*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, September 26th, 2011 3:04pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter dystopianfuturetoday.

Probably also has something to do with the bailouts and printing of new money as well.

Video needs to be renamed, "Two neolibs circle-jerking over one out of dozens of economic statistics."

I.E. Nothing to see here.

In-depth explanation.

What wishy-washy bullshit...

"It's part of...really...the restructuring of the economy." Call it whatever the hell you like, but answer the freaking question. WHY?

Why not just come out and say it, this change was the inevitable outcome of the funding of political campaigns by the wealthy. And while we're at it, why not call -that- what it is, legalized bribery.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Video needs to be renamed, "Two neolibs circle-jerking over one out of dozens of economic statistics."
I.E. Nothing to see here.


You don't deserve a downvote because you don't really understand what a "neolib" is. A Neo Liberal would be very much in support of what is happening right now and would be in favor of destroying the middle class, as much as possible.

I said neolib, not neo liberal. I invented the word. It is a catchall word to denigratingly refer to anyone who holds any sort of leftist philosophy. It is to be used the same way as liberals use the word neocon to refer to denigratingly to anyone that is conservative, even though the actual definition of a neocon is a democrat who supports the military.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

I said neolib, not neo liberal. I invented the word. It is a catchall word to denigratingly refer to anyone who holds any sort of leftist philosophy. It is to be used the same way as liberals use the word neocon to refer to denigratingly to anyone that is conservative, even though the actual definition of a neocon is a democrat who supports the military.


You're such a pluricratist.

Anyone who uses the phrase "income inequality" automatically gets labelled an idiot, as is anyone who uses the phrase "The Rich Get Richer, the Poor Get Poorer" without actually looking at the numbers.

Income Inequality is a meaningless statistic. What percentage of the pie each quintile of income earners earned is MEANINGLESS without looking at the size of the overall pie. It is quite possible for the rich to earn three times as much, and the poor to earn twice as much, and still have "income inequality" increasing.

While there are some numbskulls that would not want the poor to do better if it meant the rich would do even better still - and I refuse to grant this notion any credence, as it is anti-poor - by and large the metric we should be looking at is median household income.

It is up, across the board (rich and poor alike) quite strongly since the 1940s, even after adjusting for inflation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg

As much as we like to pretend that the 40s-60s were the "high point" for the middle class, the reality is that the middle class and the poor are making about twice as much now (inflation adjusted) as they did back then.

Tru dat Shaka. That's why the whole wealth distribution argument is so much fart gas.