How does inequality of wealth skew the free market?

Not when all the competition is driven out by the local walton pig farm.

 

And the Tooth Fairy wants to marry the Easter Bunny, too.

Yeah, funny how a national rail transit system is expected to cover the whole nation.

And, of course, the Mayor fully supports cutting Amtrak loose from it's parasite moorings and letting it pick the routes it wants to support to make a profit.

YOU wouldn't support that.

 

you mean, Airbus, with EU subsidies, of course.

Of course it will. King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, will not allow the United States to benefit from oil reserves greater than the entire middle east, nor will his idiot worshippers.

Solar technology isn't profitable, which is why solar companies can't exist without subsidies, just like Amtrak.

You must be referring to the government that horned in after the entrepreneurs started making decent profits. Let's guess, you're going to pretend that the Hoover Dam simply would never have been built with the nanny state, right? Maybe it wouldn't. You see, THAT is an example of what the Congress meant by "PROMOTE the general welfare", and you might want to read the Fifth Amendment, which states that PROPERTY may be taken for public use. Note it does not say the government is allowed to run a transport system, equally, it does not allow the government to run electric utilities.

Really? General Electric was government owned?

Since when?

Well, that is what honest people call bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Honest people also know that the internet was practically worthless when it was run by the pencil-necked geeks in academia and the butt-heads in government.

What Keystone Pipeline? King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, killed it so his 0.001% rich buddy, Warren Buffet, could continue to profit by shipping oil by choo choo.

Space access is a national military necessity, and naturally, it's no wonder that THE ONLY private sector option King Obama, Fascist and Traitor, supports for anything is today's commercial VW-to-Space efforts. They'll never return a real profit, and they'll never be useful in a military crisis.

 

Because the Mayor also knows that the so-called 'wars" on whatever bull(*)(*)(*)(*) fad is popular at the time is unconstitional, the Mayor fully supports ending them.

Because the parasitic maggots don't have a right to someone else's money, the government has no authority to steal it for them. So the "war on poverty" is simply a real war, with real guns, on productive people.

 

Evidence for anything you have said...?

 

Yet, many on the right are more vociferous when it comes to reducing social spending for the least wealthy than they are regarding even a drug war.

 

China plans to place an unmanned vehicle on Mars within the next 10 to 20 years. The China National Space Administration (CNSA) plans to send a manned crew to Mars within 3 or 4 decades after that. So far, the U.S. is ahead of the game. But a call for less government, low taxes and reliance on private enterprise threatens to shift the advantage to the People's Republic of China.

Private enterprise requires (and investors expect) a reasonable return within a reasonable period of time. Consequently, there are some things private enterprise does not do and such things are not done for good reason. In the meanwhile, the U.S. space program depends entirely on the continuing achievements of, "pencil-necked geeks in academia and the butt-heads in government".

 

I agree with that assessment. The US (government) placed a man on the moon and brought him back on a not for profit basis. The private sector still needs a profit motive to even go to the moon.

 

It must suck to live in your reality. It sounds so disempowering. You believe that in order to have the life you want, you have to control what other people do. That's called micromanagement. Or wagging the dog. And it's all completely in your head.

But knock yourself out. I'm not a motivational speaker. If you like feeling like a victim, far be it from me to take away your happiness.

 

There's much to be said for private enterprise; but it has limits, and a long history of limits. In 1492, Columbus had to rely on the government of Spain to finance his discovery of America. A private enterprise sector was up and running long before 1492. But private investors, then and now, are understandably not inclined to finance a venture where failure and loss is far more likely than gain. Absent government spending, discovery and progress would be impossible or severely compromised.

 

In the US, our public sector has an official Mint at its disposal; apparently, it is up to us to convince our elected representatives to have enough Faith in Capitalism, to conveniently purchase the best solutions money can buy.

 

All kinds of ways...

The more wealth disparity a nation has, the more its tax base is dependent on the wealthy, and the more its growth is dependent on investment from either domestic wealthy or foreign investors.

To an extent, the less wealth disparity you have, the easier it is to improve the skills of your workforce and limit welfare spending.

 

You mean like collecting food stamps and not producing anything to earn them? Like paying farmers NOT to grow things? Like paying wind farms NOT to produce wind energy? Things like that?

- - - Updated - - -

It doesn't. It's simply an excuse losers make for being losers. It's also a bright, shiny object clowns like Barack Obama point to in order to appeal to base emotions of losers.

 

Compared to governmental interference, inequality of wealth has a trivial effect on the market.

 

Which market is that?

 

All of them.

 

Government recycles money, wealth inequality keeps it holed up in a safe.

 

wealth is not money, and the type of wealth that rich people actually hoard is almost never money. They hoard things that will increase in value as they hold them, money always decreases in value over time.

The rich spend money almost as quickly as they get it, they just spend it on different kinds of things than the poor. That is how they get rich.

 

Wealth is it's reproduction, which you seem to think derives primarily from luxury objects than policies or total possible income, including necessities.

 

Very peculiar that more people don't see this.

 

One individual's "free will or freedom of choice" cannot typically address full-fledged corporate monopolies (in any era). It takes the power of a group to make a difference there.

 

That would be a negative to his question by the way.

 

Oops!! Bad grammar. I edited my statement.

 

Actually the wealth that most of the richest people have is in the form of corporate stocks, not luxury objects. Stocks increase in value as the company does well, and they give the stockholder a share of the corporation's profit. They also buy things like bonds, which guarantee them a certain profit margin on their money, and real-estate which usually increases in value and often gives them rental income. They don't stuff cash in a mattress, and they only spend a small portion of their income on objects that reduce in value over time, like cars, electronics or other such things.

Things that increase in value are better kinds of wealth to have, and these are the kinds that the rich usually accumulate.