Income inequality (a.k.a. relative poverty) isn't the problem.

Absolute poverty is the problem.

Here's a thought experiment that will prove it to you, if you're honest with yourself.

You are presented with a Magic Button. If you press it, every human being will see their income increase according to this formula:

      new_income = 300*previous_income + $200,000

That means a Somalian who was scraping by on $100 per year will now get $230,000 per year. If you press the button, you ELIMINATE absolute poverty everywhere on Earth.

It also means that if a person made $30 billion this year, their new income will be $9.0000002 trillion. If you press the button, you will MASSIVELY INCREASE INCOME INEQUALITY.

Would you refrain from pressing the button -- thereby dooming a billion people to continue to live in absolute poverty -- just because leftists have brainwashed each other into believing that income inequality is a problem?

Lots of people live comfortable lives, while living in relative poverty compared to Bill Gates. That's not a problem.

Income inequality / relative poverty is not the problem. Absolute poverty is the problem.

Income inequality (a.k.a. relative poverty) is not the problem.

Absolute poverty is the problem.

Here's a thought experiment that will prove it to you, if you're honest with yourself.

You are presented with a Magic Button. If you press it, every human being will see their income increase according to this formula:

      new_income = 300*previous_income + $200,000

That means a Somalian who was scraping by on $100 per year will now get $230,000 per year. If you press the button, you ELIMINATE absolute poverty everywhere on Earth.

It also means that if a person made $30 billion this year, their new income will be $9.0000002 trillion. If you press the button, you will MASSIVELY INCREASE INCOME INEQUALITY.

Would you refrain from pressing the button -- thereby dooming a billion people to continue to live in absolute poverty -- just because leftists have brainwashed each other into believing that income inequality is a problem?

Lots of people live comfortable lives, while living in relative poverty compared to Bill Gates. That's not a problem.

Income inequality / relative poverty is not the problem. Absolute poverty is the problem.

Hello, "site opponent." According to my own link, doesn't sound like much of a problem:

We already have a well-built, geologically-stable waste storage facility. It was designed to be a "forever home" for waste, and it's not near any populated community:

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository

Harry Reid wouldn't let it open. And so our waste is scattered around many ad-hoc, far less secure locations near populated communities.

We already have a well-built, geologically-stable waste storage facility. It was designed to be a "forever home" for waste, and it's not near any populated community:

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository

Harry Reid wouldn't let it open. And therefore our waste is scattered around many ad-hoc, far less secure locations near populated communities.

We don't have the Kessler syndrome. Yet.

Release self-replicating xenobots in the environment? What could possibly go wrong?

Release self-replicating xenobots into the environment? What could possibly go wrong?

TFA implies there's something inherently wrong with buying something, and later selling it at a higher price.

No. That is by definition what every investor seeks to do.

Reselling schemes are only profitable it the original seller underestimated the demand for the product.

If the original seller overestimated demand for the product, the so-called "grinch" who attempts to do this is going to lose money -- and deserves to. This is a perfect example of how markets self-regulate and government intervention is an unnecessary waste of resources.

Finally, the complaint that "their actions could make some of the items almost impossible to buy" is false. The opposite is true. If you're standing outside the stadium, a ticket to the sold-out event is impossible to buy in the absence of so-called scalpers.

Nobody is forced to do business with so-called scalpers, but if you didn't plan ahead with your ticket purchase and your fondest desire is to get into the sold-out event, the so-called scalper will enable a voluntary transaction that both parties perceive to be beneficial.

If these Democrats had a grasp on how markets work, they would give the following much more nuanced explanation:

Resellers in the marketplace make things easier to buy, and
-- if the original seller underestimated demand for the product, the resellers will ask a higher price than the original seller.
-- if the original seller overestimated demand for the product, the reseller will be forced to offer a lower price than the original seller, in order to unload this unwanted inventory.

It very much cuts both ways.

TFA implies that there's something inherently wrong with buying something, and later selling it at a higher price.

No. That is by definition what every investor seeks to do.

Reselling schemes are only profitable it the original seller underestimated the demand for the product.

