Originally posted by joecct
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View PostPretty obvious why you picked them, though I would say the inequality is even worse today, given the record number of people on food stamps and at/below the poverty line.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by Kepler View PostMy guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by Kepler View PostMy guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.
http://inequality.org/wealth-inequality/
If you consider that the US as a percent of world wealth probably maxed between WWI (prior Europe) and 1980 (after emerging markets), then that would make 1929 the worst wealth disparity post antiquity in the history.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by Kepler View PostMy guess is 1893, 1929, and 2006. I leave it as an exercise for the reader why I picked those three dates.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View PostI'm actually curious, since 1850, when was wealth equality the absolute worst? Not sure how to define that, but I'm guessing it was the Gilded Age. Wiki estimates the top 1% had 51% of the property though the top 10% had 75% of the wealth (which is no different than today apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States)
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by joecct View PostGo back to 1900
Morgan
Carnegie
Rockefeller
Rothschild
Rhodes?
Krupp??
Not much has changed except the names.
Vanderbilt, Ford, Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller. I'm guessing those five had as much as the bottom 50% at one time.
ETA: http://www.businessinsider.com/riche...s-ever-2011-4#
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orical_figures
Interesting.
I'm actually curious, since 1850, when was wealth equality the absolute worst? Not sure how to define that, but I'm guessing it was the Gilded Age. Wiki estimates the top 1% had 51% of the property though the top 10% had 75% of the wealth (which is no different than today apparently https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth..._United_States)
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by 5mn_Major View PostScoobs headline of the day:
8 people have as much wealth as half the world
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...port/96545438/
Morgan
Carnegie
Rockefeller
Rothschild
Rhodes?
Krupp??
Not much has changed except the names.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Scoobs headline of the day:
8 people have as much wealth as half the world
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/w...port/96545438/
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by unofan View PostI doubt it. We still don't have universal health care, mandatory paid parental leave, or even mandatory paid sick leave. And you think we'll be shamed into a UBI?
We can learn a lot from the Morlocks when it comes to reaching people. This is a fantastic guide to how to effectively fight for a sincerely leftist agenda, and it is overtly inspired by the Tea Party boobocracy. I hope every Democrat in the country reads it and acts on it.
"The people united can never be defeated" is bullsh-t. We have been defeated going on 60 years as the rest of the world surpassed us first in rights then in quality of life. You can't just fight hard to win, you have to fight smart, especially when confronted by the soft fascism of the monetization of politics in America. Scoob seems to think that only its replacement by the hard fascism growing on the right can shock Americans into reclaiming our country. I don't believe that is so. People will vote their interests, but until we can criminalize the bribery that makes our government the personal property of the 1%, we need to overwhelm the political class with the dire threat of unemployment if they do not follow our will.Last edited by Kepler; 01-12-2017, 03:50 PM.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by FreshFish View Postum, I thought the law required emergency rooms to provide treatment to everyone who needs it? That sounds like universal health care, and while we might complain that it is "substandard," I'd bet 75% of the world's population would be delighted to have it. Health care and health insurance are two very different things, and it sounds like you are confusing the two.
We already have one in disguised form, do we not? I thought anyone who couldn't afford food qualified for SNAP, anyone who couldn't afford health insurance had Medicaid, etc. Isn't the more important question not whether we have it, but how to make it work better than what we have now? I'd very much prefer that, out of a fixed budget, substantially more value be delivered to recipients by improving delivery services and reducing administrative overhead. Analogous to school systems these days having more administrators than teachers; what sense does that make?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Completely Unwoven: Business, Economics, and Tax Policy 4.0
Originally posted by unofun View PostWe still don't have universal health care
Originally posted by unofun View PostAnd you think we'll be shamed into a UBI?
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Kepler View PostInteresting. While the profile of this grows, and the experiments return results and build a best practices toolkit, it's going to get harder for the knucks to keep this idea out of the US media.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: