When They are Rich, You are Poor

[stepnw1f]

A very wise man told me once "that in order to build a hill to stand on, you must dig a hole for others."

I am sick and tired of hearing people make excuses for the wealthy. There are NO excuses anymore, and now we see the economic system working only in favor of the wealthy, the trust has been broken, the "New Deal" has been voided. I say we rebel in EVERY possible way.

Good morning DUers. :donut:

[novalib]

1. REBEL in EVERY possible way!

I could not have said it any better myself!

Do not give the rich asshole bastards any more!!

WORK to make them POOR -- Let them see how it feels to be exploited, taken advantage of, and LAUGHED AT -- just for the "crime" of being poor.

BASTARDS!

[stepnw1f]

41. Thanks (nt)

[debbierlus]

58. This is a CLASS issue - plain and simple

Funny, how little it is talked about.

[stepnw1f]

115. I'll Talk and Keep Talking Till I Die

I may die poor, but at least I'll hold my head high with a heart of gold.

[lonestarnot]

2. unitary executive, SCOTUS, Ownership society... These three concepts

should turn the vote to fight the class war.

[paparush]

15. ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!! The Dems need to HAMMER - Class War in 'murkah..

[lonestarnot]

66. hammerin paparush! hammerin!

[bryant69]

3. Intersting

So if we aren't going to reward hard work and ingenuity anymore, what values are we going to reward?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[lonestarnot]

4. Yeah uh hugh right.. I have some property you might be interested in,

pm me.

[bryant69]

7. If it's a bridge - I already have one.

Bought it just the other day from a guy at Stuckys

[lonestarnot]

67. I think I see it on fire in the distance.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Who the fuck are "WE"?

The only things I get to "reward" are good papers and test answers. Like most Americans I will never set anyone's pay rate, but I would get behind a maximum wage, say 20 times the minimum. Is 20 times richer that much less "rewarded" than 200 times? When individual wealth stops being about lifestyle improvement and starts being about political power, it should be cut off.

[bryant69]

11. We as a society

What's wrong with you that you don't understand that.

You would never set anyone's pay rate, but you would say they could make a maximum of $301,600 (assuming a $7.25 an hour minimum wage). Can you see the logical disparity in those two sentances?

[Jed Dilligan]

14. Just because I don't identify with my oppressors

doesn't mean I'm not part of society. I'm not a boss and don't ever plan to be one, so I will never decide what any individual gets paid. I would back cutting off the rich, though, because I despise and resent them. What's so unclear about that?

[bryant69]

17. So this boils down to plain and simple resentment of

people who have succeeded more than you in this society?

[Jed Dilligan]

18. No problem at all with their personal wealth

It's when they use it to tell me what to do by influencing lawmakers that I have a problem with.

[bryant69]

23. I have a problem with that too, of course.

Consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?

[Jed Dilligan]

31. I'll tell you what I think about "consistency"

It's the favorite tool of smug, arrogant, rich, phallocratic white straight male "moderates" who wank themselves while constructing a completely unreal system of rationalizations in their mind that makes their ultradominant position in culture and politics appear to be both fair and sustainable.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[novalib]

85. WELL SAID!!

Very WELL SAID!

The rationalizations that the smug, arrogant, rich, phallocentric, straight white male "moderates" (who, in my view, see nothing wrong with keeping an entire group of people "in their place" is part of the reason so many of them become over-wrought. When they are exposed for what they REALLY are, they do tend to lash out at those who have exposed them.

[bryant69]

87. Let's run this down

I'm smug

Arrogant

Rich

Phallocentric

Straight

White

Male

Moderates

And in favor of keeping an entire group of people "in their place" which seems to indicate racism, but I don't want to read too much into this.

So you read this as ascribing these qualities to me, and that I have said qualities?

I am Straight White and Male.

Bryant

[novalib]

88. Huh?

You ARE ADMITTING to being smug, arrogant, and all the rest??!!!

You MUST be, because I NEVER said that YOU were!

It seems to me that you are being a bit "touchy" here!!

Why would you think I was talking about YOU??!!

Are you going to tell me "Fuck You", like you did to someone else in this thread??!!

[bryant69]

91. No once was enough.

Hmmmm.

Incidentally I've noticed that some childish people on here like to insult people and then pretend they aren't insulting people, rather acting all smug and superior in the greatest show of credibility since Captain Renault said "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

[Jed Dilligan]

110. Oh, you're calling me childish now!

Hurry hurry Jed, hit the alert button!

