income inequality

F

flaja

New member
I have been reading how an unequal distribution of income was a contributing cause of the Great Depression. But isn’t equal distribution of income the definition of socialism/communism? And isn’t the unequal distribution of income a fundamental component of any capitalist system? Surely income has always been unequally distributed- even in pre-industrial economies.

But if unequal distribution of income was a causative agent for the Great Depression, why haven’t we had similar economic disasters on a regular basis? Income always has been unequally distributed and there is nothing that a democratic government can do about. People that start out with money will likely always have money while people who are lacking in intelligence, luck and personal initiative will likely always have less- this is just how capitalism works.
 
Obviously "unequal distribution of income was a contributing cause of the Great Depression" is a lie. *shrug*
 
SmarterThanYou said:
the great depression was a result of manipulated stock markets and government incompetency.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that during the 1920s the government kept lowering taxes and took a hands-off approach when it came to regulating anything.

I thought this is what you libertarians wanted.
 
you guys love kicking sand in democrats faces.
Other than me which ones show a clue about business or economics here.
 
Whomever said:
If everyone went to college they would have an above average income.
Click to expand...

Or we'd have so many college graduates that we'd have $10 an hour burger flippers because we'd have college graduates that cannot find work in their field and think their education entitles them to outrageous salaries for what amounts to menial labor. The world has a limited need for art and psychology majors.
 
It's a stupid point, only about 25% of people graduate college.
So do you tell your kids don't go to college because if everyone went wages would go down. LOL
 
flaja said:
I have been reading how an unequal distribution of income was a contributing cause of the Great Depression. But isn’t equal distribution of income the definition of socialism/communism? And isn’t the unequal distribution of income a fundamental component of any capitalist system? Surely income has always been unequally distributed- even in pre-industrial economies.

But if unequal distribution of income was a causative agent for the Great Depression, why haven’t we had similar economic disasters on a regular basis? Income always has been unequally distributed and there is nothing that a democratic government can do about. People that start out with money will likely always have money while people who are lacking in intelligence, luck and personal initiative will likely always have less- this is just how capitalism works.
Click to expand...

I think we have come close. I remember the 70's and the 80's and the 90's when the economy came real close!

It is the reason there will always be rebellions.
 
flaja said:
Or we'd have so many college graduates that we'd have $10 an hour burger flippers because we'd have college graduates that cannot find work in their field and think their education entitles them to outrageous salaries for what amounts to menial labor. The world has a limited need for art and psychology majors.
Click to expand...

Isn't this happening right now?
 
flaja said:
Or we'd have so many college graduates that we'd have $10 an hour burger flippers because we'd have college graduates that cannot find work in their field and think their education entitles them to outrageous salaries for what amounts to menial labor. The world has a limited need for art and psychology majors.
Click to expand...

you sound like you didn't go to college

the more college graduates you have the bigger the pie is to be split.
 
Topspin said:
you sound like you didn't go to college

the more college graduates you have the bigger the pie is to be split.
Click to expand...

Are you stupid? College graduates only make more money if banks give loans to fund job creation. And the bankers have decided to put america on extinguish, on behalf of the world.

Olam Ha Ba or Bust!
 
froggie said:
I think we have come close. I remember the 70's and the 80's and the 90's when the economy came real close!
Click to expand...

The economic troubles of the 1970s were due mostly to the OPEC oil embargo during the Yom Kippur War and then Jimmy Carter's botched foreign policy in Iran. Energy prices went through the roof and the resulting inflation hampered the entire economy.

The 1980s were mostly boom times, debt-laden to be sure but boom times nonetheless. The 1990s economy was driven mostly by the dotcom bubble and then people who got out before that bubble burst started buying real estate which created the bubble that burst last year.

It is the reason there will always be rebellions.
Click to expand...

We have always had an inequality in the distribution of property and income. This is a fundamental fact of nature outside of a socialist/communist economy. There is nothing the government can do about it. If you tax the rich to subsidize the poor you will still have rich and poor in about the same relative numbers that you started with. Money begets money so people with money tend to accumulate even more of it. Even with a top federal income tax rate of around 90% back in the 1970s we still had rich and poor. The amount of people in each income class may grow or shrink and the income amounts in raw numbers may go up or down, but I would venture that roughly the same proportion of the population stays in each income group from decade to decade. Even some of the same people stay in the same income groups from decade to decade. The Kennedys are rich (and scum) now just as they were rich (and scum) 30 years ago when they were in higher tax brackets.
 
froggie said:
Isn't this happening right now?
Click to expand...


It started back in the 1990s. Fast food joints were paying $8 an hour- about double minimum wage if I remember right. But the most my biology degree could get me as a private school teacher at the time was $10 an hour.

The trouble is that the government pays for people to go to college so people that lack the brains or the drive (or both) to be in college end up there anyway.
 
If we really want to talk about rich v. poor in the United States, I suggest we first get a handle on what being poor really means. Demosocialists can spout all the statistics they can garner, but the reality is there are darned few genuinely poor in the U.S. When one lives in a 3 bedroom rent-subsidized apartment with 2 children (section 8), has more milk than a family of 4 can reasonably drink (WIC), has Stouffer's Lasagna as a regular menu item (food stamps), and because of these assistance programs, also has cable with 2-3 premium channels, broadband internet, etc., they are NOT "poor"!

Poor is a family of 6 plus grandma living in a two room (that two rooms, not two bedrooms) "house" without interior plumbing, feeding themselves with poached wild game and an illegal (because it is not their land) vegetable garden. Poor is going out at night to gather the small skiffs of wheat the harvester missed that afternoon. Poor is walking to the res school in homemade moccasins lined with skunk fur.

I am all for helping the poor. What gravels my goat is being expected to put my grandchildren's future in jeopardy for a bunch of twits who think they are somehow automatically entitled to a standard standard of living that is considered wealthy by most of the world -- a standard of living that was considered middle class prior to WWII. Helping people afford HBO is NOT "helping the poor".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top