- Apr 29, 2005
- 5,649
- 0
- 0
Here's an interesting article that kind of gives a look into how the wealth concentration is warping the country.
For all of those on the right wing that are going to attempt to duh-vert from the actual topic to bash what is admittedly left leaning wording of the article, please try to keep it on topic and dispute the spirit of the article.
For those on the left wing, try to contain your "the rich are the evil dead!" mantra and make an argument for way you support the article.
For everyone else somewhere in the 80%, what do you think of the case being made?
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Much, much more at the link provided.
For all of those on the right wing that are going to attempt to duh-vert from the actual topic to bash what is admittedly left leaning wording of the article, please try to keep it on topic and dispute the spirit of the article.
For those on the left wing, try to contain your "the rich are the evil dead!" mantra and make an argument for way you support the article.
For everyone else somewhere in the 80%, what do you think of the case being made?
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nations incomean inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.
ts no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nations income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decadesand morehas gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.
.............
First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assetsour peoplein the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequalitysuch as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interestsundermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.
Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires collective actionit needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.
...............
Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980sa scandal whose dimensions, by todays standards, seem almost quaintthe banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. I certainly hope so, he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar giftthrough legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over priceit should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.
Much, much more at the link provided.
