Here comes the war on income inequality!

[Jim in CT]

The 2014 midterms are coming up. The Dems have twice as many US Senate seats up for election in 2014 (the Senate class of 2008 is up for re-election). With the economy still sluggish, Obamacare being a disaster, and Obama's approval ratings in #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney territory, the Dems need something to rally around, something that makes the other side look monstrous.

Say hello to income inequality.

How dumb does one have to be, to buy into this. No one likes the fact that there are poor people out there who struggle. But here is what most liberals cannot seem to grasp...one person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us to scrounge for.

The solution to income inequality isn't to drag wealthy people down. The solution is giving poor people the tools they need to climb the ladder.

Our country declared 'war on poverty' 50 years ago. Since then, we have spent trillions fighting poverty, and the percentage of people living in poverty hasn't changed much. Why? Because for most poor people, their poverty isn't caused by a lack of money (the lack of money is the outcome, not the cause). Their poverty is caused by their own behavior, abilities, and priorities. You do not solve that by taking from those who have wealth.

i really don't like the way this argument is framed by the left...namely, that conservatives care less about the poor than liberals. There are studies that show that conservatives donate more time and money to charity than liberals do, and when you consider how each side views religion, that makes intuitive sense.

Finally, when the left talks about how unfair income inequality is, the boogeyman is ALWAYS a corporate CEO. The left never seems to care about actors or singers who are jillionaires. That tells me that wealth is OK, as long as it comes from a source that is left-leaning?

It's absurd. Yet somehow, it works.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

But here is what most liberals cannot seem to grasp...one person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us to scrounge for.

Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic.

If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent. If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for.

This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top.

Our country declared 'war on poverty' 50 years ago. Since then, we have spent trillions fighting poverty, and the percentage of people living in poverty hasn't changed much. Why? Because for most poor people, their poverty isn't caused by a lack of money (the lack of money is the outcome, not the cause). Their poverty is caused by their own behavior, abilities, and priorities. You do not solve that by taking from those who have wealth.

Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's. That's a big drop. Since Reagan the amount government spends on welfare continued to drop as well.

I think if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones.

i really don't like the way this argument is framed by the left...namely, that conservatives care less about the poor than liberals. There are studies that show that conservatives donate more time and money to charity than liberals do, and when you consider how each side views religion, that makes intuitive sense.

Republicans do seem to have a credibility gap. Reagan didn't help with this perception...

Finally, when the left talks about how unfair income inequality is, the boogeyman is ALWAYS a corporate CEO. The left never seems to care about actors or singers who are jillionaires. That tells me that wealth is OK, as long as it comes from a source that is left-leaning?

Big difference. Celebrities are a source of individual wealth, the CEO is usually on top of an organization. Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic.

If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent. If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for.

This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top.


Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's. That's a big drop. Since Reagan the amount government spends on welfare continued to drop as well.

I think if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones.


Republicans do seem to have a credibility gap. Reagan didn't help with this perception...



Big difference. Celebrities are a source of individual wealth, the CEO is usually on top of an organization. Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

-spence

"Jim, I'm having trouble grasping your logic."

Not suprising. My logic is that wealth is not finite. So one oerson's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. The solution to poverty does not involve the confiscation of exorbitant assets from th wealthy. The solution to poverty is to help poor people acquire more wealth for themselves.

"If Oprah makes more money because the government lowers taxes there's less revenue to provide services for the dependent"

You're talking about tax revenues collected, which is not what I was referring to (which was wealth). But OK. What if she makes more money NOT because of a tax cut, but because she launches another successful business, like a TV show. In that case, has she 'stolen' that additional wealth from anyone? If anything, the tax revenue is maximized if she makes another million, compared to a million poor people each making an additional $1, because her tax rate is so high. SO if you want to maximize tax revenue, which is what you are saying, you should be happy when the uber rich get richer, as their tax rates are higher than ours. Try making that wrong!

"Before the Bush 43 years the poverty rate was 1/2 what it was before the 1960's"

Can you provide that data please? From what I am seeing, since 1970, the poverty rate has been between 10% and 15%.

"If corporations keep wages stagnant and funnel value to shareholders there's less wealth to go around for the majority to scrounge for."

You make it sound like only wealthy plutocrats own stock. Everyone who has a 401(k) or a pension, benefits when the market does well. How do you not know this?

"This is precisely the macro situation we've been experiencing a to a large degree why wealth continues to consolidate at the very top."

That's only true if the stock market runup since 2008 is caused by, and only by, the wage decreases taht have occurred under Obama. I thought the bull market was caused, in part, by all the free money floating around. If you force wages higher, corporations have less profit, and thus pay less in corporate taxes, correct? You don't create wealth by confiscating it from one person (or business) and giving it to someone else.

The rich will almost always get richer at a faster pace than the rest of us. Why? Because it takes money to make money. They have more investable assets. Its simple math. It's not unfair, nor is it harmful. If the rich get richer, not only does that NOT hurt poor people, you could argue it helps everyone else. The rich poay higher tax rates, so the more wealth that gets taxed at their higher rates, the lower the tax burden on the rest of us. Furthermore, unless the rich put their money in their mattress, they either spend it, invest it, or put it in the bank. All of those things are good for the rest of us. How can you work in business and not know this?

"if you do some research on public opinion there will be overwhelming support for economic factors over personal ones

I would put it this way...your party has done a good job convincing a large segment of the population that accepting government freebies, does no harm to anyone else. Unfortunately, as you and I will see firsthand within 20 years, nothing is free.

