The fundamental question: Why is inequality bad?

Since you have seen fit to attack me, I'll say this: Your rants against landowners and so-called "rent-takers" are, in my opinion, ridiculous. If you can't (or won't) see the obvious fallacy in your argument, there is no purpose for me to further address you. I hope you place me on ignore, so you never have to see my postings again, and I will extend the same courtesy to you. My parting advice to you: "go buy some land".

 

Interesting, and by the same token if everyone was always perfectly good we would have no crime, if we walked to work car pollution would drastically reduce.

This utopian vision in fact would collapse the economy by driving the consumer goods market to the wall in weeks, as well as all kinds of other markets and services.

Imagine, all the local hair dressing and beauty salons going out of business..quite extraordinary.

 

LOL, you seem to be avoiding the essential fact of the debate by pointing to the use of funds by banks to make loans.

The problem there is, both the billionaires and the various other much less wealthy depositors both give their holdings to the banks. So whether or not there is more or less equality the banks still receive the monies and still make the loans. The question is, should we have less equality or more of it? Should we distribute incomes wider? Regulate the differences managers and workers are paid?

- - - Updated - - -

Uh yep, the bank takes title of the cash. It then considers itself liable for the same amount.

 

What is this obvious fallacy you claim? Or is this revelation only for those who already agree with you?

 

Old people retiring with enough money to live comfortably? Or people saving $200/mo instead of spending it? Everybody is not gonna do this. Heck, MOST people aren't gonna do this. The point is, almost anybody that really wants to, can retire a millionaire. Which was my original assertion, and which I've showed.

 

Interesting. So do you think that the poorer having a greater slice of their pie, or each having individually bigger pies, means that the rich will have less of the pie or the individual pie tha they have?

 

Im sure that to some extent you are correct. Some people can indeed save enough to be able to keep alot of their earnings. However the point is irrelevant since we speaking of the politics and the economy and the fate of millions of people.

 

Exactly. So the depositor does not, as you earlier indicated, retain ownership of the deposited money. It is now owned by the bank.

 

Exactly, so the depositor still retains a claim to the monies, the wealth even that they have deposited, what they have given up is claim to the exact currency they have handed over.

 

The money is now owned by the bank, which was what I said about 20 posts ago.

 

The liabilty is still owed to the depositor, which is what ive just pointed out.

 

Imagine the productivity resulting from shifting spending from consumer goods to capital goods. Remember, capital goods are what allow us to increase our productivity and hence our wealth.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, the bank owes the depositor a debt. And the bank now owns the depositor's money, which is what I said 21 posts ago.

 

Uh no, consumer goods are a large part of the economy and are the end product of most capital goods, to change that would mean changing a fundamental aspect of American life that has existed since the 50s.

The bank owns the cash, for that it makes itself liable for the cash. Its this point you cans cant seem to get your head around. Perhaps thats why you dont figure so well in academia.

 

dudette,

capitalism is only useless to the right. some on the left now realize we merely need to Use capitalism for all of its worth.

in fact, some on the left may even have enough Faith in Capitalism, to believe they can solve all of the world's problems, with all of the money in the world.

 

Poverty is the primary issue, not inequality.

 

how do you get poverty with true equality?

 

And if people buy less consumer goods and more capital goods the ratio will shift towards capital goods being a larger part of the economy. And the beauty of capital goods is that they increase productivity, which increases our standard of living.

Yes, I agree the bank now owns the cash and has a liability on its balance sheet. That's what I said 22 posts ago.

I don't figure so well in academia? What do you mean? Is that a personal attack?

 

Whatever gave you the idea that I'm female? Women are usually not interested in politics. That's why I frown upon the idea of women suffrage. They voted Obama because he was good looking and... good looking.

 

The question assumes inequality is bad. Maybe it just is what it is, to quote a famous zen philosopher.

 

capitalism is only useless to the right. some on the left now realize we merely need to Use capitalism for all of its worth.

in fact, some on the left may even have enough Faith in Capitalism, to believe they can solve all of the world's problems, with all of the money in the world.

 

You flatter yourself. That argument, the one I called stupid, is not your brain-child. That argument has been around since before you were in diapers. It is a stupid argument. I have not attacked you. I have also repeated stupid arguments in the past. I will probably do so again in the future sometime. The difference between us is that when I am corrected, I have the ability to admit my mistake, learn from that mistake, and sometimes, when appropriate, I have offered an apology for making the mistake.

When a bank robber becomes rich from planning and executing the perfect heist, does his slice of the pie reduce the slice that others can earn? You think about that for a little while.

 

No, a bank robber cannot limit anyone's earning potential. He can only steal bank currency that is likely covered by the FDIC.

 

What if there were 10,000,000 bank robbers? The bank robbers don't add to production, but by stealing that money, they do get a share of production. How can that share of production that the bank robbers TAKE not reduce that share that the productive are able to trade for?

If what you are saying is true, then counterfeiters can not reduce the amount that producers can earn. Then why not legalize counterfeiting?

 

what about a "corporate privateer" who may "raid" a Firm to loot its capital value including retirement accounts for labor who may be vested or have a vested interest?

 

If one wants to randomly allocate large sums of money to small sums of people, you already have the lottery.

For something more reasonable and fair, take the $75 million and divide it up equally among all Bank of America employees.

All ~233,000 of them. That comes to $321 each. Lets say they're paid for around 2000 hours a year. That means they'd get a raise of 16 cents an hour.

Wheeeeeeee.

And that's the issue with the whole thing. Now, perhaps there is something to a CEO not being "deserving" or some other sense of wrongness from someone else getting quite the break.

But taking the money from them doesn't actually add up to much at all once you divide it up. Their higher wages aren't really very related to other employees lower wages. Except for some amount less than a dollar and hour.