4 ms·

Do you assert that the Great Depression was caused by rising inequality?

alejohausner 8y ago
I think the opposite is true: the Depression led to the New Deal, and to WW2, both of which destroyed great wealth and made lowly workers better off.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  The state of lowly workers improved more or less continuously from 1800 on, despite the great wealth during the "guilded age". No country has ever succeeded in improving the lot of the poor by destroying the wealthy.
TomMckenny 8y ago
I only note that inequality peaked in 1929. And while the market obviously collapsed from over exuberance etc, the lack of middle class spending power prevented recovery. I also note inequality peaked again in 2007. But anyway people use ideology to choose their explanation for the great depression from the vast tangle of possibilities so it's a futile topic. And whether true or not, it isn't my main point anyway. Inequality causes dangerous levels of political instability which should be of concern to Forbes' and everyone else.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  > Inequality causes dangerous levels of political instability Does it? I think that's just a hypothesis. I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. It is clear that when people are literally starving, instability results. But that isn't the same as inequality. Remember that Hillary lost the election despite outspending Trump 2:1. We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote.
  - TomMckenny 8y ago
    >I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. You can literally google it and find an innumerable number of papers. Here's one[1] with over 3,000 citations. >We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote. You do know she won a majority of votes cast. More votes than Bush beat Kerry. More than well loved Kennedy beat Nixon who ended up resigning rather than be impeached. Even more than Gore beat Bush. So more of a flawed democracy[2] with 1 man, 1-ish vote [1]https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
    - skookumchuck 8y ago
      From your cite: "As a consequence, income inequality and investment are inversely related." And yet, investment in America has never been higher. Prosperity is up, unemployment is at very low levels, employment of minorities is at record levels. As for the Electoral College system, that's been around since the US was founded. We've always had a republic. It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. There was little to no evidence of voter fraud in the last election.
      - andrekandre 8y ago
        > It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. no, but they do have more money, which, thanks to citizens united equals more speech (money equals free speech) so, iow, they don’t need to vote, just use thier resources to conveniently/trick/extol others to vote the way they want... nice little workaround they found...
takitus 8y ago
inequality is a symptom of an unstable financial system. sort of like when a Volcano is about to explode, you see inequality between the calm horizon and the giant smoke and noise poring out of it. or when there is about to be a massive Tsunami, you see inequality between where the tide is supposed to be and where it actually is. The world tells you when things are about to go bad, if you pause and listen and watch. Inequality is rampant in speculative financial bubbles, also in kleptocracies, plutocracies, military juntas, tyrannies, and oligarchies, none of which are stable forms of social organization. You could even say that Inequality is what brought down the Soviet Union - the Polish independence movement was caused by many things, but what sparked it was when the highly educated, highly experienced, elite leadership of that social system decided to lower wages and increase prices.

I think the opposite is true: the Depression led to the New Deal, and to WW2, both of which destroyed great wealth and made lowly workers better off.

skookumchuck 8y ago
The state of lowly workers improved more or less continuously from 1800 on, despite the great wealth during the "guilded age". No country has ever succeeded in improving the lot of the poor by destroying the wealthy.

TomMckenny 8y ago

I only note that inequality peaked in 1929. And while the market obviously collapsed from over exuberance etc, the lack of middle class spending power prevented recovery. I also note inequality peaked again in 2007. But anyway people use ideology to choose their explanation for the great depression from the vast tangle of possibilities so it's a futile topic. And whether true or not, it isn't my main point anyway. Inequality causes dangerous levels of political instability which should be of concern to Forbes' and everyone else.

skookumchuck 8y ago
> Inequality causes dangerous levels of political instability Does it? I think that's just a hypothesis. I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. It is clear that when people are literally starving, instability results. But that isn't the same as inequality. Remember that Hillary lost the election despite outspending Trump 2:1. We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote.
- TomMckenny 8y ago
  >I haven't seen any careful research justifying it. You can literally google it and find an innumerable number of papers. Here's one[1] with over 3,000 citations. >We still live in a democracy, 1 man 1 vote. You do know she won a majority of votes cast. More votes than Bush beat Kerry. More than well loved Kennedy beat Nixon who ended up resigning rather than be impeached. Even more than Gore beat Bush. So more of a flawed democracy[2] with 1 man, 1-ish vote [1]https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 https://www.nber.org/papers/w4486 [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    From your cite: "As a consequence, income inequality and investment are inversely related." And yet, investment in America has never been higher. Prosperity is up, unemployment is at very low levels, employment of minorities is at record levels. As for the Electoral College system, that's been around since the US was founded. We've always had a republic. It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. There was little to no evidence of voter fraud in the last election.
    - andrekandre 8y ago
      > It's irrelevant, anyway, since rich people don't have any more votes than poor people. no, but they do have more money, which, thanks to citizens united equals more speech (money equals free speech) so, iow, they don’t need to vote, just use thier resources to conveniently/trick/extol others to vote the way they want... nice little workaround they found...

takitus 8y ago

inequality is a symptom of an unstable financial system. sort of like when a Volcano is about to explode, you see inequality between the calm horizon and the giant smoke and noise poring out of it. or when there is about to be a massive Tsunami, you see inequality between where the tide is supposed to be and where it actually is. The world tells you when things are about to go bad, if you pause and listen and watch. Inequality is rampant in speculative financial bubbles, also in kleptocracies, plutocracies, military juntas, tyrannies, and oligarchies, none of which are stable forms of social organization. You could even say that Inequality is what brought down the Soviet Union - the Polish independence movement was caused by many things, but what sparked it was when the highly educated, highly experienced, elite leadership of that social system decided to lower wages and increase prices.