"Celebrities have always done pretty well, where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years"

Sorry, celebrities didn't make $20 million a movie, 30 years ago. Until you show me that data, it's speculation on your part. Furthermore, the CEO of a publicly traded corporation does infinitely more good for the population than a celebrity. Large companies provide good jobs, and they provide wealth to shareholders. Celebrities, for the most part, do nothing of the sort.

Very weak, even for you.

CEO compensation, as you know, is tied to stock options. When stocks appreciate, that helps the CEO fatten his bottom line. It also helps everyone who owns a share of that stock, meaning it's good for an awful lot of people.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

where the CEO to individual contributor pay gap has grown dramatically over the last 30 years.

-spence

Spence, that's true, that gap between CEO and average worker is increasing. Here is my follow-up question.

So what?

If you cap CEO pay at some arbitrary number, and redistribute that money to the rest of the employees, what does that amount to?

Here, your fellow world travelers at the Huffington Post looked at Walmart, where the ratio of CEO to average pay was the highest of any company they could find...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2978180.html

The CEO made $23 million in 2012. Walmart has 1.5 million employees worldwide, according to this link...,

http://www.ask.com/question/How-Many...-Wal-mart-Have

So if your fellow Bolsheviks require the CEO to work for free, and we give every cent of his $23 million to the worker bees, each would see an increase of $15.33. How much help does that provide? How many people does that lift out of poverty? Is my math right here? I knew it would be insignificant, but not that insignificant. My point being, executive compensation isn't causing large numbers of people to live in poverty.

CEO salary makes for a great liberal talking point, and it does a good job at making the rich seem evil, which is the whole point. In reality however, it's not a significant line item on the balance sheet, in most cases.

You need another soapbox to holler from. The math doesn't support your cause here, not by a long shot. Somehow, that the math shows you how demonstrably wrong your point is, won't stop you from believing that point. And that's what I don't understand.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, that's true, that gap between CEO and average worker is increasing. Here is my follow-up question.

So what?

If you cap CEO pay at some arbitrary number, and redistribute that money to the rest of the employees, what does that amount to?

Here, your fellow world travelers at the Huffington Post looked at Walmart, where the ratio of CEO to average pay was the highest of any company they could find...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2978180.html

The CEO made $23 million in 2012. Walmart has 1.5 million employees worldwide, according to this link...,

http://www.ask.com/question/How-Many...-Wal-mart-Have

So if your fellow Bolsheviks require the CEO to work for free, and we give every cent of his $23 million to the worker bees, each would see an increase of $15.33. How much help does that provide? How many people does that lift out of poverty? Is my math right here? I knew it would be insignificant, but not that insignificant. My point being, executive compensation isn't causing large numbers of people to live in poverty.

CEO salary makes for a great liberal talking point, and it does a good job at making the rich seem evil, which is the whole point. In reality however, it's not a significant line item on the balance sheet, in most cases.

You need another soapbox to holler from. The math doesn't support your cause here, not by a long shot. Somehow, that the math shows you how demonstrably wrong your point is, won't stop you from believing that point. And that's what I don't understand.

You're completely missing the point. The question was why CEO's may get demonized...your response would be analysis a board of directors would make...not someone representing the workers.

-spence

[FishermanTim]

Here's something to consider:

A CEO's image is driven by how the company does and is perceived by the public, specifically when the company has to do something unpleasant like layoff or salary reductions.

Funny how a celebrity (Sports, music or movies) never get that same response. They still make their multi-millions a year regardless of how well they do when they work.

Where do their salaries come from?
Corporations are derived (usually) from stockholders and investors, who are expecting a return on their investment.
Celebrities get theirs from the public, although they are paid by the team, movie company or the tour venue. Who has a more direct affect on the poverty of America?
The clelebrities, because the public will spend money foolishly to see these people perform like circus animals instead of saving for their future betterment.
The CEO and their company actually employ people which gives them a push in the right direction.

People's poor choices should be addressed as major role in poverty, as should the lack of career advancement opportunities.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You're completely missing the point. The question was why CEO's may get demonized...your response would be analysis a board of directors would make...not someone representing the workers.

-spence

OK, since you clearly care about the workers, Spence....based on that data I showed, please explain to all the Wal-Mart employees reading this, why they should give a sh*t about what the CEO makes?

Clearly, the CEO's are not taking a meaningful amount of money away from the rank-and-file. So why demonize, or atempt to blame, the CEOs? Spence, you tell me, how much intellectual honesty is there, in demonizing the CEOs?

Clearly, the CEO compensation is not to blame for anyone else's angst.

Good luck making that wrong!

If my statement is something a board member would make, as opposed to a community activist...maybe that's because the board member is rooted in the real world and driven by common sense, whereas the community activist is an ignorant, hysterical liar?

If you were representing the employees, what possible response could you have?

There are thousands of jobs at Wal-Mart that pay a comfortable wage. Instead of being so goddamn jealous of those people, how about learning from their example and doing what they did?

Easy? Hell, no. Within reach for most of us? Hell, yes.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd wants it given to them. It doesn't work that way.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, since you clearly care about the workers, Spence....based on that data I showed, please explain to all the Wal-Mart employees reading this, why they should give a sh*t about what the CEO makes?

Clearly, the CEO's are not taking a meaningful amount of money away from the rank-and-file. So why demonize, or atempt to blame, the CEOs? Spence, you tell me, how much intellectual honesty is there, in demonizing the CEOs?

Clearly, the CEO compensation is not to blame for anyone else's angst.

Sure it is. The CEOs appear to see increasing compensation regardless of performance. Blow out the numbers = $$$ lay off thousands = $$$ resign in shame = $$$. It doesn't matter, they're playing by a different set of rules. Wages for the majority have been flat the past 50 years...but the top keeps making more and more regardless of their performance...

The elite play by a different set of rules, that why they are demonized.

