Quote :

" * For too many of us the political equality we once had won was meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor — other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free; liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of happiness. Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929 showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended. * These economic royalists complain that we seek to overthrow the institutions of America. What they really complain of is that we seek to take away their power. Our allegiance to American institutions requires the overthrow of this kind of power. In vain they seek to hide behind the flag and the Constitution. In their blindness they forget what the flag and the Constitution stand for. Now, as always, they stand for democracy, not tyranny; for freedom, not subjection; and against a dictatorship by mob rule and the over-privileged alike. "

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt

4/20/2010 8:49:32 PM

Quote :

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. "

I Never thought I'd agree with FDR on anything.

4/20/2010 9:30:49 PM

ITT Earthdogg tries to explain how Obama wants a welfare state

4/20/2010 9:32:43 PM

Quote :

"From 1950 to 1980, higher tax rates brought prosperity to all Americans."

???

4/20/2010 9:42:15 PM

Can we get a less fuzzy version of the chart that's completely legible?

Selective and misleading labeling, nonstandard and not particularly useful measures of inequality, and unsubstantiated claims of causality ITT.

4/20/2010 11:40:21 PM

I would love to read more about how RR ruined the social construct of America.

4/20/2010 11:45:25 PM

wage gap is high and social mobility is low in this country.







[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 12:22 AM. Reason : stupid image]

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 12:23 AM. Reason : tinypic]

4/21/2010 12:19:21 AM

How about we just throw all our income into a gov't pool and let Obama spread it around?

4/21/2010 10:42:40 AM

4/21/2010 10:56:44 AM

lots of hyperbole itt

4/21/2010 11:20:42 AM

Quote :

"From 1950 to 1980, higher tax rates brought prosperity to all Americans."

This is true. In the 50s, the era that conservatives hail as the booming era of prosperity, tax rates on the rich were around 90%.

4/21/2010 11:24:32 AM

the 50s were about half a decade subsequent to a massive world war.

therefore, I propose that every decade we kill millions of people in a violent and bloody world war that touches every nation

this will surely guarantee 50s style prosperity for the rest of time.





p.s. the 50s weren't that great. our standard of living a lot higher than back then

4/21/2010 11:28:49 AM

Quote :

" The president [F.D.R., during WWII's final year] believed a New Deal revival was the answer—and on Oct. 28, 1944, about six months before his death, he spelled out his vision for a postwar America. It included government-subsidized housing, federal involvement in health care, more TVA projects, and the “right to a useful and remunerative job” provided by the federal government if necessary. Roosevelt died before the war ended and before he could implement his New Deal revival. His successor, Harry Truman, in a 16,000 word message on Sept. 6, 1945, urged Congress to enact FDR’s ideas as the best way to achieve full employment after the war. Congress—both chambers with Democratic majorities—responded by just saying “no.” No to the whole New Deal revival: no federal program for health care, no full-employment act, only limited federal housing, and no increase in minimum wage or Social Security benefits. Instead, Congress reduced taxes. Income tax rates were cut across the board. FDR’s top marginal rate, 94% on all income over $200,000, was cut to 86.45%. The lowest rate was cut to 19% from 23%, and with a change in the amount of income exempt from taxation an estimated 12 million Americans were eliminated from the tax rolls entirely. Corporate tax rates were trimmed and FDR’s “excess profits” tax was repealed, which meant that top marginal corporate tax rates effectively went to 38% from 90% after 1945. Georgia Sen. Walter George, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, defended the Revenue Act of 1945 with arguments that today we would call “supply-side economics.” If the tax bill “has the effect which it is hoped it will have,” George said, “it will so stimulate the expansion of business as to bring in a greater total revenue.” He was prophetic. By the late 1940s, a revived economy was generating more annual federal revenue than the U.S. had received during the war years, when tax rates were higher. Price controls from the war were also eliminated by the end of 1946. The U.S. began running budget surpluses. Congress substituted the tonic of freedom for FDR’s New Deal revival and the American economy recovered well. Unemployment, which had been in double digits throughout the 1930s, was only 3.9% in 1946 and, except for a couple of short recessions, remained in that range for the next decade. The Great Depression was over, no thanks to FDR. Yet the myth of his New Deal lives on. With the current effort by President Obama to emulate some of FDR’s programs to get us out of the recent deep recession, this myth should be laid to rest."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304024604575173632046893848.html

4/21/2010 12:20:24 PM

myth or not, i love me some new deal-era architecture and graphic design

4/21/2010 1:18:50 PM

^^It seems wsj is set on trying to rewrite history. It's funny how they are able to repaint the reduction in depression level government spending as something that FDR did not want to do. I would argue that it's obvious that the measures taken to battle a depression would need to be scaled back as the depression disappeared, just like the government did at that time.

