Since your just a goddamn genius, why dont you tell us when the poor have ever had more than they do today????
You're trying to dig your way out of this one, but it's not fooling anyone. A long argued "conspiracy theory" among those who carry water for the Fed (such as yourself) has been that the Fed is engaged in QE to drive the price of assets (like stocks, for instance). When a Fed governor comes out and legitimizes it, it makes those yelling conspiracy theory pretty much run for cover. And it's doggone funny to boot! Edit: I suppose I should add that you, personally, may not have been saying QE wasn't about asset prices (I don't remember if you held that position or not, and I don't care) but there have been a number of bloggers and media heads, as well as folks like Ricter on this board that have stated there was no correlation to asset prices at all. As if it was so hard to see.
Good questions. I would say let the public decide but then there is the danger of tyranny by the masses isn't there? But yet, the public must decide, just as we have done all along. Ultimately, fairness, better/worse is determined by the majority. But that majority may be fooled by a beguiling, powerful minority.
What exactly am I supposed to be digging myself out of? As far as I am aware, I have never made any categorical statements, especially regarding "conspiracy theories". At any rate, there's really no point having a discussion, since, clearly, you're not willing to engage in a conversation. I am pleased to at least have provided you with some amusement.
Or, alternatively, the powerful minority in question could actually be right... Anyways, I personally don't think some sort of wealth redistribution by decree to address inequalities would make things better. And I personally see the risk of it making things a lot worse.
But the very structure of governmental regulations or lack thereof essentially acts as a decree, one that increasingly favors the wealthy. With this wealth there is now, more than ever, power over our government. It feeds on itself. Plutocracy being the danger. One way redistribution for sure makes things better is by reducing poverty.
Well, even if what you say is true and the system excessively favors the wealthy, there can only be a relatively small number of wealthy people. Given that decisions in a democracy are made by a larger majority of non-wealthy people, it all ends up balancing itself out, innit? As to reducing poverty, over which horizon are we talking about here? I am pretty familiar, in a variety of ways, with one of the grandest redistribution projects ever attempted in history. Curiously, in spite of the expected reduction of poverty and misery, it actually ended up producing a lot more of it.
The fact of the matter is liberals would rather see everyone be dirt poor then see some people be more successful than others. They always bitch about the widening gap between the rich and poor but the fact of the matter is the poor has never had it better than they do today, so what is their solution? Ideas like Obamacare, destroy more middle class people and make them worse off than they were before, all in the name of "equality"....... Liberalism is a disease of the mind.