Shouldn't we aim for less unequality?

Shouldn't we aim for less unequality?

Other urls found in this thread:

pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium
youtube.com/watch?v=YS7XnceNMPs
scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

why? why do you deserve money you haven't earned?

you're a nigger.

Says the goyim that licks schlomos feet for pennies.

No.

Yes, but the way to go about that is a homogeneous and high trust populace/country that's willing to voluntarily help others collectively. Redistribution programs as of yet haven't done shit about it.

Implying i'm talking about redistribution.

You know that sometime us had a high income tax? D:

And no one paid it, because it was engineered not to be paid. The effective tax rate was lower than today.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that an equal outcome is NOT a fair outcome. People earn at different rates because some people have more valuable skills than others. Their being rich does not make you poor.

In an ideal world, yes. But we're not in an ideal world. Capitalism is the best system we know of for raising the quality of life for everyone, but it results in inequality of outcomes.

Less inequality does not imply equality.

It can be improved, thinking otherwise is inhuman D:

I didn't say it can't be improved. I think automation and technology will help move us in that direction. But unless you have a better idea, capitalism is also the best system we have to inspire innovation to get us there eventually.

Looks like it's actually remained pretty proportional.

>the 50s were the golden age of america
>but our current economic policies that encourage outsourcing and only serve corporate interets are much better
t. pol
>I think automation and technology will help move us in that direction.
The way it's going right now it will do the opposite.
The working class has less and less leverage and with automation most of them will be obsolete.

By saying it can be IMPROVED you are implying that there is a flaw in the distribution of wealth. This is false. Productive people earn wealth, unproductive people don't. Productive people can give their money to their children. None of these things keeps other people poor.

So we live in the best of the possible worlds.

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

That doesn't make it good, it should be less skewed.

so what are you proposing instead?

manufacturing jobs are decreasing, but luxury/service jobs are rising in response. economies adapt. despite the increasing inequality, that middle class and the poor's standard of living is still going up.

We do live in the best possible world. Your entire argument is that you deserve money you haven't earned simply because you want it, and someone else has it. As I said, you are a nigger. Niggers don't like fair outcomes because they end up in the trash when things are fair.

No. Get good instead of bitching about successful people.

Why?

>despite the increasing inequality, that middle class and the poor's standard of living is still going up.
Correct.
The problem is that people compare themselves to others and not what they objectively have.
Unless you have an extremely rigid class system (monarchy, etc) and the institutions to enforce it this leads to social instability and will lead to disaster.

I agree to some extent, but I think the dissatisfaction comes more from feeling like you can't improve your class status (i.e. no economic mobility) rather than just a class disparity

the leaf gets it

Bill Gates having 76 billion dollars doesn't mean that you live in a cardboard box. Even the "poor" in America today typically have air conditioning, cell phones, cars, refrigerators, and microwaves. They have those things because the people who created them sold them and got rich doing it.

inequality globally has actually decreased sharply in recent decades

for the first time in human history, global poverty has declined in absolute numbers as the number of people lifted out of poverty outpaces the number of people born into it

this is a result of economic globalization and has come at the expense of the middle class in developed nations

I don't think we hit that point, but at too much of a spread, the system breaks down with most becoming too poor to power the game, then welfare taxes kill the those who won.
Kind of need the right balance (which usually happens without intervention) Enough that work means something but not so far that people can't move up and down the ladder.

Could be the case as economic mobility is much lower than you would expect in the US (pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/07/fsm-irs-report_artfinal.pdf)
The real question is what do you do about it, do you go for an economic solution or a cultural one?

Increased economic mobility is the answer, but I think that will take both economic and cultural changes. Moving out of places where there is no economic opportunity growth is a good strategy now, but too many people don't do it for cultural reasons. For economic efforts, I think the bipartisan bill to incentivize companies to move to less productive areas is a good tactic in the short term (and it's not too easy to get rid of if it doesn't work like entitlements are)

"the right balance"

These are just pathetic mental gymnastics you use to convince yourself that you don't need to feel guilty for stealing something that isn't yours.

There is no magical Taoist ~BALANCE~ for income distribution. In capitalism, the way to make a fortune is to engage in a huge number of voluntary transactions that leave everyone better off. If you are very good at this, you be become filthy rich. If you suck at this, you don't - but you can still buy and trade for the things other people have made.

Citing an ephemeral mismatch in the economic four humors is pathetic counter-thought.

Kill yourself.

Yes but there's a difference in that and trying to socially engineer no inequality

>economics isn't about balance
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium

You Berniebots need to fuck off to Europe and get out of my country.

There is no issue with economic inequality. None. So long as the income in question is earned and not stolen, it has no ill effects whatsoever.

Wealth isn't a "pie" that descends like mana from heaven and gets to be divided up "fairly" - wealth is potentially infinite, and the more value you create the more wealth you get. And because some people are more capable than others, some people will becomes extraordinarily rich. This is just and fair.

