Socialist France, Sweden Wealthier than US

[Flopper]

There are many ways to measure the wealth of a nation. Per capita wealth is just one way. The US has by far th largest GDP in the world. We were third in personal income a few years ago. But a Newsweek survey in 2010 ranked the US no. 11 in standard living and quality of live. Then there is a measure of net assets and most millionaires, etc, etc...... I would take most of these surveys with a grain of salt. I have no doubt that if US stopped being the policeman of the world and the most charitable nation on earth we would be number one across the board.

 

[georgephillip]

Is it true 10,000 Americans "earn" 30% of the income in the US?

That these same 10,000 (0.01%) of all Americans currently have an average annual income of $50 million AND possess an average of $350,000,000 in assets and since 1978 their assets have increased 550%?

These 10,000 are NOT the hardest working or the smartest among us. They have amassed their fortunes to a large degree by manipulating Republicans AND Democrats into shifting the tax burden away from Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate and onto America's middle class while outsourcing millions of high paying middle class jobs to the lowest bidder.

When the Rich have extorted as much of our national wealth as they can, they will leave, and, possibly, our "government" will be left with only hyperinflation to FLUSH away the debts the 10,000 grew fat on.

If you wait for hyperinflation to transform every $10 bill in your possession into a $1 bill, you will have waited too long.

And your country will be gone to the lowest bidder.

America is 234

 

[Old Rocks]

You might have a look at how much of our nation is already owned by the Chinese and Saudis.

 

[william the wie]

While the top 10,000 earn disproportionately large sums there is about a 1-5% annual churn in their numbers with those the least likely to create envy being the most likely to stay on top.

 

[georgephillip]

It's hard to see how the US maintains any functioning democracy with our current wealth distribution. If you widen out on those top 10,000 earners, you find 20% of Americans own about 85% of all privately held wealth.

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands.

"As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

"In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)."

While the trade and budget deficits pose significant risks to our standard of living, the widening democracy deficit poses a greater threat to our liberty.

Who Rules America:

And I don't think "choosing" between a Republican OR Democrat changes anything fundamentally.

 

[loosecannon]

And I don't think "choosing" between a Republican OR Democrat changes anything fundamentally.

It does if you interpret that comment in an alternate way.

If your only choice is the choice between a democrat and a republican you can be relatively certain that the status quo and wall street's interests will be preserved even if the balance of the nation is flooded in a hurricane event.

 

[Flopper]

It's hard to see how the US maintains any functioning democracy with our current wealth distribution. If you widen out on those top 10,000 earners, you find 20% of Americans own about 85% of all privately held wealth.

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands.

"As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

"In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)."

While the trade and budget deficits pose significant risks to our standard of living, the widening democracy deficit poses a greater threat to our liberty.

Who Rules America:

And I don't think "choosing" between a Republican OR Democrat changes anything fundamentally.

They have 42% of the financial wealth. The wealthy began exiting from the US years ago. The Pacific Rim and Europe now offers better investment opportunities than the US. Consumption now accounts for 70% of our GDP. We are becoming a nation that only consumes and produces nothing.

We sign off on trade deals that favors other nations. We reward business for shipping our jobs and factories overseas. While we debate global climate change, China, Germany, and other European countries are becoming world leaders in green technologies which promises to be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

 

[georgephillip]

And I don't think "choosing" between a Republican OR Democrat changes anything fundamentally.

It does if you interpret that comment in an alternate way.

If your only choice is the choice between a democrat and a republican you can be relatively certain that the status quo and wall street's interests will be preserved even if the balance of the nation is flooded in a hurricane event.

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

 

[georgephillip]

It's hard to see how the US maintains any functioning democracy with our current wealth distribution. If you widen out on those top 10,000 earners, you find 20% of Americans own about 85% of all privately held wealth.

"In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands.

"As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers).

"In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one's home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010)."

While the trade and budget deficits pose significant risks to our standard of living, the widening democracy deficit poses a greater threat to our liberty.

Who Rules America:

And I don't think "choosing" between a Republican OR Democrat changes anything fundamentally.

They have 42% of the financial wealth. The wealthy began exiting from the US years ago. The Pacific Rim and Europe now offers better investment opportunities than the US. Consumption now accounts for 70% of our GDP. We are becoming a nation that only consumes and produces nothing.