[bryant69]

151. How could you ever suspect for a moment I was talking about you?

I was just talking in general. It clearly had not the slightest bit of connection to you, and I think it shows how sensitive you are that you would respond this way. Maybe I'm hitting a little close to home (unintentionally, of course).

[Jed Dilligan]

152. Ha! You're the one who got all offended.

I was just laughing at your "inconsistency." NB, I didn't hit the alert button. God forbid your foolishness should be hidden from public view!

[bryant69]

161. And now you are springing inconsistency at me?

I mean don't you know that "consistency" is the tool of smug arrogant phallocentric white males? I heard someone around here saying they were going to do do a lot more the next time they saw that in print - I'd watch my back if I were you.

Bryant

[Jed Dilligan]

162. Just holding you to your own standards

not mine. I wouldn't bother to try to hold you to my standards, I just think it's funny how fast you give up yours when you feel threatened. Kinda like the US mainstream right after 9.11...

[bryant69]

165. Actually I'm just messing around

You don't seem really interested in honest discussion and debate, so why bother engaging you on that level?

I do find it baffling that you have taken a stand against consistency, though. I don't really understand what you find offensive about that.

[Jed Dilligan]

166. Well, maybe you should get an education then

From Ralph Waldo Emerson, "Self-Reliance":

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

And I think Emerson hit it spot-on, even though the real debate on this topic (i.e., postmodernism) didn't start until the 1980s. The point is basically that "consistent" moral and social systems are invented in the minds of the privileged and powerful and then imposed from above on a highly variable population. The results range from Stalinist five-year plans to "workfare," but they're never any good IMO. I have a particular hatred of bourgeois rationalism because of my personal history, but the intellectual underpinnings of the critique are also solid.

[bryant69]

167. I have an education, as it turns out.

Doesn't seem to help when talking to you. Maybe I should have gone to Moaist Summer Class.

That argument doesn't seem to apply in this case - my remarkes on consitancy weren't about imposing any sort of consistent moral and social system - they were about you making statements that don't seem consistant one with another.

I suppose you could argue that even expecting that sort of consistency is a particularly europeon white male way of looking at things. I don't see how you can have a rational discussion without it. The alternative is to insist that each statment be taken in abstentia - apart from all others, and non connected. Which I guess sheds some light in how you can happily deny that those comments applied to me.

[Jed Dilligan]

169. You nailed it right here:

" that sort of consistency is a particularly europeon white male way of looking at things."

I mean, minus the spelling error of course.

I would say that you arguing from whatever rationalizations you have developed or adopted for your own class status is a perfect example of the above. The speaker may be divorced from the statement because so many people are co-opted into the dominant paradigm, its voice can come from everywhere and anywhere. The cry for "consistency" from the other side is just another form of exclusion. Consistency is a luxury item.

To me it's worth continuing the discussion because I think it's important to engage your ideas, "you," whoever you are, being wholly irrelevant. But if you really are a member and spokesman of the mainstream, I'm glad you feel "irrationally" hated right now. Your position, I would hold, is extreme, not moderate. The idea that what you have and own is yours by right is an extremist idea to me.

[bryant69]

170. How much do you think I have ?

Or what class do you think I am in?

At any rate, not important. Even if I were typing to you from the public library because I lived on the street, my voice is, apparently, the voice of the upper class, and therefore worth challenging.

As it turns out I am middle class, probably lower middle class - I haven't looked at the charts lately. I work 40 hours a week, live in an OK apartment, drive 7 year old car, have more CDs than most people, and a slightly out of date computer system. I did inherit some money when my parents died suddenly a few years back, which is how I got my car.

And none of it is really mine, you say? Or, it's an extremist idea to believe that I should be allowed to keep it? Is that correct?

I don't feel irrational hatred towards you right now (more a kind of curiousity mixed with disdain). But any anger I have felt for you comes more from the angry and aggressive style of attacking me yesterday, and not your ideas. Your first post to me was "Who the fuck are "WE"? If you had taken a different tack perhaps our discussion might have gone in a different direction.

Also please don't lament my sensitivity or any of that sort of crap - defending yourself when attacked isn't being a whiner or crying - it's simply what one does. I've noted that you defend yourself as well.

