how-to block ads
|
| page: 1 · 2 · 3  |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
 ·Embarq
| reply to broadbander
Re: Duh, simple business.>
said by broadbander  :What percentage of those wealthy families date back more than 2 generations, WMarkHall? When was their wealth consolidated? More than two generations? I'm not sure, BroadBander (is your first name Broad or your last Bander?), but that's a very good question. Old money is a 'known known', as some would say! I also don't know to what degree the answer would alter the variables driving the fundamental increase in wealth disparity occurring presently. We do, however, know the gap is real and it is growing, and history would suggest that marked wealth disparity precedes some form of collapse.
Hell, google 'wealth gap collapse' and you get over 4 million hits. Consolidation, in that it leads to concentration, is the danger as I see it. But I'm not an economic scholar (obviously), only a casual admirer and reader of a history littered with failed empires -- usually by greed, malice, or stupidity in one form or another.
I do know with some certainty that repeal of the 'death tax' (estate tax) will sure help keep more of that consolidated money in the family even longer 
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Titus Pullo
What percentage of those wealthy families date back more than 2 generations, WMarkHall?
When was their wealth consolidated? | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :There are some very fat tails on that upper 20%, and the number of families joining their group has been growing faster than ever before. Which translates to MORE opportunity to those that have the ability and some luck to seize it. Middle class crumbs seem to include plasma TV's, 3 vehicles, spacious houses, and enough sustenance to make most of us obese. Yeah, it sucks to work for your living, but most people have to do it, because of the scarcity of resources, and it will always be so. The poor are mostly made up of new immigrants, the disenfranchised, and then the truly disheartening "taken advantage of". I don't think we should be issuing bags of money with green cards, I have very little sympathy for those who don't work because it's hard to get a job; and the last portion is why we have social welfare programs, and is what we need to continue to work on. Overall, though, it's MUCH better than any time in the last 5,000 years. There's a reason why poor people the world over flood into this country, it's not because it's better every where else. In your first paragraph, you not only admit to class divide, "opportunity to those that have the ability..." but also espouse trickle-down econ and somehow stuffing up to 8lbs in a 2lb sack. Trickle down has never produced anything other than debt (currently in the form of cut and spend), and the fact that the top 20% is growing faster than ever before reinforces my point re our growing wealth gap. The curve is inverting; healthy, productive economies should aspire to a normal wealth curve --not the other way around. The opportunities to join that top 20 are actually shrinking, not growing, if you care to do the research.
As for middle-america's penchant for overseas trinkets and gizmos, most of it is in the form of debt: either from the refinancing of their homes at low interest, or from a wallet full of credit cards. More of us should look into the numbers on our collective debt before claiming consumerism a success. "Scarcity of resources," eh? I'm waiting for Adam Smith's invisible hand to slap me around any minute  There are a LOT of mr Smith's theories that aren't in econ books, and for good reason -- He was a economic Calvinist for starters.
I would disagree with your last statement(s) simply because at some point quality of life isn't measured in disposable income just as GDP isn't necessarily the best indicator of economic quality, and I think more people are becoming stressed out over issues like affordable health care, the cost of education, overcrowding (environmental issues) etc; and remember, even though poor minorities and southern crackers are deemed gullible by the right and ignorant by the left, there's something about 'being our brother's keeper' that *I* think we would have been wise to heed a long time ago. But then who would fight our wars (without a draft)?
As far as people coming to this country, of course. It's easy to get in, low-wage jobs aren't going to buy those plasma TVs, and most americans don't know how bad things are in undeveloped nations: more people die of starvation every single day than in all the current wars combined.
There's a lot right, but there's also a lot wrong.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Titus Pullo
There are some very fat tails on that upper 20%, and the number of families joining their group has been growing faster than ever before. Which translates to MORE opportunity to those that have the ability and some luck to seize it.
Middle class crumbs seem to include plasma TV's, 3 vehicles, spacious houses, and enough sustenance to make most of us obese. Yeah, it sucks to work for your living, but most people have to do it, because of the scarcity of resources, and it will always be so.
