Is Income Inequality Leading To A Crisis For Capitalism?

[uscitizen]

On a different note this is also about Global income disparity.
Chinese work cheaper so we have less jobs/money.

1. "For certain classes of goods and certain services, like customer phone centers, it makes sense—economically if not socially—to employ these offshore workers. Americans as a group have too high a standard of living for anyone to employ them making, say, lawn mowers. A mower made overseas costs $250 to $350. One made by American hands would cost $800 to $900—and the utility value simply is not there."
The Coming Robotics Age

2. If they [iPads] were built in the USA you basic model iPad would likely cost closer to $800 or $1,00 instead of $499.
Samsung to seek iPhone 5 ban in Korea – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

3. Walmart's new ad campaign says that the store saves the average American family $2,500 a year. What is doesn't say is that you don't actually have to shop at Walmart to take advantage of the savings.

The study that Walmart is citing in their ad showed that competition from Walmart lowered prices and saved the average family some serious money, regardless of where they actually shopped. Also, Walmart isn't mentioning that after wage depression, the net increase in purchasing power averages only $1,122 annually.
Walmart "Saves The Average Family $2,500 A Year," But You Don't Actually Have To Shop There - The Consumerist

Yep why I say we are not thru going down in living standards yet.
Less wages/benefits for US workers is the only way we can compete in the global marketplace. It is called increasing productivity.

 

[uscitizen]

If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.

It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.

It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.

Competing with a big box store is really rather easy. My closest competitor was PetCo and I did remarkably well. Competing with WalMart would be a snap.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

Have employees who speak English.

It would be kinda like me running for president.

I rarely go into Walmart, and when I do it's rarely a pleasant experience.

 

[PoliticalChic]

On a different note this is also about Global income disparity.
Chinese work cheaper so we have less jobs/money.

1. "For certain classes of goods and certain services, like customer phone centers, it makes sense—economically if not socially—to employ these offshore workers. Americans as a group have too high a standard of living for anyone to employ them making, say, lawn mowers. A mower made overseas costs $250 to $350. One made by American hands would cost $800 to $900—and the utility value simply is not there."
The Coming Robotics Age

2. If they [iPads] were built in the USA you basic model iPad would likely cost closer to $800 or $1,00 instead of $499.
Samsung to seek iPhone 5 ban in Korea – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

3. Walmart's new ad campaign says that the store saves the average American family $2,500 a year. What is doesn't say is that you don't actually have to shop at Walmart to take advantage of the savings.

The study that Walmart is citing in their ad showed that competition from Walmart lowered prices and saved the average family some serious money, regardless of where they actually shopped. Also, Walmart isn't mentioning that after wage depression, the net increase in purchasing power averages only $1,122 annually.
Walmart "Saves The Average Family $2,500 A Year," But You Don't Actually Have To Shop There - The Consumerist

Yep why I say we are not thru going down in living standards yet.
Less wages/benefits for US workers is the only way we can compete in the global marketplace. It is called increasing productivity.

Citi...the danger is the global totalitarians, perfectly represented by this administration.

The are hardly looking out for Americans...they wish for global governance.

Did you see this:


Speaking in Milwaukee on February 15, President Obama, re-ignited a controversy on "global taxation" set off by his top economic adviser during comments on the administration’s budget on Monday.

Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), caused a commotion this week with his statement that the Obama administration favors “a global minimum tax.” Sperling’s comment, captured by C-SPAN cameras, was soon spread across the blogosphere in numerous YouTube postings (watch below).
Obama Confirms Adviser Sperling

 

[PoliticalChic]

"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist

You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.

It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.

We have anti-trust laws that prevent monopolies.

 

[kiwiman127]

"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist

You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year

And what percent of wealth did everyone else lose during that same time frame? Or were the wealthy the only ones losing wealth? I lost wealth, for example the value of my properties took a big hit, this happened to every home owner in America. Working Americans also lost money in their 401ks. So, comparing wealth lost in percentages, how did average Americans fare versus the uber wealthy?

So in the real world, the wealthy weren't the only ones to lose wealth or is that an uneducated statement?

 

[PoliticalChic]

"4. In actuality, the income of full time wage and salary workers increased between 1980 and 2004, and so did real income- either by 13% or 17%, depending on which price index is used in the calculation. Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 63." PoliticalChic.

So in 24 years wages and salaries grew 13-17%, that number does include the top percentile's income growth which of course skews the numbers upwards. Would the 13-17% numbers hold up after eliminating the top percentile earners? 17% growth in 24 years doesn't even equal 1% per year, take out the top percentiles and what kind of annual growth does one get.

