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

washunut · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
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:

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 ...

So Hillary was #1 and Trump was not even on the list. Where was I wrong.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
Boring, boring, boring.

yes your arguments are.

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

I am not the one ranting about unfairness and income inequality that is you. so your projection argument is just that.

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

Good you know the definition of inequality that doesn't support the argument are you making of fairness.
you have yet to show a objectionable "fairness" argument. you are being highly subjective in what you consider fair or not fair.

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.

*sigh* here we go again more appeal to emotion and subjective use of fairness.
no one taxes income at 100%. even france attempted a soak the rich tax. they removed it because
it failed to get the results they thought. worse the rich took their money elsewhere.

you also just proved my original statement that this whole "fairness" argument is nothing more than a morasses of tyranny.
you just proved it with that one statement.

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) ...

your opinion of what someone needs is well irrelevant.
So if your opinion of whatever a mega buck is care to define that or just make up a definition since that is what you do.

Really prove it was ill gotten gains.

nope you don't work to maintain anyone.
you are free to form your own company and conduct business in the market place. no one says that you can't.
you just fail to realize and take advantage of the opportunity.

then cry because other people do.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette said:
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:

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 ...

we aren't a democracy I highly suggest studying out form of government.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

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

Wow. Talk about out of touch. A dangerously false myth:
Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
we aren't a democracy I highly suggest studying out form of government.

What in the world is that supposed to mean? That we are really a republic? That's just another word for representative, as opposed to a direct, democracy- not that big a difference. The slogan "We are not a democracy", I am concerned, is becoming a code and dog whistle for pushing for corpotocracy or plutocracy in this country. And that, I assure, was never the original intent.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
So what are we? A republic? That's just another word for representative, as opposed to a direct, democracy. The slogan "We are not a democracy", I am concerned, is becoming a code and dog whistle for pushing for corpotocracy or plutocracy in this country.

we are in fact a republic.
your opinion of what you think we are is well irrelevant.

Absentglare · Jan 22, 2017

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

ludin said:
You poor attempt at an ad hominem shows that you can't actually come up with an argument against what I said.

No, actually, that was the logical fallacy you applied. You may be too ignorant to understand that the economic system is intended to have a measure of fairness so you falsely claimed that it's not a goal of economics (which it absolutely is).

ludin said:
They first have to show that it isn't fair to begin with.
that will be hard to do more so in this country.

No it's not. See above.

ludin said:
No it doesn't it works very well. as some people will take the opportunity.
other will not and others will not see it. there is more than just one opportunity that comes to
people.

No it works terribly. The poor are hopeless and overworked. 95% of the country needs to dose themselves with stimulants regularly to keep up.

ludin said:
He also closed off a ton of tax loopholes and write offs that were being used. again history revisionism doesn't work.

Then why are you trying to revise history? Presidents Reagan and JFK oversaw the two biggest tax cuts in American history. That's a fact whether you are honest enough to admit it or not.

ludin said:
It is there in black and white. they said almost. it has never been almost 100%.
argument of semantics is not an argument it means you never had one.

It's not black and white if they said almost, which you admit. Why must you post such dishonesty?

ludin said:
ahh the appeal to emotion argument of fairness. So I will quote you my favorite line from one of my favorite books.

"'Profit' is a dirty word only to the leeches of the world. They want it seen as evil, so they can more easily snatch what they did not earn."
learn about how our economy works. when you understand it you will realize that it is not possible
to hoard all the resources.

You don't seem to understand how our economy works. When the resources become consolidated, innovation actually slows down.

Profit isn't the problem, it's that the poor are cut out of the rest of the economy. There's almost no economic freedom for the overwhelming majority of Americans because of all these pro-wealthy policies like generous tax cuts.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
we are in fact a republic.
your opinion of what you think we are is well irrelevant.

