This chart seems a bit concerning.

[glenn1]

It seems the left is getting increasingly anxious that Obama's term will end without the large wealth redistribution they desire and lashing out more frequently about the huge menace that is "income inequality." Oh the squandered opportunity of having a Democratic President for 8 years and not being able to bring down the hated rich a couple pegs.

 

[feralkid]

It seems the left is getting increasingly anxious that Obama's term will end without the large wealth redistribution they desire and lashing out more frequently about the huge menace that is "income inequality." Oh the squandered opportunity of having a Democratic President for 8 years and not being able to bring down the hated rich a couple pegs.

There's the talking point I was waiting for. Thought For a minute the right had gone left.

Whew! that was frightening.

 

[OverVolt]

Wealth inequality precedes the real deal economic crisis, not the shit we dodged in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22story.html?_r=0

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/t...ssets/BankFailures_ChartwithComments_Moss.pdf

Wealth inequality is worse now than in 1929 (probably enabled by technology) so pucker yer bunghole. Its not over until wealth inequality falls, IMO.

 

[BurnItDwn]

So are you going to complain to the guy you voted for?

It wouldn't do any good since she is not in office. People still unfortunately vote for democrats and republicans. (I tend to vote green party since they seem the least evil & retarded, though some of the libertarian candidates seem like they have their shit straight as well.)

The democrats say that they want the help people, but mostly they help themselves and their corporate overlords. The republicans are more honest about their intents to shit all over everyone, and their interests too are in themselves and their corporate overlords.

I think Lewis Black had it right.

Back in the old times, all the politicians would be drunk, and at that time, they could get along and actually get shit done.

Now, they are no longer drunk, instead they are just angry, bitter, and worthless.

 

[Mursilis]

Well, as far as I am concerned the situation is hopeless. No political party will do anything about this. We require a constitutional convention demanded by the people to change the Supreme court rulings that corporations are people and money is speech. We need to change the way we vote from winner take all and institute a process where a losing vote on a ballot defers to a second choice. It is up to the American people to fix this outside the current system. Violence is out so what other solution is there than the people changing the law so it works for them? What we have now is bought and paid for.

It seems to me that this simple fact is never addressed, that folk just want to complain.

Violence is out so what other solution is there? I'd say none, at least with current levels of apathy.

 

[glenn1]

Wealth inequality precedes the real deal economic crisis, not the shit we dodged in 2008.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/weekinreview/22story.html?_r=0

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/t...ssets/BankFailures_ChartwithComments_Moss.pdf

Wealth inequality is worse now than in 1929 (probably enabled by technology) so pucker yer bunghole. Its not over until wealth inequality falls, IMO.

"Wealth inequality is bad" is a political viewpoint, not a statement of fact. Riots and revolutions are always a possibility (witness the riots in Missouri now) and if anything the left is trying to hijack the argument by appealing for them (a situation they nominally oppose for self-interest reasons). Even if a prole revolution was imminent due to income inequality (which is more a pipe dream of the left than a reality) that still wouldn't be a reason in itself for political action - do you reward your toddler when he has a temper tantrum? If anything, anyone calling for or outright formenting revolution due to income inequality should be quickly and decisively put down to make an example that the rampaging mob doesn't drive the decisions in this country. That even applies when the mob is morally justified (see the Civil Rights Movement).

 

[Moonbeam]

Violence is out so what other solution is there? I'd say none, at least with current levels of apathy.

Exactly. This means that P & N is a farce, ideology is a farce, voting is a farce, complaining is a farce, because none of it will change anything. The only question worth asking is what to do about apathy. My contention, then, is that so long as people put stock in any form of hope, in any kind of party affiliation, they will do so because they can't face the reality of their helpless state.

I know what the Buddhists maybe would do, but it's not a popular solution in the West. I know the Indians did something called the Ghost Dance. What are we to do? The only hope I can see is cutting through denial, seeing the enemy clearly for a change. The country is in the hands of special interests and does not operate for the benefit of people. We drift inexorably toward a police state. The many will not accept nothing without turning to crime.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I wonder with all the camera's and recording devices floating around will we see more Romney 47% remarks? Will some real wealthy guy get caught on tape talking about something blatantly offensive?
Are guns & pitchforks required?

 

[glenn1]

I wonder with all the camera's and recording devices floating around will we see more Romney 47% remarks? Will some real wealthy guy get caught on tape talking about something blatantly offensive?
Are guns & pitchforks required?

We're just as likely to see the left caught on tape opening inciting people to take up the guns and pitchforks against the rich since they "deserve it". They're already talking about it now in the abstract and hoping the poor masses get the hint, how much longer before they openly call for it? People like dmcowen are already there.

 

[Mursilis]

We're just as likely to see the left caught on tape opening inciting people to take up the guns and pitchforks against the rich since they "deserve it". They're already talking about it now in the abstract and hoping the poor masses get the hint, how much longer before they openly call for it? People like dmcowen are already there.

The fact that most of the left seems to be against use of firearms makes that whole call to revolution sort of thing difficult.

