birdog1960

saw this http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1 posted on facebook in vieod form. iwas a bit skeptical based on the fact that no references were given for the source. while i don't completely agree with blodgett's reasaoning as to why this is a bad thing, at least his conclusion is correct.

interesting that in the first two sentences of his post, you leave unbolded the one section that i would first embolden.

the thought that you envied me never crossed my mind. i apparently, rightfully assumed that you despised me or at least my views, who cares? the difference being that i see many facets of my field in various shades of gray. there are few absolutes. there is not only one way to approach a given problem most times. the posts here imply that economics is different when in fact most would argue that the solutions are even more nebulous.

in your next life you're going to bae a psychoanalyst?

read my post again...the envy card was what you played against my argument. you've since done it again.

ya know, someone reading exclusively yall's posts would logically arrive at the conclusion that supply side economics was the only accepted economic theory and the keynsians disappeared with the dinosaurs. i'm beginning to think there are some business schools with curriculum akin to creationist "science" institutes. when all else fails, pull out the envy card. have i been affected by the rampant consumerism bombardment from birth? i'd have had to been deaf and blind not to be. but is that where my beliefs originate? not at all. that would be totally illogical.

you seem fixated on the distal gastointestinal tract.

typical conservative.

how bout the link between the name of the author's endowed faculty position and the existence of a concept that he attempts to discredit? why would he link friedman and the concept in a piece whose purpose is to negate the connection? i'm thinking that's not none and is therefore some. i've yet to meet a typical liberal. most i know find atypia desirable. conservatives, not so much. on further review, it seems sowell is quixotic on this issue refuting it repeatedly against many critics http://en.wikipedia....-down_economics. inter singly, the wiki entry notes for further reading see "rising tide lifts all ships". sure seems to meet the definition of "semantics" to me http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics

the article you linked mentions references to the attribution of friedman to "trickle down". while you may disagree, other respected economists, including another nobel winner (also mentioned in your citation) attribute the idea to friedman. the fact that an endowed eponymous faculty member defends his mentor on the issue argues against you. so who is the hack here? you're arguing semantics which is nearly the definition of a rabbit hole.

the hunt to save friedman's rapidly tarnishing legacy: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/nov/16/post650

i did. http://en.wikipedia....i/Thomas_Sowell. sowell is a rose and milton friedman fellow at stanford. hmmmm, wonder if he has a dog in the hunt? and financial types? nah, no bias there on economic policies. btw, my dogs are at home in front of the fire. i don't have one hunting on this issue.

the term is usually attributed to this man: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2013/06/26/the-origin-of-the-worlds-dumbest-idea-milton-friedman/?goback=.gde_4243114_member_253515662. perhaps, your texts use some other jargon to descibe the concept just as my texts never mention "tummy aches".

were you not describing trickle down economics or high tide lifting all ships? do the graphs showing decreasing income for all but the top percentiles not refute that thesis?

i'm right here. what is it that you contend that i misunderstood?

sinking ships and downhill course graphically described: http://wallstcheatsh...html/?a=viewall. just a few other examples: record numbers of homeless students http://www.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3756883, record and staggering student debt, record number of people on food stamps. how do you not see the difference between avarice and fulfilling basic needs?

peak oil seems pretty unlikely now although we quite recently fought a war over that commodity. healthcare reform becomes even more important with median wealth decreasing and the middle class disappearing. costs as a percent of gdp need to be reigned in. no other country spends near what we do per capita on healthcare. and, no, the aca doesn't immediately address that...further reform will.

i'm serious. many have more but many more are 1 financial catastrpohe away from the title car loan usury store or the street. and the number in that precarious position increases every day. we reached the economic apex some time ago ( and it lasted only a couple of generations or so) and i fear the big drop will be sudden.

i disparage the quest for the magic bullet or pot of gold. but mostly i blame a culture that fosters and skillfully cultivates that quest and not those that have been successfully indoctrinated. ah yes. i rising tide lifts all ships. except it doesn't in most economies. it lifts the well maintained yachts. the leaking dingys sink.

yup. somewqhere around 50% of virginians play the lottery at least weekly, also. doesn't make it smart.

well, things would probably look a lot more like things look in scandanavia or canada. social mobility isn't nearly as fluid as i expect you imagine in the good old us and within the american dream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility look at the "great gatsby curve" here or the graph directly proceeding it. and, it's an easy argument but that doesn't make it correct. envy is not the only conceivable reason for opposing massive wealth concentration.

really? any system? are you ssying that there are no conceivable systems where that is not the case? whatever gatorific is, i suspect this conclusion meets the criterisa.but even accepting your premise, are there limits to wealth concentration that it would seem unwise to exceed? could regulatory and legal provisions be enacted that would likely prevent crossing that threshold? are the in place now? my answers: yes, yes, no.

not confused at all. and thanks for confirming my point that a burst bubble will likely lead to more wealth concentration. and what are all those poor folks doing spending their money on a place to live. how stupid!the point distills down to the fact that massive wealth concentration is the natural consequence of the system the way it's currently designed. whether you think that fundamentally good, bad or indifferent is the only real question.

so you are saying that the wealthy won't find a way to make money out of a crash like they did last time? i'm saying that many will. and we're talking about a few, by definition, as a small minority that holds much of the wealth already. doesn't take much searching to find that historically, regular folks buy at tops and sell at bottoms way more than the 1%ers do. they more often buy at the bottom and sell at the top. coincidence? i don't think so.

huh? the point is that a burst bubble is likely to further enrich the rich. we had this discussion when romney was running and as i recall, no one contested the fact that he had a major advantage over the avg joe when it came to investments...that's how he amde18% or so in the middle of a market crash. are you now saying that's not likely to happen again? you've conceded that the avg joe would be hurt badly by such a scenario. how do these things together not lead to more concentration of wealth at the top? so how does a burst asset bubble not lead to more income equality assuming your reasoning to be correct? that's what the point of the comment about the bubble was initially referring to. but way to reduirect...