 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
I got the AP Gov't test soon so the teacher gave out an old, released test and one of the questions had a graph concerning income distribution among families.
the most recent year was 1988 (the height of Reaganomics, remember). In that year...
Lowest fifth had 4.6% of the income
Second fifth had 10.7%
Third fifth had 16.7%
Fourth fifth had 24.0%
Highest fifth had 44.0%
40% of Americans control 68% of the wealth... though still quite a bit, this is a far-cry from liberal bullshit like the top 1% control half the wealth or what not... but is this that great of a disparity? i mean the top fifth got 10 times the wealth of the bottom fifth
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
income
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
here is some nice data:
quote:
Quintile 1947-1979 growth 1979-1999 growth
Lowest fifth 120% -1%
Second fifth 101% 6%
Middle fifth 107% 11%
Forth fifth 114% 19%
Top fifth 94% 42%
|
From 1947 to 1979, the botton grew the fastest, lowering income inequalioty, but sicne 1979 i has gone up.
quote:
Income mobility: distributions of income are a snapshot at a given time whereas people's incomes change over time. Mobility is defined by how much one is able to move up and down the income ladder. Income inequality is less of a problem if the income structure is highly mobile. The way to measure mobility is through a Markov (transition) matrix: how likely is a person who starts with a given income to stay in the same range or move to another range as a function of time?
Below is a table showing mobility for the 1969-1994 period: e.g. a person in the second fifth in 1969 had 24.7% change of staying there by 1994 and 16.1% of moving up to the fourth fifth.
Income mobility 1969-1994 (persons in families)
1994 income group
1969 income First Second Middle Fourth Top
group fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth
----------------------------------------------------------
First fifth 41.0% 24.9% 16.2% 12.1% 5.8%
Second 22.4% 24.7% 23.9% 16.1% 13.0%
Third 16.9% 21.0% 23.5% 22.8% 15.9%
Fourth 11.3% 18.5% 19.7% 24.2% 26.3%
Top 9.5% 10.6% 16.6% 24.5% 38.8%
Having understood mobility, an important question is if mobility has improved, stayed the same, or worsened as the income distribution itself has become more unequal. This can be seen by comparing the mobilities of two different time periods, as shown below for the 1970s and 1980s (1990 data is not available yet but should show the same trend given the same basic growing inequality).
1979 income group
1969 income First Second Middle Fourth Top
group fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth
----------------------------------------------------------
First fifth 61.5% 24.0% 8.7% 4.4% 1.5%
Second 22.7 31.3 27.5 12.9 5.6
Third 9.6 22.5 29.6 26.1 12.2
Fourth 3.3 17.3 22.4 31.6 25.4
Top 2.9 5.0 11.9 25.1 55.2
1989 income group
1979 income First Second Middle Fourth Top
group fifth fifth fifth fifth fifth
----------------------------------------------------------
First fifth 61.0% 23.8% 9.5% 4.6% 1.1%
Second 22.9 33.2 27.7 13.5 2.7
Third 8.3 25.2 29.5 25.7 11.4
Fourth 4.6 13.0 23.0 33.2 26.2
Top 2.7 4.9 10.8 22.8 58.8
As you can see, income mobility did not increase but rather stayed the same or worsened. Another way to see this is that the percentage of people staying in the same fifth (in a year) has been rising steadily (e.g., since 1968 from around 62% to 66% in 1991).
|
all from http://tiger.berkeley.edu/sohrab/po...incomedist.html
a nice little chart, showing that the post-war drop in inequality is disappearing:
and a nice PDF file:
http://faculty.tcu.edu/jlovett/econ...come%20Dist.pdf
which also shows how the US compares to other coutnries in this respect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
this is weird... while the income disparity is, in all honesty, pretty reasonable and what would be expected, the change in income disparity is ridiculously in favour of the rich and the wealth disparity is unbelievable huge... any reason why the income disparity would be so relatively small compared to income growth and wealth?
