Can you at least find one link supporting what you're saying?

10/25/2010 10:51:04 AM

I think we can go ahead and mark this as the day Lonesnark decided to start trolling the Soap Box.

10/25/2010 10:59:25 AM

Which part is controversial? You want me to find one news article claiming the 1981 recession was worse? In a world of six billion people, you seriously believe it is just me?

Fine, let me Google that for you: "1981 recession worse" the first two responses are:
"But in terms of unemployment, the 1981-82 recession was worse." http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/article/opinion-just-how-lousy-is-the-economic-recovery/19676281
"The Worst Economy Since…. the 1980s? " http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/09/worst-economy-since-1980s.html


"but all that talk about worst since the GD is hogwash, the early 80s recession...now that was bad!". Not a damn person said that."
Then you are an idiot. I said it. There is evidence to support such an assertion, unemployment was higher afterall, so on a planet with six billion people, someone else said.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .,.]

10/25/2010 11:34:19 AM

The first article you posted is a guy basically saying, "Well, we've come out of past recessions much quicker than the one we've just come out of... so it must be something the President is doing wrong for why things still suck." He doesn't even try to find reasons as to why we're still stuck in 1st gear. He just blames the President. So you fail there.

The second article you posted is simply a guy harping on the economic indicators of 1980. It's 4 paragraphs long and presents no depth of thought on anything in particular. He doesn't begin to explore why economic indicators were higher back then than they are today. If he did, he would have quickly realized that there were two drastically different sets of problems affecting the economy. Back in 1980, the main problem was crippling inflation brought on by the energy crisis of the 70s. If inflation is 11%, then of course every single interest rate is going to be drastically higher. It's a pretty well accepted economic fact that raising interest rates will keep inflation tame. Not many people will argue that. So pulling out all these interest rates when inflation is high is fucking retarded because he's not looking at the context of the situation. He's just looking at statistics.

If you actually use your brain to delve a little bit deeper into the comparison, you should be worried that we don't have inflation with the tiny interest rates we have right now. We barely have growth and putting those two statistics together should be a good indicator of how bad off we still are. The lingering unemployment is something we should also be worried about. Especially when companies are making money. The country as a whole is actually making plenty of money right now. Where the goddamn trickle-down? That's a phrase you haven't been hearing in the past few years. Because it's bullshit. Money is constantly being funneled up to the top and it's not being invested and it's not being spent. If we started taxing the uber-rich at a rate closer to 60% (like it was back in the 60s, a period of unprecedented prosperity) and spent that money on infrastructure or education or any number of other things, then we would be much better off. The only other option I see is for companies to start hiring and sacrifice profit for increased revenue (which I know will blow some gaskets in a lot of you).

But I've been telling you guys for years LoneSnark doesn't know what he's talking about. He's one of the people who likes to live in Libertarian DreamLand where people shit rainbows and act rationally.

I'd also like to point out that if you go back several years, I called the shit out of this recession back in late 2007 when this guy and hooksaw were still trying to convince everyone that the housing crisis wasn't going to be massive.

10/25/2010 12:34:17 PM

Quote :

"After speaking to people that lived through it, and checking the statistics, yes, the 1981 recession was worse."

By what standard are you using (aside from asking random, most likely made up, people)? Any legitimate economist would rank the most recent recession far worse than the early 1980's.

Quote :

"Yet at the same time that the wealth gap was increasing, cell phones and computers have gotten cheaper and cheaper."

Obviously, but it would have never even gotten rolling if there wasn't a large number of people who could afford it. If we had a wealth gap like those in less developed countries, we wouldn't have been able to invest in these kind of technologies. With electronics it costs little to make a lot of them, but a great deal to make just one, so by reducing your consumer base you reduce the profitability of things like electronics.

Quote :

"As best as I can tell from the logic that only makes sense in your head, the bold are reasons you gave for a wealth gap being bad."

How much clearer could I have made it? I said "the reasons are:" then listed them.

Quote :

"But you didn't at all show how a wealth gap, or even gave half a shot at the level, that a wealth gap actually leads to those bad things, and by extension a loss of technologies we now have."

Those were functional components that show how income diversity causes problems. I shouldn't have to explain how they work, they are simple concepts.
And I know you want me to state some sort of "level", as if you could even define the unit of measurement you want it it, but I'm not going to provide an answer because it's a stupid question.

