Progressives worst nightmare: Wealth increasing WORLDWIDE

[fskimospy]

Man you fail at reading. No where did I say Obama views this as a bad thing. In fact, I didnt even bring Obama up...another posted did. If you re-read what I posted, I said I dont know what Obama thinks of this.

You said progressives think it's a bad thing. Obama claims to be a progressive.

Your only response is 'he must be lying then' instead of 'maybe I'm wrong about progressives'. Seriously dude, this is getting really really dumb.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Or the fact that he titled his thread WEALTH INCREASING WORLDWIDE yet is commenting on high net worth individuals.

Or the silly comment about liberals/progressives.

There is a phrase for that, its called intellectual lazyness.

 

[Thump553]

A whole lot of silly in this thread, started off with an overflowing dose of silly and idiocy from the OP. I challenge the OP to find me one legitimite liberal source that supports your bogus claim that progressives or liberals are against wealth creation. Discounting perhaps some fringe wacko religious fundamentalists somewhere I daresay you won't find anyone against wealth creation (that is, after all what progress is all about). The argument is over the most efficient means of wealth creation, and more significantly, wealth distribution.

 

[blackangst1]

Progressives dislike excessive concentration of wealth, not concentration of wealth in general. They don't mind when total wealth increases, and in fact they think that part is just peachy. That is what you don't seem to get when you bring up the caricature of progressives that want everyone to be in poverty. What progressives do think is that the average working joe, in addition to the poor, have been cheated out of his fair share of that increased wealth by those at the tippy-top.

Point taken. But where do you draw the line between concentration of wealth and excessive? Whats the formula? Just so I know

There certainly are countries with a wider disparity between rich and poor than the US
Growing Income Inequality in OECD Countries

 

[blackangst1]

OP, do you know what the gini index is?

Of course.

 

[Craig234]

Isnt the goal of the one world government to distribute the wealth all across the world?

No.

I'd explain, but Texashiker? Would it do any good? Well, others are reading.

First, no one says there has to be a goal for 'one world government'. It's simply the natural trend of our political systems.

People are constantly pursuing 'more power' from others, and that leads to consolidation.

Look at human history - from tribes, to merged tribes forming the first small 'kingdoms', to those kingdoms consolidating to become 'nations', to those nations conquering other nations to become larger nations, and finally more and more in the last century more global alliances and regional merging - hence the EU, and it's expected China will become a more dominant power in Asia.

China in theory would be our 'new cold war' - the world's largest 'communist' country who we have been at odds with since its creation, 'Red china' who we refused to even recognize for decades - but instead of a new cold war, they have what used to be called 'Most Favored Nation' status, loaning us hundreds of billions and taking trillions from us for products as they have taken over our manufacturing to profit US business owners.

Whether through war or agreement, there's continuing pressure for more and more ties between countries at the global level until we stumble onto that 'one world government', even if it's a de facto 'government' of agreements that still has separate 'nations' all following rules.

But that doesn't mean it's some clear plan. The EU was just a defensive move to create an alternative to the dollar, mostly. But it does a lot more. WWII wasn't that long ago.

So that the average American work is making about the same wage as someone in china?

That's the right-wing goal - always less for the worker, in the short term it reduces 'cost' for the owners, increasing their profits. Short-sighted.

It's progressives who would like to see both the human race prosper - but by pulling others up as much as possible rather than impoverishing the wealth nations' workers.

When wages in mexico went up, companies moved to china.

Now that wages in china are going up, companies will be looking for their low wage countries, which will probably be africa.

In one way, that's not such a bad thing, when it helps global wealth creation - and as poor workers make more, it protects the wages of others.

It's a little like a raise in the minimum wage to $9 also helps the people who make close to minimum wage, their wages go up too.

But not the way the right wing does trade, their 'free trade' policies that try to screw both the foreign and domestic workers, while only benefiting the owners.

Remember the slave labor of young Chinese women in the Marianas as a few disgusting owners exploited the 'Made in the USA' label being told by Tom DeLay that he'd protect them, blocking any reforms - which he did, blocking a bill that passed the Senate *unanimously* because things were so bad; it didn't get passed until the Democrats took control of congress.

