America's Wealth Inequality is a Crime.

[JanMichael]

Poll question: America's Wealth Inequality is a Crime.

United for a Fair Economy has a lot on this touchy subject: http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

1998 breakdown, it's worse today BTW:



http://www.therationalradical.com/dsep/wealth-distribution.htm

"The top 1% own 38.1% of the wealth in the country, the next 4% own 21.3%, and the next 5% own 11.5%. That is to say, the top 10% of the country owns 70.9% of the wealth of this nation!"

So 90% has only 29.1% of the nations wealth? Wow. That's an amazing tolerance.

This is a history of inequality:



Notice how there were periods of growing Equality? Say Bye-Bye to them.

[Salviati]

1. What I'd really like to see with figures of this kind

are some actual numbers, you know... So when they say the wealthiest 1%, they actually give a dollar figure, that way when most people look at that chart they can clearly see where they fall...

[JanMichael]

2. Top 1%: $719,000 (In 1995 $)

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1545&from=4&sequence=0

IIRC the top 2% for 2003 was around $356,000.

[gbwarming]

18. That's income, wealth inequality is worse. Top1%=$10M, Bottom40%=$1k

Household Net Worth
Top 1% -- $10,200,000
Bottom 40% -- $1,100 (eleven hundred dollars)

Lots more:
http://www.levy.org/docs/wrkpap/papers/300.html/

[JanMichael]

27. That's a better break down, thanks!

Most people are ignorant of these facts.

[jody]

120. "one per centers" own 50% of our financial wealth

This may have already been posted.

"Shifting Fortunes The Perils of the Growing American Wealth Gap"

QUOTE
Financial wealth is even more concentrated. The top 1 percent of households have nearly half of all financial wealth (net worth minus net equity in owner-occupied housing). Wealth is further concentrated at the top of the top 1 percent. The richest 1/2 percent of households have 42 percent of the financial wealth.
UNQUOTE

If AWOL abolishes estate taxes, capital-gains taxes, corporate taxes, and dividend taxes, then in a few decades the "one per centers" will own essentially all our financial wealth.

Not to worry though, "We the People" can join the U.S. Foreign Legion and protect the "one per centers" worldwide assets and get service jobs on their many estates.

:shrug:

[Atlant]

3. Kick (NT)

[Jim Warren]

4. ....there's the rub!

This is it, I don't post often.....but here you have hit on it.
Much "political discourse" ends up as chatter designed to steer clear of this realization, and so it goes unremarked: the grotesque maldistribution of the nation's wealth concentrated into fewer hands, those hands self servingly pulling the strings on politicians, policy, legislation and media.

[JanMichael]

5. It took me a long, long, time to accept that no nation can...

...have our Inequality and still be considered as a legitimate Democracy.

We are compromised to the core.

That essentially we are a Plutocracy and that is, at least in my opinion, unacceptable.

[sandnsea]

76. Why the tax structure was the way it was

That's why we used to have a tax structure where the regular guy wasn't taxed at all and the rich paid all the taxes and estates were taxed and luxuries were taxed etc. It was supposed to allow the worker to accumulate money and work his way up; and the estate tax was to keep the wealthiest from accumulating all the money and thereby having too much power. And those were words from Lincoln as well as others before that.

Where'd our country go?

[Hubert Flottz]

121. What it amounts to is the top 5% control the country!

It doesn't matter who is elected the fixers have their man running things!

[Terwilliger]

6. The bottom 40% own a WHOPPING two-tenths of ONE percent of the wealth

If you good neoliberals dont see a problem with that, then you're not liberal.

[JanMichael]

7. If being a Liberal means I have to accept it then I'm NOT...

...a Liberal.

Hmmm? Am I a Liberal? Generally speaking I would say yes but perhaps Radical would be more appropriate?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The Class War is a reality.

Mostly unacknowledged and ignored by the media.

The American people are so easily bamboozled by the rich that it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

The "Richest Country in the World", can't afford to provide health care for it's citizens. Whereas, a third world country like Cuba can.

The "Richest Country in the World", can't afford to educate it's citizens. When I went to CalState Northridge it cost me $140.00 per quarter. That was in the '70s when the downtrodden rich were taxed more equitably.

The "Richest Country in the World", can't afford to protect the environment. We have to give tax-breaks to, and make deals with, the corporations so that they don't have to obey environmental laws. Otherwise, good Republican patriots that they are, they will move to some 3rd world country to rape.

And, the list goes on.

Go ahead, tell me how well capitalism works. One of the all time great myths.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

56. Shut up! Shut up!

[luckydevi]

115. India

I see you are a fan of Ghandi. Have you actually been to India?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

142. Alas, no.

One of many places that I'd like to visit but probably never will. My grandfather was a Brit soldier there on the old Northwest Frontier long before the partition. He was stationed at Quetta (now Pakistan).

Are you Indian?

[luckydevi]

146. yes

Yes, but I was born here.

If you want to see socialism in action, I suggest you vist India. Your opinion on socialism might be a tad different when you come back.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

149. Perhaps

But, I have been to western Europe and seen their brand and like it.

I doubt that a visit to Peru, Somalia or Colombia would convince me that capitalism is a solution.

I'm a "socialist" with a small "s". I don't see it as a panacea for the ills of the world. But, neither do I see corporate capitalism as anything but the exploitation of the weak by the powerful. That "socialist" governments can be corrupt, inefficient, and repressive is obvious. So can capitalist governments.

I do find it unfair and a bit ridiculous to compare India with the USA. How does India compare with Burma? Or, Pakistan? Or, China?

How does the "capitalist" USA compare with "socialist" Germany, Denmark, Belgium? In my observation, the living standards, educational opportunities, health care, is better in those "socialist" countries.

Call me naive but I find great disparity in wealth obnoxious and unjust. The fact that our "patriotic" corporations move to 3rd world countries to exploit their cheap labor in the name of "efficiency" and profit, is just plain wrong.

[luckydevi]

151. -

Let's makes this clear this is not a capitalist country. We live in a mixed economy. Just to add corporatism is not capitalism, it is fascism.

To suggest Peru, Somalia and Colombia have capitalist economies is simply false.

I hope you also understand that European economies have been stagnated for decades. There is a reason why most of Europe is going through massive deregulation (this is clearly going on in Denmark and Belgium- they are among the freest economies in the world). Denmark is actually a really bad example to defend socialism; they are just as capitalist as this country. Sweden has also clearly opened up their economy as well, which was once known as a socialist utopia (and still is in spite of the facts). It is actually amazing how most of Europe is opening up their economies. As for education, they are coming here to go to college not vice versa. Socialism might work temporarily, but eventually it will collapse. Our living standard rivals any country in the free world. The truth is Americans have no clue what poverty is.

I am not worried about income inequality; I am worried about raising standard of living.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

159. Your solution is?

The degree of the mix? Curbing the corporations?

Actually, this American was quite poor - hungry poor, homeless poor. However, to compare that poverty to the poverty that I've witnessed in Mexico and Taiwan, and seen documented elsewhere would be naive.
I certainly agree that (most) Americans have no idea what real poverty is. But for you to say that our "living standard rivals any in the free world" is equally naive. Saying that the average middle class American is comparable to the average middle class Brit, German, Dane or Swede, is correct. But, for the desperately poor in the above countries, I'd much rather be in Europe (or Canada) for basic health care and relief from hunger. As for European students coming here for their education, is tantamount to saying that Arab Princes come to the USA for health care. Nice if you can afford it. Most Americans can't afford that quality of health care or education.

As I said, I don't believe that socialism is a panacea, but neither do I think capitalism is.

[luckydevi]

167. Well

Ending corporate welfare would be a nice start. Many really do not understand how damaging corporate welfare is, it is essentially welfare for the rich. Cutting back on government spending would be nice as well. I beleive we are overtaxed, but I understand that is a position held by few on this board.

As for standard of living, I guess we will just disagree.

[JanMichael]

9. Shameless kick.

:kick:

[JanMichael]

10. I know that this is a "sensitive" subject but...

...WHY?

It's a REALITY.

We either deal with it or we become it's servants.

I choose dealing with it...

[cthrumatrix]

11. It's starts with jobs and fair pay....we all have seen the difference in

CEO pay vs the regular working ....incredible multiples ...and much of this has happened since the 90's

[JanMichael]

12. IIRC last year CEO pay went up 17% while the average worker got 2%.

All during an undeniable Recession.

Go figure...

[sendero]

17. entitlements....

... the right is always grousing about "entitlements" and the fact that poor people feel "entitled" to health care, basic necessities.

But while most Americans warm their cranium in their (you figure it out) the real entitlement scandal is the corporate leadership class.

They get theirs come rain or shine, success or faiure, tenure or not. Their pay just keeps going up and up for no other reason than that the game is rigged, with the boards of directors scatching their backs while the CEOs scratch the boards'.

Moralists would have you believe that it is moral decay that leads to the downfall of great societies, others like myself believe it is the overconcentration of wealth that does it.

We'll probably see pretty soon either way :)

[Nikia]

13. I don't know what can be done

Throughout history when this kind of economic inequality occurrs amongst a culture with some value of democracy there is civil unrest. Things have to change in a big way.

[JanMichael]

15. Prepare for the worst possible outcome in you imagination.

Because we have a generally numbed population that WILL eventually turn on it's once unknown "Masters" and it will be a fierce rejection of the current Regime.

[Pobeka]

19. Yes, this is what worries me

That my children may have to witness, or die in a revolution and the resulting chaos. The way things are going, I may even see it.

But, here's another thought -- those top 1%, I think they will be offshore and relatively safe from violence by the time things get that severe. The mobility of the top 1% both in terms of their physical location and their financial assets makes it much easier for the looting of the lower classes to occur.

