Mark will post anything related to 'income inequality' whether or not it supports his supposed argument - because he doesn't understand his own argument.
One thing you guys are really having trouble understanding is that voters are wondering what you have to offer other than personal attacks and being contrary.
From now on, GD, when you refuse to discuss beyond me, I'm just going to assume that you don't really understand the information I'm providing and lack the knowledge to make an intelligent argument.
Hey dickhead - several of these BS myths ago I asked you to make your fucking point. As long as you refuse to get to the point, your pretty much leaving us guessing to what it is. What I posted above was a pretty good guess.
Don't like it? Make a fucking point rather that stealing pithy graphics from facebook.
I'm surprise that you don't understand my point. I'm debunking inequality myths using evidence based studies. The sources are listed at the bottom of each image. If you don't agree, explain why, using the same methods the studies used to gather data. That would be the scientific method, in case you were wondering ;)
If you don't agree, explain why, using the same methods the studies used to gather data. That would be the scientific method, in case you were wondering ;)
Have I, in any of these posts, disagreed with what you've posted? No? Then why are you even asking me to explain a disagreement that I haven't expressed? Is it possibly because you have some sort of caricature of what I supposedly think stuck in your head blocking you from actually reading what I write? Nah.
I'm surprise that you don't understand my point. I'm debunking inequality myths using evidence based studies
Great. As I keep pointing out - most of the debunking you are doing also debunks many of the views you have expressed on the same issues. So, as I keep asking, since you are debunking yourself are your views changed?
Well, I'm glad to hear that you don't disagree with me. I suppose that means that you agree with me now that the high level of inequality in this country is, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed.
also debunks many of the views you have expressed on the same issues.
No, they have debunked (ahem) the "sort of caricature of what I supposedly think stuck in your head blocking you from actually reading what I write." Since you won't take the time to explain your understanding of this issue (as you do with all other issues), then I have no way of knowing what you know or don't know. It seems to me right now that you don't understand my points on inequality. I don't get why you are so insecure about expressing your views on issues. If I am such a moron, you should feel pretty confident, no?
In other words, he means what he means when he writes it, but feels free to retroactively change the meaning later. Even just minutes later in the same comment thread. He's good at the Duck-Speak. "Quack, quack, quack."
Who is perpetuating these myths? Are they widespread or did they get picked up from some dark corner of the internet? Busting myths that nobody really expresses is pretty stupid.
Also, so what? Until you can point to a reason why inequality is bad - well, what difference does it make.
You don't think inequality in our country is bad right now?
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Do I think it exists? Do I think it exists at high contrasting levels?
Or, as juris has asked you many times, is there anything you can prove that shows inequality in itself has negative effects. <--- This. You have yet to show what the negative effects of income inequality are.
I would add to that, any negative effects you do show are meaningless unless the so-called 'fix' for them are not greater 'problems' than the income inequality itself.
You have yet to show what the negative effects of income inequality are.
Ah, that ol' chestnut...an imperial edict (which invariably means that the opposite is true) meant to get a rise out of me leading to what you hope is frustration and doubt. Sorry, dude, but fool me once...:)
The good news is that I don't really have to do much convincing anymore. When members of the 1 percent like Nick Hanuer and Bill Gross are doing such a fine job of illustrating the negative effects of too much inequality (both present and future), my little posts on a fifth rate blog don't really matter now, do they?:)
Juris refused to read the text and it's obvious why. Will you read it? He, like you, is being adolescent and can't stand a "loss." It's anathema for you guys to admit any sort of valid assertion on my part because for some bizarre reason, it means the end of all that is holy.
Award winning economists and a growing number of the 1 percent are illustrating quite plainly the negative effects of the high level of inequality in this country but if it means Markadelphia is right about something, critical thinking goes out the window! Time for some more imperial edicts:)
If all those people are illustrating quite clearly, then surely you should be able to put it into your own words. You are a teacher, aren't you? If you actually understand the book, you should be able to summarize it's key point as something more detailed than, "It's baad, M'kay?' Argumentum ad auctoritatem is a poor, poor response to questions. An actual teachershould be explain the points on their own, and answer common questions with something better than, "S/He said so!"
sum·ma·rize [suhm-uh-rahyz] Show IPA verb (used with object), sum·ma·rized, sum·ma·riz·ing. 1. to make a summary of; state or express in a concise form. 2. to constitute a summary of.
