Political online game and economic simulation

Hahaha! What's next, the top 0.00001%? In the socialist era, income inequality was smaller because a huge percentage of the population was poor(the largest bracket was the poorest bracket, with each bracket afterwards getting smaller and smaller. Very few were rich), and that created a bias. Nowadays, it is more equally distributed, except that a high percentage is in the top bracket(300K income +), much higher than any other bracket. During the social era, that was the opposite. The poor(lowest bracket) was the largest bracket, and that created 'equality.' Automation and innovation has allowed this to change, and we shouldn't fight it. I want to see more and more people get into that top bracket, that way we will have HUGE inequality, in which 20-30% of the population are rich while the rest are middle income. And we should grow it higher and higher. We should be working on making this country wealthier, not equally poor.

The US is way more socialist now, hence why it is performing so poorly. Hence why social democrat Barack Osama Obama has been a detriment to thei country, morally and statistically.

---

About 8% of the US population is in the higher brackets, apposed to less than 1% in your 'utopian era.' However, due to social democracy policies many, many, people are becoming poorer, and many more are poverty. Median income is rapidly decreasing. This was not the case under the 'failed tickle down economy.' You people are afraid of disproportionate success; you are greedy and arrogant. I would much rather have disproportionate success than everyone becoming poorer to feed a false state of equality and happiness.

I must say that they're are many ways to make a societies prosperous, but not all of which in a sustainable fashion. Economic prosperity is not so much to do with correlations with the public & private sector but rather upon these factors. Stability, Innovation & Circulation. It is common knowledge that "people with less" are most likely to "use more" and contrast to those who are "rich" of whom tend to use "less". Now if a wealth gap of a society grows to large; it will lead to "social strife" (which will affect stability) and less circulation (which when analysed in regard to the "velocity of capital" will lead to stagnation in the use of "purchasing power"). This has been proven & documented historically over thousands of years from Classical Rome to the GFC.



C is circulation.
S is stability.
I is innovation.

The middle factor, innovation, is affected correlatively by the other factors and also by many other external conditions - name culture & law. Freer societies obviously encourage a greater capacity for innovation compared to more arbitrarily focused societies, as the dissemination of ideas are faced with less obstacles to overcome. People whose ideas are constrained by cultural norms (as seen now in the contemporary Islamic world) or governmental interference (as one can see in Modern China (where a greater volume of innovation has and still is being imported compared to the past) are hence in a more comfortable position to nurture and apply their ingenuity. If put into retrospect, governments are better suited to maintaining stability whilst the private sector is better suited to cultivating innovation/growth.

The only thing that would ensure great volumes of "circulation" between the two is an equitable & agreeable social contract between both public & private sector which ensures better redistribution of wealth (via expenditure and taxes) in return for alleviation of obstacles (whether social, cultural, judicial or even geographical) which would affect the private sectors potential path to prosperity, namely through maintaining order & stability as well as developing the necessary infrastructure to ensure the maintenance of the private sector (e.g. educations, roads and so-on so-forth). Placing too much responsibility in the hands of the private sector, as with the public sector; upsets the social balance and the factors that come with it that ensure growth.

Hence if you tip the balance in a system more towards one side or another, it will adversely affect socio-economic growth. Therefore greatly tipping society to one particular side, whether it be totalitarianism or anarchy - will lead to utter stagnation - as the former would affect innovation whilst the latter would affect stability. The assumption that economic, political, environmental or even philosophical laws & formulas are written in stone is completely incorrect simply due to the fact the human beings are flawed and that all human knowledge is simply the summary of our own perceptions. So really the only "invisible hand" when it comes to economics is really humanity itself, as it is by our own inherent ingenuity and innovation that alone drives socio-economic growth.

I guess it depends where you are on the laffer curve. And whether you're using really distortionary taxes or not.

I'm not sure that it matters if sector productivity has become divorced from household income for a given proportion of labour income. What matters is if labour productivity has become divorced from household income for a given proportion of labour income.