• 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

Pick any private sector industry and there will be a line or dotted line to some public sector investment.

That is what is so mystifying about the blind allegiance to some unicorn theory that cutting/eliminating government spending is the panacea for all that ails our economy. It's dunderheaded and exposes a limited understanding of economic history, and in some cases a baseless fear of Socialism or Communism or some such.
 
Last edited:
Good points. It's probably best when the money is not given directly to campaign contributors.
 
I'll drink to that. Mostly because it is the 4th of July and I'm going to start drinking and taking drugs in the name of freedom and whatnot.
 
Last edited:
The combination of Trickle down and companies shifting primary responsibility to profit making for shareholders hurt the middle class.
 
WakeandBake said:
Pick any private sector industry and there will be a line or dotted line to some public sector investment.

That is what is so mystifying about the blind allegiance to some unicorn theory that cutting/eliminating government spending is the panacea for all that ails our economy. It's dunderheaded and exposes a limited understanding of economic history, and in some cases a baseless fear of Socialism or Communism or some such.
Click to expand...

Turning tricks.
 
WFFaithful said:
The combination of Trickle down and companies shifting primary responsibility to profit making for shareholders hurt the middle class.
Click to expand...

What shift are you referring to? What was the previous primary responsibility?
 
WFFaithful said:
The combination of Trickle down and companies shifting primary responsibility to profit making for shareholders hurt the middle class.
Click to expand...

Even conservative icon Thomas Sowell saw "trickle down" as a "strawan":

"Amusingly enough, Thomas Sowell has been called an "ardent supporter" of trickle-down economics, yet it is Sowell himself who claims that there is no such school of economic theory.

But there has never been any school of economists who believed in a trickle down theory. No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man."



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_trickle-down_hoax.html#ixzz4DYG2S0CK
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Trickle down is, was and always be a scam to enrich the already rich.
 
MBStretch said:
This book review may provide some insight: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2016-06-30. If the author is correct, the change in the primary focus of corporations to shareholder profits, i.e. financialization and short-term thinking, happened within the last twenty-five to fifty years.
Click to expand...

Maybe I was thinking too generally but when I hear "profit making for shareholders" I interpret that as "making money for the owners." Which is basically the reason for having a company.
 
RJKarl said:
Even conservative icon Thomas Sowell saw "trickle down" as a "strawan":

"Amusingly enough, Thomas Sowell has been called an "ardent supporter" of trickle-down economics, yet it is Sowell himself who claims that there is no such school of economic theory.

But there has never been any school of economists who believed in a trickle down theory. No such theory can be found in even the most voluminous and learned books on the history of economics. It is a straw man."



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_trickle-down_hoax.html#ixzz4DYG2S0CK
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Trickle down is, was and always be a scam to enrich the already rich.
Click to expand...

Of course. "Trickle Down" is a construct by Dems to attack pubs. Now you are attacking your own constructs.

Is this not the definition of a strawman?
 
06deacon said:
Maybe I was thinking too generally but when I hear "profit making for shareholders" I interpret that as "making money for the owners." Which is basically the reason for having a company.
Click to expand...

Not to quibble, but I believe "making money for the owners" is a but not the reason for having a company. There are many others, but promoting healthy local and national communities by employing the members of those communities to actually produce something seems to lead to more stable and sustainable communities over the long term historically. Chasing profits for shareholders at the expense of other, perhaps larger, ideals has played a major role in creating the income inequality we are currently experiencing. Understanding that profits over the long term are necessary for the health of a company does not preclude a wider view of what else healthy communities need in both the short and long term.
 
knowell said:
Of course. "Trickle Down" is a construct by Dems to attack pubs. Now you are attacking your own constructs.

Is this not the definition of a strawman?
Click to expand...

Whether you want to call it "trickle down" or supply side", it's the same hoax.
 
MBStretch said:
Not to quibble, but I believe "making money for the owners" is a but not the reason for having a company. There are many others, but promoting healthy local and national communities by employing the members of those communities to actually produce something seems to lead to more stable and sustainable communities over the long term historically. Chasing profits for shareholders at the expense of other, perhaps larger, ideals has played a major role in creating the income inequality we are currently experiencing. Understanding that profits over the long term are necessary for the health of a company does not preclude a wider view of what else healthy communities need in both the short and long term.
Click to expand...

Sure. I don't disagree with that. I was disputing the notion that those ideals were ever the primary responsibility of the business community at large.
 
06deacon said:
Sure. I don't disagree with that. I was disputing the notion that those ideals were ever the primary responsibility of the business community at large.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends on what you consider the "business community at large" to be. In many, if not most, instances the business community is comprised of business owners who live in the communities from which they buy their groceries, attend church and/or social functions, and hire their employees, i.e. the communities in which they are members and most likely leaders.

I am not arguing, nor do I think the authors of the cited book and the book review argue, that those non-financial ideals are the primary, meaning first, responsibilities of the business owner, but they are nonetheless responsibilities, major and necessary ones in a vibrant community, that go far beyond the return to shareholders in the long term. It seems that over the past forty or fifty years return to shareholders has become accepted as the only responsibility of the business community, and in my opinion, that is to the long term detriment of the communities which have supported them and even to their businesses.
 
A staggering percentage of Americans are too poor to shop
Retailers have blamed the weather, slow job growth and millennials for their poor results this past year, but a new study claims that more than 20 percent of Americans are simply too poor to shop.

These 26 million Americans are juggling two to three jobs, earning just around $27,000 a year and supporting two to four children — and exist largely under the radar, according to America’s Research Group, which has been tracking consumer shopping trends since 1979.

“The poorest Americans have stopped shopping, except for necessities,” said Britt Beemer, chairman of ARG.

Beemer has been tracking this subgroup for two years, ever since his weekly surveys of 15,000 consumers picked up that 21 percent of consumers did not finish their Christmas shopping in 2014 due to being too busy working. That number grew to 29 percent last year, and Beemer dug in to learn more about them, calling them on holidays.

He estimates that this group has swelled from 6 million households four years ago, because their incomes have not kept pace with expenses like medical costs.

Nearly half of all Americans have not seen an increase in salary over the last five to seven years, and another 28 percent have seen their take-home pay reduced by higher medical insurance deductions or switching to part-time jobs, ARG found.

“It’s scary when you start to see things that you’ve never seen before,” said Beemer. “People are so pessimistic about their future.”
Click to expand...
http://nypost.com/2016/07/06/a-staggering-percentage-of-americans-are-too-poor-to-shop/
 
We've got microwaves and cell phones though, so it's all good.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Don't forget your Criterions and limited edition Kubrick blu rays.
Click to expand...
lol, I was at Barnes and Noble today, thought about picking up Night of the Hunter and The Fisher King from the Criterion sale. Instead, I bought Midnight Special and 10 Cloverfield Lane from Family Video for 7.99 a piece.
 
myDeaconmyhand said:
lol, I was at Barnes and Noble today, thought about picking up Night of the Hunter and The Fisher King from the Criterion sale. Instead, I bought Midnight Special and 10 Cloverfield Lane from Family Video for 7.99 a piece.
Click to expand...

Half price. I'd like to get Two-Lane Blacktop. They did an amazing job with that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top