JP Hochbaum
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 4,456
- Reaction score
- 2,549
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Ha ha! What Keynesian economics? The article clearly shows that since the 1980's (cough trickle down), that this inequality has become more exaggerated. are you guys even reading this????All this proves is that Keynsian economics does not benefit the masses.
But it also bolsters my signature.
And the right wing ignores, and calls it all lies...
actually many of us say so what? those who have money to invest are going to see their income grow more than those who spend every penny they earn
Yes, I read it. That isn't the question. The question is, did you think about it?Ha ha! What Keynesian economics? The article clearly shows that since the 1980's (cough trickle down), that this inequality has become more exaggerated. are you guys even reading this????
That
Yes, I read it. That isn't the question. The question is, did you think about it?
The article clearly shows the relation of the top earners and government spending. It then tries to relate economic down turns to an income disparity as if that is abnormal. The reality is, it is the lower paid workers that lose their incomes first. They are the most expendable. Further, of course the top 1% will make more than 1% of the total income. It is statistically impossible for there not to be a greater percentage of income going to the top 1%.
But, as was said above, so what? What moral imperitive gives the government the right to tell people what they can and can't earn?
Opportunity Cost,
I am pretty sure this post was not something you grasped. It had nothing to do with the stimulus in any way.
Oh but it does.
What liberal out there has not been saying over and over that Obama's stimulus is what turned the economy around? They say this because they believe in Keynesianism, and that spending money is what turned the economy around.
So, if the spending under the stimulus was what helped our economy, you should not be surprised at all that the top 1% benefited more than the rest of us, because they are the ones who wrote and approved the stimulus, and therefore, got all the money.
And where are those jobs again?????
I don't have a duty to create a job for you nor do I have a duty to pay more taxes so you can have stuff you want that you aren't willing to pay for
I am not concerned with what the Obamabots say.
The study was done in 2010 it doesn't mean it measures just the effects of the stimulus. It has measured the trend since 1980, when Keynesian economics have ended.
That doesn't change the fact that the stimulus package is what led the recovery. So, you should expect that in 2010, its effects would be apparent, and those effects are that the politically well-connected got their backs scratched, and the rest of us got left out.
To have a recovery that includes everyone, you would have to have some sort of initiative that put lots of people back to work in America. That would create some competition for laborers, and raise their wages. The stimulus didn't do that, and nothing else put forth by the President, or any part of the government, would either.
Then in 1980 trickle down policies started and have continued. And since then the gap in earnings has not only been immoral but also non existant for wage earners.
Welcome to political forums. Nobody reads the OP link. These are places for partisan reactions, not thoughtful conversations.are you guys even reading this????
Yes, it is called the internet. I suggest you check out sites like Google and what not to search for how it works.I am somewhat confused considering this excerpt from your link:
The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.
The 20% gain in 1993-2000 was AFTER the ‘1980 trickle down policies’ you reference. I fail to see your point. Further, are you suggesting something that will address this (as I missed it also)?
“In 2010, average real income per family grew by 2.3% … but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 11.6%, while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.2%. Hence, the top 1% captured 93% of the income gains in the first year of recovery. Such an uneven recovery can help explain the recent public demonstrations against inequality.”
The 10 page update offers a clear picture of how income shares have varied over different business cycles, as well as the long-term trends since 1917. Top income shares fell dramatically after World War II, stayed flat, then began to rise in the early 1980s and have returned to their pre-War levels.
The top 10% in the US take now take home about 47% of all income, but this is driven by the top 1% who account for 20%.
The difference between the business cycle of the 1990s and the 2000s is that the incomes of the bottom 99% grew by 20% between 1993 and 2000, but only by 6.8% between 2002 and 2007.
Saez suggests that this “may … help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been a great level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate since 2005.”
Over 90% of the income gains in the first year of the recovery went to the top 1% « Economics for public policy
It is true that the top 1% will always earn a greater income. But since trickle down started that percentage has become at its worse since before WW2. After WW2 we had the Keynesian Era and the gap was historically at its lowest. Then in 1980 trickle down policies started and have continued. And since then the gap in earnings has not only been immoral but also non existant for wage earners.
That happened in 1971, which had nothing to do with how money was distributed or taxed. It still goes through banks and through government spending, none fo that has changed. What has changed has been taxation and how it is being spent and where.1980's. hmm... what major change in economic policy was just administered in the previous decade.
you blame trickle down, but ignore that we are on a completely new monetary system for convenience
Most of us on the right from a fiscal perspective were against the stimulus. I dont know what point you are trying to prove other than we shouldn't have spent it. Corporate cronyism is rampant in both parties.
The far left thinks more government in everything is good, which means more cronyism or lessen the impact of government so its got its hand in fewer things.
Oh and look the top 10% makes up 70% of the income taxes on 45% of the AGI.
View attachment 67123408
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?