# Ownership rights and inequality **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 3, 2014, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592 "2014-05-03T17:27:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/41 "2014-05-08T14:20:41Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Broadly, and IMHO (as a non-economics expert and not having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express in quite a while), the reasons for why (some of) the rich have gotten richer (and the definition of ‘rich’ is constantly having to be upgraded as more and more people become ‘rich’…at least by some of the definitions on this board) while some of the middle class/poor has gotten richer less quickly, some has stagnated and some has even gotten poorer has to do with the fact that US labor is overpriced and adds no additional exceptional value for why they SHOULD be keeping pace with the rich, who have gotten richer due to capital investment. Companies are more productive/profitable, but it’s not because of labor, by and large, but due to automated and expert systems, refined processes and procedures and general expansion of markets and efficiencies. At least that’s my broad take, though the devil is in those details. Yeah, when you hear things like “productivity has increased significantly but American workers are not sharing in the financial benefits” it makes it sound as if the reason for the productivity increase was that all of the workers in the US got PhDs in IE over the last 20 years. A more likely explanation, as you say, is that investment in productivity tools has made the same ol’ workers more productive. It should be no surprise, then, that the folks who invested in those tools are the ones reaping most of the rewards. Now, that, too, is an oversimplification because some workers have indeed improved their output by acquiring new skills and moving up the knowledge chain of the workforce. But just because the McDonalds’ cashier can check out 50% more people when the keypads have pictures of burgers and fries on them instead of numerals, doesn’t mean the McD cashier of today has any more skills than his counterpart 25 years ago. In fact, he may have even less. And that’s the idea. Why hire a skilled person to do something an unskilled person can do with better machines if, in the end, it costs less to have the less skilled person do the task? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2014, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/42 "2014-05-08T14:47:08Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, income inequality in and of itself is not bad. I think what people are concerned about is when the $100/hr guy gets a 25% rase and the $20/hr guy gets nothing. It’s the first derivative (rate of change) of income inequality that has people concerned. It’s often phrased that a $5 per hour raise for the $100/hour guy, and no raise for the $20/hour guy, constitutes a transfer of wealth from Mr. $20/Hour to Mr. $105/Hour. Actually it is rarely about income from working, and usually about income from investments. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/43 "2014-05-09T19:04:08Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > This should be obvious. A MW of $1/hr stops technological innovation because it’s cheaper to just hire more and more people rather than invest in automation machinery and other capital-intense expenditures. > > A MW of $21/hr greatly incentivizes automating as much of the process as possible. > > Would Starbucks rather pay its employees $21/hr or have a computer screen at the register where the customer simply types in what drink they want? So it’s obvious, to you, then, that low wages, for the lowest paid people, results in higher employment - because it’s cheaper to just hire more people. But higher wages results in _unemployment_, because businesses will get machines to replace people. Do recognize this as an argument that wage _inequality_ (paying the lowest paid workers less) leads to more employment? And wage equality (paying the lowest paid workers more) results in unemployment? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/44 "2014-05-09T19:09:36Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except it isn’t cheaper to hire people at $1 an hour, because even if it were legal to offer work at that rate no one would take it. You’d be better off selling pencils on the streetcorner. Or collecting pennies from fountains. Or collecting aluminum cans. Or more logically, doing useful work at home for the people you live with. > > A person who is only worth paying $1 an hour isn’t worth paying anything for, because such a person would cost the business more in losses than they could generate. Except there are millions of people, all over the world, working for the equivalent of a dollar an hour. Those people live in countries with 1.) high levels of income inequality (a small number of people are very rich; almost everyone else is very poor, and 2.) high levels of unemployment. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/45 "2014-05-09T19:20:37Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Well, that’s probably true for the most part. You have to look at your labor market. Most likely, you COULD pay people (teens or older retired people looking to supplement their income, which is really the bulk of those making minimum wage today, along with illegals) a rate below the current minimum wage and get some takers, but there is a certain ceiling inherent in our labor market that’s going to cause diminishing returns the lower you go. At a certain point you simply won’t be able to find anyone to work for you, and will be forced to either increase your wage offering or spend the capital in automation. > > That’s why the current minimum wage has a very small effect overall. I don’t know where the market rate would actually be (no doubt it would vary wildly depending on where you were looking in the country…some places would sustain a rate below the current minimum, some have higher rates than the minimum today in order to attract anyone to work those jobs), but there is certainly going to be a floor that’s above $1/hour regardless (I doubt you could even attract illegals at that rate in the US). > > I think most reasonable people understand that small changes to the minimum wage will have small effect, and I agree with you that there is a definite floor in the US for our labor market…you simply aren’t going to be able to attract many/any workers if you try and go below that market rate. > > However, I also agree with others in this thread that the OP is trying to couple income inequality with minimum wage and it doesn’t work that way. > > Well…yes. I’ve been doing the budget here for years, and I can tell you that if you attempted to push through a minimum wage of $21/hour (well above what we pay our tech 1 and tech 2 employees), we’d have to eliminate several positions to make budget. We currently have 6 tech 1 and 4 tech 2. The tech 1 positions are $13/hour and the tech 2 positions are for $17/hour (our tech 3 positions are only $22/hour). You can do the math yourself if you like, but we have a fixed annual budget for personnel (2X loaded costs), with only a projected 3% increase per year, so you can see we’d pretty much have to eliminate several positions or we wouldn’t be able to make budget…and there is zero chance that our budget would be increased to maintain the new salaries and keep all the positions. In addition, you’d have a cascading effect…people currently making that $22/hour would need a bump, or what would be the point of them being a tech 3 (or a systems admin, network engineer, developer, etc)? That would further inflate the budget. And I’m only talking about IT…you’d have this for the entire state, and all the counties. It would be a major disruption if you pushed it to that level, and you’d have a lot of people being laid off either in the short or medium term…certainly in the long term, and automation was invested in. > > Can you offer any evidence that this would not be the case? Well, I’m working on two fronts, here. Half the people are saying _of course_ income equality leads to more unemployment; the other half are saying nobody’s ever claimed any such thing, and demanding I find examples of people saying it. I’d encourage the one half to get with the other half, and maybe we can make some forward progress. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/46 "2014-05-09T19:32:58Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > One of the theories of conservative economics is that income inequality drives down unemployment. For example, they argue that eliminating minimum wage laws would increase employment, because owners of businesses could afford to hire more workers. (Or, conversely, that increasing minimum wage increases unemployment, because owners have to fire workers.) Or, they argue that lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, because then they can afford to purchase more goods and services. As best I was able to ascertain once, when I looked into this, the legal minimum wage tends to track with the open market’s minimum wage. Or at least, there doesn’t appear to be any form of wage redistribution in states with and states without a minimum wage, which is what you would expect to see if a minimum wage was affecting anything. Overall, it makes sense. The minimum wage is, by definition, the minimum wage that someone needs to make to survive. And if a job offered less than someone needed to survive, they wouldn’t be able to afford taking that job - so they don’t. What does seem to be true, though, is that every time the minimum wage is raised, it causes a series of layoffs and business failures since it’s a sudden, sharp change to the marketplace. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/47 "2014-05-09T19:34:53Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So it’s obvious, to you, then, that low wages, for the lowest paid people, results in higher employment - because it’s cheaper to just hire more people. > > But higher wages results in _unemployment_, because businesses will get machines to replace people. > > Do recognize this as an argument that wage _inequality_ (paying the lowest paid workers less) leads to more employment? > > And wage equality (paying the lowest paid workers more) results in unemployment? Not at all. When you say ‘wage inequality’ that is talking about the comparison between two different wages, one at the top and one at the bottom. The fact that wages influence decisions on whether to hire or to automate have nothing to do with wages at the top. You’ve again conflated wage inequality with just one side of the comparison. > [@](#): > > Half the people are saying of course income equality leads to more unemployment; the other half are saying nobody’s ever claimed any such thing, and demanding I find examples of people saying it. No - you are making the assertion. It is for you to support. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/48 "2014-05-09T19:50:23Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Forgetting the bit about $1/hour for now, are you saying that raising the MW would not increase unemployment? If not, how much could it be increased before it would adversely affect the unemployment rate and how did you determine that? I hate to answer indirectly, but I’m not really concerned with minimum wages. What I am concerned with is unemployment. Where there’s lots of unemployment, workers are forced to compete for a small number of jobs, driving wages down. Where there’s little or no unemployment, employers are forced to compete for workers, driving wages up. The best way to drive up economic equality is to eliminate unemployment. This is good for the majority of people, who have to work for a living, and good for the country (or any country) as a whole. Unemployed people, after all, produce nothing, which is the least amount of goods and services it’s possible to produce. But it’s bad for the ownership class, who’d prefer to hire people cheaply. To do that, they need the assistance of the army of the unemployed. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/49 "2014-05-09T21:56:12Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > So it’s obvious, to you, then, that low wages, for the lowest paid people, results in higher employment - because it’s cheaper to just hire more people. > > But higher wages results in _unemployment_, because businesses will get machines to replace people. > > Do recognize this as an argument that wage _inequality_ (paying the lowest paid workers less) leads to more employment? > > And wage equality (paying the lowest paid workers more) results in unemployment? Assuming the entirely fraudulent scenario that all other wages remain stagnant, then, yes, greater wage inequality leads to more employment. This is why free market advocates (or “conservatives” in a generalist sense) are not ringing the bells of apocalypse over the growing inequality of the past 3 decades. I, for one, am alarmed that wages have remained stagnant with inflation for the bottom incomes. This is going to continue and will eventually lead to a stratified society of haves and have-nots. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/50 "2014-05-09T22:29:38Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And what is really the big deal about increases in income inequality? > > Say you have two people - the first makes $20/hour and the second makes $100/hour, a spread of $80. Each gets a raise of 10%. Now the first is making $22/hour and the second is making $110/hour, a spread of $88. Income inequality has increased but both are better off. Is this not a desirable outcome all other things being equal? Well, one thing you’re not getting is that income inequality is not primarily caused by differences in pay: the richest Americans are not rich because they make $100/hour. They’re rich because they own stuff: corporations, trademarks, brands, basketball teams, patents, etc. Many of them don’t work at all. Yet they consume. And if they’re consuming without producing, where does it all come from? It comes from everybody else - everybody else must either work more or get paid less (or both) in order for the rich to consume without working. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/51 "2014-05-09T22:37:27Z")
[QUOTE=LinusK] I’d encourage the one half to get with the other half, and maybe we can make some forward progress. [/QUOTE] I asked you to show some evidence. It’s your assertion. If others wish to chime in on your side and back you up, that’s fine. If you don’t wish to defend your assertion, well, that’s fine too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/52 "2014-05-09T22:45:22Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I hate to answer indirectly, but I’m not really concerned with minimum wages. What I am concerned with is unemployment. Where there’s lots of unemployment, workers are forced to compete for a small number of jobs, driving wages down. Where there’s little or no unemployment, employers are forced to compete for workers, driving wages up. The best way to drive up economic equality is to eliminate unemployment. > > This is good for the majority of people, who have to work for a living, and good for the country (or any country) as a whole. Unemployed people, after all, produce nothing, which is the least amount of goods and services it’s possible to produce. But it’s bad for the ownership class, who’d prefer to hire people cheaply. To do that, they need the assistance of the army of the unemployed. OK, I lost track of what we were discussing, then. As a matter of policy, I don’t think any of us is going to disagree with you that it’s good to eliminate unemployment. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/53 "2014-05-10T01:58:05Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > It comes from everybody else - everybody else must either work more or get paid less (or both) in order for the rich to consume without working. What economic theory asserts this? It sounds ridiculous on its face. And don’t you want more people working? (Ignoring for the moment the non sequitur about how they’d necessarily have to be paid less in order for the rich to buy more stuff.) ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/54 "2014-05-10T03:21:47Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I hate to answer indirectly, but I’m not really concerned with minimum wages. That’s odd, because it was one of the two main ideas you used to support your position, and one where you repeatedly conflated with income inequality. Are you backing away from that? I mentioned this in post 20, 23, 27. Mace mentioned it in 33, and others as well. > [@LinusK](#): > > Well, one thing you’re not getting is that income inequality is not primarily caused by differences in pay: the richest Americans are not rich because they make $100/hour. They’re rich because they own stuff: corporations, trademarks, brands, basketball teams, patents, etc. Many of them don’t work at all. \*\*Yet they consume. And if they’re consuming without producing, \*\*where does it all come from? > > It comes from everybody else - everybody else must either work more or get paid less (or both) in order for the rich to consume without working. (my bold) This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the economy works. When you are talking about income inequality, it does not matter that income is from toiling away digging ditches, or income derived from investments. It is all income. If you are trying to make a more nuanced argument about wage income vs. investment income you have failed to do so. People who earn income through investments are producing. They may not be directly producing tangible goods, but neither is the musician or poet. The fact that someone is willing to pay them for something means they are contributing. If I have $100 to loan you, and will do so as long as after a set amount of time you will repay me $105, at the end of the transaction I have earned $5. You may use that money to engage in other productive activity, but the transaction itself, that of loaning you the money, contributes to the overall economy. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, I lost track of what we were discussing, then. As a matter of policy, I don’t think any of us is going to disagree with you that it’s good to eliminate unemployment. I will as some level of unemployment is healthy for the economy. That is unless we are talking about [full employment.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment) ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/55 "2014-05-10T14:18:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, income inequality in and of itself is not bad. I think what people are concerned about is when the $100/hr guy gets a 25% rase and the $20/hr guy gets nothing. It’s the first derivative (rate of change) of income inequality that has people concerned. Whether it’s good or bad, I suppose, depends on your perspective. If you’re trying to decide whether to get a new battery for your shitty car so you can get your daughter to her shitty school on time, or to buy her new clothes so the other shitty kids don’t make fun of her every day, while holding down a shitty job that barely pays the rent, then it kind of sucks. If your biggest dilemma is whether to spend the summer in France or Italy this year, while working only if you feel like it, or not at all, then it’s nothing to be concerned about. The point is that it’s the person with the shitty under-paying job (and millions like her) who subsidize the lifestyle of the second group. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/56 "2014-05-10T15:15:37Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Assuming the entirely fraudulent scenario that all other wages remain stagnant, then, yes, greater wage inequality leads to more employment. This is why free market advocates (or “conservatives” in a generalist sense) are not ringing the bells of apocalypse over the growing inequality of the past 3 decades. I, for one, am alarmed that wages have remained stagnant with inflation for the bottom incomes. This is going to continue and will eventually lead to a stratified society of haves and have-nots. I’m not sure if you’re saying that income inequality leads to more employment, or not. You do seem to be saying that “free-market” advocates believe it does. To be clear, I’m saying there is no “free market”. All markets are created, controlled, regulated, and policed by government. Without government, there is no market. “Free market” advocates are frauds because 1.) they refuse to recognize the non-existence of the thing they advocate, and 2.) because they consistently label anything that favors the poor as “interventions” in the free market, while ignoring changes in the rules that favor the rich, or else calling them “improvements”. The rich rely on the government for their wealth. Without it there would be no royalties, no patents, no copyrights, and no corporations. That they rail against the government any time it does anything to help anybody but themselves, while relying on it to subsidize their own existence makes them pure hypocrites. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/57 "2014-05-10T15:24:45Z")
