How does the rich gain at the poor's loss?

I've read in another thread of mine:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=361629&page=2&p=1063998904#post1063998904

more than one post suggesting that rich become richer by getting poor poorer.

Now this can happen, provided that A. The wealth of a nation is a constant, thus one party's gain must indicates another party's loss, or B. The rich people get richer at the rate that is higher than the rate of growth of the entire society.

A is laughably childish and idiotic, whereas B is impossible to substantiate. I hereby challenge anyone willing — to come up with evidence from creditable sources.(So yea, partisan based media like HuffPo or a cluster of liberal blogs don't count. )

And I'm throwing the ball right back. Anyone holds that view, please, explain, elaborate, and substantiate. How does that happen. Just how does the rich gain at the poor's loss?

To those of you who think that is proverbial knowledge, think about these proverbial knowledge used-to-be:

"Evolution? Sheer insanity! Of course god made men."

"Of course earth is the center of the universe! How else could you explain that all stars are scattered evenly across the universe?"

 

Proving B is childishly simple. Just compare growth rate of GDP which is the wealth of the nation to the percentage income growth of the top 1%.

 

I'm shocked.

Such an accurate post has to be wrong somehow.

Or so others will say

 

No, GDP is not a suitable measure for such a calculation, nor is mere "growth of top 1% income" enough on the other end. The whole "B" measure is out because it doesn't contain qualitative context, only quantitative. In fact, all raw income based comparisons on a national scale is foolish outside of such necessary context and several other necessary adjustments that are impossible to calculate. "A" is out because it requires false assumptions, such as a zero sum static "pie" that government "cuts up," an absurdity.

The whole leftist "income disparity" narrative is simply erroneous resentment propaganda towards discriminatory political results (in this case taking more from people who earn more and giving it to someone who didn't earn for vote-buying purposes), as most leftist narratives are.

 

Who wastes their time being concerned about how much money any one class of people have? If you are one of the concerned people please tell me why you are concerned and what you would do to change the situation.

 

All of your questions are sufficiently answered at these two sites.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI

GINI index Gini index measures the extent to which the distribution of income or consumption expenditure among individuals or households within an economy deviates from a perfectly equal distribution. A Lorenz curve plots the cumulative percentages of total income received against the cumulative number of recipients, starting with the poorest individual or household. The Gini index measures the area between the Lorenz curve and a hypothetical line of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of the maximum area under the line. Thus a Gini index of 0 represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies perfect inequality.


http://www.gini-research.org/articles/home

http://www.gini-research.org/system/uploads/253/original/GINI_State-of-the-Art_review_1.pdf?1308916502
By way of introduction
This report provides the fi rm foundation for anchoring the research that will be performed by the GINI project. It
subsequently considers the fi elds covered by each of the main work packages:
● inequalities of income, wealth and education,
● social impacts,
● political and cultural impacts, and
● policy effects on and of inequality.
Though extensive this review does not pretend to be exhaustive. The review may be “light” in some respects
and can be expanded when the analysis evolves. In each of the four fi elds a signifi cant number of discussion papers
will be produced, in total well over 100. These will add to the state of the art while also covering new ground and
generating results that will be incorporated in the Analysis Reports to be prepared for the work packages. In that
sense, the current review provides the starting point.

 

There's a negative correlation between income inequality and economic growth. So the real question is, why wouldn't you be concerned about increasing income inequality?

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf

 

Rich and poor are relative terms. The only way for the rich to get richer is for the poor to get poorer.

 

I don't give a rat's arse. Besides there is nothing to be done in a free market and capitalist system. Do you really want to change our system, which is the greatest in the history of mankind? Or do you just want to pretend to care about the poor?

- - - Updated - - -

That is poppycock.

- - - Updated - - -

That looks good on paper and theory. I wouldn't give you a dime for it. Only a commie would believe it.

 

That doesn't work for me. You will have to explain why GDP and "income growth top 1%" are not suitable for such a calculation. They are both quantitave not qualitative and are widely accepted as valid measurements, The rest of your argument is just gobbygook spouted by those unwilling to understand what is going on with income distribution in the US. The problem is real the discussion should be what if anything should be done about it.

 

Please note that "the rich get rich by the poor getting poorer". Is not and has never been the issue. This is different from saying that the rich are getting a larger share of the gains in the economy than in past years, resulting in the rich accumulating wealth at faster percentage rates than the lower 90% of the population. These are two different issues. Try not to get them confused.

 

GDP is an extremely general measure with many limitations, used to measure the size of countries' economies against one another in very rough ways. It's kind of like the BMI in measuring the general health/overweight of large populations, yet people attempt to use it individually or in other ways beyond its limits and end up in error. It's on -you- to justify GDP in comparing income dynamics internally within a country. Its limitations are well-known and documented, I'm sure there is a wiki page that will describe all those various limitations.

