Gyroscopic Investing

I know everyone has heard about the uneven wealth distribution in the United States...but this video does a good job of putting it into pictures.

Currently most Americans have no idea how skewed things have become. Also, 9 out of 10 favor a more equal distribution. How does this gulf between reality and ideal get bridged as this information begins to trickle down through society?

http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/9-out- ... ing-fact-3

Why is this of more concern than the unemployment rate/current economic worries in this country and policies responsible for them?

Benko wrote: Why is this of more concern than the unemployment rate/current economic worries in this country and policies responsible for them?

Many people think they are related

Dieter wrote:

Benko wrote: Why is this of more concern than the unemployment rate/current economic worries in this country and policies responsible for them?

Many people think they are related

Simonjester wrote: so is the problem wealth disparity or upward mobility?
if upward mobility is achieved through redistribution you really don't solve the upward mobility problem, your upward mobility is not of your own making but rests in the hands of somebody else, somebody that you hope will (and probably wont) give you something.. if you focus on improving upward mobility by having a fair and just (corruption and cronyism free) system then wealth disparity is meaningless, you have a shot at getting as much as you are willing or able to achieve, and the fortunes of others are not interfering with your chances, they are not something to envy or feel entitled to, they are examples to be followed

Is that as in the wealth distribution inequallity is causing the current problems, or heaven forfend, the policies of the current administration is aggrivating the current problems?

doodle wrote: I know everyone has heard about the uneven wealth distribution in the United States...but this video does a good job of putting it into pictures.

Currently most Americans have no idea how skewed things have become. Also, 9 out of 10 favor a more equal distribution. How does this gulf between reality and ideal get bridged as this information begins to trickle down through society?

http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/9-out- ... ing-fact-3

Not shocking that 9 out of 10 prefer a more equal distribution of wealth. But 9 out of 10 of those 9 out if 10 would probably change their minds if it meant distributing their own wealth.

Reminds me of the claims that a vast majority of Americans believe a balanced approach of spending cuts and additional revenue is best for deficit reduction. Wonder how many would change their mind if it meant their own tax rate going up.

iwealth wrote:

doodle wrote: I know everyone has heard about the uneven wealth distribution in the United States...but this video does a good job of putting it into pictures.

Currently most Americans have no idea how skewed things have become. Also, 9 out of 10 favor a more equal distribution. How does this gulf between reality and ideal get bridged as this information begins to trickle down through society?

http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/9-out- ... ing-fact-3

Not shocking that 9 out of 10 prefer a more equal distribution of wealth. But 9 out of 10 of those 9 out if 10 would probably change their minds if it meant distributing their own wealth.

Reminds me of the claims that a vast majority of Americans believe a balanced approach of spending cuts and additional revenue is best for deficit reduction. Wonder how many would change their mind if it meant their own tax rate going up.

90% have no idea how unequal things have become.

Benko wrote:

Dieter wrote:

Benko wrote: Why is this of more concern than the unemployment rate/current economic worries in this country and policies responsible for them?

Many people think they are related

Is that as in the wealth distribution inequallity is causing the current problems, or heaven forfend, the policies of the current administration is aggrivating the current problems?

This has been a trend for the last 30 years.

Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-econ ... _countries) and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

Who exactly is on the list of the one percenters?
I know Doodle and I aren't on it...

iwealth wrote:

doodle wrote: I know everyone has heard about the uneven wealth distribution in the United States...but this video does a good job of putting it into pictures.

Currently most Americans have no idea how skewed things have become. Also, 9 out of 10 favor a more equal distribution. How does this gulf between reality and ideal get bridged as this information begins to trickle down through society?

http://beingliberal.upworthy.com/9-out- ... ing-fact-3

Not shocking that 9 out of 10 prefer a more equal distribution of wealth. But 9 out of 10 of those 9 out if 10 would probably change their minds if it meant distributing their own wealth.

Reminds me of the claims that a vast majority of Americans believe a balanced approach of spending cuts and additional revenue is best for deficit reduction. Wonder how many would change their mind if it meant their own tax rate going up.

Well since the progressivity of the federal income tax is a bit of an exception of the overall tax system, and federal income taxes only make up 20%-30% of overall taxes collected (if memory serves... sorry for the lack of precision), there's a very high chance that these assertions will result in higher taxes on "us 99%" as well.

In fact, people are paying an additional 2% in payroll taxes in 2013... business owners making less than $110k per year are paying 4% more... diminishing from 4% above that point.

