Destroying one crucial pillar of liberal ideology — "Wealth Inequality is bad"

By "empirical evidence" I suppose you mean USSR, where theoretically there is no rich people? Where is USSR now BTW? Or do you mean Venezuela, where there actually is very few rich people? Their economy is way better than those countries that started at the same level but tolerate wealth inequality, right?

Of course, you may have other "empirical evidence". And if you think such plan was devised by Raygun the free-spending drunken sailor, you are sorely mistaken. Erecting a strawman doesn't really help.

Quote please? Where did you get that?

I implied that for certain, but only after a very crucial conclusion had been drawn, in the middle of my OP.

Please provide studies from CREDITABLE SOURCES (so blogs or slate.com doesn't really count) to backup your claim:the aforementioned "theory" had failed, and, prior to that, please elaborate or give a concise definition of the term "trickle(I think you missed an -ing) down".

Just for the record: I'm not a conservative.

Again, please provide evidence and studies to back up your claim. Also, do note that harmonic wording of certain literature value has no use in a discussion that is fueled on logical and reasoning ability.

Of course not. My arguments do, and your non-substantial replies filled with high-school level adjectives which provides no argument but claims without any backup confirm.

 

Like I said, reality doesn't care what you think. Even if you think it does, it dosen't. lol.

Who might you think hire the bottom 10%, if I may ask?

LOL, because they are rich? I take it you mean why they were rich in the first place. Simple, because there labor has more value than low-income earners.

I know as a liberal, you are going to knee-jerk into disagreeing. Then let me ask this simple question, why people would pay donald trump the big bucks, but not you? Or a random guy in the street? Because DT knows mind-control? Or he is just so incredibly handsome? Painful a conclusion as it is, it is the only one we can draw — a complete idiot he may be, he makes all the right moves in the field of real estate market, and generate profit for his investors.

If that's unconvincing, Bill Gates, Bill Gates, Bill Gates.

I dunno, who was trying to paint the rich as utterly useless?

 

This is where I really find you liberals entertaining: on one hand, you resent the rich for wanting more and wanting bigger "Look at his yacht! Hundreds of thousands of people are starving". On the other hand, you worry for fear that they don't want anymore "What if the appetite of the rich is just that big and do not want to buy more private jets thus causing unemployment"?

Why can't you people just be realistic for once, and realize at least some of the rich, even after finding all the luxurious possessions tiring, would still choose to invest in skyscrapers and various firms?

 

Oh heavens no, of course not. Liberals are still a pillar of the society. But then again, that's no reason to leave the erroneous ideas alone.

I'm not a conservative. I'm pro free-immigration, just for starters. Conservatives would be vexed by a lot of my beliefs.

One at a time then.

See? You got this typical fallacy that the "wealth of a society" being a constant. No it's not. A rich man getting richer is not the reason for the poor man getting poorer — it is merely the speed of getting money differs. A tuned dodge putting more distance between it and a Ford with original packages is not the reason for the ford to run comparatively slow.

A rich guy starts an stone quarry, makes 250k a year, hiring 5 workers with 25k each, after 10 years, supposing nothing changed, of course the rich guy would get richer, but did the poor get "poorer"? Of course not. Those workers just didn't accumulate wealth as fast. See? Not a constant.

 

wrong. hint: empirical evidence can be found a lot closer to your home.

never heard of trickle down or supply side economics? I guess you thought you were being all smart and creative and original.

from the first few sentences of the YOUR OP. Might want to look up imply in the dictionary. You make a declarative statement.

Trickle down economics is what democrats called, what the republicans called supply side economics.
You'll find all kinds of academic analyses of its methods, objectives, successes and failures. Funnily enough the theory is still endorsed by the rich.

well here's a little analysis from the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy.


http://www.itep.org/debunkinglaffer/

And that thunderous roar is the conservatives around here happy you've made it official.

Um, I gave you one, look up the others yourself - just type in supply side economics and you'll get a couple million hits.

Now far be if for me to be a grammar nazi, so I'll just say I am not familiar with the term "harmonic wording", I do understand what literary value is, and I regret to inform you that so far I have seen precious little lgoical and reasoning ability on your part.

