- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Hmm... so it's basically how much of a monopoly/monopsony something is.
That's already wrong to begin with, and doesn't consider the additional elements of oligopoly/oligopsony. Start over.
Okay, so tell me what these "severe inequalities" that cause all this are.
The state chooses to massively subsidise it.People choose to work there, people choose to buy from there.
Oh the irony.:lol:That is terrible. Stores should not need permission from the government to exist.
Principled objection will be to the nature of permanent class divisions
and constrictions on social mobility
I wasn't aware
In most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States.
In the United States almost one half of children born to low income parents become low income adults. This is an extreme case, but the fraction is also high in the United Kingdom at four in ten, and Canada where about one-third of low income children do not escape low income in adulthood. In the Nordic countries, where overall child poverty rates are noticeably lower, it is also the case that a disproportionate fraction of low income children become low income adults. Generational cycles of low income may be common in the rich countries, but so are cycles of high income. Rich children tend to become rich adults. Four in ten children born to high income parents will grow up to be high income adults in the United States and the United Kingdom, and as many as one third will do so in Canada.
This paper uses historical U.S. data to directly estimate the contribution of intergenerational transfers to aggregate capital accumulation. The evidence presented indicates that intergenerational transfers account for the vast majority of aggregate U.S. capital formation; only a negligible fraction of actual capital accumulation can be traced to life-cycle or "hump" savings.
he does, I've seen!!
Please, tell me what you mean.
I wasn't referring to his unintentional humor....such as his agenda.
I've seen him in the cartoon thread...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/lighter-side/32551-cartoon-thread-25.html#post1058249476
You just HAD to do it, didn't you??
It's like asking hypochondriac Aunt Emma "How's things?" :doh
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?