Globalization - wages, poverty

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix/cd
The metric is how is the poor in developing world doing in the last three decades.  Other metrics such as middle class vs poor were important metrics but secondary.

Rich in all countries must pay more in taxes to support govt activities and social support systems. But the argument is not just income inequality but also who is benefiting from the vast infrastructure and security services provided by state.

>>> I think as civilized societies we owe basic necessities to the common man. It is necessary that the government administer laws and programs to engender that much and there should be legal mechanisms in place to prevent/penalize malfeasance in financial matters. The goal to engineer away inequality is overkill and a top- down approach that hands over unearned power to the government.

our differences in viewpoints are so far apart, that i wonder if we (and i am using we in a general sense) can even have a meaningful conversation about this!  the concern of those of us on the other side is not handing over unearned power to the government, but of a vicious mutually enforcing cycle of the 0.1 percenters buying political influence and continuing to skew politics in a direction that further perpetuates and amplifies income inequality, which in turn allows them to buy even more political influence. at some point i am hoping even you'll agree this is a harmful cycle.  stiglitz and others have pointed out that we have become that old ossified europe which we used to denigrate for not having sufficient socio-economic mobility, where the accident of one's birth, and not one's enterprise and initiative determines where one ends up in life.  there is enough evidence that this is indeed happening if one chooses to look carefully at the data rather than be satisfied with political bromides.

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/2/economic%20mobility%20sawhill/02_economic_mobility_sawhill_ch3.pdf

While cross-country comparisons
of relative mobility rely on data
and methodologies that are far
from perfect, a growing number
of economic studies have found
that the United States stands out as
having less, not more, intergenerational
mobility than do Canada and several
European countries. American
children are more likely than other
children to end up in the same place
on the income distribution as their
parents. Moreover, there is emerging
evidence that mobility is particularly
low for Americans born into families
at the bottom of the earnings or
income distribution.

>>>Just saw this post. Here are my thoughts:

I am not in favor of anyone being allowed to buy influence. Yes, that is insidious. I am also not in favor of weakening governmental power to enforce rightful regulations to curb malfeasance on the part of business captains. The Achilles heel here has been a gov't that has not been exactly on the up and up in terms of its unholy alliances with industry (revolving door etc.). I am in favor plugging the loopholes that allow this.

I also agree a broad middle class is necessary for the sustenance of an affluent society. What I disagree on is how we prevent the depletion of said middle class. A good part of this depletion has occurred with the advent of technology that allows work to be done in other countries and with a good amount of labor being replaced with technology. Fooling around with the tax structure to bring about a reversion of this through redistribution of wealth (in some form or the other) is at best a short-term solution. Again, I am not talking about ill-gotten gains here, which gets into the realm of legality. The fundamentals to tackling the middle-class depletion problem lie in a population re-trained for relevant skill sets. I agree this is not easily done, but it wouldn't hurt to create a business-friendly environment which will spur economic activity and increase employment. We may not get there overnight and it is not sexy, but it is time tested. When labor is available, businesses will crop up to use the existing skill sets and where necessary, even retrain. My fear of conceding power to the government is not reflexive. I can assure it will not stop with punitive measures on ill-gotten gains. The fear is of handing over control, in increasing quantities, to an entity that has no concept of accountability or wealth creation (other than printing money). It is like a company hiring an accountant who has never balanced his checkbook or worse yet, has never had to. I have had experience in my own small way on this. Believe me, it is not just the 0.1 percenters who will be on the receiving end. One of my first assignments was with an idealistic management consulting company where we consulted on a project that involved small Hispanic businesses (maybe other minority businesses, as well- I can't remember) and governmental largesse to leverage private sector monies. The results were abysmal, the costs were atrocious and the "beneficiaries" were livid and we got the lesson of our lives.

kris two points:

(a) the globalization has not been an even playing field. e.g. dumping of products and lax intellectual property laws which are difficult to enforce are two examples of factors that have made the playing field uneven for american workers.

(b) the tax structure has been fiddled with to redistribute income already. except the distribution has been upwards.  marginal tax rates were historically much higher in the US than they are now.

but it's good we agree on some basics. that's a start.

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/cash-abroad-rises-206-billion-as-apple-to-ibm-avoid-tax.html

According bloomberg nearly 2 trillion dollars are parked outside Usa by us corporations. These are profits from outside Usa activities.

The executives are handsomely compensated for those profits. Will the workers of Usa see any of this profits?

How are these monies adjusted in income inequality statistics?

i've started reading piketty's book since amazon gave me the first chapter on kindle to tide me over till the hard copy arrived. anyway the following is very relevant to some of the things that have been said in this thread about things that should be purely economic questions and should not be in the realm of politics. piketty warns us about this early on in his book:

.....one should be wary of any economic determinism in regard to inequalities of wealth and income.  the history of the distribution of wealth has always been deeply political, and it cannot be reduced to purely economic mechanisms.

