About 2% of Americans are "rich". Which means 98% of us are not.

[rpgamerd00d]

There is no way that 2% of Americans are depleting our natural resources, or burning excess oil, or deforesting the planet, or any other such bullshit.

No matter how many "2%ers" own mansions, any true and meaningful harm being done to the environment is being done by the other 98% of us, living in our "normal" homes, driving our "normal" cars, eating our "normal" food, and consuming our "normal" amount of oil and other resources.

To even imply that, somehow, 2% of our population is the problem just because one dude owns a big house, is, frankly, moronic.

nuff said.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. yep.

change your lightbulbs

walk more

stop driving

recycle




It's up to all of us.

[donheld]

14. walk more

Do I get to wear shoes?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

19. If you so wish. nt

[Selatius]

2. Not sure but the 2%figure came form a world report on income/wealth inequality

If we examine the entire world population, yeah, the top 2% own something like 50 or 51 percent of the world wealth. The bottom 50 percent own, what, 1 percent? How much of the US population would qualify in the world's top 2 percent? I dunno.

[mrcheerful]

3. You forget that those same 2% are the ones that own the factories, power companies

and all the other businesses that use huge amounts of natural resources to run their businesses. What you need to do is find out the figures to show how the 98% are using the same or more natural resources that businesses use. Last time I knew not many of the 98% used large amounts of coal to heat their homes. Same with electricity and natural gas, and don't forget everything from fertilizers to plastics require crude oil products to make them. Not to mention that the 2% also use more to run everything from homes to yachts. Come on be real, it takes more gas to run a limo then it does to run the average persons mid size car. More don't always mean more use of said products nor does more mean more polution. One factory can polute more then 1,000 homes.

[Psephos]

4. And you forget that those factories serve the other 98%

A lot of people use coal to heat their homes, too - if they use electric heat or steam heat, from the central power station.

This artificial division of resource-consuming rich people and the rest of humanity is silly. It's aggregate demand for resources that's the problem. The only solutions that will show noticeable effects are those that include everyone who uses those resources. We could take all the rich people out back and shoot them, and the effect upon resource depletion would be hardly noticeable.

By way of example, consider this: who sells more stuff, Wal-Mart or Saks Fifth Avenue? Which store has a bigger environmental footprint? You could eliminate all of Saks' customers, and it would barely dent aggregate consumption. Eliminate all of Wal-Mart's customer, and the resource use of the US would nosedive. The masses are the biggest source of the problems, and the masses are where we must turn our attentions to solve them.

I'm more interested in solving the problem than pointing ideological fingers. I would, however, support a consumption tax that progressively targets wealthy people who suck up extravagant amounts of energy, land, or whatever is in short supply. Let them have their stuff, if they really want it, but make 'em pay, pay, pay for the privilege...and invest the funds obtained into research into alternative sources.

Peace.

[mrcheerful]

5. See what your doing is saying the little guys are using more then the big guys

because of the number of little guys is greater then the number of big guys. From what I have seen is it takes more energy to run a bussiness such as a Wal-Mart then it takes to run a home. Think about how a Wal-Mart store is open 24/7 which means they have to heat the building and have lights on 24/7. Home owners Don't run either 24/7, in fact a lot of people turn down the heat in homes at bed time, turn off all the lights and during the day light hours tend to have lights on at all. Also remember Wal-Mart has parking lots that are well lite after sunset until sunrise. See where I am going with this? The little guys out there are doing what they can to make an impact on power useage, mostly to save money. Yet at the same time business are increasing the amount they use. Its a no win sitituation where the little guy gets the blame.

[Psephos]

6. But Wal-Mart exists to serve the buying demand of millions of "little guys"

No little guys buying stuff for themselves, no Wal-Mart. Where do you think 140 million people are going to get their stuff, if there's no Wal-Mart? (That's how many people go to Wal-Mart each week.) From another store, like K-Mart, or Sears, or Costco, or whatever. If you want to eliminate stores, then I don't know if we're going to be able to discuss this further.

Once again, it's aggregate demand of consumers that drives the need for industries to supply that consumption. It's mass consumption that creates the need for mass-consumption suppliers. I presume you aren't advocating eliminating the masses, so we must instead focus on more efficient patterns of consumption by the masses.

Here's a thought experiment. If we confiscate all the wealth of the top 2%, then those people will join the lower classes. Do you see this total elimination of the wealthiest 2% then having an effect on the other 98%'s need for Huggies and Juicy-Juice and barbecue grills and motor oil? They would keep right on consuming, and Wal-Mart would keep right on selling to them at the same rate, except now it would be 143 million people a week, instead of 140 million, because three million formerly-rich people would now be pushing a cart through Wal-Mart, too.

[Guaranteed]

8. No, it doesn't. Walmart exists to fill up the pockets of its shareholders.

That's why corporations exist, and for no other reason. They aren't charities.

[Psephos]

12. And those who patronize them are looking to fill up their shopping carts

People have money, and want stuff. Stores have stuff, and want money.

I'm neither defending or attacking that, just pointing out that's how it works. When countries such as USSR eliminated corporations, the state became the corporation. People still bought stuff. There is no stopping that.

Shareholders put money in to a business to start it up, because they want something back in return. This doesn't strike me as surprising.

People want corporations to carry part of the tax burden of running their city, state, or whatever, and to treat their employees decently. This doesn't strike me as surprising either. Corps are like people (cuz they *are* people) - some are nasty, some are saints, most just go along to get along.

But this is all quite off the original topic I posted upon. Maybe a new thread would be smarter?

Peace. :-)

[mrcheerful]

18. Thats where your logic proves what I'm getting at the USSR was mostly about

the state taking corporations out of the hands of the privates sector and putting them into the hands of government. Very few citizens owned cars, government dictated how much heat their government founded homes had, how much electricity they used and how much they consumed by controlling how much wealth they shared. Same result happened there too, the few government top 2% used more then the 98% bottom. What you seem to forget is how the high cost of a resource like gasoline forces people to use less. Look at how summer driving for vacations has fallen off since the 90's. People no longer go for week end drives in the country. Things I remember doing and seeing as a child no longer happen. Like traffic jams on express ways every friday night because everyone was headed north to their cabins or for week ends away from home. People used to do that every week end all summer. Small towns that relied on people who vacationed are hurting because of lost tourists dollars, some of the small tourists traps have closed down. Most working people are walking more driving less, remember supply and demand used to drive the cost of such things as gas prices. Today its based on speculation. America has cut back on usage yet oil is being used more today then ever before. As well as other non renewable resource. It's not the 98% thats driving on unnecessary trips. It's not the poor or working poor that is driving up usage. It's the ones who are not effected by gasoline going up 30 cents that are. Same with heating homes and electricity, think about how many are forced to cut back on both because of the cost and how it effects peoples budgets, so people are forced to use less. Yet still no change in usage. Go into poorer areas of the city and see how many of the poor light up their homes during the Xmas season, compared to the better parts of town.

[Guaranteed]

7. See...you're missing the point.

The reason it's wrong is BECAUSE it's only 2% of the people. What is it, the top 1% of the people in the world that own 50% of the wealth?

It's BECAUSE it's such a small amount of people...

[JVS]

9. Give up BGL. The rich are just naturally virtuous and no amount of rapacious consumptio on their...

part is to be criticized.

[Hardrada]

13. Inside the elite gated communities High Art and Philosophy

are discussed and also many plans to improve the lives of all Humankind. So get off your high horse!!

[JVS]

16. Sorry. I was out of place to criticize rich people as they are my betters

[Raydawg1234]

10. exactly

:kick:

[and-justice-for-all]

11. Show how does 2% have 98% by the balls?? nt

[The Straight Story]

15. I usually agree with you, but that is some serious bull shit

Those 2% control a lot of things - from corporations that thwart working from home to polluting the air to funding the wars we are in.

Yeah, us 98% could do more - but we could do a ton more with that 2% chipping in to make some real f'ing changes to things.

Those folks are using us, and our resources, for their own needs and benefits, and screwing the little people in return. I don't see that as liberal values.

I can recycle, use better bulbs, etc - but in the end what I control is next to nothing compared to what they control.

I don't begrudge the wealthy, hope to be there myself someday. But the wealthy in this country are the ones in power - from our corporations to our government. And that lowly 2% has an enormous amount of power.

The media, the government, etc are controlled by the few - and what have they done with it for the betterment of the many? Lied and screwed us over.

[mdmc]

17. upper middle class

whatever you want to call it. If you ain't working poor, your rich.