SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Today the trend to greater equality of incomes which characterised the postwar period has been reversed. Inequality is now rising rapidly. Contrary to the rising-tide hypothesis, the rising tide has only lifted the large yachts, and many of the smaller boats have been left dashed on the rocks. This is partly because the extraordinary growth in top incomes has coincided with an economic slowdown.
The trickle-down notion— along with its theoretical justification, marginal productivity theory— needs urgent rethinking. That theory attempts both to explain inequality— why it occurs— and to justify it— why it would be beneficial for the economy as a whole. This essay looks critically at both claims. It argues in favour of alternative explanations of inequality, with particular reference to the theory of rent-seeking and to the influence of institutional and political factors, which have shaped labour markets and patterns of remuneration. And it shows that, far from being either necessary or good for economic growth, excessive inequality tends to lead to weaker economic performance. In light of this, it argues for a range of policies that would increase both equity and economic well-being.
Five minutes to midnight, marginal productivity theory "needs urgent rethinking."
[Wikipedia: Joseph Eugene Stiglitz is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and the John Bates Clark Medal. He is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank and is a former member and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. --Ed.]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @02:25PM (8 children)
Camp A (the haves): The economy is fine because I have money. Lower my taxes. Fuck you, got mine!
Camp B (the have nots): The recession never ended. Where's my opportunity? Raise taxes and give me a New Deal.
Camp C (the bums): SOCIALISM NOW! GIMME BASIC INCOME! PAY ME NOT TO WORK!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @04:04PM (3 children)
PAY ME NOT TO WORK!
We pay farmers not the grow, so, why not? The rich don't have to work, why should we have to? There's plenty for everybody to live like kings. It's time to spread it around a bit. If you can't wipe your own ass, build a machine instead of using a slave.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @05:56PM (2 children)
Paying farmers not to grow - not quite how it works.
More to the point, we're sponsoring fallow land practices as an alternative to constantly driving every field as hard as we can, both for reasons of combating overproduction in response to incentives, and for reasons of conservation.
For myself, I'd drop the incentives as well as the counterincentives, but Big Ag doesn't agree.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @08:08PM
yeah we got it, your stance is only camp A can live without working
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 30 2017, @04:27AM
On average, the free market will produce the correct amount of food.
That doesn't provide a safety margin for years with bad harvests. For safety, we need extra land ready-to-farm and extra land in production.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @04:36PM (3 children)
Non-productive, rent seeking parasites: The economy is fine, more H1B's and cut my taxes!
Productive middle and working class: We're producing all the wealth and paying through the nose for everything!
Welfare parasites: Socialism now, tax the rich! -- sent from my iPhone
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @10:32PM (2 children)
Here's Socialism:
The collective ownership of the means of production by The Workers.
(Notice that that is an OWNERSHIP thing; it doesn't need to involve government.)
Socialism now, tax the rich
What you are describing is Liberal Democracy (combined with the concentrated wealth of Capitalist Oligarchs).
While the billionaires' tax, [aquilafunds.com] "worked" from FDR up till Reagan, giving USA a significant level of stability, Socialists would prefer a different thing:
In contrast to inequality and redistribution, when everyone has a good job instead, working for himself, without a separate idle Ownership Class skimming off most of the profits, welfare/charity/handouts aren't necessary.
The gov't could stop subsidizing Capitalists--or at least stop subsidizing -only- Capitalists.
Italy has been seeding non-Capitalist businesses since 1985. [google.com]
(That's working very well in northern Italy.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @10:49PM (1 child)
No shit Sherlock, perhaps you missed the conspicuous iphone reference?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 29 2017, @11:45PM
I note that you didn't specify whether the iPhone was second-hand or third-hand.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]