If my statement is something a board member would make, as opposed to a community activist...maybe that's because the board member is rooted in the real world and driven by common sense, whereas the community activist is an ignorant, hysterical liar?

Sigh...

The Occupy Wall Street crowd wants it given to them. It doesn't work that way.

You completely misunderstand their motivation.

-spence

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, since you clearly care about the workers, Spence....based on that data I showed, please explain to all the Wal-Mart employees reading this, why they should give a sh*t about what the CEO makes?

Clearly, the CEO's are not taking a meaningful amount of money away from the rank-and-file. So why demonize, or atempt to blame, the CEOs? Spence, you tell me, how much intellectual honesty is there, in demonizing the CEOs?

Clearly, the CEO compensation is not to blame for anyone else's angst.

Good luck making that wrong!

If my statement is something a board member would make, as opposed to a community activist...maybe that's because the board member is rooted in the real world and driven by common sense, whereas the community activist is an ignorant, hysterical liar?

If you were representing the employees, what possible response could you have?

There are thousands of jobs at Wal-Mart that pay a comfortable wage. Instead of being so goddamn jealous of those people, how about learning from their example and doing what they did?

Easy? Hell, no. Within reach for most of us? Hell, yes.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd wants it given to them. It doesn't work that way.

Just give the Walmart workers their .007514705882353 / hr raise and end it......

[spence]

And about pie. I don't buy the infinite pie thing. The one physics class I had in college taught me there was a finite amount of energy in the universe.

Sure economic growth can lift all boats (not equally mind you) but the reality is that there's organic growth and the transfer of wealth. A lot of our economy, increasingly in fact, is based on transfer where wealth is not created as much as siphoned off. This is indeed a more finite equation, relative to the economic conditions at the moment.

The point being, that if resources were unlimited you could potentially sustain organic growth and eliminate the pie construct. But in the real world there are constraints. If you don't have growth, or if the benefits from growth aren't shared you have an exploding pie.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And about pie. I don't buy the infinite pie thing. The one physics class I had in college taught me there was a finite amount of energy in the universe.

Is that an absolute?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Sure economic growth can lift all boats (not equally mind you) but the reality is that there's organic growth and the transfer of wealth. A lot of our economy, increasingly in fact, is based on transfer where wealth is not created as much as siphoned off. This is indeed a more finite equation, relative to the economic conditions at the moment.

The point being, that if resources were unlimited you could potentially sustain organic growth and eliminate the pie construct. But in the real world there are constraints. If you don't have growth, or if the benefits from growth aren't shared you have an exploding pie.

-spence

Is Quantitative Easing organic growth? Is redistribution of wealth (money) organic growth? If money is wealth, and it can be printed at will, then, indeed, wealth is infinite.

If wealth is material commodity with intrinsic value, and if there is absolutely a finite amount of material commodity, then wealth is not infinite.

If the top 1% have an unequally high percent of income (money), do they actually have that percent of "wealth," or just that much more ability to buy "wealth"? And if they actually did buy that amount of "wealth," what would, or could, they do with it? They could not possibly consume or use it. Unless they could rent it, or sell it, it would go to waste and do them no good. If they were to rent or sell it, they would have to demand enough return, or they would lose monetary value. In order to get a "fair" or profitable return, the buyers would have to have adequate income to pay. In a market "economy" that would resolve itself to the advantage of both parties.

In an "economy" that is more controlled than free, those who manipulate the levers of control can reap advantage over the disadvantage of others. For that to happen, there has to be a crony partnership between government and those in bed with it.

When government usurps power by diminishing either partner in a market trade to the advantage of the other, whether toward oligarchic or egalitarian goals, it distorts the market and can do so to the point that it is destroyed.

Manipulating (regulating) markets by favoring winners over losers, legislating pay scales creating "equality" or "inequality" will create failures which eventually must be "fixed."

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Is Quantitative Easing organic growth? Is redistribution of wealth (money) organic growth? If money is wealth, and it can be printed at will, then, indeed, wealth is infinite.

QE can certainly enable organic growth, but infinite quantitative easing would invalidate the premise of currency.

If the top 1% have an unequally high percent of income (money), do they actually have that percent of "wealth," or just that much more ability to buy "wealth"? And if they actually did buy that amount of "wealth," what would, or could, they do with it? They could not possibly consume or use it. Unless they could rent it, or sell it, it would go to waste and do them no good. If they were to rent or sell it, they would have to demand enough return, or they would lose monetary value. In order to get a "fair" or profitable return, the buyers would have to have adequate income to pay. In a market "economy" that would resolve itself to the advantage of both parties.

That assumes a growing economy and it also ignores the fact that "adequate income" isn't distributed evenly.

In an "economy" that is more controlled than free, those who manipulate the levers of control can reap advantage over the disadvantage of others. For that to happen, there has to be a crony partnership between government and those in bed with it.

Which certainly exists. Decentralization of power may be attractive here...or inefficiencies created by a lower economy of scale may just make up the difference.

When government usurps power by diminishing either partner in a market trade to the advantage of the other, whether toward oligarchic or egalitarian goals, it distorts the market and can do so to the point that it is destroyed.

Let's dissolve the lobbying industry and enact term limits.

Manipulating (regulating) markets by favoring winners over losers, legislating pay scales creating "equality" or "inequality" will create failures which eventually must be "fixed."

Well, it also can provide beneficial normalization. A healthy economy trickles up and down. Given that it "takes money to make money" a lack of regulatory forces would result in faster consolidation at the top that we're even seeing today...I don't think over-regulation is the problem, we need the right regulations and apply them consistently.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

QE can certainly enable organic growth,

So we have established it's NOT organic growth. My point was that money is not wealth but a medium which enables one to trade wealth. Your goods for my labor, or your goods for my goods, represented by the buyer with money. It is a convenience.