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

What remedies are you proposing for unequal income distribution? 

Can you name anyplace else on earth where what you are proposing has been tried and worked?

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

What remedies are you proposing for unequal income distribution? 

Can you name anyplace else on earth where what you are proposing has been tried and worked?

Universal healthcare, a base retirement pension, free education, and other social insurance programs, in a healthy balance with an otherwise free-market economy seem to do a pretty decent job.


Can you point to a "free society" that appears to "work better" than some of the socialist hell-holes we call metropolitan centers?

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position.

That gives us everything we need to evaluate your statements.

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

What remedies are you proposing for unequal income distribution? 

Can you name anyplace else on earth where what you are proposing has been tried and worked?

Didn't it work in the 1950s in the U.S.?

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

What remedies are you proposing for unequal income distribution? 

Can you name anyplace else on earth where what you are proposing has been tried and worked?

So if the present trend that the video clearly outlines continues, do you think we end up with a freer  more enlightened society, or an oligarchy? Also, are there more aspects to freedom than those which just comprise ones ability to amass great fortune? Should all children have the freedom to the same quality education irrespective of their parents economic status?

doodle wrote:

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

What remedies are you proposing for unequal income distribution? 

Can you name anyplace else on earth where what you are proposing has been tried and worked?

So if the present trend that the video clearly outlines continues, do you think we end up with a freer  more enlightened society, or an oligarchy? Also, are there more aspects to freedom than those which just comprise ones ability to amass great fortune? Should all children have the freedom to the same quality education irrespective of their parents economic status?

As if we weren't already in an oligarchy? That's hilarious!

MediumTex wrote:

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Look, I don't care what is morally right or wrong at this point and what logic you use to justify your position. What I care about is the effects that low socio-economic mobility and wide wealth disparity have on civil society and our democracy.

What remedies are you proposing for unequal income distribution? 

Can you name anyplace else on earth where what you are proposing has been tried and worked?

Didn't it work in the 1950s in the U.S.?

What was the income distribution, tax rates, competitors situation, and freedoms in the 50's? (Flatter, higher, rebuilding, a bit behind if not a white male)

doodle wrote: Should all children have the freedom to the same quality education irrespective of their parents economic status? 

1. What you want is a fairytale that has never and can never exist.  It would be nice, and I'd PERSONALLY pay what I could to help a poor student(s) afford more/better schooling, but that is not the same as imposing your equality on everyone.  Gov't imposed equality=3rd rate for everyone.
Equality does not exist in nature--only in the minds of progressives.

2.  "Universal healthcare, a base retirement pension, free education, and other social insurance programs, in a healthy balance with an otherwise free-market economy seem to do a pretty decent job."

What country/time period are you talking about? 

Perhaps you could do it in e.g. scandanavia or another homogenous orderly country, or in the 1950s, but in the US now with Occupy Wall street mentality, where we are less civilized, less orderly?

3. "Didn't it work in the 1950s in the U.S.?"
Perhaps you are thinking along different lines than I, but we are a VERY different country from the 1950s, in some good and many not so good ways.  What specifically were you thinking of that could be instituted today?

I don't have the answers, but I think we'd be better of with a flatter (?more balanced?) income distribution:

* SS / Medicare assumed they tax x% of total income: we are below that because of the unequal growth of top income

* Some of the economic problems caused by lack of demand - lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their money than higher income

Benko wrote: Perhaps you could do it in e.g. scandanavia or another homogenous orderly country, or in the 1950s, but in the US now with Occupy Wall street mentality, where we are less civilized, less orderly?

Would you say that the U.S. today is less civilized today than it was in the 1950s?

In the 1950s in many parts of the country non-whites were required to use different bathrooms, attend different schools and not allowed to even enter many businesses.  Efforts at political organization by groups of non-whites were often met with harassment, intimidation and violence.  Consumer protection efforts like making cars safer were almost nonexistent, which contributed to countless deaths in auto accidents and other consumer goods-related incidents that happen far less frequently today.

One thing that has contributed to this perception that things are worse today than they have ever been is the 24 hour news cycle, along with the general sensationalism of a lot of news items.  When, however, you look at things like actual crime rates, average longevity, infant mortality, and other measures we apply to developing countries, the U.S. is vastly better off than it was in the 1950s.

A person today who is gay, black, Hispanic, Asian, disabled or elderly would probably say that life in the 1950s in the U.S. was a LOT less civilized than it is today.

