7 of 11
7
What Reganomics has accomplished.
Posted: 05 October 2013 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 91 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  246
Joined  2012-09-14
TimB - 28 September 2013 11:44 AM

Abdul, I assume that you are Muslim?  I wonder whether the Quranic prohibition against money being made by charging interests on loans, may be a good one, as it requires an Islamic financial institution to basically form an investment partnership with those who borrow or invest in order to make money.

I’m not an economist so I cant say much
But here is something I did find

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-10-19-islamicbank19_ST_N.htm

Please keep in mind though this is a news source and not an academic one.

 Signature 

Say: He is God, the Unique.
God, the Self-Sufficient.
He does not give birth, nor was He born.
And there is none equal to Him.

Quran (112: 1-4)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 October 2013 11:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 92 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4447
Joined  2008-08-14
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 05 October 2013 05:04 PM

Exactly, lets start studying some more. I only gave one suggestion. I have no problem if someone suggests another.

In fact, I am quite eager to know of any other famous economist who has worked around the world and has online
research for lay people

Economists are a dime a dozen. There’s an economist for every ideological stripe.
If you want to talk pure economics I believe you can only study the economics of the past.  ie history.
That’s because one can view economic practices and see how they worked...in the past.
Of course forms of pure economics would be tax codes, accounting rules, trade treaties and grocery budgets.
This discussion here in this thread revolves around political/economic histories and forecasts.

But please Abdul suggest some tenets from your favorite economist and I will be glad to hear from them.
I’m always looking for new info and ideas.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 02:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 93 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1757
Joined  2007-10-22
Bryan - 30 September 2013 12:31 PM
garythehuman - 30 September 2013 11:11 AM

An ongoing study of income distribution found that the richest 1% in America took 19% of national income last year, their biggest share since 1928. The top 10% of earners held a record 48.2%. During the recovery between 2009 and 2012 real family incomes rose by an average of 4.6%, though this was skewed by a 31.4% increase for the top 1%. For the other 99% incomes rose by just 0.4%.

Byran;

You still haven’t answered why you think the policies that result in the above income distribution, which is the result of the policies you support, is good for 99% of Americans that are not among the economic aristocracy.

Quit avoiding the point.

I"m pretty sure I’ve addressed this point already, Gary.

I have no evidence that it is bad for the 99 percent that the top 1 percent garners 19 percent of the income.  It doesn’t matter to me if it’s good for the 99 percent or not.  If it’s good, then great.  If it’s neutral, then fine.  If it’s bad, then the policy needs a defense.

I don’t accept the premise that it’s bad.  Nobody’s made that case.  I think to skip making that case and jump to my defense of the policy represents a fallacious shift of the burden of proof.  You’re invited to make the case that large disparities in income distribution represent a bad policy that needs defending.  Or you can avoid the question.

Per Adam Smith:

Servants, laborers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society.  But what improves the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole.  No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.  It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well, fed, clothed and lodged.                      Pg. 90

Avarice and injustice are always short sighted.                Pg. 423

With the greater part of the rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eyes is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves

.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the master of mankind.  . . . For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchange the maintenance of a thousand men for a year.  Pg. 444

Our merchants frequently complain of the high wages of British labor as the cause of manufactures being undersold in foreign markets, but they are silent about the high profits of stock.  They complain about of the extravagant gain of other people, but say nothing, but say nothing of their own.  Pg. 648

Where is the justice in today’s wealth and income distribution?

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 October 2013 08:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 94 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
garythehuman - 08 October 2013 02:43 PM
Bryan - 30 September 2013 12:31 PM

I have no evidence that it is bad for the 99 percent that the top 1 percent garners 19 percent of the income.  It doesn’t matter to me if it’s good for the 99 percent or not.  If it’s good, then great.  If it’s neutral, then fine.  If it’s bad, then the policy needs a defense.

I don’t accept the premise that it’s bad.  Nobody’s made that case.  I think to skip making that case and jump to my defense of the policy represents a fallacious shift of the burden of proof.  You’re invited to make the case that large disparities in income distribution represent a bad policy that needs defending.  Or you can avoid the question.

Per Adam Smith:

Servants, laborers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society.  But what improves the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole.  No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.  It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well, fed, clothed and lodged.                      Pg. 90

That’s somewhat out-of-context, given that we’re talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty.  Does anybody actually think that the “greater part” of the U.S. population lives in poverty?