Quote :

"Without things for rich people to get rich from, there mathematically can't be a gap created...unless we're just talking about the outright theft of production from the lower classes. "

That's a component of it, the capitalist produces nothing himself, so in a way what he gets is through taking the friuts of the worker's labor. We like to think of capitalism as some significantly more advanced system than fuedalism, but it's really just slight enhancements over it, the most sigificant being that it takes more than birth to be the lord, but it still takes nothing more than birth to be a serf.

Quote :

"I want to know what these "dubious ends" are. "

Just listen to a campaign speech, you're bound to hear stories of the poor old woman who can't afford her medicine, or the single mom who can't pay for day care. People care about the suffering from the wealth gap, not how it got there.

Quote :

"But, in my opinion, a higher unemployment rate makes a recession worse, so 1981 was worse."

They were pretty much the same, and if you use U6, the recent one was much worse, but since you're doing your best to cherry pick statistics, I'll guess that you're not.

Quote :

"That said, I am not alone in pronouncing the 1981 recession as worse, many segments of the media also declared it worse."

Links?

10/25/2010 1:02:17 PM

Quote :

"Obviously, but it would have never even gotten rolling if there wasn't a large number of people who could afford it. If we had a wealth gap like those in less developed countries, we wouldn't have been able to invest in these kind of technologies. With electronics it costs little to make a lot of them, but a great deal to make just one, so by reducing your consumer base you reduce the profitability of things like electronics. "

What? When the ball got rolling on computers and cell phones, there were very few people who could afford them. Computers were the play things of the rich and the educated, and cell phones were for 80's business sharks and CEOs. It was the demand of those that could not afford these products, coupled with the financial capabilities of the few that could (and could afford the high profit margins and early adopter taxes) that pushed the prices of these products down, not the other way around.

IOW, we don't have unlimited cell plans for $50 today because so many people could afford $100 for 150 minute plans in the early 90's, rather it's just the opposite.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 1:30 PM. Reason : djjd]

10/25/2010 1:28:51 PM

Quote :

"Just listen to a campaign speech, you're bound to hear stories of the poor old woman who can't afford her medicine, or the single mom who can't pay for day care. People care about the suffering from the wealth gap, not how it got there."

Sounds like something one of my UNC Marxist friends would say. The problem you're pointing to is not the wealth gap, nor is it caused by the wealth gap. You could have a wealth gap five times as wide as any that has ever existed, but if the standard of living is going up, people are underconsuming, and investment is taking place (i.e. the free market is being allowed to work), the wealth gap is of no real concern.

10/25/2010 1:35:36 PM

Quote :

"When the ball got rolling on computers and cell phones, there were very few people who could afford them. Computers were the play things of the rich and the educated, and cell phones were for 80's business sharks and CEOs."

The ball wasn't rolling then. They progressed and grew very slowly. It wasn't untill most people had them that you started having the rate of growth we have now.

Quote :

"It was the demand of those that could not afford these products, coupled with the financial capabilities of the few that could (and could afford the high profit margins and early adopter taxes) that pushed the prices of these products down, not the other way around."

Ceteris paribus as demand goes up, price goes down? That's not true. The price went up because of the realities of manufacturing electronics and thier ability to take advantage of economies of scale. Demand going up actually worked against the price going down, luckily supply went up much much more as a result of the things I mentioned.

Quote :

"Sounds like something one of my UNC Marxist friends would say."

I think you need to read the context of what I was saying.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

10/25/2010 2:10:43 PM

Cell phone and computer innovation aren't the best indicators of standard of living progress. We may have the iPad, but that doesn't mean we're doing better now than we were 4 years ago.

10/25/2010 2:24:51 PM

IMStoned420, you asked my opinion, I gave it. You claimed my opinion had apparently never been considered by anyone else before, you were obviously wrong. I only gave the first two Google responses, there where thousands more. Don't over-state your position next time.

Now, I gave several reasons as to why recessions cannot be blamed on income inequality. You latched onto one, as if just because one can credibly argue that the 2009 recession is worse than all other recessions, that is proof that inequality caused the 2009 recession. Bullshit. There are a hundred reasons why this recession would be worse, all have defensible mechanisms behind them, and none have anything to do with income inequality. Well, ok, there is one: perceived income inequality, real or imagined, causes voters to push for an adventurist government whose regime uncertainty pushes business leaders to hold off a return to normalcy. Is this what you mean to be arguing?