We sign off on trade deals that favors other nations. We reward business for shipping our jobs and factories overseas. While we debate global climate change, China, Germany, and other European countries are becoming world leaders in green technologies which promises to be a multi-trillion dollar industry.

Catherine Austin Fitts and her colleagues claim between fiscal 1998 and 2002 over $4 trillion (and counting) went missing from the US government. The reason for this exodus of wealth is generally considered to be "greener pastures" in Asia and Europe.

 

[Flopper]

And I don't think "choosing" between a Republican OR Democrat changes anything fundamentally.

It does if you interpret that comment in an alternate way.

If your only choice is the choice between a democrat and a republican you can be relatively certain that the status quo and wall street's interests will be preserved even if the balance of the nation is flooded in a hurricane event.

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

Independents and third party candidates would be a breath of fresh air in a Congress whose sole purpose is to discredit the opposition and get re-elected. The only way this will ever happen is for voters to force Congress to pass real campaign reform where candidates are not allowed to spent the huge sums they spend today to get elected. Who the hell can raise 10 or 20 million dollars or more to run for office except those who are willing to sell their souls to special interest groups or a major party.

 

[Revere]

It does if you interpret that comment in an alternate way.

If your only choice is the choice between a democrat and a republican you can be relatively certain that the status quo and wall street's interests will be preserved even if the balance of the nation is flooded in a hurricane event.

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

Independents and third party candidates would be a breath of fresh air in a Congress whose sole purpose is to discredit the opposition and get re-elected. The only way this will ever happen is for voters to force Congress to pass real campaign reform where candidates are not allowed to spent the huge sums they spend today to get elected. Who the hell can raise 10 or 20 million dollars or more to run for office except those who are willing to sell their souls to special interest groups or a major party.

Are you free if an incumbent can use his political clout all he wants but you can't buy as much advertising as you want to get your message out?

 

[Flopper]

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

Independents and third party candidates would be a breath of fresh air in a Congress whose sole purpose is to discredit the opposition and get re-elected. The only way this will ever happen is for voters to force Congress to pass real campaign reform where candidates are not allowed to spent the huge sums they spend today to get elected. Who the hell can raise 10 or 20 million dollars or more to run for office except those who are willing to sell their souls to special interest groups or a major party.

Are you free if an incumbent can use his political clout all he wants but you can't buy as much advertising as you want to get your message out?

With few exceptions political candidates come to office with an agenda that was determined by special interest groups long before they got elected. As I recall in England, parliamentary candidates are not allowed to spend more than 100,000 pounds. Campaigning last about 4 to 6 weeks and voters don't have to put up with these absurd TV commercials for 6 months out of the year.

 

[georgephillip]

It does if you interpret that comment in an alternate way.

If your only choice is the choice between a democrat and a republican you can be relatively certain that the status quo and wall street's interests will be preserved even if the balance of the nation is flooded in a hurricane event.

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

Independents and third party candidates would be a breath of fresh air in a Congress whose sole purpose is to discredit the opposition and get re-elected. The only way this will ever happen is for voters to force Congress to pass real campaign reform where candidates are not allowed to spent the huge sums they spend today to get elected. Who the hell can raise 10 or 20 million dollars or more to run for office except those who are willing to sell their souls to special interest groups or a major party.

In the 1930s Huey Long looked at Washington DC and saw a restaurant that served only one dish. He saw Republican waiters along one wall and Democrat waiters lining the other. But no matter which party delivered your order, "all the grub came from Wall Street's kitchen."

Even Huey might be momentarily speechless if he saw the magnitude of Wall Street's power today; however, he would also immediately see the potential for change in the tool we are communicating with right now.

Today's Democrats AND Republicans can be FLUSHED.
The Internet makes it doable.
With little more effort than walking into your polling place...

November 2nd 2010... FIRE the Second Shot Heard 'Round the World.

FLUSH the DC TOILET of ALL INCUMBENTS of BOTH PARTIES.

Make Huey proud.

 

[eagleseven]

How many poor immigrants do France and Sweden absorb, in comparison with the US?

Remember, Sweden is smaller than NYC.

 

[georgephillip]

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

Independents and third party candidates would be a breath of fresh air in a Congress whose sole purpose is to discredit the opposition and get re-elected. The only way this will ever happen is for voters to force Congress to pass real campaign reform where candidates are not allowed to spent the huge sums they spend today to get elected. Who the hell can raise 10 or 20 million dollars or more to run for office except those who are willing to sell their souls to special interest groups or a major party.