If the original seller overestimated demand for the product, the so-called "grinch" who attempts to do this is going to lose money -- and deserves to. This is a perfect example of how markets self-regulate and government intervention is an unnecessary waste of resources.

Finally, the complaint that "their actions could make some of the items almost impossible to buy" is false. The opposite is true. If you're standing outside the stadium, a ticket to the sold-out event is impossible to buy in the absence of so-called scalpers.

Nobody is forced to do business with so-called scalpers, but if you didn't plan ahead with your ticket purchase and your fondest desire is to get into the sold-out event, the so-called scalper will enable a voluntary transaction that both parties perceive to be beneficial.

If these Democrats had a grasp on how markets work, they would give the following much more nuanced explanation:

Resellers in the marketplace make things easier to buy, and
-- if the original seller underestimated demand for the product, the resellers will ask a higher price than the original seller.
-- if the original seller overestimated demand for the product, the reseller will be forced to offer a lower price than the original seller, in order to unload this unwanted inventory.

It very much cuts both ways.

Florida currently has the lowest infection rate of any state:
3.17 daily cases per 100,000 residents.

Michigan has the highest:
85 daily cases per 100,000 residents. 2580% higher than Florida.

Vermont, pretty bad:
  61 daily cases per 100,000 residents.

California, relatively good.
8.42 daily cases per 100,000 residents. (166% higher than Florida.)

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/intera...

If so, those private investors are not doing due diligence to ensure there's a demand for the buildings that are being constructed.

Hard to have sympathy when investors like that lose money...

Road damage is proportional to axle weight to the fourth power.

Generalized Fourth Power Law: Semi truck causes 2,500 times more damage than a sedan!!!!

But tax authorities do bother with drivers of lightweight gas or electric passenger cars that cause negligible damage -- and that's a problem. Heavy truck operators should be paying 100% of the cost of road repairs. That would be an easy way to eliminate an economic externality: "Measuring Nonpollution Externalities from Motor Vehicles... nearly all of the damage is attributable to heavy-duty vehicles."

Would shifting the cost onto the true culprits decimate the shipping industry? No, all of our "stuff" would still be delivered; in fact, those of us who aren't damaging roads would be able to afford more "stuff."

Would it cause a significant amount of freight to be shifted off of highways and onto railroads? Yes, and that would be terrific. Most freight doesn't need to move at highway speeds. Passing wide-ass trucks that sometimes edge into your lane is nerve-wracking. Imagine less highway congestion. "On average, railroads are three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks."

Road damage is proportional to axle weight to the fourth power.

Generalized Fourth Power Law: Semi truck causes 2,500 times more damage than a sedan!!!!

But tax authorities do bother with drivers of lightweight gas or electric passenger cars that cause negligible damage -- and that's a problem. Heavy truck operators should be paying 100% of the cost of road repairs. That would be an easy way to eliminate an economic externality: "Measuring Nonpollution Externalities from Motor Vehicles... nearly all of the damage is attributable to heavy-duty vehicles."

Would shifting the cost onto the true culprits decimate the shipping industry? No, all of our "stuff" would still be delivered; in fact, those of us who aren't damaging roads would be able to afford more "stuff."

Would it cause a significant amount of freight to be shifted off of highways and onto railroads? Yes, and that would be terrific. Most freight doesn't need to move at highway speeds. Passing wide-ass trucks that sometimes edge into your lane is nerve-wracking. Imagine less highway congestion. "On average, railroads are three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks."

The conventional wisdom is that ghost cities are due to the "central planning" nature of China's government. To be sure, there is a demand for more housing in China, but not in the locations where the central planners dictated. So large apartment towers go unoccupied.

If the construction had instead been funded by private investors, said investors tend to do due diligence to make sure there is a demand for the new building at the proposed location. Do you disagree?

By the way, even as China publicly pledges to cut CO2 emissions, it is "planning to build 43 new coal-fired power plants," according to https://time.com/6090732/china.... Over what time frame? The article doesn't say, but elsewhere I've heard that China will start up a new coal plant approximately once a week, which implies that the "43 new plants" will be built in a one-year period.