So, I'll restate the position you overlooked to play footsie: This and most recessions begin and end with a collapse and then recovery of business investment. "It would be ridiculous to suggest that the nation's business class is refusing to invest their hoards of cash because their worker's compensation is too low."

10/25/2010 2:36:49 PM

Quote :

"You claimed my opinion had apparently never been considered by anyone else before, you were obviously wrong. I only gave the first two Google responses, there where thousands more."

But you did not provide the quality of source that you originally promised:
"Time magazine versus Newsweek"

Post a time or newsweek article, or at least something similar. If anyone overstated thier position, it was you.

10/25/2010 2:50:35 PM

Quote :

"Those were functional components that show how income diversity causes problems."

Those might be functional components but there is nothing you have posted yet that is making anyone here believe a wealth gap causes problems in those components.

Quote :

"I shouldn't have to explain how they work, they are simple concepts."

Oh I see, so now you can't defend what you've posted so you're trying the whole obvious argument is obvious technique.

Quote :

"And I know you want me to state some sort of "level", as if you could even define the unit of measurement you want it it, but I'm not going to provide an answer because it's a stupid question."

No, I'm not asking for a level, I'm asking for a reasonable scenario where a wealth gap would cause technologies to not exist. You've failed so far.

Quote :

"Obviously, but it would have never even gotten rolling if there wasn't a large number of people who could afford it. If we had a wealth gap like those in less developed countries"

Many technologies came into existence because corporations afforded them first and because capitalist's knew there was a market for them at a certain cost, they eventually figured out how to make the products the people wanted. Technology is inherently deflationary which bodes well for even the lowest income earners.

Quote :

"That's a component of it, the capitalist produces nothing himself, so in a way what he gets is through taking the friuts of the worker's labor."

Rofl. No capitalist took shit from me. He paid me a wage we contractually agreed upon.

10/25/2010 7:05:41 PM

Quote :

"Oh I see, so now you can't defend what you've posted so you're trying the whole obvious argument is obvious technique."

Fine, I'll explain these simple concepts and how a reduction in the number of consumers would interact with these. It's really an exercise in futility being that you don't know them now I doubt you'll be able to provide any real argument against them, which was the reason I didn't explain them in the first place.
MPC: Consumption will go down as a wealth gap increases due to the decreasing marginal propensity to consume, that being you spend less of each additional dollar you make.
Economies of scale: As consumption goes down factories start making less things, this decreases variable cost proportionally, but fixed cost stays the same, causing them to be less efficient.
Equality of opportunity: As the wealth gap increases, the chance for adults to invest in their children is diminished causing class stasis.
Humanitarian reasons: As the wealth gap increases poor people struggle more to provide themselves with the basic human needs of food, water, and shelter.

Quote :

"because capitalist's knew there was a market for them at a certain cost"

Hey, you're getting there, a bit slower than I expected, but at least we're getting there. Why is there a market? It's there because there is a middle class with the extra money to afford such gadgets. As the wealth gap increases this middle class disappears and that market disappears, causing us to forgo these opportunities.

Quote :

"Technology is inherently deflationary which bodes well for even the lowest income earners."

It's only deflationary if you are able to pay for it when it is more expensive.

Quote :

"No capitalist took shit from me. He paid me a wage we contractually agreed upon."

Oh, you don't know what a capitalist is. Are you going to make me explain that too? Here's a hint, I'm a capitalist and I never determined anyone's wage.

[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 7:25 PM. Reason : ]

10/25/2010 7:22:23 PM

Quote :

"Fine, I'll explain these simple concepts ...."

You aren't talking about the wealth gap. You're talking about income going down in a certain segment of the population. The wealth gap can arise from income going down in the lower income classes compared to the upper, but it can also arise from the income gap of the upper classes outstripping the lower classes. In this case, none of the arguments you made hold, which is what I was getting at.

Quote :

"Oh, you don't know what a capitalist is. Are you going to make me explain that too? Here's a hint, I'm a capitalist and I never determined anyone's wage."

Ok, if we are using the literal definition of a capitalist, then your earlier statement about "taking the fruits of labor" is DOA.

10/25/2010 8:40:51 PM

Quote :

"You're talking about income going down in a certain segment of the population."

