Baalzamon said:
Well a major problem is that in general, economics is a bunch of bunk (in my opinion). Do people work incredibly hard to figure some of these things out? Sure they do. But there are only a few things in all of economics that a majority of economists believe the same thing in. Every other thing is subject to multiple niterpretations (i.e. it is simply what we believe to be the case, but in all reality, we actually have no clue which answer is correct). Don't get me wrong, I have my own personal feelings about economics and what I like and don't like, but I have had some very good discussions with my father on this very topic. Despite me liking certain ideas (i.e. lower government spending, etc.), that doesn't mean that lower government spending is actually the best thing for our economy. Just like I have nothing wrong with the income gap, but I can guarantee you I would be able to find a ton of economists that tell me it is a good thing while there are a ton that will tell me it is a bad thing. Now, despite me not having an issue with the income gap, I can think of multiple things on why it isn't the greatest. First off, it makes people incredibly angry. Rather than giving people the want to work harder so they can reach the point where they are rich, these super rich people might be to a point where it actually discourages such things. People in lower classes will simply think, "that will never be me." On the other hand, if we look at what rich people actually do with their money, then we need to realize that (in many cases) this money is being put where it will eventually be reinvested into the economy. Basically what I'm saying without continuing on forever, is that I don't know whether the income gap is a good thing or bad thing, but there is no definitive proof out there (economics is almost 100% theories) to say one way or another. People come into topics such as this and state things and say they are bad as if what they are saying is 100% fact. |
You'd actually be surprised.
Economics is a LOT more tightnit and soloperspective then politcs often make it out to be.
There are disenters, like in just about everything, however thise disenters are mostly in the realm of academia far removed from practical application.
It just gets made to look like more of an arguement because "The arguement should suffer because we think such and such is more fair despite it hurting the economy" is a harder sale then "this will help the economy, listen to this guy who's given up what he learned and wrote for so long for his beiefs." (Usually Krugman.)
This thread, and the debate on economis is pretty much the same as always. Would you rather everyone do better, with a few guys doing waaaaaay better then you.... or would you rather everyone do a little worse, but be more equal.
Me, i'd take option 1, even if i thought the guys doing "WAAAAAY" better don't deserve it. Most people however, would pick option 2, as you find in modern game theory.
For example, if you set up an expeirment were You give one guy $100 and he can decide how much he wants to give a second party. If he decides to give them say.... $30, that second party is extremly likely to "Blow it up" and create it so that NOBODY gets any money if given the option.
Outright injuring himself and the first person, just because he didn't get an equal amount. Such a thing is outright stupid in my opinion.... because well, your costing yourself 30 bucks you didn't have before, because some stranger is getting 70 .
30 bucks is still 30 bucks.
That's not even taking into account any number of factors he may of opted for taking a lions share. (Poor economic conditions, sick relatives, give to charity, who knows.)