[Jed Dilligan]

173. Like I said

I don't care about you. I really, really don't. I don't care about the pathetic details of your life. I am attacking the moderate, property-owner stance that someone using the username bryant69 is posting on this board. I am for total revolution as the OP suggests. "Bryant" came into the thread to mock it. The first inflammatory thing he did was use "we" from a perspective to the right of the OP, and I called that one out.

[bryant69]

175. You are quite good at this

A Sophist for the People one might say. Very good at manipulating the conversation. I particularly like the trick of pretending the speech is somehow distinct from the speaker (it's not). I also like the touch of pretending I'm sort of cartoonish caractiture, speaking for the middle class. It's a smart move.

We are enemies after a fashion I suppose. If you are in favor of Total Revolution and I am opposed to it, well, we are enemies. I don't want to give the impression that I think your plan for Total Revolution has much chance to succeed. But if it did, I would be on the other side. Something you seem to know already. I'm a student of History and haven't seen "total revolutions" come off as anything positive.

Quite the opposite.

So we oppose each others political goals at the core. And you are right - once you understand the situation, the rational solution is to bruise each other as much as possible. Why not? I'm not on your side and I never will be. So why not slam into me? Of course your philosophy apparently requires you to pretend it's not personal.

What's sad is that in the short term there might be much we would agree on. But no. When you are shooting for "total revolution" there's no point in thinking about the short term, I suppose.

[Jed Dilligan]

177. And I don't think "your" plan has any chance of success either

The status quo is totally unsustainable and on the verge of collapse within 5-10 years. It would be nice if a hideous right-wing dictatorship did not emerge from this situation (more than it already has), wouldn't it? But as long as people aren't thinking in revolutionary terms, as long as they keep clinging to what they have, the dictatorship is guaranteed.

[bryant69]

178. In my opinion that's nonsense.

That's almost as ludicrous as the idea that we can have a total revolution and things will improve. Presumably we'll see.

But there you have the stakes, I suppose.

[Common Sense Party]

183. So, according to many DUers, the Dem platform should now

include class warfare, economic revolution, and aggressively taking from the have's to give to the have-not's?

Boy, that's going to win some elections for us.

[Jed Dilligan]

190. They aren't having elections anymore

Didn't you notice?

[Jed Dilligan]

188. We'll see

Collapse is already happening, elections are over, we're right on the verge of martial law.

Change isn't something that can be averted anymore, it's on top of us.

If people keep thinking that they can "fix" this mess and go back to their comfortable lives, we are doomed to fascism.

If people start thinking about real change, we might build a more just order out of the wreckage.

[bryant69]

193. I suspect that collapse will be happening for quite a long time

Possibly decades.

For my thesis I read Communist pamphlets and magazines from the 1930s and 1940s - remarkable how many times they predicted that American Capatalism's fall was right around the corner. I don't want to imply that you are a communisnt, of course (not sure what you are other than total revolutionary).

Hey this kind of reminds me of my "there are only two choices" post from yesterday.

[Jed Dilligan]

198. Please link post, I don't think I saw it

I think the Communists were right about that, btw. We shifted from a free market to more of a command economy under FDR and especially Truman. The "military-industrial" complex, especially when coupled with the New Deal and Great Society welfare programs, and now the current mania for incarcerating people, is more socialist than not IMO. Yes, we are supposedly still capitalist, but has anyone started a new and competitive car company (to name one example) in the last 60 years? We are largely controlled by a socialistic quasi-government which in both its corporate and governmental manifestations is more bureaucratic than crudely exploitative a la 19th-century industrialism--which is all Marx ever saw.

If any ism is going to work to keep half a billion people (which we're headed for) alive in this country, not to mention ten billion people alive on this planet, it hasn't been invented yet. But I generally think of myself as a that-ist.

[bryant69]

199. Hmmm

Here's the Link -- > http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1274045

I should make it clear that I am not a laissez faire capitalist - and I do favor reinstating the Estate Tax, the Dividend Tax and upping the Capital Gains tax. I favor strong governmental regulatory bodies doing thier job (as opposed to the half hearted way they are doing things currently).

Bryant

[Nederland]

184. Ralph Waldo Emerson?

I always thought of him as an Arrogant, Rich, Phallocentric, Straight White Male...