Yes. Simple, with adequate detail.
A person acquainted with their argument should have absolutely no problem doing so....
The issue of inequality isn't as simple as a brief summary and that's why I took each of Stiglitz's chapters and commented on the points which I thought were relevant to the overall assertion.
Of course, you're game playing again and avoiding doing any real work. If you don't think my posts adequately explain why a greater degree of inequality is detrimental to the economy, explain why. Better yet, read the book. Perhaps Stiglitz can do a better job explaining it to you. Are you afraid to read it?
Hmm...this would be a third topic suited for debate.org.
Note that I said if you don't think my posts adequately explain why a greater degree of inequality. I am completely satisfied with my explanation regarding the perils of too much inequality. Obviously, it's a view shared by much more important and influential people than you or I. Considering the shift we are seeing among wealthy people in this country, I'd say we are on the right track.
Honestly, the problem is you, not me. You don't like the fact that inequality is a problem so you're not going to accept any sort of assertion that supports the point. Why? Eternally contrary just like a teenager. Moreover, you (like juris) will never read Stiglitz's book because you are afraid of being proved wrong. You don't ever want to admit that I could be right about anything because you are just that insecure (again, like a teenager). This is essentially the fundamental structure of the modern day conservative. Never give on anything and if you do, ALL is lost. How ludicrous...
You can make up whatever bullshit you want about me (e.g. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN YOUR POINT) and instantly have 2-4 mindless sychophants (who are also insecure adolescents) supporting you because, other than the occasional comment from Nikto, it's only me and you guys that read comments.
"Mark is 20 feet tall!!" "Yes, yes he is. Don't try to deny it, Mark. We've never met you but we know you are that tall. And what we say is true!! We have more than you!! We win!! YAY!!!
Somehow having the numbers means that I must be wrong and you must be right. Again, insecure and adolescent.
This is exactly why you won't go to a larger and unbiased forum. For someone as insecure as you are, any sort of negative feedback would be catastrophic. Staying where there are only a few people (all of whom agree to be contrary to me no matter what) is safe. You can continue to needle me knowing full well that no matter what I write, you can say whatever you want regardless of reality, and poof! I fail. The tasks you challenge me with have built in 100 percent failure for Mark rate. But that's the game, right? The only accurate way to judge if I have or haven't explained my point adequately is an unbiased forum. The three or four of you don't get to decide that.
This is why I curtailed my commenting for awhile because of your child like behavior. But then when I got that email from a reader about how, as the owner of this site, I have an obligation to respond to comments, especially from people that don't have much in the way of real world human interaction, I felt sorry for you guys. That's why I engage in these discussions for the most part, GD. I pity you.
Take a look at how you behave in here. Why would anyone want to hang out with you, Larry, juris or NMN? You are unbelievably negative, filled with anger, hate anything that disrupts your ideology, and afraid of your own shadow...all shining illustrations of the conservative base today. It's no wonder that you guys keep losing elections and likely will until you change...
Can you point to a paragraph where you said why income inequality is bad? Can you?
I'll tell you what, GD. I'll point to several in the "On Inequality" series. Your response will illustrate whether or not my points above are accurate. Here's the link again...
Stiglitz: Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher income individuals consume a smaller proportion of their income than do lower income individuals (those at the top save 15 to 25 percent of their income, those at the bottom spend all of their income). The result: until and unless something else happens, such as an increase in investment or exports, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying-and that means that there will be unemployment.
Unemployment can be be blamed on a deficiency in aggregate demand; in some sense, the entire shortfall in aggregate demand-and hence the US economy-today can be blamed on the extremes in inequality.
