wealth concentration

[Steeplerot]

2 simple facts that make all these free market idealouges arguments look silly.
1. Rich do NOT spend their money, this is the difference in people who have money and who do not.
2. Regardless of taxing them for a more just evenly distributed (and healthy) society the rich will still: be rich.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
2 simple facts that make all these free market idealouges arguments look silly.
1. Rich do NOT spend their money, this is the difference in people who have money and who do not.
2. Regardless of taxing them for a more just evenly distributed (and healthy) society the rich will still: be rich.

Really? What do they do with it?

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
2 simple facts that make all these free market idealouges arguments look silly.
1. Rich do NOT spend their money, this is the difference in people who have money and who do not.
2. Regardless of taxing them for a more just evenly distributed (and healthy) society the rich will still: be rich.

Really? What do they do with it?

they re-invest it to make more money...that is why they are rich...they use their money to make more money.

Rich guy-> puts his money to work for him so he does not have to work so hard to make more.

Middle class guy-> does his 9-5 on a daily basis, saves some, puts money towards his house which he "thinks" is an asset and spends the rest.

Poor guy-> works 9-5 +any overtime he can get or a second job and spends it as fast as it comes in.

wealth is not just about an accumulation of money it is about an attitude towards money and what it can do for you.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
2 simple facts that make all these free market idealouges arguments look silly.
1. Rich do NOT spend their money, this is the difference in people who have money and who do not.
2. Regardless of taxing them for a more just evenly distributed (and healthy) society the rich will still: be rich.

Really? What do they do with it?

they re-invest it to make more money...that is why they are rich...they use their money to make more money.

Rich guy-> puts his money to work for him so he does not have to work so hard to make more.

Middle class guy-> does his 9-5 on a daily basis, saves some, puts money towards his house which he "thinks" is an asset and spends the rest.

Poor guy-> works 9-5 +any overtime he can get or a second job and spends it as fast as it comes in.

wealth is not just about an accumulation of money it is about an attitude towards money and what it can do for you.

In other words one guy works and the other is a parasite. That money he makes is from someone else labor somewhere down the line.
This is why sooner or later the whole thing will crash out. It always does.

And as far as Ozoned saying class warfare is not a natural state, it is. Every civilization has had riots/wars where the people have had to take back the concentrated wealth.
Which is why humanity will never have peace until capitalism is done and people move on from the instinct to survive and horde wealth when we have enough for all.
It is only a matter of time. What is most efficient will win in the end like in anything else.
The elephant in the center of the room that capitalist will not acknowledge is that it is not the "free market" spirit of USA that has made us so rich, it is a blessed continent we took over in natural resources and the exploitation of labor in third world countries. (and in the past we used our own slaves)
All this wealth accumulated by pushing others labor efforts around in the financial sector would dissipate without the military and wealth we have accumulated to exploit others.
There is nothing free market about it.
Capitalism = imperialist exploitation, same as it ever was.

And if someone wants to argue with my point by claiming he made his own money without the help of others in some way save it, I do not believe the self-made myth for a second, nor is such a thing possible in reality when our society helped you in many many ways since your birth.

 

[Wheezer]

In other words one guy works and the other is a parasite. That money he makes is from someone else labor somewhere down the line.

hence why you are poor.

And, actually you are wrong. It is a symbiotic relationship......

name me the last poor person you knew that owned a company.

the last poor person you knew that gave someone else a job.

the last poor person that provided benefits for the workers of a company.

the last poor person you knew that donated money to charity.

Without the rich who do all the things I named above the poor would have no chance. A poor man can work earn a living, and teach himself how to become rich whether he does or not is mostly up to him...does he want to start investing his money or by a new car, tv or game system?

Has he become complacent and resolved himself to the fact he would rather not put in all the hard work and tireless hours it takes to become rich and be self made or is he happy where he is and does just enough to get by.

Hate to shatter your dream, but some people actually don't mind being poor and would rather work hard at staying poor and working the system as much as they can to their benefit than simply working hard to rise above it.

It takes too long to become rich and independent, but it is a much faster path to be able to enjoy the fruits of your labor now no matter how unimportant they are to others.