Monkspider:
also growing up under similiar circumstances, it wasn't that bad for me largely because i didnt know better existed... you don't complain about the summertime heat when you never saw an air conditioner before, know what i mean?
although if my father hadnt been a dead beat, i'd have been living in a lot better circumstances... once again, immorality is the cause of economic problems
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
My only question about income and wealth disparity is this: Why is it anyone's business how wealthy anyone else is, or how much money they make? Isn't that a private matter? Sure, Bill Gates may have a hundred million times more wealth than any of us, but is that actually hurting you? No, of course it isn't. Bill Gates deserves his money, on the sole basis that he earned it legitimately.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
David Floyd:
why do you assume anyone in this thread is in favour of socialism?
I personally think the income disparity will close if businesses succeed... the income disparity was shrinking, as GePap pointed out, after the second world war, when American industry was booming. Since the 70's, however, thanks to anti-business policies in the States, many businesses moved over-seas... as a result, the economic disparity is widening...
so we need to help DOMESTIC businesses improve and succeed in order to close the gap
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
I'm not saying that anyone is a socialist, I'm simply asking why anyone should care how rich anyone else is - seems like a personal privacy thing to me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
Black Dragon:
Actually my economic status improved greatly when my mother divorced and re-married which happened when I was 12... we got a computer with internet access so that is why I came here a year later.
It's amazing how far two working parents can go to improve your economics, especially as my step-father was working a double shift. I still got treated like **** but my economic status was a lot better...
before that, we lived in a one bed-room apartment that didn't have reliable heat and no air conditioning. we ended up even putting up quilts over the window to try to keep out the cold air in winter... I am not bullshiting you.
and I said this to you before and i'll say it again... what i was complaining about that time was about Mayor Street's Operation Safe Streets which is basically a war on drugs centered in North Philly... The problem was that the drug dealers confronted with cops on every corner in North were moving down into my neighbourhood which is slightly better than the horrible ghetto of North Philly... the new infusion of drug dealers was causing and still is causing a lot of problems in the Frankford, Olney, Kensington area and the West Oak Lane, Germantown area on the other side of North. Look it up in Philadelphia Inquirer articles if you don't believe me
thanks
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
also BD, I posted pictures of my neighbourhood before... search for them on this site. All the rowhomes are made out of brick
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
cyclotron,
quote:
Because I want the money, dammit. |
All joking aside, that's pretty much what it comes down to for most people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:28
|
|
Cyclotron:
you want that money? Then earn in... bill gates having it now is not stopping you from earning your own money...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
Monkspider:
also growing up under similiar circumstances, it wasn't that bad for me largely because i didnt know better existed... you don't complain about the summertime heat when you never saw an air conditioner before, know what i mean?
although if my father hadnt been a dead beat, i'd have been living in a lot better circumstances... once again, immorality is the cause of economic problems |
Right, I totally understand what you are saying. I feel the same way about many things. I'm sorry about your dad, I on the other hand grew up with only a dad. Fortunately, he is a really good guy.
I would agree that immorality is the cause of a lot of economic problems. But it is because capitalism creates immorality. Without greed, violence, exploitation, and so on, capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. Immorality is something systemtic to capitalism. So in a way, capitalism creates a society in it's own image. That may not have been the immorality that you meant in your post, but if you really think about it, I think that you will agree with me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
But it is because capitalism creates immorality. |
Whoa, sorry. Immorality is more a result of original sin and the sin nature, at least according to the Bible, wouldn't you say? I mean, come on - are you trying to say that communism/socialism/fascism/whatever doesn't create immorality?
quote:
Without greed, violence, exploitation, and so on, capitalism would collapse with fierce frequency. |
True capitalism, and the related political system - laissez faire libertarianism - has nothing to do with either violence or exploitation. You can still say that people are greedy, but that is true of all people in all systems, to some extent.
quote:
Immorality is something systemtic to capitalism. |
Right, so what Hitler or Stalin or Mao-type characters were spawned by capitalism, again? And no, I'm not arguing that Mao or Stalin exercised "true communism/socialism", I'm simply arguing that they considered themselves to be communists/socialists, and thus it can easily be said that communism/socialism created the situation - or at least, I can make that argument if you can make the capitalism one.
