Online Group “Damn, That’s Interesting” Shares 50 Interesting Facts And Pics

Because he is evidence, rather his work is, that economic change can be forced, can be accomplished and needs none of those things you mentioned to be important. He changed the local economy of that area, which has a trickle down effect on other areas. Although personally I believe it would be more fascinating to see the long term effects, the butterfly effect if you will of his actions. Some might say his actions were altruistic, but I strongly believe they were purposeful. If more people who had the means to positively affect economies purposefully chose to do so, the ripple effect (globally) would grow exponentially.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Rockefeller or Carnegie was a much greater philanthropist than he will ever be. Ludwig von Mises or Frank Knight affected more peoples' lives than he has. He is, in the grand scheme of economics and history, absolutely insignificant. I deeply admire his actions, of course, but all of his work was replicated before, his charity is minute compared to what has already been accomplished, and he has done nothing worth mentioning amongst the truly great men. His actions are, simply put, not enough to warrant him a place in an economics or history textbook.

You as a person is probably a LOT more insignificant to economics, he shows us that no matter how bad a place is it can always be fixed, he is a testimony to economic growth

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

He and I are both inferior to the greats, that is why they are in a textbook when neither of us is in one. Yes, he did enact great deeds, lifting a town from poverty. But other people have done the same thing, and on a larger scale. Deng Xiaoping transformed China overnight from 60 million people starving to death to one of the strongest economies in the world. Hjalmar Schacht, though regrettably a Nazi, transformed the Reich's economy and lifted millions of Germans from the Depression, allowing Germany to be the powerhouse it was during WWII. Paul Volcker's policy in the Stagflation of the 1970s ended, some would say, the worst recession since the Great Depression, transforming the American economy. Some claim Keynes did the same in 1930. You see, this man is nothing special. It doesn't matter if he did a great deed if dozens of others did things infinitely greater. It doesn't matter if he transformed a town when others transformed countries.

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

I don't think that's true. On the contrary, I'd say that the politics of today is dictated by the middle class.

You've got to be kidding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Wx5PYZIWcQ

You do know that 2 people in America have more than the entire bottom 40%.

I do see you as having a point in a political perspective, however, I think your point is that the rich have a massive share, therefore they can lobby for the government to pass laws beneficial to them. I do think this is becoming a larger problem in very recent years, as the scope of government operations has become larger. My solution to stopping the rich from buying corrupt policies is to limit the government's ability to enact those policies in the first place. The rich want regulations to restrict competition, they get these passed through their extraordinary wealth. If we take away the government's ability to enact those regulations, however, the rich would have no incentive to use their money on the government. The rich envy the government's specific economic powers. Take away those powers, and take away the incentive to control the government.

I agree with you

Thank you.

This income inequality is not a problem. The poor are getting richer (Fed Reserve Data indicates an 80% increase in median income over 40 years), and I see no reason to care if they are getting richer at a slower rate than the rich. Why does it matter if they're getting richer faster than you are? All it matters is that both are getting rich. Yes, of course, the rich got made massive gains in their wealth, but so have the poor. That rich guy gains 100 dollars and you gain 20 dollars, but it doesn't make sense to care they made more money than you. Some studies even show that wealth inequality is good! MIT’s Kristin Forbes and Harvard’s Robert Barro find that an increase in a country’s level of income inequality encourages growth. So, to reiterate, I do not see that stat as being any kind of problem. And, by the way, watch the video I posted, I think it's very insightful.

Inflation

Inflation is caused by faulty Monetary Policy, in which, for fears of a recession, Janet Yellen kept interest rates low, and now we're seeing the results of the all-too-large money supply diluting prices and causing inflation. This is made worse with all those government stimulus checks and spending during the pandemic, increasing the supply of money and, therefore, through Say's Law, the demand for goods and services, contributing to Demand-Pull inflation. The supply shock caused by the COVID pandemic didn't help, either, shutting down the world's economies and causing a halt to the world's production. So, inflated demand (through a large money supply, either through fiscal or monetary policy) coupled with supply shocks is the cause of inflation. What does this have to do with income inequality?

It has nothing to do with being jealous of the billionaire's money. It's that these people have all this money and they aren't doing anything with it. At least nothing to help others. They use their money in selfish pursuits instead. That's what bothers people.

Their selfish pursuits help people. What do you think billionaires do with their money? Keep them in giant vaults? No, they invest it, in factories and innovation. Do those factory workers need jobs? Yes. Do those factories produce items everyday consumers want? Yes. Therefore, their wealth is being used to actively help people. How do you think Bill Gates got rich? He got rich by making his amazing computers, and his computers made millions of people across the world happier. We got computers we love, and Gates got his millions. Every single billionaire today got rich by inadvertently helping people. This is illustrated in Adam Smith's invisible hand: "By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."

I meant instead of using their money, once they have it, for helping others they buy huge houses all over the world and buy cars that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Buying million dollar mansions in all the "cool" places on earth helps no one but themselves. The only reason some of them contribute to society (with donations and such) is for the tax right off.

But that income increase means nothing when the cost of living rises exponentially above it. What is the average cost of, say, a grocery bill in those 40 years (and I’m not talking inflation). Some have gotten raises to keep up, but the majority have not. This is where the anger at that rich gaining more thing comes in. That’s a pretty big gap when you are working your but off and barely getting by while executives are getting richer by raising prices and not spreading that wealth to their employees. When they are are donating hundreds of thousands to the government just to get laws passed that benefit them to make more money, and yet give nothing to their employees doesn’t go over too well either. The rich can stay rich while still taking care of their employees, they just choose not to.

I would like to questions the premise that the aggregate price of goods commonly used by middle-class families is up. The Cleveland Fed found that, although Housing and Healthcare is up (due to, as I've stated, government mismanagement, not corporate greed), but these costs are "offset by relative price decreases in transportation, food, and recreation, among others, making real middle-class incomes slightly higher than in the past." As for the fact that the rich aren't taking care of employees, I do conceded that there are plenty of bad bosses in the market. However, the natural market solution is for the employees to switch jobs; if this is widespread enough, those bad businesses will go bankrupt or be forced to adopt more employee-friendly practices.

Rising prices are a problem, I admit, but these prices aren't caused by selfish billionaires or by Capitalism; rather, they're caused by government regulations and faulty monetary policy from the Federal Reserve. In Housing, for example, government regulations severely hinder free market competition, driving prices up, through Zoning Laws, Land-use Regulations, NIMBY, etc. In Healthcare, excessive government regulations also cost the healthcare industry billions every year (per Christopher Conover), which also drives costs up for the consumer. And, of course, the dollar loses value, and prices for everything goes up, when the Federal Reserve makes a mistake and keeps the money supply too high (typically through low interest rates or quantitative easing when instead their monetary policy should be contractionary).

Smorterererest