This is an extreme example, in that it's so bad even Senate Republicans supported reform, while DeLay was telling the Marianas factory owners "You are a shining light for what is happening in the Republican Party, and you represent everything that is good about what we’re trying to do in America in leading the world in the free-market system".

But it illustrates the issues between the parties, quite a bit. DeLay was the choice of House Republicans for a leadership position; they let him block reform. As one site reported. just before the Democrats got reform passed in 2008, a Republican Senate candidate was calling for the US to adopt the same types of practices from the Marianas:

Earlier today we noted that the Republican Senate candidate from Colorado, Bob Schaffer, told the Denver Post that America should adopt an immigration and guest labor policy modeled on that of the Mariana Islands (aka the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) -- whose guest worker program is notorious around the world for forced abortion, slavery, child prostitution, sex trafficking, beatings, female workers kept in shacks with no plumbing surrounded by barbed wire and other fun stuff.

...

TPM Reader AK points out that the folks at ProgressNowAction have done a little digging. And it seems that that back in 1999, when Schaffer was serving in Congress, he went on one of those junkets to the Islands put together by none other than disgraced lobbyist and now-federal inmate Jack Abramoff.

Those of you with a clear recollection of the details of the Abramoff scandal will remember that one of Jack's biggest clients was the group of sharks who ran the Marianas sweat shops.

...

It was actually amazing what Abramoff could get members of Congress to do for the Marianas sweatshop owners. After his Marianas junket, Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) agreed to enter into the congressional record a series of personal attacks against a 15 year old sex slave whose ordeal had become a major source of press attention. "<S>he wanted to do nude dancing," said Rep. Hall.

In any case, it was just one of these junkets with Abramoff that then US Rep. Bob Schaffer took back in 1999, which, as it happens, was a year after the release of the Department of Labor report that confirmed the 15 year old sex slave's account.

Republicans generally represent the owners, to an extreme backing measures that hurt workers, under propagandistic arguments that they're 'creating wealth', as if everyone will share it, which used to largely be the case under ore progressive policies and tax structures - look at the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, even 70's, and you will see charts of increasing economic growth and that wealth being distributed to everyone proportionally - the rich getting more, the poor getting less, but everyone sharing.

As a few statistics from Bernie Sanders recently show, that's not the case - for 25 years, 80&#37; of all economic growth went to the top 1% (and I've seen statistics about 100% of the growth went to the top 20%); the top 1% have gone from 10% of the income to over 20%; the richest 400 families have more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million.

Read this:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

The econmy has doubled the last 30 years - here's who got the increas in growth:

That's the Republican policy. More for the rich, less for everyone else, sold with lies.

They never say "let's redistribute wealth even more to the rich who have already been winning a class war shifting wealth to themselves from other Americans".

They say, 'you have to cut taxes for the job creators'. Now, the facts show cutting taxes for the rich anywhere near current tax rates is NOT a way to create jobs. It's a way for the rich to acquire even more assets f the country that create wealth, reducing opportunity; it's a way for them to buy more factories overseas. But it's good propaganda.

(Yes, I know the rich did quite well with Clinton as well - and the Republican Congress - he did manage to balance the budget, was was not progressive for workers, supporting Wall Street more - with Republicans pushing him as well.)

Save234

 

[blackangst1]

You said progressives think it's a bad thing. Obama claims to be a progressive.

Your only response is 'he must be lying then' instead of 'maybe I'm wrong about progressives'. Seriously dude, this is getting really really dumb.

Frankly, I couldnt care less what Obama claims he is. Ive never heard a quote of him claiming to be progressive. Maybe there is one maybe there isnt. Does it matter? No, because as I stated, I, nor you, know what Obama thinks of this.

 

[Acanthus]

Of course.

Would you argue that the highest gini index in the history of the United States (est 2011) would be because of progressive actions taken by the federal govt?

I will debate with you in a completely straightforward manner on this issue if you're willing. This is my area of expertise as i've written a few peer reviewed papers on the matter.