The question here is not what I think we are. The question is why you think the fact that we are not a direct democracy but only a representative one should mean we should destroy our democracy and push for plutocracy and corporatocracy instead.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
The question here is not what I think we are. The question is why you think the fact that we are not a direct democracy but only a representative one should mean we should destroy our democracy and push for plutocracy and corporatocracy instead.

I don't have to justify what is fact. You have support your argument otherwise. facts speak for itself. we are not a democracy we are a republic composed of
representative.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

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

Absentglare said:
No, actually, that was the logical fallacy you applied. You may be too ignorant to understand that the economic system is intended to have a measure of fairness so you falsely claimed that it's not a goal of economics (which it absolutely is).

again your ad hominem just prove you couldn't counter the argument the first time.
come back when you can actually do something other than ad hominem although I doubt you can.

No it's not. See above.

I have yet to see where something isn't fair to any objective standard. I see a lot of subjective whining but that is about it.

No it works terribly. The poor are hopeless and overworked. 95% of the country needs to dose themselves with stimulants regularly to keep up.

LOL no they aren't. see appeal to emotion fallacies is all you can offer.

Then why are you trying to revise history? Presidents Reagan and JFK oversaw the two biggest tax cuts in American history. That's a fact whether you are honest enough to admit it or not.

I never said anything about that you are simply making stuff up as usual.
The effective tax rate even during JFK or during Ike was 45%.

Reagan cut the top margin rate to what they were already paying and got rid of a ton of tax loopholes.

It's not black and white if they said almost, which you admit. Why must you post such dishonesty?

semantics is a fallacy but that is all you can do. I have yet to see you make a rebuttal against anything so far.

You don't seem to understand how our economy works. When the resources become consolidated, innovation actually slows down.

yes it is clear that you don't understand. The economy is not a zero sum game. yet innovation hasn't slowed because we have the ability
to expand or contract the economy. that is the job of the federal reserve.

Profit isn't the problem, it's that the poor are cut out of the rest of the economy. There's almost no economic freedom for the overwhelming majority of Americans because of all these pro-wealthy policies like generous tax cuts.

LOL. tax cuts do not harm them at all. what nonsense in fact it makes it easier for them to move into higher tax brackets.
it lifts barriers in the way.

all americans have economic freedom more so if government gets out of the way and lets them use the market.
higher taxes does nothing to solve their real problem.

jdog · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
Wow. Talk about out of touch. A dangerously false myth:
Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

Really? You use a "charity" who's existence and paychecks depend on creating a issue that does not exist as proof? Only a liberal would try something like that. LOL LOL

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
I don't have to justify what is fact. You have support your argument otherwise. facts speak for itself. we are not a democracy we are a republic composed of
representative.

So why does that mean that corporations should have the financial advantage in this representation over individual people? Whatever you think Republic means, surely it can't be that?

Absentglare · Jan 22, 2017

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

ludin said:
again your ad hominem just prove you couldn't counter the argument the first time.
come back when you can actually do something other than ad hominem although I doubt you can.

You must be confused. You are not under attack, your ignorant claim that economics has no vested interest in fairness remains ignorant. That is all.

ludin said:
I have yet to see where something isn't fair to any objective standard. I see a lot of subjective whining but that is about it.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

ludin said:
LOL no they aren't. see appeal to emotion fallacies is all you can offer.

False.

ludin said:
I never said anything about that you are simply making stuff up as usual.
The effective tax rate even during JFK or during Ike was 45%.

Lol!!!!!!!!! Okay now i understand your confusion completely. The other poster was describing the top MARGINAL tax rate, which was, in fact, 90%.

ludin said:
Reagan cut the top margin rate to what they were already paying and got rid of a ton of tax loopholes.

None of that is actually a rebuttal.

ludin said:
semantics is a fallacy but that is all you can do. I have yet to see you make a rebuttal against anything so far.

Ironic.

ludin said:
yes it is clear that you don't understand. The economy is not a zero sum game. yet innovation hasn't slowed because we have the ability
to expand or contract the economy. that is the job of the federal reserve.

When the currency is hoarded, people are pushed out of the economy. That's a fact.