The poor are mostly made up of new immigrants, the disenfranchised, and then the truly disheartening "taken advantage of". I don't think we should be issuing bags of money with green cards, I have very little sympathy for those who don't work because it's hard to get a job; and the last portion is why we have social welfare programs, and is what we need to continue to work on. Overall, though, it's MUCH better than any time in the last 5,000 years. There's a reason why poor people the world over flood into this country, it's not because it's better every where else. | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to calvoiper
said by calvoiper :OK--I see your point. You think that society is better off with less of a "wage gap" even if everybody makes less money. By this logic, North Korea is a workers' paradise--there is almost no "wage gap" at all among 99.9% of the people. They are all dirt poor. I fail to see what motivates people who think that a society where everybody suffers is better just because fewer are "rich". calvoiper You have quite a habit of replying to my posts with thinly veiled vitriol, huh? I'm not sure why you feel compelled to do so, or if that makes for meaningful discourse; people can agree to disagree and try to opine on point rather than bend their 'opponents' words to suit them. Putting your adversarial intent aside, I think you're easily smart enough to know your post is a non sequitur.
What the upper class (and most of the middle and even some of the lower classes) won't admit to -- or simply don't know -- are numbers that cannot be spun into anything other than a dismal mediation on the sum of our ambitions: The richest 10 percent of families in this country own slightly over 85% of all outstanding stocks, 87% of all financial securities, and 90% of all business assets.
If you include homes, bank accounts of all types, CDs, various funds and pension accounts, then 20% of Americans own 83% of all wealth. The bottom 20% have no assets, no net worth. Zero. That's a wage gap, plain and simple: the distance between rich and poor.
Meanwhile, people are working longer hours for less money; credit debt is as high as personal savings are low; health care is bankrupting family after family, and there is only so much more the middle can be squeezed before things get really ugly.
So, the top 20% eat the cake, the middle 60% eat the crumbs and go in debt up to their ears to live in 350k fu*k boxes, and the bottom 20% get to lick the plates while they do the dishes.
No one with any sense of compassion wants anyone to suffer, and I don't begrudge the successful for their success, but if you think a return to another gilded age built on finance capital is good at a time when resources are dwindling, then I think you are in for a rude awakening in the not too distant future --unless you happen to have hit the class lottery and live in the vaulted top 20%. And that's simply my opinion.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Please provide a system better than capitalism for raising the standard of living for mankind. We haven't found a perfect system, they all have draw backs, and that doesn't mean we should stop looking. But it would be a step backwards right now to move towards any of the alternative socio-economic systems available. Socialism/Communism don't work. Somebody has to do the work, and if everyone is compensated equally everyone will try to minimize the portion of work that they have to complete so that society advances. Eventually this rewards those who are best at avoiding work the most, as they will be compensated at a higher rate per unit of labor. (since we're all paid the same, but they're doing less). There are some extremely over paid individuals in our society, and I think some real progress has been started by out raged investors on this front to curtail this abuse. (eg Home Depot) That doesn't mean we scrap the whole system, corruption exists everywhere; at least there's some recourse in our society.. _I_ don't have a better system, and _I_ don't suggest one; _I_ simply offer an opinion on what I see as faults in the system _I_ live under. 
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to KoolMoe
said by KoolMoe :I agree Captialism is best but it MUST be regulated. The real question is to what degree. Without any regulation, we see the same greed and self-interest issues as with other systems coming into greater play to destroy the equal benefits. Laissez-faire does NOT work and is just as destructive as Communism. KM Agreed to a degree ...
When the regulators are involved in industry themselves, their regulatory processes do more harm than good.
With the exception of stock markets (which are an oddity in of themselves, considering the way profit is supposed to work), markets with few competitors (telecommunications, trains) and health-related markets, regulation should be avoided (though advertising is another one that makes me wonder). | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Titus Pullo
Again, all irrelevant to the efficiency of capitalism.
If the poor are wealthier than they were, then the system is working.
What maintains the wage gap is NOT capitalism, but the American education system. Why is it hard to break the cycle of poverty? Two things...
inheritance (one of Marx's best points)
education
Fix the latter and the former will matter far less. Of course, I have my own propositions of how to fix the latter, but then we're going way O.T. | |
KoolMoe
Aw Man
Premium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD
clubs:
·Verizon FIOS
·Speakeasy
| reply to Ahrenl
I agree Captialism is best but it MUST be regulated. The real question is to what degree. Without any regulation, we see the same greed and self-interest issues as with other systems coming into greater play to destroy the equal benefits. Laissez-faire does NOT work and is just as destructive as Communism.
