Wealth Inequality in America

[video=youtube;RhxrqrViw3Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhxrqrViw3Y[/video]

It's short, just over 6 minutes.

I would like anyone regardless of their label to try and justify this.

It should be interesting.

 

When did government equalization of wealth become acceptable?

Did somebody sleep through the USSR?

 

Immediately after government UNequalization of wealth became acceptable.

I'm guessing you.

 

If by government equalization of wealth you mean taxing those at the top and investing that money in infrastructure, education, creating jobs and paying the currently employed a wage they can live and spend on which in turn stimulates the economy allowing the smaller business to thrive and larger corporations to increase their profits then I would say always.

 

No I'd have to say (*)(*)(*)(*) the corporations, I have enough Nintendos.

 

In my opinion, this is what happens when the wealthiest are not burdened with wartime tax rates, even for a War on Drugs.

 

Somebody posted this same video very recently. I'll ask again what I asked the last time that nobody answered. What's wrong with wealth inequality?

 

The fruits of central banking, mostly. The cartel leverages the government monopoly on money in numerous different ways. The "lender of last resort" insulates them from risk and subsidizes them through inflation which, of course, reduces the potential purchasing power of our incomes. If they have a bunch of toxic assets on their balance sheet, no problem, the central bank will just do a swap, dollars for trash. How could you not make money hand over fist with a sweet arrangement like that? How could you not make money when the only money in existence is the dollar and all you do is lend dollars at interest? Some people just don't get it, though. They don't see how central banking is designed by the rich for the rich to keep the rich as rich as possible, or how it steals our money and redistributes it to the banks and speculators, rewarding unproductive paper-pushers while punishing productive workers. Yup, this is what your little central planning schemes get you...



Look at all that sweet liquidity! Wouldn't you love a piece of that? And wouldn't you love to get paid 0.25% interest by the central bank to sit on that liquid cash? I would!

Free money, is there anything better?

 

You may want to ask the Right the next time they complain about about a social spending but give a War on Drugs a free pass.

 

Heh. What would you call waterboarding your victims, and when they object, blandly saying, "What's wrong with water?"

Would, "vicious, lying, evil, despicable filth" just about cover it?

 

I think it is safe to say that you aren't going to get an answer to your question around here.
Chances are, you will continue to get a bunch of blah-blah-blah hatred.

 

If you have to ask, you're a sociopath.

 

seconded.

 

Nope. I didn't sleep through the USSR. That regime proved that government distribution of wealth doesn't work.

 

"If by government equalization of wealth you mean taxing those at the top and investing that money in infrastructure, education, creating jobs and paying the currently employed a wage they can live..."

Taxcutter says:
Infrastructure and education (within reason) is OK, but determining who gets paid how much is precisely what killed the USSR. You want economic expansion? Rescind about two-thirds of all regulations. Criteria for recission: If a regulation favors an existing competitor in any way, rescind it.

The Obama junta has done a miserable job of picking winners. Same problem the USSR had.

 

That's kind of what I'm expecting as well, unfortunately.

^Case in point. What did this even have to do what what I asked? It was just an empty, angry non-sequitur.

 

Actually, I might say that if you can't answer this calmly, clearly, and logically, you might be a teenage angst bucket. This shouldn't be that hard to answer if it's something people have such a strong opinion about. Surely you guys didn't blindly just form this opinion based on empty feelings......... did you?

 

I'm not sure that I could argue it is "wrong", as that would be a subjective value judgment, but I could certainly argue that it was indicative of certain, underlying problems with a "society". The amount of wealth being gobbled up by our financial system is insanely disproportionate to the value they are providing consumers, and this is largely a function of the government monopoly on money, which "the cartel" leverages ruthlessly over the populace. The dollar itself is the yoke on the people, and the banker is the one holding the lash. That is mostly why there is such a large and increasing income gap between the one percent and the rest of the country. We have a highly insulated, highly subsidized financial sector that imposes insane costs on everyone, and the wealth inequality we see is symptomatic of that.