4/21/2010 6:09:43 PM

It may be obvious to you, but if FDR had in mind a bill that was anything like what Truman put forth, then it seems FDR disagrees with you and was eager to push harder and faster. Only to be thwarted by death and Congress.

4/21/2010 7:03:48 PM

FDR's death and one bill does not even close to prove what you and they are trying to say.

4/21/2010 10:12:54 PM

Quote :

"wage gap is high and social mobility is low in this country."

"Social mobility" is a nebulous term, and can be used in two very different ways.

That graph shows the economic mobility there is, and a graph like that does not necessarily reflect the amount of opportunity there is to improve one's situation.

That is, a society's "social mobility" can be quite low despite offering tremendous, widespread opportunity for it. Or, a society's "social mobility" can be quite high, despite public policy that seemingly discourages it. The nature of the people in the society has far more to do with "social mobility" than public policy does.

I fully recognize that the United States has less upward economic mobility, in actuality, than many other countries.

But I will also say, without hesitation, that if I was a poor guy who was willing to work his nuts off for a better life, this is the very first place I would go to do it.

Lower-middle class status is attainable for just about everyone with even a sub-par high school education.

I know plenty of individuals who are not the brightest bulbs out there, but they've earned positions like warehouse supervisor, landscaping team leader, head chef, retail floor supervisor, etc. because of ONE trait: they worked harder and longer than anybody else.

A lot of folks here may look down on those jobs. Screw them. In addition to these positions of responsibility, there are also more than enough trades and jobs requiring 2-year degrees for me to ever believe that, over the long-term, this country doesn't offer every person a great shot at a comfortable life. Because there is so little of it - hard work gets noticed. Everywhere.

Show me any $8.00 an hour job out there, and I guarantee you that if someone takes that job and

1) Is there on time, every single day
2) Does what he is told to the best of his ability without hesitation
3) Is not a pain in the ass to his boss with obnoxious, personal drama
4) Asks a lot of questions and shows a genuine desire to help the company, even in small areas where it is inconvenient for him.....

Then that person will be the next supervisor or manager. Why? Because he's probably the only employee who met those criteria in the past 10 years of business operations. It should take far more than that to get ahead, but it doesn't.

My first promotion was sealed on my first day of work as an $8.00/hr guy over a college summer. My boss gave me a task that would take almost the full day, and told me he needed it done "as soon as you can possibly get it done." Well, I skipped all breaks and lunch without telling anyone....because "ASAP," in my mind, doesn't include sitting on my butt eating the sandwich I brought. One day of hard work can go a long way.

*Note, I am clearly not saying that all poor people got that way from being lazy, but I am saying that laziness is what keeps most of them there.

[Edited on April 21, 2010 at 11:39 PM. Reason : y]

4/21/2010 11:12:45 PM

you've really backed up that post with facts and non-anecdotal evidence. oh wait. no you haven't.

4/22/2010 12:08:46 AM

Then I invite anyone reading this to provide a counter-example:

That is, do you honestly know of anyone who is currently making poverty-level wages, and has been for a while, who meets those criteria I gave?

I've certainly never heard of such a person. When there is an employee like that, he or she is not at that job very long.

What is the general rate of absenteeism and tardiness for low-wage workers versus higher earners? Would you doubt that the difference is vast? The difference does NOT lie in the reliability of their transportation, nor day care issues, although those do account for some.

Why are low-wage workers so notoriously unreliable? Why do employers of them have to routinely overschedule their staffing by 20% or more?

There is almost no such thing as an honest, reliable, hard-working, unselfish worker who can be hired at $8.00/hr. It doesn't exist. Why? Because all of those people move so quickly past that wage rate (or jump by it), you can't find them.

And if you know of a secret source of such people, please, I beg you to tell me where it is. I'd love to hire them.

