Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Income inequality is making the rounds again... this time with a rather simple youtube video derived from some social science research out of Harvard.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/youtube]

Yet, is income inequality necessarily bad and a predictor of collapse as Krugman suggests? Are the modern parallels with 29 just a coincidence... middle income debt, financial industry capturing a large share of the GDP, high income inequality and low top marginal tax rates. Good vid though... keep it simple for the bottom 99%.

LOL....the video says that "socialism is not the answer to this inequality in wealth" but that is the purpose of the video. That is exactly what most of 'them' (liberal minds) want.

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:LOL....the video says that "socialism is not the answer to this inequality in wealth" but that is the purpose of the video. That is exactly what most of 'them' (liberal minds) want.

And I guess most (conservative minds) want fascism...or perhaps feudalism.

kalm wrote:

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:LOL....the video says that "socialism is not the answer to this inequality in wealth" but that is the purpose of the video. That is exactly what most of 'them' (liberal minds) want.

And I guess most (conservative minds) want fascism...or perhaps feudalism.

Nice try.



Is socialism your utopia?

Bison Fan in NW MN wrote:

kalm wrote:
And I guess most (conservative minds) want fascism...or perhaps feudalism.

Nice try.



Is socialism your utopia?

It was sarcasm. I don't really think that's conservatives want.

Is socialism my utopia? No.

Is Somalia yours?

You would think that we would have learned a lession by watching what happened to other countries. Well I guess we didnt.

Nice job pointing out a problem. What's his solution?

Go to the mall sometime, check out the kids running around in $150 jeans, $200 shoes, iPhones, iPods. It isn't just our government that has a spending problem, it's US. Consumption is the name of the game in the United States and that's what is propelling China and third world manufacturers forward. We all like having nice things, but not at the expense of ridiculous personal debt. You want more wealth? Consume less, invest more.

ASUG8 wrote:Nice job pointing out a problem. What's his solution?

Go to the mall sometime, check out the kids running around in $150 jeans, $200 shoes, iPhones, iPods. It isn't just our government that has a spending problem, it's US. Consumption is the name of the game in the United States and that's what is propelling China and third world manufacturers forward. We all like having nice things, but not at the expense of ridiculous personal debt. You want more wealth? Consume less, invest more.

Except for the consumption of power tools, right?

CAA Flagship wrote: Except for the consumption of power tools, right?

That part is fine. Move along.

Speculation here about our success during the downturn is that folks who might have hired out that home improvement job are buying tools and trying to do it themselves, which our sales and marketing folks certainly won't discourage.

ASUG8 wrote:Nice job pointing out a problem. What's his solution?

Go to the mall sometime, check out the kids running around in $150 jeans, $200 shoes, iPhones, iPods. It isn't just our government that has a spending problem, it's US. Consumption is the name of the game in the United States and that's what is propelling China and third world manufacturers forward. We all like having nice things, but not at the expense of ridiculous personal debt. You want more wealth? Consume less, invest more.

IF we did that, then you would go bitching about, on one is buying goods and services. Nic e try

ASUG8 wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Except for the consumption of power tools, right?

That part is fine. Move along.

It's like the matrix. No matter how hard you try, how noble and fiscally responsible you want everyone (including government) to be, you can't escape the consumption complex.

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
That part is fine. Move along.

It's like the matrix. No matter how hard you try, how noble and fiscally responsible you want everyone (including government) to be, you can't escape the consumption complex.

Not true. Kleeny doesn't get it, but my point is responsible consumption. You and I know folks that want the finest cars in the nicest neighborhoods and want the whole "caviar wishes and champagne dreams" that have tenuous employment histories or incomes that simply make them slaves to their homes. Conspicuous consumption is one thing, living within your means is another. I try to have a good time now but I don't want to be dumpster diving or eating store brand dog food by candlelight in my twilight years.

mrklean wrote: IF we did that, then you would go bitching about, on one is buying goods and services. Nic e try

If I'm reading your broken sentence correctly, could I assume that you're a fan of spending $100K a year on goods and services with $65K a year in income? That's what it sounds like, and that doesn't increase your personal wealth - that's not bitching, that's just math.

ASUG8 wrote:

kalm wrote:


It's like the matrix. No matter how hard you try, how noble and fiscally responsible you want everyone (including government) to be, you can't escape the consumption complex.

Not true. Kleeny doesn't get it, but my point is responsible consumption. You and I know folks that want the finest cars in the nicest neighborhoods and want the whole "caviar wishes and champagne dreams" that have tenuous employment histories or incomes that simply make them slaves to their homes. Conspicuous consumption is one thing, living within your means is another. I try to have a good time now but I don't want to be dumpster diving or eating store brand dog food by candlelight in my twilight years.

Oh I don't disagree on how it SHOULD be. But think about how many industries - housing, electronics, automotive - relied upon conspicuous consumption to support their expansion. If people started spending wisely wouldn't we see a huge retraction? Aren't we kind of seeing that now?

kalm wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Not true. Kleeny doesn't get it, but my point is responsible consumption. You and I know folks that want the finest cars in the nicest neighborhoods and want the whole "caviar wishes and champagne dreams" that have tenuous employment histories or incomes that simply make them slaves to their homes. Conspicuous consumption is one thing, living within your means is another. I try to have a good time now but I don't want to be dumpster diving or eating store brand dog food by candlelight in my twilight years.

Oh I don't disagree on how it SHOULD be. But think about how many industries - housing, electronics, automotive - relied upon conspicuous consumption to support their expansion. If people started spending wisely wouldn't we see a huge retraction? Aren't we kind of seeing that now?