[JanMichael]

23. I don't want that to happen to anyone.

And hopefully the changes will be civilized.:-)

[JohnKleeb]

14. JM this is a shame

That the 1% own so much, it reminds me of the estates in revolutionary France, the first and second estates were only 2-3 out of 100 the people yet they owned much of the wealth same thing here so hence obviously and knowing my views I said Yes.

[JanMichael]

16. You and I are on the same page.

Sadly I fear that when the multitudes gain a vision we'll not be able to restrain their ferocious response.

[JohnKleeb]

28. yeah I know

I too share your socialist leanings man :hi:

[Ladyhawk]

20. I never thought I'd be part of the bottom 40%.

I was raised to believe that as long as you worked hard and voted Republican, you'd be successful. Guess what? It ain't so. :(

If you manage to get yourself disabled, you're totally fucked.

[Nederland]

21. Ok, I'll bite

Even though I know I'm going to be flamed for it.

So here is my question. Why do you assume that no rich person deserves their money? Is it possible to have become rich by hard work? Is it possible to "earn it"?

[Aaron]

25. Is that in the original post?

I didn't see "no rich person deserves their money" - although I did read it pretty fast so maybe I missed it?

[Nederland]

30. Its implied

as you will soon see if you follow the discussion below.

[JanMichael]

32. Answer the question! Is it OK with you?

That so few should dominate so many?

[Nederland]

35. See below (nt)

[JanMichael]

26. Irrelevant. Sorry.

Read our collective history and understand how everything that "WE" have is well, um, COLLECTIVE.

A system exists for wealth creation & wealth protection; Regardless of the rest of the Population. It's often limited. Yes there are anomolies, but as a thinking individual, I'm sure you recognise that.

[Nederland]

29. Response

I would say that the system exists to allow individuals the right to decide what to do with the product of their labor. You seem to believe that individuals don't get to decide what to do with the product of their labor--that decision should be made collectively. While I believe that certain decisions must by nature be made collectively, most should be made by the individual. To be specific, I would like to believe that no more than 30% of a person's labor should be confiscated by the state for collective purposes. What would you put the number at?

[JanMichael]

31. Refer back to my ORIGINAL question.

Do you support this sort of Economic Inequality?

Knowing, I hope, that it protects itself...How is that "Open" and "Free"?

[Nederland]

34. In some cases

In cases where a rich person has earned their money, I support economic inequality. In cases where a rich person has become rich through corrupt means or inheritance, I do not.

This is the crux of my problem with your argument. You view the entire distribution of wealth as a whole and say: this is unfair. I don't believe that its fair to paint millions of people (the top 1% being 2 million plus) with such a broad brush. There are rich people that earned their money, and there are rich people that didn't. In all of the post that I've read by you here at DU, I've never seen you try and distinguish between rich people that worked hard for their money and people like Bush who inherited it. I believe that a person who has worked hard and earned their money fair and square has a right to keep most of it. Do you?

This is why I asked: do you think its possible to become rich via hard work? I've answered your question, now you answer mine.

[JanMichael]

36. You answer a Macro Problem with a Micro answer/question.

My original question stands: Is it a Crime?

Better yet...Do you accept the Inequality Period? On a MACRO level mind you, not anecdotal crap:-)


PS~ Do the math: 2 Million is what percent of 287 Million?

Boo hoo:-)


Save the crying for those who work 50 hours a week for minimal wages please...

[Nederland]

38. I did answer the question

You asked if the distribution of wealth is a crime. I answered that in some cases it is, in some it is not. That's a valid response JanMichael. You are asking about the actions of over 2 million people, not one. You are basically asking me if over two million people deserve the wealth that they have. My answer is simple and accurate: some of them do, some of them don't.


PS~ Do the math: 2 Million is what percent of 287 Million?

PSS~ That's why I said 2 million plus. Read more carefully next time.

[Pobeka]

45. So I saw 1 white guy murder a woman

That means we penalize all white guys and send 'em to the gas chamber?

That's what you're arguing here.

Get a grip. Fairness is essential, if you don't allow people to be rich by "fair" means, then you make us look, like them, just plain greedy.

[JanMichael]

47. Whoa! Big leap! Who said "Rich" should exist?

Especially next to Poverty?

Just a question mind you...

[Pobeka]

49. Who said rich shouldn't exist?

n/t

[DagmarK]

58. Rich is fine. But UTTER POVERTY for the masses

in the allegedly most wealthy nation on earth is kind of a problem.

and when you make maybe $35,000 (which seems to be a liveable wage), and you STILL can't afford to have proper dental care ......then there's a problem.

What about the family of 4 brining in $22,000 a year?

[Pobeka]

63. Totally agree

See my post #55 below (above?)

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

178. who said their shouldn't me a maximum number US $ a person can "own"

After all, we are talking about fiat money, state-chartered corporate shares, and land in the US. The government regulates the currency, why not a regulation that someone can only claim X number of notes at a time? What if the states determined the maximum amount of stock a person can register?

The idea that our country's currency, assets, and land should be transfered to some people in massive quantites is a stretch don't you think?

And please no strawmen. No one is saying you can't own a fancy car, or a big house, and I for one think owning a business or shares in a company is a good thing. The idea that half of one percent can claim the majority of our wealth is ludicrous, and I don't understand why well-off middle class people think it is, other than envy.

[Nederland]

57. Now you show your true colors

You believe that no-one should be rich, no matter what.

You are entitled to that opinion, but you are wildly out of step with how most people think. Most people believe that a person is entitled to the product of their labor to some degree or another. Does Tiger Woods deserve to be rich? You bet. The man worked hard to get where he is and he is extremely talented. The combination of hard work and talent needs to be rewarded, or else no one would ever work hard or seek to develop their talents.

Keep in mind that no-one here is suggesting that the rich shouldn't on some way contribute more than the rest of us either. I'm completely in favor of a tax code where rich people pay 30% of their income and people making less than 20K pay nothing. However, given such a tax scheme we would still have rich people. This apparently irks you to no end. I call that jealousy, plain and simple.

[JanMichael]

65. You assume as usual.

For one you "jealous" comment is a probably a strange projection from you own situation which doesn't concern me. As to "Rich"? First Define it, and even then I simply made a statement/question. Thirdly: You should know by now that I'm a Socialist, there isn't any "Showing of true colors"! It's hardly a new discovery. The fact you threw that out shows a certain, um, "odd" quality IMHO.

As to wildly out of step with "most" people?

As long as the media glorifies the gross inequities 24/7/365 you may be right...But that won't last forever now, will it?

[Nederland]

79. Thanks

Finally, after all these posts, you admit that you are not a Democrat but in fact a Socialist. I knew this all along from previous postings of yours, but I'm sure that many here didn't. I just wonder why you attempt to smear the Democratic Party's image by pretending to be something that you are not. If you don't believe in market economies, and you don't believe that people should be able to become rich by any means whatsoever, you state this from the outset so people know where you are coming from.

And yes, being a Socialist make you wildly out of step with most people.

[JanMichael]

81. Hold your horses. I'm a registered Democrat.

Voted Clinton twice, Gore once. Worked on Bill McBride's campaign against Jeb in 2002. Contributed to all of those campaigns as well as helping briefly with Jan Schneider's campaign against K. Harris.

See, this is what bothers me about some people, they don't understand that one can make allowances in order to push for change.

"I just wonder why you attempt to smear the Democratic Party's image by pretending to be something that you are not"

I don't "Smear the Democratic Party's image" period Mr. McCarthy.

[Nederland]

84. If you're a Socialist

Why aren't you a member of the Socialist Party?

[BarbariansAtTheGate]

85. He is

The Democrats!!! :D

[JanMichael]

86. Psst. One can be a member of more than one Party.

God Bless America!

<stiffly salutes plastic flag on desk>

[Nederland]

91. You See

JanMichael, do you see the troll above in post #85?

That is what pisses me off about people like you. The vast, vast majority of Democrats are not Socialists. You may not like it, but its the truth. They do not believe that market economies are evil, they do not believe that all rich people got that way through immoral means and they do not yearn for the revolution. Are you smearing the Democratic Party's name? You bet you are. Its people like you that give truth to Rush Limbaugh's lies about the Democratic Party. Its people like you that cost us elections.

[JanMichael]

94. This is where we disagree.

You think I'm a baddy while I think that "do little DINO's" are the worst thing to ever happen to the Democratic Party.

Ciao.

[Misinformed01]

96. People like Michael:

Martin Luther King
Madam Curie
Sinclair Lewis
Caser (spelling?) Chavez
John Lennon
Howard Zinn

"Out of step?" Damn straight he is....thank God we are not all marching in pansy assed lockstep with the group thinkers and mouth breathers that have taken over the US-

The saddest comment on American Society to me is when being "out of step" is considered derogatory.

Go look up, or just sit quietly and think about the most influential people in the history of the world. You will find that every single one of them were considered "out of step."

On edit: sorry, honey...it just pissed me off badly to see another ridiculous "herd mentality" comment. I know you can handle your own discussions. I just wish these clowns would learn to fucking think, instead of that high school popularity horseshit groupthink that has destroyed our society.

I'm done now. Carry on.

[Nederland]

98. Nice List

How many of those people are still alive? You merely prove my point. Socialism is a theory whose time has come and gone. It is not "out of step" in that it is a revolutionary idea that the majority has yet to discover, it is "out of step" in the same way that segregation is. It is an outmoded line of thought that had its chance to prove itself and failed. Christ, if 150 years of failure and 50 million dead people aren't enough to convince you that an idea is downright stupid what is?

[Misinformed01]

102. Dead, yes...but their ideas and dreams live on

Which is probably more than anyone will ever be able to say for you or I.