As we have seen, the top 1 percent earns 20 percent of the national income. If that top 1 percent saves some 20 percent of its income, a shift of just 5 percentage points to the poor or middle who do not save-so the top 1 percent would still get 15 percent of the nation's income-would increase aggregate demand directly by 1 percentage point. But as that money recirculates, output would actually increase by some 1.5 to 2 percentage points.
This kind of shift in income would decrease the unemployment rate from 8.3 percent to 6.3 percent. A broader redistribution, from the top 20 percent to the rest, would have brought down the unemployment further to a more normal 5 or 6 percent.
Me: This is at the heart of what the president and the Democrats are trying to do because they know it's what must be done in order to get the economy on track. Businesses aren't going to hire more people unless more people start coming through the door and buying their goods and services. We've seen that tax cuts don't spur hiring.
Eventually, the 0.1 percent, the 1 percent, and the top 20 percent are going to realize that if they want to continue to enjoy their wealth in a healthy society, this redistribution is going to have to happen. People like Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer have already accepted this fact. Whether or not the government "forces" them to do so is irrelevant.
Stiglitz: To put it baldly, there are two ways to become wealthy: to create wealth or to take wealth away from others. The former adds to society. The latter typically subtracts from it, for in the process of taking it away, wealth gets destroyed. A monopolist who overcharges for his product takes money from those whom he is overcharging and at the time destroys value.
Me: Right. That's the erosion of consumer surplus of which I often speak. So how does the latter (taking away wealth) actually happen? Well, it starts with many wealth creators not being satisfied with their wealth. So they seek to monopolize or rent seek even further. We saw this with the railroad barons of the nineteenth century and I think we are seeing it again today. So does Stiglitz.
Why does this happen? Stiglitz submits that Smith's invisible hand doesn't apply to our financial sector because their interest are not aligned with societal returns. They are, instead, aligned with their own interests and that of other people in the one percent. It's not a zero sum game but a negative sum game, where the gains to the winners are less than losses to the losers. As Smith himself said
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
We saw this go on with the stock pools in the 1920s and the credit default swaps and CDOs in 2008. In fact, Stiglitz argues that private financial firms act to ensure that markets don't work well. Why? Because they can make more money. If markets are competitive, after all, profits above the normal return to capital cannot be sustained.
Me: Countries that have large financial sectors typically have greater inequality. Deregulation along with hidden and open government subsidies distort the economy and make it easier to move money from the bottom to the top
From Part Four:
Me: As Stiglitz notes, moving money from the bottom to the top lower consumption because the wealthy save more of their money rather than spend it. In fact, they save 15 to 25 percent of their income whereas those at the bottom spend all of theirs. Why does this matter?
Stiglitz: The result: until and unless something else happens, such as increase in investment or exports, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying-and that means there will be unemployment.From part Five:
Me: In a nutshell, that is the foundation that is laid in the four chapters of his book. The cost of inequality is no health care, no education (past high school), and inadequate housing. Millions are affected by one, two or all three of these issues in an adverse way.
From Part Seven:
Me: We've come to a point in our society where the government does more to protect the interests of corporations and less to protect the rights of individuals. People in Congress are being paid large quantities of money to look the other way and allow the private sector, especially the financial sector, massive leeway in their business.
From Part Nine:
Me: Our monetary policy should strive for the best possible balance between inflation, employment, and growth. We can't continue to make trickle down policy that is made specifically for the benefits of the banks. In a preview of the last chapter, Stiglitz argues that there is no single best policy. Certainly the obsession with inflation has proved that. Further, there is nothing natural about our currently very high state of unemployment or the low level of aggregate demand. It is the result of policy that caters to serve the small number of people in the financial sector in this country and they have scammed us into thinking that any changes will result in another economic collapse.
Despite previous allusions to the 'social costs' of income inequality, all you post here are supposed economic issues. And at that, just overall 'poor economic growth' type economic issues.
The problem with everything you just posted is that it is all Keynes. In order for that to be a convincing argument at all you'd have to shown that Keynes' theories are correct as opposed to other theories of economics.
While in actuality your own posts, the supposed 'myths', show that despite income inequality there has been growth in the lower quintiles. Your own posts show that countries with 'better' inequality ratios are not necessarily better off economically.
In short, your own posts give reason to doubt the economic foundation of your argument.
the supposed 'myths', show that despite income inequality there has been growth in the lower quintiles.
But you need to compare it to the growth in the upper quintile to get a more accurate assessment of the situation. The growth is basically flatlined as the image clearly shows. In looking at all of the myths together, what do you see? It doesn't undermine anything I or Stiglitz have been saying.
I'd also say that having justice for only a few in this country and not all is a social cost. So is not having a good shot at an education or health care...although that has now changed with the ACA.
I don't have to show that Keynes theories are accurate. He did that quite well himself although I will say that I don't think some of what he says will necessarily apply in the age of globalization. Then again, neither will supply side economics.
How about presenting some so-called social costs that are actually caused by income inequality.
I consider an over representation of corporate interests and an under representation of individual interests (a direct result of inequality...remember, corporate profits are at all time highs while your average person is not upwardly mobile) to be a social cost, don't you? After all, you are someone who champions the rights of the individual and want the government to protect those rights. You are correct in blaming the government for failing to do that.
your pathetically unevaluated response?
Actually, all of the inequality posts discuss in detail how important aggregate demand is in economies. What weight do you give aggregate demand in terms real world economics?
Hayek did that quite well himself.
Show me an example of how Hayek's theories would work today using evidence and past success. I can point to the saving of GM, the stimulus in 2009 or, going further back, the Grand Coulee Dam as great examples of how government spending improves the economy.
Unless of course you are advocating that corporate income should be subdued to levels more similar to an individual person. Is that what you are doing?
What weight do you give aggregate demand in terms real world economics?
44 comments:
Inequality myth #6
Mark is telling us all about 'income inequality'
Reality:
Mark will post anything related to 'income inequality' whether or not it supports his supposed argument - because he doesn't understand his own argument.
Still on me, eh GD? Still waiting for your critical analysis of the data.
Mostly my analysis shows that many things you've been harping on over the years you are now showing as myths.
That's a pretty significant data point there.
I'm waiting for the boiling pit of sewage!
I'm a pretty significant data point?
One thing you guys are really having trouble understanding is that voters are wondering what you have to offer other than personal attacks and being contrary.
voters are wondering what you have to offer
I'm not running for office.
And again Mark - if your house is on fire, putting the fire out is good advice. You demanding what I'm going to replace the fire with is silly.
From now on, GD, when you refuse to discuss beyond me, I'm just going to assume that you don't really understand the information I'm providing and lack the knowledge to make an intelligent argument.
you don't really understand the information
Hey dickhead - several of these BS myths ago I asked you to make your fucking point. As long as you refuse to get to the point, your pretty much leaving us guessing to what it is. What I posted above was a pretty good guess.
Don't like it? Make a fucking point rather that stealing pithy graphics from facebook.
Actually, my source for these graphics is the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Photo-Galleries/Infographics/10-inequality-myths-debunked#791563
I'm surprise that you don't understand my point. I'm debunking inequality myths using evidence based studies. The sources are listed at the bottom of each image. If you don't agree, explain why, using the same methods the studies used to gather data. That would be the scientific method, in case you were wondering ;)
If you don't agree, explain why, using the same methods the studies used to gather data. That would be the scientific method, in case you were wondering ;)
Have I, in any of these posts, disagreed with what you've posted? No? Then why are you even asking me to explain a disagreement that I haven't expressed? Is it possibly because you have some sort of caricature of what I supposedly think stuck in your head blocking you from actually reading what I write? Nah.
I'm surprise that you don't understand my point. I'm debunking inequality myths using evidence based studies
Great. As I keep pointing out - most of the debunking you are doing also debunks many of the views you have expressed on the same issues. So, as I keep asking, since you are debunking yourself are your views changed?
Well, I'm glad to hear that you don't disagree with me. I suppose that means that you agree with me now that the high level of inequality in this country is, in fact, a problem that needs to be addressed.
also debunks many of the views you have expressed on the same issues.
