re: Nice opinion piece on income inequality from CNN

it seems we are misunderstanding each other.

quote:

---

Any nation with an abundance of resources, the right approach from the government regarding R&D and a healthy respect for science will develop.

---

Yes, but which economic ideal would cause them to develop the most.

quote:

---

The internet, Manhattan Project and the Moon Landing (among other things) were state sponsored, privately contracted endeavors.

---

The Government sponspored innovation will likely all lead to generally the same point conclusion, whether they direct it or offer payment for research in a capitalist economy. It is the non government innovation which gives capitalism the advantage.

quote:

---

Nikola Tesla did these things without any incentive at all -- and moved to our country because of the resources and the focus on development. That FOCUS is what did it, not the economy.

---

even conceding this, this is one example. And appears to me to be the exception, not the rule.

How can you explain the countries leading in innovation now?

quote:

---

The ones who have tried to put a dollar figure on it are those that accuse of the ones of pointing out the problem as jealous of the rich.

---

That's not the argument presented for public consumption as I pointed out in a later post. The media stories are entirely driven by big, scary numbers.

quote:

---

ETA: The power of capitalism comes in with the next steps. The incentive to make the technology better/cheaper.

---

Capitalism is the incentive to make profit as best you can and has been demonstrable in how NOT to run an economy. If America has taught the world anything it's that profit without direction or morality is vacuous and eventually ends in global catastrophe.

quote:

---

Yes, but which economic ideal would cause them to develop the most.

---

None, the resources will do the walking and the talking. Nations of all colors of economies have made great strides regardless of those ideals.

quote:

---

The Government sponspored innovation will likely all lead to generally the same point conclusion, whether they direct it or offer payment for research in a capitalist economy. It is the non government innovation which gives capitalism the advantage.

---

The problem with this is that most of the developments are done through the government these days as Duke said earlier. It's folly to think that it doesn't, or that the private sector accounts for much of anything anymore.

quote:

---

even conceding this, this is one example. And appears to me to be the exception, not the rule.

How can you explain the countries leading in innovation now?

---

You mentioned Sweden (which is a Constitutional Monarchy and highly, highly Socialist).

Germany can hardly be considered Capitalist and is usually considered a mixed economy -- with high levels of taxation to afford its social programs.

South Korea exists as it does because America poured billions of dollars into the economy (resources!) and they managed the money very well, investing domestically (a very anti-capitalist stance these days).

quote:

---

Capitalism is how to "run" an economy. It's the best engine for growth and oppertuniy. However, an engine by its self doesn't do you much good. It's power needs to be applied in beneficial ways.

---

I guess I can concede that there is SOME merit in it -- but that opportunity is very limited and as you said, usually includes crashing and burning more than it does growth.

quote:

---

. However, an engine by its self doesn't do you much good. It's power needs to be applied in beneficial ways.

---

I suppose then, that this is more about just "how free" a market ought to be? I would rather move this conversation to something other than "income inequality", because I feel like we're talking about something more important.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't. It says sell all you have and give the money to the poor. It doesn't say anything about only having enough for basic necessities.

---

So you agree that the bible says you should sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor. That's the point. Jesus was a communist.

I run where the thread goes.

quote:

---

I guess I can concede that there is SOME merit in it -- but that opportunity is very limited and as you said, usually includes crashing and burning more than it does growth.

---

Drivers get into wrecks everyday with a steering wheel at their disposal. We all still drive because it beats the he'll out of a horse and buggy I getting from a to b.

quote:

---

I suppose then, that this is more about just "how free" a market ought to be?

---

Certainly. When you get down to it, that's what is really at the heart of these economic discussions.

To keep with analogy, there's a reason we have speed limits and dwi laws. Bad actors can do disproportionate damage to others than to themselves. If doing 100 drunk was the norm, what reasonable person would drive?

Hence environmental regulations. Financial regulations. On and on we go.

What's the proper balance of regulation vs freedom?

My opinion is that the economy is too over regulated by a large and inefficient government and large corporate bureaucracy. There's just so much waste. Money being passed through a leaky bucket. Enough influece, you get to take your cut. That influence distorts markets with regulation designed not to make the market more efficient and fair but to help somebody stay fat.

I really wish a lot of what the fed do go back to the states. I mean, it doesn't solve the corruption problem but what that government does has a more direct and apparent impact on your everyday life. They are more accountable for their actions. The Federal Government is too detached and does too much for the average Joe voter to have any clue what's really going on.

America is squandering an opportunity to be in the best position to take advantage of the tech boom to come. Instead the government is interested in protecting the economic rents of the large by raising the barriers of enerty. Just look at the patent trolls to see that.


I'm going to leave it there.

quote:

---

The argument is the rate of income growth for the wealthy has grown at a much faster rate than the rate of growth for the lower and middle class.

---

There have been links provided (one from Salon, if you think the others are too right wing) that show this isn't a problem. Income gaps by themselves aren't an issue. It's only an issue if your poor are getting more poor, which is the opposite of what's happening.

quote:

---

Disagree that massive concentration of wealth among a few is not a problem.

---

There is a whole lot of information out there that's easy to access that says you could be wrong. By itself, it's not an issue. With other variables, it could be an issue. Income inequality is a political issue, not really an economic problem.

quote:

---

Income inequality can be a red herring. It gets us caught up in the wrong conversation. What really matters is whether the poorest among us have a legitimate chance to improve their conditions. -

---

LINK

Inequality can be a sign of a functioning economy or it can stymie growth. A lot of variables determine whether it's good or bad at the time.