Inequality in America: Joseph Stiglitz on the loss of the American Dream

[@RobSmith2016]

Sitglitz, one of the greatest thinkers of our age.

[@mandarchoudhari3270]

flawless. Categorically articulated .. Such discourses should emerge from developing countries too.

[@thinkso2399]

They do emerge from such said countries....we just need to find them brother...example: www.amazon.com/WALLS-Racism-Sexism-dont-matter-ebook/dp/B07231X18Y/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1495649159&sr=8-1

[@bufalopete897]

Only 3440 views, SAD!!

[@mason-qm2eb]

My freind wrote an article about the alternative to trickle down economics: alexsanglepolitics.com/2016/04/21/the-alternative-to-trickle-down-economics/ Thanks XD

[@mEnttall1rIDardeT]

gott hör auf zu mmmHMMMMMmnnnnn

[@Rob-fx2dw]

Stiglitz - Again Stiglitz bring his poorly thought out statement about trickle down not having occurred. He ignores the improvements that have trickled down from the top to the bottom since his focus is predominently on the money aspect of improved wealth and an almost totally ignored the reality of the situation. Over even a short period of the past forty year there has been an undeniable amount of improved technology that is available for all of the population from items like mobile phones, computers, transport, medicines, entertainment and almost every other type of improved wealth that started as almost exclusively part of what only extremely wealthy people had access to and now nearly everyone has access to with even a relatively small income. That is what has trickled down. That is wealth trickling down. Of course if you are blind sided and focus onto one part, which Stiglitz does and just count the number of dollars of disposable income after having access to all the improvements and ignore them then you can always make a completely distorted case Summary - the headline should be "Stiglitz does a blind side again ! " or "Stiglitz ignores reality again to display his faulted argument " .

[@AnArchyRulzz]

That is just companies making their products for less money overseas because of cheaper labour. If those same products were made domestically they would be way more expensive. Also has to do with cheaper materials. Has nothing to do with trickle down economics. What you mention is also just progress in sciences and technology.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

What do you thing trick down is? If it wee just were money taht trickles down then there would be no improvement in wealth that is from technology which does not happen automatically. It requires research for new development by someone. Then newly developed goods go on the market to be sold at higher price and when the volume of sales starts to increase more goods can be produced becasue of the economies of scale kick in.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

What is the understanding of the expectation of the majority as regards trickle down? Is it rational? The reality is that there is no logical reasoning that concludes equality of income should exist at all. If there is then just why should it occur in respect to income when it does not occur in respect to so many other aspects. Such inequality exists in physical attributes, mental ability in certain fields, musical ability. Surely if equality is such a highly desireable thing then greatly talented musicians should be restricted in their musical talents to allow others to be comparable. So should talented mathematicians or gymnasts or footballers. So too tall basket ball players should be handicapped to restict their advantages of their height. Why isn't Stiglitz pushing that absurdity like he is pushing the income inequality policy. In reality he is just pushing anger and envy ignoring the reality that people have different talents.

[@AnArchyRulzz]

No one says income should be exactly equal. That is the strawman of all strawmans. People arguing against income inequality just want the gap to be smaller, not for the gap to be nonexistent. There always has to be some level of income inequality. Though people who say income is motivating factor neglect to realize that the most socially important vocations don't pay the most, so if money is the prime motivator than we are motivating people to do jobs that add nothing to society.

[@Rob-fx2dw]

So now your argument is that someone like yourself or Stiglitz knows by some means just how equal people should be in respect to income. How is that determined and by what scientific means does he decide on how equal people should be? Why should people be more equal in income? - Apart from some politically based populist theory. I believe the whole equality issue is just some politically based populist theory taken advantage of by somewhat misinforming and greedy hypocritical people like Stiglitz who have nothing other to offer in the way of improving people's lives in general.