Published on Nov 20, 2012
Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is.
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealt...
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/...
References:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2...
http://danariely.com/2010/09/30/wealt...
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/...
Category
License
Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)
TD, I really hope you respond this time....why did you post this? Why should we send this to our congress person? What can they do about it that' wouldn't be unfair redistribution?
ReplyDelete"What can they do about it that' wouldn't be unfair redistribution?'
DeleteANY, READ IT AGAIN ANY, watch the video again... "redistribution" is unfair to everyone.
TD, I DID watch it and I had read Ariely's work on this well before seeing it. What I don't understand is why this is important to you or what it means to you. By even asking the question that Ariely did, "What do think the distribution SHOULD be?" isn't he already setting up a paradigm where we strive to set up distribution by some other means then pure market driven outcomes? Maybe you don't want to type up some lengthy dissertation, and I get that, but since you posted it, I want to know what it is that you see in it and what you want us to see in it and in turn, what you want our elected officials to see in it.
DeleteWhy is the question that needs to be asked.
ReplyDeleteI would say that "rewards" are too low after graft and taxes. To motivate people to take risks - start a business - there must be a reward great enough to outweigh the risks. The start up costs in addition to all the taxes including medical are too high for many to even think of doing so today.
Just start naming some of the businesses that you know of that have gone out of business over they years. How many of them were small ones started by a family. Also ask if many of the small and mid sized business today had it to do over again if they could even get off the ground today -- probably not.
Government has been an ominous presence in the world of business - at lest for the smaller guys.
I mean this to be serious response,
DeleteA flip side to your argument is that when there are no rules and few restrictions, companies can become gigantic and dominate the market whether they satisfy the customer or not. I never wanted to be a part of that shithouse bank, Bank of America, but they bought regional Chicago bank and they minute they did, the promptly took away many conveniences my local branch provided. Of course, I can switch banks. But that is besides the point. BOA, like Shittybank and several others, was allowed to become a giant by simply buying it's market share with cheap money that we the tax payer provided.
It is very easy to trace the damage that deregulation contributed to the bank meltdown. Of course, the stock and trade answer is to always say, "We should have let them fail" to which I say, "Why did we let them get that big?" how many small banks that served their communities were destroyed and replaced by some nationwide giant that didn't give a shit about local business let alone local depositors. Many businesses can't get off the ground today because they can't compete with some giant who has endless resources and access to levers of power to protect their turf.
When Walmart opens and five local businesses close and the money just flows back to Arkansas, is this a good thing? That, to me, is a piece of what Ariely is talking about. The current income distribution was not always set up the way it is now. We can disagree about why it has gotten that, but we can't disagree that a massive redistribution upward has occurred. The logical conclusion of most conservative ideas is that the current skewed distribution is okay and is a good thing.
No one said that there would not be any rules but 90% have to go. Do not allow monopolies and take the FEDERAL government out of 99%. One of our problems it that we have gotten too large for reason.
DeleteInvoking States Rights would prove much more beneficial in many matters...
90% of rules need to go, but we should not allow monopolies. I'm being respectful Angie, but this just does not make sense. When we repealed the rules that governed S&L's, they became gambling houses and blew up. When we repealed Glass/Steagall, a law by the way the was created after the big crash to separate banks and securities firms, and we had another blow up of even larger magnitude. There are even more examples, but the one quote I have to keep going back is from Greenspan who himself said, " I found a flaw in the model that I believed had been working flawlessly for 40 years"
DeleteWe can't have it both ways to say let's limit monopolies but not let the government have the power to do so. Converse to my point here, someone can always come along and say, "well the government put in THIS regulation, and I had to close my business." and then that one instance can be used to say that therefore, ALL regulation is stupid and intrusive and obstructive to the job creators. We are much closer to this extreme outlook today then we are to an outlook where the government should control everything. Small business owners have one set of rules, big businesses have another. Instead of limiting the control of big business, we are instead going the complete opposite way and pretending we will help small business by removing even more restrictions on big business. This is not congruous thinking.
OK, let the government take care of us.... take note, it is NOT working. Big government has crippled business and is about to destroy the richest country the world has ever known. That is OK I mean the world can live without the billions of money the US gives away, all the food the US gives away, all the medical assistance and supplies the US gives away. --- we have been able to be generous as a nation, as a people, as Christians BECAUSE of our wealth..... so now let's spread it around and play Robin Hood and destroy what ever is left.
DeleteYou got it! .. Done...
I appreciate that you responded. This last response sounds angry and it's a little bit besides the point. Much of that assistance you are talking about is done by our government for very political reasons and they do so with borrowed money. From about 1980 forward, we stopped paying our bills in real time. The wealth that we are allegedly sharing with the world is really just a debt burden on future generations. We aren't broke by any stretch of the imagination, but we've broken the machine that creates real wealth.
DeleteI don't want the big government you think I do.