No, they have debunked (ahem) the "sort of caricature of what I supposedly think stuck in your head blocking you from actually reading what I write." Since you won't take the time to explain your understanding of this issue (as you do with all other issues), then I have no way of knowing what you know or don't know. It seems to me right now that you don't understand my points on inequality. I don't get why you are so insecure about expressing your views on issues. If I am such a moron, you should feel pretty confident, no?
Well, I'm glad to hear that you don't disagree with me.
Didn't say that. Said I didn't disagree with the graphs you've posted. That's different than disagreeing with the conclusions you've made.
Speaking of -
It seems to me right now that you don't understand my points on inequality
Aaaaannnnd again - perhaps if you made a point people could begin to understand just what the hell you're trying to say.
My point is that there are myths about inequality. There are ten of them. Agree or disagree? Why?
In other words, he means what he means when he writes it, but feels free to retroactively change the meaning later. Even just minutes later in the same comment thread. He's good at the Duck-Speak. "Quack, quack, quack."
Who is perpetuating these myths? Are they widespread or did they get picked up from some dark corner of the internet? Busting myths that nobody really expresses is pretty stupid.
Also, so what? Until you can point to a reason why inequality is bad - well, what difference does it make.
You don't think inequality in our country is bad right now?
You don't think inequality in our country is bad right now?
WTF is that supposed to mean?
Do I think it exists? Do I think it exists at high contrasting levels?
Or, as juris has asked you many times, is there anything you can prove that shows inequality in itself has negative effects. <--- This. You have yet to show what the negative effects of income inequality are.
I would add to that, any negative effects you do show are meaningless unless the so-called 'fix' for them are not greater 'problems' than the income inequality itself.
You have yet to show what the negative effects of income inequality are.
Ah, that ol' chestnut...an imperial edict (which invariably means that the opposite is true) meant to get a rise out of me leading to what you hope is frustration and doubt. Sorry, dude, but fool me once...:)
The good news is that I don't really have to do much convincing anymore. When members of the 1 percent like Nick Hanuer and Bill Gross are doing such a fine job of illustrating the negative effects of too much inequality (both present and future), my little posts on a fifth rate blog don't really matter now, do they?:)
Well, apparently you haven't shown it......
So asking you to show it is an 'edict'.
Par for the course.
That's funny, GD, because I didn't seem much commenting from you during all of this.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Price%20of%20Inequality
Why was that?
I suggest you get Stiglitz's book and examine the evidence he presents.
Oh I read that entire series....
As Juris asked time and time again - and you failed to show what the negative effects are....
Juris refused to read the text and it's obvious why. Will you read it? He, like you, is being adolescent and can't stand a "loss." It's anathema for you guys to admit any sort of valid assertion on my part because for some bizarre reason, it means the end of all that is holy.
Award winning economists and a growing number of the 1 percent are illustrating quite plainly the negative effects of the high level of inequality in this country but if it means Markadelphia is right about something, critical thinking goes out the window! Time for some more imperial edicts:)
If all those people are illustrating quite clearly, then surely you should be able to put it into your own words. You are a teacher, aren't you? If you actually understand the book, you should be able to summarize it's key point as something more detailed than, "It's baad, M'kay?' Argumentum ad auctoritatem is a poor, poor response to questions. An actual teacher should be explain the points on their own, and answer common questions with something better than, "S/He said so!"
If you actually understand the book, you should be able to summarize it's key point as something more detailed than, "It's baad, M'kay?'
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Price%20of%20Inequality
Feel free to discuss any of the points I raised in all of these posts. Try to do so without being a dick.
Oh for fucks sake. How hard is it to point to one freaking post that actually says 'inequality is bad because X'?
Let me see if I can understand both of you correctly. Larry rips me with a straw man saying
"you should be able to summarize it's key point as something more detailed than, "It's baad, M'kay?'"
And then you want a simple sentence? Wow...
sum·ma·rize
[suhm-uh-rahyz] Show IPA
verb (used with object), sum·ma·rized, sum·ma·riz·ing.