From the conservative The Economist:

Occupy Wall Street" gets a boost from a new report on income distribution

OF ALL the many banners being waved around the world by disgruntled protesters from Chile to Australia the one that reads, "We Are the 99%" is the catchiest. It is purposefully vague, but it is also underpinned by some solid economics. A report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) points out that income inequality in America has not risen dramatically over the past 20 years—when the top 1% of earners are excluded. With them, the picture is quite different. The causes of the good fortune of those at the top are disputed, but the CBO provides some useful detail on that too. The biggest component of the increase in after-tax income for the top one percent is "business income" as opposed to income from labour or investments (though admittedly these things are hard to untangle). Whatever the cause, the data are powerful because they tend to support two prejudices. First, that a system that works well for the very richest has delivered returns on labour that are disappointing for everyone else. Second, that the people at the top have made out like bandits over the past few decades, and that now everyone else must pick up the bill. Of course it is a little more complicated than that. But this downturn ought to test the normally warm feelings in America of the 99% towards the 1%.Income inequality in America: The 99 percent | The Economist

You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year

And what percent of wealth did everyone else lose during that same time frame? Or were the wealthy the only ones losing wealth? I lost wealth, for example the value of my properties took a big hit, this happened to every home owner in America. Working Americans also lost money in their 401ks. So, comparing wealth lost in percentages, how did average Americans fare versus the uber wealthy?

So in the real world, the wealthy weren't the only ones to lose wealth or is that an uneducated statement?

Now, before you change the direction of what has been an interesting thread, let's review:

1. Capitalism isn't in a crisis. Left wing propaganda is on the rise, probably sensing that they can persuade folks who don't think and don't read to give the statists more power (if the shoe fits....)

2. The greatest mechanism known to man to raise the standards of living for society is capitalism.

a. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

3. Aside from this recession, made worse and extended by the Obama administration, wages have grown, not stagnated, and the middle class has grown.

4. Because America is the land of opportunity, there is no permanent rich class.

5. The OWS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Soros-Tides foundation-adbusters-Ruckus Society.

6. And, finally, finding a nugget of truth in your OP is more difficult than finding a reference to cats in the Bible.

 

[California Girl]

On a different note this is also about Global income disparity.
Chinese work cheaper so we have less jobs/money.

Thank you, Capt Obvious.

 

[ilia25]

He discusses four elements that have historically defined American society which he calls the four founding virtues:
industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity.

Any economic inequality can be laid directly to the first of the four rather than any crisis in capitalism.

Sure, and it could not be the other way around? Could it be the lack of decent opportunities for everyone lacking the extraordinary talents of the top 1% that makes them losing those virtues?

People are only going to work hard if they have a decent chance for a payoff. Otherwise they won't see the point.

 

[ilia25]

If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.

Your wishful thinking does not make it a fact. I suggest that you add "Player Piano" to your ever growing reading list.

Or you can start thinking by trying to answer questions like "Will that fierce competition of yours leave everyone with an equal income? If not, then how much inequality it will create? Will that level of inequality remain constant, or it will change over time? How it will change, what will be the driving force for those changes?"

 

[uscitizen]

If you mean wealth gap, it won't. Removing restrictions to foster capital ventures in America, and removing the subsidies given to "winners" by government and letting insolvent firms fail will foster fierce competition again. This raises the bar for everyone and creates wealth for all.


"Income inequality" is a nonissue. It suggests that everyone should get the same amount and that is a ridiculous idea.

It will foster more mergers and aquisitions and more corporations that are too big to fail.

Competition? How does one compete with Wal Mart?

It would be kinda like me running for president.

Competing with a big box store is really rather easy. My closest competitor was PetCo and I did remarkably well. Competing with WalMart would be a snap.

How come the big mega corps keep capturing more and more of the market?

and yes this country is structured to help the big get bigger.
Lobbyists, mindsets, etc.
The bigger you are the louder your "$voice" speaks.

 

[PoliticalChic]

He discusses four elements that have historically defined American society which he calls the four founding virtues:
industriousness, honesty, marriage, and religiosity.

Any economic inequality can be laid directly to the first of the four rather than any crisis in capitalism.

Sure, and it could not be the other way around? Could it be the lack of decent opportunities for everyone lacking the extraordinary talents of the top 1% that makes them losing those virtues?

People are only going to work hard if they have a decent chance for a payoff. Otherwise they won't see the point.

"...the lack of decent opportunities..."