Are you free if an incumbent can use his political clout all he wants but you can't buy as much advertising as you want to get your message out?

Are we free if candidates don't fully disclose where their money comes from?

"Hundreds of millions of secret dollars are pouring into congressional and state races in this election cycle. The Koch brothers (whose personal fortunes grew by $5 billion last year) appear to be behind some of it, Karl Rove has rounded up other multi-millionaires to fund right-wing candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling corporate dollars from around the world into congressional races, and Rupert Murdoch is evidently spending heavily."

"No one knows for sure where this flood of money is coming from because it’s all secret.

This scale of secret money is new since Citizens United vs FEC.

"According to FEC data, only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed."

The Secret...

 

[eagleseven]

Are we free if candidates don't fully disclose where their money comes from?

Are we truly free if internet mobs can hunt down and harass those who openly donate to political candidates?

 

[Flopper]

If Republicans want to be driving this train when it jumps its economic tracks, replacing 100 Democrats with an equal number of Greens/Libs/Whatevers on November 2nd would give Wall Street (and the Pentagon) an entirely new status quo.

There are already viable third party candidates appearing on many ballots across this country. Republicans AND Democrats comprise well over 90% of all congressional incumbents.

If a sudden outbreak of ANTI-INCUMBENT fever sweeps through US cyberspace in the next three weeks...

What Doesn't Change?

Independents and third party candidates would be a breath of fresh air in a Congress whose sole purpose is to discredit the opposition and get re-elected. The only way this will ever happen is for voters to force Congress to pass real campaign reform where candidates are not allowed to spent the huge sums they spend today to get elected. Who the hell can raise 10 or 20 million dollars or more to run for office except those who are willing to sell their souls to special interest groups or a major party.

In the 1930s Huey Long looked at Washington DC and saw a restaurant that served only one dish. He saw Republican waiters along one wall and Democrat waiters lining the other. But no matter which party delivered your order, "all the grub came from Wall Street's kitchen."

Even Huey might be momentarily speechless if he saw the magnitude of Wall Street's power today; however, he would also immediately see the potential for change in the tool we are communicating with right now.

Today's Democrats AND Republicans can be FLUSHED.
The Internet makes it doable.
With little more effort than walking into your polling place...

November 2nd 2010... FIRE the Second Shot Heard 'Round the World.

FLUSH the DC TOILET of ALL INCUMBENTS of BOTH PARTIES.

Make Huey proud.

Well, I think Huey was a megalomania that would sell his soul if he had one to highest bidder, but that's beside the point. The problem I see with electing independents and third party candidates is that the average voters only exposure to them is when he sees their name on the ballot. There is so little exposure to them who is going to vote for them when they know nothing about them. To elect independents and third party candidates you have to have a more level financial playing field where these candidates can make themselves know to the voters. If I were King, I would outlaw all forms of political advertising for national offices and instead would sponsor debates among the candidates for each office. What is going on now is pure insanity.

 

[georgephillip]

What I'm suggesting here is a political leap of faith.

You're absolutely right to say we would be voting for candidates we know little about.

We also agree about the current insanity in US politics.

What I'm trying to say is by continuing to "choose" between Republican OR Democrat we are proving our commitment to that very insanity.

And NOTHING of substance will change.

 

[georgephillip]

Are we free if candidates don't fully disclose where their money comes from?

Are we truly free if internet mobs can hunt down and harass those who openly donate to political candidates?

Could you provide some examples of this harassment?

I can see where an individual donor would be vulnerable, but it's a little harder to imagine the American Chamber of Commerce or the Koch brothers being intimidated by cyber-mobs.

 

[boedicca]

I suspect this has a lot to do with the devaluation of the dollar:

In 2000, the exchange rate of the Dollar was .87 to the Euro.

Today, the exchange rate of the Dollar is approx. 1.4 to the Euro

US Dollar to Euro Exchange Rate Graph - Oct 3, 2000 to Oct 1, 2010


I'd like to see the full study to see if they adjusted for inflation and currency moves. Certainly, the housing bubble had an impact mid decade, but prices are still above where they were in 2000 in most areas.