 

To be honest with you, I'd spend your money on earthquake and meteor detection.

 

Whats wrong with a band of thieves coming to your house in the dead of night to pillage you and your family of every thing you own ?

 

Ugh. Canadian trolls. Hey, it's not your wealth to redistribute.

 

Would you like to explain how this ties in with what I asked? I am honestly curious. And it doesn't seem like anybody's really that serious about answering my question.

 

I'll give it a shot, but I would like to preface my answer by saying that I don't think you are a sociopath for asking this question; it seems like a reasonable question to me.
The problem as I see it is not income inequality, which will always exist, but extreme income inequality which is the product of a collusion between business and government. The most basic reason it is a problem is because it is detrimental to society. After a certain concentration of wealth we leave the realm of a self deterministic and individualistic middle class, and enter something closer to neo-feudalism where the tiny minority of rich own the society and the serf/renter class does all of the work for none of the benefit. When people don't have a stake in the society, they are indifferent at best, and destructive at worst.
This problem does not extend from over regulation as some people say, nor is it a product of under regulation. It is a mix of the two. We over regulate small business so that the average person has a tough time starting something for themselves or breaking into markets that are already heavily controlled by incumbent businesses. At the same time, we deregulated the largest businesses to the extent that they have a hugely negative impact on our society. Take everyone's favorite example of banking for instance. Prior to 1994 there were no interstate banks. Every bank had to operate within it's home state, which prevented them from growing too large (read too big to fail). Now they have hamstrung the entire economy and are the largest recipients of government welfare in history, while also remaining one of the most profitable industries. It shouldn't take too long to see the problem in this. Another good example would be a company like Monsanto which is now seemingly above the law. Too much power has been concentrated and now there is not equitable representation for the average person.
Add to this that money is now considered speech, and politicians will pander to those that provide the most money to campaigns and such. The wealth gaps also means a voice gap in how our government is run and who it really answers to as it's constituents now.
I could go on and on about the trust busters, or how this kind of concentration of wealth was last seen right before the great depression, but I think that the primary problem here is that most people have no stake in society. What made the US different than any other nation at the time of its creation was that the common man had a major voice and stake in society. Every man was a potential soldier who would gladly fight to the death because it was his nation he was defending. Now, what's the difference? I don't own this country, I just rent it and every day some new bull(*)(*)(*)(*) regulation is shoved down my throat by the decree of an indifferent ruling class that can't even be bothered to protect American employment, dignity, or rights. We are throwing people out of their homes and onto the streets, while bailing out one of the most profitable industries in history and we do it with a straight faced "(*)(*)(*)(*) you" to the poor and working class. The standard of living has been circling the drain in this country for decades, and that spiral really started gaining momentum when we made it easier to attain enormous sums of money in a very short period of time. Instead of businesses that were a part of their community and had to have long term strategies for attaining wealth, we saw the rise of corporate raiders, investment scandals, and any cut throat behavior that will make money fast; community be damned.
Making money is great, but when it comes at the expense of the host society, that society has the right to curb the destructive behavior so that all people at least have the chance of attaining wealth. When you take away the incentive system that made this country great, it will cease to be great, and I think that is what we are seeing around us every day.

 

You're being ridiculous, he'd have to be stupid not to understand that. He's not stupid, he doesn't care. At most he's happy to see the world burn, he thinks he'll "do fine" in his outback or his mansion or some (*)(*)(*)(*). There's no such thing as wealthy stupid. He can be 1) wealthy but concerned or 2) sociopathic.

 

It may depend on the inequality. Nobody complains too much about workers working hard and earning what they get.

Some may complain if workers don't have to work hard to earn what they have. How much hard work went into filling out corporate welfare forms?

Why does the right only want to reduce social spending for the least wealthy in our republic and not drug test corporate welfare recipients in the same manner as they want to drug test the least wealthy in our republic.

In my case, I would have no problem with "wealth inequality" if we had already solved for simple poverty.