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 12:37 AM. Reason : a]

4/22/2010 12:35:48 AM

Between 1950 and 1980, America was manufacturing and exporting a lot more goods. Manufacturing jobs provided middle-class wages then. Now, a lot of that manufacturing is gone and there aren't enough middle-class positions in the service industry to replace it.

That's my take on the wealth gap anyways.

4/22/2010 1:06:24 AM

proping up overpayed manufacturing jobs is not good for the economy. The reason the 50s were so great is beacause the US was the only country with any manufacturing base of any size at all on the planet. During the war the US manufacturing base exploded and production went crazy. After the war, Europe was totally fucked and china didn't exist as a manufacturing power. Combine that with an abundance of untapped natural resources and the lessons learned during the war, and its no surprise that the US was king of manufacturing.

However, as Europe recovered and china was brought online, demand for US exports fell. Combine that with increased cost of materials, labor, and government overhead and its no wonder our manufacturing base has diminished.

Human based manufacturing in the US will never return to 50/60s levels. Automated manufacturing might be possible, but with government regulations and bailouts always up in the air it makes investors nervous. I mean, why would anyone in their right mind invest in a new auto maker in the US, when the government owns and operates competitors?

Unskilled labor is becoming worth less and less thanks to the global economy. Rather than trying to artificially prop up its value, we should be re-educating unskilled workers so they produce real value.

4/22/2010 10:00:05 AM

barring the recession, American manufacturing has never been better.

[Edited on April 22, 2010 at 10:59 AM. Reason : .,.]

4/22/2010 10:59:10 AM

Way to miss the point

4/22/2010 11:08:19 AM

Quote :

"Then I invite anyone reading this to provide a counter-example: That is, do you honestly know of anyone who is currently making poverty-level wages, and has been for a while, who meets those criteria I gave? I've certainly never heard of such a person. When there is an employee like that, he or she is not at that job very long. What is the general rate of absenteeism and tardiness for low-wage workers versus higher earners? Would you doubt that the difference is vast? The difference does NOT lie in the reliability of their transportation, nor day care issues, although those do account for some. Why are low-wage workers so notoriously unreliable? Why do employers of them have to routinely overschedule their staffing by 20% or more? There is almost no such thing as an honest, reliable, hard-working, unselfish worker who can be hired at $8.00/hr. It doesn't exist. Why? Because all of those people move so quickly past that wage rate (or jump by it), you can't find them. And if you know of a secret source of such people, please, I beg you to tell me where it is. I'd love to hire them. "

add me to the list of needing this source of labor.

great post.

4/22/2010 11:16:37 AM

4/22/2010 9:02:31 PM

http://lifeinc.todayshow.com/_news/2010/10/22/5335866-good-graph-friday-the-rich-got-richer-

Why don't more people believe this is a big concern in how healthy the economy is?

10/23/2010 7:31:01 PM

Because we know of no mechanism for "income equality" to matter to a recession. The currency recession is entirely due to the collapse in private investment due to various problems. A more equitable distribution of income would not solve any of these problems.

10/23/2010 10:57:52 PM

Two questions:

1) Since when has "rich get richer, poor get poorer" been a proverb?

2) Do you suppose they compared the bottom 90% and the top 1% because if they compared the top 10% with the bottom 90% the graph isn't as headline grabbing? I think it might be more interesting and useful for a fully broken out comparison.

10/23/2010 11:15:52 PM

Quote :

"Because we know of no mechanism for "income equality" to matter to a recession."

So what you're saying is... just because we didn't know about gravity before Newton came along that means it didn't exist? I don't know how you come in here pretending like you have any credibility anymore. The mere fact that income inequality was at its greatest in 2007 and 1929 should spark a neuron even in your brain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22story.html

Quote :

"The currency current recession is entirely due to the collapse in private investment due to various problems. A more equitable distribution of income would not solve any of these problems."

And could you please be a little bit more vague? various problems? Maybe like the fact that the general population isn't making enough money to keep growing the economy?

Quote :

"Do you suppose they compared the bottom 90% and the top 1% because if they compared the top 10% with the bottom 90% the graph isn't as headline grabbing? I think it might be more interesting and useful for a fully broken out comparison. "

I think that's exactly what they're doing. And for good reason. Why in the fuck would it be prudent or rational to judge the health of the economy on the top 1% of earners? 9 out of 10 working Americans make less money than they did in 2002. Even if they expanded it to bottom 90% and top 10% and the top broke even, 9 out of 10 Americans are worse off. You have to be daft to believe we're on the right track just because GDP is growing and the richest are getting richer. If nothing else, leaving the middle class behind will create incredible social tension which is bad for a society in general. If the middle class is getting left behind, what incentive do they have to stay on the same path that's leading them further into economic oblivion?

