By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Is "the rich getting richer" a problem?

Oh and as for people being worse off then our parents... well you listed somethings that more then anything else are related either to

A) Demographics/Technology changes

B) Government problems

I'm not sure how the "rich getting richer" actually plays into that other then "looking at someone else doing well makes you mad."



A lot of people are worse off then there parents. A lot are better off too. Well more then just the "rich".



Around the Network

Only when simultaneously the poor are getting poorer.



Pjams said:
richardhutnik said:

In life, with economic systems, and other parts, also seen in games, there is something called "the rich getting richer".  In this, individuals who have an advantage, are able to compound this advantage and use the compounding effect to offset weaknesses.  This can lead to an exponential expansion of separation between those who have and those who have not.

My question is this: Is the "rich getting richer" effect a problem?   Is it healthy for a system to end up resulting in a few individuals on top with dominance, while many below who aren't as fortunate, and could end up falling further behind, as rather than compounding advantages witness a compounding of problems and a chain of events that could cause them to even suffer a shortness of life?

If it isn't health to allow this to be left unchecked, then what can be done that would be a way to balance things out more?

I wil say, often in games, where this happens, it is a problem that makes a game less fun to play.

torpid

You either have to much time on your hand or you just like posting redundant questions on the internet. You know the answer.

That is not an exclusive or.  And also, note this forum on here and why it exists.  It is for questions like this, because people feel like sharing them.  So, how was that cookie you got for posting what you did there?  You are fully aware you can just ignore things you don't like on the Internet, right?  But, you are free to join the rabble on the Internet and just post comments like this.  

Maybe a better use of my time would be to watch some taped Spongebob stuff on YouTube.  So, what exactly do you do that isn't as wasteful of your time, besides saying that people are wasting their time, in a thread you feel is a waste of time?



There exists a diminishing return on the benefits one rich individual can have on society. While they are more apt and able to finance investments after a certain point money can just stagnate or worse be used for things harmful to society, whereas a ton of money could easily accomplish negative outcomes. This all depends on the person of course.

The "rich get richer" effect is about opportunity and by itself is not an issue but if opportunity is loss on the least of us tyranny is established, class systems, oppression. This concept in video games, well I suppose MMORPGs are a prime example. It is not bad there because everyone is along for the ride, able to progress on equal terms as everyone else without much or any negative effects if you screw up. The richer effect is good, poverty is bad.

Economically theories can point to unchecked wealth as having the greatest benefit but we are complex creatures and certainly do not always make the best decisions. This is why I support a progressive tax system. It allows people to become wealthy while ensuring an amount is giving to society. The trick is proper governmental spending. There might be some investment efficiency loss but if it creates better infrastructure to maintain opportunity for everyone it is better for society.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Andrespetmonkey said:
Well I guess rich people don't just sit on their money, and their spending will naturally create jobs, which is beneficial for society as a whole.

Or I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to economics and should get the hell out of this thread


sitting on their money also creates jobs (unless they are litterally sitting on their money, like keeping it under their bed) but having it in banks and other accounts, makes the reserve ration higher. meaning banks have more money reserves, meaning they have more to loan out. Meaning, someone wanting to start up a business can have the money to do so by borrowing from the bank. that frees up capital, and creates jobs



Around the Network

Let's look at real evidence, and not hormonal, whiney, liberal, phony bologna, jealous, idiotic rhetoric. 

The freer your economy is, and more you allow the rich to get richer through a free and fair market, the more wealthy your country is (see the USA, Hong Kong etc...)  

The more government controls the economy, communist/socialist governments, the poorer your country is (USSR, Venezuela, Argentina, Greece, Spain, Portugal and on and on).  The more corruption you have, the poorer the people are.  The more government controls the economy, the more corruption you get (i.e. Zimbabwe, Venezuela, the Middle East). 

Take Solyndra for example.  The Obama administration took good money, from profitable businesses and people, and "invested" with a group of high end donors to his political campaign.  Private investors didn't want a thing to do with it.  They would not loan Solyndra a dime, because it was obvious to anyone who looked at their balance sheet that the company was in deep doo.  But Obama decided he'd pay back his supporters, and take good money from good businesses that know how to make more money and CREATE wealth, and shoved it down the toilet.  This is what happens when you let a Harvard law professor take billions of dollars and spending it with no real plan in mind.  You destroy wealth.  When a business is successful, and rich people get richer, generally wealth is created.

This is the thing that small minded liberals just can't grasp.  You just do NOT understand economics...AT ALL.

Take Greece, they are our end game.  Or Spain.  They have allowed unions to run rampant over the tax payers for a generation or two.  Now the bills are all coming due after the stupid politicians made stupid deals, with OTHER people's money.  Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy.  Spain is on the verge of bankruptcy.  Both countries have around 25% unemployment, and things look like they are going to get WORSE, not better.  The morons in Greece just elected a radical lefty socialist, and now it looks like the Germans and the rest of the EU won't bail them out anymore.  When Greece defaults on their debts, guess what happens to the banks?  Bye bye.  All that wealth that sits in those banks is going to evaporate.  It's a promise, that can no longer be kept by radical leftism.  

So is it fair that the rich get richer?  Yes.   Is it good for everyone when the rich get richer?  Yes.  Is it good for everyone when the government takes money from the rich and spends it with complete stupidity?  No.  The rich can no longer smartly invest their money in companies that WORK, because their money is taken by force of gun from the government.  The government is far too incompetent, name any government and it's too incompetent, to know every business sector in the country and how best to spend money to make it work.  The idea that 500 knuckleheads in Washington DC know best how to run tens of millions of companies is mind blowingly stupid.  It's vapid to the point of brain death.  Let tens of millions of Americans get rich, invest their money, hire employees, and invest in THEIR own future, rather than let 500 corrupt officials in a central government make these decisions.  

