Well, sir, I must admit that I am wealthy. It took an engineering degree, years of hard work, saving, and a great 401K match from my employer. But I'm finally there.
Speaking for the 10+ million working poor; unfair competition in acquiring it and an economic system that discourages it
non-zero sum:
rut ro, as in Scooby Doo?non-zero sum:
Economics
Many economic situations are not zero-sum, since valuable goods and services can be created, destroyed, or badly allocated in a number of ways, and any of these will create a net gain or loss of utility to numerous stakeholders. Specifically, all trade is by definition positive sum, because when two parties agree to an exchange each party must consider the goods it is receiving to be more valuable than the goods it is delivering. In fact, all economic exchanges must benefit both parties to the point that each party can overcome its transaction costs, or the transaction would simply not take place.[citation needed]
There is some semantic confusion in addressing exchanges under coercion. If we assume that "Trade X", in which Adam trades Good A to Brian for Good B, does not benefit Adam sufficiently, Adam will ignore Trade X (and trade his Good A for something else in a different positive-sum transaction, or keep it). However, if Brian uses force to ensure that Adam will exchange Good A for Good B, then this says nothing about the original Trade X. Trade X was not, and still is not, positive-sum (in fact, this non-occurring transaction may be zero-sum, if Brian's net gain of utility coincidentally offsets Adam's net loss of utility). What has in fact happened is that a new trade has been proposed, "Trade Y", where Adam exchanges Good A for two things: Good B and escaping the punishment imposed by Brian for refusing the trade. Trade Y is positive-sum, because if Adam wanted to refuse the trade, he theoretically has that option (although it is likely now a much worse option), but he has determined that his position is better served in at least temporarily putting up with the coercion. Under coercion, the coerced party is still doing the best they can under their unfortunate circumstances, and any exchanges they make are positive-sum.[citation needed]
There is additional confusion under asymmetric information. Although many economic theories assume perfect information, economic participants with imperfect or even no information can always avoid making trades that they feel are not in their best interest. Considering transaction costs, then, no zero-sum exchange would ever take place, although asymmetric information can reduce the number of positive-sum exchanges, as occurs in "The Market for Lemons".[citation needed]
rut ro.. @Rob Roy ..
that's mathematically impossible given the number of minorities in the nation and how few of them would vote for whatever racistt fuck you idiots nominate.
i have told you countless times that children cannot consent to be paid for sex.
You can't possibly speak for 10+ million people.
yawn.
QUESTION: How old is the world?
Crony capitalism, where the overwhelming majority of economic gains goes to a very small portion of the upper class
This system is holding the poor & middle class back by transferring the overwhelming majority of economic growth to a very small number of people in the upper class
No, but what do you expect 330 million (99%) people to do with 7% of the economic gains? Do you think that's fair? Effective in growing the GDP?
Why don't you feel the same way when the upper class redistributes the wealth from the poor/middle class to themselves?
The rest don't have what they need. That's the problem.
Like increasing the minimum wage that barely has any effect on price increases? Like single payer healthcare or free higher education? Like decreasing taxes on the poor/middle class?
"Republicans say higher taxes on the wealthy kill jobs. In 2001, George W. Bush spearheaded the largest tax reduction in U.S. history (overwhelmingly benefiting our wealthiest citizens) and unemployment rates quickly spiked higher and have remained nearly double the Clinton era levels to this day.
According to you, "you don't believe" the system is a zero sum gain, so there is "plenty to go around", by definition.Crony capitalism, where the overwhelming majority of economic gains goes to a very small portion of the upper class
This system is holding the poor & middle class back by transferring the overwhelming majority of economic growth to a very small number of people in the upper class
No, but what do you expect 330 million (99%) people to do with 7% of the economic gains? Do you think that's fair? Effective in growing the GDP?
i have told you countless times that children cannot consent to be paid for sex you sick pedo fuck.
i'm sure you just argue endlessly for pedophilia because you are totally not a pedophile.
Then you're wilfully ignoring all of the evidence he lays forth, and thus are unworthy of the effort to debate you.