That's inevitably what happens, it's not zero-sum, but proportionally it's impossible to spread the wealth gap without reducing the income of some and increasing the income of others.

Quote :

"In this case, none of the arguments you made hold"

If you say it enough it might become true, but whatever you do, don't try to actually address them directly.

Quote :

"Ok, if we are using the literal definition of a capitalist, then your earlier statement about "taking the fruits of labor" is DOA."

A firm creates money off the labor of it's workers, capitalists profit off this labor while producing none of it. It's not really a stretch for it to be described as theft.

10/25/2010 10:19:59 PM

Quote :

"That's inevitably what happens, it's not zero-sum, but proportionally it's impossible to spread the wealth gap without reducing the income of some and increasing the income of others. "

It isn't zero sum at all, we don't live in a closed society.

Quote :

"If you say it enough it might become true, but whatever you do, don't try to actually address them directly."

I addressed the arguments you made about incomes going down. If you'd like to try again regarding wealth gaps, feel free.

Quote :

"A firm creates money off the labor of it's workers, capitalists profit off this labor while producing none of it. It's not really a stretch for it to be described as theft."

Of course it's a stretch, stop trolling. I find it a bit funny that a communist would talk about the theft of labor.

10/25/2010 10:31:14 PM

Quote :

"It isn't zero sum at all, we don't live in a closed society."

Did you not read where I said it wasn't zero sum?

Quote :

"I addressed the arguments you made about incomes going down. If you'd like to try again regarding wealth gaps, feel free."

You didn't address it at all.

Quote :

"I find it a bit funny that a communist would talk about the theft of labor."

Why? The concept is correct and a fairly fundamental part of marxism.

10/25/2010 10:39:14 PM

Quote :

"Did you not read where I said it wasn't zero sum?"

I assume you misspoke since the fact that it isn't zero sum only favors my argument.

Quote :

"You didn't address it at all."

Of course I did. If income across a lower income group goes up, even more than modestly, yet income of a higher group outstrips even that, the lower incomes group MPC doesn't go down, consumption doesn't go down, equality of opportunity could go down for opportunities that those lower income groups couldn't afford anyway, and humanitarian issues don't become a factor either. A wealth gap is nothing more than a manifestation of performing a simple computation on two data sets. It isn't in and of itself a cause of...anything.

At most, a (increasing) wealth gap is merely a sign that something troubling could be happening across income groups, nothing more.

10/26/2010 8:39:53 AM

Quote :

"I assume you misspoke since the fact that it isn't zero sum only favors my argument."

Please reread, read it several times if neccesary so you can understand what I said, notice the word "proportionally".

Quote :

"a lower income group goes up... the lower incomes group MPC doesn't go down"

Yes it does, as income goes up, for anyone, MPC goes down. But that is irrelevant, by distributing the additional income to those with the lowest MPC, you reduce consumption versus another distribution.

Quote :

"equality of opportunity could go down for opportunities that those lower income groups couldn't afford anyway"

What? Are you saying that by staying the same it could go down?

Quote :

"A wealth gap is nothing more than a manifestation of performing a simple computation on two data sets. It isn't in and of itself a cause of...anything"

Dead wrong, nothing in economics is that simple.

10/26/2010 9:49:02 AM

Quote :

"A wealth gap is nothing more than a manifestation of performing a simple computation on two data sets. It isn't in and of itself a cause of...anything."

It's on one data set, from what I can see.

Also: quite a lot of statistical and causal inference are done on variables that are a function of the data. Practically all of neuroscience is done this way.

10/26/2010 9:55:59 AM

Quote :

"It's on one data set, from what I can see."

I forgot we have academic wonks here who can't interpret what was intended. I obviously meant two points from the same data set.

Quote :

" But that is irrelevant"

Yet you used it as some sort of argument?

Quote :

"by distributing the additional income to those with the lowest MPC, you reduce consumption versus another distribution"

We know which distribution is optimal?

Quote :

"Dead wrong, nothing in economics is that simple."

You're certainly arguing that it is. You said a wealth gap causes all these issues but so far are failing to show actual manifestations or present an actual cogent argument.

10/26/2010 11:12:43 AM

The wealth gap argument is a liberal creation to convince others to be in favor of higher taxes, government waste, government dependency, and redistribution of wealth. Every economy, since the invention of trade, has had large and growing wealth gaps, even your so beloved communist/socialist/etc type/controlled economies. All these do is change where people lie on the wealth continuum.

