Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

A simple theory, as economic inequality increases there will be an increase in economic volatility. With economic volatility will come more government debt and more dependence on government. In addition with more economic inequality there will be more dependence on government.

If you are really for less government and less debt then addressing economic inequality is of critical importance. So why isn't that so in US politics?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

With economic volatility will come more government debt and more dependence on government. In addition with more economic inequality there will be more dependence on government. If you are really for less government and less debt then addressing economic inequality is of critical importance.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

With economic volatility will come more government debt and more dependence on government. In addition with more economic inequality there will be more dependence on government. If you are really for less government and less debt then addressing economic inequality is of critical importance.

---

Circular reasoning is circular.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

A simple theory, as economic inequality increases there will be an increase in economic volatility. With economic volatility will come more government debt and more dependence on government. In addition with more economic inequality there will be more dependence on government.

If you are really for less government and less debt then addressing economic inequality is of critical importance. So why isn't that so in US politics?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

It is more like circular cause and effect.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

It is more like circular cause and effect.

---

Yes I know government is the root cause of these problems but I didn't think you were keen on admitting that.

---

Aerlinthian posted:

---

I don't understand, but somewhere there's got to be some -ism in there. Marx or Zion probably..

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

A simple theory, as economic inequality increases there will be an increase in economic volatility. With economic volatility will come more government debt and more dependence on government. In addition with more economic inequality there will be more dependence on government.

If you are really for less government and less debt then addressing economic inequality is of critical importance. So why isn't that so in US politics?

---

Remnant_OBrien posted:

---

The right uses faulty bad faith arguments?

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

So if one guy produces 10 widgets per day and another makes 20 widgets per day we should pay them each for 15 because it's good for someone else?

When you say "economic inequality" you're only talking about remuneration and not productivity. In fact whenever it's pointed out that some people are less productive than others you do nothing but make excuses. Never once have you called for those less productive to be more economically equal when it comes to production. You just demand that they get paid as if they were.

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Do you or do you not care about economic inequality?

You're the one who brought it up. If you do then you have to care about differences in productivity. You don't though. All you care about are differences in remuneration.

Differences in remuneration have to do with supply and demand. We have a massive oversupply of low skill labor. Your solution is always to pay low skilled laborers to produce more low skill laborers. You take no responsibility for the effect that has on supply.

You and people like you are the worst enemy of low skilled laborers.

If I was in charge they'd be making good money because I would address the cause rather than the symptom.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

A simple theory, as the amount of fiat money increases the amount of economic inequality increases

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

blah blah

---

paulg_68 posted:

---

Are you even reading what I write?

Is your screen busted?

You are causing income inequality by causing an over supply of low skill labor. It is the oversupply of low skilled labor that is the primary cause of low wages for low skilled labor.

Your subject line doesn't say income inequality though. It says economic inequality. Productivity is a part of that but is a separate issue to income inequality. You are pointedly ignoring it because you have nothing but rationalizations on that topic.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

http://financial-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Volatility+(economics)

I think this page gets the message across fine but simply put it is about the speed of change and the degree of change in the economy.

In this thread I was specifically talking about volatility with regards to the economic cycle.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

I'm not connecting all of your dots. What is it you want to say about income inequality? That it increases volatility? Where does dependency come in in terms of volatility?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Income inequality leads to increased volatility because the income of the rich is more volatile. This is mostly because it is more closely connected to financial markets which are volatile.

Dependency comes in for two reasons. 1) Increased volatility means more people need help to survive the economic cycle and 2) income inequality means more people need help regardless of the economic cycle because they have less even when they are working.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Income inequality leads to increased volatility because the income of the rich is more volatile. This is mostly because it is more closely connected to financial markets which are volatile.

Dependency comes in for two reasons. 1) Increased volatility means more people need help to survive the economic cycle and 2) income inequality means more people need help regardless of the economic cycle because they have less even when they are working.

---

Bear with me, but consider the US as having two economies. There is a volatile, fluctuating, vibrant economy that at this time is doing rather well all things considered. We have stock market/bonds/equities ratcheting higher and higher, we have M&As up the ass, we have growth, we have potential for more growth, we have national and international businesses expanding, we have an increase in the rate at which money is changing hands. The other part of the economy is dependent, flat, closed, whose major portion of money exchange is relegated to receiving funds from the government and buying essentials [or what we hope are essentials]. I know this is overly-simplistic, but the point I'm trying to make is that it will be increasingly impossible to tap one economy to support the other because its all drag and I do not see these two economies merging anytime soon. There are far far far too many barriers.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Honestly that view makes little to no sense to me. I am not even sure you are talking about production or consumption. There seem to be two worlds, government and the financial services world. IMO they are really both side shows to the two major gears of the economy which are consumption and production.

Capital markets are meant to help serve the expansion of production and facilitate consumption. There has been major dysfunction in the capital markets in the US which includes massive mistakes made by private interests and interference by the US government and other foreign parties.

The changes that are really great are changes in productivity. The growth of productivity of the other nations, specifically China, has drastically increased global production. In the US production has also increased in the form of increases in technology. These changes in production have pushed down the labor market and helped the capital markets.

In terms of just the US this has meant decades of growing economic inequality which feeds into government as I previously mentioned. Government is also not the horrible thing some people think it is. The blanket statement that government run means less efficient is clearly false when you look at health care.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Your assessment is probably fair but that's how I organize my view of our economy. I'm well aware of increasing reliance on government even prior to the recession. You can fashion legislation to address economic inequality. Is that what you are proposing?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

Your assessment is probably fair but that's how I organize my view of our economy. I'm well aware of increasing reliance on government even prior to the recession. You can fashion legislation to address economic inequality. Is that what you are proposing?

