• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

income inequality debate

The graph shows the US is becoming a banana republic economy. It is what Reagan and Romney have wanted.
 
Interesting how the Clinton expansion was different than the Bush and Bush expansions.
 
I think that graph is an excellent representation of how government intervention in the economy is bad for the country. As to WnB's comment (I think it was him, but could have been someone else), are you actually saying that we are more "free market" now than we were in 1949???

Right now with the government control of so much more of the economy due to complicated tax policy, regulation of business, etc, the game is rigged against the little guy.
 
I think that graph is an excellent representation of how government intervention in the economy is bad for the country. As to WnB's comment (I think it was him, but could have been someone else), are you actually saying that we are more "free market" now than we were in 1949???

Right now with the government control of so much more of the economy due to complicated tax policy, regulation of business, etc, the game is rigged against the little guy.

Who is this little guy, and at what point in American History was the game not rigged against him?
 
I think that graph is an excellent representation of how government intervention in the economy is bad for the country. As to WnB's comment (I think it was him, but could have been someone else), are you actually saying that we are more "free market" now than we were in 1949???

Right now with the government control of so much more of the economy due to complicated tax policy, regulation of business, etc, the game is rigged against the little guy.

It has much more to do with the absolute booming manufacturing economy in 1949 where the world was buying anything we could produce and the US consumer had years of pent up demand after the great depression and WW2.
 
The graph shows the US is becoming a banana republic economy. It is what Reagan and Romney have wanted.

I, for one, hope we become a a full Banana Republic economy. Their dress shirts fit quite nicely.
 
It has much more to do with the absolute booming manufacturing economy in 1949 where the world was buying anything we could produce and the US consumer had years of pent up demand after the great depression and WW2.

I think this is pretty accurate. And the trends correspond with deregulation of finance, perhaps to make up for it. I guess the 'little guy' doesnt get a share of that like he did manufacturing?

finance-sector-profits.png
 
These are all trends during globalization (and some due to Liberalization trends) but once global expansions have finalized....what then? I'm not sure we can look at the problems that have occurred during massive global expansion with bringing China and India on board for example, and then assume the same will occur going forward in a different environment.

I imagine we'll also see a pretty major financial industry correction shortly.

I also find it interesting that "Globalization weighs particularly heavily on the least skilled workers in the wealthy countries" yet we have massive immigration. From 1949-1969 in that bar graph, the inequalities are relatively stable. One could argue the real separation started when we changed our immigration policy in the late 1960s.
 
Easy there Shorts. That elephant is to be seen, but not spoken about.
I bet you think the poors would be doing better with Mittens, Tell me when your party plans on running a "help the poor" candidate and ill be sure to vote for them. Last time I checked, the closest you guys get to it is "protect the "middle class" by lowering corporate taxes.
 
I bet you think the poors would be doing better with Mittens, Tell me when your party plans on running a "help the poor" candidate and ill be sure to vote for them. Last time I checked, the closest you guys get to it is "protect the "middle class" by lowering corporate taxes.

First, I don't know what you mean by "your party." I, clearly, am a moderate.

Second, Mitt Romney wouldn't have had to learn about economic growth on the job. He had more private sector executive experience than Senator/3 Obama, and he had more public sector executive experience than Senator/3 Obama. He wasn't a very good speaker, though.

Third, interesting moral high ground on helping the poor. How are the poor doing in major Democrat strongholds like Detroit? Atlanta? Chicago? New Orleans? DC? Do you have any evidence that your policies actually---what's the word---work? I've heard the self-serving soundbytes. Show me some evidence. I'll show you a cratered black family structure, unsustainable entitlement programs on crash courses with insolvency and a widening wealth disparity.

eta: Fourth, your party pays an awful lot of lip service about education and caring about families. Why don't you trust the family in the failing public school district with the power to make a better choice when your beloved public education superstructure continues to fail them? Who do the schools belong to, anyway?
 
Last edited:
The public education superstructure has been dominated by conservative ideals for the last decade plus.
 
The public education superstructure has been dominated by conservative ideals for the last decade plus.

If it was, there would be a lot more choice and a lot less roadblock teachers.
 
If it was, there would be a lot more choice and a lot less roadblock teachers.

Roadblock teachers are largely a myth propagated by conservatives. Also there is plenty of choice. Both are conservative constructions.

Wouldn't a free market approach to roadblock teachers just be to pay them more, give them more autonomy, thus encouraging higher quality applicants to become teachers?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top