 

[blackangst1]

A whole lot of silly in this thread, started off with an overflowing dose of silly and idiocy from the OP. I challenge the OP to find me one legitimite liberal source that supports your bogus claim that progressives or liberals are against wealth creation. Discounting perhaps some fringe wacko religious fundamentalists somewhere I daresay you won't find anyone against wealth creation (that is, after all what progress is all about). The argument is over the most efficient means of wealth creation, and more significantly, wealth distribution.

This thread is NOT about wealth creation so the rest of your comments are moot. Never was. Let me put it in simple terms for you: worldwide, the rich are getting richer.

 

[JTsyo]

Or the fact that he titled his thread WEALTH INCREASING WORLDWIDE yet is commenting on high net worth individuals.

Or the silly comment about liberals/progressives.

There is a phrase for that, its called intellectual lazyness.

bank balances of the world's millionaires have rebounded to above pre-crisis levels

That's real nice for them but that's not what I care about.

 

[blackangst1]

Would you argue that the highest gini index in the history of the United States (est 2011) would be because of progressive actions taken by the federal govt?

I will debate with you in a completely straightforward manner on this issue if you're willing. This is my area of expertise as i've written a few peer reviewed papers on the matter.

No, because I havent seen any progressive legislative action taken by our federal government. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

 

[Craig234]

Progressives dislike excessive concentration of wealth, not concentration of wealth in general. They don't mind when total wealth increases, and in fact they think that part is just peachy. That is what you don't seem to get when you bring up the caricature of progressives that want everyone to be in poverty. What progressives do think is that the average working joe, in addition to the poor, have been cheated out of his fair share of that increased wealth by those at the tippy-top.

Finally something accurate about progressives here! I would just repeat that progressives are not only 'happy' with wealth creation, history shows they're a lot better at it.

Passing short-sighted policies that let owners slash wages, pollute, and do other things for a quick buck but hurt society, as Republicans are for, aren't great for wealth creation.

Republicans talk a lot about 'opportunity' in their propaganda, but letting fewer people own everything, driving up the prices while reducing wealth of most, is less opportunity.

A good example are banana republics where a few families own all the land and most citizens hope to get to pick crops for barely enough to eat.

Progressives are for land reform - and that increases productivity and opportunity.

 

[Acanthus]

No, because I havent seen any progressive legislative action taken by our federal government. Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Well my conclusions from recent empirical study have been that excessively low tariffs, excessive tax loopholes, and excesses of domestic investment going offshore have been the driving forces to keep the bottom 80% down while the top 1% flourishes.

I don't take a stance in my studies on how to remedy the matter. But my personal opinion is that raising tariffs to a reasonable ~30% (still much lower than competing nations, including China) and cleaning up the tax code (something Obama campaigned on but didn't follow through with) would incentivize people into investing domestically to have products with competitive prices and in turn creating more domestic jobs.

By "cleaning up the tax code" I mean increasing taxes on returns from domestic investments (capital gains) in foreign nations. This will also create disincentive to invest abroad rather than at home.

These two reasonable measures would dramatically change the landscape for American jobs, in my humble opinion.

While i would add that SOME progressive measures would be destructive to the American economy (cap and trade), I would also argue that decreasing taxes, specifically on the rich has lead to massive revenue shortfalls in our budget.

 

[RabidMongoose]

That's the Republican policy. More for the rich, less for everyone else, sold with lies.

They never say "let's redistribute wealth even more to the rich who have already been winning a class war shifting wealth to themselves from other Americans".


Save234

I'm going to use Craig234 logic that he uses when he tries to defense caste systems: There are other countries with an even more disparity in wealth distribution than the US. For example, would you rather be in the US or in a country where the top .0001% owns all of the wealth and the rest are basically enslaved?

 

[Acanthus]

Finally something accurate about progressives here! I would just repeat that progressives are not only 'happy' with wealth creation, history shows they're a lot better at it.

Passing short-sighted policies that let owners slash wages, pollute, and do other things for a quick buck but hurt society, as Republicans are for, aren't great for wealth creation.