The evidence ALL suggests that the freer a country is, the richer it is.  The more economic freedom there is, the richer the country is.

Oh I know, now you're going to point to the bank bail outs and say that was a product of greedy bankers.  That's only partly true.  The government mandated, through liberal policy, that banks were REQUIRED to issue a certain percentage of subprime loans.  Then they allowed them to pack the loans into giant bundles, and sell them.  Fanny and Freddy would buy them up, and then before you knew it, nobody knew what was what, and what was in the giant bundles of loans, and the whole thing fell to pieces.  Make no mistake though, it was government regulation that FORCED banks to make these loans, that precipitated that.  Sure some bankers then found a way to subvert the system and sell these packages and make a lot of money, but they did it within the regulatory environment that congress created.  If congress had said that all housing loans needed to have 5% down, the problem likely wouldn't have existed.  If they hadn't mandated that these subprime loans be made to people who couldn't afford them and weren't likely to pay them back, again the problem wouldn't have occurred.  I'm not arguing against any regulation, but any time the government goes in and tries to do social justice through regulation, it almost always ends badly.  That was a form of wealth redistribution that blew up massively in the face of us all. 

Anyways, if something seems too good to be true, it PROBABLY IS!  You can't just waive a magic wand of jealousy, and say, I want what they have, or they have too much, give it to me, and then also expect that anyone will be left with anything.  

Wealth is created by individuals persuing their own best interests.  Any time you put limitations on the pursuit, you get less wealth creation.  That's why they call things that are difficult and make it harder to succeed "taxing".  That's why the liberals want to put high taxes on oil.  They want less use of oil, so they acknowledge there that if they do that, they oil will be used less.  Same goes for the economy.  If you tax it, you will get less wealth creation and less economic growth.  So the trick is to find the balance.  We need goverment for many things.  Helping people who can't help themselves.  A social safety net that encourages people to WORK, not to retire or sit at home and do nothing.  When has the government taxed too much?  When unemployment is above 6%.  When economic growth is below 3%.  Those are good places to start.



Chark said:
There exists a diminishing return on the benefits one rich individual can have on society. 


NONSENSE!  Says who?  You?  Your liberal professors?  Nonsense.  That's a statement with nothing but wind behind it.  That's like me saying all butterflies are orange, because that's what I think.  Or all teachers are bad.

Bull!  Some rich people get to a point where adding money to their pool doesn't help anyone.  MOST rich people aren't idiots throwing their dollars under the mattress though!  Most rich people have almost ALL of their wealth invested in stocks or bonds (funding our ridiculous deficit).  How many rich people do you know that just sit on a big pile of cash under their mattress?  NONE do that.  Even if they have it sitting in a bank account, are you so clueless about economics that you think that the money is really sitting in the bank in a vault somewhere?  What does the bank do with the money they take in?  They loan it to MAROONS like you to buy things like houses, or to small businesses to finance the creation of new wealth.  If the rich guy invests it in stocks, as most do, then that money is being put to use by companies to create wealth and grow jobs.

The idea that the rich getting richer is bad for you is so incredibly stupid.  It's the drivel that comes out of leftist universities today, and it's the reason so many people are clueless about economics.  Wealth redistribution is the WORST way to manage a nation's wealth.  It flushes it down the toiled, subtracting from the wealth of ALL people.  Whereas a rich guy investing his money, or sitting on it in a bank, is benefiting the wealth CREATORS in our society.   

Aye carumba.  This is what we get for not teaching economics in schools.  We have a nation of economically retarded individuals.



Chark said:
There exists a diminishing return on the benefits one rich individual can have on society. While they are more apt and able to finance investments after a certain point money can just stagnate or worse be used for things harmful to society, whereas a ton of money could easily accomplish negative outcomes. This all depends on the person of course.

The "rich get richer" effect is about opportunity and by itself is not an issue but if opportunity is loss on the least of us tyranny is established, class systems, oppression. This concept in video games, well I suppose MMORPGs are a prime example. It is not bad there because everyone is along for the ride, able to progress on equal terms as everyone else without much or any negative effects if you screw up. The richer effect is good, poverty is bad.

Economically theories can point to unchecked wealth as having the greatest benefit but we are complex creatures and certainly do not always make the best decisions. This is why I support a progressive tax system. It allows people to become wealthy while ensuring an amount is giving to society. The trick is proper governmental spending. There might be some investment efficiency loss but if it creates better infrastructure to maintain opportunity for everyone it is better for society.

This is a good answer. Give the wealthy enough money and they'll inevitably spend it on something bad eventually, as no matter how finance-savvy and deserving one may be, if the risk is low enough (because they have enough money) they'll invest in everything, especially the stuff that is otherwise risky enough to merit avoidance but has high yields, but these bad investments breed toxicity.

A rising tide tends to float all boats, but responsibility needs to be insured.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

Is the poor getting poorer a problem? Yes.

Is the rich getting richer a problem? Sometimes. Certain rich individuals and companies donate to charity, while others (probably most?) do not.


Is balanced taxes the solution? Yes.

Well put!

The US Economy has been on a 30+ year slope where the poor are getting poorer and the rich getting richer.  And yes, it become a problem.  Sometimes it makes a problem that people don't realize, like the obvious crime, but others like health problems aren't so obvious.

Tuberculosis was almost wipe out in the States, but came back largely to AIDS and the homeless - now their are new resistant strains.  You wouldn't think that closing down a homeless shelter would cause the resurgence of a disease, but it did.

To put it in gamer terms, if people don’t have the money to buy high end consoles, then this neg generation will not be much of a step up from this one.

 



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer makes me feel very sad
sometimes i feel like we are somehow going back to absolutism