Wealth Inequality Is A National Emergency

[PoliTalker]

Hello cawacko,

The Fed has the power. But most of us know very little about it. Go do random interviews on the street and ask who Jerome Powell is. I’d be shocked if 2 in 10 know. Yet he has more control of the economy than anyone.

How rich is he?

Who does his policy favor?

Maybe they should have some liberal economics professor instead.

Richard Wolff.

I bet he would do a good job.

[Into the Night]

If you don't think so then watch this:

https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes...nal-emergency/

CBS is wrong. Inequality of wealth is normal. Those with initiative and drive will become wealthy. Those that have no initiative or drive will remain poor. You want to become rich? Produce a product or service that somebody wants. They'll pay you for it! Awesome concept, I know.

[Into the Night]

Hello StoneByStone,



The problem with discussion boards is they tend to attract the anti-social types who can't get along with people in real life. The logical solution is to maintain a large Ignore List. Once the trolls are filtered out, more intellectual discussion remains.

All your ignore list does is prevent you from seeing those making actual arguments against your views, and leaves you without the ability to respond to it as a result (unless you happen to see someone else that you haven't filtered out respond to it).

[Into the Night]

The federal reserve pushes policies that punish savers and promote pushing people into riskier asset classes which exacerbates wealth inequality. The Fed has been the biggest driver of this extreme inequality. For those who are serious about addressing the issue we have to start with the Fed. But how often (hint: rarely to never) do we hear politicians discuss the Fed?

The Fed is price controls on money itself. Time was we didn't have a central bank, yet there was still a vibrant economy.

[Into the Night]

That's totally true. But even Righties in the real world weren't this bad. If Bush acted like Trump back then, there's no way he would have been elected.

Bush and Trump are not the same. Bush is quite centrist...almost left. Trump is much more conservative than Bush.

[Into the Night]

Yeah, I agree with you there. I think that's why there are so many trolls here. But the mainstream Conservatives and Republicans never used to be like this. Maybe the internet has made it worse. Perhaps it has showed them that they can be rude and insane, and get away with it.

What a rude and insane comment. Yet you are insulting conservatives and republicans.

[cawacko]

Hello cawacko,



How rich is he?

Who does his policy favor?

Maybe they should have some liberal economics professor instead.

Richard Wolff.

I bet he would do a good job.

I have no idea his wealth and it’s really irrelevant, it’s the policies that he and the Fed pursue that matter. What the Fed has pushed are easy money policies that have created asset bubbles and greater wealth inequality.

[Into the Night]

The Fed has the power. But most of us know very little about it. Go do random interviews on the street and ask who Jerome Powell is. I’d be shocked if 2 in 10 know. Yet he has more control of the economy than anyone.

In the end, he has very little. Everyday businesses have the power of the economy. It is possible to abandon the Fed and the dollar completely, but those businesses will still be there.

They'll just use a different currency.

[tinfoil]

I like this video and you should too. LOL liberals will hate it

[USFREEDOM911]

Hello StoneByStone,



No. TRUMP! Trump has made it worse.

That's the problem. He's the leader. He's the one who gets all the attention. He says something, everybody listens. The media carries it. He has the bully pulpit. Nobody told him that doesn't mean act like a bully.

President Trump puts this hateful energy out there and people pick up on it, think that makes it OK just because the President did it.

Just like the little elementary school boy who had to be reprimanded because he grabbed a little girl between her legs. And you know he said if the President can do it then so can he.

President Trump is just wrong as a leader. He is a bad leader.

And he is making wealth inequality more extreme, a bad thing for America.

Making wealth inequality more extreme does not make us great. It makes us a plutocracy.

Make Plutocracy Great Again!

MPGA

[translation]------><-----[/translation]

[JPF]

One of the things I dislike the most about these forums is that they are filled with children who cannot think through a topic with any form of common sense.

Likewise for those who make blanket statements then are unwilling to support said statements at the slightest hint of confrontation.

If you had read the article I posed with any form of comprehension you would have noticed that the Founders considered income inequality to be "evil" in the words of Madison. To prevent that "evil" the Founders supported legal remedies to moderate income accumulation, or as Madison said "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort.”

I did read the article.

