The Atlantic - "Why So Few American Economists Are Studying Inequality"

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

washunut said:
Where most of the folks running the biggest banks i.e. JP Morgan & Goldman Sachs are staunch Democrats who supported HRC in the last election.

Which means that Donald Dork, for whom you voted, is a first-class nutter since he's hired 4 "Goldman Sachs" bankers on his staff at the White House. From here:
Excerpt:

Upon taking office, however, Trump’s attitude toward the bank has softened significantly, and Trump has now selected four nominees with Goldman Sachs ties for prominent posts in his administration. On January 4, Trump announced that Jay Clayton, Manhattan lawyer who represented the bank, would head the Securities and Exchange Commission, marking the fourth Goldman alumnus selected for such a role

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

iguanaman said:
Except it was not a failure. It accomplished exactly what it's creators intended, the fall of the middle class. Trump will now complete the job and permanently protect the dynasties of the 1% at the expense of the other 99%. That has always been the goal.

Well put. Donald Dork lost the popular vote by a whopping margin of 2.1% of the electorate - the Electoral College has for the sixth time in American history put the wrong person in the White House.

With a democracy run by plutocrats it is no wonder that Donald and Tsar Vladimir are going to become fast-friends. They both think alike in terms of political survival - any trick will do as long as the result suits them ...

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
Which means that Donald Dork, for whom you voted, is a first-class nutter since he's hired 4 "Goldman Sachs" bankers on his staff at the White House. From here:
Excerpt:

What does that have to do with current CEOs of Goldman and JO Morgan. The people who go to work there are among the brightest, coming out of our best universities. My Congressman, who by the way is a Democrat was a VP at Goldman.

Out course you quoted my out of context. Was just saying that many if not most of the Super wealthy are Democrats.

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

SOCIAL JUSTICE

ludin said:
the US isn't about fairness nor should it be. Fairness is a doctrine of despotism, and dictatorship. it leads to decay and drags everyone down to the same level only leaving those at the top at the top.

Piffle 'n drivel, drivel 'n piffle.

Social Justice:

Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by both explicit and tacit terms as regards the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.

In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.

Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity and equality of outcome.

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

washunut said:
What does that have to do with current CEOs of Goldman and JO Morgan. The people who go to work there are among the brightest, coming out of our best universities. My Congressman, who by the way is a Democrat was a VP at Goldman.

Out course you quoted my out of context. Was just saying that many if not most of the Super wealthy are Democrats.

Goldman Sachs is NOT a nest of Democrats.

You are trying to associate the Democrats with the same influence of the Replicant Plutocrats - that of financial power employed to further their political ends.

More specifically see here regarding GS contributions.

Frankly, contributions to political parties should be derived SOLELY from the voting public. It is obvious why corporations contribute - for no other reason than to influence legislation concerning their markets (which is incompatible with their status as private enterprises).

Politics in a democracy is rightfully the domain of the public in general, and not private companies ....

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
Goldman Sachs is NOT a nest of Democrats.

You are trying to associate the Democrats with the same influence of the Replicant Plutocrats - that of financial power employed to further their political ends ...

To say that the CEOs of both Goldman and JPM are not Democrats is an outright lie. Goldman went so far as to make it out of bounds for their employees to donate to the Trump campaign.

It would be nice to debate informed folks on a site like this.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

RetiredUSN said:
More defeatist liberal propaganda.

Nobody is stopping anyone from getting ahead in America.

If you don't like your present station in life, get off your lazy ass and make it better!

When the market was last left completely free in the gilded age, we had a handful of factory owners making more than the wealth of entire nations, while employing children as young as 8 to work 80 hour weeks under dangerous conditions. You think these kids were having the same opportunities as the private school going, tutored kids of the plutocrats? Those kids didn't even have enough to eat. And left free, this exploitation was only getting worse, not better. There was no trickle down.

This is social Darwinism and survival of the fittest: the law of the jungle. These are not the values of a society which believes in values if equal opportunity, fairness, or justice. And the plutocrats are myopic enough to think that the tables will never be turned. That they are too smart and good looking to ever be in the position of weakness and vulnerability.

