Concentration of wealth

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: senseamp
Concentration of wealth leads to public dissatisfaction with it, which then leads to full on socialism, which then leads to collapse, which then leads to anarchy, which then leads to concentration of wealth. In America we were able to strike a good balanced wealth distribution to avoid the swings of the pendulum that many other countries experienced between oligarchy and socialism. That is until Reagan took over and started pushing the pendulum to one side, assuming of course that it will never swing back.

I think you've got history wrong. Starting in the 60s and topping out in the 70s the US was leaning heavily socialistic, and Reagan merely swung the pendulum back.

lmfao... can you say that with a straight face?

moving from right of center to further right doesn't make right of center "heavily socialistic".


you have a scale like this or something?

|===============================|==[x]===|
<---------------------COMMIES--------------------->|<-RIGHT->

 

[Vic]

If I haven't said so in the past, I love your sig, Colt45.

Works every time! :thumbsup:

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: senseamp
Concentration of wealth leads to public dissatisfaction with it, which then leads to full on socialism, which then leads to collapse, which then leads to anarchy, which then leads to concentration of wealth. In America we were able to strike a good balanced wealth distribution to avoid the swings of the pendulum that many other countries experienced between oligarchy and socialism. That is until Reagan took over and started pushing the pendulum to one side, assuming of course that it will never swing back.

I think you've got history wrong. Starting in the 60s and topping out in the 70s the US was leaning heavily socialistic, and Reagan merely swung the pendulum back.

You have a short term view of history, 60s and 70s were no more socialistic than the FDR and even Ike era. Kennedy actually cut taxes on the wealthy compared to what they paid in the 40s and 50s under FDR, Truman, and Ike. Reagan's unsustainable policies reduced the taxes on the wealthy to levels they haven't seen since the gilded age ended, while of course continuing to spend way beyond what the government brought in and saddling future generations with enormous debts.

 

[Vic]

Text

Stratman rules!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: piasabird
Sounds like Concentration of Wealth is what we call freedom. The opposite of this is Communism. It should be the American Dream to make money.

That is perhaps the sickest, most disgusting and pitiable thing I have ever read.

Americans believe in free markets and competition.

Oh please. Where is any free market and competition left in America?

How do you explain Chad Hurley/Steve Chen and Sergey Brin/Larry Page? Did the oil companies prop them up?

 

[Vic]

Don't feed the troll!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: ironwing
Oh very well. All inherited wealth in excess of $4,800,000 should be confiscated from the heirs upon the death of the holder of such wealth (remember, dead people don't pay taxes). The $4,800,000 should be indexed to inflation. Intellectual property rights should expire with the original creator or 70 years after the creation of the work, which ever is later.

Why these numbers? Because I said so. Don't like it? Make your post, this one's mine.

At what point does the balance tip?

Why do you say so? why 4.8mill and not 5? or 3? Why not 60 years?

That's what I'm trying to get at here. I constantly hear generic statements and I'm trying to figure out what people mean.

I gave you a rationale, you didn't like it. I gave you numbers, who don't like them. Make your own damn post; that one was mine.

I started my own damn thread to get people's specific answers to the questions I posed.

Also, I don't dislike your numbers, in fact I could care less about the number - I'm more interested in what the specific criteria was to arrive at it. You haven't stated the tipping point btw.

The whole "tipping point" logic doesn't really work, it implies a black and white standard to what is really a lot of shades of gray. Wealth concentration isn't really helpful to those not getting the concentrated wealth at ANY POINT, the real question is how long it can be tolerable, and that's an impossible line to draw because it depends on so many factors.

Actually it does work. Your example before uses a tipping point. The 50th percentile. Below 50 is "bad" and above is "good" even though you try to qualify that(forced grayness) by saying that 49% is not as bad as 45%(duh?).

So the question becomes - how do you suggest we get this magical "average" person to 50?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Anyone have any answers to the questions in the OP?

You're unlikely to get anything intelligent here.

The reality is that wealth is relative. In fact, when most people speak of "wealth" today, they're really talking about power, and not wealth at all.

Most of the ideologues here, like Craig or senseamp for example, are not "fighting" for economic equality at all, but for political power. If they can get that power, and the poor stay poor, then they won't give 2 sh1ts at all. Which is why every group in history claiming to fight for economic equality has NEVER actually realized their goal when given the chance.

And as Moonie points out with his post, the argument is largely that of forced morality. The poor suffer and FFS we should help them. And I totally agree with that. I volunteer and give myself (how 'bout the rest of you, eh? ).
But sadly, forced morality is immoral. There's no contradiction there. Charity at gunpoint is not charity anymore -- it's robbery. These ideologues are too wrapped up in themselves to figure out the obvious is all. They're too busy saving the world for the sake of their own egos to care about how anyone else feels. To paraphrase someone else here, they hate themselves and are gonna "fix" the rest of us so that they don't have to fix themselves.

In the meantime, the system of free choice is only clear moral choice. And if anyone suffer from it,then the blame only falls upon all those who could but did not, expecting that someone else would for them. And yes, I am talking to you. All of you. You know you bitch here just so you can ignore that you do nothing of yourselves to help solve the problems you think need solving.

I know it was a long shot but I had to take it because I've read so many posts that whine about this but provide no specifics.

Rest of your post: :thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I constantly read here that wealth concentration is bad/immoral/etc. So the question becomes - At what point does "concentration" become "bad"? What should the concentration be? And then How does one change the concentration?


I happen to think that wealth concentration is not as big of an issue as some would like to have you believe. We will never have economic(wealth) equality nor total wealth concentration so where exactly is the sweet spot? I don't know.

The concentration becomes bad when I think that you have more wealth than you really need, and decide that I want some of it.

The concentration should be that I have as much as you without regard to how I get it.

I change the concentration by taking from you, what I don't think you really need.

:laugh: I figured I'd get this type of response from someone.

 

[heyheybooboo]

I don't think there is a "measure". I don't think there is an easily defined tipping point. It's like the definition of obscenity: You know it when you see it.

I'm too lazy this AM to look up the links and to read this entire thread but there has been a rather large transfer of wealth over the last 7 years (don't hold me to the numbers - just the concept).

Eight years ago 80% of Americans controlled 60% of our nation's wealth. That has been reduced to less than 50% today - and is continuing to fall.

I don't care what the percentage is and don't begrudge the 'well-to-do' a single iota. BUT . . .

(again I'm too lazy to look it up) In the 'big scheme' of things it's not social security or medicare or the federal debt - which are all huge issues - it's the cost of the 'Bush tax cuts' which represent 2 to 3 times the cost 'over time' of each of the previous big three.

And as I understand it a representative 50% reduction in the 'Bush tax cuts' in combination with reductions in spending growth and federal debt (principle and INTEREST), maintaining an agressive stance against inflation by the Federal Reserve, raising the retirement age and the income cap a bit, and reasonably addressing issues of health care would go a long way to fixing our financial future.

At 1.8-2% growth over the next 50-60 years the US economy is HUGE! We piss around with $10-20 trillion dollar questions when reasonably prudent (thanks, Poppy!) fiscal policy and effective and efficient gov't would easily right this ship.

I don't care if 20% of Americans control 60% of our nation's wealth, or whatever, as long as all levels of gov't provide for the security and general welfare of our citizens in a productive manner.

If we can't do that with a $900 trillion economy over the next 60 years then we are all screwed anyway.