Display:
I did not hear a single Democratic speaker at the convention going on now in Denver talk about inequality until Bill Clinton spoke, not that I am a fan of him. Income and wealth inequality started to increase at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and continued to balloon through the Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush years. Bush actually outdid Reagan in feeding the wealthy and corporate types.

10 years ago 85% of the US stockmarket was owned by the top 10% of families. Today, I have no doubt that, at a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, the ownership level is more like 90% for the exclusive top.

Now we hear that Obama wants to continue the trend Democratic style by raising the tax a meagre 5% to 20%. Keeping the rate low, it is believed, will bring in greater tax revenues, this logic based on the stockmarket bubble of the late 90s, which will never be seen again.

My thoughts are, foooweeeee. Poor folks will get cooked again.


by shergald on Thu Aug 28th, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST
this logic based on the stockmarket bubble of the late 90s, which will never be seen again.

What makes you think that there'll be fewer bubbles in the future?

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Aug 28th, 2008 at 03:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
About 8K was sucked out of my wallet in short order. I think investors have learned that there is no quick buck in the stock market. Slow, but reliable semi-conservative gains work best.

by shergald on Thu Aug 28th, 2008 at 05:52:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Aw, that sucks. Sorry to hear that. But I think you're wrong about the ability and willingness of the stock market to learn from past mistakes. I mean, the housing bubble happened hot on the heels of the dotcom crash which, if anything, should have taught people a thing or two about stock markets (most importantly, don't bet money on the stock market that you can't afford to lose...).

- Jake

If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 29th, 2008 at 11:37:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The gini coefficient under Clinton in the US went from 42 to 46.

Under Dubya, it's still around 46.

Clinton (and the Democrats) talk a good game but really, they haven't done anything about this subject since Johnson was President.

But true, he speaks well. Which, if I look in the dictionary, is the definition of a demogogue.

Fai de bèn a Bertrand, te lou rendra en cagant

by redstar on Thu Aug 28th, 2008 at 03:51:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Couldn't agree more. That Clinton talked income inequality is somewhat ironic, I admit, even though he was the only convention speaker to bring it up, thus far.

by shergald on Thu Aug 28th, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series