They are wrong. A just society is always more stable and prosperous than the law of the jungle.

These things didn't go away by telling the kids to stop being lazy and work harder. The only reason these things went away was because of child labor laws and public schools.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

washunut said:
To say that the CEOs of both Goldman and JPM are not Democrats is an outright lie. Goldman went so far as to make it out of bounds for their employees to donate to the Trump campaign.

It would be nice to debate informed folks on a site like this.

Well at least now their CEOas are serving in the cabinet of a Republican administration.

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
Well at least now their CEOas are serving in the cabinet of a Republican administration.

What are you talking about? Blankfein and Dimon are still heading their respective companies. Don't you at least know this much?

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

washunut said:
What are you talking about? Blankfein and Dimon are still heading their respective companies. Don't you at least know this much?

Oh my apologies. It was not the CEOs. Only their top executives. I was typing fast.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trump-administration/?utm_term=.1311e2ba1300

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
UNFAIR TAXATION

What do you mean unfair taxation? the lower 50% of people pay like 2% of all income taxes.
the top 50% pay 98% or so.

BS.
Last time I looked, this was an economics forum. So spewing such puerile nonsense is not on.

Your the one arguing fairness. that has nothing to do with economics. It is an appeal to emotion argument.
So you should probably look at your own arguments.

There are many, many measures of "fairness", the simplest of which is the Gini Index

That has nothing to do with fairness at all. That is simply another appeal to emotional argument that you attempt to use
in order to say that ol look how unfair it is. You first need to understand economics to know why income disparity has no bearing on
anything. the economy isn't a zero sum game anymore. if we were still under the gold standard then yes we would have a problem
but we are not. Therefore it doesn't matter what one person makes compared to another.

I mean income disparity is great for political talking points and class warefare but pretty much useless when you want to talk about real economics.

And what do they do with the revenues obtained? Unlike the US that simply shifts Income up into Wealth for its plutocrat-class?

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/more-millionaires-than-ever-are-living-in-the-us.html

facts say otherwise. sorry.

They invest those funds in a National Health Service or in Educating its youth at low-cost to a degree-level that permits them to find decent jobs and become better citizens:

yes we have many programs in the US to do the same thing.

We Yanks are being had by a Unfair Taxation that has gone awry since Reckless Ronnie installed it in the 1980s ...

you have yet to prove it.
There is nothing in any chart that says anything is unfair.

You just don't like the fact that some people are more successful than others. So instead of trying to be successful like them
you attempt to say it isn't fair they earned what they earned without proving it.

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
Oh my apologies. It was not the CEOs. Only their top executives. I was typing fast.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-trump-administration/?utm_term=.1311e2ba1300

One from Goldman none from JPM. Why wouldn't we want one of the smartest people regarding financial markets to work for us.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
THE TIGHT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATIONAL LEVEL AND CRIME

So why do you shout down school choice to move those kids either into better public schools or into private schools that would do better for them?

Of course it isn't "fair" in America because tuition fees are so damn expensive!

As they say it takes money to make money. You prove my previous argument "fairness" is a subjective morasses that leads to tyranny.
You would punish those that take opportunity to do better because other do not.

Were Postsecondary Education in America free, gratis and for nothing (as it is in Europe), the "Persons B" would be going on from high school to either a vocational, 2- or 4-year degree, thus obtaining qualifications that would earn then a well-paying jobs.

they can do that now. Also it isn't free. people like you don't understand how the system works. The only people that get free college are those that qualify to do so.
if you don't make the top marks then you don't get in. what you propose would leave tons of kids without the ability to get an education more so than now.

Instead, they are amongst those who will likely never ever have found decent, long-term Well-paid Jobs:

Then they should take advantage of the opportunities. there are plenty of trade schools and other types of education
that kids can get if college is not for them.