3. "Didn't it work in the 1950s in the U.S.?"
Perhaps you are thinking along different lines than I, but we are a VERY different country from the 1950s, in some good and many not so good ways.  What specifically were you thinking of that could be instituted today?

Although I am not arguing in favor of it, much higher tax rates for high income earners seems to have done little to stifle economic activity in the 1950s.

Benko wrote:

doodle wrote: Should all children have the freedom to the same quality education irrespective of their parents economic status? 

1. What you want is a fairytale that has never and can never exist.  It would be nice, and I'd PERSONALLY pay what I could to help a poor student(s) afford more/better schooling, but that is not the same as imposing your equality on everyone.  Gov't imposed equality=3rd rate for everyone.
Equality does not exist in nature--only in the minds of progressives.

2.  "Universal healthcare, a base retirement pension, free education, and other social insurance programs, in a healthy balance with an otherwise free-market economy seem to do a pretty decent job."

What country/time period are you talking about? 

Perhaps you could do it in e.g. scandanavia or another homogenous orderly country, or in the 1950s, but in the US now with Occupy Wall street mentality, where we are less civilized, less orderly?

3. "Didn't it work in the 1950s in the U.S.?"
Perhaps you are thinking along different lines than I, but we are a VERY different country from the 1950s, in some good and many not so good ways.  What specifically were you thinking of that could be instituted today?

1) Rights don't exist in nature either.  It's kill or be killed.  It's brutal. And liberals don't want 100% equality (most, anyway)... They want a more equal distribution than the massively skewed on we have, and a floor of human dignity guaranteed for all people.

2) More than just Scandinavia... The US is a pretty solid balance, though it doesn't have universal healthcare. Other European countries, some Asian countries as well have a pretty decent balance.

3) In what ways is our country different today than it was in 1950 that should warrant the .1% to own so much drastically more than the person who works 9-5 at McDonalds in comparison to the 1950's?

MODA,

moda0306 wrote: liberals don't want 100% equality (most, anyway)... They want a more equal distribution than the massively skewed on we have, and a floor of human dignity guaranteed for all people.

NB: it is not safety net for those who need it and leave the rest of us the hell alone.  There would be a lot less problem if this was all that was being advocated. 

Gov't imposed equality=3rd rate for everyone.
Your floor of dignity becomes (see obamacare or universal healthcare) what is forcefed down everyone's throat, like the quallity or not.

moda0306 wrote: In what ways is our country different today than it was in 1950 that should warrant the .1% to own so much...

I'm not defending the situation as it is.  I just have 1000% confidence that any remedy the progressives have is 10 times worse than the problem.  I think TennPaGa  has pointed out a major problem which can be addressed:

TennPaGa wrote: "natural" events that ought to have been disruptive (like the 2007/08 financial crisis) were not, because those at the far-far-right of the distribution convinced/bribed those in government that societal stability depended on them keeping theirs AND me losing mine.

Adressing this e.g. there is no such thing as too big to fail.  You can't stop private people from trying to screw around with the Gov't to their benefit.  One can (perhaps) e.g. term limits, remove the power so gov't isn't allowed to cause this kind of things.

I think it will be interesting to see how the current societal structure holds up with the rising inequality.

Democracy = one person, one vote
Capitalism- one dollar, one vote

As the upper echelon of the capitalist class get richer and richer the contradictions of living in democractic/capitalist society will grow stronger and stronger. Perhaps it will snap at one point and we will fall fully into one of the systems rather than our current mix.

melveyr wrote: Democracy = one person, one vote
Capitalism- one dollar, one vote

True, but on the other hand, democracy is all-or-nothing in the sense that if the guy you voted for doesn't win, it's as if you didn't even vote. With capitalism, by contrast, every dollar influences the market in some way through supply and demand.

melveyr wrote: I think it will be interesting to see how the current societal structure holds up with the rising inequality.

Democracy = one person, one vote
Capitalism- one dollar, one vote

As the upper echelon of the capitalist class get richer and richer the contradictions of living in democractic/capitalist society will grow stronger and stronger. Perhaps it will snap at one point and we will fall fully into one of the systems rather than our current mix.

That's a really interesting and insightful way of thinking about it.

Wealth distribution in the US means much less when the overall quality of life for just about everyone is markedly better than anytime in history, 1950s included (as MediumTex illustrates).

As one of the hockey player's wives says in Slap Shot:

"Johnny always says you can just drink so much and screw so much."

That is a singularly disturbing video that assuming accuracy, has lots of potentially dangerous implications.