KM
--
War is a test of power, not a search for truth or justice. Can the violation of the primacy of love, destruction of life, and tearing of society truly be the will of God? | |
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Titus Pullo
Please provide a system better than capitalism for raising the standard of living for mankind.
We haven't found a perfect system, they all have draw backs, and that doesn't mean we should stop looking. But it would be a step backwards right now to move towards any of the alternative socio-economic systems available.
Socialism/Communism don't work. Somebody has to do the work, and if everyone is compensated equally everyone will try to minimize the portion of work that they have to complete so that society advances. Eventually this rewards those who are best at avoiding work the most, as they will be compensated at a higher rate per unit of labor. (since we're all paid the same, but they're doing less).
There are some extremely over paid individuals in our society, and I think some real progress has been started by out raged investors on this front to curtail this abuse. (eg Home Depot) That doesn't mean we scrap the whole system, corruption exists everywhere; at least there's some recourse in our society.. | |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Titus Pullo
OK--I see your point. You think that society is better off with less of a "wage gap" even if everybody makes less money.
By this logic, North Korea is a workers' paradise--there is almost no "wage gap" at all among 99.9% of the people. They are all dirt poor.
I fail to see what motivates people who think that a society where everybody suffers is better just because fewer are "rich".
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :D. I didn't mention the poor; I said the wage gap. There's a huge difference, check into it. I'm aware, but the difference is irrelevant to the efficiency of capitalism. A growing wage gap is not a negative thing if the growth of median GDP can maintain for it. The alternative is a system in which wealth grows very slowly or doesn't grow at all, so the wage gap may be less, but everyone is poorer (including the poor). I believe "efficiency of capitalism" is an oxymoron! And I fail to see how a growing wage gap equates to anything positive, regardless of median GDP: what tangibles do we produce and how does a grossly understated CPI in tandem with stagnating/dropping (falling mean real income [less than 45 YOA]) wages produce anything positive for anyone other than capital markets heavily investing overseas? If not for rising home values this economy would be imitating the effects of Katrina.
A growing wage gap denotes, among other things, a reliance on finance capital, which everyone now knows does not trickle down in any form whatsoever to those of lower income. Once you're in the bottom 30% it becomes increasingly difficult to crawl out as ownership of assets tilts to the wealthy. Any other scenario is ludicrous to entertain, IMHO.
Peace-
-Mark
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Titus Pullo
A. My example of the sugar industry was sarcasm meant to expose one facet of the lie that is our own 'Free Market'.
Agreed. American capitalism is more riddled with regulatory and corrupt mishaps than many other nations' forms.
Not to mention they'll wage war as economic stimulus. And BTW, this is a mixed economy riding on the hairy behind of a nearly-shot republic, not a democracy. But that's another issue
Governments will provide the means to wage war. Hiring armies is inherently not profitable in a straight economic model, unless someone else is paying for it ... like a government. I agree about our mixed economy, and I agree thats it places emphasis on the wrong things (half-baked social programs, cross subsidization of certain industries, education mismanagement, private projects funding [which should just be used for public works projects), poorly plotted military spending [regardless of the war, Uncle Sam still does not practice enough cost-saving methods]).
C. I'm not a follow of Che, but you *appear* to know little of his history other than the popular elitist version.
The popular version is that Che was a venerable hero, a child of landowners who could've been a wealthy aristocratic doctor, but gave it up to fight for the less fortunate. The real version begins the same but ends with him corrupted by an incredible hate for particular social systems because of the poor way those systems were implemented in his own experience, rather than their actual utility. His attempts to save Lamumba are commendable. His distrust of everything "capitalist" was not, and his hate for not just America as a country but the actual citizens of the country, disgusting.
