ClimateSanity
New member
Even acknowledging that problem, isn't it better if more people rise out of poverty as a result of a system that causes the inequality?
Why is income inequality a bad thing?
- Thread starter ClimateSanity
- Start date
Largely because a large number of people, particularly conservatives, have accepted the proposition that decades of conspiracy theories and bald accusations against Clinton equate to the torrent of really worrying signs from Trump. For all the very well financed digging into Clinton's past, very little actual substance has been unearthed. Yes, she's learned to be very secretive from a public life lived under an unbelievable scrutiny, but very little actual wrongdoing has actually been substantiated against her. Meanwhile, with Trump, we have what appears to be a treasonous conspiracy against the country.
But that isn't what's happening.
If you think Trump is worse than Hitlery would have been, you lose any shred of credibility you had left. I knew you were stupid but wow.
ClimateSanity
New member
Where? All places or just here?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Hillary is a self-admitted felon
ClimateSanity
New member
He has a completely delusional view of reality doesn't he?
Hillary Clinton when through all sorts of investigations by republican congressional committees. Some of the leaders admitted they had an agenda to harm her. And yet they came up with nothing that would even amount to a misdemeanor.
We don't know yet where the investigations against Trump will go. Maybe he'll be cleared of wrongdoing as she was. Maybe not.
That remains to be seen.
We don't know yet where the investigations against Trump will go. Maybe he'll be cleared of wrongdoing as she was. Maybe not.
That remains to be seen.
Unfortunately, in the United States, that's not what's happening. If you took a look at the link, you'd see that increase in disparity in Australia did not harm lower-income people. So it's not inevitable. But in the U.S. it's harming the country.
The shrinking of the middle class is of particular concern, because that's where economic growth happens.
ClimateSanity
New member
Was there a decrease in the number of people in poverty from after reconstruction until NAFTA took effect? I would venture to say there was a great decrease in the percentage of people living in poverty over that time period. What economic system was in place during that time? Capitalism. Doesn't capitalism generally create an increase in inequality?
ClimateSanity
New member
The reason I use NAFTA has a bookend in time is because that is generally when globalism took a strong hold over our economy. Globalism is a very powerful tool in creating income inequality.
ClimateSanity
New member
I also used reconstruction as a bookend in time because the economy was destroyed by the civil war and the recovery of it is a good starting point.
Truth is, you have to go a long, long way back to find the roots of inequality. Agriculture. Pre-agricultural societies have very little inequality.
However, capitalism can initially produce greater inequality. If capitalism is entirely free, that won't last. But as Adam Smith wrote, you can't find three businessmen meeting socially, without some plot against the public good. Businessmen hate uncertainty and competition, and do what they can to reduce it.
So it's complicated.
NAFTA mainly disadvantaged unskilled workers, whose wages fell and who were competing for fewer such jobs. But this is the effect of free trade and market forces. We shouldn't be making many things that require only unskilled labor. Doing that would simply increase prices of those things, and so make all Americans poorer.
We need to do the things that require higher skills, things that we can competitively sell in the world.
The huge challenge is to prepare workers for that 21st century American economy.
That's a lie.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
It's more of a religious belief than a claim about reality.
It's always easier to find someone who believes in the the tooth fairy than it is to get convincing evidence for her.
The Berean
Well-known member
Hillary Clinton did violate federal law when she had classified material on her personal server. The FBI even admitted this in their official press release.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
I wanted to highlight the bolded portion. I once had this type of clearance about 10 years ago. It is difficult to get this type of clearance. I had to fill out a 100 page document. I met with an Air Force captain who was to perform the background investigation on me. This took seven months. After the investigation was completed I then had to take a four hour polygraph test. After I passed I was finally given the clearance. The first thing I had was a briefing that detailed my responsibilities in handling Top Secret material. I was told VERY CLEARLY that at no time should any classified material ever be taken from the building I am working in, whether it be paper, disk, flash drive, etc. The computer system I worked on was isolated and there was no connection to the "outside world", i.e the Internet. I was further told the the consequences of me taking classified material outside the building. If I had done what Clinton did I would have had the FBI or Homeland Security come to my home or at work to arrest me and I would have been brought up on charges.
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
I wanted to highlight the bolded portion. I once had this type of clearance about 10 years ago. It is difficult to get this type of clearance. I had to fill out a 100 page document. I met with an Air Force captain who was to perform the background investigation on me. This took seven months. After the investigation was completed I then had to take a four hour polygraph test. After I passed I was finally given the clearance. The first thing I had was a briefing that detailed my responsibilities in handling Top Secret material. I was told VERY CLEARLY that at no time should any classified material ever be taken from the building I am working in, whether it be paper, disk, flash drive, etc. The computer system I worked on was isolated and there was no connection to the "outside world", i.e the Internet. I was further told the the consequences of me taking classified material outside the building. If I had done what Clinton did I would have had the FBI or Homeland Security come to my home or at work to arrest me and I would have been brought up on charges.
Last edited:
ClimateSanity
New member
Let me get back to the main premise that I think people are missing. A free market and rule of law has been known to produce great prosperity and it usually brings enormous people out of poverty. But alongside that, some people get very rich. In other words, the growth in income for the poor is far less for the growth in income of the rich and hence the inequality. Other than access to power for the rich, why bemoan the inequality? In my mind, the greatest goal should be lifting the greatest number of people out of poverty. If certain actions are employed to reduce that inequality but end up reducing the amount of people being lifted out of poverty, doesn't that action required being reconsidered in light of that?