1. "I lived for about a decade, on and off, in France and later moved to the United States. Nobody in their right mind would give up the manifold sensual, aesthetic and gastronomic pleasures offered by French savoir-vivre for the unrelenting battlefield of American ambition were it not for one thing: possibility.
You know possibility when you breathe it. For an immigrant, it lies in the ease of American identity and the boundlessness of American horizons after the narrower confines of European nationhood and the stifling attentions of the European nanny state, which has often made it more attractive not to work than to work. High French unemployment was never much of a mystery."
Roger Cohen: One France is enough - The New York Times

2. Even Karl Marx accepted the image of America as a land of boundless opportunity, citing this as an explanation for the lack of class consciousness in the U.S. "The position of wage laborer," he wrote in 1865, "is for a very large part of the American people but a probational state, which they are sure to leave within a longer or shorter term."

Read more: As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls

 

[uscitizen]

1. "For certain classes of goods and certain services, like customer phone centers, it makes sense—economically if not socially—to employ these offshore workers. Americans as a group have too high a standard of living for anyone to employ them making, say, lawn mowers. A mower made overseas costs $250 to $350. One made by American hands would cost $800 to $900—and the utility value simply is not there."
The Coming Robotics Age

2. If they [iPads] were built in the USA you basic model iPad would likely cost closer to $800 or $1,00 instead of $499.
Samsung to seek iPhone 5 ban in Korea – MacDailyNews - Welcome Home

3. Walmart's new ad campaign says that the store saves the average American family $2,500 a year. What is doesn't say is that you don't actually have to shop at Walmart to take advantage of the savings.

The study that Walmart is citing in their ad showed that competition from Walmart lowered prices and saved the average family some serious money, regardless of where they actually shopped. Also, Walmart isn't mentioning that after wage depression, the net increase in purchasing power averages only $1,122 annually.
Walmart "Saves The Average Family $2,500 A Year," But You Don't Actually Have To Shop There - The Consumerist

Yep why I say we are not thru going down in living standards yet.
Less wages/benefits for US workers is the only way we can compete in the global marketplace. It is called increasing productivity.

Citi...the danger is the global totalitarians, perfectly represented by this administration.

The are hardly looking out for Americans...they wish for global governance.

Did you see this:


Speaking in Milwaukee on February 15, President Obama, re-ignited a controversy on "global taxation" set off by his top economic adviser during comments on the administration’s budget on Monday.

Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), caused a commotion this week with his statement that the Obama administration favors “a global minimum tax.” Sperling’s comment, captured by C-SPAN cameras, was soon spread across the blogosphere in numerous YouTube postings (watch below).
Obama Confirms Adviser Sperling

Umm this has been going on for decades under all administrations and all congresses.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Capitalism Seen in Crisis by Investors Citing Inequalities

Actually we don't have capitalism.

Can someone say with a straight face that Fanny, Freddie, CRA, and FHA were created to make the system more capitalistic rather than less capitalistic?

The entire liberal idea was to get folks into homes that the capitalist free market said they could not afford.

Is it possible to conclude anything other than that a liberal will be too slow to follow this subject?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yep why I say we are not thru going down in living standards yet.
Less wages/benefits for US workers is the only way we can compete in the global marketplace. It is called increasing productivity.

Citi...the danger is the global totalitarians, perfectly represented by this administration.

The are hardly looking out for Americans...they wish for global governance.

Did you see this:


Speaking in Milwaukee on February 15, President Obama, re-ignited a controversy on "global taxation" set off by his top economic adviser during comments on the administration’s budget on Monday.

Gene Sperling, Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of President Obama’s National Economic Council (NEC), caused a commotion this week with his statement that the Obama administration favors “a global minimum tax.” Sperling’s comment, captured by C-SPAN cameras, was soon spread across the blogosphere in numerous YouTube postings (watch below).
Obama Confirms Adviser Sperling

Umm this has been going on for decades under all administrations and all congresses.

Really??
How come you weren't fighting it??

 

[kiwiman127]

You don't get it.

There is no perpetual top 1%.

Not only is there a great deal of income and social mobility in the United States, but the group hurt most in a downturn is the folks with the hightest income at the moment.


WASHINGTON – A new report shows double-digit decreases in the number and wealth of the United States’ richest individuals last year.

The declines were the steepest since 1996, when the Merrill Lynch and Capgemini World Wealth Report was first published, leading some to ponder the ripple effects on the economy.

The 2008 declines in the population and wealth of U.S. High Net Worth Individuals – or those owning $1 million or more in financial assets minus the worth of primary residences – closely mimicked world-wide declines. In fact, the 2008 global HNWI population and wealth retreated below 2005 levels, undoing three years of consistent growth.

The U.S. population of HNWIs – the wealthiest Americans -- fell 18.5 percent to 2.5 million in 2008, while North American HNWI wealth (the report did not break out figures for U.S. HNWI wealth) dipped 22 percent to $9.1 trillion.