D. I didn't mention the poor; I said the wage gap. There's a huge difference, check into it. I'm aware, but the difference is irrelevant to the efficiency of capitalism. A growing wage gap is not a negative thing if the growth of median GDP can maintain for it. The alternative is a system in which wealth grows very slowly or doesn't grow at all, so the wage gap may be less, but everyone is poorer (including the poor). | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to broadbander
A. My example of the sugar industry was sarcasm meant to expose one facet of the lie that is our own 'Free Market'.
B. I don't agree: Capitalism will eat its own (and others) in its endless quest for the most efficacious means of production and markets for the finished product. Not to mention they'll wage war as economic stimulus. And BTW, this is a mixed economy riding on the hairy behind of a nearly-shot republic, not a democracy. But that's another issue
C. I'm not a follow of Che, but you *appear* to know little of his history other than the popular elitist version.
D. I didn't mention the poor; I said the wage gap. There's a huge difference, check into it.
Peace
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | reply to Titus Pullo
There's but one example of your 'free market' in action.
How? It clearly isn't free. Agricultural cross-subsization is something I find incredibly problematic (because it goes a long way to keeping would-be importers poor).
Sh*t, the US govt is the marketing capital of buzzwords
Yes indeed. But that's all irrelevent to my point. The system of capitalism is far less likely to "damn the people" than the economic alternatives ... mercantilism, communism and the rest.
I won't EVEN take the religious bait; I've been down that dark road before, and I've explained the 'Che' thing before, and it isn't what you think, and I don't want to digress down that path.
It's not bait. I'm an atheist. But I know that those three men preached and practiced equality and at the ends of their lives all decided that on a personal level, "do unto others" was the ultimate command. Che meanwhile was a power-hungry individual who valued most humans very little, especially if they happened to own land or live in the United States (regardless of if they were a sympathizer, Che would've happily shot off a nuke at them too to further his political cause).
Then which of the two do you think is occurring now if not the centralization of wealth? Have you looked at the numbers? And how is it that we have one tax CUT after another yet the income gap is growing at a rate not seen since the gilded age? I'll say it again: textbook economics reads like junk science and the lingua franca of the ruling class when juxtaposed with the reality of human greed and ITS influence on all we know and experience day to day.
Are the poor wealthier than they word in 1960? | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :said by Titus Pullo :said by broadbander :The freer the market, the cheaper the price (so long as cross-subidization is not involved). Illegal markets are the best example. Witness pirated technologies, stolen clothing goods or squater-farmed land and witness theory becoming reality. Something as simple as the U.S. sugar market is a pretty good example of a 'free' market in action. Describe what/when you're referring too and what governments are involved in the process. If governments are involved in the supply or demand side, then the market isn't free in ANY way. Any labor force being exploited by "capitalism" is probably being exploited primarily by their own government. Fascism works with particular pieces of a market to help form state-sanctioned monopoly (hardly a free market function). Communism, rather than give profit to the workers, simply cuts the labor part of the cost of production out entirely, essentially creating a capitalist society with a serf class (that has no hope of breaking that distinction). --- From: » www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_06_05···cle.html"The sugar industry in America has never really operated in a free market. Cane sugar in Florida wouldn’t exist if the state government hadn’t drained the Everglades. It would disappear if the Army Corps of Engineers didn’t permanently alter the landscape and manage it at taxpayer expense to expose the muck soil and keep the water level just right for the growers. Washington also provides subsidies to all sugar farmers in the form of loans collateralized by sugar—about 18 cents per pound. The world price of sugar is usually around 10 cents per pound or less, but the federal government also drastically limits sugar imports, ensuring a domestic price of about twice that. Uncle Sam also subsidizes private sugar storage facilities." There's but one example of your 'free market' in action. --- The history of "exploited peoples" is a history of corrupted persons, not corrupt economies. An evil person in charge of a government is 100X more dangerous than an evil person in charge of a corporation (which is oxymoron, it is impossible to completely "be in charge" of a corporation in a theoretical sense, because of supply and demand). --- Most of history IS "exploited peoples" -- exploited by the powerful for more power. It continues today in every form imaginable. We just witnessed 'free' elections in Mexico where the US had its hands all over the process. Nothing like this 'freedom' thing in the whole world. Someone accused me of using buzzwords. Sh*t, the US govt is the marketing capital of buzzwords -- freedom being the biggest chainsaw on the block. --- As for Che, well, any fellow who wanted primarily to destroy the existence of myself and those around me is not okay in my book or anyone to follow. Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Douglass ... these are history's heroes regardless of their political/religious affiliations. Militant ideologists of any stripe are not(read Che's comments on the Cuban missile crisis and try to earnestly support him or what he represents in anyway). --- I won't EVEN take the religious bait; I've been down that dark road before, and I've explained the 'Che' thing before, and it isn't what you think, and I don't want to digress down that path. --- Certainly, in particular markets, regulation can help ensure safety and bring about competitive behavior that protects consumers in some way. However, I contend that over-regulation (i.e. government control of important industries) is far more disastrous than the converse (a completely free market). And centralizing wealth (a.k.a. high federal taxes) is an invitation for just that. --- Then which of the two do you think is occurring now if not the centralization of wealth? Have you looked at the numbers? And how is it that we have one tax CUT after another yet the income gap is growing at a rate not seen since the gilded age? I'll say it again: textbook economics reads like junk science and the lingua franca of the ruling class when juxtaposed with the reality of human greed and ITS influence on all we know and experience day to day.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Titus Pullo
said by Titus Pullo :said by broadbander :The freer the market, the cheaper the price (so long as cross-subidization is not involved). Illegal markets are the best example. Witness pirated technologies, stolen clothing goods or squater-farmed land and witness theory becoming reality. Something as simple as the U.S. sugar market is a pretty good example of a 'free' market in action. Describe what/when you're referring too and what governments are involved in the process. If governments are involved in the supply or demand side, then the market isn't free in ANY way. Any labor force being exploited by "capitalism" is probably being exploited primarily by their own government. Fascism works with particular pieces of a market to help form state-sanctioned monopoly (hardly a free market function). Communism, rather than give profit to the workers, simply cuts the labor part of the cost of production out entirely, essentially creating a capitalist society with a serf class (that has no hope of breaking that distinction).
The history of "exploited peoples" is a history of corrupted persons, not corrupt economies. An evil person in charge of a government is 100X more dangerous than an evil person in charge of a corporation (which is oxymoron, it is impossible to completely "be in charge" of a corporation in a theoretical sense, because of supply and demand).
As for Che, well, any fellow who wanted primarily to destroy the existence of myself and those around me is not okay in my book or anyone to follow.
Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha, Douglass ... these are history's heroes regardless of their political/religious affiliations. Militant ideologists of any stripe are not(read Che's comments on the Cuban missile crisis and try to earnestly support him or what he represents in anyway).
Certainly, in particular markets, regulation can help ensure safety and bring about competitive behavior that protects consumers in some way. However, I contend that over-regulation (i.e. government control of important industries) is far more disastrous than the converse (a completely free market). And centralizing wealth (a.k.a. high federal taxes) is an invitation for just that. | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to broadbander
said by broadbander :The freer the market, the cheaper the price (so long as cross-subidization is not involved). Illegal markets are the best example. Witness pirated technologies, stolen clothing goods or squater-farmed land and witness theory becoming reality. Something as simple as the U.S. sugar market is a pretty good example of a 'free' market in action.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
Titus Pullo
I came, I saw, I slept
join:2004-06-26
·Embarq
| reply to Old Buzzard
Re: Duh, simple business.
said by Old Buzzard :Sorry, but I just can't take economic advice from someone with a Che avatar seriously.  Especially when it's mostly buzzwords with little backing. That's a bitch; I replaced my avatar before reading your reply. Shucks! I've explained the Che thing before, so troll my post history if you care (I doubt anyone would).
For the record, unlike others who claim expertise, I'm not giving advice on economics; I leave junk science to those fond of koolaid. My point was simply that I wish people wouldn't toss around terms with little knowledge of their history, derivation, or contemporary relevance.
--
"I am not young enough to know everything."
Oscar Wilde | |
broadbander
join:2005-07-21
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Titus Pullo
The freer the market, the cheaper the price (so long as cross-subidization is not involved).
Illegal markets are the best example.
Witness pirated technologies, stolen clothing goods or squater-farmed land and witness theory becoming reality. | |
|