When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, the economy slows down. That's a fact.

ludin said:
LOL. tax cuts do not harm them at all. what nonsense in fact it makes it easier for them to move into higher tax brackets.
it lifts barriers in the way.

all americans have economic freedom more so if government gets out of the way and lets them use the market.
higher taxes does nothing to solve their real problem.

More lies. Most Americans have very little economic freedom because the overwhelming majority of our resources are being funneled to a shockingly small minority.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

ataraxia said:
So why does that mean that corporations should have the financial advantage in this representation over individual people? Whatever you think Republic means, surely it can't be that?

They don't you can vote the politician out of office then he has no more influence.
don't believe me? ask the Clinton charity.

ludin · Jan 22, 2017

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

Absentglare said:
You must be confused. You are not under attack, your ignorant claim that economics has no vested interest in fairness remains ignorant. That is all.

Now you actually place an argument instead of an ad hominem.
Economics doesn't care about fairness.

Scott Adams on Fairness ? Core Economics

Economics is a study of how money works in different system of money management.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

yes you do constantly. your projecting again.

False.

sums up most of your responses so far.

Lol!!!!!!!!! Okay now i understand your confusion completely. The other poster was describing the top MARGINAL tax rate, which was, in fact, 90%.

which NO ONE PAID. it isn't that hard to understand.

None of that is actually a rebuttal.

when you never present an argument a rebuttal isn't required.

When the currency is hoarded, people are pushed out of the economy. That's a fact.

show me where people are stuffing the majority of their money in their mattress or in jars in their yard and you might have an argument.
since this isn't the case you once again prove you don't know what you are talking about.

When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, the economy slows down. That's a fact.

Not at all because what 1 person makes has no bearing on what another person makes.

More lies. Most Americans have very little economic freedom because the overwhelming majority of our resources are being funneled to a shockingly small minority.

yes that is all you have is lies. YOu still don't get it and probably never will. YOu seem to think that the economy is a zero sum game and that there is limited pool of cash for everyone
if someone take 1m someone else doesn't get that million.

you couldn't be more wrong. as we can add to the pie. as long as there is demand for it in the market we can add more to the pie. that is how the number of first time millionaires has grown.
otherwise it would not be possible.

ataraxia · Jan 22, 2017

ludin said:
They don't you can vote the politician out of office then he has no more influence.
don't believe me? ask the Clinton charity.

So you are saying campaign contributions have no bearing on who people vote for?

I'm Supposn · Jan 22, 2017

Lafayette,disparity of income is of no concern.

The purchasing power of the nation’s median wage indicates the condition of our living standard and economy; it's of great importance. The difference between our average and our median income’s is of much less importance. The ability of wealth to buy elections threatens our democratic republic.

I find it sad that our citizens are more concerned about a foreign nation attempting to influence our elections rather than concern if they can sway elections because we accept unquestionably whatever we see or hear; so few of us read and think for ourselves. Our nation never has had poorer, and often has had better government than we deserve.

Respectfully, Supposn

Absentglare · Jan 22, 2017

I'm Supposn said:
Lafayette,disparity of income is of no concern.

The purchasing power of the nation’s median wage indicates the condition of our living standard and economy is of great importance; the difference between our average and our median income’s is of much less importance. The ability of wealth to buy elections threatens our democratic republic.

Respectfully, Supposn

It does become a concern at some point. When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, inequality retards growth.

In actuality; it's not so much the inequality as it is that resources sit unused because there is no currency directed to mobilize them. The idle resources constitute productivity that is squandered, and therefore wealth/growth that is not realized.

https://www.oecd.org/social/Focus-Inequality-and-Growth-2014.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7a9/1a0a266fdf99e8aeb6626710225209a070b0.pdf

I'm Supposn · Jan 23, 2017

Absentglare said:
It does become a concern at some point. When the poor are priced out of the articles of production, inequality retards growth.

