Seattle
Valued Senior Member
I see headlines talking about widening economic inequality or the top 1 percent owning as much as the whatever percent.
It's a number and it's used as if it, in itself, means something. The point is always the rich have this much more than you do. Unless the subject is scapegoating, jealousy or envy, I'm not sure of the relevance of this kind of discussion?
If you compare the top developed countries and look at the middle class, the U.S. has little to complain about. If you look at the "poor" in the U.S. and compare it to the "poor" in those other countries you can either make the argument that they are doing just as well here pr maybe in some ways they might be better off marginally elsewhere?
Everything else is a distraction or an outcome of our economic system that has worked pretty well. If you want motivation and innovation you allow people who start companies that end up succeeding to keep much of their gains.
When you are expanding the pie, this comes at no one else's expense. It's not a zero sum game. A more logical question would be is our economy better off with Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc or not? Are our poorest citizens better off than our poorest citizens under some other type of economic organization?
If "we" are better off and if our poorest citizens are better off then the "rich" keeping much of what they earned/created is pretty much a moot point isn't it? It's not really about the rich either, it's about anyone who owns any investments.
When the title of an article is the top 1 percent gained 10 percent last year while the average person didn't improve their wealth at all it sounds as if the wealthy are doing something that they shouldn't be doing or that something unfair is going on.
In reality the wealthy are wealthy because of the stock they own and it went up 10 percent. If you buy stock then it went up the same amount. The increased wealth isn't even coming at the expense of the middle class or the poor. If coming because their companies are growing and people who buy stock are buying their stock and increasing its share price. That is taking nothing away from anyone else.
What do you think about "unfair" economic outcomes based on how much wealth one person has over another? Do you feel the same way about the local "successful" businessman with the big house at the top of the hill? Do you think the average person who is upset about how much the rich have really understands that it is just due to the share price of their company going up?
If anyone is thinking of confiscatory income rates being a good idea or a large wealth tax do you think they have really considered the long-term consequences?
Why are most of the largest and most innovative companies based in the U.S.? Why don't they spring up elsewhere? Are they a bad idea? If not, you (generic you) might want to think twice about taking someone else's gains because it won't be a reoccurring source forever and then you will just have a smaller economy. As they say, don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
A better idea might be to put a little money in the stock market so that when you read that the wealthy increased their assets last year, you will see that your assets went up the same amount....no more "inequality". In other words, build yourself up rather than tearing down the other guy.
It's a number and it's used as if it, in itself, means something. The point is always the rich have this much more than you do. Unless the subject is scapegoating, jealousy or envy, I'm not sure of the relevance of this kind of discussion?
If you compare the top developed countries and look at the middle class, the U.S. has little to complain about. If you look at the "poor" in the U.S. and compare it to the "poor" in those other countries you can either make the argument that they are doing just as well here pr maybe in some ways they might be better off marginally elsewhere?
Everything else is a distraction or an outcome of our economic system that has worked pretty well. If you want motivation and innovation you allow people who start companies that end up succeeding to keep much of their gains.
When you are expanding the pie, this comes at no one else's expense. It's not a zero sum game. A more logical question would be is our economy better off with Tesla, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, etc or not? Are our poorest citizens better off than our poorest citizens under some other type of economic organization?
If "we" are better off and if our poorest citizens are better off then the "rich" keeping much of what they earned/created is pretty much a moot point isn't it? It's not really about the rich either, it's about anyone who owns any investments.
When the title of an article is the top 1 percent gained 10 percent last year while the average person didn't improve their wealth at all it sounds as if the wealthy are doing something that they shouldn't be doing or that something unfair is going on.
In reality the wealthy are wealthy because of the stock they own and it went up 10 percent. If you buy stock then it went up the same amount. The increased wealth isn't even coming at the expense of the middle class or the poor. If coming because their companies are growing and people who buy stock are buying their stock and increasing its share price. That is taking nothing away from anyone else.
What do you think about "unfair" economic outcomes based on how much wealth one person has over another? Do you feel the same way about the local "successful" businessman with the big house at the top of the hill? Do you think the average person who is upset about how much the rich have really understands that it is just due to the share price of their company going up?
If anyone is thinking of confiscatory income rates being a good idea or a large wealth tax do you think they have really considered the long-term consequences?
Why are most of the largest and most innovative companies based in the U.S.? Why don't they spring up elsewhere? Are they a bad idea? If not, you (generic you) might want to think twice about taking someone else's gains because it won't be a reoccurring source forever and then you will just have a smaller economy. As they say, don't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
A better idea might be to put a little money in the stock market so that when you read that the wealthy increased their assets last year, you will see that your assets went up the same amount....no more "inequality". In other words, build yourself up rather than tearing down the other guy.
Last edited: