Pope demands 'legitimate redistribution' of wealth (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

 

[jonessed]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

We could redistribute wealth today and make it even for everyone, and it wouldn't take long for the unequal distribution to start mounting again. Some people will work harder or smarter and earn more, and others will kick back and enjoy. This is the steady state.

The steady state of the last several decades in the US has been the flow of money into the hands of the richest of the rich. There's a thumb on the scale.

There always will be. Certain people are just better at and more focused on earning money. Rebalance the scales today, and you will just have to do it again later. And repeatedly throughout time.

Finally, this part is absolutely correct. If there is one thing I have learned over the past five or so years, it's that some people really care about money and other people don't. I'm in the "don't" category, but I have come to appreciate how many people are passionately in the "do" column. People like me are going to be systematically out-earned by the other folks, and that is fine. I would not personally trade places with them, and they would not trade places with me. This is the definition of something that is not a problem.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?

I truly don't know. Out economy is based on capitalism. I don't know what various people mean by "true" capitalism. I suspect that involves everybody's favorite "true" Scotsman.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?

I truly don't know. Out economy is based on capitalism. I don't know what various people mean by "true" capitalism. I suspect that involves everybody's favorite "true" Scotsman.

The guy from the lawn commercials?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?

I truly don't know. Out economy is based on capitalism. I don't know what various people mean by "true" capitalism. I suspect that involves everybody's favorite "true" Scotsman.

The guy from the lawn commercials?

No, that's my least favorite Scotsman because I ####### hate lawn work.

 

[FlapJacks]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?

I truly don't know. Out economy is based on capitalism. I don't know what various people mean by "true" capitalism. I suspect that involves everybody's favorite "true" Scotsman.

The guy from the lawn commercials?

No, that's my least favorite Scotsman because I ####### hate lawn work.

lawn work is one of the biggest wastes of time and resources ever devised by mankind...

 

[jonessed]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?

I truly don't know. Out economy is based on capitalism. I don't know what various people mean by "true" capitalism. I suspect that involves everybody's favorite "true" Scotsman.

The guy from the lawn commercials?

No, that's my least favorite Scotsman because I ####### hate lawn work.

lawn work is one of the biggest wastes of time and resources ever devised by mankind...

Yeah , I like gardening, but hate mowing the lawn. I pay someone to do that.

 

[Riversco]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

So do you think Pope Francis is more worried about income disparity in the US or China? I still don't know.

 

[msommer]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

So do you think Pope Francis is more worried about income disparity in the US or China? I still don't know.

Wherever there are more Catholics

 

[Christo]

He seems like he means well. But for all it's faults, free market capitalism remains the best way to bring about an end to poverty.

I can't even

OK, I'll bite. What's the free-market incentive to give a #### about poverty? Seriously. If someone is sick or mentally ill or elderly or just doesn't have skills, why does the free market care?

This is what safety nets are for.

If you mean that capitalism leads to inequality, you're probably right. It's true that everybody tend to be equally poor in most non-capitalist societies. That's not a good argument against capitalism though, unless your priorities are really different than most.

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

Ture capitalism leads to monopolies and greater income disparity, so we're well on our way.

The policies and laws of this country have favored the rich over the past 30 or so years leading to the greatest income/wealth disparities since just prior to the Great Depression. This despite the fact that the country has transitions to a consumer based economy. The government doesn't need to improve the safety net, it needs to change the laws that have allowed the rich to siphon the poor dry.

So do you think Pope Francis is more worried about income disparity in the US or China? I still don't know.

Wherever there are more Catholics

I don't know. Does Pope Francis think it's more important to satisfy the flock or satisfy those who may join the flock? Isn't evangelism part of Catholicism. If he could get China to change its policies, wouldn't that cause Chinese people to convert? Thus, extending the reach of the Catholic Church and increasing their power and their coffers?

 

[msommer]

Expansion these days happens in Africa

 

[Smack Tripper]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Well, I wasnt quite envisioning the discussion going the way it did.

My perception of the absence of true capitalism in the context of it being the invisible hand is that there are numerous protections, tax incentives (when taxes are collected at all) and government subsidies of corporations in real dollars and in policy (again in my different directions) that in effect are a redistribution of wealth. However, its going in a different direction than the pope suggests.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for these incentives but I consider the current structure to be far, far from any sort of capitalism.

 

[Christo]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Well, I wasnt quite envisioning the discussion going the way it did.