:shrug:

[Jed Dilligan]

189. Do you have a point?

[ThomCat]

128. Pot, meet kettle.

[rinsd]

86. LOL...someone's been to Mao camp.

[Jed Dilligan]

90. Mao "On Contradiction" is a good quick read

If you want to know how people start to think when their country is REALLY and TRULY fucked.

[blindpig]

97. Rather Mao camp than DOW camp. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

117. you teach kids?

that's effing scary.

[Jed Dilligan]

119. Not children

But why would that be scary?

[stepnw1f]

122. Ignore People Who Start with Insults

Obviously what you think is what pisses that person off.

[Jed Dilligan]

123. I kind of enjoy dragging them out

But I won't screw up your thread anymore if that's what you'd like.

[stepnw1f]

125. No, No, No... Keep Posting

I'm enjoying this... while at the same time, trying to bring this issue out into the open.

[Phx_Dem]

131. I think your post #31 is a little over the top

I agree that the income disparity in the US is a very real problem, though I don't know what could be done other than raising the top tax rates....

[Jed Dilligan]

137. I'm just sick and tired of the "voice of reason" always serving the

mainstream and the status quo. The next time someone tells me to be "consistent" they will get much worse!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

204. They like "logic" too

Because smug, arrogant, rich, phallocratic, (mostly) white, straight males invented the concepts ages ago and now they get to use it to maintain the status quo while accusing you of being "emotional", "reactionary", or whatever, in comparison to their perfectly logical and dispassionate analysis of the situation which just happens to favor.....Well, you know...

Great post! :yourock:

[Jed Dilligan]

205. I knew a lot of "master debaters" in high school

Because they were young and unpolished they revealed to me the sadistic side of "moderation."

Thanks for the shout-out,

JD

[ThomCat]

127. You've made two ad-hominem attacks

and you apparently support income disparities based on the myth that rich people worked for it and earned it. Nice.

:eyes:

[stepnw1f]

20. They Succeeded... Bush Succeeded

Paris Hilton did what exactly... oh. She was willing to whore herself and flaunt her wealthy status for all to see. No reason to resent the wealthy... nah. We should just pay taxes to the wealthy like indentured servants. Yeah... that's the ticket! Meanwhile, my mother can't afford the drugs she needs to stay alive for another four years. Too bad I'm such a failure... I guess the timing was wrong, and I jusat didn't meet the right people. Shame on me....

[bryant69]

25. You can point to Paris Hilton I can point to Bill Gates

You can point to President Bush, I can point to George Soros.

And if you want to talk about inheritance laws (and the repeal of the estate tax) talk about that- we'll be on much stronger grounds it seems.

[stepnw1f]

27. You Claimed That the Wealthy Earned What They Had

I corrected you. Admit it...

[bryant69]

30. OK

I admit that some wealthy did not earn what they have.

That sure put me in my place. Yes a certain percentage of wealthy did not earn what they have, so that totally justifies punsihing all wealthy. The existence of a Paris Hilton means that we should make the wealthy suffer.

[stepnw1f]

39. Oh No... Paris Hilton Was Just an Obvious Example

Her wealth is to the extreme... there are many other factors that get ignored when people try to climb the economic ladder. By the way... Bill Gates was born into some wealth if I am not mistaken, but I understand the point you were making. For every person you find, I could name a multitude of others who work/worked just as hard, but never get anywhere. I really do want there to be reward, see, but unfortunately, there is no more reward when the wealthy hoard everything. Today we see this better than ever. That's not a reward...

[bryant69]

46. Do you favor an economic system other that capatalism?

I am a capatalist - managed capatalism. Human nature renders it the most likely to be successful system.

Attacking the wealthy merely for being wealthy is an attack on Capatalism - so I oppose that.

However, it's clear that you aren't angry with the wealthy just for being wealthy - you are angry with them for how they are using that wealth to screw the rest of us. And of course you are upset at the Bush tax cuts which benefit the wealthy (and particularly those who inherit their wealth) over the rest of us.

Well on most of those issues we would probably be on the same page. I think the Bush Tax cuts were a disaster as well, I think we need estate taxes and capital gains taxes. I also think we need regulatory bodies with teeth in them so as to protect Americans. And I think we need to get the money out of politics as much as we can (preferably by public financing of campaigns and redistricting America).

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Ravenseye]

49. I'm with you

I've yet to hear a reasonable alternative to Managed Capatalism.