And it's not even a recent occurrence in the past decade or so. It's been going on since the 70s.

Quote :

"Over the longer term, the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90 percent is $900 lower than it was in 1979, according to the CBPP. That compares with gains of more than $700,000 during the same period for the upper one percent crust."

What in the fuck is wrong with this country that we allow this kind of bullshit to take place? The middle and lower class can't even break even over 30 years. We already have income redistribution in this country. The problem is that it lies in the hands of a privileged few in the private sector and they're using this power to tip the scales in their favor. I'm all for free market and letting private industry work, because it does do a more efficient job of things, in general. But at what point do we look at these economic injustices and say enough is enough? The people need to take a little bit back for ourselves and that's been the role of government for hundreds of years. To keep the great power of the few in check with the welfare of the rest of us.

10/24/2010 1:33:43 AM

Quote :

"The mere fact that income inequality was at its greatest in 2007 and 1929 should spark a neuron even in your brain."

Only if I ignored all the intervening recessions, some of which were worse than the current recession, and all the other recessions before 1929, some of which were dramatically worse. As such, at best you have a poor correlation. As such, without a defensible theory as to why inequality would cause a recessions, which we have none, we should fall back on the only causation we do understand: recessions hurt the incomes of the rich far more than everyone else, as such recessions cause a reduction in income inequality, the only defensible relationship.

Quote :

"And could you please be a little bit more vague? various problems? Maybe like the fact that the general population isn't making enough money to keep growing the economy?"

This thread is about the wealth gap, not this recession. I have outlined what "various problems" is in other threads. Forgive me for expecting you to remember. The most important problem being a recession. Recessions happen in free market economies every now and then. Mal-investment causes investors to put off investing, causing disruptions and market uncertainties, causing investors to collectively wait until things settle down, a recession. Combine this with such problems as regime uncertainty, as recessions tend to cause rapid regime change in democracies.

From Russ Roberts on a different but similar topic:
"And what exactly is it that is broken? What is unhealthy? Consumers are spending again, at record levels. The simplest answer is that businesses are not investing. Investment is still very low. I’d like to hear the case of how government spending lots of borrowed money encourages business to invest. It would be a hard case to make. It seems to me that government spending of borrowed money, especially on unproductive stuff, discourages business investment."

Well, I don't know how forced redistribution of wealth encourages business to invest. It seems to me that would discourage business investment.

10/24/2010 9:21:31 AM

Quote :

"9 out of 10 working Americans make less money than they did in 2002. Even if they expanded it to bottom 90% and top 10% and the top broke even, 9 out of 10 Americans are worse off."

Except, that isn't what the graphic. It says the bottom 90% as a whole are worse off, with no indications as to whether that applies to the entire 90% or if it applies mostly to a subset which is dragging the rest of the group down.

10/24/2010 9:48:12 AM

Quote :

"Only if I ignored all the intervening recessions, some of which were worse than the current recession"

Which are?

Quote :

"all the other recessions before 1929, some of which were dramatically worse"

Which are? And do you really think the weath gap wasn't worse?

10/24/2010 10:55:21 AM

Quote :

"I've certainly never heard of such a person. When there is an employee like that, he or she is not at that job very long. "

Most idiotic thing i've ever heard. While in school i worked at a gas station and janitor for several years and i saw people who had been working there for decades, and they were very responsible, and never moved up.
Some people just stay in one job for whatever reason.

10/24/2010 2:43:55 PM

1) Did those people stay at that job because they had no other opportunities, or did they just stay there because it was comfortable?
2) PAY UP, LAFTAAAAAAAAAAAAA

10/24/2010 2:46:24 PM

^various reasons. lack of skills, comfort, lack of opportunity, discrimination, etc

Quote :

" As such, without a defensible theory as to why inequality would cause a recessions, which we have none, we should fall back on the only causation we do understand: "

For one, inequality can lead to a recession when the middle class can no longer borrow & spend due to
slower income rise against inflation and a growing rate of debt.
And considering that consumer spending is 70% of the economy, its in our interest that they make enough money
to keep spending.