You sound like most people I meet: Striving for mediocrity.

[Nederland]

103. Meaningless

Lots of people's dreams live on. Hitler's dreams live on in the minds of neo-Nazis. What matters is whether or not those dreams are worthy to be pursued. As for "striving for medicrity", I believe that is the goal of your friend JanMichael who is bound and determined to create a classless society where everbody is the same.

[Misinformed01]

105. You just answered yourself, and you

are so conditioned to not think that you can't even see it.

"What matters is whether or not those dreams are worthy to be pursued."

Go back to that list of socialists and tell me which of their dreams are not worthy of pursuit.

[Nederland]

109. Easy

With regard to their dreams of creating a socialist state, none of them are worth being pursued.

Note that I did not say that none of their dreams were worthy, only those dreams that pertained specifically to creating a socialist state. For example, the goal of Martin Luther King to create a society free of racial hatred is a goal that is worthy and still continues to this day among decent people. King's belief that a socialist state was a means of achieving that goal however, was misguided.

People who are familar with history should be comfortable with making this distinction. After all, as I read Karl Marx I cannot deny that many of his goals were noble ones. Indeed, if you read through his proscription for changes, more than half his list has been implemented by Western governments. Ideas like a progressive tax structure, national parks, national retirement plans. These are all communist ideas, and they have great merit.

However, people who are familar with history must also admit that many of Marx's ideas were horribly flawed. The idea that the wealth of a nation can be seized by "the proletariat" and then be redistributed in a fair and equitible means is a fantasy. The four greatest mass murders in the 19th century--Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot--were all self identified socialists. This is a historical fact, and any person who doesn't shake in their boots at the very mention of "redistributing wealth" is ignorant of its perils. The redistribution of wealth cannot happen without overwhelming governmental power, power that once used corrupts the individual's wielding it.

The future belongs to mixed economies. Not socialist ones, not capitalist ones. Mixed. The truth of this is evident when one sees what the free people of the world have chosen for themselves. When right wing individuals complain to me about the intrusion of the US government into their lives I politely suggest to them that they move to Somalia where they can live completely free from the tyranny of government. Likewise, when left wing individuals who advocate socialism complain I advise them to move to Cuba. So far, no one has ever taken my advice, and it is no mystery why: the future belongs to mixed economies, not socialist or capitalist ones. The extremes simply do not work.

[recidivist]

164. Eloquent answer.

I don't imagine any of the stalinoids around here will bother to answer.

[buddhamama]

107. a sincere question

in the previous post you wrote that 50 million people have died from 'socialism'. in all honesty, how many would you guess have died from capitalism? are people dying right now as i type this because of capitalism's failures? (think globally)

[Misinformed01]

108. And don't forget the people who

are dying spiritually because they can't live up to the prescribed ideals of capitalistic "success" in the US.

The ones who have been unemployed for 2 years now, who are trying to live with the "shame" of not being able to contribute to the support of their families.

The ones that have been made to feel useless in this society.

The ones that feel guilty because they can't afford basic medical care.

Horrible, isn't it?

[Nederland]

111. Answer

I do not advocate a purely capitalistic solution, I advocate a mixed economy that allows the free market to flourish and create enormous wealth, then taps a portion of that wealth toward humanitarian goals. I have no problem with people that believe that there should be a bottom floor through which no individual should be allowed to fall through. What I have a problem with is people that believe their should be a ceiling through which no individual should rise. It is, as I pointed out before, forced mediocrity.

Moreover if you claim that capitalism has caused the deaths of millions, you need to also look to the millions that it has saved. Ninty-five percent of the world's food is grown by economies that are primarily capitalist. All (yes all) of its modern medicines were invented and produced by primarily capitalist economies. The machinery that creates homes and schools and hospitals all comes from primarily capitalist economies. Simply put, primarily Capitalist economies are vast wealth creating machines and centers of innovation, and if you were to remove them from the world economy the globe would be plunged into poverty.

[Mairead]

118. You're making a considerable number of errors here!

You're crediting Capitalism as though food, medicines, homes, schools, hospitals, etc created by people living under Capitalism were created by those people only because of Capitalism. That's nonsense, as can be easily proven by noticing that non-capitalist peoples also have food, medicine, homes, schools, hospitals, etc.

Capitalist economies are 'vast wealth creating machines' principally for the few at the expense of the many. Someone with a television is not richer than someone without, except in the eyes of the hard-of-thinking. I am not 'deprived' because I don't own a Maserati, an apartment in Gstaad, or a yacht. Someone who does own those things is not ipso facto happier, healthier, or better off than the person who is respected and loved because she is the one who preserves and transmits her non-Capitalist tribe's cultural traditions.

[buddhamama]

125. excellent points, Mairead

i think there is confusion too, as to what constitutes a socialist country/leader.

Stalin, Pol Pot were not socialists.

[Nederland]

128. Response

Stalin, Pol Pot were not socialists

I said they were self identified socialists. I leave to you the task of defining what the "one true socialist theology" consists of.

[Mairead]

156. Thanks, BuddhaMama...and I agree about the definition

[Nederland]

127. Oh Well

I had hoped you were one of the smart ones.

You're crediting Capitalism as though food, medicines, homes, schools, hospitals, etc created by people living under Capitalism were created by those people only because of Capitalism. That's nonsense, as can be easily proven by noticing that non-capitalist peoples also have food, medicine, homes, schools, hospitals, etc.

Yes I am crediting Capitalism with this. Proof is to look at what happened after market reforms in Chinese argiculture. During the Mao years, from 1958 to 1978, growth in gross Chinese argicultural output increased at an average rate of 2.3% a year. In 1978, after Mao, the government started to allow farmers to sell portions of their goods on the open market and keep the profits for themselves. In 1985, China went further and eliminated the state monopoly of purchase and marketing of agricultural products. The result? Over the next 21 years gross argicultural output increased an average of 6.5% a year--nearly three times faster than under the collectivist system.

The evidence is clear. When you allow people to control the product of their own labor they work harder and produce more. When you tell them that no matter how hard they work they will only be given what they "need" (i.e. from each according to his ability, to each according to his need) production stagnates.


Source: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/highlights/ChinaInBrief/agr.html

[buddhamama]

137. unrest in China

present day China is example of what can occur when capitalism takes over. The farmers are being paid lessfor their crops-so much for the profits they can keep-and being ignored by their government. focus has now switched to the white-collar, city dwellers. reform and market expansion has not expanded their quality of living.

[Nederland]

138. Says who?

I provided a source for my points on China, where is yours?

[Mairead]

139. That straw horse isn't going to carry your argument

You can't refer to China -- which is another state-socialist/state-capitalist totalitarian society cobbled together on the back of a feudalist agrarian base -- as an example of anything but China. Well, you can of course, but not if you want to be taken seriously.

You could try Sweden...they actually talked about shifting to a totally democratic-socialist economy in the '70s, but it scared too many people. The way they have socialism integrated currently isn't expandable in a democratic way, so to convert completely would have meant a choice between less democracy or fundamental revision. After discussing things for awhile, they decided they'd better leave it alone because they were doing okay as things stood, but they couldn't feel comfortable that they knew for sure how to make the change OR how to recover if they goofed. But the idea is still lurking in the background.

[Nederland]

140. Question

So you are basically saying that no "true" socialist state exists at this point in time? China doesn't count, Sweden doesn't count, Cuba, North Korea etc? Is this actually what you believe?

[Mairead]

145. The sine qua non of real socialism is real democracy.

So if even a tenth of the reports we hear about China, N Korea, Burma, etc are true, then we can be certain that, whatever they are, they're not socialist. N Vietnam? Cuba? I don't know enough about either one to feel comfortable saying anything.

There are real socialist entities in existence, some quite large and wealthy, but, as far as I know, none of them have aggregated as independent states. Most are sub- or trans-national networks--which might be the natural political form of socialism anyhow, just as it is of capitalism. Israel might have become a socialist state, had it not been for Jabotinskian Zionism and the need to be a US client. If the Basques succeed in seceding, they might choose socialism because of MCC. (edit) Oh, and if South Africa hadn't been raped and raped again, and the local culture gutted, they might have chosen socialism for their state since it was the indigenous tribal form before the Europeans invaded, and there are still many SAians who believe in and expect it. Regretably, under Thabo Mbeki, SA is going the way of other IMF victims instead.

But other than the small possibility that N VN or Cuba is a real socialist state (i.e., with fully-distributed power, no elitist 'cadres' or other subversions) then I have to say no, I don't think there are.

[Nederland]

147. So

So we've established the fact that no real Socialist states exist at this point in time. Does it even occur to you to ask why? Does it occur to you to ask why a theory that has existed for over one hundred years has yet to produce a single tangible example of success? I would be inclined to think that if Socialism is as grand as it claims to be, the entire world would have converted by now. Care to explain why it isn't so? Perhaps its because as Leon Trotsky claimed, you cannot have "socialism in one nation", it must be a world wide system?

[Mairead]

153. Again, you're conflating correlation with causality. You're also

being ethnocentric, and you're ignoring the effect of ruthlessness.

The European incomers were vastly outnumbered by the aboriginal people in North America. Yet the Europeans won. So that obviously proves that the Europeans were superior and destined by God to own the place, right? Well, no. That formulation ignores the fact that the aboriginal people were peaceful and at first hadn't the faintest idea of the Europeans' intentions or point of view. The Europeans were arrogant ethnocentrists who were prepared to kill anyone who stood in their way, but the aborigines weren't. The aboriginal people made the mistake over and over again of trusting the Europeans. And they paid for it with their lives and the loss of their country. How many treaties have been broken by the palefaces? How many treaties are still being ignored, subverted, and broken?