[Sinti]

56. Perfect capitalism. Employee owned businesses, and strong unions

I'm a capitalist, I think the system can be just, if properly treated. Employee-owned businesses are a form of perfect capitalism, people get paid commensurate with their input. They are not a commodity to be purchased at the lowest price possible, and used until they wear out, then tossed away, as is the case with many large corporations now.

I buy most of my groceries from an employee-owned grocery store, can be done, and they use local produce as much as possible. The other place I get veggies sells only local produce, family-owned, pays the farmers a really fair price for their product, and sells it to us at a reasonable price as well. This is perfect capitalism, the parasitic middle is cut out.

The problem is big, manufactured things, like cars, that require a great deal of up-front capital can't always be run that way. So you need strong unions, who actually fight for their workers, and strong labor laws that are enforced. The workers, in turn, as was seen with Harley-Davidson not long ago, will fight for their company if it starts to fail.

[Ravenseye]

60. Who starts those small businesses?

More often than not 'employee owned' is a misnomer. They have shares, but the majority is still held by an individual. Who started that employee owned grocery store? More often than not places that are truly employee owned were bought out by an employee group from the initial owner.

Unfortunately many of the things you talk about (such as local produce food coops) are just impossible to sustain on a level for everyone, everywhere. Then as you bring up, manufacturing and it's many steps of industry from the parts involved, to the chemicals needed to make those parts, and so on...

Not to mention that people SHOULD be rewarded monetarily in our society for coming up with a brilliant new idea or somethign else that people use.

Still I agree. More Unions are needed to keep companies in check. Companies need to work with Unions and their employees and not look at them as more cogs in the machine. It's an attitude shift and workers need to unite in order to protect themselves, but they also have to be reasonable to the business. It works both ways.

[treestar]

65. It needs to be easier to people to start their own businesses

somehow. Not sure how. But feeling free and independent isn't really possible if you are dependent on someone else employing you. They start laying off and you feel threatened.

In the old days you could go off to the frontier. Now that is not so possible.

But IA that we don't have capitalism, the argument that what we have now is capitalism gets one having to defend it. We don't have to defend the current situation as capitalim; it is a form of apparent capitalism with influence pedddling and large companies using the government and their government connections to get an unjust advantage in the competition.

If we had pure capitalism regulated by lawsuits we would be just as well off and could improve it from there. We have been relying on government to regulate but government bureaucracy does not work when it gets too big - it gets corrupted and inefficient.

Our current system is more like the USSR was. It's not capitalism. It's this knee jerk reaction that the government is responsible for everything. When that happens, you get favored people/companies and they have gotten used to controlling everybody. They need a war to stay in business and it goes from there.

[marions ghost]

160. Exactly

What we have is not noble "free market" capitalism, but some badly corrupted mutant form that has metastasized. This greed-driven capitalism is seriously undermining the country. For capitalism to function fairly, you have to have a democracy, and we know that form of government is on the skids here.

If capitalism as we know it is so great, why would we all be so unhappy with it? If "managed capitalism" is the answer, then let's see some management...let's see some controls. Let's see some investment in the people who do the bulk of the jobs and services that keep it going.

Who can defend the form of capitalism we have in this country? Basically, it stinks.

[Sinti]

71. That is what happened, the employees as a group purchased the store

via stock, from the original owner. They get paid regular wage, plus stock bonuses accrued over time working there. That's how the employee-owned business usually works. They get a better shake than working for Generic Megacorp. I realize the local food chain system only works in places where food is actually grown, it was just an example.

Small businesses used to be the backbone of America, Wal-Mart killed Main Street. The days of the owner/operator are long gone. We need many more owner/operators, and many fewer Gigantor Conglomerates.

I think you also have a problem in that a corporation's only obligation is to their stock holders. No human being is responsible for the suffering they bring to others, be it through pollution, wage slavery, political gamesmanship and so on. The stock holders are probably good folks, but don't feel responsible for what the corporate entity does. The executives and board members may be decent in their private lives, even charitable, but when it comes to the corporation their only obligation is to the stock holder. It's a vicious circle, IMO.

[stepnw1f]

103. BINGO!

Oh that was well done. So simply put and so true. Damn... all we want is a piece of the damn pie, but you know what? I'm glad I grew up poor... you learn a hell of lot, when life gets to beat you up growing up poor.

Thank you for your posts.

