Log Out
Visit sushicat's column >>

SUSHICAT

Just Curious
Articles Posted: 2  Links Seeded: 77
Member Since: 2/2008  Last Seen: 1/31/2012

Economics of Contempt : Thoughts on, inter alia, economics, law, and politics

Seeded on Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:59 AM EST
Read Article
, , , , , , , , , , ,
Seeded by sushicat
advertisement

Only because I don't like having someone tell me I can not post a reply to an article that I have just read, I looked for another article - same topic, same book.
Here, anyone that wants to leave a comment can.

"Bartels' argument was much more convincing than I expected. For my money, the most convincing piece of evidence was the fact that almost the entire difference in income growth under Democratic vs. Republican presidents occurs during the second year of each administration (the year you would expect a president's policies to start having an effect)."

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

sushicat

I was looking for a way to reply to an article that I have just read earlier. The only problem that it was monitored by a group, which is their right, but not being a member I could not reply to the seed. The seed being about the issue of the gap between the poor and wealthy. So...

This article discusses the interesting relationship of those in the White house. Basically, under Democratic rule, the income gap narrows, the low-income make better income gains. Under the Republican rule, the income gap widens, the wealthy get richer while the rest of us get poorer.

Who knew ?

Time to get out and buy the book.

  • 3 votes
Reply#1 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 10:13 AM EST
worldcurmudgeon

This gap is a well known in my age group, that is because we saw this pattern in the sixties, when both sides were in office. Only when Ford was president did the Republicans look more like Democrats.

The group has protection from any remarks either positive or negative on their postings, it is in the rules. So, OK, however we don't have to agree to this. I think responses to articles should be open to all, within this group venue. This is a discussion site, you post it, you can discuss it.

  • 1 vote
#1.1 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:45 PM EST
sushicat

worldcurmudgeon,

Yes, I just want people to be civil here, but yes post your remarks. I was just surprised to see this article posted, but the conversation was limited to "only members" and I had to be "approved" before I could post a remark.

So there are lots of interesting comments still waited to be expressed I'm sure. Just don't get nasty, I enjoy the intelligent civil conversations here on the vine.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:09 AM EST
Reply
ftmackinc

great find sushicat... I will leave it to the big brains around here to argue its fine points.

now what will the conservative apologists have to say on this one, facts are so messy ain't they now!

  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:32 AM EST
Eric AlbertDeleted
seastar

Capitalism only works if the relationship between productivity and reward is kept in check, either through competition (preferably) or regulation (when necessary). The problem with US capitalism has been its forceful opposition to regulation. There is nothing wrong with the accumulation of wealth so long as it is directly tied to personal contribution rather than self-aggrandisement. Much of America's wealth in recent years has been squandered on status symbols (multiple and excessively large homes, jets purchased for personal rather than corporate benefit and other such forms of contemptuous consumption), when it could have been far more productively invested. Of course, the worst offenders tend to be the most outspoken defenders of the free enterprise system and we let them get away with their hypocrisy. Their latest trick is to brand any criticism of the current system as "socialism".

  • 1 vote
Reply#4 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:25 PM EST
JoulesBeef

true but also part of the problem is the low rate of the upper tax bracket.. which is designed to slow the spped of accumulation of wealth do to the ability of money to make money.

Say you hve 100k disposable.. and put it all in the bank(lost of investors are cash rich these days..scared of leaving it invested)

You oviously goign to make less interst per year than someone with 10 mill in the bank. this money is sittign there, not producing, not hiring employees and yet accruing welath casue the banks use it for investing/

Higher upper brackets used to limit the speed of wealth accumulation at the top due to theri ability to use their wealth to make more.

and yes accumulation fo rgeat wealth can be bad.. no only in undo political iinflunce. but say an economys holds $100 gdp and the rich top 2% accumulate 90% of that.. that leave $10 left over to split ammoung the 98% in wages and services. this leads to two drammatically different standards of living.

One funded by wealth and one by labor.

    #4.1 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:54 PM EST
    sushicat

    Jolues, seastar,

    Capitalism produces that inequality, that you are referring to and if all goes well the wealthy in the past) has generated more income by producing more jobs. Except for what ever happened in the last decade. Wealthy were hoarding the money, jobs going over seas, nothing was being created here for Americans.

    So why do we keep giving them tax brackets?

      #4.2 - Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:17 AM EST
      seastar

      Joules/sushicat-- It's not so much the tax brackets at the top, it's the loopholes available at the top. We should be carefful to not discourage productive investments (bonds, equities) because they provide the fuel for the economy.

        #4.3 - Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:37 AM EST
        sushicat

        Seastar, if the loopholes are not creating more jobs and they are just hoarding the money then why should we continue with the tax brackets?

        Just ordered the book should be in this week. I'm looking forward to his view on all this.

        I

          #4.4 - Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:18 AM EST
          Reply
          sushicat

          Hi ftmackine and Eric, glad to see you both..... well it will be left to history. But from Barlets book it is interesting to see the income gap grow away from the middle classes.

          Think, this is why the rush/beck/coulter crew are so upset with Obama? They are being kept from their millions?

          • 2 votes
          Reply#5 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:29 PM EST
          sushicat

          I agree seastar, it has to do with ethics- something not thought of today. There is a saying "one mans rights ends when it fringes in another mans rights." A true value that has been lost today.

          Capitalism works, but the people involved also need to be moralistic, ethical in their dealings, just so we don't have the mass greed we are seeing today.

            Reply#6 - Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:13 PM EST
            sushicat

            I just want to post my reply to the new group "Free Market", forget it, I DO NOT WANT TOO BE A MEMBER OF YOUR GROUP!

            Being a "closed" group is not what I want to be a member of.

              Reply#7 - Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:24 AM EST
              Leave a Comment:
              You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
              Newsvine Privacy Statement
              As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.