Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Chris

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
23,154
Reaction score
1,967
Points
205
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
 

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,583
Reaction score
2,848
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
There's a useful contrast to be found in Germany. Since 1970 elites in the US have seen their share of total income increase from around 8% to nearly 25%. During the same time period, the richest 1% of Germans have earned around 11% of total national income.

One reason is the fact the German labor unions have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for. When German capitalists cast their greedy gaze on China, German labor told them to stuff it.

A policy of debt forgiveness helped jump start the German economic miracle after the devastation of World War II.

Maybe the concept of debt forgiveness (Jubilee) will catch on among OWS supporter in this country?
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,122
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
If you want more wealth, why don't you work at producing something of value so you can recieve it without compulsion and without force.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
OMG, the WHINING about what others have and others don't is getting SICKENING

friggen Commie bastards at Vanity fair no less.:lol:
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007

georgephillip

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2009
Messages
37,583
Reaction score
2,848
Points
1,125
Location
Los Angeles, California
If you want more wealth, why don't you work at producing something of value so you can recieve it without compulsion and without force.
How have you fared economically over the last ten to twenty-five years?

"While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top."

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

Many of those at the top of the economic pyramid did not contribute anything of value to society. In fact, the outsourcing of millions of middle class jobs to China and the "contributions" of mortgage back securities to the Great Recession have turned life into a living hell for millions of formerly middle class Americans.
 

Charles_Main

AR15 Owner
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
16,692
Reaction score
2,248
Points
88
Location
Michigan, USA
It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
What a childish idiot you are.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
If you want more wealth, why don't you work at producing something of value so you can recieve it without compulsion and without force.
How have you fared economically over the last ten to twenty-five years?

"While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top."

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair

Many of those at the top of the economic pyramid did not contribute anything of value to society. In fact, the outsourcing of millions of middle class jobs to China and the "contributions" of mortgage back securities to the Great Recession have turned life into a living hell for millions of formerly middle class Americans.
OMG, those at the top of the economic pyramid did not CONTRIBUTE anything of value..
then why don't you and your party gather them all up and SHOOT THEM. and you can start with YOUR ELECTED MASTERS.
and for you info. I was doing OK until this administration, now I'm paying 3.50 a gallon of gas, bacon that was $2.99 is NOW $6.00, etc etc.
you damn Socialist-Commies make me sick
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
I never understood the covetous nature of Liberals.
What coveting? Most of us don't want this for ourselves.

I never understood the selfish nature of Conservatives.
Oh right, because Liberals all have SUCH BIG HEARTS AND WALLETS. but as we all see, they DON'T want to donate it themselves, they want the Big daddy Guberment to TAKE it from the people THEY DEEM WHO it should be ...THE RICH..then they can crow about, see we Liberals care more..
 
Last edited:
OP
C

Chris

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
23,154
Reaction score
1,967
Points
205
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
Good grief...the rest was just as barfworthy.
The MAJORITY of people don't RELY on the Government. And I don't work my ass off "for the COMMON GOOD". If I wanted to live in a Socialist country, I'd MOVE TO ONE. Or if I wanted to live in a commune I'd go live in.
 
Last edited:

RDD_1210

Forms his own opinions
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
18,977
Reaction score
1,813
Points
265
I never understood the covetous nature of Liberals.
What coveting? Most of us don't want this for ourselves.

I never understood the selfish nature of Conservatives.
Oh right, because Liberals all have SUCH BIG HEARTS AND WALLETS. but as we all see, they DON'T want to donate it themselves, they want the Big daddy Guberment to TAKE it from the people THEY DEEM WHO it should be ...THE RICH..then they can crow about, see we Liberals care more..
I'd love for you to be able to one day realize how backwards your thinking is. How you're sticking up for people who don't give a shit about you, while at the same time you argue against policies that would directly benefit you. I'd love to see the lightbulb go off when you realize,..."what the hell was I thinking". The sad part is, I don't think you'll ever reach that day. That's a real shame.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,775
Reaction score
15,519
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I never understood the covetous nature of Liberals.
What coveting? Most of us don't want this for ourselves.

