Yet here we are, in massive personal and national debt, seemingly unable to afford as much as we used to. If what you're saying is true, the only explanation is over-consumption. Unneccessarily going into debt over expensive cars, large homes, laptops, ipads, cable tv, ipods, internet, cell phones etc. Of course much of our economy is based on this consumption, so where would that leave us?JohnStOnge wrote:I think in the final analysis you are correct: Nothing can grow infinitely. But our system...the world's system and not just the United States...is based on the idea of a continually growing economy.There is no such thing as perpetual growth. Not in our economy, not in anyone's economy. Not now, not before. You, plain and simply, are not dealing in reality.
In any case, wealth is not a fixed quantity. There is no great pie of wealth dropped from heaven that is then distributed among the people. Wealth is created through the generation of goods and services. Money, nowadays, is just a medium of exchange.
The reality IS that the "middle" of the income distribution is better off now in terms of inflation adjusted value of its income than it was in the 1950s. I'm not going to look it up now but I recently did for another thread. And the reality IS that the top 1% (or whatever percent) controlling a greater percentage of the wealth now than it did X years ago does not mean that the other 99% of the people have less wealth than they did X years ago.
The whole deal with the "wealth inequality" thing is simply the politics of envy. That's all it is.
Your homework, if you so accept, is to find out the percentage of income the middle class was paying on healthcare, college tuition for their kids, and putting away for their retirement in the 50's or 60's versus today. And the loss our economy would have suffered had we consumed less.
Until then, I call bullshit on your envy meme.