But faggots like you can't stand the thought that someone has something you don;t, so you use your political power to elect thieves to rob people and give you their money.

You are a red letter on the ledger of humanity. A parasite. And you don't even have a scrap of integrity large enough to be ashamed of yourself.

youtube.com/watch?v=YS7XnceNMPs

>en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium

We are talking about income distribution, not supply and demand. You must be a special kind of retarded.

why?

HERE YA GO, YOU NIGGER!!

HERE YA GO, YOU NIGGER!!

>HERE YA GO, YOU NIGGER!!

HERE YA GO, YOU NIGGER!!

>HERE YA GO, YOU NIGGER!!

Why do you deserve money you have not earned but by sheer chance happened to be born with the specific skill sets to succeed in this very specific social structure we have today?

Hundreds of years ago someone you look down on today would have simply taken your wealth from you, and you would complain, and they would say "why do the weak deserve something they cant keep?"

And perhaps in the future we will augment ourselves with machines creating superhumans, but only some people have the physiology to do so, those people then become the most 'useful', and everyone else is just out of luck?

>Moving out of places where there is no economic opportunity growth is a good strategy now, but too many people don't do it for cultural reasons.
I'd argue that there is little economic growth anywhere in the west except for very specific areas that not everyone can enter either due to education costs or simply intelligence.
It has no economic ill effects in theory, but it does have social ones. If you only care about the economy then what do you think about open borders?

>not understanding principles behind what you are arguing
The concept of balance is inherent in economics. Economics, as a science, place judgement of the value of equity v efficiency. Economists do.

>So long as the income in question is earned and not stolen

If you gain disproportionately through a system that you use said disproportionate gains to maintain you are stealing.

I agree. We need more protectionism in the west.

Doesn't *

Liberals want less inequality so obviously it's bad.

>borders

The reason immigration worked in the 19th century is because there was no welfare state. The people who came to the Us were ambitious poor who wanted to becomes Americans and adopt the American way of life.

Now, we tell them to stick to their native culture, and we will give them a check to do so. We instruct immigrants to remain rutted in their inferior cultures, which they LEFT to come here, and we pay them for nothing.

Remove the welfare state and the immigration issue fixes itself. You should have no problem with immigrants who want to becomes Americans and follow the American code. They understand that if they succeed, they keep everything they build, but if they fail no one bails them out. Only the ambitious poor will come here under those circumstances.

Not true.

You are brainwashed

>inflation.png
>hey guys wouldn't communism be a good idea?

No, faggot. It wouldn't.

>wahh it's not my fault: the post

Thats not true though, liberals want more inequality so they can say they want less inequality to get people to vote for them. If inequality went away they would have no platform.

>Shouldn't we aim for less unequality?

Sure we should, but eugenics is the only realistic way to reach this goal.

Why are you assuming that if we all participate in a market we will all recieve equal earnings?

Are all people equally smart? Do they all work equally hard? Are they all equally strong? No.

People are differently capable and will earn different amounts in a market. This is fair and just, it's how life is and one man's success does not equal another's failure.

You're obsession with equality has overridden your sense of justice, because you are so insidiously greedy and envious that you can't stand the fact someone else has earned more than you have.

You must be millenial trash.

Property rights are the basis for all other natural rights. Dis-incentivizing making money (to pass on to your kids) isn't good for anyone, historically.

As for the "deserved" argument, there are countless intangible advantages that everyone is born with: where you're born, innate skills/intellect, innate physical traits, etc. Trying to account for them to achieve 'equality' doesn't make any more sense than balancing inheritances for 'equality'.

But economic equilibrium doesn't say anything about equality of outcome.

>Nuh-uh!

Nice emotional argument, nigger. You are defeated.

At least we aren't as bad as the Romans were right before their collapse. They were all lazy patricians who never worked a day in their lives and then nothing but sweatshop workers and slaves. They stole the land of the middle class and placated them with free bread until the patricians had everything and the proletarii had nothing but bread.

>unable to justify your position with a counter argument
>respond with childishness

You would be better off not replying at all than outing yourself as a fucking moron.

by removing the parasitic scum we will have less inequality.

>though I'm paid in CAD, I would be in the top 5% in the US according to 2011 stats
HOLY SHIT WHY DID NOBODY TELL ME I'M RICH?

I'm not about to write an essay for a retard who is beyond saving.

Thread on income inequality and not a single mention of Henry George?