Republicans talk a lot about 'opportunity' in their propaganda, but letting fewer people own everything, driving up the prices while reducing wealth of most, is less opportunity.

A good example are banana republics where a few families own all the land and most citizens hope to get to pick crops for barely enough to eat.

Progressives are for land reform - and that increases productivity and opportunity.

The question is how to bring about reform on real estate... an Egypt-style direct redistribution of land would be wide open for corruption and ultimate failure. This is a case where i think good fiscal policies and strong economic fundamentals would allow the market to slowly fix itself.

 

[Acanthus]

I'm going to use Craig234 logic that he uses when he tries to defense caste systems: There are other countries with an even more disparity in wealth distribution than the US. For example, would you rather be in the US or in a country where the top .0001% owns all of the wealth and the rest are basically enslaved?

Our current economic system is strongly pushing us in that direction. Economic mobility is at all time lows and economic inequality is at all time highs both for income and wealth distribution... It is probably the most serious threat to the United States over the next 20 years that isn't military-driven.

 

[blackangst1]

Finally something accurate about progressives here! I would just repeat that progressives are not only 'happy' with wealth creation, history shows they're a lot better at it.

Passing short-sighted policies that let owners slash wages, pollute, and do other things for a quick buck but hurt society, as Republicans are for, aren't great for wealth creation.

Republicans talk a lot about 'opportunity' in their propaganda, but letting fewer people own everything, driving up the prices while reducing wealth of most, is less opportunity.

A good example are banana republics where a few families own all the land and most citizens hope to get to pick crops for barely enough to eat.

Progressives are for land reform - and that increases productivity and opportunity.

So Craig enlighten me. Where is the line between concentration of wealth and excessive concentration? Whats the formula?

 

[Acanthus]

So Craig enlighten me. Where is the line between concentration of wealth and excessive concentration? Whats the formula?

A gini index over 40.

 

[blackangst1]

Well my conclusions from recent empirical study have been that excessively low tariffs, excessive tax loopholes, and excesses of domestic investment going offshore have been the driving forces to keep the bottom 80% down while the top 1% flourishes.

I don't take a stance in my studies on how to remedy the matter. But my personal opinion is that raising tariffs to a reasonable ~30% (still much lower than competing nations, including China) and cleaning up the tax code (something Obama campaigned on but didn't follow through with) would incentivize people into investing domestically to have products with competitive prices and in turn creating more domestic jobs.

By "cleaning up the tax code" I mean increasing taxes on returns from domestic investments (capital gains) in foreign nations. This will also create disincentive to invest abroad rather than at home.

These two reasonable measures would dramatically change the landscape for American jobs, in my humble opinion.

While i would add that SOME progressive measures would be destructive to the American economy (cap and trade), I would also argue that decreasing taxes, specifically on the rich has lead to massive revenue shortfalls in our budget.

And most of that sounds reasonable to me. But back to my original question...what progressive legislative action has been taken by our federal government?

 

[Infohawk]

It doesn't matter which party you support, this is not really something most Americans should be worried about.

We already know that wealth is going to increase (on average) in a global economy. However as we move towards a truly balanced global economy, something that will take decades, there will be "creative destruction" in the US. Most sane people shouldn't think this is worth it. "Creative destruction" has already meant destroying our manufacturing base. We're in the process of destroying the middle class and even upper-middle class trades like engineers and lawyers aren't going to be immune from international competition.

The only entities that will benefit from this are international corporations. These companies will likely not be "American" in any real sense when they have most of their sales and production overseas. The >50&#37; foreign sales is actually starting to happen.

 

[blackangst1]

A gini index over 40.

And how is that number derived? I mean, why not 35? or 50? or 39?

 

[werepossum]

Well my conclusions from recent empirical study have been that excessively low tariffs, excessive tax loopholes, and excesses of domestic investment going offshore have been the driving forces to keep the bottom 80% down while the top 1% flourishes.