[Odin2005]

149. Employee-owned businesses is Market socialism, not "perfect Capitalism"

"Perfect Capitalism" is Fascism. It is a common misconception that capitalism and free market are sysnonyms, they are not. Capitalism vs. Socialism refers to who controls the economy, Free market vs. Planned Economy refers to how goods and serviced are distributed. The connection between markets and capitalism is a meme invented by right-wing ideologues who don't understant the realities of the economic system they support. When the corpratists say that Capitalism is part of human nature what they are actually saying that the market is part of human nature, capitalism is when corporations are the dominant type of business, it hase nothing to do with markets. Both the US in WW2 and Nazi Germany were Capitalist planned economies.

[Nederland]

181. I think you are very confused

"Perfect Capitalism" is Fascism

Capitalism is a system where the means of production is held privately. Fascism is a system where the means of production is held by the state. The two are polar opposites.

[stepnw1f]

89. Managed "Capatalism" is What I Was Talking about

I prefer "Checks and Balances" that do allow people to drop off the face of the earth, while at the same time allowing those to gain wealth, just not the type of wealth we see today. Everytime people horde wealth, people suffer. Does that make me a commie? If so, Bill Gates Sr. is a Commie too.

[stepnw1f]

50. Not the Kind You Refer to

Today we have Fascism, not Capitalism. Our system is broken by the powers to be... this is a straw man argument I will not indulge you with. If you cannot see the point I was making and need to make shit up about what my stance is, then there is no need to debate. We do not live in a system that rewards hard work... if we did, teachers would be paid as much as professional football players. Also, I do like Capitalism, when it is REGULATED and balanced with Socialism. You cannot have one without the other. Pure Capitalism is Fascism.

It's a bullshit argument.

[bryant69]

52. So in other words

If I don't hate the rich the same way you do, I'm not welcome into your little club?

[Zodiak]

140. false attribution....and a strawman

use real argumentative techniques, please. Not logical fallacies.

[stepnw1f]

147. Thanks (nt)

[Ravenseye]

54. We don't live in a society that rewards hard work

We never have, and we never will. Such a society has never existed. We don't reward 'hard' work, we reward 'valued' work. The reason that a professional football player makes more money than a teacher is that his individual contribution is valued more than a teacher. If 80,000 people didn't head to the stadium for every football game, or if tens of millions didn't watch the game on television, or if there were 10 million professional football players his contribution would be valued less. That is capitalism.

Capitalism doesn't reward hard work. How do you define hard work? Who defines hard work? Capitalism rewards many things, but it doesn't care how 'hard' anyone works, nor should it.

[Nederland]

64. Exactly

Capitalism doesn't reward hard work, and why should it? Digging a deep hole in the ground, filling it up, and then repeating the same process again over and over is undoubtably 'hard' work, but why should it be rewarded? Answer: it shouldn't. I agree with you, only valuable work should be rewarded, and society as a whole determines what is valuable.

[stepnw1f]

104. Never Will? Speak for Yourself

I'm hoping to change the system, and you are telling me I shouldn't while at the same time admiting the system doesn't reward hard work. Well... there ya go!

Some fight for change, others don't give a damn, and only a tiny fraction benefits.

I'll fight and you can stand on the sidelines rooting for your version of capitalism. Just don't bother telling me to accept things the way they are, so a few can live in leisure.

[Bluerthanblue]

74. Attacking the 'wealthy' for being 'wealthy' is not

an attack on capitalism.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines Capitalism as a noun meaning:

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.


Sounds all well and good- UNTIL you take into account the use of money to manipulate the government to enhance and advance those 'private and corporately owned' businesses who grease the palms of legislators, and who tuck all kinds of 'corporate welfare' packages into the strangest places- such as bills which are intended to pay servicemen and women-
Or 'no-bid' contracts awarded to those 'private' industries which have fingers in the pie-

I'm all for people being paid a good wage, for doing good work- I find it hard to justify the salaries being paid to professional athletes, entertainers, etc. while people who work in law enforcement, health care, teaching, and other occupations which serve to sustain and maintain life do not receive commensurate compensation.

When CEO's leave with golden parachutes, and the 'working stiffs' get stiffed, and the companies do not honor their promises of retirement, and accrued benefits.

This 'free-market' system isn't 'free'. The little guys that make up the foundation of the pile which many of the 'rich' stand on aren't free- nor are they compensated fairly for what they have contributed to society.

