Michael Hardner Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 I would say it's the inability to reverse inequality and reverse the trend of business and wealth commandeering government for their own interests: A NEW paper by Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics suggests that, in America at least, inequality in wealth is approaching record levels.[/size] http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2014/11/daily-chart-2?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fsomearemoreequalthanothers Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Big Guy Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) I believe his biggest failure was to fail to live up to the great expectations that his supporters had expected. That may or may not be his fault or maybe just the nature of the current lack of cooperation between the Democrats and Republicans. I question just how much power a president in the USA has to make change. With the economy influenced by so many global forces I wonder how effective any one leader can be. Is this inequality of wealth an American phenomena or a global one? I am not sure what the president of the USA with the makeup of the Congress and Senate could have done to effect that inequality. I would like to see a few ideas. Edited November 10, 2014 by Big Guy Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 Income inequality is a myth, as it presumes that income equality ever existed or was a goal in America or anywhere else. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
cybercoma Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 That graphic shows perfectly why baby boomers are so out of touch with what millenials are experiencing in the workforce today. All of those people with their "when I was younger...." advice need to realize that the economy is entirely different from the 60s and 70s when they were entering the workforce. Quote
eyeball Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 Income inequality is a myth, as it presumes that income equality ever existed or was a goal in America or anywhere else. It clearly exists but the myth is that it's inconsequential, a presumption that's existed whenever it goes over the top....as the graph indicates it's now doing. Obama's greatest achievement was to increase the power of the state...something that's probably going to be handy once the consequences of the income gap really start biting. Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Bryan Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 Income inequality is a myth, as it presumes that income equality ever existed or was a goal in America or anywhere else. It also assumes that it means anything. Someone else having a lot does not in any way mean I have less. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 It clearly exists but the myth is that it's inconsequential, a presumption that's existed whenever it goes over the top....as the graph indicates it's now doing. It doesn't matter at all.....America grew into an economic superpower concurrent with so called "income inequality". There never was income equality. Previous threads on this topic have already demonstrated that the alleged impact of "inequality" on economic growth is also a myth. Obama's greatest achievement was to increase the power of the state...something that's probably going to be handy once the consequences of the income gap really start biting. Meh.....Obama's greatest achievement was to fool a lot of people with "Hope and Change". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bryan Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 Meh.....Obama's greatest achievement was to fool a lot of people with "Hope and Change". True. Obama didn't fail at all. He successfully slung a huge pile of obvious manure, and people bought it, twice. The failures are the ones who believed him and voted for him. Quote
Argus Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 Obama's greatest failure is that he's an academic in a politicians's job. Being a leader in a democratic country, particularly one like the US with an indepedant legislative branch, means you have to be a politician all of the time, not just during election time campaigning. You have to line up support, curry favor, make promises, threats, be persuasive, do the little thing to keep your contacts happy, and if possible, owing you favours, all behind the scenes, away from the cameras, in the back rooms and at all the gatherings, meeting and parties. From all reports, Obama loathes that sort of thing and doesn't do much of it. There are Democratic senators, never mind Republicans, who haven't even met the man, who never get called or invited to anything. He has no real power base aside from his job, no long string of powerful suporters in congress. LBJ is, I think the most famous modern example of the president with tons of 'friends' and was notorious for working the phones, twisting arms and calling in favors when he needed votes. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 LBJ was in the U.S. Congress as both representative and senator for 24 years, rising to Senate Majority Leader. In contrast, President Obama was a junior senator in Congress for only three years. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Argus Posted November 10, 2014 Report Posted November 10, 2014 (edited) LBJ was in the U.S. Congress as both representative and senator for 24 years, rising to Senate Majority Leader. In contrast, President Obama was a junior senator in Congress for only three years. LBJ knew how things ran, knew all the legislative tricks, knew everyone with power and how to make them happy, knew where a lot of bones were buried. Obama... was a reasonably good community organizer. I was hoping for McCain up until he produced that silly woman as his running mate. Edited November 10, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Moonlight Graham Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 Someone else having a lot does not in any way mean I have less. But it can mean that. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Moonlight Graham Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 Obama didn't fail at all. He successfully slung a huge pile of obvious manure, and people bought it, twice. The failures are the ones who believed him and voted for him. I'd agree with that. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
cybercoma Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 It also assumes that it means anything. Someone else having a lot does not in any way mean I have less.someone having a bigger proportion of the whole doesn't mean you have less? Does someone need to explain proportion to you? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 someone having a bigger proportion of the whole doesn't mean you have less? Does someone need to explain proportion to you? Some people just didn't do well in math. Quote
Shady Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 True. Obama didn't fail at all. He successfully slung a huge pile of obvious manure, and people bought it, twice. The failures are the ones who believed him and voted for him. He had help from his friends... "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage" Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 Yep, pretty soon they'll have a whole new batch of Sarah Pallin's running around keeping an eye on Russia. Quote
Bryan Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 someone having a bigger proportion of the whole doesn't mean you have less? Does someone need to explain proportion to you? No, but apparently someone needs to explain growth to you. The "whole" is not one static quantity. Proportion is irrelevant, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 No, but apparently someone needs to explain growth to you. The "whole" is not one static quantity. Proportion is irrelevant, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more. Sounds like "Reaganomics" to me. The reality you may understand is kinda like this: "them that has, gets" One piece gets bigger because someone else's get's smaller. Quote
Shady Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 Sounds like "Reaganomics" to me. The reality you may understand is kinda like this: "them that has, gets" One piece gets bigger because someone else's get's smaller. That's not true. It's not a zero sum scenario. Completely false. Quote
Shady Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 No, but apparently someone needs to explain growth to you. The "whole" is not one static quantity. Proportion is irrelevant, a smaller piece of a bigger pie is still more. That's how they think. That the economy is one static figure that they must divide equally according to their ideology. They don't understand that generally the economy grows constantly. Quote
Shady Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 This pretty much sums up the Obama incompetence, and gets to Argus' point. He's just not a very good exective and/or manager of anything. Quote
GostHacked Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 That's how they think. That the economy is one static figure that they must divide equally according to their ideology. They don't understand that generally the economy grows constantly. Growth is not constant. In some areas it is shrinking (auto sector). And what is it really all worth anyways with inflation and the ability to just print more money? How do you have sound economic policies when the monetary policy needs fixing? If I have more, what exactly do I have more of? Quote
Shady Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 Growth is not constant. In some areas it is shrinking (auto sector). And what is it really all worth anyways with inflation and the ability to just print more money? How do you have sound economic policies when the monetary policy needs fixing? If I have more, what exactly do I have more of? Overall growth is constant. Some industries shrink as new ones emerge. Always has, always will. The horse and buggy industry still hasn't recovered from the advent of the automobile! Quote
Bryan Posted November 11, 2014 Report Posted November 11, 2014 Sounds like "Reaganomics" to me. The reality you may understand is kinda like this: "them that has, gets" One piece gets bigger because someone else's get's smaller. That isn't how it works. The line by which we judge what is "poverty" today would have made people exceptionally wealthy in decades past. Things that used to be considered luxury items for the rich are now considered basics that even people on welfare expect. Everyone's piece is getting bigger. It's not a cliche, a high tide absolutely does float all boats. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.