All that growth is going somewhere, and it's certainly not going to the workers.

I don't disagree with the list of problems, but I don't see what "fairness" has to do with anything.

"Fair" is a propaganda word that politicians use to justify their policies.

A Republican will tell you its "fair" that the top 1% gets to keep all their wealth because [insert something about "bootstraps"].

"Fair" is a loaded word that politicians use to shift the debate from a fact-based discussion to an emotion-based one where facts don't matter anymore.

I would argue the opposite; we need to get away from these loaded words and get back to evidence-based decision making.

I don't care what's "fair." I care what's sustainable in the long run. It's clear from Midden's graph that where we are is not sustainable, so we have to do something even if it's "unfair*," otherwise the whole country crumbles.


*In case it's not clear, in this context it means the 1% might have to pay a bit more than the rest of us.

The issue is inequity - in an abundance of wealth there are those who are suffering versus those with way more than they need. Some haves are so mean they want to run society to further harm the have nots. The over abuse is "unfair".

Exactly. There's nothing wrong with inequality. A certain amount of it is necessary for motivation, humans being humans (not to mention the inevitability of inequality in a universe full of random factors). It's when that inequality goes so far beyond anything reasonably justifiable that you get the peasants at the gate with pitchforks, torches and guillotines.

I'm at the point where I think it's just defective behavior akin to hoarding/trolling.

This seems little more than an attempt to derail the conversation by way of semantics. "Does America have a problem with gun deaths or bullet deaths?"

"Deaton believes the biggest misconception about inequality is that it causes certain economic, political, and social processes. But that’s backward. Economic inequality is a symptom of processes—some good, some bad—that drive the global economy."

No shit, Sherlock. That's why people who decry inequality typically talk about all the things listed in this article. But I guess us plebs couldn't possibly understand those concepts, and we need some ivory tower dipshit to explain it to us.

How can I trust your opinion when you don’t even wear a bow tie?

In silicon valley these days, a hair tie is as good as a bow tie.

Piketty came up with a simple theory on when inequality occurs, r>g. Simply put, inequality occurs when the return on capital (profit, rent, dividends, interest) exceeds the economic growth. There is a clear change in inequality, when taxes were largely cut (tax cuts increase the rate of return). Trickle down economics hard at work.

The key is to keep taxes high enough to mostly, but not completely, spread that economic growth around, so as to support further investing by the wealthy. The economy is growing at 6%? Great! You deserve to increase your personal wealth by a reasonable amount proportional to your investment in the economy, but you do not deserve to pocket the vast majority of that economic growth.

And of course, that taxation should be progressive. It shouldn't be too hard to become a multi-millionaire in a lifetime and have pretty much everything you ever want or need. Hundreds of millions? That should be quite difficult. Billions? Damn hard. Tens of billions? Near impossible.

There are currently 540 listed billionaires in the US, whose (known) net worth equals about 8% of the country's GDP. I wouldn't be at all surprised if those folks have at least double the wealth that the IRS knows about.