10/26/2010 11:31:47 AM

Quote :

"Yet you used it as some sort of argument?"

I was not using it as such, I was just pointing out that when you said as income goes up MPC would not go down, which is not true, the relevant part of my argument continued afterwords.

Quote :

"We know which distribution is optimal?"

We know the benefits of consumption.

Quote :

"You're certainly arguing that it is."

I said there were countless reasons and effects and continued to name several which you just drop when you are no longer able to make any argument against them.

Quote :

"Every economy, since the invention of trade, has had large and growing wealth gaps"

That's not true. Countries with the largest wealth gaps are by far the poorest and least successful countries in the world, countries with the lowest wealth gap are by far the most propserous. If you want a good way to distinguish thrid world from first world countries, you need only compare thier wealth gap.

10/26/2010 11:39:56 AM

Quote :

"I forgot we have academic wonks here who can't interpret what was intended. I obviously meant two points from the same data set."

Terms mean things. If we're going to have a discussion that requires precision, then we have to hold our terms fixed.

Constructing a variable from TWO DIFFERENT datasets would introduce a quite different set of assumptions than constructing a variable from one dataset. You might not be confused over this, but your sloppy terminology could further confuse somebody who is.

10/26/2010 2:47:53 PM

Quote :

"Countries with the largest wealth gaps are by far the poorest and least successful countries in the world, countries with the lowest wealth gap are by far the most propserous"

I'll pay a lafta dollar to anyone that can spot which fallacy this is.

Quote :

"Terms mean things. If we're going to have a discussion that requires precision, then we have to hold our terms fixed. "

Look, when someone offers to publish The Annotated Journals of SocioEconomics: As Told By The Soap Box, I'll start being a little more careful. Regardless, if you were as astute as you'd like to think, you would have realized what I meant. I don't think anyone in here had even mentioned "data sets" before I said it, let alone multiple data sets. We are however talking about low wealth versus high wealth people fwiw.

10/26/2010 7:07:22 PM

Quote :

"Regardless, if you were as astute as you'd like to think, you would have realized what I meant. I don't think anyone in here had even mentioned "data sets" before I said it, let alone multiple data sets. We are however talking about low wealth versus high wealth people fwiw."

Butt hurt.

You're also the guy who expressed concern that a function of the data was treated as a causal variable. Forgive me if I make sure you're not spewing complete BS (like the vast majority of people on here).

[Edited on October 26, 2010 at 9:25 PM. Reason : .]

10/26/2010 9:24:32 PM

Quote :

"You're also the guy who expressed concern that a function of the data was treated as a causal variable."

Which function of what data would that be?

10/26/2010 9:38:25 PM

Quote :

"I'll pay a lafta dollar to anyone that can spot which fallacy this is."

The answer you want to hear is "Proof by example", but that is not correct. In order for it to be correct, I would have had to say "A wealth gap is bad because" before it, but I did not. We talked about it within the context of examples with wealth gaps. You should learn the basic construction of premises and conclusions before you try to call people out on these kinds of things. I didn't make the premise that you want to imply that I made.

Oh, and pay lafta that dollar, will you, or just give it directly to Frosh, whatever.

[Edited on October 26, 2010 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ]

10/26/2010 10:15:12 PM

Nope, correlation not causation

We can show plenty of countries with low wealth gaps that aren't G20 nations.

And not surprisingly, you've spent the last 5 posts or so acting all uppity rather than actually trying to make a more clear argument for those of us who aren't such. You're doing this because you don't actually have an argument to make.

Or maybe you have somehow been attempting to argue all along that a wealth gap is evidence of more systemic issues, and not that a wealth gap is the CAUSE of systemic issues. Either way, you probably should work on your communication skills.

10/27/2010 5:49:44 AM

Quote :

"Nope, correlation not causation"

Well it's missing two parts to be that. I would have to have said "Wealth gaps are bad because" at the begining, and "this causes" somewhere else in it. The fact is, within that context of talking about countries wealth gaps, the statement I made was not only logically sound, but completely valid.

Quote :

"We can show plenty of countries with low wealth gaps that aren't G20 nations."

The G20 are the largest economies, not neccesarily the best off, you'd really need to show that the average or median wealth gap for the bottom half of countries is not siginficantly larger than the top.