It's a valid point....the US economy has in recent years become so consumption based (not just food and basic necessities) that a lot of people got in over their heads. Easy credit, banks willing to loan huge amounts on big homes, etc. preyed on those who didn't do their household math. Builders got rich with the bubble, now many of them are doing something else because building dried up. It's not a popular view, but the bubble bursting needed to happen to get people more focused on their spending, saving, and education. Even with a rebound going on now it will take a long time to get these homes and durable goods off the market.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - making wealth equality a target of economic policy is both foolhardy and impossible. The rich will always benefit more from any economic expansion from the simple fact that they already have more. If everyone grows their wealth 10%, the wealth gap will increase since 10% of a smaller number will be less of a nominal increase than 10% of a bigger number. No matter want we want, we can't escape math.

If we want wealth equality, we need a good, old-fashioned depression that lasts a long time. No one will like it, but at least we'll all be more equal in our misery. Yay.

GannonFan wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again - making wealth equality a target of economic policy is both foolhardy and impossible. The rich will always benefit more from any economic expansion from the simple fact that they already have more. If everyone grows their wealth 10%, the wealth gap will increase since 10% of a smaller number will be less of a nominal increase than 10% of a bigger number. No matter want we want, we can't escape math.

If we want wealth equality, we need a good, old-fashioned depression that lasts a long time. No one will like it, but at least we'll all be more equal in our misery. Yay.

Should they benefit more during a recession? For that matter, should corporations experience record profits during a sloooooow economy? At least Wall Street is setting records.

kalm wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again - making wealth equality a target of economic policy is both foolhardy and impossible. The rich will always benefit more from any economic expansion from the simple fact that they already have more. If everyone grows their wealth 10%, the wealth gap will increase since 10% of a smaller number will be less of a nominal increase than 10% of a bigger number. No matter want we want, we can't escape math.

If we want wealth equality, we need a good, old-fashioned depression that lasts a long time. No one will like it, but at least we'll all be more equal in our misery. Yay.

Should they benefit more during a recession? For that matter, should corporations experience record profits during a sloooooow economy? At least Wall Street is setting records.

Is it record profits on lower revenue or higher revenue?

ASUG8 wrote:

mrklean wrote: IF we did that, then you would go bitching about, on one is buying goods and services. Nic e try

If I'm reading your broken sentence correctly, could I assume that you're a fan of spending $100K a year on goods and services with $65K a year in income? That's what it sounds like, and that doesn't increase your personal wealth - that's not bitching, that's just math.

Who the fuck said this???

GannonFan wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again - making wealth equality a target of economic policy is both foolhardy and impossible. The rich will always benefit more from any economic expansion from the simple fact that they already have more. If everyone grows their wealth 10%, the wealth gap will increase since 10% of a smaller number will be less of a nominal increase than 10% of a bigger number. No matter want we want, we can't escape math.

If we want wealth equality, we need a good, old-fashioned depression that lasts a long time. No one will like it, but at least we'll all be more equal in our misery. Yay.

You are 1000% right, but I think many people cant handle it. The avg. american can't handle being poor, while seeing others living the good life. I could see crime going up 75%. People will do anything to survive and they will.

mrklean wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
If I'm reading your broken sentence correctly, could I assume that you're a fan of spending $100K a year on goods and services with $65K a year in income? That's what it sounds like, and that doesn't increase your personal wealth - that's not bitching, that's just math.

Who the fuck said this???

I said consume less, save more and you disagreed.

mrklean wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I've said it before, and I'll say it again - making wealth equality a target of economic policy is both foolhardy and impossible. The rich will always benefit more from any economic expansion from the simple fact that they already have more. If everyone grows their wealth 10%, the wealth gap will increase since 10% of a smaller number will be less of a nominal increase than 10% of a bigger number. No matter want we want, we can't escape math.

If we want wealth equality, we need a good, old-fashioned depression that lasts a long time. No one will like it, but at least we'll all be more equal in our misery. Yay.

You are 1000% right, but I think many people cant handle it. The avg. american can't handle being poor, while seeing others living the good life. I could see crime going up 75%. People will do anything to survive and they will.

Do they have a food stamp app for iPhones yet?

ASUG8 wrote:

mrklean wrote:
Who the **** said this???

I said consume less, save more and you disagreed.

If I saved all of my money, how does the guy working at the Movies get paid, or the Bartender at the sports bar?????? Or the guy who washes cars for 10.00.

mrklean wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
I said consume less, save more and you disagreed.

If I saved all of my money, how does the guy working at the Movies get paid, or the Bartender at the sports bar?????? Or the guy who washes cars for 10.00.

I'm making the assumption that you know when to stop spending discretionary income when it exceeds your available discretionary income. I don't save all my money either and support the folks you mention in your example. Buying pizzas, going to dinner, oil changes, etc. all keep the economy going. Being an idiot and buying a McMansion or a 7-series that the bank said you could afford that you truly couldn't is more what I'm talking about.

ASUG8 wrote:

mrklean wrote:
If I saved all of my money, how does the guy working at the Movies get paid, or the Bartender at the sports bar?????? Or the guy who washes cars for 10.00.

I'm making the assumption that you know when to stop spending discretionary income when it exceeds your available discretionary income. I don't save all my money either and support the folks you mention in your example. Buying pizzas, going to dinner, oil changes, etc. all keep the economy going. Being an idiot and buying a McMansion or a 7-series that the bank said you could afford that you truly couldn't is more what I'm talking about.

Who the HELL has been doing this since 2009???? No one does this anymore