I have a few questions/observations and maybe some Freepers can answer them for me.
The left keeps going on about “the income gap”... but from what I can tell, the poor aren’t getting poorer.
Now... if the wealthy have investments and the stock market does reasonably well... doesn’t it stand to reason that the rich will get richer?
Is the stock Market doing reasonably well?
That’s your answer.
No one is getting richer now except those who invested totally in gold. If those who bought gold for many, many years waited till now,they would be wealthy. Unfortunately it took a long time to come to this juncture, the lucky ones bought gold now and made money. Most people invested in the market and are paying the price. When we have a new president the market will get better and everyone who hung in there will be wealthier.
The socialistic left view the American Economy as a FIXED PIE with a FIXED SIZE and that’s the problem right there. If you view the economy as a fixed pie, then anyone or any group of people who takes a large portion of the pie will make you think that the rest will have to subsist on nibbling at the edges of the pie.
It never occured to them that WE CAN GROW THE PIE, such that when the pie gets BIGGER, even if the wealthy gets a large portion of the pie, the less wealthy and even the poor can still enjoy a BIGGER share — more than enough or even enough to satisfy their needs.
That is why you never see the left advocating policies to GRWO THE PIE. it is always redistributing a FIXED PIE for them. The end result is of course -— CONFISCATING the share of the pie owned by those who get a large chunk. RESULT -— LESS MILLIONAIRES and a SMALLER PIE.
Now... if the wealthy have investments and the stock market does reasonably well... doesn’t it stand to reason that the rich will get richer?
In a free society with a rational and moral culture, and a just government, when the rich get richer,it benefits everyone generally, because while the rich are getting richer, they produce more and increase supply while lowering average prices, and also, are able to hire more, or increase average wages more. So, even if there is an income gap, average prosperity and average standard of living is increasing for everyone.
Ask a liberal what periods in history they think were the best, as far as income distribution between rich and poor.
(This question alone will disable 90% of liberals, although 10% will rally with either something completely absurd, or they'll simply shrug and say, 'Never'.)
While they flail for an answer, point out that the poorest standards of living are always found where the gap between riches and poorest is the smallest. The best standards of living are where the gap between richest and poorest is the widest.
Wealthy empires of old like Greece, China, or Persia had far more poor people than rich ones, but they also had roads, scientific advancement, commerce and laws. The Mongols may have had less dispersion in wealth than the Romans, but under whose flag would you rather have lived?
This will already exceed the historical knowledge of most liberals, and I generally find most of them tap out at this point and ask to come back to the present.
Once you're back to modern day, you can point out that a third world dictator might have a few billion in the bank and his people live in shacks. That's all well and good, because it's easy to envision. Now let them envision this: America has not one, but a legion of people with tinhorn dictator money, and hordes more with somewhat less. The poor people here are overweight, have cars, iPhones, PS3s and new clothes. As a historical model, you'll never find a place with more wealth, or better off poor people, than America. Historically, we know there's only two things that will happen to our relative wealth levels.
1. Make the rich less rich, and the poor less well off.
2. Make the rich richer, and make the poor better off.