Quote :

"And not surprisingly, you've spent the last 5 posts or so acting all uppity rather than actually trying to make a more clear argument for those of us who aren't such. You're doing this because you don't actually have an argument to make."

You won't actually argue with me. After I had to put the layman's explaintation you refused to really argue with any of my points. You resorted to trying to call me out on what you thought was fallacies.

Quote :

"Or maybe you have somehow been attempting to argue all along that a wealth gap is evidence of more systemic issues, and not that a wealth gap is the CAUSE of systemic issues."

No, not at all, it is a cause of systemic issues, for the reasons I gave which you have yet to address.

[Edited on October 27, 2010 at 9:21 AM. Reason : ]

10/27/2010 9:14:48 AM

It basically works like this, folks:



While taxing the rich is better than nothing, the people need to reclaim the means of production. Until then we're not free.

[Edited on October 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM. Reason : meow]

10/27/2010 9:46:57 AM

Quote :

"the people need to reclaim the means of production. Until then we're not free."

Oh yes, George Bush managing the factory would certainly set us free.

10/27/2010 11:32:16 AM

Quote :

"A wealth gap is nothing more than a manifestation of performing a simple computation on two data sets. It isn't in and of itself a cause of...anything."

Quote :

"Which function of what data would that be?"

lol this is what happens when you want to be perceived as "winning" no matter what, kids

10/27/2010 11:45:44 AM

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-27/tax-debate-delay-has-employees-in-u-s-preparing-for-smaller-take-home-pay.html

Can someone explain this to me?

Quote :

"Employers in the U.S. are starting to warn their workers to prepare for slimmer paychecks if Congress fails to vote on an extension of Bush-era tax cuts. “I’ve been doing payroll for probably close to 30 years now, and never have we seen something like this where it gets that down to the wire,” said Dennis Danilewicz, who manages payroll services for about 14,000 employees at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “That’s what’s got a lot of people nervous. All we can do is start preparing communications with a couple of different scenarios.”"

The top tax rate is 35% today. Thirty years ago, it was 70%. wot?

10/27/2010 5:35:17 PM

A full wallet groans louder than an empty stomach.

10/27/2010 5:43:46 PM

Quote :

"While taxing the rich is better than nothing, the people need to reclaim the means of production. Until then we're not free."

I'm fairly certain aside from GM and a few other businesses, the people already own the means of production. Maybe not the people you wish owned the means, but nothing other than lack of desire / will and perhaps a few thousand government regulations (sponsored by the current owners of production) stands in the way of anyone being their own means owner.

10/27/2010 7:29:26 PM

Quote :

"Oh yes, George Bush managing the factory would certainly set us free."

Obama's management would because he is our savior.

Quote :

"Maybe not the people you wish owned the means, but nothing other than lack of desire / will and perhaps a few thousand government regulations (sponsored by the current owners of production) stands in the way of anyone being their own means owner."

if i werkz rly hard i can has factory?

Is that what you're saying? In a sense, I agree. With sufficient will we would take over the means of production and operate them for the common good instead of for the interests of tiny - though ever changing - elite.

10/27/2010 7:58:00 PM

With a few exceptions, the factories are already being run for the common good. Owners struggle to find new efficiencies, pocket the profits for a period of time, then markets adjust the lower prices, bidding away all their new profits, so they must do it all over again. Securing above market returns in a free market is a fools errand that only serves the common good.

10/27/2010 8:46:15 PM

I've finally figured out where the breakdown in communication has happened, and it's like I mentioned before, Kris hasn't communicated his argument...well, at all.

He has it all in his head I'm sure, but it hasn't been articulated. In particular, you've made references to the MPC. Admittedly, I had to study this a little and work backward to try and figure out what argument you were inferring.

As best I can tell, you have assigned the MPC lower for the rich as if this is some common knowledge thing without actually stating as much. In doing so, you ignore the fact that their savings eventually makes it back into society, ultimately in the form of jobs. You also ignore (as I pointed out) where that new wealth came from. The rest of your reasons basically amount to platitudes without any real context. Equality of opportunity? How far does the gap have to stretch before this is even worth discussing, apparently anything greater than 0.

Remember, you entered this foray by saying that a huge gap would prevent technologies from being created, but didn't give one actual example of how this happened anywhere in the world.

