You are right. We need a complete reform in education.

Complete education reform needs to happen and it needs to start with the systematic dismantling of the teachers' union, combined with a pay redistribution away from administration and toward the people who actually teach our children.

Those two things would put us on the road to recovery more quickly than anything else. School administration receives FAR too much of a school's allotted money and the union prevents any real change from taking place.

That's... pretty much just how it works everywhere though.

The rich get richer because... well the rich are the ones who tend to create the most money.

If we were in a system where there was a set 100,000 dollars... the rich getting richer would be more bothersome...

However in a system where value is created, how do you avoid the rich getting richer?  Outside of economic collapse.

You basically... can't.  That's why the Gini coefficient is on the rise in nearly all countries.

If we could find a way we'd be all for it, but the traditional methods like super high taxation on the rich are going to lead to nothing but lower wealth for all... but more equal.

I'd rather have 2 videogames a month, and a rich guy buying 2 houses a month, rather then have 1 videogame a month, and a rich guy buying 1 house a year.

Actually, the Gini Coeefficent's growth was the slowest under Bush it's been since like... WW2.

Assuming you mean the most recent Bush.

That's one of the flawed things about their numbers.... which they know doubt already know and totally tried to avoid.

They said "No doubt the superrich gained ground on everyone else during the housing bubble."

When in reality the Gini coeffcient shrunk.  They basically took the best numbers for their to portray.  You'd have to think intentionally since they have no problems finding other data past 2007.

During good times Gini coefficents raise, bad times they shrink.

Conspiracy commie you've become. Put tin foil on your avatar.

Top 1% = 21% total weath

Top 10% = 53%.

Top 50% = 93%

You know what would be a good way to decrease the Gini-coefficent that sounds kinda crazy.

Allow the poor the ability to invest money with the government, who would then actually invest that money in stocks and bonds.

Unlike the US,Norway actually invests their versions of social security and medicaid rather then spending it and leaving an IOU in the form of bounds.

They make huge 10-20% gains, during the economic crisis they did actually.  Why?  Because a lot of poor people can invest like 1 rich person.

Which is really the real issue.

The rich  get richer because they can invest more, and they can ride investments out and take risks.

Isn't it even worse in Brazil with something like 9% owning something like 80% of the total wealth?

I've seen something like that.  10% at like 75 or so.

Yep, because commies are all for dismantling public unions, practicing fiscal responsibility, closing loopholes  or raising raxes for the super-rich so they pay a larger share of the tax burden, ALL WHILE lowering the overall size of government so the middle class (the backbone of a democracy) can thrive and so wealth flexibility for the average person goes back up. If you work hard and make millions, good for you. I'm not trying to take all you money, only trying to minimize your influence on government while taxing you in a fair and balanced manner. I'm not advocating a 65% tax like we had in the 50s, only saying that SOMETHING needs to be done to fix this increasingly important problem.

Oh wait, that sounds like a pretty balanced approach to government, actually. Both sides are full of shit here and it's high time the American public realized it. Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans when it comes to pandering to their respective lobbyists and self-serving interests, they just do a better job of hiding it.