totally wrong, of course we need the families that conservationism has attacked and destroyed Making baseless, unsupported, irrelevant comments is fun and easy. And apparently serves as logic and reason for many conservatives.
the black family was as intact as the white family before the deadly liberal programs were enacted Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."
Working Americans shared in the prosperity and growth they helped created until conservatives came in, stole the fruits of their labors, and left them stagnating for decades.
Yeah, conservatives like Rubin and Clinton who authored and signed Gramm Leech Bliley. You Krugman worshipers are a hoot
"There was definitely a foundational change of policy in the early 1980s that has gone more or less unabated since then." Please elaborate on this line of thought and why my MSFT don't pay as well as it did in the eighties. Less profits or less "share the wealth"? Gracias
Good point here. Growth isn't necessarily a problem. Its growth in conjunction with profiteering. The OP hasn't crafted an economic argument and therefore have missed out on these important issues.
Fair Share of the Total Wealth of the Nation, which Piketty (and the UofCal economists) have shown by means of analysis the following consequence: Meaning of the above infographic: The Total Net Household Wealth of the Top 0.1% of American families equals that of 90% of All American Families. Which displays clearly the Enormous Income Disparity that afflicts America today! Now, let us all imagine what we could do with that Wealth were it properly taxed! Like very low-cost National Health Care for everyone or Nearly-free Tertiary Education for American children ...
But it IS true. You prefer to remain blind to the facts. LIke this one: Wakey, wakey! What planet do you live on ... ?
wealth inequalities are natural given people are inequal and many are victimized by liberal programs that destroy their jobs, work ethic, families, religion, and schools. Do you understand now?
Piketty of course was exposed long ago as a fraud because he did not include $trillions given to poor so they would not be inequal. Moreover, he does not mention that inequality is caused by liberal programs that destroy jobs families schools religion and work ethic. Nice trick right? They caused inequality with their programs, blame it on capitalism, and then try to use that as an excuse to switch to socialism.
Why do you think wealth inequalities are more extreme in Anglo Saxon economies in comparison to Liberal or Social Democracies?
Well, I see this thread has descended into mostly bickering, as usual. Let's see if we can get it back on track. I hold the opinion that the purpose and effects of growth is entirely dependent on the economic system in place. In capitalism it is achieved due to competition and serves the business owners in their question for outrageous riches. There, the fruits of growth go mostly to the rich. They get richer and richer. The working class gets jobs to sustain themselves while the rich do many times better. This is all in keeping with the purpose and plan of capitalism, which is to benefit the businessman according to the degree of their success.
There isn't a blanket "the fruits of growth go mostly to the rich". Social democratic 'capitalism' can certainly ensure that the majority benefit. The real problem is more focused on the form of growth. You can grow, for example, but suffer from resource degradation and reduced living standards. The focus then is on capitalism's reliance on consumerism and the 'layer after layer of false needs' etc etc etc.
Yep. For example, we're told that we have recovered from the 2008 crash, but in Britain the average room size of the average home has shrunk by a third since the crash. People spend probably as much as ever for their homes, but it buys them 1/3 less. That isn't factored into the "recovery". Contractors are converting industrial space into apartments and condos with half as much floor space as was previously the minimum allowed. Factor that in too.
Britain is certainly a classic example of false growth. And you're also right to target the housing market.
capitalism has no purpose or plan. It is merely free people freely interacting to increase their wealth. The richer someone gets the more he has increased other's wealth. That is the beauty of capitalism it is Christian in nature while socialism is deadly in nature slowly starving 120 million to death and still attracting many psychopaths.