Avarice and injustice are always short sighted.                Pg. 423

With the greater part of the rich people, the chief enjoyment of riches consists in the parade of riches, which in their eyes is never so complete as when they appear to possess those decisive marks of opulence which nobody can possess but themselves

.

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the master of mankind.  . . . For a pair of diamond buckles perhaps, or for something as frivolous and useless, they exchange the maintenance of a thousand men for a year.  Pg. 444

Our merchants frequently complain of the high wages of British labor as the cause of manufactures being undersold in foreign markets, but they are silent about the high profits of stock.  They complain about of the extravagant gain of other people, but say nothing, but say nothing of their own.  Pg. 648

Where is the justice in today’s wealth and income distribution?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be shifting the question from whether great wealth disparity is wrong to the question of whether it is fair.

Should we care whether it is fair for the 99 percent if it isn’t bad for the 99 percent?  Let’s stick with the latter question.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 01:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 95 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  348
Joined  2006-11-27

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index

I’m not going to imply that I’ve studied the data on these pages. But, at a glance it appears that there is not a very rigid correlation between income equality and the standard of living, so Bryan may have a point.

 Signature 

If we’re not laughing, they’re winning.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 07:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 96 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4447
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 08 October 2013 08:02 PM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but you appear to be shifting the question from whether great wealth disparity is wrong to the question of whether it is fair.

Should we care whether it is fair for the 99 percent if it isn’t bad for the 99 percent?  Let’s stick with the latter question.

It is wrong.  Therefore it is unfair.
It’s definitely unfair, and we all know that unfairness is wrong.

Are you suggesting that people should look away from things that are unfair?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 97 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21

I’m suggesting that if something is bad for people then we can expect objective evidence supporting the ill alleged consequences.

In contrast, unfairness does not necessarily have any measurable ill consequences.  It becomes a moral argument at that point.  That moral argument is better suited to the philosophy forum than politics and social issues.  It’s not an easy argument to make.  For example, if one were to argue that it is unfair and therefore is bad, and it’s obvious that bad things are unfair, then we have a fairly obvious example of an argument that runs in a vicious (that is, fallacious) circle.

If we’re going to have a productive argument, I suggest sticking with the original assertion, that wealth disparity is harmful, not merely unfair.

It’s not fair that Occam is so much smarter than me.  Shall we inject him with brain-damaging chemicals to even the playing field a bit?  His greater intelligence is a moral wrong, no?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 10:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 98 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1757
Joined  2007-10-22
Bryan - 09 October 2013 09:38 AM

I’m suggesting that if something is bad for people then we can expect objective evidence supporting the ill alleged consequences.

In contrast, unfairness does not necessarily have any measurable ill consequences.  It becomes a moral argument at that point.  That moral argument is better suited to the philosophy forum than politics and social issues.  It’s not an easy argument to make.  For example, if one were to argue that it is unfair and therefore is bad, and it’s obvious that bad things are unfair, then we have a fairly obvious example of an argument that runs in a vicious (that is, fallacious) circle.

If we’re going to have a productive argument, I suggest sticking with the original assertion, that wealth disparity is harmful, not merely unfair.

It’s not fair that Occam is so much smarter than me.  Shall we inject him with brain-damaging chemicals to even the playing field a bit?  His greater intelligence is a moral wrong, no?

Perhaps you should have to pick up a few suicides, deal with the broken marriages and bankruptcies as I did after the plant closings.  All so your rich buddies can have their play toys.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 10:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 99 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
garythehuman - 09 October 2013 10:47 AM

Perhaps you should have to pick up a few suicides, deal with the broken marriages and bankruptcies as I did after the plant closings.  All so your rich buddies can have their play toys.

I trust this personal attack is beneath you, Gary.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 10:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 100 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27

Bryan wrote


“That’s somewhat out-of-context, given that we’re talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty.  Does anybody actually think that the “greater part” of the U.S. population lives in poverty?”

No, the capitalist aim is to keep the majority of the population hovering just a milimeter above poverty and no more so they can be kept in line and they won’t notice that all the wealth is flowing to the top.  They also like to spread the fiction that it’s capitalism that keeps the poor from falling into abject poverty. They should be grateful for capitalism.

Lois

[ Edited: 10 October 2013 07:13 PM by Lois ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 11:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 101 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Lois - 09 October 2013 10:55 AM

Bryan wrote


“That’s somewhat out-of-context, given that we’re talking about disparities in wealth, not about poverty.  Does anybody actually think that the “greater part” of the U.S. population lives in poverty?”