Your couching the words of the few as “the framers” is interesting. For all I know (admittedly limited—as you pointed out) these were the best minds of their time. I doubt the 54 or so who signed the DOE were of one mind in many matters. Was this one of them? Perhaps…perhaps not. You’ve selected some quotes to back up your position. Kudos. A lot of posters do not do that.

I’m simply asking you…how much income disparity is acceptable? Your obfuscation (then) and your insulting response (now) do nothing to back up your premise.

If you’re comfortable with Donald Trump Jr. making 23X what the janitor at Trump Tower makes….fine. Say so. If you’re not comfortable with DT Jr. making 200+ what the janitor makes. Fine…say so. If you want to put it in terms of how much of the nations’ wealth should be held by X percentage of Americans…great. Say so.

If you just want to make blanket statements but have no reservoir of conviction behind it…I guess that’s cool too but you shouldn’t be shocked when you are asked to clarify your position.

In any event, your comprehension of what is occurring is extremely limited. We have hyper-partisanship supported by lobbiests, and other forms of propaganda, in a country where less then 50% of the population bothers to vote, and a President who was elected by a small group of electors who did not represent the average person, or even a majority of the population.

Now, go learn what mediocrity is, or profit sharing, and any number of issues the Founders supported as could be applicable to today.

Perhaps you should learn how to spell “lobbyist” before lecturing someone else on what they should learning.

Good to see you’ve latched onto another topic. If you’re upset at the electoral college…great. Here is what I think:

The electoral college in it’s current format should be changed in the following way. Keep the format exactly how it is now. However, add in the stipulation that the President elect not only win the MAJORITY of the electoral college vote but also win the plurality of the popular vote. Otherwise the current constitutional remedies get invoked.

I do not favor the direct popular vote for two reasons.

1). You will have candidates who campaign only in large population centers.
2). What if we do get a vibrant 3rd party (or 4th or 5th)? The winner of the plurality of the Popular Vote may be able to get into the White House with 30% of the votes cast.

[Old Trapper]

CBS is wrong. Inequality of wealth is normal. Those with initiative and drive will become wealthy. Those that have no initiative or drive will remain poor. You want to become rich? Produce a product or service that somebody wants. They'll pay you for it! Awesome concept, I know.

Would be if not for two things:

1. It is the mantra right out of the fantasy book of the right wing. People buy groceries. Try building a grocery store and competing against Walmart. Got a new idea for a piece of technology? Try financing it before some group in that field steals your patent, if you can get one, and produces it. The concept was great back in the 1800's, not so today when you have 1% controlling the wealth.

2. having no initiative, or drive, is again the right wings excuse for giving trillions to the wealthy while cutting the very programs designed to help the poor. Even welfare is a program that essentially helps the wealthy, not the poor. Food stamps? You buy from the wealthy, they get the dollars. HUD? You rent from the wealthy, they get the dollars.

The education system is not designed to help the poor, and as more schools go private once again it is the wealthy that benefit, not the poor.

[Old Trapper]

Likewise for those who make blanket statements then are unwilling to support said statements at the slightest hint of confrontation.


I did read the article.

Your couching the words of the few as “the framers” is interesting. For all I know (admittedly limited—as you pointed out) these were the best minds of their time. I doubt the 54 or so who signed the DOE were of one mind in many matters. Was this one of them? Perhaps…perhaps not. You’ve selected some quotes to back up your position. Kudos. A lot of posters do not do that.

DOE? And you whine about my spelling,

I’m simply asking you…how much income disparity is acceptable? Your obfuscation (then) and your insulting response (now) do nothing to back up your premise.

You have asked three times now, or is it 4, and as I said earlier I do not know how one puts s number on it. The Founders believed that as long as all profited from the wealth then it was not a problem. When only a few did so then it was evil.

And now that I have stated the obvious for the third time perhaps your juvenile mentality can understand it.

[StoneByStone]

Bush and Trump are not the same. Bush is quite centrist...almost left. Trump is much more conservative than Bush.

Not at all. Trump doesn't believe in anything but Trumpism. And as far as how he's run the country, aside from the erratic behavior, he's been a pretty standard Conservative towing the GOP line. The only reason he gets more hate than Bush is because of how he acts.
And as for Bush being Centrist, he was pro-war, anti-gay, and gave tax cuts to the rich. What exactly did he do that was left?

[artichoke]

OP: Wealth inequality isn't even a PROBLEM. Take a first-year economics course, genius.