You have no idea how disruptive to one’s vacations those French strikes can be!! ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/58 "2014-05-10T15:37:39Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > 1. That contrary to what conservatives say, high employment and economic equality go hand in hand; and that (again contrary to what conservatives say) high levels of inequality do not create jobs. Instead they create unemployment. > > 2. That the ideology of the “free market” is bogus. The “free market” is composed of rules, regulations, institutions, and laws that are handed down or created by government. The fact that conservatives/libertarians ignore “government intervention” when it benefits them (or the ownership class, anyway - many of them are not themselves rich) illustrates the bankruptcy of their ideas. > > 3. The extent to which some people (owners) are able to consume without working benefits them to the exact extent that other people (workers) have to either work more, or earn less (or both) in order to support them. 1. Since unemployed people have little income, perhaps the unemployment increases the GINI coefficient directly. The thrust of your argument, I think, relates to how the fruits of production are split between workers and owners. Since the value of owned capital (robots etc.), intellectual property (music, drug patents, etc.), land (which is scarcer per capita as population increases), has risen in an era of globalisation and technology, the share of unskilled labor falls. Even skilled labor falls in value as competition rises among millions of skilled workers around the globe. Just as the ratio between best paid and worst paid worker has risen in America, so has the ratio between corporate profits and total wages and salaries (even incl. CEO bonuses.) This is not a simple area, but most serious thinkers would agree with me (and LinusK) that given the rising Gini in developed countries, and “all other things being equal”, policies that reduce such inequality are better than further increase. (LinusK may go on to make neo-Marxist arguments, which I will ignore, except to note the recent suggestion that all scarcities should have private rent collectors is malarkey.) 1. I would not call the “free market” bogus but I do agree that government is necessary for successful capitalism. This is shown by history; all successful periods being led either by a strong governing state, a strong military or slave-holding regime, or, in some cases, by an extension of such a state or regime. (Recovery of Europe from the “dark ages” began as Kings were able to establish courts, mercenary armies, etc.) 2. The underlying sentiment may have some validity but we shouldn’t make a caricature of our own ideas. > [@LinusK](#): > > Since you asked, however, some good policy proposals IMHO, would include: > > [ul] > [li]1 Reducing copyrights …[/li][li]2 Reducing payroll taxes …[/li][li]3 Replacing most government assistance programs with a monthly check to everyone who files a tax return. The program would be paid for, not by increasing taxes, but by issuing bonds that would be bought by the Fed, and kept indefinitely.[/li][li]4 Increasing the top marginal tax rate for the very rich, to at least 40%.[/li][li]5 … keeping interest rates low, permanently.[/li][li]6 Increasing the tax rate on capital gains to the rate for ordinary income, while allowing capital losses to carry over indefinitely.[/li][li] 7 Oh. I’d also simplify the tax code, by getting rid of itemized deductions, completely. Though that’s mostly an efficiency thing.[/li][/ul] 2, 3, 4, 6. OK. 1. I don’t understand the desire to deprive living artists of the fruit of their labor. I agree that the Mickey Mouse law is absurd. (But at least Walt Disney created Mickey Mouse. I’d prefer to denounce the usurpation of A.A. Milne’s characters.) 2. Inflation is possible (probable indeed especially with the “bonds that would be bought by the Fed, and kept indefinitely”). Moreover, even without inflation, high interest rates are appropriate in the event, heaven helping, of restored capital production growth. 3. Some tax simplifications are plausible, but flat-tax and no-deductions are problems not panaceas. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/59 "2014-05-10T15:51:10Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > OK, I lost track of what we were discussing, then. As a matter of policy, I don’t think any of us is going to disagree with you that it’s good to eliminate unemployment. See **Bone** , two posts down. Actually, the theory that some level of unemployment is good for the economy is a popular theory among many (most?), economists, particularly conservative ones, and has been for decades. (See NAIRU, or the "non-inflationary rate of unemployment.) they used to think it was somewhere between four and six percent (despite the fact there was little or no inflation during WWII, and no unemployment.) Then, during the Clinton years, unemployment fell two or three percent, again with little or no inflation. Despite the lack of empirical evidence for the theory, it remains popular. It justifies government policies that foster unemployment, which, as I said, is good for the ownership class. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2014, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592/60 "2014-05-10T16:03:36Z")
So you don’t believe in the concept of Full Employment. Any other basic theories of economics you don’t believe in? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ownership-rights-and-inequality/687592.md?page=4)