Is 0% growth for 90% a successful economic model?

[ksen]

http://fatasmihov.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-0-growth-for-90-successful-economic.html

Here is how I try to challenge the thinking of my students when I discuss income inequality. We all agree that the current economic model has allowed the income of many Americans to increase at a rate close to 2% for more than a century based on continuous productive accumulation of capital and innovation, an amazing success. But how would we think about the same economic model if this rate of growth slowed down and was very close to 0%? This would represent a big change in the economic outcome and would, for sure, raise concerns about why the model is failing to deliver relative to our expectations (that is the argument we use to call alternative models, like those of planned economies, a failure).

While it is true that GDP per capita growth has remained in line with historical experience over the last decades, the income of a large % of US households has either stopped growing or is growing at a rate much closer to 0% than to 2%. So if 0% growth for 100% of the population would represent a failure, what about 0% growth for 90% of the population?

Well? Is 0% economic growth for 90% of the population a successful economic model?

I would argue that it's not, that we can do better.

If you think it's just fine then what percentage of society needs to experience 0% growth for you to start thinking that, maybe, something should be changed?

http://www.businessinsider.com/95-o...the-top-1-heres-what-that-really-means-2013-9

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Questioning the free market is not allowed.

 

[ksen]

I will report for reeducation.

 

[ksen]

Also, I predict someone will get pedantic about percentages.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This just proves trickle down works.

 

[barbos]

Another version of top n%er thread? this time top-ten-percenters

 

[ksen]

So we'll put barbos in the "working just fine" column.

 

[barbos]

I did not say it's working fine. All I am actually saying is that you need better argument than this.

 

[ksen]

I did not say it's working fine.

Sure you didn't. :gotcha:

All I am actually saying is that you need better argument than this.

A better argument than 90% of society receiving none of the gains of society's economic growth? What would be a better argument? 91%? 95%? 99.9%? Maybe just over the percentage your household falls in?

 

[barbos]

Sure you didn't. :gotcha:

All I am actually saying is that you need better argument than this.

A better argument than 90% of society receiving none of the gains of society's economic growth? What would be a better argument? 91%? 95%? 99.9%? Maybe just over the percentage your household falls in?

Yes, you need better argument than this.

 

[ksen]

What argument? I was asking a question.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

You need to argue with less facty stuff.

 

[Axulus]

Ignoring for a moment that the size (and thus number of dual income households) continues to decline, are you suggesting that the additional taxes collected and spent from the top 10% provides zero value? Also, is income the only thing that matters in life? Reduction in crime and increased life expectancy, new technologies that didn't exist previously, new scientific knowledge, etc., this doesn't count for anything?

Furthermore, should you ignore the 96%, the other 6.7 billion people on the planet, in your analysis?

 

[ksen]

Ignoring for a moment that the size (and thus number of dual income households) continues to decline, are you suggesting that the additional taxes collected and spent from the top 10% provides zero value?

No, why would you think I'm suggesting that?

Also, is income the only thing that matters in life?

Since currently we have to rely on income to meet all of our wants and needs it is pretty important to most people.

Reduction in crime and increased life expectancy, new technologies that didn't exist previously, new scientific knowledge, etc., this doesn't count for anything?

Who says they don't?

Furthermore, should you ignore the 95%, the other 6.7 billion people on the planet, in your analysis?

Any other canards, distractions and red herring you want to bring up before even trying to answer my simple OP question?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Also take into account all those good-looking scientist babies that were never born because of abortion and Pol Pot.

 

[untermensche]

Ignoring for a moment that the size (and thus number of dual income households) continues to decline, are you suggesting that the additional taxes collected and spent from the top 10% provides zero value? Also, is income the only thing that matters in life? Reduction in crime and increased life expectancy, new technologies that didn't exist previously, new scientific knowledge, etc., this doesn't count for anything?

Furthermore, should you ignore the 96%, the other 6.7 billion people on the planet, in your analysis?

What a bunch of smoke and mirrors.

The system is set up such that the vast majority gain absolutely nothing as productivity increases, as profits increase, as wealth increases.

Instead of wealth being used to expand opportunity, lower the burden, and make life more livable for the young it is being horded by fewer and fewer and opportunity is shrinking rapidly as more and more of the young have huge debt and few economic prospects. And these are the ones with the college degrees.

There were many who didn't complain when absolute monarchy existed. I suppose there are many who don't mind oligarchy, as long as they have enough for themselves.