What Is Economic Fairness?

Try and critique it. Analysis into poverty distinguishes between Anglo-Saxon, liberal democracy and social democracy. They are all capitalist; the only difference is the extent that poverty is tolerated. Socialism, such as the market form where worker ownership is required in all large firms, necessarily changes the nature of economic relations.

This is all a bit obvious, so your critique will be amusing!

 

One has to start with fundamentals.

Do you accept that poverty is a state of mind?

 

Poverty is an economic outcome. To suggest that it is dominated by supply-side limitations is not credible.

 

Having been born into a poor family, and having made enormous strides away from that, let me correct you.

It is a state of mind. When you are poor, the idea of a new car is not possible. Wearing thrift store clothes is a dream come true.

Why do they stay poor? They must first unlock the state of mind and it takes a lot of help, never supplied by Democrats. One has to conclude that in these days, few poor ae actually Democrats over economic issues.

 

No need, I come from a poor background too.

It is an economic outcome. The idea of a 'state of mind' is deliberately pursued to suggest fault and to suggest supply side flaw. The country which did pursue supply side economics aggressively, the UK, secured the highest poverty rates in the developing world.

You're essentially being anti-American. You're stating that the US has higher poverty because Americans, on average, have less ability to 'unlock the state of their mind'. That is obviously hogwash.

 

No, have you read the great book Think and Grow Rich? I have myself gone through periods where I planned for success. It has to happen first in the mind for the mind to go to work to create wealth.

Poverty of course is real. But to get out of poverty, you have to change the poverty stricken mind.

 

No, I deal with the real world. I don't bother with personal development guff!

You're just repeating the fallacy that Americans have higher poverty because, for some unknown reason, they are inferior to Europeans. It is not a credible position. Supply-side theory is typically grunt of no economic value.

 

You are proving you do not understand my actual argument. And you have repeated your fallacy more than one time.

 

Which bit have I misunderstood? You've applied a supply-side economics nonsense based on personal development prance. If you want to present an actual economic argument, able to twin economic concepts and empirical evidence, then do so

 

BOUNDLESS RICHES

Why should the "rules" change?

Particularly in Norway, which has (really) only one considerable national revenue - BigOil. Which it nationalized immediately upon having found the deposits.

So, I say, it depends upon the country and "conventional rules". Thus the question devolves to, "Why is Europe so advanced in terms of accepting/implementing Social Democracy, whilst the US remains comparatively in the Dark Ages ... ?"

My answer: Because of the postwar resurgence of Russia and China as communist countries. Which pitched them both against the US (and vice-versa). This cemented political thinking in all three countries into what became known as the Cold War.

That war has been over for a while. It ended in the Reagan Years - who rushed to take credit for the historical transition. The West "won". (Or, thinks it did.)

But attitudes towards Democracy, and how it should be implemented, did not change readily. With the sole exception of Europe that embraced Social Democracy. And the US kept on with its fondness for Capitalism and the riches it could generate.

Which, for a select few, were boundless because US income taxation is very low:

 

if you added up the top 35 of those countries, you might arrive at the size of the USA. It is like comparing the USA to say South Dakota. Is that rational?

 

You cannot see the "lesson" behind your blinders: the top 0.1Percenters (of the American population) net after-taxation have a revenue-to-wealth accumulation cycle that is the same as we bottom-breeders who are the 90Percenters.

If you think that "wealth sharing" is fair and equitable, you need to take you Replicant blinders off ...

 

The comparison is perfectly rational. What is irrational is to think that taxation has anything to do with the size of the population.

National Taxation is decided by governments and population size is irrelevant in the matter ...

 

Sorry, I don't agree.

 

I left your stuff there but do not agree with the tiny print.

Clearly since you pay no attention to personal development guff, as you put it, you are not aware of the easier path to wealth by starting inside your own mind. You fight this and deflect to Europe, though I have not spoken about Europe, and to me that deflects away from what is needed.

While success can be achieved and never tough a self help system, it is doing it harder. A good education needs to include goals and planning to reach them. This would immensely kick start a lot of people. First they must believe in themselves and try to educate themselves. I started this probably around 1971 in earnest. I was on the edge of failure then and due to one of the self help systems, picked myself back up and made quite a sum of money in around a month. I was about to quit the profession I had spent money and effort to join. I was to put it bluntly at an extreme low point in my career. Fortunately I did set goals and reached them. Your mind is more powerful than you appear to believe.

 

Chart is meaningless since USA has no national govt, only a federal govt. When you add in state and local spending USA is highest taxed country in world

 

My success is built on numerous factors, but luck plays the biggest part. Countries with higher poverty and lower mobility just rely on luck more! Demand side limitations reduce opportunities. Then inequalities in those opportunities further build on intergenerational inequalities.

 

Wow, you stick to your dogma like glue. I am not interested in Europe. I am not discussing demand side.

 

Without reference to the demand side, you have no means to understand economic outcome. We know, for example, concepts such as low wage equilibria have nothing to do with supply side problems.

 

Wow, do you talk this way when asked what you want for breakfast?

 

Folks, I did not claim luck plays no part. But the human mind is powerful. That is my message. Nothing at all about supply side nor Europe nor other topics as used by one poster.

It is like getting to be a great golfer. If the golfer simply swings, he will never get great. There are books by the greats of golfing to explain golf. Add in conditioning. But the condition of the mind has to be task number 1. i gave one speaker, Jim Rohn as a great example. Jim inspired millions. They could be far better off by using his teaching advice.
I suggest at the grade school level, teachers build into their curriculum the topic of goals and setting them. I add now more. I would set a goal. I would limit the time to achieve it. I would give myself a present for doing it. Yes the present came from my effort but I knew when i used the object, it was significant as a token of what I could do. If I wanted a new car, not just any car, but a quality luxury car, I set a goal and denied it until i met the goal. Driving the car was much more delicious. I was using a symbol of my success. Learn how the mind works. Luck will fall quicker to those experts than the stumble around bums who get lucky to have any money at all.

 

Son, you don't seem to understand: if you run faster than the others on the treadmill, you can get ahead of them. But if everyone runs faster, the treadmill just runs faster, too.

GET IT???

 

I refer to economics on an economics subforum. I've also maintained accuracy with the empirical research. Britain saw a quasi natural 'supply side economics' experiment. Tertiary education opportunities were substantially enlarged. End result? Evidence of negative effects on mobility (as inequalities of opportunity were maintaimed) and no effect on the low skilled equilibria. Demand led structural flaws in the economy dominate

 

I think basic income can be only upon the ideal of economic fairness. Can anyone have the answer anymore?

 

Surely basic income is more focused on efficiency than equity? Without it, productivity cannot be maintained and reproduction of profit is threatened.