1.
to make a summary of; state or express in a concise form.
2.
to constitute a summary of.
Yes. Simple, with adequate detail.
A person acquainted with their argument should have absolutely no problem doing so....
So????
The issue of inequality isn't as simple as a brief summary and that's why I took each of Stiglitz's chapters and commented on the points which I thought were relevant to the overall assertion.
Of course, you're game playing again and avoiding doing any real work. If you don't think my posts adequately explain why a greater degree of inequality is detrimental to the economy, explain why. Better yet, read the book. Perhaps Stiglitz can do a better job explaining it to you. Are you afraid to read it?
Hmm...this would be a third topic suited for debate.org.
If you don't think my posts adequately explain why a greater degree of inequality is detrimental to the economy, explain why.
Why? Why do your posts not adequately explain?
BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN YOUR POINT
You do realize that sentence is all the explanation needed don't you? Don't you?????
Note that I said if you don't think my posts adequately explain why a greater degree of inequality. I am completely satisfied with my explanation regarding the perils of too much inequality. Obviously, it's a view shared by much more important and influential people than you or I. Considering the shift we are seeing among wealthy people in this country, I'd say we are on the right track.
Honestly, the problem is you, not me. You don't like the fact that inequality is a problem so you're not going to accept any sort of assertion that supports the point. Why? Eternally contrary just like a teenager. Moreover, you (like juris) will never read Stiglitz's book because you are afraid of being proved wrong. You don't ever want to admit that I could be right about anything because you are just that insecure (again, like a teenager). This is essentially the fundamental structure of the modern day conservative. Never give on anything and if you do, ALL is lost. How ludicrous...
You can make up whatever bullshit you want about me (e.g. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN YOUR POINT) and instantly have 2-4 mindless sychophants (who are also insecure adolescents) supporting you because, other than the occasional comment from Nikto, it's only me and you guys that read comments.
"Mark is 20 feet tall!!"
"Yes, yes he is. Don't try to deny it, Mark. We've never met you but we know you are that tall. And what we say is true!! We have more than you!! We win!! YAY!!!
Somehow having the numbers means that I must be wrong and you must be right. Again, insecure and adolescent.
This is exactly why you won't go to a larger and unbiased forum. For someone as insecure as you are, any sort of negative feedback would be catastrophic. Staying where there are only a few people (all of whom agree to be contrary to me no matter what) is safe. You can continue to needle me knowing full well that no matter what I write, you can say whatever you want regardless of reality, and poof! I fail. The tasks you challenge me with have built in 100 percent failure for Mark rate. But that's the game, right? The only accurate way to judge if I have or haven't explained my point adequately is an unbiased forum. The three or four of you don't get to decide that.
This is why I curtailed my commenting for awhile because of your child like behavior. But then when I got that email from a reader about how, as the owner of this site, I have an obligation to respond to comments, especially from people that don't have much in the way of real world human interaction, I felt sorry for you guys. That's why I engage in these discussions for the most part, GD. I pity you.
Take a look at how you behave in here. Why would anyone want to hang out with you, Larry, juris or NMN? You are unbelievably negative, filled with anger, hate anything that disrupts your ideology, and afraid of your own shadow...all shining illustrations of the conservative base today. It's no wonder that you guys keep losing elections and likely will until you change...
What a bunch of crap Mark. You pointed to a 'awesome' debate over there....
It had two whole votes.
Larger and unbiased forum my ass. There is no such thing as unbiased the way you use the word.
The rest of your post fits in the fantasy world you create in your head.
Can you point to a paragraph where you said why income inequality is bad? Can you?
Then it's not a matter of my not accepting your reasons - it's a matter of you not presenting reasons.
Can you point to a paragraph where you said why income inequality is bad? Can you?
I'll tell you what, GD. I'll point to several in the "On Inequality" series. Your response will illustrate whether or not my points above are accurate. Here's the link again...
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Price%20of%20Inequality
From Part One...
