Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (800523)	8/9/2014 11:13:32 AM
From: d[-_-]b	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577931

FDR was very successful in changing the wage inequality. Wage inequality? Won't those Obama voters need to find jobs first?

To: combjelly who wrote (800523)	8/9/2014 12:28:44 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577931

So let me get this straight. You think the situation cannot be improved, so we just let the country slide into 3rd world status? It won't get that far. If you look at history, this is the sort of thing that triggers revolutions. You can already see a few rumblings of it. Its not just income inequities that have worsened. Since the 1980s, American innovation has been on the decline with the number of new companies on the decline as well. It looks like the concentration of wealth in large corps is resulting in their domination and discouraging smaller start ups. Interestingly enough, that trend coincides with the advent of trickle down: That scenario is supported by these reports: The Other Aging of America: The Increasing Dominance of Older Firms brookings.edu Declining Business Dynamism in the United States: A Look at States and Metros brookings.edu The fact of the matter is the situation can be improved through a change in taxation. FDR was very successful in changing the wage inequality. Gov't anything is never a solution for someone like Dave.

To: combjelly who wrote (800523)	8/9/2014 12:47:16 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577931

>> You think the situation cannot be improved, so we just let the country slide into 3rd world status? You misunderstand the problem. We probably ARE on the decline but it is not because of wealth inequality. It is because of a dysfunctional government. We now have 1 in 5 households on food stamps -- at a time when you and others are claiming the economy is better than it was five years ago, over that period we have seen a doubling, to an all time high, of people reliant on food stamps. And the only way that number will EVER go back down is if government cuts off the money. With this new Obamacare program, almost all of the newly insured are on the public dole for all, or a substantial portion, of their health care. There are several reasons we are on the decline. 1. The incentive to work has been compromised, and in many cases eliminated, by government programs that make it easier subsist without working. 2. Automation makes it less expensive to use machines rather than people to do many jobs. 3. Government intervention has increased the cost of hiring to the point that (2) above is far more attractive. 4. The higher reliance on government has created an attitude that it is totally acceptable to live off the work of others. 5. Public sector unions have attracted too many people to useless government jobs that consume instead of produce. 6. Unrestricted government borrowing obscures the true cost of these programs. 7. Government intervention has driven up the cost of education to the point where most people simply cannot afford it. There are many other factors but these look to me to be the most important. You think taxing the wealthy will resolve our problems but the reality is not one of the key items mentioned above will be addressed by more taxation, and I would argue that most of these would be made worse by it. >> The fact of the matter is the situation can be improved through a change in taxation. FDR was very successful in changing the wage inequality. What you don't comprehend is that wage inequality is a good, even an essential, thing. Because the labor of many people is not worth a higher wage. And when that is the case, those people will be forced onto the government dole. I don't argue that markets are perfect, but I do argue that with relatively few exceptions markets are better than government tinkering.