But money itself is not wealth, and if it were wealth it could be produced in infinite quantity and distributed "equally" to all who would then be equally infinitely wealthy.

On the contrary, as I posed, which you ignored, "If wealth is material commodity with intrinsic value, and if there is absolutely a finite amount of material commodity, then wealth is not infinite." It is at this finite trading of material commodity for other commodity or labor, that "organic" economy and organic economic growth occur. Growth can occur by greater labor productivity matched by greater consumption of the larger amount of commodity produced, and/or by expanding population to create more labor requiring production of more goods.

I'm not sure what you meant by "there's organic growth and the transfer of wealth." It seemed that you were saying they went together. If by "transfer" you meant "trade" I would agree. If you simply meant transfer from one to another without equivalent return, I would say that was not organic or any other kind of economic growth. If anything, it would be economic shrinkage. In your next sentence you posited that much of our economy is based on transfer "where wealth is not created as much as siphoned off." I would agree with that, because in the siphoning there is no trade, so wealth is diminished, given away for no return. Which is anti-growth and anti-sustainable except at lower levels.

but infinite quantitative easing would invalidate the premise of currency.

What invalidates the "premise" of currency is treating it as wealth rather than the medium for an exchange of wealth. And its premise is also invalidated by giving it away without receiving something of value in return. Redistribution of wealth by mere transfer of money invalidates the premise of currency as a medium of exchange since no exchange is made in the distribution. And when such money is spent it is not a medium of exchange but is at best, merely RETURNED without productive value to the organic economy, or, if it was not taken from the economy as a tax to be redistributed but was merely printed for the purpose of distribution, then it is ADDED to the organic economy without the corresponding added production which that money is supposed to represent--and so, it is a surplus of money and therefor inflationary. And the siphoning to which you refer can occur either in social welfare schemes or in transferring public money through borrowing or security purchases from financial institutions or other countries.

That assumes a growing economy and it also ignores the fact that "adequate income" isn't distributed evenly.

No, what I said doesn't assume that. The top 1% can only gain money by transfer or trade. If by trade, then the buyers would have to have produced in order to gain the money to buy whether the economy grew or not. If by transfer, then either through government subsidy directly, or indirectly by first transferring money to the buyers. And a good percentage of that top 1% are in financial markets which treat money as commodity, or as wealth. They "trade" that money (invest it) for greater money returns. That is why they are at such risk. Their money or securities can lose value in an instant. And since the cause of that devaluation is often some government intrusion, that is why the "money" people have to maintain close contact with politicians and regulators, especially through campaign contributions. Trading money, speculating, is artificially removed from the "organic" economy, and gaining "money" wealth can occur without a growing, and even with a stagnating, economy. As witnessed by present economic conditions.

Also, what I said didn't ignore adequate income not being distributed evenly. I implied very strongly that the actual organic wealth that the super wealthy have in excess of their ability to use or consume would only be economically useful to them if they could sell or rent it at a proper return and the buyers would need adequate income to pay, that is, to trade. In an organic market, income isn't evenly "distributed," it is earned by means of differing abilities. "Even distribution" implies equitable transfers such as in welfare schemes. Money from such distribution does not add to nor is it a part of an organic economy. It is inflationary currency not derived from production, and is a means of devaluing the currency making it more difficult for those participating in the production which maintains or grows an "organic" economy.

Which certainly exists. Decentralization of power may be attractive here...or inefficiencies created by a lower economy of scale may just make up the difference.

We have a common ground for agreement here . . . the specifics might differ. Certainly decentralization of political power is a constitutional theme which I "harp" about.

Let's dissolve the lobbying industry and enact term limits.

That can't be done without dissolving the lack of virtue in our political class. Lobbying is only effective if the pols allow influence, especially "money" influence. Certainly, the bigger the government, the greater the stakes, and the more centralized, the smaller the number of targets, and the more convenient the access. The pols can ban lobbying and establish campaign finance reforms on top of finance reforms, but until they honor their own words and honor their duty, their oath of office, especially to the Constitution, it will all be a bag of political wind.

And when it is a contest between virtue and power, the ruling class will always choose power. The very nature of a ruling class is the wielding and maintenance of power. Term limits would be a check against a ruling class, but our politicians are not disposed to be merely "one of us." They have long ago given up the mantle of fellow citizen, and have created a morass of governance which requires long standing experience and expertise. Newbies have to be trained on how to navigate through and manipulate the procedures. It is for our good that they sacrifice a normal life to dedicate theirs to "public service."

In other words, they love the power too much to give it up.

What would a McCain do with himself after a political eternity of being one of the most important and powerful men in the world if he were to give it up? So long as the internal juices flow, the lust to rule will have its way.

Well, it also can provide beneficial normalization. A healthy economy trickles up and down. Given that it "takes money to make money" a lack of regulatory forces would result in faster consolidation at the top that we're even seeing today...I don't think over-regulation is the problem, we need the right regulations and apply them consistently.

-spence

That is exactly one of the reasons for the Constitution and for its Commerce Clause. The abandonment of the Constitution through the distortion of its clauses, and the "re-interpretation" of the rest of it in order to transform us into a quasi-socialist top down system, has given us the manipulative regulations and the undisciplined ad hoc government which has driven us into seemingly unsustainable debt. And made us more dependent in similar ways on the profligate leviathan rather than as individuals who contribute in diverse ways to a growing "organic" economy.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And about pie. I don't buy the infinite pie thing. The one physics class I had in college taught me there was a finite amount of energy in the universe.

