A new Congressional Budget Office analysis supports the idea that income inequality has grown considerably over the past few decades. As part of his Making Sen$e series on economic inequality, Paul Solman talks to libertarian law professor Richard Epstein, who argues that wealth inequality acts as a driving force for innovation. Read more....
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side?
A new Congressional Budget Office analysis supports the idea that income inequality has grown considerably over the past few decades. As part of his Making Sen$e series on economic inequality, Paul Solman talks to libertarian law professor Richard Epstein, who argues that wealth inequality acts as a driving force for innovation. Read more....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Inequality is a result of equality. Most people gain wealth as they get older. Today's "poor" are tomorrows middle class. Some people fail to learn this lesson or are addicted to alcohol or drugs and do not gain wealth as they age. In other words they are equally able to make those choices and when they do they live with them. No people are poor because rich people want them to be poor and no people are rich because they took away the opportunity of the poor. People make choices and then they live with tem.
ReplyDeleteagree with choices, but many will in their effort to get "gains" all types use/take/restrict/capture the opportunity's of -any-others they can, but yeah, it's mostly not personal as in bearing a specific individual a grudge or something. Just so happens it's mostly always easier to capture what opportunity another had because that another is ..sleeping..with a bottle, or TV, or other wasteful endeavors. When some achieve a certain place, one example of capture/restriction of what would become opportunity to another might by..company coinage and company towns..used some in the early 1900's. another might be the agriculture and farming industry and the actions done there. still another might be, bailouts for risky bets by banks when those amounts might have went to benefit the more general population through many more productive way's. another might be doing what was formally unheard of and using what was all thought to be safe customer accts to make risky bets, then when the bets go wrong..walking away without penalty while blindsiding those with money placed in trust there.
ReplyDeletejust a thought..company coinage and towns...would it be possible to apply that on a much grander scale?
it's nothing new, just seems this time around to be on a hitherto unheard of scale is all..guess that's what they call globalism.