But the point is, don't blame capitalism for immorality - blame individuals.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
David Floyd
Unless, however, they are CEO of a publicly held corporation... of course.
Speers - I think you would benefit from reading books suchs as; The Millonare Next Door and The Millionare Mind by Stanley, and anything by O'Shaughnessy.
Learn the difference between wealth and income, and the answer to your question.
Ppl are poor, rich, immoral, amoral, what-have-you all by choice. They complain/whine about things because they made the wrong choices and choose to live life through others by doing so... This is why they read fantasy novels and are son interested in what movie stars are upto, or royalty... They escape their problems by idolizing those that don't have the same problems.
I think you (Speers) are a smart young man, and have just as much of a chance as everyone else. You show promise by asking the questions you do, and analyzing them as far removed from them as you can. Continue to do so, not only here but elsewhere. Set you goals, and start discipling yourself now... you won't regret it.
quote:
the change in income disparity is ridiculously in favour of the rich and the wealth disparity is unbelievable huge... any reason why the income disparity would be so relatively small compared to income growth and wealth?
|
AH, the secret of compound interest... There is a difference between earning a dollar and making a dollar. There is a difference between being rich and being wealthy. There is a difference between being an investor and being a gambler. There are those who work for wealth and those who work for money... which do you want to be?
Define those words and their differences and you will have your answer
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Whoa, sorry. Immorality is more a result of original sin and the sin nature, at least according to the Bible, wouldn't you say? I mean, come on - are you trying to say that communism/socialism/fascism/whatever doesn't create immorality?
|
We haven't had a debate in a while Dave, you're actually one of my favorite people here to debate.  Well, anyway, I don't take the the "original sin"/Adam and Eve part of the bible literally. Sin has been around before man, and will continue to be around long after man as well. I have no problem if you do though. So let's run with it. If Adam and Eve were the original creators of sin, they are not the sole creators. Adam and Eve, if the story is to be taken literally, introduced sin in the world, but they can't be held responsible for every sin ever, except maybe in an abstract or indirect way.
As for whether or not X government creates immorality. Nearly all governments do, to some degree, even if they do not intend to. The one type of government that would not would be a socialist government that is built around philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus or Ghandi. But by then, humanity would have reached such a stage of evolution that any "government" would virtually cease to exist. There's true freedom for you Dave.
quote:
True capitalism, and the related political system - laissez faire libertarianism - has nothing to do with either violence or exploitation. You can still say that people are greedy, but that is true of all people in all systems, to some extent. |
I think we will have to agree to disagree here old friend. This would spawn a massive debate that I think neither of us would care to engage in.
quote:
Right, so what Hitler or Stalin or Mao-type characters were spawned by capitalism, again? And no, I'm not arguing that Mao or Stalin exercised "true communism/socialism", I'm simply arguing that they considered themselves to be communists/socialists, and thus it can easily be said that communism/socialism created the situation - or at least, I can make that argument if you can make the capitalism one. |
Hitler, Stalin, and all the other bad guys are cut from the same cloth as capitalism. When you break things down, there are really only two schools of thought out there. Humanist and Egoist. Either All-Oriented or Self-Oriented. Capitalism, fascism, socialism, libertarianism, and so on are just silly labels.
quote:
But the point is, don't blame capitalism for immorality - blame individuals. |
I think blame can be placed on both the system, for manufacturing immorality, and individuals, for becoming part of the system.