Sure economic growth can lift all boats (not equally mind you) but the reality is that there's organic growth and the transfer of wealth. A lot of our economy, increasingly in fact, is based on transfer where wealth is not created as much as siphoned off. This is indeed a more finite equation, relative to the economic conditions at the moment.

The point being, that if resources were unlimited you could potentially sustain organic growth and eliminate the pie construct. But in the real world there are constraints. If you don't have growth, or if the benefits from growth aren't shared you have an exploding pie.

-spence

"And about pie. I don't buy the infinite pie thing."

That's maybe the most demonstrably false thing you have ever said. GDP changes, Spence. It's a lot higher now than it was in 1950, because the economy (i.e., aggregate wealth) increased over time. Good lord, I'd love to know in what capacity you work in business.

"A lot of our economy, increasingly in fact, is based on transfer where wealth is not created as much as siphoned off."

Siphoning off is what happens when the government confiscates wealth, which is what you support. Voluntary transactions almost always increase wealth.

Wow...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

If you don't have growth, or if the benefits from growth aren't shared you have an exploding pie.

-spence

Absolutely, and when a CEO makes his objectives he gets paid for it and shares the fruits of his work because the company has made more $$ and can give it's employees raises ,expand t's business and employ more workers.
The CEO will spend his own money on more material things which increases
$$ for other companies.


Here's the difference between what a CEO creates and what a movie star like Alex Baldwin does. He get's his millions and spends it too,but doesn't give raises or employ more people. The only reason he gets paid is because of his looks,and acting which bring in more receipts to make more movie trash which is not a good influence on kids. No good creation here.

Politicians know the jealousy in human nature and play it like a fiddle to the less fortunate making them question why someone else has more. In most of the cases it's because they worked harder to get where they are and earned it.

[FishermanTim]

Also..if you have a section of society that thinks it's ok to charge their life away just so they can "look" better than their friends, whose fault is that if they can't afford their rent or mortgage?
If anyone lives beyond their means, spending on things other than the basic neccessities, who do we blame when they fall behind on their rent, car payments, loans and everything else?

I see way too many people spending money they don't have just to "appear" to be successful to their friends and family while they are rocketing to the poorhouse with no brakes!!!

IS that the evil CEO's fault???

[Pete F.]

Why would anyone blame the CEOs. Their pay is only symptom of the problem. The problem is with corporate profits and greed, short term profits at any cost, decimating our economy in the long term. Just shoot every hole with a MBA that has no idea how to work for a dollar, but will kill others opportunity for profits in the near term.
Rant over

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Why would anyone blame the CEOs. Their pay is only symptom of the problem. The problem is with corporate profits and greed, short term profits at any cost, decimating our economy in the long term. Just shoot every hole with a MBA that has no idea how to work for a dollar, but will kill others opportunity for profits in the near term.
Rant over

"Why would anyone blame the CEOs."

Because it's easier than the truth. In most cases, if poor people want to know the problem, they need to look in the mirror. But one of the cornerstones of liberalism is that nothing is anyone's fault, it's always someone else's fault, preferably the fault of a white guy in a Brooks Brothers suit.

[Fishpart]

At the most basic level, we get compensated for the value we add to something.

When a line of customers need to wait to place an order for fast food at the drive through and need to wait to pay because the order taker is preoccupied playing candy crush on a mobile device are they adding $15/hour in value?

[detbuch]

Apparently, "income inequality" is not such a big deal anymore. The ACA has actually made it desirable. It makes low income a means to more leisure and better health care. It allows one options and choice. It is liberating. The Founders had it all wrong. Instead of fighting for freedom from state coercion, they should have demanded an affordable care act.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently, "income inequality" is not such a big deal anymore. The ACA has actually made it desirable. It makes low income a means to more leisure and better health care. It allows one options and choice. It is liberating. The Founders had it all wrong. Instead of fighting for freedom from state coercion, they should have demanded an affordable care act.

Thatg's a funny and clever way of spinning things! Yes, the ACA will exacerbate income inequality, but somehow, Obama will still blame income inequality on Wall Street.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2014 midterms are coming up. The Dems have twice as many US Senate seats up for election in 2014 (the Senate class of 2008 is up for re-election). With the economy still sluggish, Obamacare being a disaster, and Obama's approval ratings in #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney territory, the Dems need something to rally around, something that makes the other side look monstrous.

Say hello to income inequality.

How dumb does one have to be, to buy into this. No one likes the fact that there are poor people out there who struggle. But here is what most liberals cannot seem to grasp...one person's wealth does not cause another person's poverty. Wealth is not finite, it's not like a pizza. If Oprah Winfrey earns another million today, that does not mean there's a million less for the rest of us to scrounge for.

The solution to income inequality isn't to drag wealthy people down. The solution is giving poor people the tools they need to climb the ladder.

Our country declared 'war on poverty' 50 years ago. Since then, we have spent trillions fighting poverty, and the percentage of people living in poverty hasn't changed much. Why? Because for most poor people, their poverty isn't caused by a lack of money (the lack of money is the outcome, not the cause). Their poverty is caused by their own behavior, abilities, and priorities. You do not solve that by taking from those who have wealth.

i really don't like the way this argument is framed by the left...namely, that conservatives care less about the poor than liberals. There are studies that show that conservatives donate more time and money to charity than liberals do, and when you consider how each side views religion, that makes intuitive sense.

Finally, when the left talks about how unfair income inequality is, the boogeyman is ALWAYS a corporate CEO. The left never seems to care about actors or singers who are jillionaires. That tells me that wealth is OK, as long as it comes from a source that is left-leaning?

It's absurd. Yet somehow, it works.

Your forgetting that , more importantly to Liberals is the inequality of pay based on gender. Without poor people who the hell would vote for Democrats.....

[sburnsey931]

We need to take the Senate and then we can break the stalemate. It will give us 2 years before Hillary and if we keep it 2016 it will force her to move to the center like her husband did. It gives us a chance to improve "income opportunity".
Chris Christie quote...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

We need to take the Senate and then we can break the stalemate. It will give us 2 years before Hillary and if we keep it 2016 it will force her to move to the center like her husband did. It gives us a chance to improve "income opportunity".
Chris Christie quote...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Picking up 6 Senate seats will be a very tall order. That said, the timing looks great. There are twice as many Dems up for re-election in 2014 as there are Republicans. And a few of those Democrats rode Obama's coattails in 2008 to get elected in places that don't usually elect Democrats. As Obama helped those candidates in 2008, so will he hurt them in 2014. I'm sure the GOP will pick up Senate seats, but 6 would be a real ass-whoopin'.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just stating that if you stick to your guns but get clobbered in the election, is that better than a pyrrhic victory? I dunno.

If by sticking to your guns means fighting with a well articulated conviction on principle and you get clobbered in the election, then either you didn't fight well enough, or the people have abandoned your principles. Is the answer, then, to compromise your principles and win elections? Isn't that what has been happening for the past several decades?

Are we now to have faith that THIS time winning an election will bring about actual victory. Or has the constant erosion of principles occurred both by the progressive attack on them and by "our" relentless bargaining them away in order to win? Every new compromise takes us that much further away from principle, never a return in the other direction. The first compromise is presumably a shift to a middle ground. The next compromise is a shift from that middle ground, which is already distanced from first principle, to another middle ground toward that of your opposition. And it keeps going in that direction because the opposition itself, not yet fully having established its foundation, is also constantly moving in that direction toward its ultimate and still defining goal.

If there were two equally defined and established political entities in opposition, the middle ground in every succeeding negotiation should ideologically remain statically in the "middle." But only the so-called "conservative" position was established and defined (in the founding), and the "progressive" position has been evolving and doing so continuously further and further away from founding principles and away from any previous middle compromises.

Further, the progressive message has become appealing to more and more people with every compromise in that direction, and so more legislation that appeals to peoples' weaker angels is passed, making them more dependent and self-sufficiency less appealing. And the need for progressives to compromise dwindles. The Republicans become less "conservative," and the Democrats become more confidently "progressive." Notice how little the Democrats have actually compromised during Obama's tenure. And what little compromise they give is bargained away in the next round of negotiations such as was done with the sequester.

So if another round of "compromise" by Republicans "wins" an election will that be the actual pyrrhic victory? A victory at the cost of even more of what supposedly defines "conservative"? If Republicans fear "sticking to their guns" and abandon that to win, what will make them pick up those guns and stick to them after victory? Or will they conclude that they must always avoid those guns in order to keep winning. This has already been happening and with greater acceleration of the transformation of the established Republican party into a quasi-progressive one.

The Tea party, which rose up against the trend and picked up those guns which the "moderate" Republicans had put aside to avoid being accused of pushing grandma off the cliff, was used by a weakening GOP to ride to a substantial victory. But now the Tea Party is shunned by Repubs who drifting back into fear mode. Hoping to win by default, not by stick to your guns principle.

So, is it better to be clobbered in the election by sticking to principle, or is it better to have the pyrrhic victory of gaining election but losing your soul? Or is that a false dichotomy? There is always the next election. Hone your message. Stick to your guns. Fight with vigor and principle. Show that you are a worthy opponent who will not back down or fear mealy-mouthed, pusillanimous media pundits--walk soft but carry a big stick. Articulate your principles with passion. Have a clear identity, don't weasel back and forth to win. That is not honorable. It is not appealing to people who are looking for inspiration.

The notion that it's all about the economy, stupid, is a demeaning view of human nature. Either the economy will take care of itself if left the space to do it, or it can constantly be manipulated by whatever slight of hand necessary to convince us that it's "heading in the right direction." If we remain passive in the face of supposed financial doom, the ruling class can pull a dug here or there to give us milk, forgive or eliminate a debt, become powerful enough to do whatever, and by any means, is necessary to keep us complacent and happy. The laws of economics are no obstacle to those who don't abide the rule of law. You can argue like a prattling idiot about an "unsustainable debt," but it has long ago been unsustainable, going from millions to billions to trillions--what height is insurmountable for administrative magicians to climb?

If We The People have been reduced to overgrown children who have lost the ability to strike out on our own and seek the fullness or our lives in spite of the difficulty and danger of the quest, then let us throw in the towel and let the ruling class give us our daily bread and comfort. We can finally shuffle off the ancient notion of humanity being a noble state, next to that of the Gods. And we can trade our souls for manna.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If by sticking to your guns means fighting with a well articulated conviction on principle and you get clobbered in the election, then either you didn't fight well enough, or the people have abandoned your principles. Is the answer, then, to compromise your principles and win elections? Isn't that what has been happening for the past several decades?

Are we now to have faith that THIS time winning an election will bring about actual victory. Or has the constant erosion of principles occurred both by the progressive attack on them and by "our" relentless bargaining them away in order to win? Every new compromise takes us that much further away from principle, never a return in the other direction. The first compromise is presumably a shift to a middle ground. The next compromise is a shift from that middle ground, which is already distanced from first principle, to another middle ground toward that of your opposition. And it keeps going in that direction because the opposition itself, not yet fully having established its foundation, is also constantly moving in that direction toward its ultimate and still defining goal.

If there were two equally defined and established political entities in opposition, the middle ground in every succeeding negotiation should ideologically remain statically in the "middle." But only the so-called "conservative" position was established and defined (in the founding), and the "progressive" position has been evolving and doing so continuously further and further away from founding principles and away from any previous middle compromises.

