Trickle-up economics
from Lars Syll
Inequality continues to grow all over the world — so don’t even for a second think that this is only an American problem!
In case you think — like e. g. Paul Krugman — that it’s different in my own country — Sweden — you should take a look at some new data from Statistics Sweden and this (Swedish) video.
The Gini coefficient is a measure of inequality (where a higher number signifies greater inequality) and for Sweden we have this for the disposable income distribution: 
Source: Statistics
Sweden and own calculations
What we see happen in the US and Sweden is deeply disturbing. The rising inequality is outrageous – not the least since it has to a large extent to do with income and wealth increasingly being concentrated in the hands of a very small and privileged elite.
Societies where we allow the inequality of incomes and wealth to increase without bounds, sooner or later implode. The cement that keeps us together erodes and in the end we are only left with people dipped in the ice cold water of egoism and greed. It’s high time to put an end to this the worst Juggernaut of our time!
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Federal taxes destroy reserves. But we need MORE reserves if we are to transfer all but 100% voluntary depositors out of the banking cartel into a Postal Saving Service. So any Federal tax increases should at least be matched with increases in Federal spending but targeted at the non-rich.
justaluckyfool
Boynton Beach,Fl 7 hours ago
RE: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/notes-on-piketty-wonkish/
March 14, 2014, 7:47 am
Notes on Piketty (Wonkish)
Q. “So: Imagine a wealthy family that has managed, somehow or other, to guarantee that a large fraction of its income is used to accumulate more wealth. Can this family thereby acquire a dominant position in society?”
A. Yes,actually total control.
Quote Michael Hudson ,” A syndicate of less than one hundred American capitalists, if allowed to collect interest on their capital at a low rate and re-invest for 150 years or less, would at the end of that time own the earth and all real and personal property thereon. This is a simple mathematical proposition, capable of exact demonstration, and any one who doubts the truth of this statement may set all doubts at rest by computing compound interest on one and one-half billions of dollars for one hundred and fifty years, at five per cent per annum. …Flürscheim elaborated that “All exertions, all improvements in the methods and tools of labor, the strictest economy, the severest self-denial, are powerless to compete with the rapidity of self-increase possessed by capital placed at compound interest, and they cannot keep up with its demands.”
The 1% are using “the most powerful force in the universe” to gain ALL the wealth of the universe, their weapon is compounding.
Comments posted on: https://rwer.wordpress.com/2014/03/01/inequality/
“We need to be careful about simple solutions to complicated problems.”
as well as complex solutions to simple problems.
What really needs to be done, ” ***** “Believe nothing merely because you have been told it…But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis,you find to be kind, conducive to the good, the benefit,the welfare of all beings – that doctrine believe and cling to,and take it as your guide.”- Buddha.
Inequality is like water, a part of life, but may, because of the size of its gaps, become toxic.
Wealth and income concentration to the extent we experience it today occurs once a lifetime throughout history, owing largely to the effects of the demographic cycle, favorable tax treatment of rentier gains vs. earned income (including self-employment), and, today, fractional reserve fiat digital debt-money, labor arbitrage/”globalization”, asset bubbles, gov’t-sponsored cartels in “education”, “dis-ease care”, and war profiteering, and Gilded Age-like capture of the federal legislature and national press by the top 0.01-0.1% to 1% of households.
The US had similar extremes in wealth and income inequality around the time of the Revolutionary War, 1820s-40s, 1870s-90s, and 1920s-40s, periods Schlesinger referred to as “turning-point” eras when a new peak demographic cohort (“Millennials” today) came of age and asserted their values and desire for a slice of the economic and political pie, so to speak.
However, today we are well on our way to a kind of Elysium-like totally privatized imperial corporate-state owned by the top 0.01-0.1% in which markets, trade, innovation, and upward mobility cease to exist for the bottom 96-99.2%, establishing conditions for a totalitarian police-state and New Dark Age epoch.
Capitalism vs. Democracy: Rethinking “World War III” as Trickle-up Economics
The possibility of global conflict following World War II, commonly called World War III or WW3, has been addressed by apocalyptic-inclined thinkers and writers; two previously mentioned as candidates for this title being the earlier “Cold War” and the current global “War on Terror” (Wikipedia, World War III). However, there perhaps is yet another possibility not yet considered, as a candidate for WW3: asymmetric global conflict between ideologically conservative “haves” and ideologically progressive “have nots” – conflict now popularized on the populist side as the emerging 99% Movement: a response to the asymmetric class war of the hyper-rich now waged worldwide, behind the scenes against the middle class and poor. Might “World War III” thus understood now be in process? Perhaps initiated shortly after the end of World War II, but only gaining momentum in the 1980’s and thereafter through the Manichaean laissez faire of neoliberalism, the economic core of which is Machiavellian capitalism.
Ideology seemingly plays a significant role in conflict around the world. In the above scenario of WW3, however, ideology generally serves as cover for conflict between the world’s haves and have nots that is based more on economic issues and related politics. “IN GREED WE TRUST” in essence is the motto of the haves, the obverse side of which for public consumption is “FREE MARKETS WORK”; the latter side giving cover to the reality that, for have nots generally, the trickledown economics of the free market’s touted invisible hand is more often malevolent than benevolent. In the present commentary on what in reality may constitute WW3, the war’s command center is most likely Wall Street, the commander in chief is Wall Street’s institutionalization of Niccoló Machiavelli’s “Prince”; who behind the scenes is the avowed enemy of any democracy that truly is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Thus understood, WW3 is a testament that the generally benevolent character of democratic government toward the populace is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism’s inherent malevolence toward anything conflicting with the profit motive of the hyper-rich.
Income equality in Sweden in 1980 was excessive. The haunting fear of poverty is a useful sword of damocles, and the dream of riches is a useful motivator. This is true both morally and economically.
But just like the Laffer curve, the question is how much inequality is tolerable? In the United States inequality is obviously excessive today, and it may even be growing excessive in Sweden to judge by the recent proliferation of domestic service workers which previously did not exist.
Beyond the question of optimal inequality is a moral question of what people deserve. How much do the poor really deserve (the old English distinction of deserving poor vs. undeserving poor is also relevant)? How much do the rich really deserve? I don’t know–and neither do you. These are hard questions not easily resolved.