“Though high net worth individuals add a lot of wealth to the economy, they still occupy a small slice of the pie,” Perry said. “Accordingly, they do not make or break the economy. When investments trend upward, theirs will too, and vice versa.”
Super rich faced steep declines in wealth last year

And what percent of wealth did everyone else lose during that same time frame? Or were the wealthy the only ones losing wealth? I lost wealth, for example the value of my properties took a big hit, this happened to every home owner in America. Working Americans also lost money in their 401ks. So, comparing wealth lost in percentages, how did average Americans fare versus the uber wealthy?

So in the real world, the wealthy weren't the only ones to lose wealth or is that an uneducated statement?

Now, before you change the direction of what has been an interesting thread, let's review:

1. Capitalism isn't in a crisis. Left wing propaganda is on the rise, probably sensing that they can persuade folks who don't think and don't read to give the statists more power (if the shoe fits....)

2. The greatest mechanism known to man to raise the standards of living for society is capitalism.

a. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

3. Aside from this recession, made worse and extended by the Obama administration, wages have grown, not stagnated, and the middle class has grown.

4. Because America is the land of opportunity, there is no permanent rich class.

5. The OWS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Soros-Tides foundation-adbusters-Ruckus Society.

6. And, finally, finding a nugget of truth in your OP is more difficult than finding a reference to cats in the Bible.

My nugget of truth is in the article I used for my OP.

I really don't understand how you think you have the knowledge to question the world's elite investors or question the concept that the top economist have acknowledged that there's income inequality! They look at the facts/statistics and came to a conclusion.

Thomas Sowell is a fine economist, the problem is, like Paul Krugman he has immersed himself in ideological politics. He has called Obama "Hitler", no partisan hackery there! Hey, maybe I should have used Paul Krugman,,but I didn't. Please note that I did not use one partisan resource, unlike yourself.

And why in the world did you bring up Marxism, was that a natural knee-jerk reaction? I'm a capitalist and have been most of my adult life as I have owned businesses and worked within the Corporate America structure.
Finally, how did I change the direction of this thread? Is not this thread about capitalism being hurt my income inequality> Please show me where I veered off course.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And what percent of wealth did everyone else lose during that same time frame? Or were the wealthy the only ones losing wealth? I lost wealth, for example the value of my properties took a big hit, this happened to every home owner in America. Working Americans also lost money in their 401ks. So, comparing wealth lost in percentages, how did average Americans fare versus the uber wealthy?

So in the real world, the wealthy weren't the only ones to lose wealth or is that an uneducated statement?

Now, before you change the direction of what has been an interesting thread, let's review:

1. Capitalism isn't in a crisis. Left wing propaganda is on the rise, probably sensing that they can persuade folks who don't think and don't read to give the statists more power (if the shoe fits....)

2. The greatest mechanism known to man to raise the standards of living for society is capitalism.

a. "Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006

3. Aside from this recession, made worse and extended by the Obama administration, wages have grown, not stagnated, and the middle class has grown.

4. Because America is the land of opportunity, there is no permanent rich class.

5. The OWS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Soros-Tides foundation-adbusters-Ruckus Society.

6. And, finally, finding a nugget of truth in your OP is more difficult than finding a reference to cats in the Bible.

My nugget of truth is in the article I used for my OP.

I really don't understand how you think you have the knowledge to question the world's elite investors or question the concept that the top economist have acknowledged that there's income inequality! They look at the facts/statistics and came to a conclusion.

Thomas Sowell is a fine economist, the problem is, like Paul Krugman he has immersed himself in ideological politics. He has called Obama "Hitler", no partisan hackery there! Hey, maybe I should have used Paul Krugman,,but I didn't. Please note that I did not use one partisan resource, unlike yourself.

And why in the world did you bring up Marxism, was that a natural knee-jerk reaction? I'm a capitalist and have been most of my adult life as I have owned businesses and worked within the Corporate America structure.
Finally, how did I change the direction of this thread? Is not this thread about capitalism being hurt my income inequality> Please show me where I veered off course.

"I really don't understand how you think you have the knowledge to question the world's elite investors ..."

Then you really haven't understood my posts in this thread.

 

[ilia25]

2. Even Karl Marx accepted the image of America as a land of boundless opportunity

A am not talking about 19 century, and I'm not talking about a possibility for a poor but talented immigrant to become a millioner.

What America had in 60s but lacks today is an opportunity for Joe Sixpack to get a job at a steel mill or a GM factory earning comfortably middle class wages. That looks to me like a reason enough for the social woes that "Coming Apart" describes.