And the rest of us - by means of taxation - are supporting their Unemployment Insurance until it runs out; whereupon many start stealing to "keep up with the Joneses". The Incarceration Rate compared world-wide (from here):

You can only get unemployment if you have a job you are saying they can't find jobs or get jobs so which is it you are not being very consistent in your argument.
it is their fault if they are playing keeping up with the joneses no one is making them do it.

why do they care what their neighbor has.

Sorry for the map's illegibility, but it cannot be posted any larger. Know that the dark blue represents an incarceration rate per 100K of population greater than 550, while the lightest blue represents a rate less than 75.

Irrelevant to this fairness of economics you keep arguing.

Not something to be proud about, is it? So try telling me that there is NO LINK between postsecondary education and Prison Incarceration Rate (from here):
'Nuff said ... ?

again the opportunity is already their. their failure to use that opportunity is on them and no one else.
you can't force someone to get a secondary education.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
When the market was last left completely free in the gilded age, we had a handful of factory owners making more than the wealth of entire nations, while employing children as young as 8 to work 80 hour weeks under dangerous conditions. You think these kids were having the same opportunities as the private school going, tutored kids of the plutocrats? Those kids didn't even have enough to eat. And left free, this exploitation was only getting worse, not better. There was no trickle down.

Which has no bearing for today as that is illegal and no longer practiced.

This is social Darwinism and survival of the fittest: the law of the jungle. These are not the values of a society which believes in values if equal opportunity, fairness, or justice. And the plutocrats are myopic enough to think that the tables will never be turned. That they are too smart and good looking to ever be in the position of weakness and vulnerability.

which is why we have laws against such things.

They are wrong. A just society is always more stable and prosperous than the law of the jungle.
These things didn't go away by telling the kids to stop being lazy and work harder. The only reason these things went away was because of child labor laws and public schools.

No one is stopping people from getting ahead except for themselves.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
Which has no bearing for today as that is illegal and no longer practiced.

which is why we have laws against such things.

Wait... so you are acknowleding that the free market left completely alone and unregulated by government laws and safety nets does not take care of everything by itself? Bite your lip! :shock:

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

washunut said:
One from Goldman none from JPM. Why wouldn't we want one of the smartest people regarding financial markets to work for us.

Wait... so it was asserted earlier that Goldman execs were Democrats, not Republicans. And now you are saying these execs are the smartest people who should be running things. So simple logic shows that dems are the smartest people who should be running things.

Gee, thanks for finally acknowleding that.

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
Wait... so you are acknowleding that the free market left completely alone and unregulated by government laws and safety nets does not take care of everything by itself? Bite your lip! :shock:

I don't know anyone who agrees with zero regulation. What folks like you need to better understand is there is a balance that works. Tipping the scales too far in any direction leads to problems. The honest debate is around the edges of what is too much or too little.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
What do you mean unfair taxation? the lower 50% of people pay like 2% of all income taxes.
the top 50% pay 98% or so.

Your the one arguing fairness. that has nothing to do with economics. It is an appeal to emotion argument.
So you should probably look at your own arguments.

That has nothing to do with fairness at all. That is simply another appeal to emotional argument that you attempt to use
in order to say that ol look how unfair it is. You first need to understand economics to know why income disparity has no bearing on
anything. the economy isn't a zero sum game anymore. if we were still under the gold standard then yes we would have a problem
but we are not. Therefore it doesn't matter what one person makes compared to another.

I mean income disparity is great for political talking points and class warefare but pretty much useless when you want to talk about real economics.

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/more-millionaires-than-ever-are-living-in-the-us.html

facts say otherwise. sorry.

yes we have many programs in the US to do the same thing.

you have yet to prove it.
There is nothing in any chart that says anything is unfair.

You just don't like the fact that some people are more successful than others. So instead of trying to be successful like them
you attempt to say it isn't fair they earned what they earned without proving it.

A child growing up in poverty who goes to school hungry has no chance. Even less so if there is no public education. He deserves to at least have, if not a level playing field, at least a chance.

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
Wait... so it was asserted earlier that Goldman execs were Democrats, not Republicans. And now you are saying these execs are the smartest people who should be running things. So simple logic shows that dems are the smartest people who should be running things.