Stiglitz: Moving money from the bottom to the top lowers consumption because higher income individuals consume a smaller proportion of their income than do lower income individuals (those at the top save 15 to 25 percent of their income, those at the bottom spend all of their income). The result: until and unless something else happens, such as an increase in investment or exports, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying-and that means that there will be unemployment.
Unemployment can be be blamed on a deficiency in aggregate demand; in some sense, the entire shortfall in aggregate demand-and hence the US economy-today can be blamed on the extremes in inequality.
As we have seen, the top 1 percent earns 20 percent of the national income. If that top 1 percent saves some 20 percent of its income, a shift of just 5 percentage points to the poor or middle who do not save-so the top 1 percent would still get 15 percent of the nation's income-would increase aggregate demand directly by 1 percentage point. But as that money recirculates, output would actually increase by some 1.5 to 2 percentage points.
This kind of shift in income would decrease the unemployment rate from 8.3 percent to 6.3 percent. A broader redistribution, from the top 20 percent to the rest, would have brought down the unemployment further to a more normal 5 or 6 percent.
Me: This is at the heart of what the president and the Democrats are trying to do because they know it's what must be done in order to get the economy on track. Businesses aren't going to hire more people unless more people start coming through the door and buying their goods and services. We've seen that tax cuts don't spur hiring.
Eventually, the 0.1 percent, the 1 percent, and the top 20 percent are going to realize that if they want to continue to enjoy their wealth in a healthy society, this redistribution is going to have to happen. People like Warren Buffet and Nick Hanauer have already accepted this fact. Whether or not the government "forces" them to do so is irrelevant.
It's no longer a question of "if" but of "when."
From part two...
Stiglitz: To put it baldly, there are two ways to become wealthy: to create wealth or to take wealth away from others. The former adds to society. The latter typically subtracts from it, for in the process of taking it away, wealth gets destroyed. A monopolist who overcharges for his product takes money from those whom he is overcharging and at the time destroys value.
Me: Right. That's the erosion of consumer surplus of which I often speak. So how does the latter (taking away wealth) actually happen? Well, it starts with many wealth creators not being satisfied with their wealth. So they seek to monopolize or rent seek even further. We saw this with the railroad barons of the nineteenth century and I think we are seeing it again today. So does Stiglitz.
Why does this happen? Stiglitz submits that Smith's invisible hand doesn't apply to our financial sector because their interest are not aligned with societal returns. They are, instead, aligned with their own interests and that of other people in the one percent. It's not a zero sum game but a negative sum game, where the gains to the winners are less than losses to the losers. As Smith himself said
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.
We saw this go on with the stock pools in the 1920s and the credit default swaps and CDOs in 2008. In fact, Stiglitz argues that private financial firms act to ensure that markets don't work well. Why? Because they can make more money. If markets are competitive, after all, profits above the normal return to capital cannot be sustained.
From Part Three:
Me: Countries that have large financial sectors typically have greater inequality. Deregulation along with hidden and open government subsidies distort the economy and make it easier to move money from the bottom to the top
From Part Four:
Me: As Stiglitz notes, moving money from the bottom to the top lower consumption because the wealthy save more of their money rather than spend it. In fact, they save 15 to 25 percent of their income whereas those at the bottom spend all of theirs. Why does this matter?
Stiglitz: The result: until and unless something else happens, such as increase in investment or exports, total demand in the economy will be less than what the economy is capable of supplying-and that means there will be unemployment.From part Five:
Me: In a nutshell, that is the foundation that is laid in the four chapters of his book. The cost of inequality is no health care, no education (past high school), and inadequate housing. Millions are affected by one, two or all three of these issues in an adverse way.
From Part Seven:
Me: We've come to a point in our society where the government does more to protect the interests of corporations and less to protect the rights of individuals. People in Congress are being paid large quantities of money to look the other way and allow the private sector, especially the financial sector, massive leeway in their business.