I never understood the selfish nature of Conservatives.
You do understand that whatever you STEAL from the 1% isn't gonna go to bottom 10% don'tcha? Or haven't you figured out that it will just DISAPPEAR into the giant black pockets of Congress? Just like the $3TRill stolen FICA excess that we are now PAYING FOR AGAIN.. 535 mental midgets are gonna spend it wisely?

Here's a clue -- you can't STEAL IT fast enough...

That's NOT a solution to getting America a 21st Century economy.. It's a massive failure of leadership to be pumping on the class war.. A failure of HISTORICAL proportion...
 

RDD_1210

Forms his own opinions
Joined
May 13, 2010
Messages
18,977
Reaction score
1,813
Points
265
I never understood the covetous nature of Liberals.
What coveting? Most of us don't want this for ourselves.

I never understood the selfish nature of Conservatives.
You'll notice that the cons argument always places us as the people looking for "hand outs". They can't wrap their heads around the fact that just maybe we're doing well and want to see those who are less fortunate than us be able to get some assistance.

If they stopped and thought about, maybe, just maybe those of us who are advocating for these social safety nets and aid for the poor and middle class are in favor of it not because of selfish reasons or that it would directly benefit us but because it's just the right thing to do.

I'm sure I'll be called a communist/marxist/socialist for this post.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
What coveting? Most of us don't want this for ourselves.

I never understood the selfish nature of Conservatives.
Oh right, because Liberals all have SUCH BIG HEARTS AND WALLETS. but as we all see, they DON'T want to donate it themselves, they want the Big daddy Guberment to TAKE it from the people THEY DEEM WHO it should be ...THE RICH..then they can crow about, see we Liberals care more..
I'd love for you to be able to one day realize how backwards your thinking is. How you're sticking up for people who don't give a shit about you, while at the same time you argue against policies that would directly benefit you. I'd love to see the lightbulb go off when you realize,..."what the hell was I thinking". The sad part is, I don't think you'll ever reach that day. That's a real shame.
You know what DEAR... I don't give a shit if they care for me and I don't have to give a shit about them...I MAKE MY OWN LIFE and I like that JUST FINE. and don't tell me about arguing against policies " that benefit me".. I don't ask anyone for anything and I damn sure don't ask the Federal Govermnet for anything...my best interest is for the Federal Government and people who think like you to STAY THE HELL OUT of my business... and I damn sure didn't ask for this pathetic lecture of yours.
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
60,775
Reaction score
15,519
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
Bridges, roads, and public infrastructure can be repaired WHEN we actually HAVE an economy. You said NOTHING about raising the skill sets of American workers or getting more AMERICAN kids into our Colleges of Science and Engineering. NOTHING about leveling the regulations that prevent NEW Venture businesses from being created to KNOCK OFF the older less friendly corporate giants. NOTHING about getting capital to flow to industries that we could lead the world in... NO ONE in politics is really leading.

Stealing from the rich ain't gonna change the 34% unemployment rate of High School Dropouts. Not even HANDOUTS to those drop-outs is gonna fix the problem...

Growing the economy and shifting the labor force into BETTER more lucrative jobs comes first. NOT "stimulating" areas where only a 1/10 of America works. If we DON'T continue to lead in innovation and birthing new industries --- this class war freak show will be the last act before we look like Greece...
 
Last edited:
OP
C

Chris

Gold Member
Joined
May 30, 2008
Messages
23,154
Reaction score
1,967
Points
205
Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% | Society | Vanity Fair
Bridges, roads, and public infrastructure can be repaired WHEN we actually HAVE an economy. You said NOTHING about raising the skill sets of American workers or getting more AMERICAN kids into our Colleges of Science and Engineering. NOTHING about leveling the regulations that prevent NEW Venture businesses from being created to KNOCK OFF the older less friendly corporate giants. NOTHING about getting capital to flow to industries that we could lead the world in... NO ONE in politics is really leading.

Growing the economy and shifting the labor force into BETTER more lucrative jobs comes first. NOT "stimulating" areas where only a 1/10 of America works. If we DON'T continue to lead in innovation and birthing new industries --- this class war freak show will be the last act before we look like Greece...
Greece is what it is because people there don't pay their taxes.

Like the Tea Party.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top