Doesn't work because it doesn't measure such growth against growth of other income earners, but maybe that's what you were aiming for instead of what you actually posted. There are many more limitations here as well, but why bother? No matter what I post about income disparity and its ridiculousness as a foundation for political policy, you will ignore. Interesting religion you leftists practice. Tell me, how many income inequalities can dance on the head of a pin?

The only gobbldygook is leftist resentment politics that perpetuates a lie narrative on raw income disparities as if income alone has anything at all to do with overall quality of life and prosperity in a country's population. To make an absurd example, if everyone lives 5000 years and is able, with average diligent effort and moderately intelligent life choices to earn enough to satisfy reasonable needs during that time and have access to approximately the same technology and tools that the richest have, what does it matter whether their income is $1 or $1 trillion dollars? It doesn't matter a bit. So making any kind of reasoned argument about "the rich having more than the poor" requires FAR more context than the mere raw income numbers alone.

The left always leaves out lots of -necessary- context when proferring its resentment graphs and income disparity narrative. They expect that the raw data will get the good ole resentment flowing among the proles regardless of context and maybe they are right.

 

It's just a Marxist tactic for the libs who thrive on resentment to rally their base. Obama has proven that liberal policies just make the income disparate even worse.

 

Ziiiiing! You fell right into the trap — granted you could prove that, how do you know it's not the transfer of wealth from rich man A to rich man B?

 

Taxes. Taxes. Taxes. So many small fees that you can't shake a stick at it. Inflation. Imaginary money. Spend spend spend. Scam scam scam.

 

Even if the CEOs worked for free, the money they make would probably only amount to a few cents extra per paycheck for min wage worker.

If we cracked down on illegal immigration and prevented illegals from taking jobs away from low-income American citizens this'd do a lot more to prevent poverty - but that'd be "racist".

 

GINI coefficient is garbage. Countries with high GINI coefficient are SIGNIFICANTLY more prosperous than those with a low one (both of the same development level, of course).
Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Example:
India 8.6 5.6 33.4
China 21.6 12.2 47.0

Venezuela 18.8 16.0 44.8
Chile 26.2 15.7 52.1

Philippines 15.5 9.3 43.0
Singapore 17.7 9.7 48.1

This is Shanghai, China:



This is New Delhi, India:


I knew libs like you: You guys are egalitarian fascists. You would rather everyone be poorer, provided that the rich don't get any richer.

Also, GINI coefficient can be found nowhere near a mainstream economic symposium. Don't juggle terms and concepts that you don't really understand.

Why is it garbage? Because for "distribution" to take place, you need a distributor.

In a market economy, there are only voluntary exchanges between individuals. In USSR, a center committee plans everything, thus the "distribution".

Over 20 years had passed, you lefties still couldn't get over the fascist mentality. Pity.

 

I whole heartedly agree with you, and I don't see the problem here. The only problem is, democrats and republicans and their buddies in the federal reserve keep printing money to keep the inflation going. If the fiscal strength of the poor isn't going faster than or as fast as the inflation, you will see decline in purchasing power of the poor. And I'd wager that this is why "poor gets poorer".

 

I think they should be more concerned with Michael Moore making films condemning the rich while living in a multi-million dollar estate, or the band "Rage Against the Machine" making anti-capitalist themed music... while signing a record deal with Sony, a multi-billion dollar corporation.

 

Why do some believe the wealthy got wealthy by stealing from those who have no wealth?

 

Free market? Most corporations do whatever they can to avoid operating in a free market. Free markets and capitalism are not synonymous.

Once upon a time, feudalism was the greatest system in the history of mankind. And some time before that, simple tribalism was. So I really don't see your point.

You know that's not actually an argument, right? If you see a flaw, point out the flaw. Simply refusing to believe something that you yourself say looks good on paper and theory seems to me a bit dim.

- - - Updated - - -

If I'm not mistaken, B is the entire premise of Capital in the 21st Century. Haven't had a chance to read it though, so I won't attempt to comment in detail.

 

They're jealous and so have to demonize the wealthy any way they can.

Some wealthy people DO steal and do a lot of nasty other things BUUUUUUUUUUT....

There are a lot o them that actually do work hard and earn their wealth without doing those nasty things.

And, you'll not that they never criticize people liek Obama for being worth umpteen million dollars.

I wonder why?

 

No I did not. The originals poster said that if A and B could be demonstrated that it showed wealth transfer from the poor to the rich. This was his position not mine. All I demonstrated was how easy it was to prove A and B. I never agreed that A and B would prove what he said it would. The faulty logic was his.

 

Note that proving A would require GDP to be zero for an extended period of time. This has not happened yet.

 

It is pointless to discuss "the economy" without considering the role that the Federal Reserve plays in it all. Keep in mind that it's not federal and there are no reserves. Paper money gets printed (actually only 3% of our money supply exists as physical currency, the rest is in computers), the Fed "loans" this money to the government and the people get stuck with the bill in the form of inflation, or loss of purchasing power. It is in this way that wealth is quietly transferred from those who generate it (the private sector) to those that control the money supply (the major banks)- then, when all of this new money trickles into the economy and ends up in individual checking and savings accounts, the action really gets hot!