New Best Seller In Economics

[B-Large]

um, that's kinda picketty's point. the only way to stem the rising (and already pre WWI level of) inequality is to tax the very wealthy more. any interventions on behalf of the poor alone (or even involving the middle class) won't alter the arithmetic appreciably.

 

I'd think that having industries that need employees to do stuff would be better for the poor than more assistance. We don't have enough industries that need out people to do stuff anymore, thats the issue. I'd cite Globalization, Technology and the growing % of the economy that is Finance as a good reason why so many more people are falling behind, while a slim few are exceling a hyper-pace. I don't think it was a sinister plot, it just happened as economies mature. It sure is tough to have a consumer spending economy, while at the same time an economy that leaves those spenders further and further behind.

Edited April 25, 2014 by B-Large

[birdog1960]

So we punish success so the poor become what exactly??

 

 

 

It appears to be 700 pages of redistribution of wealth. Did I get it right?

try again.wealth is being redistributed as we speak at an alarming rate. just not in the way you imagine. look at the graph. where the two lines intersect is bad.

[DC Tom]

i'm beginning to get the idea that most of you have no idea what this book is about. i'm shocked. gator's initial link had this excellent link included. if you are not just feigning interest, it's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.c...democracy.html#

 

So you're arguing about articles about the book, without reading the book, bitching about others not reading the book?

 

try again.wealth is being redistributed as we speak at an alarming rate. just not in the way you imagine. look at the graph. where the two lines intersect is bad.

 

So it's about redistribution of poverty...

[3rdnlng]

i'm beginning to get the idea that most of you have no idea what this book is about. i'm shocked. gator's initial link had this excellent link included. if you are not just feigning interest, it's a good place to start. http://www.nytimes.c...democracy.html#

 

Nice way to avoid my question.

 

Again, "So, in other words, the plight of the poor is not your primary concern but the level of inequality is?"

[meazza]

So you're arguing about articles about the book, without reading the book, bitching about others not reading the book?

 

 

You have terrible reading comprehension. You must have missed the point where he specifies that he read analysis about the book from well respected people.

 

The man has no time to waste actually learning something on his own.

[birdog1960]

So you're arguing about articles about the book, without reading the book, bitching about others not reading the book?

 

 

 

So it's about redistribution of poverty...

most of what any of us learned in school, even at the graduate level, is from texts representing condensations of thousands of pages of original works. i did not read kelly's texbook of rheumatology (which was in turn based on thousands of original papers) as my primary source to learn rheumatology. i learned it mostly from harrison's text of internal medicine. and that knowledge level is sufficient to pass a demanding written board exam. similarly, i don't believe one needs to have read an original seminal work (as some are calling this book) to understand it's major thesis. that has already been quite heavily covered, presented, debated and parsed by readily available and respected sources (excepting b mans who began her article by setting aside the question of validity of this very thesis). so yes, it's apparent that a rudimentary understanding of the major points of this book can be obtained by accessing those sources, especially when there appears to be little current disagreement on what the thesis means. reading the actual book, on the other hand, does not ensure it's understanding as your second point illustrates.

[Tiberius]

most of what any of us learned in school, even at the graduate level, is from texts representing condensations of thousands of pages of original works. i did not read kelly's texbook of rheumatology (which was in turn based on thousands of original papers) as my primary source to learn rheumatology. i learned it mostly from harrison's text of internal medicine. and that knowledge level is sufficient to pass a demanding written board exam. similarly, i don't believe one needs to have read an original seminal work (as some are calling this book) to understand it's major thesis. that has already been quite heavily covered, presented, debated and parsed by readily available and respected sources (excepting b mans who began her article by setting aside the question of validity of this very thesis). so yes, it's apparent that a rudimentary understanding of the major points of this book can be obtained by accessing those sources, especially when there appears to be little current disagreement on what the thesis means. reading the actual book, on the other hand, does not ensure it's understanding as your second point illustrates.

This makes too much sense. The Conservatives on this board say they have read or are reading almost everything, this book, the Affordable Care Act, the Bretton Woods Agreement, Chris Christie's "Independent Investigation," you name it! I guess they do that so as to avoid about talking about the main issues

[Chef Jim]

try again.wealth is being redistributed as we speak at an alarming rate. just not in the way you imagine. look at the graph. where the two lines intersect is bad.