How many are going to take their tax returns this year and go out to buy a new tv, computer or other gizmo they don't need?

How many will use that money to try and find a way to make it work for them....even if it's only $500 it is better to start somewhere than not at all.

The internet provides a wealth of information unlike ever before and people can take th time to learn IF THEY CHOOSE it is just as easy to go online and read about money as it does to look at porn, but most people won't...it's not as fun.

You cannot have a society where everyone is a chief, you have to have some Indians to do the grunt work and you can't have a society of all Indians you have to have some chiefs to guide the masses.....that is how it is in all societies.

fortunately for us in America you have a choice to be both...whether you do it or not is up to you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Craig didn't advocate capping net worth, blackangst1, so your argument is made of straw.

Never said he did. You fail at reading. I was simply addressing the issue at large. Go re-read.

Nice dodge, dancing on the rhetorical head of a diversionary pin you brought forth in the first place.

Which doesn't relieve you of the need to address the larger issues, if you're to have credibility anywhere other than in your own mind...

 

[Steeplerot]

Thing is most people do not care to dedicate their lives to personal wealth accumulation.
Nor is the worship of personal wealth a "value" taught to children in other countries.
You are talking about the USA, and we do not exactly have a culture that is to be envied by others in all its crime ridden, superficially consumerist, hypocritical and fundamentalist aspects. (the mainstream culture that is)

Also, saying that I am poor is no insult, I have no interest in accumulating a lot of wealth, it is a waste of time in a short lifetime that I have.

As long as I pay rent and feed myself with enough to help friends/family when needed I am happy. You will find most people feel the same when it comes down to it in reality when you get past the bullshit most Americans have been fed since birth about the "American Dream". (Which you have to be asleep to believe)

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Craig didn't advocate capping net worth, blackangst1, so your argument is made of straw.

Never said he did. You fail at reading. I was simply addressing the issue at large. Go re-read.

Nice dodge, dancing on the rhetorical head of a diversionary pin you brought forth in the first place.

Which doesn't relieve you of the need to address the larger issues, if you're to have credibility anywhere other than in your own mind...

Rhetorical? Diversionary? I addressed it. Youre failure to comprehend isnt my problem-its yours.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Craig didn't advocate capping net worth, blackangst1, so your argument is made of straw.

Never said he did. You fail at reading. I was simply addressing the issue at large. Go re-read.

Nice dodge, dancing on the rhetorical head of a diversionary pin you brought forth in the first place.

Which doesn't relieve you of the need to address the larger issues, if you're to have credibility anywhere other than in your own mind...

Rhetorical? Diversionary? I addressed it. Youre failure to comprehend isnt my problem-its yours.

As I anticipated- complete denial. You've addressed nothing wrt the substance of my remarks, above, even when challenged to do so.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Thing is most people do not care to dedicate their lives to personal wealth accumulation.
Nor is the worship of personal wealth a "value" taught to children in other countries.
You are talking about the USA, and we do not exactly have a culture that is to be envied by others in all its crime ridden, superficially consumerist, hypocritical and fundamentalist aspects. (the mainstream culture that is)

Also, saying that I am poor is no insult, I have no interest in accumulating a lot of wealth, it is a waste of time in a short lifetime that I have.

As long as I pay rent and feed myself with enough to help friends/family when needed I am happy. You will find most people feel the same when it comes down to it in reality when you get past the bullshit most Americans have been fed since birth about the "American Dream". (Which you have to be asleep to believe)

If you're happy just to eat and have a roof over your head, why are you so concerned about the wealthy? Sounds like envy to me.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Craig didn't advocate capping net worth, blackangst1, so your argument is made of straw.

Never said he did. You fail at reading. I was simply addressing the issue at large. Go re-read.

Nice dodge, dancing on the rhetorical head of a diversionary pin you brought forth in the first place.

Which doesn't relieve you of the need to address the larger issues, if you're to have credibility anywhere other than in your own mind...

Rhetorical? Diversionary? I addressed it. Youre failure to comprehend isnt my problem-its yours.

As I anticipated- complete denial. You've addressed nothing wrt the substance of my remarks, above, even when challenged to do so.

What exactly am I denying? Im trying to follow...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TheRedUnderURBed
Thing is most people do not care to dedicate their lives to personal wealth accumulation.
Nor is the worship of personal wealth a "value" taught to children in other countries.
You are talking about the USA, and we do not exactly have a culture that is to be envied by others in all its crime ridden, superficially consumerist, hypocritical and fundamentalist aspects. (the mainstream culture that is)

Also, saying that I am poor is no insult, I have no interest in accumulating a lot of wealth, it is a waste of time in a short lifetime that I have.

As long as I pay rent and feed myself with enough to help friends/family when needed I am happy. You will find most people feel the same when it comes down to it in reality when you get past the bullshit most Americans have been fed since birth about the "American Dream". (Which you have to be asleep to believe)

Yet above you state that I am wrong about class envy. that it is natural.

I would like to have some of whatever it is your smoking!

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

If you're happy just to eat and have a roof over your head, why are you so concerned about the wealthy? Sounds like envy to me.

Maybe the concentration of wealth is starting to encroach on his ability to feed/shelter himself?? I'm pretty sure it's fucking with mine

 

[Jhhnn]

I think the reference to "the American Dream" is interesting, and that exploring it has some relevance to the discussion.

The whole definition and meaning of it have been hijacked by the rightwing- they define it as "getting Rich!", something it never was except for a few.

That's not why huge waves of immigrants came here, at all. They came to escape the oppression of concentrated wealth in their own countries, the kind of rentiership economies that kept them poor, denied them fair value for their labors. The American dream really was to obtain fair value for honest work, and to achieve some security, comfort and leisure from those efforts. Basically, to have a tiny sliver of the pie as their own, and for their children to have that or a little more as well.

That culminated in post-WW2 America, when the tax policies and other features of the New Deal prevented extreme concentration of wealth into the hands of a very few who would obviously become just as oppressive as the economic elite of europe had been generations before. Not that they'd come right out and say so- they needed a different kind of pitch, the pitch of trickledown economics, and the pitch that accumulation of wealth was based entirely on ability and hard work- anybody who didn't accomplish that was entirely their own fault, and deserved to have only that which those who did chose to leave them... blind luck and inheritance were left out of the calculation entirely... as was the reality that, no matter what, the top .01% was, well, the top .01%, and very, very few would get there no matter how much effort they expended to do so...

The whole economic conceptualization of the right ignores the the fact that even as the total pie expands, those not at the top will suffer when the share of those at the top grows at a much faster rate than the whole thing... which is what's been happening ever since America fell for the shuck and jive of Reaganomics...

 

[bamacre]

My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

A number of reasons. More people are falling into the poverty class and more people are falling into the "rich" class. Although it isnt really defined, I think most can presume middle class to be somewhere around $24k-$75k/yr. We started to see an expansion of the middle class in the 70's as more women entered the workforce, and due to inflation and other factors it taking two incomes to get by. But now we have moved into an age where people are less likely to get married, and more women and men are likely to raise a child solo. Mind you thats only one slice of the pie, but it is what it is. I also think the reason we are seeing an increase in lower class is rising education costs. A degree is harder to get. An uneducated workforce is a poor workforce.

Good topic for a separate thread. Good opportunity to bash the GOP.

Jhhnn: Im still waiting to know what it is I avoided so I can address it. Speak up.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

In short, because the system is doing what wealthy groups want and not making a priority of the middle class in too many ways.

For just one example, 60 Minutes did a segment yesterday on why the oil prices skyrocketed and plummeted, and noted that it was all about Wall Street schemes profiting, which drive up the prices - with 13 trades of a barrel happening for every barrel actually consumed in the country.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the Wall Street schemes for productizing mortgages and selling them many times, building a house of cards in the process.

The bottom line is that right-wing ideology has been implemented broadly, and its intent is to enrich the rich the easy way, at the expense of everyone else.

Let me repeat yet again the statistic that helps clearly answer your question: since Reagan, the last 25 years, the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten about zero increase in income after inflation; the growth in the economy has all gone to the top, slowly increasing until the very few - like the top 0.01%, who have seen income increases of hundreds of percent. This is new in American history - and you won't see it on the MSM.

This is a result of policy choices. But the American people never chose those policies, they think? Enter the world of 'think tanks' and their propaganda, of the system where these policies are implements behind closed doors when possible, and marketed with misleading propaganda as needed.

For a lot of info, you can read Thom Hartmann's book "Screwed: the undelcared war on the middle class".

 

[Genx87]

Let me repeat yet again the statistic that helps clearly answer your question: since Reagan, the last 25 years, the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten about zero increase in income after inflation; the growth in the economy has all gone to the top, slowly increasing until the very few - like the top 0.01%, who have seen income increases of hundreds of percent. This is new in American history - and you won't see it on the MSM.

Why would anybody believe such a large % of the workforce can outrun inflation?
And I question whether that is new. In fact highly doubt it. We had industrialists in the 1800's who controlled a lot of wealth.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

In short, because the system is doing what wealthy groups want and not making a priority of the middle class in too many ways.

What exactly do you mean here? How do the wealthy get their way?

For just one example, 60 Minutes did a segment yesterday on why the oil prices skyrocketed and plummeted, and noted that it was all about Wall Street schemes profiting, which drive up the prices - with 13 trades of a barrel happening for every barrel actually consumed in the country.

Not really a good example. High gas prices were fairly temporary, and prices before and now are quite low. A better example would be something like health care, which costs have risen steadily over longer periods of time.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the Wall Street schemes for productizing mortgages and selling them many times, building a house of cards in the process.

The bottom line is that right-wing ideology has been implemented broadly, and its intent is to enrich the rich the easy way, at the expense of everyone else.

I totally disagree with this statement. The government is heavily involved in these and many other areas. The FM's are government creations. Perhaps I don't get what you mean by "right-wing ideology." I'm sure you understand that those on the Right say they are for smaller government, but they have actually, and dramatically, increased the size and scope of government. [/quote]

Let me repeat yet again the statistic that helps clearly answer your question: since Reagan, the last 25 years, the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten about zero increase in income after inflation; the growth in the economy has all gone to the top, slowly increasing until the very few - like the top 0.01%, who have seen income increases of hundreds of percent. This is new in American history - and you won't see it on the MSM.

This is a result of policy choices. But the American people never chose those policies, they think? Enter the world of 'think tanks' and their propaganda, of the system where these policies are implements behind closed doors when possible, and marketed with misleading propaganda as needed.

For a lot of info, you can read Thom Hartmann's book "Screwed: the undelcared war on the middle class".

But aren't you faulting just one of the two parties here? I mean, what you are saying is that the wealthy are soliciting government more, and more successfully, than the middle and lower class people, right? And thus, they get market conditions, regulations, etc., that favor them over others, right? How can this realistically be prevented?

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

A number of reasons. More people are falling into the poverty class and more people are falling into the "rich" class. Although it isnt really defined, I think most can presume middle class to be somewhere around $24k-$75k/yr.

I couldn't disagree more. $75k/year per family is going to be lower class in most urban areas of the country; $75k per working parent will allow you to purchase a shitty home in a shitty neighborhood in most urban areas. If you consider this to be upper class then you are insane, if you consider it to be upper middle class then you are delusional.

Have you ever driven through Boston or New York or San Francisco? Do you have any idea how much one of those modest homes costs? Do you think that if you can drop $2 million on a 1000 square foot place in Manhattan that it makes you upper class? Think again. The bar is steadily rising, and always has been. If you think for a minute that the bar is lowering to include more people, or that a greater percentage of people are simply rising above a static marker due to their capitalistic ingenuity then you are mistaken.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
In short, because the system is doing what wealthy groups want and not making a priority of the middle class in too many ways.

To add to my reply above, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head here, but in a manner which you may not see.

What you have stated here, Craig, is that the wealthy have used government to get their way, at the expense of the little guy, and I don't think there is any disagreement here.