Sup Forums i am disappoint

Progress and Poverty laid out the perfect solution for this 137 years ago.

the real problem is going to be automation

automation is going to kill both low skilled labor AND high skill labor (medical, financial, etc) in a matter of decades

"money" is going to have to be given out for "free" or else its literally going to be like 100 robot empire owners making all the products and services but no one will be able to afford those things because no one else has any fucking jerbs

the game is going to have to change

>Why are you assuming that if we all participate in a market we will all recieve equal earnings?
Im not

>Are all people equally smart?
Of course not

>People are differently capable and will earn different amounts in a market.
>This is fair and just
Correct

It doesnt end there though. Because what happens is after some time has passed, some of those people who have earned a lot, will intentionally or unintentionally start manipulating the mechanisms of the market via legal (lobbying) or social (advertising/propoganda) mechanisms to start disproportionately gaining from their ability. Ability of smartness, or hard working, etc, will be replaced with ability to be a fake. The main skill becomes not ability but bullshitability.

Thats when the problems arise.

Any system will inevitably start having these problems, thats why systems have to be destroyed and rebuilt from time to time.

Liberals are pushing for more illegal immigration and globalization, this leads to more inequality on a national level, not less.
I mostly agree.
I don't think disconnecting people from their native culture is realistic anymore thought due to the internet and instant global communication in general.

>"money" is going to have to be given out for "free" or else its literally going to be like 100 robot empire owners making all the products and services but no one will be able to afford those things because no one else has any fucking jerbs
>implying this is bad

Short answer: no

Long answer: No, you moron

>get paid $32/hour
>company gets paid $180/hour for each hour that I'm contracted out

Listen I get that part of that money goes to security, janitorial staff, accountants, HR, managers, company equipment, rent, etc. but shit, I know it doesn't take $148 dollars to pay for that. I'd just like a slightly bigger piece of the pie is all.

Expand

>Dis-incentivizing making money (to pass on to your kids) isn't good for anyone
I agree

>Trying to account for them to achieve 'equality'
Im not advocating 'equal outcomes', instead im advocating for the awareness and admittance that there is happenstance involved in success, and that there should be a minimum standard provided for all people so getting a shit deal is not quite so shit.

No, only stealing is stealing. You can't redefine words.

Aim in what way? By stealing from those who have more money?

>Liberals are pushing for more illegal immigration and globalization, this leads to more inequality on a national level, not less.
That's more neo-liberalism I would say. However, said people have done an excellent job of making an army of useful idiots to fulfill their wishes (liberals). Elites are excellent at using the population at large to fulfill their desires unwittingly.

I agree there should be a social safety net. The problem comes when people can abuse the system to just leech off of the safety net for their whole lives, rather than using it as a temporary stepping stone during hard times.

>my arbitrary definition is correct and none else is!

You part from dogmas and simplifications of reality in which everything that happens is consequence of natural distribution and fairness.

So either you are naive and retarded or malicious.

Shill the MUH PRODUCTIVITY meme pretty hard in this thread. How do you account for people who inherit wealth, or who make money trading microstocks, or the fucking bankers sitting on their asses doing nothing but suck scheckles out of other people pockets. What are those groups producing you dense cuck?

If I make stealing from you legal and part of the system it is still stealing.
Corporate interests in politics are a real issue.
scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

How would there be any businesses making things if no one can buy anything?

This argument is like the candlestick maker's petitioning for a ban on light bulbs. It didn't happen and now you can buy candles in every fucking size and shape and smell imaginable.

>If things were cheaper, life would be worse somehow

Basically land values, which are due to natural and social processes, should be the source of public revenue, and that taxes on labor, thrift and industry should be eliminated. Properly understood, economics is not a "dismal science" but a guide for achieving justice and sustainable prosperity.

Landlords horde unearned wealth

Land which includes all locations, natural resources and opportunities is fixed in supply. It is not the product of human labor, but it is needed for all production indeed, for all life. The owners of land do nothing to contribute to production, yet they collect an income for allowing land to be used and if they choose, they may withdraw land from use, waiting for higher returns. When good land is held out of use, labor must resort to less productive sites. Rents inexorably rise at the expense of wages and productive investment, creating unemployment and chronic boom/bust cycles.

The solution George proposes is the public appropriation of land rent. This would return to society the values that society and the earth itself have created. It would remove the disastrous tendency for valuable sites to be held out of use. More land would become available, lowering rents and prices, allowing producers to keep more of what they produce. Finally, relying on land rents to finance public services would free labor and capital from the burden of taxation.

not my words but you get the point

The fact is we dont need everyone to work though, there has always been and will always be some percent unemployed and that number will increase as technology advances.

The first step is creating a livable safety net, what this does in effect is shifts things from workers competing for jobs, to business competing for workers.

The outcome i expect is that it would be harder on larger buisness, but make smaller ones more competitive because since getting money to survive on is no longer a concern, they dont have to offer specific wages anymore, but can instead do things like offer people shares. This will encourage said workers to work even harder to make the company successful, and there's prosperity all around.

