344d
@no1marauder saidNo hurry, no hurry as we all are curious to field your thoughts.
Maybe, unlike you, I have other things to do besides chatting on internet boards. Like working for instance.
344d
@AverageJoe1
I'm still here. Going to catch a nap, daughter is pissed, back on about 8AM Central.
344d
@averagejoe1 saidQuestion 1 was answered in my link, which you didn't bother to read:
@AverageJoe1
That is 2 questions.
What would have been the alternative of their NOT having been 'income gaps to widen'???
How much longer, after 240 years, can we 'run' before prosperity is impossible?
I am going to skip my daughter's wedding awaiting your answers. ...to these 2 questions. Just these. 🙂
"Figure 3 documents that the income share captured by the richest 1% fell dramatically between the 1910s and the 1970s, and the share of the bottom half rose, for almost all countries supplying the necessary data. This ‘Great Levelling’ took place for several reasons. Wars and other macro-shocks destroyed private wealth (especially financial wealth) and shifted the political balance toward the left. The labour force grew more slowly and automation was less rapid, improving the incomes of the less skilled. Rising trade barriers lowered the import of labour-intensive products and the export of skill-intensive products, favouring the less skilled in the lower and middle ranks. And in the US, the financial crash of 1929-1933 was followed by a half century of tight financial regulation, which held down the incomes of those employed in the financial sector and the net returns reaped by rich investors. We stress that this correlation between high finance and inequality is not spurious. Individuals with skilled financial knowledge have been well rewarded during the two inequality booms, and heavily penalised during the one big levelling (or two, if the 1776-1789 years are included).
The equality gained in the US during the Great Levelling slipped away after the 1970s. The rising income gaps were partly due to policy shifts. The US lost its lead in the quantity of mass education, and its gaps in educational achievement have widened relative to other leading countries. Financial deregulation in the 1980s also contributed powerfully to the rise in the top income shares and also to crises and recessions. A regressive pattern of tax cuts allowed more wealth to be inherited rather than earned. These policy shortfalls are, of course, reversible and without any obvious loss in GDP."
https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/unequal-gains-american-growth-and-inequality-1700
So it's largely government policies that determine whether inequality rises or not. The People chose in the decades after the Great Depression to have policies that increased worker incomes, reduced poverty and lessened the rewards for unproductive "rent" chasing ("rent" in Economics meaning money earned due to market imperfections or asymmetric information - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicrent.asp).
I showed colonial American and early US data to show that the system the Framers had in mind was based on low levels of inequality. Of course, their economic system was pre-capitalist and based on the majority being yeoman farmers and not laborers for the rich (except for the unfortunate institution of slavery, which most believed would not last long).
I have no idea what the second question means.
@no1marauder saidNo.1 and his inept facile race-baiting.
Your bigoted assumption is that all these people from non-white countries would just want to go to Australia for a hand out while good white folks like yourself from other mostly white folk countries are going there to work.
Well waddaya know someone else has a very similar view to the one I've been spelling out here.
"There are documents that prove that in those countries that are more open, there is more innovation, more growth, so immigration is a good thing. [...] When our grandparents or our parents came, they came to earn their bread by the sweat of their bow and there was no welfare state. The problem arises with immigration when there is a welfare state."
Having lived and worked (at times illegally) in a number of countries around the world I concur, let peaceful people cross borders freely, but you are not a peaceful person if upon arriving in a new country you proceed to menace the citizens for them to pay for your healthcare, education, housing etc, etc. Whether you do it directly or through the thugs of the state, you are not a peaceful person.
Oh, from whence the quote? Javier Milei
342d
@no1marauder saidSecond question was responding to what you wrote above:
Question 1 was answered in my link, which you didn't bother to read:
"Figure 3 documents that the income share captured by the richest 1% fell dramatically between the 1910s and the 1970s, and the share of the bottom half rose, for almost all countries supplying the necessary data. This ‘Great Levelling’ took place for several reasons. Wars and other macro-shocks destr ...[text shortened]... slavery, which most believed would not last long).
I have no idea what the second question means.
"Without income and wealth being spread to consumers, rather than concentrated in the hands of a relative few, a capitalist economy cannot be prosperous in the long run." We have been going along for a long time, and Capitalism made us the greatest (arguably to you) country. You suggest that it can't last in the long run. I asked how long. This is not complicated. Whew.
You wrote and cited a lot of history on the first question, but why can you not just answer the question......like if we were in the car on the way to the golf course? Why can you not anx\swer questions in the way that they are presented to you? What if I ask you why barns are red? Could you answer that like a human, not a computer? Geez.
I submit that you did not answer the first question so that Kev could understand it. Nor me either. Zahlanzi says I am stupid. I bet he did not understand your answer either.
EDIT: You say that I could find your answer in a link??? Did you really say that? Are you REALLY a bot? I have just been kidding, but having 2nd thoughts.
342d
@averagejoe1 saidYou, sir, are a fukking moron.
Second question was responding to what you wrote above:
"Without income and wealth being spread to consumers, rather than concentrated in the hands of a relative few, a capitalist economy cannot be prosperous in the long run." We have been going along for a long time, and Capitalism made us the greatest (arguably to you) country. You suggest that it can't last in ...[text shortened]... Did you really say that? Are you REALLY a bot? I have just been kidding, but having 2nd thoughts.
@shavixmir saidAn unfounded statement. Is it a moron who requires his subjects to pay the debts of others, of losers?? So is Biden a moron? Since SheSuzanne, and Kev, and everyone are in favor of that, are they morons?
