The growth rate is 3% now because of this mentality. Wealth inequality was always good for the poor.

You don't know anything about politics, history, or economics. Please stop embarassing yourself.

the growth rate is 3% because the fed was pumping trillions of dollars into the market for years, and because oil on the world markets is rather cheap right now.

some degree of wealth inequality is good for the poor, because it is better than socialism and keeps some incentives for each individual to give his best.

past a certain point, however, more wealth or income inequality is nothing but bad for the poor. and the US has passed this point a long long time ago.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 31 2017 07:01pm

The fed pumped money constantly under Obama, but Obama never broke 2.5%.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Aug 31 2017 07:04pm

Prove it.

it is typical for the expansion of an economy to acccelerate during an inflationary boom-and-bust cycle. I wont deny that trump so far hasnt hurt the economy, and that obama did a decent job when it comes to growth rates. but the underyling, driving factor of this seemingly healthy economy is debt and inflation in the trillions.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 31 2017 07:14pm

when wealth and income inequality reflect the differences in performance, work load, responsibility and so on, it is justified and good for both the economy and the society.

but when inequality is primarily driven not by differences in performance but by exploiting differences in power, it becomes an issue. yes, the work hour of the CEO is worth more than the work hour of office drone #127. but is it really justified when the CEO is earning 200 times more than his average employee? emphasis on average employee. is it really justified when billionaires pay a lower effective tax rate than the guy who scans their shoes at the airport?

the portion of the income of rich folks which exceeds the "inequality in performance level" must obviously come from somewhere, it must necessarily come from the poor and the middle class, who earn less than their fair share based on what they contribute.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Aug 31 2017 07:14pm

the value of CEO isn't related to 'justified' it is related to what his or her perceived value is to the company.

there is no 'fair share' and instead there is what someone else is willing to pay you

Yes, the high salary is earned. None of the goods or jobs would exist without the CEO's infrastructure.



This as well. If it was actually unfair then the market would choose not to do it.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Aug 31 2017 07:23pm

big homie trump fixing the economy.
#americafirst

[√] winning [ ] not winning