Gee, thanks for finally acknowleding that.

First, I am a Democrat and have been all my life. Also if you would read more closely I stated that the person from Goldman was one of the smartest regarding FINANCIAL MARKETS. Try applying there and find out.

jdog · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
A child growing up in poverty who goes to school hungry has no chance. Even less so if there is no public education. He deserves to at least have, if not a level playing field, at least a chance.

There is no hunger problem in the US, in fact even among the lowest economic classes the major health issue is obesity.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
Wait... so you are acknowleding that the free market left completely alone and unregulated by government laws and safety nets does not take care of everything by itself? Bite your lip! :shock:

since I haven never advocated that position to begin with your strawmans just blew away.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
A child growing up in poverty who goes to school hungry has no chance. Even less so if there is no public education. He deserves to at least have, if not a level playing field, at least a chance.

so we take him out of that school, and put him in a school that gives him a chance.
so why do you oppose that?

sorry but life is not fair. it is filled with unfairness and you can't legislate it away.
the participation crowd is going to have a lot of difficulty when it comes to real life.

also his family gets money for free food so he should not be going hungry.

that doesn't include the numerous pantries and other organizations that give food away.

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

MAINTAINING THE UNFAIR TAXATION STATUS-QUO

Our market-economy does not play favorites unless we allow it to do so. Which we did "BigTime" when Reckless Ronnie brought down upper-income tax rates to the ridiculously low actual level of around 20%:

From 0.1% to 5% of Income-earners at a flat-rate tax of about 20%, we have created a Trickle-up Income Taxation that becomes Wealth benefiting a select group of plutocrats:

Thus allowing our plutocrats, by means of "unrestricted contributions" to manipulate the political system with only One Objective in Mind: To Maintain The Unfair Taxation Status-Quo at ridiculously low levels!

They accomplish this objective by distorting the election process of both key powers of governance - the Congress and the PotUS. And who is at fault? We, the sheeple, who allow them to do so by consistently voting them into office. They now control all three elements of governance: the PotUS, both Chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court!

MY POINT

This happened in a nation that was conceived upon a simple idea that was born of a revolution against a British Monarch who had also complete and unfair power over the original colonies.

In terms of the evolution of our democracy, we are now today back to Square One ...

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
So why do you shout down school choice to move those kids either into better public schools or into private schools that would do better for them? As they say it takes money to make money.

Boring, boring, boring.

It's not so much about money, which seems to be a fixation with you - as well as a great many others in America.

It's about societal "fairness" in terms of income and opportunity - the lack of which is collective inequality.

The problem of money is a regime that has a preferentially low flat-rate Income Taxation upon the highest earners. This is patently unfair, and should be replaced by a progressive taxation asymptotic to 100%. Yes, a maximum income beyond which any addition is confiscatory.

Nobody "needs" more than a megabuck or two or three or ten to live a life of luxury. All the rest is ill-gotten gain that perpetuates itself following generations down the line who never worked a day of their lives to earn it.

Meaning the rest of us work to maintain "them" (which was once a form of slavery) ...

Lafayette · Jan 22, 2017

washunut said:
To say that the CEOs of both Goldman and JPM are not Democrats is an outright lie. Goldman went so far as to make it out of bounds for their employees to donate to the Trump campaign.

It would be nice to debate informed folks on a site like this.

I have given this information once before in this thread. You've obviously overlooked it.

So, in response to your misinformed opinion, once again here.

Excerpt:

Money to congressional candidates: 2016 Cycle
Dems: Dems: $774,790
Repubs: Repubs: $1,601,876

House.........# of Members....Average Contribution....Total Contributions
Democrats.......86...................$5,139..........................$442,025
Republicans.... 108..................$6,208..........................$670,550

I repeat: Political campaign contributions should be forbidden from private enterprise and all voting age citizens' contributions should be capped at a modest sum.

We might then get back to a "real democracy" untainted by the BoobTube nonsense ...