 

[OverVolt]

"Wealth inequality is bad" is a political viewpoint, not a statement of fact. Riots and revolutions are always a possibility (witness the riots in Missouri now) and if anything the left is trying to hijack the argument by appealing for them (a situation they nominally oppose for self-interest reasons). Even if a prole revolution was imminent due to income inequality (which is more a pipe dream of the left than a reality) that still wouldn't be a reason in itself for political action - do you reward your toddler when he has a temper tantrum? If anything, anyone calling for or outright formenting revolution due to income inequality should be quickly and decisively put down to make an example that the rampaging mob doesn't drive the decisions in this country. That even applies when the mob is morally justified (see the Civil Rights Movement).

Income inequality itself isn't what causes the instability. Nor would it necessarily include a mob. I'm thinking more along the lines of massive student loan defaults and low wages eventually messing up the lofty stock market and wall streets expectations. Its all about expectations vs reality. I've never seen a mismatch this bad in my whole life.

It has alot to do with "knowing that everyone else also knows." For example if it became common knowledge that college wasn't worth it and people stopped buying the whole "college degrees earn you an extra $1million over your lifetime (its skewed because of how successful it was in the 70's, 80's, 90's and early 00's etc.)" shit would change real quick in society. Because I personally know that the bulk of these psychology, biology, and english kids are 100% screwed. I would imagine everyone else "knows" too but "everyone doesn't know that everyone knows" yet.

 

[Budarow2]

This chart looks pretty bad too.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#symbol=^GSPC;range=my

 

[Matt1970]

The fact that most of the left seems to be against use of firearms makes that whole call to revolution sort of thing difficult.

It will never happen. Just cause a few nutbags on the left are willing to take up arms cause they think they got a smaller piece of the pie and they are willing to kill over it doesn't mean everyone is. Most people realize if that were to happen, the piece of the pie they will end up with, albeit equal to everyone else, will be smaller than what they had before the 'revolution'.

 

[1prophet]

When the rich guy tells you the truth about how wanton greed with no concern for the middle class and the people making that wealth will destroy the country he was laughed at.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rkgx1C_S6ls



Fast forward to today, everyone is out for themselves including the many pretend phony liberals that cry for higher minimum wages but always want the cheapest prices when they have to reach in their pockets, America is ending up with the rich people (like Romney) it deserves.

 

[OverVolt]

This chart looks pretty bad too.

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^GSPC+Interactive#symbol=^GSPC;range=my

Insert hockey stick.

 

[Jeff7]

trickle down economics.

The piss is all that trickles down.

"Hey, this piss is terrible....but it's all that's sustaining us now. Could we maybe just get a little bit more?"


"No! You can't have any more! You'll destabilize the entire system!"

 

[PlanetJosh]

The left or far left seems to have a reputation for favoring armed rebellion in reaction to this situation. But doesn't the right or far right have a reputation that police or troops would overreact to a mob with force? For example firing on the mob if they thought they heard gunfire but it wasn't gunfire from the mob.

 

[ivwshane]

"Wealth inequality is bad" is a political viewpoint, not a statement of fact. Riots and revolutions are always a possibility (witness the riots in Missouri now) and if anything the left is trying to hijack the argument by appealing for them (a situation they nominally oppose for self-interest reasons). Even if a prole revolution was imminent due to income inequality (which is more a pipe dream of the left than a reality) that still wouldn't be a reason in itself for political action - do you reward your toddler when he has a temper tantrum? If anything, anyone calling for or outright formenting revolution due to income inequality should be quickly and decisively put down to make an example that the rampaging mob doesn't drive the decisions in this country. That even applies when the mob is morally justified (see the Civil Rights Movement).

Sorry you are wrong. Many economists have said as much and even the s&p has said that the income gap is an issue.

https://www.globalcreditportal.com/...eRevId=1&fee_ind=N&exp_date=20240804-19:41:13

When you stop sucking on the kochs propaganda I'm sure a smart guy like you will change your opinion.

 

[zephyrprime]

Moral reasons aside, the fundamental reason why this is bad is because the wealthy depend on the peasants to make their money. Without the peasants having moving, the wealthy literally have no one to make money off of. The rich are shooting themselves in the foot by being so greedy and ironically they make less money this way than they would if a more equitable distribution of wealth were in place. They will turn more and more towards gambling and money printing in further attempts to continue to get richer but stuff like this is a house of cards. Financial gambling and money printing fundamentally produce no wealth - they only pilfer money from others at best and at worst they create a hugely unstable system. We're going to have another economic crisis and it's going to be horrible. Much worse than what we had in 2008 and worse than what we had in 1929 because the imbalances are greater and a larger fraction of the world is involved this time and has the same problem.

 

[Jeff7]

Moral reasons aside, the fundamental reason why this is bad is because the wealthy depend on the peasants to make their money. Without the peasants having moving, the wealthy literally have no one to make money off of. The rich are shooting themselves in the foot by being so greedy and ironically they make less money this way than they would if a more equitable distribution of wealth were in place. They will turn more and more towards gambling and money printing in further attempts to continue to get richer but stuff like this is a house of cards. Financial gambling and money printing fundamentally produce no wealth - they only pilfer money from others at best and at worst they create a hugely unstable system. We're going to have another economic crisis and it's going to be horrible. Much worse than what we had in 2008 and worse than what we had in 1929 because the imbalances are greater and a larger fraction of the world is involved this time and has the same problem.

But as long as they can accumulate enough wealth, land, and power to permit them to live out their days insulated from society, they don't need to care what happens to anyone else.



If society was a room of 20 people, this would resolve itself quickly.
One person receives or controls 60% of the resources in the room. When four people who collectively control 5% of the resources start asking for more because they're having a tough time getting by, the one with 60% tells them that they are going to stop being so greedy, and that they can't have any more or they would destabilize the system.

But next year, that same person has 65% and the four people have an even smaller portion of the whole. The "don't be greedy" mantra is repeatedly restated.

After enough of this, there will only be 19 people in the room.

 

[glenn1]

But as long as they can accumulate enough wealth, land, and power to permit them to live out their days insulated from society, they don't need to care what happens to anyone else.



If society was a room of 20 people, this would resolve itself quickly.
One person receives or controls 60% of the resources in the room. When four people who collectively control 5% of the resources start asking for more because they're having a tough time getting by, the one with 60% tells them that they are going to stop being so greedy, and that they can't have any more or they would destabilize the system.

But next year, that same person has 65% and the four people have an even smaller portion of the whole. The "don't be greedy" mantra is repeatedly restated.

After enough of this, there will only be 19 people in the room.

And if there are 19, it's going to be the poor guy who is cold on the floor. We're not in the caveman days where the poor with clubs and torches can kill and enslave the other tribesmen and drag away their women by the hair. Nowadays the rich have an effective monopoly on force imposed by the government. Unless what you want is a thug strongman taking over and redistributing assets Putin style in the name of "fixing" inequality.

 

[BoberFett]

But as long as they can accumulate enough wealth, land, and power to permit them to live out their days insulated from society, they don't need to care what happens to anyone else.



If society was a room of 20 people, this would resolve itself quickly.
One person receives or controls 60% of the resources in the room. When four people who collectively control 5% of the resources start asking for more because they're having a tough time getting by, the one with 60% tells them that they are going to stop being so greedy, and that they can't have any more or they would destabilize the system.

But next year, that same person has 65% and the four people have an even smaller portion of the whole. The "don't be greedy" mantra is repeatedly restated.

After enough of this, there will only be 19 people in the room.

How does the 1 keep getting more than the 19? Clearly he has something they want, while they have little to offer him.

 

[alkemyst]

So how did this happen?

Distribution of average income growth during expansions. That's pretty specific. How many expansions have there been in each interval from that chart?

It happened because we are powerless to hold the ultra wealthy accountable anymore so they keep taking from the pot. When their companies die, we give them more money.

Everyone talks about the housing collapse and the economic downfall it caused. This was one of the most profitable times in history for our 1%. They milked it for all that it was worth and we got screwed.

 

[MagickMan]

Wut?!

I thought he was a socialist wealth re-distributer who hated the rich?

That's why you voted for him, I can only imagine your disappointment that he's just Dubya 2.0.

 

[Jeff7]

And if there are 19, it's going to be the poor guy who is cold on the floor. We're not in the caveman days where the poor with clubs and torches can kill and enslave the other tribesmen and drag away their women by the hair. Nowadays the rich have an effective monopoly on force imposed by the government. Unless what you want is a thug strongman taking over and redistributing assets Putin style in the name of "fixing" inequality.

That thought certainly crossed my mind as I was writing. If the guy has access to private security and protection of those who provide resources, it's pretty well stacked in his favor.

How does the 1 keep getting more than the 19? Clearly he has something they want, while they have little to offer him.

- He's a manipulative sociopath. That happens. Some of them get to run their own companies. Quite a few people seem to gain power because they can yell more loudly than those near them.
- He's quietly gained control over things that are essential to the others in the room. We've got banks now that are able to invest in industries and own things that those industries depend on. Goldman Sachs owns warehouses which hold a substantial quantity of aluminum. Other banks are buying the systems used to deliver commodities to consumers. Not only do they game the system to milk the owners of the aluminum and push out lead times into the realm of absurdity, they also have a direct view of the flow of materials. There is an immense amount of money to be made with access to information of that quality and quantity, especially if you're investing in funds that trade in metals or commodities.
- Behavioral anomalies. We place more monetary value on fame than we do on lifesaving things. Celebrities are greatly valued. They are famous. Some primitive part of our brain says that being well-known is critical to survival. At one point in our history, that was true. If you weren't part of a social group, you'd be forced to fend for yourself, and a single bipedal primate without large teeth or claws is going to be an easy meal for something that does. Being out of the group meant death. Being well-known in a group meant a much better chance at long-term survival.
That instinct persists to this day. Being well-known is perceived, on some level, as an extraordinarily important thing.



There are plenty of ways for people to obtain a great deal of money or resources without returning anything of real value. A person only needs to make others think that their work is valuable up to the point that they are able to be safe from retribution.