---

I am saying that if you want to address dependence on government then you also want to address income inequality.

In US politics those most annoyed that people are dependent on government tend to be the ones most opposed to even talking about addressing income inequality.

---

theredkay1 posted:

---

I see two economies:
one with low barriers to entry

one with high barriers to entry (medical, legal, finance to name the big ones)

We have used trade policy and licensing policy to dramatically lower the barriers on some jobs.

We have used trade policy and licensing policy to keep the barriers very high in other jobs.

That second group makes alot of money b/c the barriers allow it.

Im not sure how this plays into volatility but it doesnt seem impossible for there to be a connection. Maybe this setup encourages debt wich drives volatility....debt demand as the low wage economy tries to catch up to the high wage economy...and it encourages debt supply as savers dont know what to do with their massive piles of money and seek ever more exotic ways to get an extra fraction of a percent.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

I don’t think everyone realizes it is a problem that has to be addressed. This is rather obvious when you actually look at pretty much every single republican candidate pushing very hard for supply side economics that mostly benefit the rich.

I think both parties are united in rhetoric concerning China and their manipulation of our currency. This is priority number one.

Outside of that I think there are a lot of different ways to go but I would start with comprehensive tax reform that makes our corporate tax structure more competitive before credits and less dependent on them period. Reform will also include equalizing the tax rate on capital gains for those with income over $500K MFJ. I would also like to see the tax code fading out the marginal rate structure for those making over $1M MFJ and replacing it with a flat rate.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

There seems to be a lot of anger with China [see front page of this board] but I don't think anything is going to be different despite the rhetoric. China will very slowly allow the relative value of their money to rise, as they see fit. On their part I think they will push harder and harder for a basket of currencies to replace the USD and continue to trade with other countries using another currency or multiple currencies.

No question that our corporate tax structure is more of a hinderance than a help. I also believe the entire credit system eventually needs to be abolished as well as all 'temporary' measures being used to address business in this country. I'm also hoping that people at least take a look at how small business owners are taxed. If you truly believe that small businesses are the economic engine of the country in terms of jobs, their entire tax structure needs a second and maybe third look. The flat rate concept is intriguing. Where are you on VATs?

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The Chinese are purposefully manipulating the USD.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

There seems to be a lot of anger with China [see front page of this board] but I don't think anything is going to be different despite the rhetoric. China will very slowly allow the relative value of their money to rise, as they see fit. On their part I think they will push harder and harder for a basket of currencies to replace the USD and continue to trade with other countries using another currency or multiple currencies.

No question that our corporate tax structure is more of a hinderance than a help. I also believe the entire credit system eventually needs to be abolished as well as all 'temporary' measures being used to address business in this country. I'm also hoping that people at least take a look at how small business owners are taxed. If you truly believe that small businesses are the economic engine of the country in terms of jobs, their entire tax structure needs a second and maybe third look. The flat rate concept is intriguing. Where are you on VATs?

---

The Chinese are purposefully manipulating the USD. This is not even remotely close to a nation keeping a basket of foreign currencies to trade with. The two are not even remotely in the same ball park. I have no idea how you can string those two thoughts together.

As for the corporate tax structure, I want credits and their ilk to go away but they won't. I think there is a good shot at rebasing and lowering rates though.

I don't think small businesses are the economic engine of the country.

A flat tax doesn't help small business and if anything it hurts them. The VAT is better but it is still a consumption tax that can be very regressive. It is a good alternative to other regressive taxes but is no replacement for the income tax.

---

dae_trist posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The Chinese are purposefully manipulating the USD.

---

The US sells bonds. China buys bonds. That's not manipulation. Funny, America wanted everyone to deal in and buy dollars, but now that it's time to look for a scapegoat they moan like reese's mom about being ripped off.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

I'm surprised I thought you were a proponent of VATs.

---

dae_trist posted:

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

The Chinese are purposefully manipulating the USD.

---

The US sells bonds. China buys bonds. That's not manipulation. Funny, America wanted everyone to deal in and buy dollars, but now that it's time to look for a scapegoat they moan like reese's mom about being ripped off.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

I'm surprised I thought you were a proponent of VATs.

---

I am, to replace payroll/SS/FICA taxes and to pay for UHC. It would have to be phased in though. Hits people on fixed income way too hard.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

That could be structured though and applied to specific catagories of goods initially. It could also be phased in over time. I kind of like VATs although I do know they can be regressive.

---

dae_trist posted:

---

The US is essentially forcing China to protect their industries, as they relentlessly block Chinese acquisitions and enforce an embargo on many civilian technologies. They think China should get rich by buying iPods and cheeseburgers.

---

Sin_of_Onin posted:

---

Rosaria posted:

---

That could be structured though and applied to specific catagories of goods initially. It could also be phased in over time. I kind of like VATs although I do know they can be regressive.

---

Progressivity is relative and the income tax and government benefits can be built to correct some of those issues.

---

Rosaria posted:

---

That's what I'm talkin' about! See, I knew if we typed thousands of words at each other sooner or later we could agree. Absolutely government benefits and protections could be structured around them. My question now is anyone in or near the government actually considering any of this. In other words, is this a possibility? I don't remember which country uses targetted VAT as a phase in but I will search around for that data.

---