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 : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (41593)	4/3/2017 11:40:35 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> Their hostility to those who are doing well may exceed their desire to help those who need help. As I've said before I do think we have to figure out how to do redistribution in a fair way and such that economic damage is minimized. Because there are going to a LOT of jobless going forward and potentially for a very long time. Health care has to be part of that. Whether free marketers like it or not we are going to have tolerate some degree of socialization. I believe the best we can do is try to make it as fair as possible and try to find ways to give the public a stake in it. My greatest concern is that we reach a time when there are no markets to support the economic growth required for a stable economy. I can't really wrap my head around that scenario. Business operators are going to have to decide how wise it is to roll out technology too quickly with an eye toward slowing down the whole process, I think.

To: Lane3 who wrote (41593)	4/3/2017 12:21:27 PM
From: John Koligman	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 42652

The R's with that joker Laffer have been talking about 'trickle down' since Reagan. Funny how this chart amazingly shows the opposite, a 'trickle up' that accelerated right when Reagan showed up. Perhaps Laffer had it backward. So in terms of the recent R healthcare proposal, it doesn't look too good when they want to give huge tax cuts to couples making over 250k while cutting healthcare for those at the bottom. The growing divide between the haves and the have-nots, in one stunning chart ‘It’s a tale of two countries’ Getty The 1% tend to sweep it under their elegant Persian rugs, while those struggling to make rent scream it from the unemployment line: Inequality in the United States is bad and it’s only getting worse. To further the discussion, the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, this week shared research from a trio of contributors, led by French economist Thomas Piketty, in an attempt “to create inequality statistics for the U.S. that overcome the limitations of existing data.” This chart, originally published in December on the Washington Center for Equitable Growth website, caught some refreshed social-media buzz: “It’s a tale of two countries,” the authors wrote. “For the 117 million U.S. adults in the bottom half of the income distribution, growth has been nonexistent for a generation, while at the top of the ladder it has been extraordinarily strong.” And it’s not due to the aging population. Rather, income has actually dropped for the working class. In fact, none of the growth from 1980 to 2014 went to the bottom 50%, the study pointed out. Only 32% went to the middle class, while the top 10% reaped 68% of the growth. A full 36% went to the 1% alone. Troubling? Read: Income share for the bottom 50% is ‘collapsing.’ “An economy that fails to deliver growth for half of its people for an entire generation is bound to generate discontent with the status quo and a rejection of establishment politics,” the authors said. University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers, who helped make the chart a hot topic on Twitter, had this say when he saw the illustration: “Just think how amazing it is that both of these lines even fit on the same chart with the same axes.”