In actuality; it's not so much the inequality as it is that resources sit unused because there is no currency directed to mobilize them. The idle resources constitute productivity that is squandered, and therefore wealth/growth that is not realized.

https://www.oecd.org/social/Focus-Inequality-and-Growth-2014.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e7a9/1a0a266fdf99e8aeb6626710225209a070b0.pdf

AbsentGlare, your concerns are unrelated to income disparity.

Extremely wealthy people are not particularly more foolish or less patriotic or exercise poorer judgement, or are more selfish than all other segments of our population.

You may believe that because the extremely wealthy are currently in the most advantageous financial conditions, they’re the least willing to risk radical political changes and cling more to retain the status quo.
I suspect that the tiny most extremely wealthy and the great most poor segments of our population both correctly assume that they’re little vulnerable to serious loss due to any changes in our nation’s financial practices; (but I would suppose the extremely wealthy realize that they’d personally gain proportionally little due to any changes in those practices).

You wrote, “In actuality; it's not so much the inequality as it is that resources sit unused because there is no currency directed to mobilize them”’. You’re correct, the disparity of income inequality is not the primary causes of those economic detriments and reducing those disparities is not the remedy; but remedying those economic detriments may reduce those disparities.

Respectfully, Supposn

iguanaman · Jan 23, 2017

Visbek said:
I'd be happy to do so, if their extreme wealth did not produce such dramatic imbalances in...

• Political representation and influence
• Protection from civil lawsuits
• Protection from criminal lawsuits
• Massive advantages in terms of education for their kids,
• That much of their massive wealth is a result of exploiting millions of working people,
• That income inequality causes all sorts of socioeconomic instability, and causes all sorts of negative outcomes (including reduced growth)

You left out the destabilizing of the financial system. The influx of cash and the drive for "returns" causes banks to take greater and greater risks leading to the inevitable failures.

Lafayette · Jan 23, 2017

washunut said:
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.

You're right - there IS a balance somewhere.

But not at the upper-income taxation rate of 20% instituted by Reckless Ronnie. That's a boondoggle to both create and maintain a Wealth-class in the US. And, subsequent to the deregulation of party funding, they employ their riches to maintain the status-quo of American politics.

They are money-grubbers, who want to maintain the awesome Income Disparity of which America is renowned. Moreover, they now have their hands on all three central powers of governance - the Executive, the Legislative and (soon to be announced) Judiciary.

Since day one in the 18th-century, the purpose of the separation of powers was to avoid the fact that all three powers should be concentrated in the hands of only one person or one political party. (As with communism.)

America has shot itself in the foot.

Happy limping ... !

Lafayette · Jan 23, 2017

ataraxia said:
Wow. Talk about out of touch. A dangerously false myth:
Hunger Facts & Poverty Statistics | Feeding America®

One bit more of factual evidence, this time on a comparative international level: "Share of children living in poverty"

Only Turkey, Israel, Spain and Chile have higher rates of Children Living in Poverty than the US ...

And why? Because the country is fixated on muney, muney, muney and not "who must cope with what and how much" ...

Lafayette · Jan 23, 2017

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

Have you got that one wrong - oh blind one wandering in the desert:

Lafayette · Jan 23, 2017

ataraxia said:
What in the world is that supposed to mean? That we are really a republic? That's just another word for representative, as opposed to a direct, democracy- not that big a difference. The slogan "We are not a democracy", I am concerned, is becoming a code and dog whistle for pushing for corpotocracy or plutocracy in this country. And that, I assure, was never the original intent.

"We are a Republic and NOT A DEMOCRACY" is typical Reductio-ad-absurdum of America's Right-Wing political spectrum ...

James972 · Feb 14, 2017

Lafayette said:
"We are a Republic and NOT A DEMOCRACY" is typical Reductio-ad-absurdum of America's Right-Wing political spectrum ...

its a fact. Our founders knew democracy was mob rule so they very wisely distributed power to many places. Do you understand? Most of the power was put in the Constitution purpose of which was to make big liberal central govt illegal. Make sense now??