I guess today's workers should learn a lesson in free market capitalism and supply and demand from the Clintons :rotflmao:

[QUOTE=Fly Rod;1106607]
So U R saying I should not have made a profit and try to B a millionaire by retirement.

no you said that I never said that that I said symbiotic relationship

you work hard for me and make me money I will in return pay you a good wage ... not sure if you were that kind of boss or not

I'm on social now AHH!!! that explains alot the I seem you guys see
equality as 50\50 spilt again no one has ever suggest that but please keep trying to suggest a worker should not share in a company's success .. but their retirements suffer at their failures

maybe this will explain please notice what is does not say

income inequality refers to the extent to which income is distributed in an uneven manner among a population. In the United States, income inequality, or the gap between the rich and everyone else, has been growing markedly, by every major statistical measure, for some 30 years.

I guess its like climate change it really isn't a Hoax

Since income inequality has always existed, and since there is no actual magic distribution number--maybe it's higher, maybe its lower, but maybe this following quote by you will explain the importance of the present income inequality:

"not my quote but sum's it up nicely
I l[i]ve in the real world ...and things are great...economy moving forward, gas is 1.99 where i live, lost a lot of money in the stock market and value of my house...they both bounced back now.."

And the rest of that quote by you ended with this line which applies to this post by you regarding income inequality:

"just another thread [post] that fails to see the Big picture".

[QUOTE=wdmso;1106614]I'll concede that the gap has grown markedly between the Clintons and Americans who actually work for a living....but I'm sure Hillary will fix all of that by more evenly distributing her and hubby's wealth.....

[QUOTE=scottw;1106619]Scott be careful you know what happens to people that go against her.."coincidences"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nice that you took what i said about those who said the Economy sucks
and applied it to income inequality and finished it with a climate denial mantra income inequality has always existed yet some how I am missing the big picture Classic

[QUOTE=scottw;1106619]
let me know when their income is generated by a work force that they pay poorly and provided no benefits :kewl:

Since your quote that I quoted was indeed a response to those who said the economy sucks, and did not support the notion that the economy sucks, but, rather that things are actually great, how does that not have a bearing on the "big picture" regarding the "problem" of income inequality?

Income inequality, if a problem, would have a direct effect on the economy. If the economy does not suck, and per your quote things are just fine or even, per your quote, things are "great," what is the problem with income inequality?

Did you read Thomas Piketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century? It was supposed to be the ultimate testament against growing income inequality. For me it focused on the need to make wealth more equal rather than on if there is a problem with our quality of life. And his answer is a global tax. Which is the same answer to "climate change" as proposed in the U.N. Copenhagen Accords. Did you read the outline of the Copenhagen Accords?

In each case, Copenhagen and Piketty, the ultimate goal, whether expressed or not, is a World Order in which a central bureau supersedes all the separate national powers and dictates to them how wealth must be distributed among nations so that there is a worldwide equality which, for Piketty redistributes wealth, and for Copenhagen redistributes wealth and its sources (even patents would be abrogated and poor countries would be allowed to use patented inventions without paying for the use) in order to give the said poor countries not only the advantage of expanding (for a while) their polluting ways (as a sort of catch-up to the advanced countries who will have to decrease their already less polluting ways) but of being given the means to do so and to improve at the expense of everyone else.

The control of the world's wealth distribution and its sources is the de facto control of the world. This is the ultimate Progressive goal. You may consider that an apocalyptic view. Progressives view it as the necessary model in order to advance the utopian notion of total human equality.

Here is a conundrum re "income inequality." Even as Piketty notes, various thinkers on record have fretted over a century on growing income inequality. Yet over that time the quality of life for more people has improved. Could it be that the more equally income is distributed, the less there is a variation in all things, including quality of life? Could it be that income inequality actually makes possible those variations which bring us improvement? Could it be that forced equality by a central power restricts variations and therefor stagnates the ability to improve?

Could it be that income distribution which is "organic," which is a natural process occurring in a free market, is actually the most efficient way, in the long run, of distributing quality of life for more people? And that forced equality, of income distribution or anything else, makes progress more sluggish, if at all?

Here is something else to consider in terms of what is wealth? In a classic sense, wealth is ownership of actual things. Money, in a classic sense, is a medium of exchange. Its value is making the exchanging of stuff more efficient. It is an abstraction, a token representing, for example, your labor. And that value is actuated when you use that abstract token to buy stuff which you deem equal to your input of labor. But in a current sense, money has evolved from being an abstract of your labor used to exchange for some commodity into a commodity itself. And this commodification of money is, even according to Piketty (although he doesn't actually specify the notion of money as commodity), is the major reason for what he considers a dangerous rise in income inequality. In short, money buys money (investment which is translated into money). And as more money is bought, "wealth" in its current definition is expanded. And so it can be said that the 1% owns one third of our country's wealth.

But does that mean that the 1% owns one third of our country's actual stuff? No, they own a lot but nowhere near one third. What really sets them apart is their ownership of a lot more money. And that money is used to get more money. In essence, they have more money than they can exchange for stuff. If they were to buy all the stuff the economy would be destroyed. The economy is driven by exchange. And exchange would disappear if the 1% owned everything (with the exception that the 1% could exchange between themselves which would be a pretty meager marketplace).

So, how can it be that the 1% can own so much excess money? Well, if the money is not organically generated, that is, if it is not a function of commodity exchange and not printed to suit the needs of the market, but it is artificially printed in excess (as in the multiple quantitative easings) in order to artificially stimulate markets that don't exist, then there is excess money to buy and stuff into the 1%'s wealth basket. Money becomes a commodity.

Now if the market were truly free, the excess money could translate into new ventures which could expand the ability to exchange things that didn't exist before. But if the market is regulated to the point that it is more profitable for investors to stash the money and buy more money rather than gambling on new and uncertain ventures which overregulation makes more difficult, then money becomes the commodity to invest in.

In short, there is this "big picture" to which you like to refer. If, indeed, quality of life is, as your quote seems to say, "great", what is the problem of income inequality? And is income inequality really the culprit? Or is centralized control of the market by regulation and its desire to artificially stimulate market growth by printing more money than its regulated market can absorb the culprit?

The "big picture" is much larger than just railing against income inequality. We can miss the "big picture" if we don't understand that. And if we truly delve into that picture, we may find factors of a far more fundamental nature (even apocalyptic) than a mere talking point.