- Joined
- Apr 1, 2019
- Messages
- 945
- Reaction score
- 301
- Location
- Somewhere
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?
You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?Try living in the US on an income of $25K a year (the Poverty Threshold) and you'll find out ...
You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?
You didn't answer my question - Why is it that you think income disparity is a bad thing?
What does this even mean?Income disparity is phrase that means "unfairness".
No, not at all. "People like me" do not regard the free market as a zero sum game; "people like me" view the free market as a place where everyone is a winner. When a homeless person gathers enough change to afford a Cheeseburger from McDonald's; both him and McDonald's are winners as they both have exchanged value for value.People like you think that economy is a football game and anyone with the most number of points DESERVES to win it. Well I don't!
I agree "nations" (governments) should not generate fortunes. People should.Yes, incomes cannot all be the same. Communism proved the myth of that rule.
But, neither does a nation need an economy that generates fortunes and looks like this:
I do not even know what "fair distribuion of income" is supposed to mean. Different individuals make different career and investment choices and they thus generate different amounts of income. This is not unfair at all.Because this happens:
Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?
And what exactly is it that stops you from demanding a salary on level with those of the bottom at society? If all of these "good-hearted economists" that you are mentioning could show some principles and demand the salary of a McDonald's wprker, that graph would be, at least, a bit more evened out.I don't, and most economists do not either!
You don't say.PS: Please note that you are in an "Economics Forum"
I do not even know what "fair distribuion of income" is supposed to mean.
Being an economist, I am sure you are familiar with the Laffer curve, yes? Tax revenues actually increase when taxes are cut because people are incentivised to work harder and your solution would actually result in even greater misery and probably even larger disparities.Frankly that would make a damn fine thread.
What it means is that the US gets its finger out and institutes near 100% taxation on earnings above 5/10 megabucks, and requires 100% Inheritance Taxation of all sums above 1 megabuck.
Drastic, right? But that is the way it must be.
Those people pay more taxes than the "bottom 99%" do combined.Meaning that everybody should "earn money" according to their luck/efforts. But nobody should earn Net Income of 100, 1000 or 10,000 times the country's Net Income need.
I agree "nations" (governments) should not generate fortunes. People should.
Capitalism is based on the theory of evolution and works by the same basic principles as natural selection. Socialism is based on artificial selection, which is why is tends to implode after a period of time.
For example, Apple came up with the iPad a decade ago. This, in terms of a parallel to the theory of evolution, is a genetic mutation or a natural change into a new life form. This mutation represented change; new critter, but that along did not mean it will automatically succeed. It still has to compete, to see if it has selective advantages and be subject to natural selection; high consumer demand. Only then will it persist.
If it does, which it did, it begins to breed and spread; supply increases. Like life, it can never rest on its laurels, but has to constantly evolve, improve and adapt, to maintain its place in the eco-system. Capitalism is organic, while organic is not always pretty. The lion will kill the gazelle, which gets messy, but this assures the lion's and gazelle species survival. Other similar competitors will also try to move in on the territory. This brings out the best in all, and efficiency improves even further, to meet the challenges of our rival; Eye of Tiger.
Socialism is more based on artificial selection. In this system, bureaucrats decide which cattle it wishes to breed. It does not wish to let nature run its course in free market. This artificial choice may not based on natural potential such as fitness and utility. It can be based on cosmetic reasons, or even career and monetary payoffs. This choice is also due to layman bureaucrats and politicians making decision even about complex specialty areas beyond there skills. What do lawyers know about heath care? Why would one expect them to pick natural selection winners?
In natural selection, it is the experts; mutations/inventors, who drive the innovation. They help make the choices. Apple depends on its inventors, innovators and marketing people to assure mutations have fitness in the jungle, before the mutations appear in numbers to compete. You can't go wrong if you use nature as a template, since this has worked for a billion years.
The problem the left has it prefers artificial selection, based on appeasing insecurities. If people are afraid or insecure, the quick fix is what they want. However, natural future fitness is based on the ability to adapt to the unknown and not just the known. In the free market, they need to anticipate all types of potential future problems, from supply chain, to changing technology to new products. You approach can't be too fixed in time; quick fix fad, or else you will go extinct. This long term planning step always plagues Socialism since it does not think, as does nature.
Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?
Do you think that is a Fair Distribution of income?
Capitalism runs based off the institutions created to support it. The contract law and property law system holds up capitalism, among many other institutions.
Nations by means of their taxation system allow fortunes to exist.
Capitalism is DEFINITELY the worst system.
The US is Number 1! Yes, number 1! The country has the highest percentage of its population in prisons!
Its a free county. If people don't want Bezos to have so much money they are free not to buy from him!! LIbcommies want to steal from Bezos at gunpoint. Violence never works!! Violence is all liberals know.
worst? it just saved another 60 million from slowly starving to death in China. It just eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty when China switched to it. Do you understand?
I think you are the one who doesn't understand. You didn't get the humor? It's a famous quote. The worst... except for ALL THE OTHERS. That makes it the best, doesn't it?
I even said I voted NO to the poll question, to make it easier for you to understand what I was getting at. You still didn't understand. Wow!
well, the best of the worst in faint praise
Again, it's humor...
fine, but keep in mind anything the tinyiest bit subtle will be 100 miles over a liberal's head.
Income disparity is phrase that means "unfairness".
People like you think that economy is a football game and anyone with the most number of points DESERVES to win it. Well I don't!
Yes, incomes cannot all be the same. Communism proved the myth of that rule.
But, neither does a nation need an economy that generates fortunes and looks like this:
People then apply it to capitalism as well.
they do??? when it doesn't apply nearly s well??????
-Winston Churchill: dubbed Mussolini the world's greatest lawgiver (page 27)
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?