Chicago Boys

Desh said:
And it resulted in a concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands didnt it.
Click to expand...
Nope. This is a prime fallacy of leftist beliefs, that the amount of wealth is static and when one party has more, someone else MUST have less.

Were that true, how could all classes wealth have increased in the late 80's and 90's? Obviously it is not true.
 
Obfuscate said:
There is not a bigger disparity of wealth between the poor and rich than there is in a Socialist economy. It's not a coincidence that the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom have the highest standards of living.
Also, again, whether it's Adam Smith or Milton Friedman, they agreed with some regulations and the importance of the rule of law and the court system. People that claim they are zero regulation anarchy types do not understand them or intentially misrepresent their ideas {ala Naomi Klien}.
Click to expand...
This! x10
 
Its a matter of the percentage of the wealth at any given momment not that wealth is a static number.

When the sysmtem is allowed to concentrate the majority of the wealth to a smaller adn smaller fraction of the population you end up with an abuse of the rest of the population.

History is replete with the examples.
 
Desh said:
Its a matter of the percentage of the wealth at any given momment not that wealth is a static number.

When the sysmtem is allowed to concentrate the majority of the wealth to a smaller adn smaller fraction of the population you end up with an abuse of the rest of the population.

History is replete with the examples.
Click to expand...
Percentage is not relevant.

Desh say I make $50,000 a year and you make $100,000. The economy does well and you end up with $1,000,000 per year and I make $60,000.
You now have a much much higher percentage of wealth and for that matter the "gap" between the rich and poor just grew a lot ...yet have I done worse?
 
KingCondanomation said:
Percentage is not relevant.

Desh say I make $50,000 a year and you make $100,000. The economy does well and you end up with $1,000,000 per year and I make $60,000.
You now have a much much higher percentage of wealth and for that matter the "gap" between the rich and poor just grew a lot ...yet have I done worse?
Click to expand...

Yeah, you have, because as these wages were going up (in a huge way for the high end, and on a much smaller scale for the low end), your costs on energy, healthcare, tuition and housing have gone up exponentially...
 
Obfuscate said:
Watermark, everyone here knows your a loud mouth that has no idea what you're talking about. That's why you're usually just ignored. Next year you'll probably be a Christian Conservative.
Click to expand...

At least I'm not stupid enough to take the heritage foundation as a serious source.
 
KingCondanomation said:
BS, for most of the 20th century Americans had more millionaires than anywhere else and the highest standard of living for the poor and middle class.

The robber barons made crazy amounts of money, yet where was people all over the world's choice to come and live and immigrate to? The same America.
Click to expand...

Did you know that Canada's population is 20% immigrant and even with illegals that's only 10% in America?
 
Watermark said:
Did you know that Canada's population is 20% immigrant and even with illegals that's only 10% in America?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I trust your Waterstats but I think those numbers sound right.
You should bear in mind that Canada's immigration system is based more on allowing people in based on skill level and money to invest (ie:self-sufficiency), rather than America's which is based more on family relations.

Also I'm not sure what that had to with my posts. I favor immigration, and am completely against refugees.
 
Onceler said:
Yeah, you have, because as these wages were going up (in a huge way for the high end, and on a much smaller scale for the low end), your costs on energy, healthcare, tuition and housing have gone up exponentially...
Click to expand...

Sure there is inflation, but it would take quite a number of years at previous regular rates for it to nullify a $10,000 raise. And housing is debatable, if you own a house, inflation is largely better in the long run for value (ie: housing appreciation weighed against increase to property taxes).

In any event my point was in relation to how well the rich in terms of wealth, has no bearing on how well the poor and middle class do.
 
KingCondanomation said:
I'm not sure if I trust your Waterstats but I think those numbers sound right.
You should bear in mind that Canada's immigration system is based more on allowing people in based on skill level and money to invest (ie:self-sufficiency), rather than America's which is based more on family relations.

Also I'm not sure what that had to with my posts. I favor immigration, and am completely against refugees.
Click to expand...

I read it somewhere, I'm not sure of the source. But my point was that America is about as attractive a destination as any other first-world country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top