Wealth Distribution in the USA

Sleevoo · 28-10-2013 05:59PM

I believe education should be a high priority for the government, if parents wish to send their children to private schools that should be their choice to do so. I think this makes for a happier society and enables all to be successful financially if they put the work in.

K-9 · 28-10-2013 08:09PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

I believe ultimately maximising long term happiness of its citizens should be the governments overriding goal. In order to do that the government should intervene as little as possible and let the free market dominate for the most part.

I just don't see that as practical in a lot of cases. We've a child obesity problem in large parts of the Western world and letting the free market dominate seems to have contributed a large part to it.

Sleevoo · 28-10-2013 08:12PM

K-9 wrote: »

I just don't see that as practical in a lot of cases. We've a child obesity problem in large parts of the Western world and letting the free market dominate seems to have contributed a large part to it.

Thats where education comes in and goverment programs to encourage healthy eating and exercise.

28-10-2013 08:17PM

K-9 wrote: »

I just don't see that as practical in a lot of cases. We've a child obesity problem in large parts of the Western world and letting the free market dominate seems to have contributed a large part to it.

What has the govt done? Published misinformation to sponsor its various sectors under the guise of health recommendations, ultimately summed up with "eat more bread!" and loading corn into everything

Seaneh · 28-10-2013 08:18PM

bluewolf wrote: »

What has the govt done? Published misinformation to sponsor its various sectors under the guise of health recommendations, ultimately summed up with "eat more bread!" and loading corn into everything

Because of the influence of lobbyist on certain sectors of government.

Its a perfect example of government acting in the interest of industry and not the public.

28-10-2013 08:23PM

Seaneh wrote: »

Because of the influence of lobbyist on certain sectors of government.

Its a perfect example of government acting in the interest of industry and not the public.

Perfect example of why the govt shouldn't be in charge of anything

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 08:30PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Perfect example of why the govt shouldn't be in charge of anything

Perfect example of if people want to get fat, let them.

SpaceTime · 28-10-2013 08:31PM

K-9 wrote: »

Kind of makes me wonder about trickle down economics.

Well, it became trickle up economics.
There was a really huge shift in the gap between the 'average Jo' and the super wealthy in the USA over the period from the 1970s to the late 1980s.

The super wealthy have been getting wealthier and wealthier while blue collar, lower middle class jobs were disappearing.

People without a university education used to be able to do fairly well in the US economy which had a wealth of decent jobs for 'blue collar' workers. That's really no longer the case. At last not on the scale it once was.

The reality is that the American real economy peaked from the 1950s to 1980s and it's just becoming ever more polarised ever since.

The idea of a decent job for a decent wage no longer exists. Welcome back to the 1920s!

Karl Stein · 28-10-2013 08:36PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Perfect example of if people want to get fat, let them.

Especially children, let the 'free market' kill them off and we'll all be better for it.

See what I did there?

K-9 · 28-10-2013 08:36PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

Thats where education comes in and goverment programs to encourage healthy eating and exercise.

And unfortunately the market also has to keep an eye on the free market, the horse meat scandal, stuff like that.

bluewolf wrote: »

What has the govt done? Published misinformation to sponsor its various sectors under the guise of health recommendations, ultimately summed up with "eat more bread!" and loading corn into everything

bluewolf wrote: »

Perfect example of why the govt shouldn't be in charge of anything

No that's a perfect example of Government giving out bad advice, not an argument abolishing its role. Sweden has just changed its policy, to nullify your point. You don't throw the baby out with the bath water just to satisfy an extreme opinion.

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 08:39PM

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Especially children, let the 'free market' kill them off and we'll all be better for it.

See what I did there?

The market is indeed free. What it means is no one is forcing you to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken every night.

Seaneh · 28-10-2013 08:55PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

The market is indeed free. What it means is no one is forcing you to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken every night.

If you think that's why obesity is a problem you have less clue about nutrition than you do about Irish history.

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 09:06PM

Seaneh wrote: »

If you think that's why obesity is a problem you have less clue about nutrition than you do about Irish history.

Oh another ad hominem attack.

Personal insults. That's the best you can do?

Ok, welcome to my ignore list.

Seaneh · 28-10-2013 09:09PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Oh another ad hominem attack.

Personal insults. That's the best you can do?

Ok, welcome to my ignore list.