 

So the poor people's "wealth" is going to the rich people?

[birdog1960]

So the poor people's "wealth" is going to the rich people?

i suggest you reread b man's link fron the distinguished conservative economist. the parts about r>g that she "leaves aside" are fairly concisely explained while not questioned or analyzed. maybe you'd understand it better when delivered from the hand of another con.

[3rdnlng]

This makes too much sense. The Conservatives on this board say they have read or are reading almost everything, this book, the Affordable Care Act, the Bretton Woods Agreement, Chris Christie's "Independent Investigation," you name it! I guess they do that so as to avoid about talking about the main issues

 

Yes, the ACA is not a main issue and conservatives are the ones keeping the bridge story going. Do you even think a tiny little bit before you type?

[Tiberius]

 

 

Yeah you're right. It's either or.

 

What the hell are you saying? That if people saved their money more there wouldn't be a hit on consumer spending that hurts the economy?

 

 

 

Yes, the ACA is not a main issue and conservatives are the ones keeping the bridge story going. Do you even think a tiny little bit before you type?

Quiet

[B-Large]

What the hell are you saying? That if people saved their money more there wouldn't be a hit on consumer spending that hurts the economy?

 

Quiet

 

the more I think about it, it does become and either/ or. As wages stagnate, the amout for both saving and spending shrinks. I do, however, worry more about saving versus spending in that sceanrio- Amercian have proved to be horrible at letting money sit and grow.

[3rdnlng]

What the hell are you saying? That if people saved their money more there wouldn't be a hit on consumer spending that hurts the economy?

 

Quiet

 

So, you got nuthin, eh?

[DC Tom]

What the hell are you saying? That if people saved their money more there wouldn't be a hit on consumer spending that hurts the economy?

 

Hey, remember when Condi Rice said that and your people freaked the !@#$ out?

 

so yes, it's apparent that a rudimentary understanding of the major points of this book can be obtained by accessing those sources

 

You are the living embodiment of the counterpoint to that bull **** argument.

[Chef Jim]

What the hell are you saying? That if people saved their money more there wouldn't be a hit on consumer spending that hurts the economy?

 

So you've just made a great argument for lower taxes/fees/whatever local, state and federal governments are siphoning off. Great point.

 

By the way you can do both regardless of how much money you make. You can spend and save at the same time. It's a real cool concept.

Edited April 26, 2014 by Chef Jim

[Keukasmallies]

OK, once the rich are taxed at exorbitant rates to build a sort of artificial income equality, describe to me the incentives that will cause the "formerly rich" to continue to build more wealth to lose to higher taxes, etc.

 

Is this just a thesis begets antithesis begets synthesis begets new thesis thingy?

[Tiberius]

 

 

I'd think that having industries that need employees to do stuff would be better for the poor than more assistance. We don't have enough industries that need out people to do stuff anymore, thats the issue. I'd cite Globalization, Technology and the growing % of the economy that is Finance as a good reason why so many more people are falling behind, while a slim few are exceling a hyper-pace. I don't think it was a sinister plot, it just happened as economies mature. It sure is tough to have a consumer spending economy, while at the same time an economy that leaves those spenders further and further behind.

And where is this trend going?? Why would anyone not expect this situation to just keep getting worse. 30 years from now self driving trucks can replace all the truck drivers, who needs airline pilots and fast food can be totally automated. The world is changing so quickly.

 

 

 

So you've just made a great argument for lower taxes/fees/whatever local, state and federal governments are siphoning off. Great point.

 

By the way you can do both regardless of how much money you make. You can spend and save at the same time. It's a real cool concept.

It's also a case for better redistribution of wealth. Like how Henry Ford realize paying his workers $5 a day--way more than he had to-- would lead to more consumption and help his company and the workers

[Chef Jim]

It's also a case for better redistribution of wealth. Like how Henry Ford realize paying his workers $5 a day--way more than he had to-- would lead to more consumption and help his company and the workers

 

Wrong.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Wrong.

How so?

[Chef Jim]

How so?

 

It was to keep his turnover lower. He had huge turnover and no shows on his assembly line because the work sucked so it was a business decision. It actually cost less to his bottom line to pay his employees twice the going rate than to deal with the turnover problems he had. But keep pushing that feel good story of he did it so his employees could afford to buy his cars.