Quote :

"recessions hurt the incomes of the rich far more than everyone else, as such recessions cause a reduction in income inequality, the only defensible relationship."

That is terribly misleading. You focus on the percentage lost by the rich during a recession but conveniently ignore the much larger percentage gained during the expansion period before it.

[Edited on October 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

10/24/2010 3:07:30 PM

PAY UP LAFTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

10/24/2010 3:11:04 PM

I think the wealth gap is always discussed as if it in and of itself is an inherently bad thing. It isn't. But what I think most people suspect in their subconscious is that the wealth gap was arrived at through dubious means. It was done when wealth bought legislation to its favor so it could accumulate more wealth. I think this is what people are against but they aren't realizing why.

10/24/2010 9:09:40 PM

Btw, which recessions since the Great D we're worse than the current one we are in? By which measures?

10/24/2010 9:43:16 PM

Quote :

"PAY UP LAFTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

Where is the damn paypal? I'm almost willing to pay it myself rather than to see this shit all the time. It was just $5 right?

Quote :

"I think the wealth gap is always discussed as if it in and of itself is an inherently bad thing. It isn't."

It is if we are looking to maximize consumption. What kind of technological advances would we have forgone if average people couldn't afford cell phones or computers? There are lots of reasons: economies of scale, MPC, equality of opportunity, and just normal humanitarian reasons, they should be fairly obvious.

Quote :

"But what I think most people suspect in their subconscious is that the wealth gap was arrived at through dubious means. It was done when wealth bought legislation to its favor so it could accumulate more wealth. I think this is what people are against but they aren't realizing why."

I think it has more to do with the dubious ends, people tend to mention the plight of the poor more so than robber barons.

10/24/2010 10:12:06 PM

Quote :

"What kind of technological advances would we have forgone if average people couldn't afford cell phones or computers?"

Can you show how a wealth gap, or rather at what level the gap, would prevent these technologies from being made? If the poor people can't afford those technologies, there isn't a rich person that can produce them to sell, thus no rich person, thus no wealth gap.

Quote :

"I think it has more to do with the dubious ends, people tend to mention the plight of the poor more so than robber barons."

Huh?

10/24/2010 10:20:09 PM

Quote :

"Can you show how a wealth gap, or rather at what level the gap, would prevent these technologies from being made? If the poor people can't afford those technologies, there isn't a rich person that can produce them to sell, thus no rich person, thus no wealth gap."

Hey, if I can't give exact numbers I've gotta be wrong right? You've completely ignored the reasons I gave:
"There are lots of reasons: economies of scale, MPC, equality of opportunity, and just normal humanitarian reasons"

Quote :

"Huh?"

Read it again, it was clearly stated. When we talk about the wealth gap, people tend to be more concerned with the plight of the poor than the malevolence of the rich.

10/24/2010 11:03:24 PM

Quote :

"For one, inequality can lead to a recession when the middle class can no longer borrow & spend due to slower income rise against inflation and a growing rate of debt. And considering that consumer spending is 70% of the economy, its in our interest that they make enough money to keep spending."

It could. but it hasn't. Consumer spending has recovered and even increased, but the recession continues. Of course, investment spending has not recovered, and even got worse.

Quote :

"Which are?"

Let me google that for you. Wikipedia claims the recession of 1981, appearing far out of place on the graph in question, suffered 10.8% unemployment.

10/25/2010 12:08:16 AM

Quote :

"It could. but it hasn't. Consumer spending has recovered and even increased, but the recession continues. Of course, investment spending has not recovered, and even got worse."

Why are you saying that investment spending hasn't recovered? The stock market is up like 4000 points since it hit the trough over 2 years ago. Corporate profits are already at/above pre-recession levels. There's plenty of money out there to be spent on investments, it's just not being spent. It's being hoarded at the top, where they're taking in pre-recession level income and record bonuses again while the middle class is $900 less than where we were 30 years ago if we have a job at all.

Quote :

"Let me google that for you. Wikipedia claims the recession of 1981, appearing far out of place on the graph in question, suffered 10.8% unemployment."

Now you're just being stubborn. It's quite a widely accepted opinion that the length and severity of the past recession was the worst since the Great Depression. Hence the name Great Recession.