Pointing out your logic is beyond flawed.
Not ny fault you are apparently the most over sensitive person on the planet and take every disagreement as a personal attack.

theblaqueguy · 28-10-2013 09:13PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

The market is indeed free. What it means is no one is forcing you to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken every night.

But I like eating KFC every night it's finger lickin good!

K-9 · 28-10-2013 09:19PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

The market is indeed free. What it means is no one is forcing you to eat Kentucky Fried Chicken every night.

Well who fecking cares if its causing problems in society as long as we've a free market? Blame those that are having problems with it, not the super size me multi nationals paying minimum wage, it's social Darwinism attitudes like that.

Companies can't be trusted, look at the battles to get nutritional labels on packaged food, supermarkets in the UK faced the same problems recently when Tesco and others wanted to introduce simple red, green and amber labels. Companies look for loop holes in the legislation, look at the different labels put on non organic chickens to make it look less intensively farmed.

Christy42 · 28-10-2013 09:39PM

Sleevoo wrote: »

There's only one person on this thread obsessed with labels.

I believe ultimately maximising long term happiness of its citizens should be the governments overriding goal. In order to do that the government should intervene as little as possible and let the free market dominate for the most part.

No, if you let the free market dominate then the people/companies with money will use it to screw people without money. The market needs to be regulated. The free market is not fair or anywhere near it. There are too many jobs that are needed for people without buckets of money and before you say they didn't just work hard enough society will always have poor people, if you gave everyone lots of money everything would just be expensive.

Frobby · 28-10-2013 09:49PM

Christy42 wrote: »

No, if you let the free market dominate then the people/companies with money will use it to screw people without money. The market needs to be regulated. The free market is not fair or anywhere near it. There are too many jobs that are needed for people without buckets of money and before you say they didn't just work hard enough society will always have poor people, if you gave everyone lots of money everything would just be expensive.

That's why you should usually avoid giving people money. If you are willing to work hard and apply yourself wisely chances are you won't be poor. Some people don't have to be poor.

Permabear · 28-10-2013 09:49PM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 28-10-2013 09:58PM

This post has been deleted.

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 09:59PM

Christy42 wrote: »

No, if you let the free market dominate then the people/companies with money will use it to screw people without money. The market needs to be regulated. The free market is not fair or anywhere near it. There are too many jobs that are needed for people without buckets of money and before you say they didn't just work hard enough society will always have poor people, if you gave everyone lots of money everything would just be expensive.

Regulation is also the reason for copyright laws and patent protections, which make things very expensive and part of the reason public school students often dont read things written after 1920.

Same with patents. A lot of vaccines would have been so much cheaper if there were no patent laws.

KyussBishop · 28-10-2013 10:09PM

Perfect example of blame-shifting - of minimizing the harm caused by private industry, and putting it all on government: Private industry lobbyists corrupting government nutrition recommendations with false information, and the entire blame is shifted onto government, with none apportioned to the lack of ethics of those in private industry, who do that in the first place.

Nevermind that the obesity issue is far more complicated than just simple nutritional guidelines; arguably one of the bigger culprits in the US, has been the widespread use of High-Fructose Corn-Syrup.

I think people should self-disclose if they are basing their morality on Randian self-interest, such that "companies can do no wrong, because everything they do is in their self-interest", because I think that might be (one possible reason) why people are wilfully blind to corporate fault here (and why they always seem to be).

KyussBishop · 28-10-2013 10:10PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Regulation is also the reason for copyright laws and patent protections, which make things very expensive and part of the reason public school students often dont read things written after 1920.

Same with patents. A lot of vaccines would have been so much cheaper if there were no patent laws.

Wait, weren't people here defending Apple and Microsoft earlier, as shining examples of free-market leaders, who wouldn't exist without these protections?

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 10:12PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Perfect example of blame-shifting - of minimizing the harm caused by private industry, and putting it all on government: Private industry lobbyists corrupting government nutrition recommendations with false information, and the entire blame is shifted onto government, with none apportioned to the lack of ethics of those in private industry, who do that in the first place.

Nevermind that the obesity issue is far more complicated than just simple nutritional guidelines; arguably one of the bigger culprits in the US, has been the widespread use of High-Fructose Corn-Syrup.

I think people should self-disclose if they are basing their morality on Randian self-interest, such that "companies can do no wrong, because everything they do is in their self-interest", because I think that might be (one possibly reason) why people are wilfully blind to corporate fault here (and why they always seem to be).

I agree with you about the HFCS but I don't need the government to tell me that. I figured that out 8 years ago all on my own.