You, sir, are a fukking moron.
. I am just being logical here, a very difficult concept for you fellers to grasp.
342d
@wajoma saidSince they are not "peaceful people" can migrants who apply for some temporary benefits the democratically elected government has seen fit to make them eligible for be murdered on sight?
No.1 and his inept facile race-baiting.
Well waddaya know someone else has a very similar view to the one I've been spelling out here.
[i]"There are documents that prove that in those countries that are more open, there is more innovation, more growth, so immigration is a good thing. [...] When our grandparents or our parents came, they came to earn their bread by the sw ...[text shortened]... the thugs of the state, you are not a peaceful person.
Oh, from whence the quote? Javier Milei
And, of course, that would logically apply to anyone in a country not just migrants.
Tell me again, who's the "thug"?
342d
@wajoma saidThis guy?
No.1 and his inept facile race-baiting.
Well waddaya know someone else has a very similar view to the one I've been spelling out here.
[i]"There are documents that prove that in those countries that are more open, there is more innovation, more growth, so immigration is a good thing. [...] When our grandparents or our parents came, they came to earn their bread by the sw ...[text shortened]... the thugs of the state, you are not a peaceful person.
Oh, from whence the quote? Javier Milei
"During the 2010s, Milei achieved significant notoriety and public exposure in debates featured on Argentine television programs characterized by insults to his rivals, foul language, and aggressive rhetoric when expressing and debating his ideals and beliefs, such as one with Buenos Aires chief of government Horacio Rodríguez Larreta. This led many commentators to label him antipolitical or disruptive. Ted Cruz, a United States senator, shared an interview between Viviana Canosa [es] and Milei on Twitter, jokingly proposing to invite him to the 2024 Republican Party presidential debates."
Of course. A Trump wanna-be. God save us all.
342d
@averagejoe1 saidHey, moron.
An unfounded statement. Is it a moron who requires his subjects to pay the debts of others, of losers?? So is Biden a moron? Since SheSuzanne, and Kev, and everyone are in favor of that, are they morons?
. I am just being logical here, a very difficult concept for you fellers to grasp.
The government paying to reduce student loan debt doesn't effect you in the slightest. Stop with the fairy tales. Republicans love fairy tales.
342d
@averagejoe1 saidThe point was the People in a democratic society will only accept unrestrained capitalism and its adverse effects for so long. We saw the rise of progressive reforms numerous types in US history after the economic chaos laissez-faire policies inevitably bring.
Second question was responding to what you wrote above:
"Without income and wealth being spread to consumers, rather than concentrated in the hands of a relative few, a capitalist economy cannot be prosperous in the long run." We have been going along for a long time, and Capitalism made us the greatest (arguably to you) country. You suggest that it can't last in ...[text shortened]... Did you really say that? Are you REALLY a bot? I have just been kidding, but having 2nd thoughts.
It's why someone like Wajoma is such an opponent of democracy itself and in the end must justify force against those who try to reform an economic system imposed by force in the first place (chat with him about "initial acquisition" if you want to see some real dodging).
@no1marauder saidThis facetious comment, about murtder, does not really apply here, stay the course please. First, who does know if the millions (302,000 last month) are peacefull or not unless we put up a wall with a gate? We would set up some card tables and vet each person.
Since they are not "peaceful people" can migrants who apply for some temporary benefits the democratically elected government has seen fit to make them eligible for be murdered on sight?
And, of course, that would logically apply to anyone in a country not just migrants.
Tell me again, who's the "thug"?
Without having some semblance of order, we can hardly compare to other countries, Esp if they have different welfare programs that we do, like free support of migrants by our government. I refer you to the tremendous suffering of NYC in caring for these vagrants...I guess that is what they are now, I don't know what they are. Dependents of course, and that is a nice word!!
So this subject, this issue, is getting ahead of itself. Really, what is this applying for temporary benefits all about? You say that like it is Purely Acceptable for a Mexican Citizen and a Yemen Citizen (there are 140 countries represented) to walk up to the table and ask for stuff.
Your comments just fly in the wind.
@suzianne saidShe Suzianne, you silly goose. Here is one of many articles, 1st one to pop up. Now, you find one that says it costs taxpayers (I am a big one) nothing, and we will compare.
Hey, moron.
The government paying to reduce student loan debt doesn't effect you in the slightest. Stop with the fairy tales. Republicans love fairy tales.
You must have been PMing with Marauder, he said the same things.
https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/new-analysis-bidens-newest-student-loan-scheme-to-cost-taxpayers-559-billion
342d
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidThe best way to reduce illegal immigration while still receiving the economic benefits of immigration would be to streamline the asylum process and make it easier for migrants to get permanent asylum. This is what Biden has partially proposed by asking for funding to add hundreds of more administrative judges and support staff. Republicans, naturally, refuse to support such an obvious, common sense policy.
This facetious comment, about murtder, does not really apply here, stay the course please. First, who does know if the millions (302,000 last month) are peacefull or not unless we put up a wall with a gate? We would set up some card tables and vet each person.
Without having some semblance of order, we can hardly compare to other countries, Esp if they have differen ...[text shortened]... ies represented) to walk up to the table and ask for stuff.
Your comments just fly in the wind.
And BTW, most immigrants seeking asylum do not receive authorization to work while their cases are adjudicated so describing them as "not peaceful" because they are unemployed and thus need assistance is deranged.
EDIT: An asylum seeker can't apply for work authorization for 150 days after his asylum application.https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/asylum#:~:text=Based%20on%20a%20Pending%20Asylum,you%20file%20your%20asylum%20application