In fact, IMO, that is inevitable. The wealthy will always try to have more influence in government. And in more ways than less, they will succeed.

But what I think you fail to see is that it takes two to tango. Just that it is inevitable that the wealthy try to proposition government, government will accept said propositions.

But then as you increase the size and power of the federal government, you increase the size and scope of the playground for the wealthy. If government is owned by the wealthy, and government gets more powerful, so do the wealthy. On the other hand, if the government is smaller, and weaker, so are the wealthy.

IMO, you shot yourself in the foot.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

In short, because the system is doing what wealthy groups want and not making a priority of the middle class in too many ways.

For just one example, 60 Minutes did a segment yesterday on why the oil prices skyrocketed and plummeted, and noted that it was all about Wall Street schemes profiting, which drive up the prices - with 13 trades of a barrel happening for every barrel actually consumed in the country.

This is somewhat reminiscent of the Wall Street schemes for productizing mortgages and selling them many times, building a house of cards in the process.

The bottom line is that right-wing ideology has been implemented broadly, and its intent is to enrich the rich the easy way, at the expense of everyone else.

Let me repeat yet again the statistic that helps clearly answer your question: since Reagan, the last 25 years, the bottom 80% of Americans have gotten about zero increase in income after inflation; the growth in the economy has all gone to the top, slowly increasing until the very few - like the top 0.01%, who have seen income increases of hundreds of percent. This is new in American history - and you won't see it on the MSM.

This is a result of policy choices. But the American people never chose those policies, they think? Enter the world of 'think tanks' and their propaganda, of the system where these policies are implements behind closed doors when possible, and marketed with misleading propaganda as needed.

For a lot of info, you can read Thom Hartmann's book "Screwed: the undelcared war on the middle class".

I actually think youre spot on, Craig, save your usual partisan jab: "right-wing ideology". What you fail to understand is, it isnt so much RIGHT wing ideaology as it is GOVERNMENT ideology.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: m1ldslide1

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: bamacre
My question to those who think they have a solution to the problem of a shrinking middle class is, why exactly is the middle class shrinking?

A number of reasons. More people are falling into the poverty class and more people are falling into the "rich" class. Although it isnt really defined, I think most can presume middle class to be somewhere around $24k-$75k/yr.

I couldn't disagree more. $75k/year per family is going to be lower class in most urban areas of the country; $75k per working parent will allow you to purchase a shitty home in a shitty neighborhood in most urban areas. If you consider this to be upper class then you are insane, if you consider it to be upper middle class then you are delusional.

Have you ever driven through Boston or New York or San Francisco? Do you have any idea how much one of those modest homes costs? Do you think that if you can drop $2 million on a 1000 square foot place in Manhattan that it makes you upper class? Think again. The bar is steadily rising, and always has been. If you think for a minute that the bar is lowering to include more people, or that a greater percentage of people are simply rising above a static marker due to their capitalistic ingenuity then you are mistaken.

I couldnt agree more. to add to your example, $75k in Jenks, OK is rich. Get it? Its subjective. I never claimed it was universal.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
In short, because the system is doing what wealthy groups want and not making a priority of the middle class in too many ways.

To add to my reply above, you've pretty much hit the nail on the head here, but in a manner which you may not see.

What you have stated here, Craig, is that the wealthy have used government to get their way, at the expense of the little guy, and I don't think there is any disagreement here.

In fact, IMO, that is inevitable. The wealthy will always try to have more influence in government. And in more ways than less, they will succeed.

But what I think you fail to see is that it takes two to tango. Just that it is inevitable that the wealthy try to proposition government, government will accept said propositions.

But then as you increase the size and power of the federal government, you increase the size and scope of the playground for the wealthy. If government is owned by the wealthy, and government gets more powerful, so do the wealthy. On the other hand, if the government is smaller, and weaker, so are the wealthy.

IMO, you shot yourself in the foot.

You're talking to a wall. I've tried explaining numerous times that the rich get richer because of government, not in spite of it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
You're talking to a wall.

That's why I like arguing by asking questions. Because the other person eventually starts arguing with themselves.