No, the capitalist aim is to keep te majority of the population hovering just a milimeter above poverty and no more so they can be kept in line and they won’t notice that all the wealth is flowing to the top.  They also like to spread the fiction that it’s capitalism that keeps the poor from falling into abject poverty. They should be grateful for capitalism.

Lois

Lois, you’re not engaging the argument.  You’re just offering assertions from one point of view.  The U.S. standard of living for its poor is way above the standard of living for most of the world—and you know it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 October 2013 12:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 102 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4447
Joined  2008-08-14
Bryan - 09 October 2013 09:38 AM

I’m suggesting that if something is bad for people then we can expect objective evidence supporting the ill alleged consequences.

The legal systems in most countries including the US is set up to deal with fairness.  There are countless examples of this.
So for example if someone is in a business and discovers an unfair clause in a deal, they can and do successfully sue in court over these unfair practices.
It only follows reason that that unfairness was observed to be “bad” or harmful to the plaintiff by juries, judges and peers.
So “bad” and unfair” are the same entity in the broad context of anything discussed in the specific thread.
But I love your usual attempt to convolute and use your typical false dichotomy and equivalencies.

In contrast, unfairness does not necessarily have any measurable ill consequences.  It becomes a moral argument at that point.

Right.  I just explained why that isn’t the case.  Unfairness is dealt with by legal systems, arbitrators, monitors, judges, contracts, etc.
Did you just actually have the gall to write that unfairness doesn’t necessarily have any ill consequences?
I hope you don’t often wonder why you are viewd as something of a pariah around here.

If we’re going to have a productive argument, I suggest sticking with the original assertion, that wealth disparity is harmful, not merely unfair.

Yes, yes.  Why don’t we let you just frame the entire subject so you have better references to bounce your BS reasoning off of.

It’s not fair that Occam is so much smarter than me.  Shall we inject him with brain-damaging chemicals to even the playing field a bit?  His greater intelligence is a moral wrong, no?

That made me think of another way unfairness is dealt with:  Major League sports ban the use of performance enhancing drugs because it gives an unfair advantage.  They also ban the use of corked bats in baseball and spitballs…because it gives an unfair advantage.
It’s called cheating. Cheating is unfair and and has negative consequences.

[ Edited: 10 October 2013 02:15 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2013 11:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 103 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1757
Joined  2007-10-22
Bryan - 09 October 2013 10:51 AM
garythehuman - 09 October 2013 10:47 AM

Perhaps you should have to pick up a few suicides, deal with the broken marriages and bankruptcies as I did after the plant closings.  All so your rich buddies can have their play toys.

I trust this personal attack is beneath you, Gary.

This is not a personal attack.  This is real life experience.  I am showing some of the negatives results your primitive, anti-social economic stance entails.  When you attempt to create an economic system based upon every man for himself the broken marriages, suicides, etc. that are part of its costs.  I understand that providing help and support; such as health coverage, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other welfare benefits to those who are unable to secure decent paying work will not stop all of this, but it certainly reduce these horrible incidents.

Yes I am emotional about this, these “failed humans” or as you on the economic right would say “people who do not make good economic choices; were not statics, they were my friends; people and families I grew up and worked with for years.

 Signature 

Gary the Human

All the Gods and all religions are created by humans, to meet human needs and accomplish human ends.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2013 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 104 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
garythehuman - 10 October 2013 11:56 AM
Bryan - 09 October 2013 10:51 AM
garythehuman - 09 October 2013 10:47 AM

Perhaps you should have to pick up a few suicides, deal with the broken marriages and bankruptcies as I did after the plant closings.  All so your rich buddies can have their play toys.

I trust this personal attack is beneath you, Gary.

This is not a personal attack.

I’m willing to make people suffer so that my rich buddies can have play toys.  But it has nothing to do with me, personally. 

That’ not particularly believable, Gary.

This is real life experience.

Ah.  You have real-life experience that I am motivated to defend capitalism despite any harm that occurs to poor people because I want my rich friends to have toys.  What real-life experience confirmed that for you, I wonder?

I am showing some of the negatives results your primitive, anti-social economic stance entails.

It entails you accusing me of callousness (an ad hominem combined with fallacious emotional appeal).

When you attempt to create an economic system based upon every man for himself the broken marriages, suicides, etc. that are part of its costs.

And now the straw man.  Why would you characterize capitalism as “every man for himself” when, for example, the United States is one of the most charitable nations in the world?  There’s absolutely nothing inconsistent between capitalism as a system and personal charity.

I understand that providing help and support; such as health coverage, unemployment benefits, food stamps and other welfare benefits to those who are unable to secure decent paying work will not stop all of this, but it certainly reduce these horrible incidents.

It’d be nice if you understood that the issue here concerns whether wealth disparity per se is a net ill for society.

Yes I am emotional about this, these “failed humans” or as you on the economic right would say “people who do not make good economic choices; were not statics, they were my friends; people and families I grew up and worked with for years.

It’d be great if you could address the issue without trying to make it personal, either by attacking me for my supposed callousness (it’s irrelevant) or by employing anecdotal appeals to emotion.

[ Edited: 10 October 2013 12:15 PM by Bryan ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 October 2013 07:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 105 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
I.J. Abdul Hakeem - 05 October 2013 05:20 PM
TimB - 28 September 2013 11:44 AM

Abdul, I assume that you are Muslim?  I wonder whether the Quranic prohibition against money being made by charging interests on loans, may be a good one, as it requires an Islamic financial institution to basically form an investment partnership with those who borrow or invest in order to make money.

I’m not an economist so I cant say much
But here is something I did find

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/banking/2010-10-19-islamicbank19_ST_N.htm

Please keep in mind though this is a news source and not an academic one.

Read anything by John Kenneth Galbraith

Modern Competition and Business Policy (with Henry S. Dennison), 1938
A Theory of Price Control, 1952
American Capitalism: The Concept of Countervailing Power, 1952
The Great Crash, 1929, 1954
Economics and the Art of Controversy, 1955
The Affluent Society, 1958
Journey to Poland and Yugoslavia, 1958
Perspectives on conservation, 1958
The Liberal Hour, 1960
Economic Development in Perspective, 1962
The Scotch, 1963
The McLandress Dimension (under the pseudonym Mark Épernay), 1963
Economic Development, 1964
The New Industrial Estate (BBC Reith Lectures),[46] 1966
The New Industrial State, 1967
Beginner’s Guide to American Studies, 1967
How to get out of Vietnam, 1967
The Triumph (novel), 1968
Ambassador’s Journal, 1969
How to control the military, 1969
Indian Painting (with Mohinder Singh Randhawa), 1969
Who needs democrats, and what it takes to be needed, 1970
American Left and Some British Comparisons, 1971
Economics, Peace and Laughter, 1972
Power and the Useful Economist, 1973
Economics and the Public Purpose, 1973
A China Passage, 1973
John Kenneth Galbraith introduces India (Editor), 1974
Money: Whence It Came, Where It Went, 1975
Socialism in rich countries and poor, 1975
The Economic effects of the Federal public works expenditures, 1933-38 (with G. Johnson), 1975
The Age of Uncertainty (PBS and BBC 13 part television series), 1977
The Galbraith Reader, 1977
Almost Everyone’s Guide to Economics (with Nicole Salinger), 1978
Annals of an Abiding Liberal, 1979
The Nature of Mass Poverty, 1979
A Life in Our Times, 1981
The Voice of the Poor, 1983
The Anatomy of Power, 1983
Essays from the Poor to the Rich (with Paul McCracken), 1983
Reaganomics: Meaning, Means and Ends, 1983
A View from the Stands, 1986
Economics in Perspective: A Critical History, 1987
Capitalism, Communism and Coexistence (with Stanislav Menshikov), 1988
Unconventional Wisdom: Essays on Economics in Honour of John Kenneth Galbraith (Editor), 1989
A Tenured Professor, 1990
A History of Economics: The Past as the Present, 1991
The Culture of Contentment, 1992
Recollections of the New Deal: When People Mattered (Editor), 1992
A Journey Through Economic Time, 1994
The World Economy Since the Wars: A Personal View, 1994
A Short History of Financial Euphoria, 1994
The Good Society: the humane agenda, 1996
Letters to Kennedy, 1998
The socially concerned today, 1998
Name-Dropping: From F.D.R. On, 1999
The Essential Galbraith, 2001
The Economics of Innocent Fraud, 2004

Profile
 
 
   
7 of 11
7
 
‹‹ Service Equity      Atheists In Congress ››