Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[shira]

The purpose of a government isn't some theoretical exercise. It isn't to ensure that that .00001% of the population who are the most capable should be able to control the entire economy.

The purpose of government is to ensure that a high proportion of its citizens are able to do well under the system. If instead the system works only for a tiny minority of it's members, the system stinks.

People defend our obviously failing system because their minds are so stuck on the "theory" of a free market that they aren't able to see the real, horrible effects of our version of a free market on the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Cut to the chase: Why on earth would anyone defend a system that IN PRACTICE is ensuring that an ever-larger proportion of the population will fail?

 

[ElFenix]

Richness is no more due to talent but to inheritance..
There are far more people that get rich by inheritance
than people getting rich because of their skills.
In europe , the ratio is currently 90% that are rich
becomes so by inheritance..

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

that may be true in europe, apparently it's not true here. though there's no mention of whether an inheritance provided a seed or not. and who knows if the studies were done properly.

 

[fskimospy]

donald trump has never declared bankruptcy.

This is true. The companies that Trump runs have repeatedly gone under, but he has done a good job at insulating himself from the larger corporate failures he's been in charge of.

 

[fskimospy]

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/01/14/the-decline-of-inherited-money/

that may be true in europe, apparently it's not true here. though there's no mention of whether an inheritance provided a seed or not. and who knows if the studies were done properly.

Actually the ability of people to climb the economic ladder is now higher in Europe than it is in America. Sort of sad for a place that considers itself the land of opportunity.

 

[blackangst1]

If you work for a company your salary comes from gross income earned by the company which has been taxed. If I gave you 1 million dollars it would be subject to a gift tax.

Why should inheritence be treated differently?

Not necessarily. I suggest you read up on gift tax exemptions.

 

[ElFenix]

Actually the ability of people to climb the economic ladder is now higher in Europe than it is in America. Sort of sad for a place that considers itself the land of opportunity.

are you trying to correct my statement or add something more?

corak seems to find that below average children are more likely to stay below average in the US than in europe, while above average children are likely to do even better than they started in the US and compared to europe.

which works with the narrative of the new elite in the US: kids from upper middle and lower upper classes that do very well at very good public and private schools, go to a handful of universities in the northeast, make connections, and work those connections to do very well in business for the rest of their lives.

the other thing i wonder about corak's work as shown in the NYT, is that it's all normalized to average. what happens if the average is moving up faster in one place than another? if average income in PlaceA is rising at 20% and your income is going up at some set rate, then you're moving up but you're not catching up to the average as fast as someone at the same rate in PlaceB where average is rising at 10%.

 

[bfdd]

The purpose of a government isn't some theoretical exercise. It isn't to ensure that that .00001% of the population who are the most capable should be able to control the entire economy.

The purpose of government is to ensure that a high proportion of its citizens are able to do well under the system. If instead the system works only for a tiny minority of it's members, the system stinks.

People defend our obviously failing system because their minds are so stuck on the "theory" of a free market that they aren't able to see the real, horrible effects of our version of a free market on the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Cut to the chase: Why on earth would anyone defend a system that IN PRACTICE is ensuring that an ever-larger proportion of the population will fail?

we don't have a free market. stop blaming free markets.

 

[Throckmorton]

donald trump has never declared bankruptcy.

Interesting how that works...

 

[blackangst1]

There normally wouldn't be a problem with it. If they had an ounce of moral fiber among the whole lot of them. Instead of using their good fortune responsibly, they use their influence for their own gain, but worse yet, for your misfortune. Right under your nose where you'd be least likely to notice. Probably because you are stupid. Even if you disagree.

Yes they offshore jobs, because they don't care if you get one. They got theirs, who cares about you? They "borrow" from the future by running up the national deficit. Because who cares about your children? Theirs will be taken care of. By them. They bribe the FDA to allow substances that are extremely detrimental to you to pass. Yes in large quantities. They support the military industrial complex because hey, why not make a buck or eleventy billion while thinning the herd at the same time? Right Wrong? what difference does THAT make? Might makes right. Nothing else matters. And don't you dare try and stop them because if it looks like you could (JFK) there's a magic bullet and a bullshit story about magic bullets with your name on it.

In your list of things the rich do, dont forget those that dont have an "ounce of moral fiber" among them also give more than anyone else, dollars wise.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1

households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.

Selfish bastards.

 

[blackangst1]

Back to basics here: who agrees with the feasibility of this statement from the OP's article?
"People take...the nation's income."

This assumes wealth is static. Which it isnt, so its bogus.

 

[blackangst1]

The purpose of a government isn't some theoretical exercise. It isn't to ensure that that .00001% of the population who are the most capable should be able to control the entire economy.

The purpose of government is to ensure that a high proportion of its citizens are able to do well under the system. If instead the system works only for a tiny minority of it's members, the system stinks.

People defend our obviously failing system because their minds are so stuck on the "theory" of a free market that they aren't able to see the real, horrible effects of our version of a free market on the lives of the vast majority of Americans.

Cut to the chase: Why on earth would anyone defend a system that IN PRACTICE is ensuring that an ever-larger proportion of the population will fail?

Im not saying the government doesnt secure the wealthy, but your last sentence implies it doesnt support the middle class or poor. If that were true, things like entitlement programs, SS, Medicare/Medicaid wouldnt be almost half of our federal budget, would it?

 

[soundforbjt]

In your list of things the rich do, dont forget those that dont have an "ounce of moral fiber" among them also give more than anyone else, dollars wise.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1



Selfish bastards.