My perception of the absence of true capitalism in the context of it being the invisible hand is that there are numerous protections, tax incentives (when taxes are collected at all) and government subsidies of corporations in real dollars and in policy (again in my different directions) that in effect are a redistribution of wealth. However, its going in a different direction than the pope suggests.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for these incentives but I consider the current structure to be far, far from any sort of capitalism.

Any sort? Oh, come on. There is nothing on this planet that is pure anything. To discount the system that is as close to pure capitalism as there is ever going to be is just silly. The US is a capitalist economy.

 

[dparker713]

So, you'll let Bill keep his money?

Bill isn't keeping his money.

 

[dparker713]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

 

[Christo]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

How much is a percentage? What can it buy me?

 

[Christo]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

 

[jonessed]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

I think the inability for many to grasp this is at the core of these arguments. We should really be teaching basic economics and finance in our schools.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

It's not about begrudging Bill Gates for his wealth, it's about allocation of limited resources. The vast majority of wealth being concentrated in the hands of only a few is unhealthy. Even Bill Gates agrees.

 

[tommyGunZ]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest. (Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

No, it's not.

 

[Christo]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

It's not about begrudging Bill Gates for his wealth, it's about allocation of limited resources. The vast majority of wealth being concentrated in the hands of only a few is unhealthy. Even Bill Gates agrees.

I think we've identified the flaw in your thinking. Resources are not limited.

 

[Christo]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest. (Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

No, it's not.

Then make you argument. Because that's all I've seen.

 

[dparker713]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

So your argument is that because Gates stole DOS, world total wealth went from 100% to 105%?

Gates didn't create new wealth, he accumulated existing wealth.

 

[dparker713]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

Actually, the argument is you're more successful than me, therefore why should I support policies that help you even more. And from an economic standpoint, moving wealth from few to many would increase spending, helping every sector except maybe finance. But hey, who wants economic growth?

 

[jonessed]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

So your argument is that because Gates stole DOS, world total wealth went from 100% to 105%?

Gates didn't create new wealth, he accumulated existing wealth.

See.

 

[dparker713]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

So your argument is that because Gates stole DOS, world total wealth went from 100% to 105%?

Gates didn't create new wealth, he accumulated existing wealth.

See.

You tell kids to give 110% effort, don't you?

 

[jonessed]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

So your argument is that because Gates stole DOS, world total wealth went from 100% to 105%?

Gates didn't create new wealth, he accumulated existing wealth.

See.

You tell kids to give 110% effort, don't you?

If you can't grasp the fact that wealth is not finite then there is no point in engaging in any rational economic discussion with you. It would be like trying to discuss calculus with someone who can't grasp basic arithmetic.

 

[Christo]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest.

(Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

Actually, the argument is you're more successful than me, therefore why should I support policies that help you even more. And from an economic standpoint, moving wealth from few to many would increase spending, helping every sector except maybe finance. But hey, who wants economic growth?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest. (Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

No, it's not.

Then make you argument. Because that's all I've seen.

Generally speaking I don't think the problem is that Gates, or any other comparable CEO type is making too much money. The issue is that while the growth in .01% income has skyrocketed, the growth of productivity and wages for just about everyone else has become decoupled. In other words while the economy is still growing, the bulk of the direct financial benefits are going to an increasingly small group of highly specialized earners. There are plenty of side benefits for everyone, of course. I'm sure most people if asked would rather live with 2014 technology compared to 1980, and that technology is cheap by comparison.

I read or heard recently that on a 1980 index (where the real price in 1980 is 100) the cost of a TV in 2014 is a 6. Barely a fraction of the cost, and that doesn't even take into account the degree of technological superiority. So that's great for consumers. Unfortunately on the same index, the cost of a 4 year college education in 2014 is a 600. So while "stuff" is generally better now, the cost of trying to differentiate in an increasingly difficult job market is getting harder.

I think the important questions are 1) is it a problem that the majority of return on economic output growth is being absorbed by a smaller number of specialized workers and 2) if it is a problem, will it just sort itself without any market intervention?

If your answers to those questions are yes, and either no or not sure to the second, you are likely going to be in favor of some kind of additional income distribution.

 

[Smack Tripper]

But then again we don't have and never have had true capitalism.

I never know how to respond to comments like these. The US features a capitalist economy. There's too much government involvement for my taste, but it's clearly capitalist. I don't see what the motivation is for hair-splitting on this issue.

Well, I wasnt quite envisioning the discussion going the way it did.