Why I like debating with you Dave is that you are a bright person, who is genuinely good at heart. Despite your strong convictions, I always believe that I can turn you over because of this.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Sin has been around before man, |
True enough - Romans 5:13
quote:
and will continue to be around long after man as well. |
Define "after man". If you are saying that sin will be in hell, well, I suppose so, that's a no brainer.
quote:
If Adam and Eve were the original creators of sin, they are not the sole creators. Adam and Eve, if the story is to be taken literally, introduced sin in the world, but they can't be held responsible for every sin ever, except maybe in an abstract or indirect way. |
Certainly not, but the fact is that their original sin caused everyone to have a sin nature (Rom 5:12, 15; 1 Cor 15:22), and sin was present at conception (Ps 51:5).
Therefore it can be said that original sin is the cause of sin today. Sin, we can both agree, is an immoral personal act (although we would disagree in my position that protecting people's freedom to sin is indeed the only moral position).
quote:
As for whether or not X government creates immorality. Nearly all governments do, to some degree, even if they do not intend to. |
Hang on a second. First of all, let's make the distinction between creating immorality and allowing immorality. Creating immorality is passing a law, for example, that allows the government to take immoral actions in violation of freedom. Allowing immorality is not passing any law, and allowing people to be as immoral as they want, so long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others.
From this context, it can be said that communist/socialist governments CREATE immorality, while capitalist systems and Libertarian governments ALLOW what you or I would consider to be immoral personal acts.
Saying that a government that is primarily concerned with protecting freedom creates immorality is not valid, because it takes away personal responsibility for one's own actions (which is also Biblical, by the way, and also a major facet of Libertarianism) and places it in the hands of others. This is impossible. Agathon and I recently had a debate about personal responsibility and the like - did you follow that one?
quote:
The one type of government that would not would be a socialist government that is built around philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus or Ghandi. But by then, humanity would have reached such a stage of evolution that any "government" would virtually cease to exist. There's true freedom for you Dave |
Again, I totally disagree. A government based on Biblical law would be completely immoral, from the context that restricting individual liberty is immoral. This isn't to say that we shouldn't follow Biblical law voluntarily, on our own - quite the opposite, in fact. The point, though, is that forcing everyone to follow Biblical law is wrong - and, in my opinion, unbiblical, in that man has been given free will by God.
quote:
I think we will have to agree to disagree here old friend. This would spawn a massive debate that I think neither of us would care to engage in. |
Again, wait a second. True laissez-faire capitalism/libertarianism is about FREEDOM. Freedom is the logical opposite of coercion.
quote:
Hitler, Stalin, and all the other bad guys are cut from the same cloth as capitalism. |
Again, incorrect. True capitalism is about freedom. Communism, even true communism, is about limiting freedom and concentrating power with the state. Same with fascism.
quote:
When you break things down, there are really only two schools of thought out there. Humanist and Egoist. Either All-Oriented or Self-Oriented. Capitalism, fascism, socialism, libertarianism, and so on are just silly labels. |
I will say that you are the first person to equate communism with capitalism. Again, this is logically impossible. You might say that certain communists are immoral, and certain capitalists are also immoral - and I would agree. But this does not mean that both systems are the same, or even that both systems are immoral.
quote:
I think blame can be placed on both the system, for manufacturing immorality, |
Immorality can be "manufactured" by passing immoral laws. In this sense, again, communism is immoral, because it passes laws that limit freedom. Limiting freedom is immoral, because freedom is a logical extension of God-given free will (and you can also make a good natural rights argument, as well).
quote:
and individuals, for becoming part of the system. |
Here we have it. Finally you are admitting that individuals are at least somewhat to blame for their own actions. If a person acts immorally, blame that person.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
|
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Hang on a second. First of all, let's make the distinction between creating immorality and allowing immorality. Creating immorality is passing a law, for example, that allows the government to take immoral actions in violation of freedom. Allowing immorality is not passing any law, and allowing people to be as immoral as they want, so long as they don't infringe upon the freedom of others.
From this context, it can be said that communist/socialist governments CREATE immorality, while capitalist systems and Libertarian governments ALLOW what you or I would consider to be immoral personal acts.
