Gap between rich and poor rising faster in Canada

[bush_cheney2004]

To those who defend the system that allows a free ride to the richEST I would ask ...

- What solutions to the present situation would you propose?

- If the system as it is is so great, why do we need solutions to the current situation?

I would start with a data domain that applies to Canada, not the United States. If you think any solution is dependent on what happens in another nation, the "situation" is out of your control already.

Abandon any notion of a zero sum gain when it comes to income and wealth distribution. The poor in North America have a standard of living that is higher than 70% of the world's population...who here will extend their economic religion to the other billions not able to protest on Wall Street with iPhones that they manufactured?

[Pliny]

To those who defend the system that allows a free ride to the richEST I would ask ...

- What solutions to the present situation would you propose?

A smaller political system that replaces the existing system of crony capitalism, where politicians determine winners and losers, for real capitalism that fosters the sanctity of person and property instead of government's belief in their first right to everyone's property.

- If the system as it is is so great, why do we need solutions to the current situation?

It isn't great. It perpetuates, through the granting of pittances and the promise of greater entitlement for nothing, griping, whining, stomping of feet, voting for favours and pointing fingers at the golden goose who you feel is responsible for the limit on your entitlement to it's production.

What kind of society is it that uses force to be charitable and compassionate? If it is government's mandate to deliver charity and compassion through taxation, what is society's responsiblity to itself and its individual contributors? What society would pass the responsiblity for the welfare of it's most vulnerable to it's government, allowing itself the ability to justify self-righteously washing it's hands of it? The answer is, a social democracy that transfers caring and compassion to an agency of brute force that under economic duress has no compunction concerning who will prevail.

[Pliny]

Every state throughout history has redistributed wealth. Even the Roman government gave out free bread to the people of the city of Rome, because when they didn't they got riots. That's a sort of primitive social services system, and very much cost the Roman treasury, and ultimately wealthier Romans. But the alternative was much more expensive.

In it's dying and decadent days the State did pass out bread but not at the apex of the Empire's influence.

Oh give me a break. When most of the world was still on the gold, or at least precious metal standard, there were wide gaps between rich and poor. Please stop trotting out Ron Paul's junk economics and junk history. Medieval Europe didn't have our monetary system, and yet the gaps between the rich and poor were wide indeed.

And the complaint is a widening gap under the current system. Should we regress.

The single problem with class struggles occurs when they are institutionally defined and not accessible.

A funadamental principle of democracy holds that all may rise to higher standards of living for themselves through their initiative. There is no intitiative to do so if your concept of private property is threatened by confiscation and the sanctity of person and property are not held inviolable.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

In it's dying and decadent days the State did pass out bread but not at the apex of the Empire's influence.

Wikipediatells me that

A fourth law, the Lex Clodia Frumentaria required the distribution of grain to Rome's poor citizens for free. Before this law, grain had been distributed to Rome's poor at a low price instead.[6][7] This was somewhat radical, as during the first centuries of the republic, as per the Valerian and Porcian laws, several citizens had been executed for distributing free grain to the poor, under the concern that they were plotting to win popular support in order to overthrow the government and seize a tyranny.

This happened in 58 BC.

[bush_cheney2004]

This happened in 58 BC.

..and it happens today as well. It's just that "free grain", isn't enough anymore...now they want health care, wide screen televisions, and internet access.

[cybercoma]

Only an idiot would compare health care to a "wide-screen television" and "internet access".

[Bonam]

Only an idiot would compare health care to a "wide-screen television" and "internet access".

Putting things in a list together isn't a "comparison".

[bush_cheney2004]

Only an idiot would compare health care to a "wide-screen television" and "internet access".

No, only an idiot would demand these things for the poor because the rich have them.

[ToadBrother]

In it's dying and decadent days the State did pass out bread but not at the apex of the Empire's influence.

What are you talking about? At its height, Rome had some three million people, a fair portion of which did not in fact have anything approaching a steady income. I think you need to actually read some history, instead of just making it up to satisfy your ideological positions.

And the complaint is a widening gap under the current system. Should we regress.

The single problem with class struggles occurs when they are institutionally defined and not accessible.

A funadamental principle of democracy holds that all may rise to higher standards of living for themselves through their initiative. There is no intitiative to do so if your concept of private property is threatened by confiscation and the sanctity of person and property are not held inviolable.

Ah yes, the classic Libertarian maxim "You're free..." to starve.

[ToadBrother]

No, only an idiot would demand these things for the poor because the rich have them.

That depends on the things, doesn't it? Why shouldn't any class in society expect that society to help them? After all, humans, with a few exceptions, are not sociopaths.

[Michael Hardner]

..and it happens today as well. It's just that "free grain", isn't enough anymore...now they want health care, wide screen televisions, and internet access.

Yes... this is why we have the term "basic" cable - it's the minimum one can expect to have in our society and still be entertained. A small price for the government to pay, don't you think, to keep potential criminals off the streets ?

[maple_leafs182]

Every state throughout history has redistributed wealth. Even the Roman government gave out free bread to the people of the city of Rome, because when they didn't they got riots. That's a sort of primitive social services system, and very much cost the Roman treasury, and ultimately wealthier Romans. But the alternative was much more expensive.

What happened to the Roman Empire?

Oh give me a break. When most of the world was still on the gold, or at least precious metal standard, there were wide gaps between rich and poor. Please stop trotting out Ron Paul's junk economics and junk history. Medieval Europe didn't have our monetary system, and yet the gaps between the rich and poor were wide indeed.

Medieval Europe was full of Authoritarian dictatorships, they didn't live in a free society, free society is a relatively new concept.

When central banks print money it devalues the currency, that isn't junk economics that is common knowledge. Where do you think the value of the dollars that went to bail out all the banks, corporations and other governments came from...they steal the value of the other dollars in existence. Who gets hurt the most when prices rise, the middle and lower classes. The rich benefit from rising prices because it leads to higher profit margins for the corporations they own. It isn't junk economics understanding the monetary system.

Why don't you look at America in the 1800's when they were under a gold standard and free from the clutches of a central bank, that is when America was the most prosperous.

I am not claiming that a gold standard leads to equality but it prevents people wealth from being stolen threw inflation.

[Shady]

Yes... this is why we have the term "basic" cable - it's the minimum one can expect to have in our society and still be entertained.

No, that's not what basic cable means. Basic cable refers to the minimum number of channels one can purchase via a cable subscription.

A small price for the government to pay, don't you think, to keep potential criminals off the streets ?

Now you're advocating the government pays for basic cable? /facepalm

[Rocky Road]

The stories of people who are either wealthy or hard-done-by all have merit.

I like to think that philanthropy has its place, and there are people that help

to alleviate poverty, but unfortunately I think the odds are just stacked against us.

Firstly, there is not enough to go around, globally speaking. We are living way beyond our means, and the North American luxuries we all dream about are vastly out of step with a natural economy that is

able to sustain itself.

[ToadBrother]

What happened to the Roman Empire?

In the end, it faltered on the sheer costs of basically being a pure military power. It certainly had nothing to do with "bread and circuses".

Medieval Europe was full of Authoritarian dictatorships, they didn't live in a free society, free society is a relatively new concept.

When central banks print money it devalues the currency, that isn't junk economics that is common knowledge. Where do you think the value of the dollars that went to bail out all the banks, corporations and other governments came from...they steal the value of the other dollars in existence. Who gets hurt the most when prices rise, the middle and lower classes. The rich benefit from rising prices because it leads to higher profit margins for the corporations they own. It isn't junk economics understanding the monetary system.

Why don't you look at America in the 1800's when they were under a gold standard and free from the clutches of a central bank, that is when America was the most prosperous.

I am not claiming that a gold standard leads to equality but it prevents people wealth from being stolen threw inflation.

The gold standard did not prevent infamous events like the South Sea Bubble or the Great Depression. The economy isn't simply built on printing money, but rather on monetary systems that reflect economic activity, as opposed to how much gold and other precious metals you've got stored away.

In fact, precious metals are vulnerable to deflation. My favorite example was the vast expenditures of silver coinage by China in the 17th and 18th century, so much that it actually deflated the value of silver on a global scale.

Look, you're not going to convince me simply by repeating Ron Paul's idiocies. He's not an economist, his knowledge of history is utterly out to lunch.

[Pliny]

What are you talking about? At its height, Rome had some three million people, a fair portion of which did not in fact have anything approaching a steady income. I think you need to actually read some history, instead of just making it up to satisfy your ideological positions.

The Bread and circuses didn't start in earnest until the Empire was already in decline as is ours.

It took four centuries for it to debase it's currency, we only took 70 years to reach a similar point.

but it really got bad when they enacted price controls on grain. It was the end.

Ah yes, the classic Libertarian maxim "You're free..." to starve.

Rather, you are free to be as compassionate and charitable as you choose. I have an idea you believe compassion and charity only happen at the point of a gun.

[ToadBrother]

The Bread and circuses didn't start in earnest until the Empire was already in decline as is ours.

It took four centuries for it to debase it's currency, we only took 70 years to reach a similar point.

but it really got bad when they enacted price controls on grain. It was the end.

Where do you get this crap? Bread and circuses even predate the Empire itself, and date back to the Republic. Debasing the coinage didn't really become a huge problem until the end the 2nd century, so it's not like Rome was in a four or five hundred decline. And that debasement was because Roman militarism was becoming increasingly untenable, and Emperors sought ways to pay their soldiers and the barbarian conscripts and volunteers that were swelling the army.

I'll repeat, Rome didn't fall because bread was given out, that had been done long before Rome began to falter. It failed because its economy simply could not afford the military infrastructure.

Rather, you are free to be as compassionate and charitable as you choose. I have an idea you believe compassion and charity only happen at the point of a gun.

Yes, your free to use the larger society's good will and philosophies to gain wealth, and want the freedom to withhold said wealth at your whim.

Taxes have been a part of civilization from the beginning. Pay your taxes and quit grumbling. You could live in a society where wealth is only accrued by those holding guns.

In Medieval times, the Church was largely responsible for social services, such as they were, and the kings and princes of Europe gave the Church land and incomes to accomplish that. In other words, in a backwards way, even in Medieval times, there was recognition that the common man needed help. But states back then were not large or complex enough to directly handle that kind of activity. Of course, you'll find, at least in England (which I know the most about) that by the end of the Tudor era there were already poor laws on the books, because the feudal economic system had pretty much broken down at that point and the English church had essentially become an organ of hte state.

Edited October 1, 2011 by ToadBrother

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes... this is why we have the term "basic" cable - it's the minimum one can expect to have in our society and still be entertained. A small price for the government to pay, don't you think, to keep potential criminals off the streets ?

It may very well be, but even that policy fails when you consider that SubSaharan Africans (and some First Nations) can't even get enough potable water. That's the problem with this class warfare charade....the well enough off (here) are bitching about the very, very well off but wouldn't dare expand the discussion to the scale and enormity of the "issue" globally, lest they lose what advantage they already have.

Is it OK to be a little greedy, but not a lot greedy?

[blueblood]

But they're not directly injecting large amounts of cash into the system, which is so often the claim for cutting wealth and corporate taxes. What you're basically advocating is a sort of trickle down economics. Cash hoarding at best only causes a small plus, and not the major one that is so often claimed.

Let me ask you, do you think having a large rich-poor gap is a good thing? Do you think having two groups increasingly isolated is a positive aspect of modern industrialized society? I mean, we don't even have the notion of noblesse oblige, we have the extremely wealthy and large corporations basically using your voodoo economics to basically lift themselves above and beyond the very societies that make their existence possible.

I think a common mistake is that a lot of people are focused on the short term. Right now just about everyone is either sitting on cash or trying to pay down debt. That's what the market is telling people to do. It for companies to burn through money on projects where there isn't a demand for them. The process is painful and it takes time, but in the developed world there needs to be savings so in the future there is sound money in the economy and not people burning through credit to buy apple products. Ideally with the increased savings that should bring down rates over time, but there has been bad policy of cheap money which has led to overconsumption and defaulting when the bills are due. The cheap money also leads to higher prices because of so much money in the economy. The mess of what went on in the prairies during the grain boom of the seventies almost took 30 years to correct itself.

The income gap to a rational person should serve as motivation for working hard and making good decisions. Ideally the more people that do so close the gap a little bit, which in turn makes everyone richer. I think there will always be a gap, the question I have is, how bad is it really at the bottom of the gap relative to other places in the world? My favorite example is of the vietnamese boat people. Within 10 years of coming to canada with nothing and no language or skills, within 10 years their unemployment rate was 2.3 percent lower than the canadian average, 1 in 5 had a business and they were less likely to get some form of social assistance. I believe the problem of easy money widens the gap because it enables people to make bad decisions because the money is coming anyway. Ideally in a recession prices should also fall making them more affordable. The ultimate irony is that the folks in DC who pushed for an affordable housing policy have gotten their wish. Those corporations have improved the lives of ordinary people simply by existing. For the first time I can watch streaming video out in the country on a very simple and very affordable tablet computer off the cell phone network.

Edited October 1, 2011 by blueblood

[bush_cheney2004]

...Why don't you look at America in the 1800's when they were under a gold standard and free from the clutches of a central bank, that is when America was the most prosperous.

This is patently false....you are an expert on America prosperity? Give me a break....

[ToadBrother]

It may very well be, but even that policy fails when you consider that SubSaharan Africans (and some First Nations) can't even get enough potable water. That's the problem with this class warfare charade....the well enough off (here) are bitching about the very, very well off but wouldn't dare expand the discussion to the scale and enormity of the "issue" globally, lest they lose what advantage they already have.

Is it OK to be a little greedy, but not a lot greedy?

You can be as greedy as you want, as long as you recognize that the wider society makes the fulfillment of that greed possible, and you basically owe a debt, as every man, woman and child since the dawn of time has owed to his or her society since long before there were human societies.

[Bonam]

I'll repeat, Rome didn't fall because bread was given out, that had been done long before Rome began to falter. It failed because its economy simply could not afford the military infrastructure.

Er... that's hardly an accurate summation of the many contributing factors to Rome's decline and fall. In fact, this matter has been debated endlessly by historians, with no agreement ever reached.

[bush_cheney2004]

You can be as greedy as you want, as long as you recognize that the wider society makes the fulfillment of that greed possible, and you basically owe a debt, as every man, woman and child since the dawn of time has owed to his or her society since long before there were human societies.

What debt? To whom or what? Are you seriously suggesting that there is an intrinsic anthropologic debt going back to the "dawn of time"? Is this perhaps your religion instead of an economic discussion?

[Bonam]

It may very well be, but even that policy fails when you consider that SubSaharan Africans (and some First Nations) can't even get enough potable water. That's the problem with this class warfare charade....the well enough off (here) are bitching about the very, very well off but wouldn't dare expand the discussion to the scale and enormity of the "issue" globally, lest they lose what advantage they already have.

Is it OK to be a little greedy, but not a lot greedy?

Indeed, if we look at it on a global scale, almost everyone living in Canada and the US would be classified as "ultra-rich". By jacee's policies, we'd all then have all our wealth confiscated and be forced to labor in "chain gangs".

[Bonam]

The ultimate irony is that the folks in DC who pushed for an affordable housing policy have gotten their wish.

An excellent point. Their foresight should be lauded