Isn't that the definition?
Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Array
Isn't that the definition?
Array
For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.
Array
Yeah, thats what I said.
Array
When all the economic growth a country produces goes to a very small class of rich people, stupid things happen. The rich can't possibly consume enough to spend all this money, so they start casting around for something, anything, to do with all the cash they have sloshing around. And since, in an ever more unequal economy that nonetheless preaches ever rising living standards, the low-paid need payday loans to keep up and the stagnating middle class needs to borrow money on the strngth of the appreciating value of their house, that's where their money goes. It still gets spent, eventually, on things like cars and food and new furniture, because that's what middle class people mostly spend their money on, but instead of being spent directly by people who are earning it, it gets funneled downward to them via increased debt and financial legerdemain that extracts more and more money upward from poor to rich with each cycle. That's not sustainable.
Median income growth produces not just growth, but stable growth for everyone, the rich included. Top end growth, almost by definition, produces unstable, unsustainable growth. Modern economies are driven by consumer spending, and if you want consumer spending to increase consistently you have to increase consumer income. So the low/mid paid workers need a big tax cut and the wealthy need a big tax increase.
I thought within any type of government that a small amout of people control the majority of the currency, is there one that does not. Communism, Fascism, Monarchy, etc.
Array
For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.
Array
Literally hundreds of scholarly economic papers and studies have been done on such things.
"If there's a better chin in the world than Pryor's, it has to be on Mount Rushmore." -Pat Putnam.
Killersheep we have to send you to Cuba for a week, first off everything in Communism is not public, that could not be further from the truth. In Communism all assets belong to the state, everything is state controlled. Fidel Castro does not need million dollor checks in his name because he is the state, he has total control over all it's currency, assets, investments, military, mass media, etc. He delegates certain control too a small group of each of those sections and that small group runs the country only answering to that dictator. There are plenty of Cuban Americans in the country right now, you can give them your definition of Communism and they would tell you that you counldn't be more wrong, Communism is alot more top heavy than Capatalism, it's not even close. Like I said before it's like that in every government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks