By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
bannedagain on 25 May 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:

An interesting thing about Walmart is that is adopted a strategy of the lowest costs irregardless of everything else.  Sam Walton, when he was around, had low prices factored in with everything else.  Now Walmart decides to do low costs as its only factor.  Usually what happens in retail is that businesses start out on the low end and work their way up the food chain.  

I think the default to "let the government do it" comes from the government ending up is the solver of last resort, trying to manage the collective wishes of the public, because politicians get elected by getting votes.  End result, because of the relative insignificance of one person on all levels, is the problems end up in a collective pool, away from everyone.  You get more and more negative externalities built up, that no one can pinpoint anywhere.  It ends up systemic, and everyone seems powerless.  They expect that the government will make fair rules and enforce.  The thing is that the money on top lobbies to tip it in their favor.

A way to connect what I shared with the original post is that income inequality comes about from systemic issues that no one person is responsible for.  Yes, income goes up, but the system, as a byproduct of what happens in a country, results in the top knowing how the system works and also tweaking it in their favor.  The guy on the bottom gets subject to the whims of the fallout of globalization and ends on the short end of the stick.  And things get more and more out of hand.  Of course, in this, a few bucks will be thrown in by the powers that be to end up making people think it is fair, or chase after this rabbit or that, with issues that have some impact (like illegal immigration) ending up getting blown WAY out of proportions to distract.

I believe exploiting moral outrage is how politicians get elected, but they don't want to do anything about it really, just get reelected.

Rubio's comment here on immigration actually goes into how the game seems to work:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/05/24/lopez-marco-rubio-immigration.cnn

If that is true, but what you see on the GOP side is railing against abortion and gay marriage.  Idea isn't to affect change but "feel their pain".  I doubt the GOP really wants to get rid of abortion, because it gets votes.


I don't see Republicans as that smart.   I think they would get rid of abortion if they could.  I think the Democrats work that game on social issues, while the republicans do on economic issues.  Afterall republcians seem to only push abortion measures when they know they can win.  Democrats only push gay rights or women's rights issues when they know they will lose. (Or republicans will beat them to the punch in overturning a law.)

Democrats will however go along with dumb economic plans that are an issue (see healthcare "reform") and republicans will change the social issues.  (See all the ways they go out of there way to make abortion harder.)

Well some economic issues i should say.

Also, i'd disagree that income inequality is caused by the top knowing how the economy works and tweaking it to it's favor.  Actually, the group of people know as "The top" is VERY dynamic.  People make great forutnes and lose great fortunes.

 

What causes income inequality is simpler then that.  Expendable income.   The more money you have that you don't need, the more that can be invested in risky but likely to pay off ventures that are likely to pay off big.

 

Your average investor is saving up for their retirement so they invest in safe bets, something that's 85-90% to succeed and pay a sigle digit % per year.

 

Someone with expendable income?  They can bet on something with 40-70% to succeed but he chance to pay 20% or more.  If they lose, it was just expendable money anyway.  The error is that society only focuses on those who succeed and sees it as unfair... not focusing on those who fail.

Said group gets bigger and gets a "bigger share of the pie" because they're the ones who invested in the programs that created the extra wealth.   Not really a way to change that.  Not really sure such a thing should be changed.  Investors and those who ran the buisness naturally should be the ones to profit for creating the wealth.


Seems funny any proof someone throughs out, you make up non factual nonsense. Dude it's very clear your right wing. You don't have to agree with every single thing conservatives do but you do, over and over. I can say dude there going to kill someone for crackers and you would say, will in europe crackers caused aids, so that seems to be fine with me, O' wait a min, it's the  Dem said that. I mean the europeans are socialist arse's. C'mon brO! !!  It's clear you are biased.  you just breezed through acting if banks and wall st. had nothing to do with it. WOW!!!!!!!!! You know Citi Group the ones that got billions. I will reframe from banging my head against a wall. glass steagal had everything to do with it and on top of that, saying clinton doesn't make me feel any better. I don't praise a side as you do. I see the truth. I have studied the crash of 1929 and it was low tax's and banks that crashed us. Unregulated banks. Say it with me. The banks crashed us. GOOD!!!!!  Everyone is progressive/conservative/liberal etc, just depends on what. Stop seeing so black and white." Op! started banging my head."

 

SO why did we need to compete with erurope when we where are the top of the world when clinton was in office. Oh yea clinton is a corporatist and the money was to good. It was predicted ten years time on the house floor that we where going to crash from removing glass steagal, DURING THE REPEAL. thank god most republicans are old, not long until there gone. lol