10/25/2010 12:30:57 AM

Quote :

"Consumer spending has recovered and even increased, but the recession continues. Of course, investment spending has not recovered, and even got worse. "

I think if you said the exact opposite of this you'd be a lot closer to what is actually happening.

Quote :

"It could. but it hasn't."

I think the very reason we had a collapse was because the middle class could no longer borrow the required amount to pay for ever increasing housing prices causing the market to crash.



[Edited on October 25, 2010 at 1:37 AM. Reason : .]

10/25/2010 1:35:32 AM

Quote :

"Consumer spending has recovered and even increased, but the recession continues. Of course, investment spending has not recovered, and even got worse."

We have the increase in spending because we have very low interest rates. We are currently sacrificing investing for spending.

Quote :

"Let me google that for you."

It was kind of rhetorical, I knew what you said was incorrect.

Quote :

"Wikipedia claims the recession of 1981, appearing far out of place on the graph in question, suffered 10.8% unemployment."

The recession of 1981 was not "worse than the current recession".

10/25/2010 1:39:36 AM

After speaking to people that lived through it, and checking the statistics, yes, the 1981 recession was worse. Inflation had been high and interest rates were sky high, so the money people did have in savings did not go very far. Even people that kept their jobs suffered through the recession.

Quote :

"Why are you saying that investment spending hasn't recovered? The stock market is up like 4000 points since it hit the trough over 2 years ago. Corporate profits are already at/above pre-recession levels. There's plenty of money out there to be spent on investments, it's just not being spent. It's being hoarded at the top, where they're taking in pre-recession level income and record bonuses again while the middle class is $900 less than where we were 30 years ago if we have a job at all."

So you admit, "it's just not being spent. It's being hoarded". The question is, why? Answer that question, and you will fully understand the vast majority of recessions. 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 2:18:36 AM

Quote :

"It is if we are looking to maximize consumption. What kind of technological advances would we have forgone if average people couldn't afford cell phones or computers? "

Yet at the same time that the wealth gap was increasing, cell phones and computers have gotten cheaper and cheaper. My iPhone has more processing power and capabilities than my first "modern" computer in 1996, and it costs less than a quarter of the price of that computer (less than a sixth if you adjust for inflation). Cell phone plans have gone from $80 / month for 150 minutes to $50/month for unlimited minutes. It hardly seems a wealth gap has kept the average people from affording high technology.

Quote :

" I think the very reason we had a collapse was because the middle class could no longer borrow the required amount to pay for ever increasing housing prices causing the market to crash."

Now that might be an interesting graph to see. Compare the availability (and interest rates) of consumer credit to the income / compensation levels of the middle and lower classes since the 70's. I wonder sometimes if a lack of income growth might have to do with a lack of demand for that growth? As credit became more available and cheaper, as long as income grew just enough to service that consumer debt, the people didn't demand as high a wage increase.

10/25/2010 7:30:21 AM

Quote :

"Hey, if I can't give exact numbers I've gotta be wrong right? You've completely ignored the reasons I gave: "There are lots of reasons: economies of scale, MPC, equality of opportunity, and just normal humanitarian reasons""

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. 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.

You also completely ignored the rest of my statement. 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.

Quote :

"Read it again, it was clearly stated. When we talk about the wealth gap, people tend to be more concerned with the plight of the poor than the malevolence of the rich."

I want to know what these "dubious ends" are. I think plenty of people are concerned about both the poor and the evil rich. Hell, why else do we have no problem talking about taxing the shit out of one to pay for the other.

Quote :

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

I don't get it. You're taking a couple (few, maybe?) anecdotes...and who are these people since you're apparently so connected in the business community...and saying it trumps the conclusion society has come to regarding this most recent recession? Where were the people in the MSM saying "you know, this recession has been bad, 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.

How about the average duration the unemployed are staying so? That data set is still being printed and by the time it's all said and done, the area under that curve is going to make the early 80s look like a pleasant experience.

10/25/2010 7:36:59 AM

Whatever conclusion one reaches, is an opinion. But, in my opinion, a higher unemployment rate makes a recession worse, so 1981 was worse. Sky high interest rates also makes a recession much worse on people (no ability to smooth over their lost income with borrowing). That said, I am not alone in pronouncing the 1981 recession as worse, many segments of the media also declared it worse. Shall we debate the relative merits of Time magazine versus Newsweek, which one speaks for society?

10/25/2010 10:43:34 AM