Totally in keeping with your rather substantive gaps in actual knowledge and the fact you don't appear to know what you don't know.

I do apologize for not "backing up" my claims as I assumed you would know what "trickle down" or supply side economics consisted of and its performance (short term and long term) in application. You are after all positing many of its essentials in your OP.

 

Reality in fact specifically disagrees with what you think. Thats why you have no historical basis to your crap argument.

The middle class and the upper class are the only ones who can hire the bottom 10%. Even then that requires a massive restructuring of the economy back to full employment policies the like of which havent been seen in generations. But you seem to be thinking a return to the 19th century would employ everyone.

Why do you think they have enough money floating around to do that? You seem to think being rich is a simple latter, like having a room with a hill of cash inside.

Not me certainly, youre trying to tell us that the rich can fulfill all the employment needs of the bottom 10%. Im saying that they cannot. What are you going to say about that?

 

I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate with collective anarchist leanings.

,

What are you talking about?

And once again what are you talking about? We're not arguing complex issues, we're arguing simple, the bare bones of this issue.

 

Thirty years ago, if a company made a 15% profit, that was divided among investors, company expansion, bonuses and raises, new development. Today, the investors get a gauanteed minimum (at least 12%), and the rest goes to expansion, growth, pay, and new jobs.

The rich get most of it, we get the drabs, and inequality grows.

States vie for companies by offering tax breaks. The lowered costs from that go into the pockets of the rich investors, and we get to pick up the tab for infrastructure.

And inequality grows.

The rich can afford lobbyists to get Congress to pass favorable legislation to make them richer. Often, we do not even hear about it until it is in effect, and costing us money. Think not? How about all those tanks that the army does not want or need? Some investors made millions off that one. On which they paid a lower tax rate.

And the inequality grows.

The rich can hand pick whomever they want to run for government positions. These positions affect us all, yet we don’t even get to see who is controlling the election funding. This ensures that what was once OUR government now takes action that benefits the wealthy, at OUR expense.

And the inequality grows.

West Virginia is only one of close to a thousand under-regulated sites where money for investors trumps safety for the masses. They get the profits, we get the bills to clean up their mess. Not to mention the medical bills to cure us of the damage done in the name of profits

And the inequality grows.
And certain enablers make excuses for this. The sycophants who foolishly believe that handing everything over to the so called private industry will somehow make our lives better.

Isn’t thirty years of this failed policy enough? How much more are we supposed to endure before we fight back. Yes, this is class warfare. The rich have been bombarding us for thirty years. Most people have been cowering in our trenches. Some have openly betrayed us by becoming sycophants to the wealthy. Those who dare complain are called communists, socialists, and a lot of filthy names too disgusting to list here.

And the inequality continues to grow, because some are just too afraid to face the truth

 

Please back up your claim. Thank you.

Disagreeing by agreeing with me 100%. Classy!

Good question, I'm gonna take you on that — he inherited those money from his father, they are all born rich — then who their fathers inherited all their money?

All you at all, familiar with the concept of "infinite regress"? I bet you don't, most liberals are undereducated.

I'm going to say proof, from creditable source.

 

If you had neither the intellectual integrity and honesty, do not reply at all. Playing dumb doesn't really take any effort — especially for those that are actually dumb.

- - - Updated - - -

Is it YOUR company? No? Oh well I'm sorry comrade...

 

Im not the one trying to foist this nonsense of yours on anyone, you didnt even try to point to some useful historical example, is that going to happen or not?

Wrong, you stated the upper class could manage it. Only the upper class, admit youre wrong and move on.

How does that answer the question of how much money there is and where it comes from? The upper classes are a mixed bag of inheritance, corporate pay offs and self made business start ups - theres nothing to suggest they have the money to do as you say they can because its mostly tied up in assets.

Im not the one trying to foist this nonsense of yours on anyone, you didnt even try to point to some useful historical example, is that going to happen or not?

 

You know, personal insults are usually a sign that a person has nothing to debate on and is simply trying to make it seem as if they have something to say.