Further, the progressive message has become appealing to more and more people with every compromise in that direction, and so more legislation that appeals to peoples' weaker angels is passed, making them more dependent and self-sufficiency less appealing. And the need for progressives to compromise dwindles. The Republicans become less "conservative," and the Democrats become more confidently "progressive." Notice how little the Democrats have actually compromised during Obama's tenure. And what little compromise they give is bargained away in the next round of negotiations such as was done with the sequester.

So if another round of "compromise" by Republicans "wins" an election will that be the actual pyrrhic victory? A victory at the cost of even more of what supposedly defines "conservative"? If Republicans fear "sticking to their guns" and abandon that to win, what will make them pick up those guns and stick to them after victory? Or will they conclude that they must always avoid those guns in order to keep winning. This has already been happening and with greater acceleration of the transformation of the established Republican party into a quasi-progressive one.

The Tea party, which rose up against the trend and picked up those guns which the "moderate" Republicans had put aside to avoid being accused of pushing grandma off the cliff, was used by a weakening GOP to ride to a substantial victory. But now the Tea Party is shunned by Repubs, drifting back into fear mode. Hoping to win by default, not by stick to your guns principle.

So, is it better to be clobbered in the election by sticking to principle, or is it better to have the pyrrhic victory of gaining election but losing your soul? Or is that a false dichotomy? There is always the next election. Hone your message. Stick to your guns. Fight with vigor and principle. Show that you are a worthy opponent who will not back down or fear mealy-mouthed, pusillanimous media pundits--walk soft but carry a big stick. Articulate your principles with passion. Have a clear identity, don't weasel back and forth to win. That is not honorable. It is not appealing to people who are looking for inspiration.

The notion that it's all about the economy, stupid, is a demeaning view of human nature. Either the economy will take care of itself if left the space to do it, or it can constantly be manipulated by whatever slight of hand necessary to convince us that it's "heading in the right direction." If we remain passive in the face of supposed financial doom, the ruling class can pull a dug here or there to give us milk, forgive or eliminate a debt, become powerful enough to do whatever, and by any means, is necessary to keep us complacent and happy. The laws of economics are no obstacle to those who don't abide the rule of law. You can argue like a prattling idiot about an "unsustainable debt," but it has long ago been unsustainable, going from millions to billions to trillions--what height is insurmountable for administrative magicians to climb?

If We The People have been reduced to overgrown children who have lost the ability to strike out on our own and seek the fullness or our lives in spite of the difficulty and danger of the quest, then let us throw in the towel and let the ruling class give us our daily bread and comfort. We can finally shuffle off the ancient notion of humanity being a noble state, next to that of the Gods. And we can trade our souls for manna.

"you get clobbered in the election, then either you didn't fight well enough, or the people have abandoned your principles. " Or a little bit of both, plus some impact from the fact that every TV station except one will claim that you are pure evil.

"Is the answer, then, to compromise your principles and win elections?" I don't know. Maybe winning with a John McCain is better than losing with a Ted Cruz. I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm saying there's a case to be made for that argument.

"Isn't that what has been happening for the past several decades?" Not in New England, where it's almost impossible to get elected if you are in the GOP. And the US Congress has been controlled by Democrats for far longer than it has been controlled by Republicans.

I cannot disagree with anything you are saying. But today, it's very difficult for a true conservative to get elected, at least to the Executive Branch (we continue to do well in midterms, because the liberal media cannot demonize hundreds of candidates running all over the country).

Detbuch, I don't htink things can be fixed at this point. Those who understand elementary school arithmetic, have been saying, for 50 years, that SS and Medicare will go bankrupt due to the Baby Boomers. For 50 years, people who say that out loud have been demonized. I don't know that we can avoid going over the cliff at this point, because the Tea Party isn't going to control Congress and the white House. My predisction is that we slog along this way for 25 more years, then we start bouncing checks to people receiving entitlements. The impact of that will be so bad, that not even Spence will be able to say that Paul Ryan was wrong. That could well be the end of liberal economics, because no one will be able to claim that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"you get clobbered in the election, then either you didn't fight well enough, or the people have abandoned your principles. " Or a little bit of both, plus some impact from the fact that every TV station except one will claim that you are pure evil.

In my opinion, it is a lot of the first two, and not enough fight and pushback against the third.

Not fighting well enough is, to a great degree, abandoning your principles (not sticking to your guns, as you put it), which, to a great degree, is why the people also abandon them.

And when media pundits paint a false picture of you, fight back against every little point. Don't let them get away with anything. If you worry that it might make you look defensive, make it obvious that you are on offense. The more you're concerned about reaction, the less you will take action. If you let the media define you, that will stick in the public mind, and your lack of a rebuttal laced with a definition of who you really are, will confirm the media picture and make you look weak.

"Is the answer, then, to compromise your principles and win elections?" I don't know. Maybe winning with a John McCain is better than losing with a Ted Cruz. I'm not saying that's what I believe, I'm saying there's a case to be made for that argument.

A case can be made for any argument, if it is one. If you're ambivalent, you will lose. Make the case for the argument you believe in. Make it strong, articulate, speak the speech well with passion, and consistently BE what you argue. Don't waffle. Don't say one thing then compromise it and do another. George Bush Senior supposedly lost his bid for re-election due to a great degree because of his "read my lips" quote which he went back on.

Conservatives acting like liberals is not the most winning combination. And it is a compromise from which they cannot escape. The compromise is woven permanently into the fabric of how they must govern in order to "win."

"Isn't that what has been happening for the past several decades?" Not in New England, where it's almost impossible to get elected if you are in the GOP. And the US Congress has been controlled by Democrats for far longer than it has been controlled by Republicans.