Kris wrote:
>>>Just saw this post. Here are my thoughts:

I am not in favor of anyone being allowed to buy influence. Yes, that is insidious....ADD statements.....and governmental largesse to leverage private sector monies. The results were abysmal, the costs were atrocious and the "beneficiaries" were livid and we got the lesson of our lives.

When I was in high school, in exams we were given a big paragraph and had to reduce it to a short passage.... I had hell of a tough time.

In anther question, they also gave 10 words and you need to string them together into a story.... I was simply fantastic in that.

I bet you were also like that...

Just guessing.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Kris wrote:

truthbetold wrote:Idefix/cd
The metric is how is the poor in developing world doing in the last three decades.  Other metrics such as middle class vs poor were important metrics but secondary.

Rich in all countries must pay more in taxes to support govt activities and social support systems. But the argument is not just income inequality but also who is benefiting from the vast infrastructure and security services provided by state.

>>> I think as civilized societies we owe basic necessities to the common man. It is necessary that the government administer laws and programs to engender that much and there should be legal mechanisms in place to prevent/penalize malfeasance in financial matters. The goal to engineer away inequality is overkill and a top- down approach that hands over unearned power to the government.

our differences in viewpoints are so far apart, that i wonder if we (and i am using we in a general sense) can even have a meaningful conversation about this!  the concern of those of us on the other side is not handing over unearned power to the government, but of a vicious mutually enforcing cycle of the 0.1 percenters buying political influence and continuing to skew politics in a direction that further perpetuates and amplifies income inequality, which in turn allows them to buy even more political influence. at some point i am hoping even you'll agree this is a harmful cycle.  stiglitz and others have pointed out that we have become that old ossified europe which we used to denigrate for not having sufficient socio-economic mobility, where the accident of one's birth, and not one's enterprise and initiative determines where one ends up in life.  there is enough evidence that this is indeed happening if one chooses to look carefully at the data rather than be satisfied with political bromides.

"In February 2012, according to Vogel, President Obama told a group of rich donors that included Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, “You now have the potential of 200 people deciding who ends up being elected president every single time.”

And he offers great facts to bolster his overall claim. He reports that in the 2012 election, “roughly eight million small donors gave a total of about $500 million to Obama, Romney, and the main groups that backed them. It took only forty six hundred big donors to match that tally.” "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-big-money-on-the-role-of-the-ultra-rich-in-american-politics-by-kenneth-vogel/2014/06/04/591605fc-ea64-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html?hpid=z5

confuzzled dude wrote:
"In February 2012, according to Vogel, President Obama told a group of rich donors that included Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, “You now have the potential of 200 people deciding who ends up being elected president every single time.”

And he offers great facts to bolster his overall claim. He reports that in the 2012 election, “roughly eight million small donors gave a total of about $500 million to Obama, Romney, and the main groups that backed them. It took only forty six hundred big donors to match that tally.” "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/review-big-money-on-the-role-of-the-ultra-rich-in-american-politics-by-kenneth-vogel/2014/06/04/591605fc-ea64-11e3-b98c-72cef4a00499_story.html?hpid=z5

That includes $120 million by the two Cock brothers.

Hmm. What about George Soros?

For your reading pleasure:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle-koch-brothers/

Hellsangel wrote:Hmm. What about George Soros?

For your reading pleasure:
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/09/opensecrets-battle-koch-brothers/

You comparing George Soros with Cock brothers ?

It is like comparing Sadhvi Pragya to Kasab...when it comes to terror.

i think dems and republicans are equally the whores of wall street and people with political influence.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think dems and republicans are equally the whores of wall street and people with political influence.

Well... Power and money are two sides of the same coin - called Govt.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think dems and republicans are equally the whores of wall street and people with political influence.

*Faint*

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think dems and republicans are equally the whores of wall street and people with political influence.

*Faint*

i meant the politicians, not the voters. of them i have different opinions.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think dems and republicans are equally the whores of wall street and people with political influence.

*Faint*

i meant the politicians, not the voters. of them i have different opinions.

BHO and Hillary included?

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i think dems and republicans are equally the whores of wall street and people with political influence.

*Faint*

i meant the politicians, not the voters. of them i have different opinions.

BHO and Hillary included?

yes. but i blame the roberts supreme court for the state of affairs we have more than anyone else.

truthbetold wrote:http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-12/cash-abroad-rises-206-billion-as-apple-to-ibm-avoid-tax.html

According bloomberg nearly 2 trillion dollars are parked outside Usa by us corporations.  These are profits from outside Usa activities.

The executives are handsomely compensated for those profits. Will the workers of Usa see any of this profits?

How are these monies adjusted in income inequality statistics?

>>Presumably they are not peeled out in making the comparison. However you are taxed on global income. One of the problems with using classical models in economics to today's issues is that you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. At least it seems to me that way, but I am no economist. I suppose you could exclude the off-shore holdings and returns to work out the math on the deleterious effects of inequality just on the US economy. You will come up with some results, but in terms of solutions I don't know how valid these will be, considering that you ignoring the 900 lb gorilla in the living room, which is globalization.