10/27/2010 9:20:52 PM

I stated all my points very clearly, either you didn't bother reading them throughly, or you didn't understand them and you should have read them again. Don't blame me for your inability to know what we're talking about.

Quote :

"As best I can tell, you have assigned the MPC lower for the rich as if this is some common knowledge thing without actually stating as much. "

I did explain this when you asked before:
"Consumption will go down as a wealth gap increases due to the decreasing marginal propensity to consume, that being you spend less of each additional dollar you make."
Please explain to me how you were able to read that statement and not understand that rich would have a lower MPC than the poor.

Quote :

"In doing so, you ignore the fact that their savings eventually makes it back into society, ultimately in the form of jobs."

That's not neccesarily true. Savings does not neccesarily get rotated back into the economy, it's not zero-sum. Consumption translates to jobs much faster than investment.

Quote :

" The rest of your reasons basically amount to platitudes without any real context. Equality of opportunity?"

I haven't heard you mention economies of scale although you slyly admitted the decrease in consumption.

Quote :

"Remember, you entered this foray by saying that a huge gap would prevent technologies from being created, but didn't give one actual example of how this happened anywhere in the world."

How in the world would I give an example of an alternate history that never happened?

10/28/2010 9:45:12 AM

Quote :

"How in the world would I give an example of an alternate history that never happened?"

You can't, which is why your "argument" is completely bogus.

10/28/2010 10:35:56 AM

Quote :

"You can't, which is why your "argument" is completely bogus."

So my argument is wrong because of the limitations of our perception of time dimensions? Sounds like you just don't want to actually address it.

10/28/2010 1:20:31 PM

No, you're not defending the argument you made. To quote Potty Mouth

Quote :

"Remember, you entered this foray by saying that a huge gap would prevent technologies from being created, but didn't give one actual example of how this happened anywhere in the world."

It's reasonable to expect that you back up your position on this. When, throughout human history, has the wealth gap prevented technology from being created? Can you cite an example? When asked to do so, you said:

Quote :

"How in the world would I give an example of an alternate history that never happened?"

In other words, you can't give an example because there has never been an example in recorded human history. The wealth gap could have prevented technology, but it never did?

10/28/2010 3:44:58 PM

Quote :

"It's reasonable to expect that you back up your position on this."

You're trying to make an argument from ignorance.

Quote :

"In other words, you can't give an example because there has never been an example in recorded human history. The wealth gap could have prevented technology, but it never did?"

Suppose inventor A had been killed before he invented item B. Let's say I make the argument, had inventor A not been killed, he would have invented item B. This is undoubtably true, but nevertheless, impossible for me to prove. Address my argument, do not demand impossible proof.

10/28/2010 4:35:31 PM

I'm just asking for you to support your argument with anything but pure speculation.

10/28/2010 4:49:54 PM

Quote :

"George Bush managing the factory would certainly set us free."

lol wut? and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

10/28/2010 4:50:59 PM

Quote :

"I'm just asking for you to support your argument with anything but pure speculation."

You are asking for impossible proof, I explained why this proof could not possibly exist regardless of the validity of my argument.

10/28/2010 4:58:00 PM

^^ Cute. I had never read that before. In effect, it sounds like the plan is to have all businesses run by the workers in a participatory democratic fashion...namely, by the labor union. That seems fine to me, such businesses operate just fine in a free market setting. What falls apart is the Participatory Planning stage, as it will fall victim to the same asymmetric information problems the Soviet Union faced. The plant managers (labor union leaders) have all the information and every incentive to lobby the council above them for lower output quotas and higher input quotas. All the while, the rigid yearly (5-year?) plan would react so slowly to changing circumstances that product markets swing wildly from surplus to shortage. Not to mention all the people languishing in prison for economic crimes. And, of course, George Bush would head the national facilitation board.

10/28/2010 5:42:11 PM

I'm not following your sarcasm.

Quote :

"Cute."

Quote :

"George Bush managing the factory would certainly set us free."

Quote :

"George Bush would head the national facilitation board."

Are you suggesting that the people left running the factories will be of George Bush's level of intelligence or that autocrats such as him will eventually control the means to production after all?

10/28/2010 7:16:50 PM

^^^ no he's not, troll. he's asking for you to at least provide some bit of support.

10/28/2010 7:22:17 PM