Saying that a government that is primarily concerned with protecting freedom creates immorality is not valid, because it takes away personal responsibility for one's own actions (which is also Biblical, by the way, and also a major facet of Libertarianism) and places it in the hands of others. This is impossible. Agathon and I recently had a debate about personal responsibility and the like - did you follow that one?
|
Alas, I think that I missed the debate that Ag and you had. I think we basically reach an impasse in regards to natural rights and so forth. Naturally you are a strong supporter of them, I am not so much.
I understand your arguements regarding allowing and creating immorality and I can see where you are coming from. But consider this, capitalism necessitates greed, surely we are in agreement there. I think we would even both agree that, by capitalism's nature, it creates greed as well. Capitalism molds a society into it's own image, people who live and grow up in a capitalist society begin to apply the cold logic of capitalism to other areas of life. In perhaps subtle ways. often times, but it undoubtedly does occur. For example, cutting off someone on the highway is very likely a result of learning capitalism's lessons and applying them to every day life. In a society that was all-oriented, rather than self-oriented, that same person who would have cut someone off in a capitalist society would perhaps learned lessons that would taught him to act in such a manner. In this way, capitalism creates immorality in perhaps subtle ways. Of course, greed by can create immorality in more obvious ways, in fact, greed by it's very nature, is intrinsically immoral. But there is no need to go over that in depth. You could maybe say that a Marxist society creates immorality as well, I don't disagree. I have thrown Marx out the window.
Believe it or not, future communism will not trample on your natural rights anyway. Essentially you have always maintained that property is a sacred right that must be upheld at any cost. Taxation, even if for the good of the whole, so you say, is absolutely immoral. You will be pleased to know that there will be no taxation required or no strong central apparatus in the future state. Everything will be given willingly, no coercian necessary. From a certain point of view, this state will be libertarian and communist at the same time.
Future communism requires evolution, an evolution that awaken's man's divine nature. A nature obsecured by centuries of warfare, capitalism, genocide, and so on. When this evolution occurs, mankind will realize what it should be doing, and that it should behave in a more god-like manner. When it does this, the inevitable result will be a society that resembles communism (or perhaps libertarianism from your point of view).
quote:
Again, I totally disagree. A government based on Biblical law would be completely immoral, from the context that restricting individual liberty is immoral. This isn't to say that we shouldn't follow Biblical law voluntarily, on our own - quite the opposite, in fact. The point, though, is that forcing everyone to follow Biblical law is wrong - and, in my opinion, unbiblical, in that man has been given free will by God. |
Of course, no worries here. I agree with you completely. I would never dare try to enforce a certain set of morals on anyone. SUch a thing would be supremely immoral. The thing is, people will finally realize what they should be doing and live out the philosophies of great teachers such as Jesus, Ghandhi, Buddha, and so on. There will be no need for some sort of fundamentalist society.
quote:
Again, wait a second. True laissez-faire capitalism/libertarianism is about FREEDOM. Freedom is the logical opposite of coercion.
|
I have touched on this in a past thread, so I might as well explain a bit more in detail. What you call freedom is what holds you in chains. The freedom you espouse may allow you freedom from taxation, or what have you. But the freedom you want ultimately holds you back from attaining a higher level of spiritual enlightenment, which is our whole purpose here anyway. So in that way, it truly is a set of chains on you. As long as you seek a philosophy that is self-oriented, you will be held back from reaching true freedom. There is freedom that can be found that is much greater than any freedom Ayn Rand can tell you about.
But you will find this out yourself someday soon. Don't take my word for it. Just wait a few years. I promise you that capitalism will be over with within twenty years, maybe as few as 8 or 9 if we are lucky. I know that you probably don't believe me, and I can't blame you. But if you take anything away from our debates here at Apolyton, just take this one thing "the freedom you seek is what holds you in chains". You don't have to agree with it, but just remember it. You will understand completely one day soon.
Take care, Dave.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-05-2003 03:10
|