My perception of the absence of true capitalism in the context of it being the invisible hand is that there are numerous protections, tax incentives (when taxes are collected at all) and government subsidies of corporations in real dollars and in policy (again in my different directions) that in effect are a redistribution of wealth. However, its going in a different direction than the pope suggests.

I'm not saying there isn't a place for these incentives but I consider the current structure to be far, far from any sort of capitalism.

Any sort? Oh, come on. There is nothing on this planet that is pure anything. To discount the system that is as close to pure capitalism as there is ever going to be is just silly. The US is a capitalist economy.

I think we were there, or closer to that point, 40 years ago.

I think fundamentally, all people want is some sort of semblance of a square deal in this world, or at least the cold comfort of that perception. Corporations, as a broad body, pay par less tax than they used to, and that number continues to fall. That dwindling tax number is not at the expense of revenue, it is a direct form of social assistance. A pooled collective acting in their interest. The same thing the pope seems to be urging.

So I guess fundamentally I reject the original premise that capitalism is somehow the rising tide that lifts all ships when that seems to not be the case.

Frankly, its probably closest, in 2014, to the general definitions and tenets of fascism, but thats a word no one wants to hear.

 

[Christo]

This argument still dumbfounds me. Why does Otis care if Bill Gates has $80MM rather than $50MM?

I honestly can't bring myself to care that people who are way richer than me are getting even more way richer. I cannot see how that affects me in the slightest. (Otis makes quite a bit more than me I'm sure -- just commenting from the standpoint of somebody who shares your POV).

Seeing the argument is about percentages, more for them means less for you and everyone else.

No, it doesn't. The reason why Bill Gates is rich isn't because he went around stealing from other people. He's rich because he created a product that people wanted to buy. In other words, he created wealth that wouldn't have existed otherwise.

The very reason why the argument is dumbfounding. Essentially the argument is you were more successful than me, therefore you owe me.

No, it's not.

Then make you argument. Because that's all I've seen.

Generally speaking I don't think the problem is that Gates, or any other comparable CEO type is making too much money. The issue is that while the growth in .01% income has skyrocketed, the growth of productivity and wages for just about everyone else has become decoupled. In other words while the economy is still growing, the bulk of the direct financial benefits are going to an increasingly small group of highly specialized earners. There are plenty of side benefits for everyone, of course. I'm sure most people if asked would rather live with 2014 technology compared to 1980, and that technology is cheap by comparison.

I read or heard recently that on a 1980 index (where the real price in 1980 is 100) the cost of a TV in 2014 is a 6. Barely a fraction of the cost, and that doesn't even take into account the degree of technological superiority. So that's great for consumers. Unfortunately on the same index, the cost of a 4 year college education in 2014 is a 600. So while "stuff" is generally better now, the cost of trying to differentiate in an increasingly difficult job market is getting harder.

I think the important questions are 1) is it a problem that the majority of return on economic output growth is being absorbed by a smaller number of specialized workers and 2) if it is a problem, will it just sort itself without any market intervention?

If your answers to those questions are yes, and either no or not sure to the second, you are likely going to be in favor of some kind of additional income distribution.

Or, we need to break the higher education cartel.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I read or heard recently that on a 1980 index (where the real price in 1980 is 100) the cost of a TV in 2014 is a 6. Barely a fraction of the cost, and that doesn't even take into account the degree of technological superiority. So that's great for consumers. Unfortunately on the same index, the cost of a 4 year college education in 2014 is a 600. So while "stuff" is generally better now, the cost of trying to differentiate in an increasingly difficult job market is getting harder.

And this is largely the fault of the government. So, why are we talking about private industry here when we should be talking about taking some of the power back from the government so they quit messing stuff up?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I read or heard recently that on a 1980 index (where the real price in 1980 is 100) the cost of a TV in 2014 is a 6. Barely a fraction of the cost, and that doesn't even take into account the degree of technological superiority. So that's great for consumers. Unfortunately on the same index, the cost of a 4 year college education in 2014 is a 600. So while "stuff" is generally better now, the cost of trying to differentiate in an increasingly difficult job market is getting harder.

And this is largely the fault of the government. So, why are we talking about private industry here when we should be talking about taking some of the power back from the government so they quit messing stuff up?

Setting aside that I don't really agree with your premise - gov't has clearly helped increase demand for higher education and drives other cost through subsidy, but I suspect the increases would still be substantial even in absence of any gov't involvement and there are other trade-offs that would follow - the increase in higher education costs doesn't explain much about what's happened with income inequality over the last generation.