Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 09 Dec '14 15:12
    Income inequality has a "statistically significant impact" on economic growth, according to research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    In the UK, rising inequality cost the economy almost nine percentage points of GDP growth between 1990 and 2010, the think tank said.

    The US lost almost seven points.

    The OECD also found that redistribution of wealth via taxes and benefits does not hamper economic growth.


    Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30390232
  2. 09 Dec '14 16:19
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Income inequality has a "statistically significant impact" on economic growth, according to research by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

    In the UK, rising inequality cost the economy almost nine percentage points of GDP growth between 1990 and 2010, the think tank said.

    The US lost almost seven points.

    T ...[text shortened]... s not hamper economic growth.


    Full article: http://www.bbc.com/news/business-30390232
    What would you expect from an organization which is admittedly pro socialism.
  3. 09 Dec '14 16:21
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What would you expect from an organization which is admittedly pro socialism.
    I'm willing to assume that they alone are the only unpartisan objective humans to ever walk the earth.

    Hope and change baby!!
  4. 09 Dec '14 16:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    I'm willing to assume that they alone are the only unpartisan objective humans to ever walk the earth.

    Hope and change baby!!
    That is why for millenniums, there was little or no economic growth, and virtually all the population was dirt poor, either slaves or serfs.
  5. 09 Dec '14 16:36
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What would you expect from an organization which is admittedly pro socialism.
    When has the OECD claimed to be socialist?
  6. 09 Dec '14 16:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    When has the OECD claimed to be socialist?
    What does OECD stand for?
  7. 09 Dec '14 16:43
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What does OECD stand for?
    Ah, you're right, I see it now. It's the Organization to Effect Capitalism's Destruction.
  8. 09 Dec '14 17:01
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Ah, you're right, I see it now. It's the Organization to Effect Capitalism's Destruction.
    Cute. But it does, by its very existence, stand for top down management of economies, not only in one country, but across all of them.

    Since Adam Smith's days, the economic growth of the world has been capitalistic, with its incentives to create new wealth. Even the democratic socialist States of Europe would have nothing to redistribute were it not for capitalism. So, the argument can't be redistribution or capitalism, as without capitalism there would be nothing or little to redistribute.
  9. 09 Dec '14 17:26
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Cute. But it does, by its very existence, stand for top down management of economies, not only in one country, but across all of them.

    Since Adam Smith's days, the economic growth of the world has been capitalistic, with its incentives to create new wealth. Even the democratic socialist States of Europe would have nothing to redistribute were it not ...[text shortened]... tribution or capitalism, as without capitalism there would be nothing or little to redistribute.
    The OECD was co-founded in 1961 by the US, at the height of the Cold War. You're quite the silly Billy to suggest it is a "socialist" organization. Quoting Wikipedia:

    It is a forum of countries committed to democracy and the market economy (emphasis added), providing a platform to compare policy experiences, seeking answers to common problems, identify good practices and coordinate domestic and international policies of its members.
  10. 09 Dec '14 17:49
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    The OECD was co-founded in 1961 by the US, at the height of the Cold War. You're quite the silly Billy to suggest it is a "socialist" organization. Quoting Wikipedia:

    It is a forum of countries committed to democracy and the market economy (emphasis added), providing a platform to compare policy experiences, seeking answers to common pr ...[text shortened]... entify good practices and coordinate domestic and international policies of its members.
    You ignored my first sentence. The United States and Britain were the birthplace of Western capitalism. Responsible for the rise out of serfdom and the abolition of slavery, and the discovery that wealth did not have to be stolen, but it could be created.

    Instead, both the modern UK and the US are gradually embracing principles of socialism, and that, not income inequity, accounts for their stagnant economic growth.
  11. 09 Dec '14 18:04
    Originally posted by normbenign
    That is why for millenniums, there was little or no economic growth, and virtually all the population was dirt poor, either slaves or serfs.
    What creates more manufacturing, the rich few spending money or the poor majority spending most of the money?

    I don't see this as an argument to promote socialism per se. Is promoting the raising of minimum wage a purely socialist idea? Why can't a capitalist promote raising the minimum wage and still be a capitalist?
  12. 09 Dec '14 18:20
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You ignored my first sentence. The United States and Britain were the birthplace of Western capitalism. Responsible for the rise out of serfdom and the abolition of slavery, and the discovery that wealth did not have to be stolen, but it could be created.

    Instead, both the modern UK and the US are gradually embracing principles of socialism, and that, not income inequity, accounts for their stagnant economic growth.
    You ignored my first sentence. The United States and Britain were the birthplace of Western capitalism.

    Umm, nope. "Birthplace of capitalism" is a bit vague, but the merchant republics of Italy or the Dutch East India Company would be more logical candidates.

    Responsible for the rise out of serfdom and the abolition of slavery, and the discovery that wealth did not have to be stolen, but it could be created.

    The USA was relatively late to abolish slavery. For example, France abolished slavery (on the mainland) in 1315.

    Instead, both the modern UK and the US are gradually embracing principles of socialism, and that, not income inequity, accounts for their stagnant economic growth.

    Can you quantify and/or back up this statement in any way?
  13. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    09 Dec '14 18:44 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What would you expect from an organization which is admittedly pro socialism.
    A lack of investment in education was the key factor behind rising inequality, the OECD said.

    Fewer educational opportunities for disadvantaged individuals had the effect of "lowering social mobility and hampering skills development," the report warned.
    http://commentspro.com/lead/234485

    Hmm. Recommending better education and skills training - now that is socialism gone crazy we can all agree. We need free markets, not education and skills, to resolve the needs of our disadvantaged.

    From a socialist perspective, however, I would suggest this OECD report is not engaging with the issue. Inequality will not be resolved by training the disadvantaged. Inequality requires direct action to reduce inequality. It requires taxing the rich and the large corporations.

    What Piketty demonstrated with copious evidence in Capital in the 21st Century is that inequality is driven by the fact that investment income generates a faster rate of return than any form of work. Inherited advantages not hard work are producing the increasing absolute and relative wealth of the top 1%. Working harder or with more skill will not change things one jot. It will not transfer wealth back from rich to poor.
  14. 09 Dec '14 19:03
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    What creates more manufacturing, the rich few spending money or the poor majority spending most of the money?

    I don't see this as an argument to promote socialism per se. Is promoting the raising of minimum wage a purely socialist idea? Why can't a capitalist promote raising the minimum wage and still be a capitalist?
    Good capitalists do see the benefit of raising wages voluntarily, as Henry Ford did in introducing the world to the Model A. A lot of others do as well. Microsoft created a $65 billion dollar nest egg for Bill Gates despite taxation, as well as lots of individual benevolence. Gates also created or helped create many others who shared the wealth he created. That doesn't make every minimum wage employer evil or nonsensical. There are workers that aren't worth minimum wage or even a fraction of it. Next time you go to a fast food restaurant, and they get your order totally wrong ask yourself if those employees are worth $15/hour?

    The key element is the top down ordering of how wealth is distributed, which goes back to the old vision that all wealth exists, and that someone has to lose for another to gain. That is patently false, as the age of capitalism has shown. New wealth is created by entrepreneurship, and new products and technology benefit both the inventor, and the general population as well. The general population being made up of the manufacturing laborers, the shippers, those who tend to the infrastructure, on and on.

    "What creates more manufacturing, the rich few spending money or the poor majority spending most of the money?"

    That is faulty logic. People in every bracket spend money. It is also necessary for money to be saved. We can't continue to just print money. It eventually all becomes worthless, as we have seen by examples. Poor people save to become entrepreneurs, and the wealthy are a source that lower class entrepreneurs can borrow from, or have invest in their ideas.

    There is far more to economic growth than consumerism. The key element is consent or force.
  15. 09 Dec '14 19:11
    Originally posted by finnegan
    A lack of investment in education was the key factor behind rising inequality, the OECD said.

    Fewer educational opportunities for disadvantaged individuals had the effect of "lowering social mobility and hampering skills development," the report warned.
    http://commentspro.com/lead/234485

    Hmm. Recommending better education and skills trai ...[text shortened]... h more skill will not change things one jot. It will not transfer wealth back from rich to poor.
    What is being done is to create a massive disadvantaged class which theoretically can't help itself, so requires government help. That goes to further increase economic inequality, and to discourage either saving, or investment/creating.

    All that confiscating earned wealth does it convince inventive people not to bother, or to do it elsewhere.