The FDA enforces it. The FDA is the government. It's not the private sector.

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 10:15PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

Wait, weren't people here defending Apple and Microsoft earlier, as shining examples of free-market leaders, who wouldn't exist without these protections?

Yep.

They'd exist but those government protections have made them wealthier. PB actually made the point that big business likes regulation and big government for precisely these reasons.

You can also blame copywrite on guess what? UNIONS!!! Same for your $12 movie ticket.

KyussBishop · 28-10-2013 10:23PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

I agree with you about the HFCS but I don't need the government to tell me that. I figured that out 8 years ago all on my own.

The FDA enforces it. The FDA is the government. It's not the private sector.

The FDA have been enforcing it badly I think, sure, but I don't understand: Are you arguing for better regulation here, or less regulation?

If less, then companies cannot be trusted to self-regulate; the 'free market' ideas brought up to back the idea of private self-regulation, are pure theory that does not represent how things work in reality, and is impossible to bring about in reality.

clairefontaine · 28-10-2013 10:29PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The FDA have been enforcing it badly I think, sure, but I don't understand: Are you arguing for better regulation here, or less regulation?

If less, then companies cannot be trusted to self-regulate; the 'free market' ideas brought up to back the idea of private self-regulation, are pure theory that does not represent how things work in reality, and is impossible to bring about in reality.

The reason we are seeing more and more demand for purer foods over on this side of the pond is not to do with the FDA. THe FDA still endorses HFCS and has a former Montsanto director not high on up, appointed there by Obama.

We are seeing more and more purer foods because the people have copped on and are making different choices and different demands.

The more demand that is there the more companies will enter the market and increase competition, thus driving down cost to the consumer. Americans learn this basic principal in fourth grade.

To believe the government can be less corrupt and financially motivated than the private sector is naive. The FDA is a good example of this all around.

Frobby · 28-10-2013 10:36PM

KyussBishop wrote: »

The FDA have been enforcing it badly I think, sure, but I don't understand: Are you arguing for better regulation here, or less regulation?

If less, then companies cannot be trusted to self-regulate; the 'free market' ideas brought up to back the idea of private self-regulation, are pure theory that does not represent how things work in reality, and is impossible to bring about in reality.

You'll need to be more specific than "better regulation" or "less regualtion". These terms are unworkable, they have no meaning. They're just labels.

KyussBishop · 28-10-2013 10:42PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

Yep.

They'd exist but those government protections have made them wealthier. PB actually made the point that big business likes regulation and big government for precisely these reasons.

You can also blame copywrite on guess what? UNIONS!!! Same for your $12 movie ticket.

Microsoft wouldn't exist though, because their software would just be pirated and they would have absolutely no legal recourse. They wouldn't really be able to sell software at all.

For Apple (and this is all based on just a very brief reading-up), their early success was critically dependent on VisiCalc software securing the position of their hardware within the business market, which (being software) they would not really be able to sell once it gets pirated; this was important in giving them the edge over other computers at the time.

Consider also, that microchip hardware design is like software (it's done in special code), and this getting stolen would mean their entire hardware product could be duplicated with no legal recourse - making industrial espionage a very lucrative (for some), risky (for all) and thus extremely common thing, that would make it almost not worth companies time seeking out certain business models that can disappear overnight.

You'd be looking at not just a lack of these particular companies, but an unrecognisably different corporate landscape altogether.

Karl Stein · 28-10-2013 10:49PM

clairefontaine wrote: »

The more demand that is there the more companies will enter the market and increase competition, thus driving down cost to the consumer. Americans learn this basic principal in fourth grade.

And yet Americans are subject to the priciest pharmaceuticals in the world. Americans Kids should be taught about 'supply and demand' alright, they should be taught that nobody really believes in free markets despite the propaganda.

It’s time to start getting honest about a very simple fact: Nobody, but nobody, really believes in free markets. That’s right. Not the Republican Party, not the libertarians, not the Wall Street Journal, nobody.

Here’s why: a truly free market is a perfectly competitive market. Which means that whatever you have to sell in that market, so does your competition. Which means price war. Which means your price gets driven down. Which means little or no profit for you.

Naturally, businesses flee perfectly competitive markets like the plague. In fact, the fine art of doing so is a big part of what they teach in business schools.

http://rwer.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/why-free-market-economics-is-a-fraud/

Wealth Distribution in the USA

Comments