I was speaking mostly of national politics in which the Republicans consistently caved, "compromised," over the past several decades, not that they mostly won because of that. Rather, I think, that is why the Congress has been controlled by Democrats longer than by Republicans. People of just about every ethnicity or culture admire strength over weakness.

Local politics in the East has an interesting history. It used to be very "conservative." Who I consider the last fully conservative President, Calvin Coolidge, was a quintessential Northeasterner. He was immensely popular. And he did not compromise at all. And he was known and respected for that. He won because of that. He consistently "stuck to his guns" even in the face of the most withering sentiment to act outside of the scope of constitutional executive power. And this was an age when progressivism was politically catching on like wildfire. Unlike the manufactured political debacles of Katrina and Sandy, he refused to give federal aid to a huge flood disaster as bad, or worse, than Katrina in a state in the South, and was excoriated by the press, and the Democrats and even by Republicans for not doing so. (There was no FEMA then.) He said it was strictly a state matter, and the federal government had no business being involved. He was accused of being anti-Southern and wouldn't act that way if the same disaster happened in his home state of Vermont. As it turned out, it did happen in his home state, and he acted the same way. And both states, Southern and Northern, managed to recover, as was appropriate, on their own initiative. He was a penny pincher and made it his duty to cut expenditure to bare necessity. And when his fiscal policy actually reduced the national debt for the first time since before the Civil War, his response was to cut some more. The "economy" and the country flourished during his tenure. He didn't run for re-election, though he could have won in a landslide. He served a good six years (the first two as a Vice President taking over for the deceased Harding) and considered his job done and time to go back home. He was frugal, as were Vermonters, in his personal and public life. Then the burgeoning progressive tide swept into power, and the Constitution was eviscerated, and the debt has continued to rise.

I cannot disagree with anything you are saying. But today, it's very difficult for a true conservative to get elected, at least to the Executive Branch (we continue to do well in midterms, because the liberal media cannot demonize hundreds of candidates running all over the country).

Detbuch, I don't htink things can be fixed at this point. Those who understand elementary school arithmetic, have been saying, for 50 years, that SS and Medicare will go bankrupt due to the Baby Boomers. For 50 years, people who say that out loud have been demonized. I don't know that we can avoid going over the cliff at this point, because the Tea Party isn't going to control Congress and the white House. My predisction is that we slog along this way for 25 more years, then we start bouncing checks to people receiving entitlements. The impact of that will be so bad, that not even Spence will be able to say that Paul Ryan was wrong. That could well be the end of liberal economics, because no one will be able to claim that the liberals were right and the conservatives were wrong.

Maybe so. But if we totally abandon our founding principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility, the aftermath of the disaster you predict may not be as kind to Paul Ryan, or conservatism, or constitutionalism, as you might wish. A society that has gone that far astray, politically, personally, financially, and morally, might recover its old strengths, or it might, as has happened elsewhere in history, be prey to an openly dictatorial regime.

[detbuch]

Jim--I just read this article this morning. It relates to our discussion about sticking to your guns or compromising.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/13/t...y-and-reality/

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim--I just read this article this morning. It relates to our discussion about sticking to your guns or compromising.

http://www.redstate.com/2014/02/13/t...y-and-reality/

it was a great article. I don't disagree that conservative principles are what the country needs. I just don't think pure conservatives can get elected everywhere, and where they can't, I'll take a moderate Republican over Nancy Pelosi. But we need to do a better job of getting the message out, I agree. I think 2014 will be a good year for us.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it was a great article. I don't disagree that conservative principles are what the country needs. I just don't think pure conservatives can get elected everywhere, and where they can't, I'll take a moderate Republican over Nancy Pelosi. But we need to do a better job of getting the message out, I agree. I think 2014 will be a good year for us.

Aren't you suspicious of someone's motives when he uses a word which means good or best as a pejorative? Let us not be "pure." You will not be electable if you are pure. Really? Have we become so jaded as a species that we demand the best and purest quality we can get in all the trifling commodities we consume or use for the precious money we have to spend to get them, but want some taint in those we choose to represent and rule us rather than demanding the best and least corrupt, the "purest" representatives in terms of their values and promises?

Not even the most "conservative" politicians are totally "pure." As the article points out, even Cruz and Sessions cast occasional votes that don't meet some perfect standard. But their standards are high compared to "moderate" Republicans. What needs to be pure is the message. "Getting the message out" is no good if it is muddled.

What makes the conservative message pure is its foundation--its principles. If those are compromised, the message is corrupted. Then it becomes politics. Winning. And the pyrrhic victory of having to rule against those principles. Therefore losing them.

If the message is only about the "economy" and what we can do for you better than the other guys, it becomes a popularity contest full of deceitful promises and hateful aspersions. An appeal to the lowest political instincts. A message which tells the people that they are weak, needy, and base in character, and that you are no better so you are more able to relate to their needs and know best how to provide, not like some pie in the sky holier than thou purist who demands more of you than you can give, and can only give you vague promises of "liberty" and stuff that doesn't feed the belly. Oh, sure, you can dress it up, like Palin's lipstick on a pig metaphor, and convince everyone to accept the far less than "pure" arrangement of society because of inherited conditions left by previous regimes. But if you must compromise principles to get elected by putting makeup on the face of your message, how do you wipe it off if you "win"? If mud gets you there, won't the mud keep you mired in order to remain and win again?

I don't accept that picture of the People. I think most want to be inspired. I think most want to feel good and noble, not like pigs at the trough. And I think the true and "pure" conservative message would connect with the better angels of humanity.

I think there is a message beyond the "economy" and which is inspirational to the soul (dare I say that word) of the American People.

Do you?