In the same way that the European Capitalists betrayed and killed the (socialist) aborigines, so has Capitalism taken good care to marginalise, betray, and kill European (and other) people who resist assimilation. I won't walk through chapter and verse, I'll simply point out that unions are a form of socialism, and remind you of all the troubles--sacking, blacklisting, beating, imprisonment, maiming, killing-- working people have had and are having today in their attempts to act together. I'll also just mention that Emma Goldman and Eugene Debs were both imprisoned for what amounted to not being good Capitalists, and Goldman was deported for it, too. Socialists have been murdered, imprisoned, vilified, and generally shoved off the back of the bus whenever we've appeared. Yet it was the socialists who saw to it that sewers were laid, schools opened, that workers could relax in the weekends, have bank accounts, etc etc.

It's a sign of socialism's great strength that despite constant propaganda and repression by Capitalism, more than 700M people around the world--more than 2X the size of the whole US population--are voluntarily and peacefully continuing to build socialism today.

[Nederland]

157. Question

It's a sign of socialism's great strength that despite constant propaganda and repression by Capitalism, more than 700M people around the world--more than 2X the size of the whole US population--are voluntarily and peacefully continuing to build socialism today.

Are free people emmigrating to join these people?

[Mairead]

161. er, what?

Socialism isn't organised like France, it's organised like the Internet. No emigration required.

[Nederland]

168. Another Question

Your argument is a strawman, because people in Capitalist Democracies have the right to vote. Regardless of how much you claim that Capitalism represses Socialism, you need to explain why the workers in all these Capitalists countries have refused to vote for a Socialist revolution. As you already admitted, no Socialist country exists. Why is this? Why have workers refused to vote for "true" Socialism? Are they simply stupid? Have they been duped by Capitalist propaganda?

[Mairead]

173. I don't think I've ever seen Socialism on the ballot, have you?

I think that might have something to do with it. Sort of like Nader not even being allowed in the audience for the debates, despite having a ticket?

Just out of curiosity, how would someone even go about putting socialism on the ballot? In some countries, you can be imprisoned for life or killed for advocating socialism. In the US one would probably be ignored, as with Nader...the ruling class constrains the domain of discourse.

But let's say they don't shoot you outright...you get up a petition to have it put on the ballot, and the Secretary of State says Nope, that's out of bounds. Where do you go then?

[recidivist]

170. Surely you jest. The Aztecs were peaceful? Or the North American tribes?

ROFLMAO. In North America, a massive survey of pre-Columbian Indian remains showed major, probably lethal traumatic injury -- presumably mostly from weapons -- in 40% of the remains. This does not include soft tissue injuries -- i.e., all the people who bled to death -- so the death rate from violence was probably much higher. It is quite possible that, apart from infant mortality, death by violence was the likeliest end for a North American Indian.

The usual fools used to think the Maya lived in some sort of Eden. That was before we figured out how to read their glyphs. They were exuberantly violent.

The Aztecs horrified the Spanish, who were pretty tough hombres even by the fairly savage standards of 16th century Europe. Europe by this time was beginning to progress; the Europeans of the day were pretty uniformly shocked by the cruelty of the Turks. But the Aztecs were even worse. Pyramids covered by skulls, human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism will have that effect.

One can point to the sad fate of the Native Americans and wish things had played out more humanely, but it is a gross error to confuse the issue by sentimentalizing the aboriginees. The Indian wars involved many atrocities by the whites. But what the white man of the 18th and 19th century regarded as an atrocity, the Indian regarded as the natural form of warfare. In another post, you referred to the pre-colonial tribal culture of South Africa as socialist. If you think Shaka was a socialist, I do not know why you object to labelling Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, or for that matter Idi Amin as "socialist." You really need to read history without your PC blinders on.

[Mairead]

177. No, not at all

The Wampanoag, who were the first ones to encounter the Europeans in Massachusetts, were very peaceful and friendly. It was they who saved the colony from extinction by sharing food, shelter, and knowledge with them. Only later did clashes begin as more and more Europeans invaded and started consuming traditional tribal resources. Had only a few hundred or thousand Europeans come in and integrated with the Wampanoag, Pawtucket, etc, history would have been completely different.

(edit: Shaka Zulu was killed in 1828. The Europeans had already colonised southern Africa 200 years before that. Shaka was not a pre-colonial figure.)

[buddhamama]

124. the slow death from capitalism

thanks for not answering my question.
nice deflection.

plus,your argument 'of good' could be applied to socialist societies too.

[Mairead]

110. You should think more carefully, if possible

In the first place, socialism is alive, well, and growing throughout the world. In 1995 there were more than 700M people in the world voluntarily practicing socialism. And if we include instances of what we might call 'unstructured socialist practices', the number rises well into the billions.

In the second place, your appropriate disparagement of the Soviet system in no way reflects on real socialism (except in the minds of the brainwashed, I suppose). Soviet 'socialism', like Britain's, was the degenerate form: state socialism. Most socialists acknowledge that 'state socialism' and 'state capitalism' (fascism) are functionally indistinguishable. The major difference is in implementation. Britain and FDR implemented benign forms; the Nazis and Soviets, malignant ones.

In the third place, the late Prof. Marvin Harris, a far-famed and influential cultural anthropologist, made (in Our Kind; read it) a careful and credible argument from the cross-cultural record that we are, indeed, now facing a choice: either move again to the socialism that was once universal among humankind, or accept the status of ill-provided serf in a new feudalism. Technology can be used to implement either socioeconomic form, so we must choose which it is to be. Or have someone else's choice imposed upon us.

[Nederland]

112. I think we agree

Read my post #109.

I have no desire to quibble over the meaning of the word socialism. Suffice to say that I oppose any person that advocates that an entire economy be subject to collectivism. I advocate mixed economies that tap the wealth creating potential of the free market to further humanitarian goals. What I have a problem with is people that believe that all wealth belongs to all people collectively. History proves that such systems are unworkable.

[Mairead]

122. No, we don't agree

In part because you persist in trying to ride a straw horse.

It doesn't matter whether Pol Pot et al. called themselves 'socialists' -- a lot of arschlöcher have done that because of socialism's worldwide historical cachet. That's like Idi Amin calling himself a capitalist -- nothing he did had a damn' thing to do with capitalism except by accident, but that didn't stop him claiming the label.

Nor are all socialists Marxists. Marxism is a particular strain, a brand if you like, of socialism. A doctrinaire brand, largely academic and typically ineffectual. The real socialists are the Bernie Sanderses, who beaver away quietly at getting good laws passed that benefit everyone, and the 'sewer socialists' in the '30s who didn't give a damn about Marx but wanted to see that people had good sewers so they wouldn't be sick so much, and the 'liberation theologist' priests like the late Dom Helder Camara in Brasil ('When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist'), and Fr. José María Arizmendiarrieta who in 1956 talked five young Basque engineers into starting a socialist factory to build camp stoves (a factory that has grown into the gigantic Mondragón Corporacion Collectiva--over 180 factories, at least one bank, one university, a chain of grocery stores...and all of them socialist), and the thousands of people who go around talking to others about social capital and cooperative work. They're the real socialists.

No real socialist objects to people making themselves filthy rich from their personal sweat and talent. We do object to people making themselves filthy rich from other people's sweat and talent. Each person should get the full value of their own sweat and talent. That's what social capital and socialist capitalism is all about -- publicly-funded capitalism, with fully-distributed profit.

The SBA today is a typical US-Capitalism shell game: socialised risk, privatised profit. If the business goes bust, you and I pick up the tab; if it's a success, the owner pockets the profit. In a socialist economy, the SBA would require that the business be a co-op. Public risk? Public profit.

Prof. Harris convinced me. A truly democratic state with a socialist economy must be our next step, and soon, unless we want to be forced into hopeless serfdom in a techno-feudalist dystopia.

[Nederland]

131. More Quibling

As I specifically said, I have no interest in quibling over what you believe the one true definition of socialism is. The only thing worth debating is this: do you believe that the wealth created by an individual belongs to that individual or society as a collective?

I believe that a small portion (say, 25%-30%) of that belongs to the greater society, but the bulk of it should remain under the control of the individual to use as they chose. What do you believe?

[Mairead]

141. It's not quibbling at all

Did you see my 4 categories? I think that everyone should contribute to the common wealth. How much? Well, for a given level of income/wealth, the people in the first category should contribute least and those in the last category, most. What are the numbers? I have no idea...whatever people decide democratically. Does the nation want a space program or (barf) a war? Then the tax bite will be bigger than if the nation doesn't want a space program or war. Want good roads? Good schools? Lots of hospital beds? Then everyone has to pony up more.

Trying to put numbers on, whether absolute or relative, isn't helpful without knowing lots more than we can know right now. How much should people have to contribute of their time and energy (which is their real wealth) in order to avoid an asteroid strike that will wipe out all life? The obvious answer is 'all of it!'. How much should they be expected to contribute to find a way to keep ouse from collecting under the bed? Probably not much!

[Nederland]

143. Is it majority rule?

If the majority votes to say that the tax rate on the top 1% wage earners is 100%, and the rest of the 99% pay nothing, then the unlucky 1% should just pony up and pay their taxes? Is this your idea of fairness, where the majority gets to take as much money from a minority as it wishes? Give me a break. I believe in progressive tax structure, but there must be limits. There needs to be a fundamental limit on how much the government can take from you, regardless of what the majority says. It simply is unjust to create a system whereby one group of people can take money from another group simply because they outnumber them.

[Mairead]

148. Yes, majority rule--that's democracy

Claiming that people are going to do 100% taxation of the wealthiest is just a scare tactic. C'mon. By what theory of equity could that possibly be justified? Answer: it couldn't. Maybe as punishment for egregious criminal behavior, but as a tax? No way.

Most people are fundamentally fair. This is being shown by some very elegant current research that I've mentioned here in another thread recently. Two people A and B are offered a significant sum of money if they share it. A gets to decide how it will be divvied, but B must agree to the divvy. If A doesn't offer enough to get B's agreement, neither gets anything. The researchers are finding out that most As not only don't try to rip off their B partner, but in some cases actually offer 50% without even thinking twice. They're also finding that B will, in contrast to what the standard economic theory predicts, walk away from a divvy that's too lopsided. B would rather have nothing at all than be demeaned by a greedy A.



Unless we want techno-feudal slavery, we must accept democracy and majority rule. As Fr Dowling said 'The two greatest obstacles to democracy in the United States are, first, the widespread delusion among the poor that we have a democracy, and second, the chronic terror among the rich, lest we get it.' But that chronic terror is a projection of their own rapacious natures, nothing more. Many of them would--and do--want 100%, but that's because that's how they got to be wealthy in the first place: they're pathologically greedy, and pathology knows no bounds.

[Nederland]

152. You are seriously naive

People vote in their best interests, period. They may justify it in their own minds as somehow being "fair", but in reality it is nothing more than what they feel works best for them. Furthermore, your example of two people dividing up a share of money has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. My complaint concerned the ability of the majority to impose an unfair situation on a minority. Your example contains only two people, so there cannot be a majority group and a minority group. I cannot fathom why you thought it relevant.

BTW, I'm sure that African Americans and other minorities will be happy to dispute your contention that the majority is "basically fair".

[Mairead]

158. Perhaps I am. Not about this, though.

My example of the research is completely relevant because of what it reveals about innate fairness and the applicability of the dominant US economic theory -- namely that B will accept whether offered because it's better than nothing. The theory fails to account for social values--for 'best interests' as actually perceived by live human beings. It presumes automata, and falls on its face because it fails to account for human complexity.

People would not tax at the 100% level. If you can show me an example of that happening, or even a plausible example where it almost happened, or where something plausibly analogous to that happened, then let's talk. But until you can show some evidence that things are as you say rather than what the cited research says, all you have on your side is your personal fear that it might happen.

[Nederland]

166. As I said before

I believe many African Americans would happily dispute your contention that the majority acts with innate fairness.

[Mairead]

171. I think you'll find that divisions are more a function of capitalism

than of 'human nature'.

We know from our own observation that, except in a few people, hoarding behavior only occurs in a time of impending scarcity, whether real or imagined. If a big storm is coming, people rush to the store and buy up all sorts of goods with little regard to the needs of other people. This is something they don't do normally, so we can connect it to the impending scarcity. If we ask them about it, they say frankly that they didn't/don't want to be caught short.

Capitalism, by concentrating wealth at the top, creates a constant state of artificial scarcity. This produces hoarding behavior in various forms, in susceptible people. Socialism, by reducing concentrations of wealth, decreases the amount of scarcity and enables such people to feel wealthy enough to share freely.

There's a very famous --well, in some circles-- story. It comes from WW2 when Woody Guthrie, Brownie McGhee, and Sonny Terry were going around the country singing to aid the war effort. One evening they did a gig at an American Legion--I think it was--hall. After the gig, Woody was invited to sit at table for dinner with the members, while Brownie and Sonny, who were Black, were offered a table of their own in the corner. Woody was a Commie, and he totally did his nut at this insult. "You saw me up there on that stage with these men singing together with them all evening and now you have the goddamn gall to tell us they aren't good enough to eat at table with you and me! Well to hell with that! We're supposed to be fighting Fascism and goddamnit, that fight begins here and now!" and he grabbed the tablecloth in both hands and yanked it off the table, crockery, silverware and all, and then heaved the table over. It took a long time to calm him down and get everything straightened out again. Brownie, recalling the scene later, said that he and Sonny were shaking with fear because Sonny was blind and Brownie had a game leg, so if the Legionaires had decided to do all of them over, they could never have escaped.


Socialism teaches that, whether we have much or little, we should share. That's part of what was behind the Commies and the socialists being on the front lines for civil rights. And, interestingly, it's part of the ethos of poor communities that exist on the fringes of or outside the Capitalist hegemony--if someone is in need, you share if for no other reason than because you never know when it might be you who's in need.

[Nederland]

172. Silly me

I guess I should have realized that under this system, which you admit does not exist anywhere in the world, everything is perfect. Next you'll be telling me that under a "true" Socialist system everybody is beautiful, the food tastes better and the sex is out of this world.

Yup, its clear to me that this is not an economic discussion, but a religious one. You have to just take it on faith that a "true" Socialist system would be perfect, because as you have admitted there aren't any real world examples that you can point to as proof. You might as well believe in the toothfairy. I mean really, if I were to say to you that there was this system called "true" Capitalism, which did not exist anywhere in the world, where everything was perfectly efficient, and everyone got to keep the product of their labor, and racism did not exist because racism is inefficient and the system automatically purges out ineffficiency, you'd call me a loon.

Wake up Mairead. Perfection does not exist and it never will.

[Mairead]

174. Perhaps

Actually, socialism does exist in the world, and does work very well...otherwise why would 700M+ people go on practicing it voluntarily and in the face of considerable discouragement?

It simply doesn't exist as the official economic system of a state, which is quite a different matter.

(The socialist grocery where I was an owner-member before I moved had a deli, and I didn't think the food was all that swell, though others liked it)

[drewb]

163. Pissing into the wind....

I've read all your posts so far and agree with you wholeheartedly.

You are fighting the good fight, but you are terribly outnumbered...

This is to clear a common misconception up, not directed at you Nederland...

Our form of government is not a "democracy", see below...

1. What form of Government do we have in the United States?

Under its Constitution, the United States is a Federal, representative, democratic republic at the local, State, and national levels.

Federal because power is shared among the local, State, and national levels of Government
Representative because delegates are elected by the people by free and secret ballot
Democratic because the people govern themselves
Republican because the U.S. Government derives its power from the will of the people.

You can learn more here...

http://clerkkids.house.gov/learn_center/government/index.php#question1

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

130. The only people who believe communist propaganda

are conservative Republicans. So remember that the next time some DUer compares our FDR-style safety net with the Soviet empire.

[Mairead]

162. har! Got that one right!

Well said! :evilgrin:

[JanMichael]

116. Happily out of step!

"The saddest comment on American Society to me is when being "out of step" is considered derogatory."

I couldn't agree with you more. It seems that many also think that we're the acme of all development. Oh well.

Oh! You forgot Einstein & Orwell:evilgrin:

[Misinformed01]

134. I did NOT forget Einstein or Orwell

I thought that comparing you to them was bit egotistical on my part.

Love you Babe-

[Uzybone]

135. What the hell???

Im not socialist...maybe socialist leaning, but what the hell is wrong with socialists being in the democratic party. Stop letting pseudo-nazis define what you think a socialist is for you.

[Mairead]

78. There are 4 groups of wealthy people, not 2

There are those whose wealth is entirely a function of other people voluntarily giving them money because of their personal merit (authors, artists, actors, sports figures, etc). They are members of the working class, are almost never more than auxiliary members of the elite, and have the best claim to their wealth.

There are those whose wealth is partly a function of their own merit (they have created something) and partly a function of their power to exploit the work of others.

There are those whose wealth is mostly a function of their power to exploit the work of others (we see this writ large today, with multi-millionaire executives who create nothing, run the company into the ground, and walk away laughing).

And there are those whose wealth is entirely a function of the exploitation of others -- those who inherit wealth.


Logically, taxation should be lightest on the first group and heaviest--even confiscatorily so--on the fourth. Doing anything else only reveals what a crock our economic mythos is, and the contempt in which we're held by the wealthy elites.

[Lauren2882]

176. Inheritance = Exploitation?

Can you explain to me how it is exploitative to inherit money? Is an inheritor exploiting the dead who left them the money in their wills?
I support the estate tax, but I've never heard this argument for it.

[Mairead]

179. It's usually not actual cash, though, is it

What's inherited is usually stocks and similar, not gold bars or packets of banknotes. (And if it is gold bars and packets of banknotes, I bet it gets turned into stocks and bonds quickly).

That's what I had in mind. Stock shares represent the labor of others.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

73. 'product of their labor'

'product of their labor'

That is the fallacy in your argument. Very, very little of that wealth is a 'product of their labor'.

[Nederland]

77. What percentage?

You say "very little". What percentage does you think it is?

[Pobeka]

39. Yes, it is possible to earn it, but relatively few do.

The problem is, that rich people, as a rule, don't pay taxes at the same rate as "non-rich" people. Get a copy of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". There are 2 basic themes at work:

1) You get rich by being a financial predator (i.e. taking advantage of people who don't know the true value of an asset, and you buy it for much less than it's worth). My personal ethics would cause me to feel like a crook if I did that, I think I'd rather buy something at a "fair" price.

2) You get rich by utilizing the wealth you gained in method 1). It's the ol' "let your money work for you". And it really does, because there are so many ways to shelter your taxes, once you have gain enough "critical mass" in assets. And you start your own "business", and hold "business" meetings in Hawaii, using pre-tax dollars.

I'm not saying that any of that is illegal, but does it seem morally correct? Not to me. Especially because the ones with the wealth are continuing to adjust the rules in their favor.

And how many CEO's really are worth what they get paid. Seriously, if there was a free market and not a "club", no company in it's right mind would pay that kind of money for even good management, much less the bad management that is to often prevelant these days.

[Nederland]

41. Thank you

At least you answered my question. JanMichael appears to be afraid to answer it.

As for your answer, I pretty much agree with you. The tax system is littered with loopholes that were written to benefit the rich. I completely support the removal of those loopholes, and would love to see a fairly progressive tax code with no deductions that maxs out at 30%. If you eliminated loopholes, a 30% rate would mean that most rich people would pay more than they do now with a 38% (or whatever it is) rate.

What I oppose is the people here at DU that talk about 90% tax rates or 100% tax rates on income over 1 million. That I think is immoral. The government should never have the right to confiscate more than a third of your money.

[Pobeka]

43. I don't know if the numbers are easily available

But I've wondered, what if there were absolutely no loopholes at all,
and your IRS form looked like this:

-----------------------------------------------------
How much did you make from wages or sales of assets?________

Multiply by (the unknown %).

Send it in.
-----------------------------------------------------

What unknown % on that basis would be required to fund the government needs. I'm guessing it's between 10 - 20 %, closer to 10.

On Edit - p.s. I think it's reasonable to have a top rate too. 30% does seem about right, and if there were no loopholes there'd certainly be no need to go higher than that.

[jbm]

71. maybe...

but vast wealth is usually accumulated with aid from the government. I know historically the rich meat packing families originated by getting government contracts to provision the military during the civil war...fair enough except the contracts weren't bid...just awarded to friends. John Jacob Astor would have been just another fur trader if he hadn't had friends in high places that allowed him the use of the military when the indian tribes didn't cooperate. The railroad families became rich,not because of the railroad,but because they sold off the excess land the federal government GAVE them when they were building the railroads. I keep wondering how successful Bill Gates would have been if the government wouldn't have aided in an internet infrastructure(I'm not sure if I phrased that right). Myabe Sam Walton earned his money...and certainly all of these people should be given some credit for being savvy enough to take advantage of a situation when it presented itself...but to believe that great wealth is the result of hard work,and accessible to all is a fallacy.

[Pobeka]

72. Yeah, I forgot about the government angle in my previous post

Thanks for bring that up. Nothing infuriates me more than when I hear some politician suggest we (nat'l govt) should pay California for the energy gouging that occured in 2000-2001. This is nothing less than laundering tax dollars to the energy companies, who have friend in "high places". (We need to get that money back from the Enron exec's onshore and offshore accounts, in my opinion).

[rman]

97. i'll bite

how is it that the rich deserve 1000 times as much as others?
did they work a 1000 times as hard?

do they not have plenty to share (not give away, but pay taxes to benefit the society that enabled them to get that rich)?

[DagmarK]

22. Wow, I always wanted to live in Mexico!!!!!

but somehow, my piercing blue eyes don't have nearly the impact on the "natives" here that they do in Old Mexico! Harumph!

You'd think that a lovely peasant like myself would at least qualify for great sex!

[DagmarK]

24. We need to move to get the USA classified as a 3rd world nation

A 1st world nation is defined as having a MIDDLE CLASS. We obviously don't have that!!

Wouldn't that just chap some rich boys' butts for them to have to claim that they are from a THIRD WORLD NATION????

shoot...then we could apply for foreign aid!!!!!!!

[BiggJawn]

33. Since I found out today that I'm "Working Poor" ....

Almost 40-fucking-thousand dollars a year, and it doesn't even come close to being HALF of the average reply to that "is $88,000 Rich?" thread...

I'm so damn pissed I'm about to start addressing my supervisors as "Massah"...

The Class War starts NOW.
Eat the Fucking Rich.

[JanMichael]

37. Honestly? Regional differences may make your PERSONAL Jihad...

...not fly. Simply put: $14 an hour is the approximate Florida "Living Wgae" to afford a 1 BR apartment and still pay for utilities and essentials.

Either way, regardless of how comfy you may be, the COUNTRY is divided...And WE have the number:evilgrin:

[BiggJawn]

40. Yeah, well it ain't much different here in the midwest.

An apartment "in town" is $600 a month. I have a 400 square foot apartment in one of the poorest counties in the state, and it's $425. Electricity is $50 a month. Gas in the winter? $120 a month. Water is $25 a month, and that's just for showers and flushing the shitter. Laundry runs about $50 a month, Cable, if I cared to have that CRAP piped in my house is $40 a month, and that's NO HBO. Telephone is almost $40 a month just to get the damn DIAL TONE. My pills are $125 out of pocket, and that's with insurance. My car died a year or so ago, so I bought new wheels (the first NEW vehicle I've owned since 1977) and it's $420 a month, not including insurance and tax and license. Gasoline goes up and down more than a frat boy's ass on saturday night, but it averages around a buck-fifty....

And I read crap from people who don't think hauling in 80 kilobuck a year is particularly "wealthy"...

So, when do we start hauling out the Ken Lays and the Biffs and Muffys and start feeding 'em to Dr. Guilotine's invention?

[JanMichael]

42. Tell that to Nederland!

He/She/It thinks you should just work harder or shut the fuck up with your bitchin':-)

[BiggJawn]

126. Hey! I KNEW this "Nederland" once!

"He/She/It thinks you should just work harder ..."

Sounds like this east-coast bozo on Ham Radio I used to exchange insults with.

"*I* did just FINE during the 80's...I can't understand anyone having it rough back then unless they were too STUPID to get ahead..."

I think he finally died and his pet ferret ate him before anyone knew he was dead...
:7

[Terwilliger]

44. With 84% saying something should be done...what does capitalism offer?

Someone please tell me why capitalism will help with the fiscal inequity in this country?

[Pobeka]

46. I remember Bill Moyers interview with Bill Gates

And Gates made the statement, in regards to Africa at least, that capitalism had failed us.

If a guy like Gates can see a flaw, there must be something fixable!

[freeforall]

67. LOL Pobeka!

If a guy like Gates can see a flaw, there must be something fixable!

He should start with Windows!

[Pobeka]

70. When you make a post like that

You really have to say in the subject line:

"Put any containers of fluid down and swallow all remaining fluid".

Lucky for me I met both of those conditions, or I for sure would have
sprayed my screen!

ROTFL!! :toast:

[Nederland]

51. Nothing

But if you want a society to generate more wealth, you have to provide people with incentives. I'll ask you a simple question: which would you rather live in:

1) A society that is completely equal and everyone gets 20000 a year.
2) A society with diverse incomes ranging from 0 a year to over 10 million a year, with the average being 30000 a year.

What you answer is in a sense irrelevant, because thousands of people vote with their feet every year. They vote to come here to the US because they have the opportunity to make more money here than they do where they currently live.

[Pobeka]

55. I want a society

Where *anyone* who works 40 hours a week can:

Afford decent housing.
Afford decent education for their children (usually paid by taxes)
Afford reasonable medical care.
Afford child support so they can actually work the 40 hours.
Get access to a good library.


That's the baseline. And some will be "better off" in terms of luxuries. I would hope the "better off" have the decency to share. I learned to share in kindergarten :-)

[Nederland]

59. Agreed (nt)

[JanMichael]

60. Honorable goals.

Afford decent housing.: A must.

Afford decent education for their children (usually paid by taxes): Always.

Afford reasonable medical care.: Single Payer.

Afford child support so they can actually work the 40 hours.: National Child Care?

Get access to a good library.: Usually a local issue but lately it seems only the Feds can make it permenant is some places...

[ChemEng]

48. So what? What do you want to do?

Redistribution? Spell it out big boy, don't leave us hanging...

[Terwilliger]

50. Yes, and I solved pi

good luck :crazy:

Obviously you cannot spell out a plan for economics that relies on people who willingly give of themselves. People are far too selfish for that.

[ChemEng]

54. Kum bah yah

I still don't see a point here. What is the solution?

[rman]

99. point out the injustice

untill enough people understand. then these people will solve the problem.

[Pobeka]

61. What is the meaning of "solved pi" ?

Just curious are you talking about the mathematical PI, where the
area of a circle is PI*radius*radius ?

[Terwilliger]

75. solved it to the last digit

the fact that it's transcendental being the point

[berry]

74. Some countries have had to start all over--for example, with land reform

In agricultural societies, where land was the main source of wealth historically, it was necessary to force redistribution if there was ever going to be a prayer of equality/democracy. I'm on shaky ground here, because I don't have time to go check sources, but I'm pretty sure that the US occupations of Japan and Korea both started out early with land reform. I'm sure the landowners hated it, but they were overruled.

Anyone have any better-documented examples of societies that undertook redistribution of wealth?

For the record, I agree with JanMichael that huge disparities are a crime, or at least ultimately destabilizing for a society. I also have a personal issue with it because money bores me. I had access to a good education and "should" be making reasonably good money, but it all depends on what one does for a living. From very early on, I deeply resented that money and the chance of getting rich should be an overriding consideration. (I wasn't under all that much pressure, but my dad told me that only rich kids could afford to join the Peace Corps and lose 2 years of wages. I joined anyway, but I wonder how many kids from modest families like mine can do it now.) In fact, I have never cared to be rich, and I hate that how much money one makes is such an important yardstick in the US. One is considered a fool if one chooses a job that won't ever lead to great wealth. Not everyone is an entrepreneur or a striving company employee, hoping to make it into upper management with all its perks.

Kids today (and who can blame them?) are increasingly cynical (not all, I know)--looking at what career to choose by how much they will make and how secure they can be. As a society, we lose a lot that way. I would like to live in a country where most people could hope to enjoy their jobs, and the most money would be paid to people doing the least desirable jobs. (I know--I'm not in the real world with this thought.) But here in America, it's not only the poor who often hate their jobs (because of bad treatment, bad pay, wasted talents and maybe other reasons). Company-men/women also often hate their jobs--the pressures, the nastiness of the competive environment, etc. And a lot of them feel that indeed they have sold their souls, so damn-it they deserve every miserable penny they earn. I think it's often their personal misery that makes them ungenerously want to pay little or no taxes. And they dream of cushy, happy retirement when they can get out of the rat-race. If they should live so long.

I think if more people could choose jobs they enjoy, they would be willing to forgo some of the money. It would be a trade-off lots of people are already willing to do. But with the huge polarization of wealth in the US, this is changing. One example--I think a lot of people might choose child-care as a career if it weren't so poorly paid that they can't survive. And nursing--there's a terrible shortage, because it isn't valued enough as an occupation to pay enough and to insure good working conditions. (Without immigrant nurses, the crisis would maybe be so bad already that we'd have to think seriously about our values. Is it only money that we care about? No, of course not. But very few people can afford to choose careers like these.)

Of course, all these ramblings are moot these days, with such high unemployment. But in our work lives, I think a lot of people are not all that happy (or in some cases, the expressed happiness is solely due to being paid). Am I wrong about this? Is work a joy for most Americans? I'm tired and cranky and maybe not seeing the good side (if there is one). I do think that a reasonable safety net for all is a minimum requirement for a civilized country--and health care should not be employment-based. And wouldn't it be nice if type-A personalities would compete with each other (if compete they must) for bragging rights about who pays the most in taxes--I have often suspected that the high pay packages for CEOs is the result of peer group competitiveness--not wanted to be "valued" less than the CEOs of other companies.

[bloom]

136. as I see it

"One example--I think a lot of people might choose child-care as a career if it weren't so poorly paid that they can't survive...."


yes - I think that kind of thing is what bothers me so much. I think everyone should be able to afford housing, school, etc. also by working full time. I also think that college degrees should be worth more. For crying out loud - the wages of liberal arts people, esp. but also scientists and such are not where I think they should be - relatively considering skill and contributions, etc.

[Ein]

52. What I want to do...

Democratic Socialism

[ChemEng]

64. That is a non answer...give us specifics....

[Ein]

66. Go to a dictionary...

not too complex, i'm not a politician, i'm a teenager.

[ChemEng]

68. I'm not a dictionary,

I'm an old fart....

[Ein]

69. Fine

Democracy:

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.


Socialism:

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

(note: The any of the various theories is wide. I agree with the first one, taking the collectively route. My big issue is Social Justice.)

[Mairead]

113. Specifics?

Disallow any business forms except sole-practitioner and co-op.

Constitutional Amendments to
(a) take the running of government into our own hands and transform 'representatives' into 'delegates';
(b) afford initiative, referendum, and recall for every office in the land;
(c) declare that every citizen or admitted resident, in good standing, has the obligation to contribute to our common wealth and the right to take a dignified living (food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, community, and a job commensurate with ability) from it.


Just those few changes would be transformational.

[JanMichael]

53. What was your answer bigger boy?!

Can't respond till I know what I'm dealing with!

PS~ We already participate in "Redistribution" on a massive scale.

[ChemEng]

62. I say tax wealth...

The states already tax property. Why shouldn't uncle Sam?

misspelling

[JanMichael]

83. That's an excellant idea.

Income is taxed federally, why not Wealth?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

133. I want to end redistribution

I'm tired of regular middle working class people having our labor and wealth redistributed to the fat cats at the top. I say: No more redistribution! We keep it all!

[nn2004]

80. Where would you draw the line?

How much is too much? How low is too low?

Or would you make sure everyone made exactly the same according to their needs?

[JanMichael]

82. Yes, No or Maybe?

How did you answer the poll?

Like the 84% "Yes" crowd or the one's that could care less?

[Blue_Chill]

87. Are you using peer pressure?

why yes you are! Ha!

[JanMichael]

89. Only on the ones that I consider "Peers"!

Desperate times call for desperate measures...

[Blue_Chill]

93. Desperate times?

You mean like when you wake up and think "OMG I'm married!"

:D

(ya I know, cheap shot)

[JanMichael]

114. Oof. That was a cheap shot!

Not that cheap shots are always such a bad thing:evilgrin:

[Blue_Chill]

88. hmm

If you were a capitalist I would say 'something should be done' but you aren't. You are a socialist so that would mean that the 'something' you have in mind is not 'something' I would agree with.

[JanMichael]

90. What does my opinion have to do with it?

Answer for yourself...You know as well as I do that it's a Crime. Where we go after we come to that conclusion is an unknown.

Don't worry so much!

[Blue_Chill]

92. I don't trust you, you damn commie pinko!

But I must agree that this nation is moving in the wrong direction when so few have so much and so many have so little.

Damn you. :D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

144. I think the correct phrasing is:

"Damned Pinko Commie!" Flourishes such as "backstabbing", "traitorous", "unAmerican", may be added as needed.

I base this observation on the epithets shouted at me at various times during stikes, demonstrations, and other such "Pinko Commie" gatherings.

Unfortunately for conservatives, this has lost it's sting since the fall of the USSR. Shouting "Liberal" has become more chic among the congnescenti of the right.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

155. hilarious, unions are illegal in communist countries

In fact, Solidarity basically brought down the Soviet empire, yet conservatives and neo-liberals still like to associate unions and strikes with communism.

As I've said before, the only people who believe communist propaganda are conservative Republicans, and I guess I'll have to add the cheap labor neo-liberals as well.

[Nederland]

95. Once Again

A "situation" is not a crime. A crime is an act committed by an individual. Your very question is invalid because it assumes that the current distribution of wealth is the act of a single person. It is not.

[Terwilliger]

100. It's a crime committed by many individuals

all in the name of concentrating their own wealth.

They obviously need more if they're going to present their riches to god when they die.

[Nederland]

104. All? or Many?

Which is it? As I asked earlier, is it possible to become rich in a moral fashion? If yes, do you plan on distinguishing between the rich that have earned their money and those that have not, or do you intend to take everybody's money away without regard to who is innocent and who is guilty?

[Terwilliger]

154. Paul Newman has given away nearly every cent he ever made

When rich people do that, then I'll believe in their largesse and humanity. Before that, all they seem to want is to have "mo money, mo money, mo money"

[Jim Warren]

101. and the chatter ensues........

Well JM, you raised the question, that in itself is an admiral thing.

In the struggle to expose this cancer, apologist who might have confused themselves with Ken Lay or Jack Welch will arise and want to speak on the merits and dignity of hard work and getting ahead on the fruits of one's labor. (cough) It's an old tale. Know the degree to which serious cranial laundering has prevailed.

best

[recidivist]

106. Partial but practical solution: "privatize" Social Security.

I put "privatize" in parentheses because the term, while it has become the conventional label for a fully funded public pension system, is highly misleading. So to repeat for emphasis: what is meant by "privatization" in this context is simply moving to full funding of Social Security. Participation would still be mandatory, there would still be federal guarantees, and people would have choices where to put their money. If you don't like the stock market, put it into government bonds, etc.

Now, what does this have to do with the maldistribution of wealth? Simple. What the rich have that most of us don't are investments. Joe Sixpack lives paycheck to paycheck and never accumulates anything beyond his home, provided he is a homeowner. Little Kennedys and Rockefellers have trust funds that accumulate over time. The distribution of wealth worsens over time because zero is a constant; people stuck on zero never move up, while anyone with a nest egg sees it grow.

The social dynamic of wealth, however, is changing. The most important financial innovations of the past generation are probably IRAs and 401k's, which have given over half the population a convenient tax deferred investment vehicle. We are still in the early stages of family capital accumulation under this approach, but give it a generation or two, and typical middle class families will accumulate significant assets and perhaps even achieve financial independence.

It is, however, still very difficult for lower income people to save. Some do, of course: one frequently reads about the secretary or truck driver who leaves two or three million dollars to a favorite charity. These are the people who heeded their parents' advice to save 10% of everything they earned. They did it, and after 50 years they have quite a nest egg. Such cases are more common than many suppose, because most such individuals leave the money to family so it never gets in the newspapers. It is mostly those lonely souls who die without close family who make these newsworthy bequests.

Still, it takes unusual discipline to do this. It is relatively much tougher for lower income people to save. That is why shifting to fully funded pensions would be an enormously progressive reform. Even a minimum wage earner is paying Social Security, which is 15.3% of income, of which two thirds (about 10% of gross income) goes for the pension portion of the package. If this were invested instead of, as at present, merely propping up the Ponzi scheme, even low and moderate income folks would accumulate significant nest eggs. Do this for a couple of generations and we would substantially reduce inequalities of wealth in the USA.

There are a lot of people on this board whose primary motivation seems to be resentment and whose politics don't extend beyond trying to tear down the other guy. May I suggest that it's preferable to lift up the have-nots instead. I like the idea of a country where everyone has a trust fund.

[undergroundpanther]

117. Who invented?

Who invented the concept of money? Just how do the rich rationalize thier wealth when it relies on deprivation of others?
In other words for someone like the top one percent to hold as much wealth as they do the 99% of the rest of us must believe they are entitled to it even if it means our own suffering.

How long are people going to BELIEVE that people are unequal.We all die,we all are human beings in an unknown,unpredictable ,uncontrolled,uncertain,vunerable existance.



A big part of inequality is in a BELIEF that it is OK to be an elitist be it by birth, meritocracy or plutocracy.In reality we are equal we all die we all have limits.Equal and different at the same time. Distributing wealth evenly does not mean everyone become carbon copies of each other..That notion is bullshit. Redistribution of wealth won't make you into a mindless drone.. But competition,sucking up,and endless work however can.It can destroy your integrity if you decide to win any way you can..You will be who you are even when money is given or taken from you on behalf of societies survival.

One of the goals of wealth re distribution is everyone has what they need to live and the fruits of collective labor is enjoyed by the collective..Society should be an insurance that no one is deprived of what they need so that a few can be obscenely wealthy and powerful.But our society has got this inverted,society exists to prop up the few wealthy.

In wolf packs or lion prides if a individual in said group tries to hoard prey that the pack has killed.. the pack or pride will take the individual down and force him to share.They knowq how to survive. Humans aren't quite that smart..It's only when tragedy strikes they get enough common sense to support one another for the beniefiet of all. 9/11 and natural disasters are cases in point.Inequality is unnatural.It is our fears and beliefs that make us think it is.

We have to live within our means as a society of animals on a limited shared planet.And we can't do this if we live unequally competing ,aping the wealthy and ignoring reality. War is over wealth (land resources)more often than not.Life itself has limits.

The type of economy we have has the seeds of it's own destruction within it.And our economy with it's unrealistic demands, competition and call for never ending growth will eventually run out of resources and markets to expand into.Than it will die and our planet will be ravaged and many will die because we collectively were in fantasyland,working hard and never learned how to share or relate to others. One cannot consume products and make products forever and not deplete something else and run out of markets.Wealth accumulation and concentration at the top few destroyes it's own base. And empire falls..If you think hard work makes for wealth you are mistaken. At best it can get you into the middle class,To enter the upper crust you must marry in or be chosen..What does working yourself up bring into your life ,at what cost, when you put in long hours to please a boss you find you have no time,running all over the place for jobs...stress..The consumer is consumed unless he says no to his own ambition and finds his own priorities outside the demands of work..

The only 2 ways out of the wealth problem.

# Steal the wealth back,by any means.. and refuse to give yourself to companies that steal from you,(free time,bonuses,retirement ect)and be as dishonest and brutal to the paper phantom company as the Ceo's are to the workers. They would seek to crush such rebellions as they do unions.

Or transcend this culture ,leave the "system" and form collectives,move on to barter or gift economies and drop out of the top down wage-slave game all together..
This one is difficult because of property tax..among other "laws" binding you to the corrupt inhumane wage slave system.Our culture was warped long ago in the 1900's by a sick sort of social engineering that led to ..loiter laws,and family laws and 'norms'..all were put in place to protect the wealthy and industry's interests and stifle liberalism and communal life that was not so dependant on the corporate wage slave system.

Communal kinds of life and wealth sharing is natural for animals that live together in groups.Humans are animals.
Being intergrated as a part of a bigger interconnected,social whole does not mean giving up your own identity and uniqueness.
It does however require character..fairness,sharing,limiting your ambitions to hoard wealth for yourself(don't be a pig) ,cultivating empathy for others and sound interpersonal ethics.


Being part of a hierarchical system( like work or state) does require demonstrations of loyalty, personal obedience and the sublimating of your own style and opinions to the demands of the company rules.
A socialized sociopath would feel very threatened by a society that isn't hierarchical and based in domination and submission..Our current culture idolizes the values of socialized sociopaths.

[recidivist]

119. The idea that labor is collective ...

... is held primarily by people who do not themselves do any productive work. This includes, especially, parasites who draw a salary for basically fradulent "work" and whose sense of inferiority breeds resentment.

People who turn a wrench for a living have a pretty good idea who is actually doing the work. And people who break a sweat at work -- this includes serious mental exertion -- tend not to like freeloaders.

You can no more take individual merit out of the workplace equation than you can remove individual exertion from education. Socialism is to productivity in the workplace as social promotion is to excellence in education.

[recidivist]

123. Another point. Wealth does not rely on the deprivation of others.

You are expressing a distinctively pre-modern viewpoint. It is true that in agricultural societies, wealth rested primarily on land and there was only so much to go around. Wealth was, in that sense, a zero sum game. The rise of industrial and commercial society changed all that. Wealth is no longer primarily a natural endowment. Wealth in the modern world is, for the most part, created.

Furthermore, in an economic system governed by free exchange, one accumulates wealth by satisfying the wants of others. Bill Gates has made millions of other people's lives easier, more entertaining, and richer. You have not been injured by anything he has done. He has taken nothing from you that you have not given voluntarily, by purchasing a Microsoft product. Any sense of injury you may feel on account of his wealth is entirely the product of your own envy and resentment. You should not confuse your own ego problems with social injustice.

Of course market systems have imperfections which call for prudent policy responses. No human institution is perfect. However, as a baseline form of economic organization, I prefer a system based on individual freedom to one based on coercion. Socialist systems, by attempting to suppress free exchange, are inherently coercive. That is why market systems are morally preferable (as well as, all experience shows, exponentially more productive). As Robert Nozick famously put it, "I believe in capitalist acts between consenting adults."

[tom_paine]

169. Not a zero-sum game, but not the open-ended cornucopia you envision, eithe

As always, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Wealth generation is NOT a zero-sum game, but, as the graphs which kicked this thread off clearly show, it is possible for a "snowball effect" to occur where the Ruling Class continue to concentrate wealth and power, which allows them to accumulate wealth and power (which to many is quite a pleasurable thing, better than sex), and on and on until you have France 1785 or, perversely, the Soviet Union 1978 where the real wealth disparity between the Commie Leaders and the Commie Proles was probably MUCH greater than even the current Imperial Empire.

=====================================================

But, of course, since they were Commies and their nation was CLEARLY one of completely equal wealth distribution, they had no need to measure such things.

</sarcasm off> and :puke:

Back to the original point. The "pie" itself can grow, making individual slices larger, but it can never grow infinitely, either.

And for a nation as wealthy as ours (many orders of magnitude greater than any other in history) to not only fail to provide health care to all it's citizens and to even come close to "ending poverty", is a fucking disgrace.

Too much wealth inequality is as bad as too little.

[jody]

175. Wealth accumulating unlimited in the hands of a few does deprive others.

:shrug:

[quinnox]

129. No

It's not a crime at all. This is capitalism. If you don't like capitalism, then that is a different debate.

[Loonman]

132. But..........................................................

Should we give handouts to people who do nothing at all?

[ProfessorGAC]

150. Unfair Choices

While i wouldn't argue that it's increasingly inequitable, and i would agree it's a problem, the choices didn't provide my answer.

I think it is a problem, but i don't think there's much we can do about it. Certainly cutting taxes for the super rich is about the worst thing we can do, but other than NOT doing stupid things (something i don't expect soon from Georgie-boy), there isn't much society or gov't can do about it.

The whole point of a progressive tax system is to make those folks with the most, pay a share that is in proportion to the opportuntities the huge wealth base provide. (Not a linear mathematic proportion, of course.) But, other than that, (which, by the way, worked very well for nearly 100 years) there isn't really a good solution.

Too bad. But, i think that's the way it is.
The Professor

[recidivist]

160. Of course there is something we could do.

See my #106. Before you go into reflexive opposition, remember that Bill Clinton proposed something similar: a federally funded investment account, subsidized at $500 a year, for lower income folks to get them into the savings game. I am still surprised the pubbies didn't jump on the idea, as they were banging the drums for Social Security investment accounts at the time.

FWIW, the only problem with the Clinton proposal was that he wanted to make the new accounts independent of Social Security. Given that Social Security needs to be fixed -- and IMO should be put on a fully funded basis -- this was a mistake. That $500 a year would have been a pretty good redistributive sweetener and could have jumpstarted Social Security "privatization." Missed opportunity #6,748.

In any event, Social Security "privatization" would be a way to get people of modest means into the capital accumulation business. Do this for 40 years and we will have significantly lifted the bottom half of the distribution. This is an organic reform; it flows naturally from rationalizing an important function; it doesn't require victimizing the taxpaying classes; it is a win-win solution. I've gotten old enough that 40 years doesn't seem like such a long time.

[tom_paine]

165. People who strive the most and take the risks should be rewarded, BUT

A society collectively "chooses" what it wants to be (or stands aside and let's other choose for it). Freedom being what it is, I am not distressed at wealth inequality, per se.

For myself, I don't fancy putting in 10-hour days in order to be financially successful. I don't bust my hump in that way (though I do try and do a good job) and I see nothing wrong with the man or woman who DOES strive in that way, or who DOES go out and patent an invention, etc. etc., making extra cash for it.

The problem is with the degree of inequity. Too much inequity and, as so many have poiinted out here, you get cvil unrest because the Serfs can no longer deny their Serfdom. Too little wealth inequality and you get the Death of Incentive and a moribund society equally deserving of it's ultimate fate.

(puts on his asbestos boxers to resist flaming by the Hard-core Socialists)

As to inherited wealth, well, that's what we used to have the Estate Tax for. I have no problem with inheritance and I think Teddy Roosevelt's imposition of the Estate Tax was and is a fine solution that isn't too coercive. Get that money back in circulation. My only problem is I continue to believe that no one should leave more to the government than to their families after they die.

Striving for a better future for your family is a very human condition and intertwined with the evermore mythical (now that it's being sytematically dismantled) "American Dream".

Freedom, ultimately, is freedom to do yourself ill. In the case of Imperial Amerika, the freedom to concentrate power and wealth and buy up the National Government can quickly morph into Aristocracy. When the wealthy can no longer restrain themselves

This is not an uncommon historical occurance, Classes or individual ruling Families looting their nation because they can. Just like the old "monkeys and cocaine" experiments, where the monkeys were given equal access to food/water and coke, they almost all starved because they could stop pressing that damned Cocaine Button long enough to eat and drink, our wealthy cannot stop their self-desructive behavior even though it is literally "killing the goose that laid the Golden Egg", which is the American Middle Class.

Sad, but typically human.

To sum up, wealth inequity is not all bad, but like so many other things it is in careful balance and if not, then bad things start to happen.