That's mostly for PR and tax purposes. Some may actually have a heart.

 

[blackangst1]

That's mostly for PR and tax purposes. Some may actually have a heart.

Was there a study where the wealthy were asked WHY the give, and was discovered "mostly for PR and tax purposes"? Can you link that for me?

I wont hold my breath.

 

[Steeplerot]

Selfish bastards.

Which just goes to show how low rich people will go to use charities as tax loopholes. Just another expense for the books.

 

[ElFenix]

Interesting how that works...

subject of the best burn in history:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d32577Hom08

 

[soundforbjt]

Was there a study where the wealthy were asked WHY the give, and was discovered "mostly for PR and tax purposes"? Can you link that for me?

I wont hold my breath.

And you think they would tell the truth? Well, you probably would believe them.

 

[theevilsharpie]

Cut to the chase: Why on earth would anyone defend a system that IN PRACTICE is ensuring that an ever-larger proportion of the population will fail?

Because capitalism has been the only modern economic theory that has proven to be effective in practice. Socialism is its only competition, and it's has failed every time it's been tried.

If you have any other ideas, I'm sure world scholars would love to hear from you.

 

[Steeplerot]

Because capitalism has been the only modern economic theory that has proven to be effective in practice.

All western economies are Mixed Market Democratic Socialist systems. How many representatives/how they are elected/selected has nothing to do with the matter of economics.

Socialism never "failed" anything. You can go turn on your tap and drink water/take a bath right? Drive on safe roads? Thank Socialism.

You guys are like the crazy old man who rants at the sky for being that certain shade of blue you don't jive with.

 

[CycloWizard]

You avoid the question. If there is nobody in the world who needs a job, what will the cost be for getting somebody to work who has no need to, as opposed to somebody who has a dire need to support his family.

Again, it is the fact that we live in a society that creates tremendous numbers of folk who need work to live that work can be had on the cheap. This is the reason our society is constructed as it is, to insure cheap labor. It is why all efforts to reduce need are thwarted by folk who make money on other people's labor. It is those who supply who are interested always to insure demand. It is why capital flows to countries with the greatest poverty. Folk there have to work for nothing because they face grinding poverty and starvation.

Human beings need to eat to live. Once human beings cooperated without pay to survive. That is our natural evolutionary state. Now, to live we must work at a job of some kind and have something we call money. In a world where one has to work to live every person has an inalienable right to a job, every single person, and any society which excludes some folk because of market forces is simply evil. You simply do not like the fact that you support a system that is evil because you have an ego that needs to feel it is good. You do not have the intestinal fortitude to see the truth. And you won't. You are complicit and have hardened.

What's evil about asking someone to earn his keep? There's no such thing as a free lunch: even when you skip out on your bill, your server will have to cover it. No one starves to death in the US unless they are too prideful to ask for help or take it when it's offered. The US government will gladly let you skip out on your bill and let people earning their keep pay your way as well.

You want everyone's needs to be taken care of in absence of money. That is equivalent to asking farmers to work for nothing, for engineers to work for nothing to process the farmer's crops, for truckers to work for nothing to bring that food to the people, and for grocers to distribute it for nothing. Or, you want to return to a world of subsistence farming in which each person takes care of himself and those in his village. The former is absolute rubbish, while the latter seems to be your misguided wet dream of returning to a life of manual labor. There are plenty of places you can live in the world if that's the kind of earthly nirvana you seek, so knock yourself out.

 

[blackangst1]

Which just goes to show how low rich people will go to use charities as tax loopholes. Just another expense for the books.

And I read another study that showed although the wealthy give more dollars, the middle and poor give a higher percentage of income on average. Which goes to show they are even lower than the rich for taking a larger percentage deductions.

 

[blackangst1]

And you think they would tell the truth? Well, you probably would believe them.

So in another words, you got nothin.

Rage on.

 

[Steeplerot]

Which goes to show they are even lower than the rich for taking a larger percentage deductions.

Let me guess? Cato?

 

[theevilsharpie]

All western economies are Mixed Market Democratic Socialist systems. How many representatives/how they are elected/selected has nothing to do with the matter of economics.

Socialism never "failed" anything. You can go turn on your tap and drink water/take a bath right? Drive on safe roads? Thank Socialism.

The public sector in all western economies (that I'm aware of, anyway) gets its funding from taxing private sector transactions. As such, these economies are fundamentally capitalist, no matter how extensive their social safety nets.

Countries with an actual socialist economy (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, pre-reform China and Vietnam, among others) have universally failed.

 

[CycloWizard]

The purpose of a government isn't some theoretical exercise. It isn't to ensure that that .00001% of the population who are the most capable should be able to control the entire economy.

The purpose of government is to ensure that a high proportion of its citizens are able to do well under the system. If instead the system works only for a tiny minority of it's members, the system stinks.

Where the hell did you get this idea?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

 

[Steeplerot]

Countries with an actual socialist economy (Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, pre-reform China and Vietnam, among others) have universally failed.

Those are state capitalist systems.

Please take a civics class if you really think we are a "capitalist system".

ALL western countries practice taxation, include a welfare state apparatus to some degree with Democratic elections NOT based off weighted votes depending on personal wealth. Worker rights are protected but workers have the choices of toiling for private industries. Private Industry is allowed free reign but (supposedly) regulated to ensure basic quality assurances for safety and that rights be upheld. This is what makes us a "Mixed-Market" economy.

Because Mixed-Market systems have been the only modern economic theory that has proven to be effective in practice.

Fixed.