Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:61-90|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Income inequality harms economic growth

bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:16:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 8:47:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:33:09 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 7:16:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:53:49 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:38:44 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Economics knows no morality.

Says the leftist who wants to use government guns to force people to hand over their money.

Sure, some of it - so people can have access to services to improve their quality of life. So immoral.

It's tough to imagine the thought process of someone who convinces themselves armed robbery is "sometimes" moral.

Lol @armed robbery.

Fine, you can live on your own. Just give back roads, education, and policing.

Roads, public education (which is of terrible quality) and policing are institutions that the public agrees are to the benefit of the entire populous. Creating policies that seek to redistribute large sums of income aren't equatable to government building roads, which can be considered a primary function of government, outside of the judiciary and military defense.

These concepts aren't even equatable, and trying to make it so only detriments your own argument.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:16:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

YEAH MAN LET'S GO FULL COMMIE - chris 2016
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:17:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 10:43:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

Well, in communism there would be no wages. Everyone would take what they need or want from a pool of products "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" so no

Correct, and that is the wage. Any amount of money that is collected from any amount of work of any kind is a wage. It's only a matter of the wages being abstract or constant.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:18:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 11:16:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:47:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:33:09 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 7:16:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:53:49 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:38:44 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Economics knows no morality.

Says the leftist who wants to use government guns to force people to hand over their money.

Sure, some of it - so people can have access to services to improve their quality of life. So immoral.

It's tough to imagine the thought process of someone who convinces themselves armed robbery is "sometimes" moral.

Lol @armed robbery.

Fine, you can live on your own. Just give back roads, education, and policing.

Roads, public education (which is of terrible quality) and policing are institutions that the public agrees are to the benefit of the entire populous.

Even if you don't agree, you can't opt out of paying for it, which makes that talking point completely useless.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:20:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 11:18:59 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 11:16:40 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:47:44 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/24/2016 8:33:09 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 7:16:50 PM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 8/24/2016 6:53:49 PM, Midnight1131 wrote:
At 7/2/2016 7:38:44 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Economics knows no morality.

Says the leftist who wants to use government guns to force people to hand over their money.

Sure, some of it - so people can have access to services to improve their quality of life. So immoral.

It's tough to imagine the thought process of someone who convinces themselves armed robbery is "sometimes" moral.

Lol @armed robbery.

Fine, you can live on your own. Just give back roads, education, and policing.

Roads, public education (which is of terrible quality) and policing are institutions that the public agrees are to the benefit of the entire populous.

Even if you don't agree, you can't opt out of paying for it, which makes that talking point completely useless.

It's extortion. Forcing people to give up their earnings because some benevolent state will "help them" is immoral and outright wrong.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Hayd
Posts: 4,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:28:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 11:17:50 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 10:43:31 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

Well, in communism there would be no wages. Everyone would take what they need or want from a pool of products "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" so no

Correct, and that is the wage. Any amount of money that is collected from any amount of work of any kind is a wage. It's only a matter of the wages being abstract or constant.

okay
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2016 11:36:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sig
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 2:54:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2016 11:16:55 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

YEAH MAN LET'S GO FULL COMMIE - chris 2016

Stalin and lenin make liberal women wet
Im not a Nazi
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:44:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2016 2:54:43 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/24/2016 11:16:55 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

YEAH MAN LET'S GO FULL COMMIE - chris 2016

Stalin and lenin make liberal women wet

To be fair liberal women are ugly troglodytes.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
Capital
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:53:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2016 3:44:27 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:54:43 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/24/2016 11:16:55 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

YEAH MAN LET'S GO FULL COMMIE - chris 2016

Stalin and lenin make liberal women wet

To be fair liberal women are ugly troglodytes.

Troglodytes can still get wet
Im not a Nazi
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,598
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:53:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2016 3:53:31 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:44:27 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/25/2016 2:54:43 AM, Capital wrote:
At 8/24/2016 11:16:55 PM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 8/24/2016 9:22:06 PM, Capital wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

We should all become communists then since there is no economic inequality. So why aren't we becoming communists if thats the best for the economy?

YEAH MAN LET'S GO FULL COMMIE - chris 2016

Stalin and lenin make liberal women wet

To be fair liberal women are ugly troglodytes.

Troglodytes can still get wet

true
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 3:54:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:

http://www.debate.org...
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2016 4:16:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2016 4:31:23 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:54:26 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:

http://www.debate.org...