From Part Nine:
Me: Our monetary policy should strive for the best possible balance between inflation, employment, and growth. We can't continue to make trickle down policy that is made specifically for the benefits of the banks. In a preview of the last chapter, Stiglitz argues that there is no single best policy. Certainly the obsession with inflation has proved that. Further, there is nothing natural about our currently very high state of unemployment or the low level of aggregate demand. It is the result of policy that caters to serve the small number of people in the financial sector in this country and they have scammed us into thinking that any changes will result in another economic collapse.
So,
Despite previous allusions to the 'social costs' of income inequality, all you post here are supposed economic issues. And at that, just overall 'poor economic growth' type economic issues.
The problem with everything you just posted is that it is all Keynes. In order for that to be a convincing argument at all you'd have to shown that Keynes' theories are correct as opposed to other theories of economics.
While in actuality your own posts, the supposed 'myths', show that despite income inequality there has been growth in the lower quintiles. Your own posts show that countries with 'better' inequality ratios are not necessarily better off economically.
In short, your own posts give reason to doubt the economic foundation of your argument.
the supposed 'myths', show that despite income inequality there has been growth in the lower quintiles.
But you need to compare it to the growth in the upper quintile to get a more accurate assessment of the situation. The growth is basically flatlined as the image clearly shows. In looking at all of the myths together, what do you see? It doesn't undermine anything I or Stiglitz have been saying.
I'd also say that having justice for only a few in this country and not all is a social cost. So is not having a good shot at an education or health care...although that has now changed with the ACA.
I don't have to show that Keynes theories are accurate. He did that quite well himself although I will say that I don't think some of what he says will necessarily apply in the age of globalization. Then again, neither will supply side economics.
as the image clearly shows.
The graph skews impressions by scaling. You can't visibly tell changes in lower quintiles when scaled to top quintile numbers.
Unless of course the intent was to skew the impression a logarithmic scale would show changes more accurately.
I'd also say that having justice for only a few in this country and not all is a social cost.
You are? Then present that case.
I don't have to show that Keynes theories are accurate. He did that quite well himself
Uhhh, ok.
You are? Then present that case
Already did in Part 7.
And that's quite a critical and evaluative response on Keynes. How pathetic...
Already did in Part 7.
That would be the part 7 where you talked about how the gov't doesn't do it's job and where politicians favor one part of society over the other?
Those aren't results of inequality, those are results of giving gov't too much power. Remember, rent seeking can't occur if there is no rent to seek.
How about presenting some so-called social costs that are actually caused by income inequality.
critical and evaluative response on Keynes
You wanted a critical and evaluative response to your pathetically unevaluated response? Like I said - uhhm, ok.
Or, if you like, I can give back the same quality of response you gave to me -
I don't have to show that Keynes theories are inaccurate. Hayek did that quite well himself.
How about presenting some so-called social costs that are actually caused by income inequality.
I consider an over representation of corporate interests and an under representation of individual interests (a direct result of inequality...remember, corporate profits are at all time highs while your average person is not upwardly mobile) to be a social cost, don't you? After all, you are someone who champions the rights of the individual and want the government to protect those rights. You are correct in blaming the government for failing to do that.
your pathetically unevaluated response?
Actually, all of the inequality posts discuss in detail how important aggregate demand is in economies. What weight do you give aggregate demand in terms real world economics?
Hayek did that quite well himself.
Show me an example of how Hayek's theories would work today using evidence and past success. I can point to the saving of GM, the stimulus in 2009 or, going further back, the Grand Coulee Dam as great examples of how government spending improves the economy.
over representation of corporate interests
Corporate? A corporation isn't part of the 1%.
Unless of course you are advocating that corporate income should be subdued to levels more similar to an individual person. Is that what you are doing?
What weight do you give aggregate demand in terms real world economics?
This ought to be entertaining...
Fear the boom and bust
Are we just posting links? OK...
http://blogs.reuters.com/macroscope/2011/11/09/how-keynes-beat-hayek/
Now that we've gotten that out of the way how about more than five words and link from you?
How about you wait till I have a weekend and can post?
Fair enough. I'll put this link in a new post and you can take your time.
Post a Comment