not the free market. And it lasted so long because of government interventions.
 
I'm only talking about the rules of that time, not the prosperity of that time. Obviously we are much better off now, but rules did not make us that way. If that was true then the Romans would have been as prosperous as we are now.

I think the rules are part of the better prosperity.

Conditions were so bad? We were growing at a tremendous pace and again there is no evidence of mass starvation. Private charity worked. The business cycle back then and other problems were not caused by the free market. Look at state banks which caused the business cycle and other interventions that caused problems even back then.

Mass starvation is a high hurdle, but there was evidence of some rough to bad conditions. It wasn't better than today.
 
"improper", "too much", six of one, half dozen of another.

I think there is an important difference though. It is entirely possible (likely given the innate behavior of government) to have too much regulation. In which it becomes necessary if one wants to restore free market capitalism, to decrease government's involvement in the market place. Improper doesn't necessarily say too much, it says that there could be the proper amount of government, but government is doing it wrong; regulating where it shouldn't and not regulating where it should.

It's like the drill ban. The oversight committee for this was basically being bought off by the big oil companies (how the hell do I get that job!?). There were a lot of hookers and cocaine, it was like an 80's party. Had the proper regulation been in place and done it's job well, it is likely that there wouldn't have been the disaster and we could have avoided an outright drilling ban. But government got it completely backwards; while it had a "regulatory" process, it did not work because...well it's government and we need to really watch it. And then because of it, the system broke and government once again acted improperly.

Proper oversight and regulation can help aleviate a lot of these problems.
 
Improvement because of economic growth not because of new rules and regulations!

Also, remember who brought on the great depression: the central bank, not the free market. And it lasted so long because of government interventions.

Not sure they don't go together. And I really don't want to open the disagreement about the causes of the great depression. Let's save that for another thread if we can. ;)
 
Not sure they don't go together. And I really don't want to open the disagreement about the causes of the great depression. Let's save that for another thread if we can. ;)

We had a higher rate of growth before these rules and regulations came about. Also, the Roman Empire had many of these rules and regulations yet we are much richer than they were.
 
I think the rules are part of the better prosperity.

Yet we grew at a higher rate before those rules came about.

Mass starvation is a high hurdle, but there was evidence of some rough to bad conditions. It wasn't better than today.

What evidence?
 
Back
Top Bottom