I don't take a stance in my studies on how to remedy the matter. But my personal opinion is that raising tariffs to a reasonable ~30% (still much lower than competing nations, including China) and cleaning up the tax code (something Obama campaigned on but didn't follow through with) would incentivize people into investing domestically to have products with competitive prices and in turn creating more domestic jobs.

By "cleaning up the tax code" I mean increasing taxes on returns from domestic investments (capital gains) in foreign nations. This will also create disincentive to invest abroad rather than at home.

These two reasonable measures would dramatically change the landscape for American jobs, in my humble opinion.

While i would add that SOME progressive measures would be destructive to the American economy (cap and trade), I would also argue that decreasing taxes, specifically on the rich has lead to massive revenue shortfalls in our budget.

Good post. I mostly agree, but I'll point out two problems. First, increasing capital gains taxes decreases government revenue. Personally I tentatively think (as does at least one Barrack Obama) that it is still worth doing as a matter of basic equity, but that government revenue will decrease is pretty well accepted. Second, raising taxes on any sort of foreign income merely increases the motivation to not bring those returns back to America. Thus tax revenue likely will not increase or will increase little, while the flow of money away from our country will accelerate. I think raising any kind of taxes of foreign income is a monumentally bad idea. A somewhat parallel idea, taxing all money moved out of the country while not taxing money any money moved into the country, might well work. However either of these (together with tariffs) likely violate the many free trade treaties we have signed.

And for the record, I oppose most of those free trade agreements. As the possibly the world's largest consumer nation, we have little to gain and a lot to lose by free trade in the long term, even though in the short term it's a great wealth builder.

 

[Acanthus]

And most of that sounds reasonable to me. But back to my original question...what progressive legislative action has been taken by our federal government?

Moving toward universal healthcare. (One could argue that universal health insurance is a step in that direction.)

Increasing taxes (which should NOT be a progressive vs conservative issue).

Proposed large cuts to the military (again, this shouldn't be partisan).

Those would be my big 3, which have not yet come to fruition (any may never).

 

[Acanthus]

Good post. I mostly agree, but I'll point out two problems. First, increasing capital gains taxes decreases government revenue. Personally I tentatively think (as does at least one Barrack Obama) that it is still worth doing as a matter of basic equity, but that government revenue will decrease is pretty well accepted. Second, raising taxes on any sort of foreign income merely increases the motivation to not bring those returns back to America. Thus tax revenue likely will not increase or will increase little, while the flow of money away from our country will accelerate. I think raising any kind of taxes of foreign income is a monumentally bad idea. A somewhat parallel idea, taxing all money moved out of the country while not taxing money any money moved into the country, might well work. However either of these (together with tariffs) likely violate the many free trade treaties we have signed.

And for the record, I oppose most of those free trade agreements. As the possibly the world's largest consumer nation, we have little to gain and a lot to lose by free trade in the long term, even though in the short term it's a great wealth builder.

We should nullify most of our free trade agreements.

And just to be clear, i'm only increasing capital gains taxes on domestic investment in foreign nations. So if you're buying up farmland in Algeria with the intention of importing cheap food to the US, you will be subject to increased tariffs (eating up profit) and increased taxes for gains from foreign investments (eating up profit).

I disagree that taxing foreign revenue on domestic companies would incentivize them to leave. This would divest them from the largest consumer driven economy in the world. You have to consider the multiplier effect of increased American investment and employment as a result of this action. This is specifically to combat the "India and China effect" of moving to cheap labor overseas only to turn around and import the product back to the US.

This would be a double whammy for companies that are playing this game, because they would be subject to both a foreign investment tax increase and higher tariffs when they "reimport" the goods.

Edit: Clarification

 

[Craig234]

The question is how to bring about reform on real estate... an Egypt-style direct redistribution of land would be wide open for corruption and ultimate failure. This is a case where i think good fiscal policies and strong economic fundamentals would allow the market to slowly fix itself.

You are fine arguing that it should be done well rather than done badly, but the basic issue is whether it's done, that divides the 'right' and the 'left'.

The right not only doesn't see the plutocracy as a problem - it sees broader prosperity where most of the nation does better but the rich don't own 98% as a disaster.