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: Alighieri who wrote (956503)	8/13/2016 6:53:07 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574848

Poor people...they are being deceived again by another crook purporting to be on their side... That is the sad part. Granted, the environmental regulations have not helped coal in the least, but even if all of them were lifted today, coal would be on its deathbed. The simple fact is that because of fracking, natural gas is cheaper than coal. It is cheaper to build plants, they are cheaper to operate and they are cheaper to fuel. And that is especially true if regulations are lifted. Unless the Cheeto Jesus wants to mandate the use of coal, demand is going to continue to decline. Those are the facts. No amount of posturing is going to change that.

To: Alighieri who wrote (956503)	8/13/2016 7:29:47 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574848

Well, I certainly would look to be on the side of working people, so I wouldn't go busting unions or giving tax cuts to people who don't need the money on the whimsical idea that crumbs will fall off their table...so I would look to undo these destructive initiatives...and I would place a lot of emphasis on education and training, infrastructure rebuilding, federal and state minimum wages. But you understand that would not make a material difference in income disparity, right? Nothing at all. Would not move the needle. None of the things you mentioned would have any meaningful impact on income or wealth disparity. If you spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure you're not going to see a detectable move in income disparity. If you did, it would last only as long as you're effectively redistributing taxpayer dollars. I'm not trying to tedious. My point is that income disparity are products of the economic situation, not merely some transitory policy positions. If you increased the average tax rate for the wealthy by 10 percentage points, you might have SOME effect on it (depending on the nature of the increase) but it would certainly be muted. Maybe a tiny fraction of a point. Wealth disparity, if you wanted to attack it, would be nearly impossible to deal with without killing economic growth. Because wealth is a lifetime cumulative thing, compounding of returns, etc. Of course, you could just take everyone's property when they died. But that will drive capital formation out of the country, not a desirable side effect. Income disparity is transitory in a person's lifetime. While it is likely true that ~60 own as much as half the world's wealth, income depends on a person's living patterns and work situations and other things. Just about any person who owns a house outright in San Francisco could immediately join the top half of income classes by selling the house. So, that's my point. It just isn't that easy to change either of these things in a meaningful way. The minimum wage would be obvious but for the fact it doesn't work (it is clearly a very racist law in that its victims tend to be persons of color). I just don't agree there is much to be done about it, in any responsible sense. But I also don't agree that it would be desirable if you could do something about it.