The current way society is structured may as well be company stores in the way people work for barely maintaining themselves, tend to get no long term benifits (pensions are getting shittier and shittier) and are afraid of losing their jobs.

>inb4 COMMY SCUM REEEE

Royal libertarians are fond of confusing the classical liberal concept of common land ownership, particularly as espoused by land value tax advocate Henry George, with socialism. Yet socialists have always been contemptuous of George and of the distinction between land monopoly and capital monopolies. However, Frank Chodorov and Albert J. Nock (the original editors of The Freeman) were both advocates of George's economic remedies as well as lovers of individual liberty.

The only reformer abroad in the world in my time who interested me in the least was Henry George, because his project did not contemplate prescription, but, on the contrary, would reduce it to almost zero. He was the only one of the lot who believed in freedom, or (as far as I could see) had any approximation to an intelligent idea of what freedom is, and of the economic prerequisites to attaining it....One is immensely tickled to see how things are coming out nowadays with reference to his doctrine, for George was in fact the best friend the capitalist ever had. He built up the most complete and most impregnable defense of the rights of capital that was ever constructed, and if the capitalists of his day had had sense enough to dig in behind it, their successors would not now be squirming under the merciless exactions which collectivism is laying on them, and which George would have no scruples whatever about describing as sheer highwaymanry.

--Albert J. Nock "Thoughts on Utopia"

Gonna dump some georgist shit and try to get people to look into Georges ideas

get out of here commie scum

>Georgism is communism

We are libertarians who make the classical liberal distinction between land, labor and capital.
We believe in the private possession of land without interference from the state, but in the community collection of land rent to prevent monopolization of land.
We believe that all government activities should at least be limited to those which increase the value of land by more than what the government collects, and that government should be funded entirely from the land value increases it creates.

We oppose direct state monopolization of land as well as state-sanctioned private monopolization of land, and advocate that state and federally held land pay land rent to the communities the same as private land.

We advocate that government be allowed to spend only what is authorized by voter referendum or similar device and that it take for itself the minimum it is authorized to spend. Those who advocate collection of the full rent stipulate that the proceeds be divided among community members on a per-capita or similar basis, for the land, and the rent, belong to the people, not the state.

We condemn the taxation of property improvements, and of all activities, productive, consumptive, or recreational, as invasions by the state into the private affairs of free individuals.

yeah no

>inb4 tragedy of the commons

In their search for excuses to deny any common right to land, royal libertarians are fond of citing Garrett Hardin's work, "Tragedy of the Commons." Or at least they cite the title, which is all most royal libertarians are familiar with. Hardin is himself an advocate of land value taxation, and has criticized misinterpretations of his work with the lament that "The title of my 1968 paper should have been `The Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.'" [Emphasis Hardin's]

Definitions aren't arbitrary. Read a dictionary.

Monopoly was originally designed to teach Georgist economics. Elizabeth Magie Phillips first patented her Landord's Game in 1904. It was identical in layout and rules to today's Monopoly -- with one big difference: players could vote to switch, and play the game by single tax rules! When they did that, no one ever lost!

>the more value you create the more wealth you get.
Hahahah-
>And because some people are more capable than others, some people will becomes extraordinarily rich
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!
>being born is a skill
MY FUCKING SIDES!

since everyone left im just going to assume ive converted you all into Georgists

we couple this economic system with occupy style management systems and we have near Utopian society and can advance to the stars

youre all welcome

>there should be a social safety net
That's wealth redistribution

I agree with the rest

The biggest problem is that by believing that bullshit he damages the rest.
D:

You should create some generals and use easy to understand graphics C Y

That equilibrium is not the only equilibrium that exists in economics. There is a tension between efficiency and equity. Equality of outcome is idealized equity. Social safety nets are redistribution that compromises some efficiency to better equity as a minimum standard if living

Trading stocks and banking is the maintenance of capital. How else would we properly value things without them?

God doesn't come down from heaven to the Chicago Board of Trade to decide how much porkbellies are worth. It is people trading them that decides it. It is worth what people who buy and sell such things will pay for it.

Without this system goods, services, commodities, property, and a whole host of other things cease to have any kind of objective measure of worth and we get shit like Venezuela where market prices have been so distorted that their economy is imploding and there are shortages of food.

But slavery doesn't exist in Americ...

>stocks trading is what puts food on the table

Dear lord, the cock is so deep in this one.

>Without this system goods, services, commodities, property, and a whole host of other things cease to have any kind of objective measure of worth
wat? What system are you talking about?

why? why do you deserve money you haven't earned?

you're a nigger.

>implying "earning" and "deserving" are remotely related
cool story bro

>Property rights are the basis for all other natural rights.
double-retarded

>There is a tension between efficiency and equity.
No there isn't, any outcome in the efficient set can be achieved with appropriate transfers, fucking second theorem nigger

Why the fuck do we let lolbertarians act like they know anything about economics?