Bad News with a silver lining

[Heywood]

Why do you assume Jim Crow laws were based on racism? They could have been enacted based on concern over maintaining the establishment.

Probably because they discriminated on the basis of race, explicilty. Read the laws. I'll let you figure out the rest for yourself; or I'll have a moment of humor watching you wander through the wilderness as you learn facts you didn't previously know.

Its hard to argue with you because you seem incapable of separating one claim from another. One claim was that the disparity between the rich and poor was widening. By showing that standard of living is increasing faster for poor people than rich people...I showed that claim to be errant.

No, you didn't. The fact is, the metric for wealth is the amount of wealth. And the fact is, I've shown that the distribution of wealth over the last thirty years has been inordinate.

A second claim was that if income of rich people was re-distributed to everyone else....everyone else would have more buy power.

That wasn't a claim I made; I'd suggest you reread my posts and link to the exact post where I made that claim.

No...you don't know what your talking about. Demand happens for all sorts of reason. A law is passed requiring construction sites be surrounded by fences....demand for fences increases. A hurricaine hits and knocks out the power station for a month...demand for generators increases. I could go on and on.

You're so close, and yet so far away.

The reason our standards of living have increased is because more is being produced. If you want to maximally increase peoples standard of living...set up a system that maximizes production and maximizes peoples buying power.
No minimum wage.....no silly regulations......a highly progressive tax rate....and a universal basic income will accomplish that.

All the production in the world does you no good if food is expensive. Are you really this obtuse, or are you putting on an act?

I don't dispute the CBO numbers. I am saying they are irrelevant. The fact that I am arguing one thing and you keep trying to make the argument about something else...something irrelevant shows that you have lost and are now strawmanning to try to save face.

No; I'm pointing out that you don't know your ass from third base about why people buy stuff.

Here's a clue for you: they don't buy it because you've built it.

If you want to win...you have to show that standards of living are not increasing....or that standards of living of the poor and middle class are growing slower than the standards of living for the rich.

I've already done that: take-home pay is a tight correlate with living standards. You should look again at the graphs you clearly ignored, and use your head to draw the appropriate conclusions.

When I argue there is no widening disparity between rich and poor as evidenced by the closing gap in the standard of living between the rich and poor.....you can't win by tossing out irrelevant CBO numbers that have nothing to do with the claim I am making.

You need to actually provide evidence for that claim before you claim propriety.

Don't worry, I'll wait while you google to support your argumentum ex culo.

How about you attack the claim I am making by presenting facts relevant to the claim I am making. Can you do me the courtesy?

Setting aside for the moment that I already have, howzabout you actually give evidence for your claim? Give us data. Provide information. Supply links.

Show that the disparity between the wealthy and the poor hasn't grown. Demonstrate that with numbers from credible sources.

There is nothing of substance....there is no coherent argument which I can respond too.

I think you and I have both stated our positions in detail and we can let the readers of this thread can decide who is right.