Great post. It's becoming ever more clear that the rich have run away with control of the country and are using it to line their own pockets, consequences to the rest of society be damned.Why don't you feel the same way when the upper class redistributes the wealth from the poor/middle class to themselves?
You are either being logically inconsistent or intellectually dishonest
The rest don't have what they need. That's the problem.
There are over 10 million working poor people in this country, they're working full time jobs and still don't breach the pathetic poverty line, that is unacceptable
Like increasing the minimum wage that barely has any effect on price increases? Like single payer healthcare or free higher education? Like decreasing taxes on the poor/middle class?
You're too narrow minded to see the policies that are actually increasing income disparity (even in light of the evidence)
"Republicans say higher taxes on the wealthy kill jobs. In 2001, George W. Bush spearheaded the largest tax reduction in U.S. history (overwhelmingly benefiting our wealthiest citizens) and unemployment rates quickly spiked higher and have remained nearly double the Clinton era levels to this day.
When were the golden years of U.S. full employment? How about the 1960s when the highest earners paid up to 91 percent in taxes? How about the Clinton years (4 percent unemployment) when the wealthy paid 36 percent in taxes (the level President Barack Obama wants to again be the highest rate)? Small businesses hire more workers when demand for their goods and services increase, not when their tax rates decrease."
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2012-10-23/news/bs-ed-millionaires-letter-20121023_1_tax-rate-largest-tax-reduction-tax-code
"Nevertheless, looking at the raw correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth can be helpful for getting a rough sense of the likely impacts of higher taxation on growth. One recent paper by Pikkety, Saez, and Stantcheva looks at the correlation between top marginal tax rates and growth and finds the growth is higher when top marginal tax rates are higher. I restrict myself to the historical experience of the United States and go back to 1930. In particular, I took real chained per capita GDP growth from 1930 to the present from the Bureau of Economic Analysis' (BEA) website. The correlation over this period between the top marginal tax rate and output growth is strong and positive as can be seen below:
A rise in the top marginal tax rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 5.85 percentage points per year. One reason that this simple correlation might overstate the impact of the marginal tax rate on growth is that the top growth years were in the early 40s when the government was spending heavily and when the country was finally recovering from the Great Depression. If we look only at the post war period (after 1946), a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase of only 2.69 percentage points of growth. Moreover, the statistical significance of the relationship becomes marginal, as the p-value rises from 0.017 to 0.122. On the other hand, if we look at the time period encompassing 1960 to the present, a rise in the top rate from 0 to 100 percent is correlated with a rise in per capita growth of 3.03 percentage points of growth per year, and the relationship becomes more statistically significant (with a p-value of 0.064 percent). Finally, if we look only at the years since 1980, a rise from 0 to 100 percent in the top marginal tax rate is associated with an increase in growth of 3.87 percentage points. In this case, the relationship is statistically insignificant (with a p-value of 0.392 percent), in part because the sample size is small.
While we cannot say that there is a robust significant positive relationship between tax rates and growth, it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton. One possible reaction to this finding is that what matters more than the top marginal tax rate on income is the capital gains tax rate but growth has also been higher when the capital gains tax rate has been higher."
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/does-taxing-the-wealthy-hurt-growth.html
But will this change your opinion?
No, of course it won't, because...
"This debate, however, is largely based on ideology rather than evidence."
...
There is 7% to "go around" to 99% of the United States population, I wouldn't call that "plenty", would you?
Uhh, I disagree, indeed that's the most important issue America faces today
My issue is with the redistribution of the overwhelming majority of economic growth going to a very small portion of the population
Because it's irrelevant to the conversation. My economic status doesn't change any of the facts I've presented that prove my case against income inequality and the causes
"Somehow", have you not been paying attention to the evidence I've posted that prove it?
No, I don't think you are as this discussion isn't about any individual personally, it's about the tens of millions of Americans who can't pay their bills and eat because 1% of the population wants all the economic gains for themselves
"This debate, however, is largely based on ideology rather than evidence."
Maybe we should quit trying to convince the 99% and just join the one percenters.