But I think you won out in substantial OP lol

Lol, sorry. :P I just wanted you to at least see it in case it helped any. :)
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
Hayd
Posts: 4,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 7:09:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2016 4:16:56 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 8/25/2016 4:31:23 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:54:26 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:

http://www.debate.org...

But I think you won out in substantial OP lol

Lol, sorry. :P I just wanted you to at least see it in case it helped any. :)

<3
ColeTrain
Posts: 4,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2016 7:51:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/26/2016 7:09:29 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/25/2016 4:16:56 PM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 8/25/2016 4:31:23 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/25/2016 3:54:26 AM, ColeTrain wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:

http://www.debate.org...

But I think you won out in substantial OP lol

Lol, sorry. :P I just wanted you to at least see it in case it helped any. :)

<3

Lol
"The right to 360 noscope noobs shall not be infringed!!!" -- tajshar2k
"So, to start off, I've never committed suicide." -- Vaarka
"I eat glue." -- brontoraptor
"I mean, at this rate, I'd argue for a ham sandwich presidency." -- ResponsiblyIrresponsible
"Overthrow Assad, heil jihad." -- 16kadams when trolling in hangout
"Hillary Clinton is not my favorite person ... and her campaign is as inspiring as a bowl of cottage cheese." -- YYW
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2016 7:30:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians
*Libertarian steps in*
I'll just restructure the problem to point out how I would approach it.

American businesses have been feeding at the trough of corporate welfare for a very long time. Food stamps are also an important aspect here, as they make it possible for businesses to depress wages, perpetuating a negative downward spiral of increased subsidies and lower real income. Ultimately, the economy at large takes a toll as this hits at consumption, worsening inequality and poverty.

What is needed here, in my opinion, is an unconditional basic income guarantee. Milton Friedman suggested a negative income tax, adjusting insufficient wages by adjusting the tax code until it reaches a minimum income. (Notably, Friedrich Hayek supported this idea.) Friedman also viewed conditional unemployment benefits as invasive and costly, which is why this needs to be entirely unconditional. But I think a more extensive program is needed to gradually replace the bloated social programs and thereby lift people out of poverty.

PS. Watch out for the phony "libertarians": far-right kooks and reactionaries who have never read a sentence by either Friedman or Hayek; the web is filled to the brim with these phonies, as is this thread.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
Upiter
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/29/2016 3:11:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Income inequality does harm growth, but then again if the government took everyone's money in taxes and went on a tremendous spending spree we would also see a one year or so boost in GDP growth.

In the long run however, redistribution of wealth hurts incentives, creates market allocative inefficiencies, and rewards "less successful" attributes while punishes "successful" ones.
BillSPrestonEsq
Posts: 286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2016 3:48:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/18/2016 6:31:55 PM, Jucalion wrote:
"0 loss = 0 theft"

There isn't 0 loss -no matter how you look at it. Law of Conservation of Energy. I understand the angle you are viewing it from. It is not correct. You are saying that wages are adjusted for taxes. Yes. And then employers adjust prices of goods and services they sell to pay for higher wages or other costs relating to higher tax. All taxes eventually get passed on to the consumer. The poorest ultimately get hurt the worst. Real loss created by force = Real theft
ken1122
Posts: 1,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 3:54:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Isn't the problem the poor don't have enough money rather than the rich having too much? IOW If all remains the same, but the rich made less money, how is that going to stimulate the economy?

Ken
Emmarie
Posts: 1,909
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 4:06:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2016 3:54:57 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Isn't the problem the poor don't have enough money rather than the rich having too much? IOW If all remains the same, but the rich made less money, how is that going to stimulate the economy?

Ken
The rich should be willing to voluntarily depart with the money they aren't using to procure goods or services. If they departed with it by creating enterprises that would create more jobs, for instance, it would stimulate the economy because lower income people spend most of their money on goods and services. Even if the rich gave away to the poor all the of money they aren't using to sustain their lifestyle of goods and services, it would stimulate the economy because the money would be spent on goods and services which would benefit those businesses where the money was spent. I have no formal knowledge of economics but it makes logical sense to me.
ken1122
Posts: 1,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 4:51:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2016 4:06:04 AM, Emmarie wrote:
At 9/20/2016 3:54:57 AM, ken1122 wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians

Isn't the problem the poor don't have enough money rather than the rich having too much? IOW If all remains the same, but the rich made less money, how is that going to stimulate the economy?

Ken
The rich should be willing to voluntarily depart with the money they aren't using to procure goods or services. If they departed with it by creating enterprises that would create more jobs, for instance, it would stimulate the economy because lower income people spend most of their money on goods and services. Even if the rich gave away to the poor all the of money they aren't using to sustain their lifestyle of goods and services, it would stimulate the economy because the money would be spent on goods and services which would benefit those businesses where the money was spent. I have no formal knowledge of economics but it makes logical sense to me.

Rich people do not sit on top of a pile of money allowing it to get eaten up by inflation; they invest it. When money is invested in various enterprises, it creates jobs and stimulate the economy.

Ken
TimGabz
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 7:01:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Many campaigns over the past century to fight poverty have had some success but not really earth shaking.

A lady friend last week stated that Poverty is Evil. We have also heard that poverty is the cause of violence, unrest and disease // (insert social ill).

Poverty is not an illness but rather a symptom of another illness. So throwing money at it is akin to dosing a man with a headache with Asprin. It may make the headache go away, it may do nothing but worst of all it may mask the symptoms of something nasty like malaria and delay proper treatment.

So far as it causing unrest this is also a misnomer. Poor people are generally not unhappy. They are unhappy when they have knowledge that they are poor and others have things they would like but can"t afford. Poverty is a trigger for revolting against poor rule, corruption and lack of opportunity.
Babazonke
cbrodersen
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2016 3:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Income in equality does not harm economic growth. The United States is not a socialist or a communistic country and that is why it has experience success since its existence. Income equality defeats competition in the workplace which is a core reason why people would feel they should work hard. If people are all paid the same they will feel that they do not need to work hard because no matter what they do and how much progress they make they will still be paid the same as someone who puts all their blood, sweat and tears into their work. People will become lazy, and unproductive workers and that will lead to businesses failing and making no progress which will slowly destroy a country. That is why socialist and communist nations fail.
ken1122
Posts: 1,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 12:56:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/27/2016 7:30:26 AM, NHN wrote:
At 6/28/2016 3:57:30 PM, Hayd wrote:
http://www.oecd.org...

bait set, libertarians
*Libertarian steps in*
I'll just restructure the problem to point out how I would approach it.

American businesses have been feeding at the trough of corporate welfare for a very long time. Food stamps are also an important aspect here, as they make it possible for businesses to depress wages, perpetuating a negative downward spiral of increased subsidies and lower real income. Ultimately, the economy at large takes a toll as this hits at consumption, worsening inequality and poverty.

What is needed here, in my opinion, is an unconditional basic income guarantee. Milton Friedman suggested a negative income tax, adjusting insufficient wages by adjusting the tax code until it reaches a minimum income. (Notably, Friedrich Hayek supported this idea.) Friedman also viewed conditional unemployment benefits as invasive and costly, which is why this needs to be entirely unconditional. But I think a more extensive program is needed to gradually replace the bloated social programs and thereby lift people out of poverty.

PS. Watch out for the phony "libertarians": far-right kooks and reactionaries who have never read a sentence by either Friedman or Hayek; the web is filled to the brim with these phonies, as is this thread.

Do people who do not work get this guaranteed income?

Ken
NHN
Posts: 1,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 1:56:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/22/2016 12:56:53 PM, ken1122 wrote:
Do people who do not work get this guaranteed income?
Of course. A guaranteed income is a cash injection with no strings attached. The whole point is to sustain consumption and avoid the poverty trap.
I am fascinated by the idea that our civilization is like a thin layer of ice upon a deep ocean of chaos and darkness.
--Werner Herzog
16kadams
Posts: 10,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:34:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"[W]hat matters most is the gap between low income households and the rest of the population. In contrast, no evidence is found that those with high incomes pulling away from the rest of the population harms growth"

From the study itself.

In other words, improving the lives of those at the bottom--not harming those at the top--is the real solution. Libertarians and conservatives have repeatedly proposed policies that do just this. In fact, many of their proposals (e.g. reforming occupational licensing among others) are even bipartisan.
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
16kadams
Posts: 10,539
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:35:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Of course, a lot of evidence actually suggests the opposite of this as well.
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.