There ARE 'self-made' rich people in this nation. But there are also people who are 'filthy rich' to whom I can't help but ask when will 'enough' ever be 'enough'? And who use their wealth to gain power, and use that power to increase their wealth.- That isn't capitalism. That is unadulterated greed, and the building blocks for corporate Machiavellian-ism.

If we are to have a true 'free-market' economy, we cannot give corporations 'human rights' without requiring them to be held to the same 'human responsibilities'.

[stepnw1f]

105. So Many People Here are Much Better

at saying what I want to say... This is probably the best thread I have ever started here on DU. We really need to talk about class warfare in this country. Thank God for Thom Hartmann.

[Phx_Dem]

121. good post

capitalism is a means to an end, specifically a way to bring about the greatest good to the graetest number of people. Accumulation of wealth is a by-product of the system.

[ThomCat]

129. There are far more Hiltons than Gates.

The largest determining factor or your eventual wealth is how wealthy your parents were. So you support hereditary social stratification?

Should we have a caste system now?

[Dorian Gray]

48. For every Paris Hilton

there is a wealthy man or woman who is wonderful and helps support the causes we find important. Teresa and John Kerry, George Soros, Warren Buffet, Bono, Bill Gates (and his African charitable giving), Tim Robbins, Angelina Jolie, and the list can go on and on and on and on.

I don't think it helps society to have an "us vs. them" attitude. There are things that we can do to fight the unfairness of underpaid work, a disproportionate minimum wage, and health care benefits. If we are proactive rather than reactive, it will go a long way to actually achieving more for the underprivileged in our country.

[stepnw1f]

51. Sorry... But I Didn't Start This War When I Started This Thread

I understand there are philanthropists, and God bless them all, but the absurd wealth people acrue while others suffer has to change if Democracy is to survive. I do not know if you've noticed, but the GOP has issued a fatwah of sorts on the poor and middleclass in America. Those wealthy who understand me, I have no issue with.

[alittlelark]

29. The best indicator of monetary sucess in the US is INHERITANCE

I begrudge no one that works hard and is driven to suceed - but that's about 1/4 of the wealthy in the US.



http://jmooneyham.com/your-true-chances-of-getting-rich.html

<snip> So 69% basically inherit their wealth, 4.2% marry into it, and 26.8% make it in other ways.

[Yupster]

59. That's got to be one of the weirdest links

I've ever seen here, though economics is normally not the strongpoint of DU threads.

Anyway, the guy is defining his statistical rich person as a person who makes $ 400,000 a year interest off his investments.

What an odd definition. I work with very rich families every day and I don't think one of them would qualify as rich under his definition. His classification would create a very distinct statistical group, a group that would leave out almost everyone that most of us would call very rich. Then he makes statisticals points about this group he creates.

But then his math is weird too. He asks how big your principal would have to be to creats $ 400,000 a year interest and he answers his question with $ 35 million.

What?

You'd think people that rich would make better investments choices than getting slightly more than 1 % interest on their investment return.

This is one of the oddest links I've ever seen but I have to go to work and meet some rich people so maybe I'm reading it wrong or something. I didn't get to the end. The definition that would leave Ted Kennedy out of the rich category got me shaking my head, and I gave up after the bad division. Maybe it all made sense down below that but I gots to go to work.

[Ravenseye]

62. Yeah the numbers are a little weird

He's not talking about rich people he's talking about the ultra-rich, who apparently find no better way to invest their 35 million than a savings account.

[Yupster]

82. That's got to be a pretty exclusive group

Suer rich people without any investment knowledge.

[Ravenseye]

95. Montgomery Burns

I think there was a Simpsons episode where he pulled out his stock portfolio and it was full of things like shares of slave trading companies and stuff like that.

[Zodiak]

139. Prove that money is THE measure of success

and that all rich people did it off of their own sweat and you can say this statement. Otherwise, it is a canard typically used by conservatives.

Rich does not equal successful or useful. It just means rich.

[stepnw1f]

16. you assume the wealthy worked hard?

Now that's funny... and it really doesn't matter. My point still stands, and there is NO justification for allowing the wealthy to accrue so much wealth, while the rest of the World struggles everyday to just survive. If there was a BALANCE I would have no problem with people getting wealthy, but there just isn't. Now they want to pass their wealth on without paying an Eastate Tax... nice.

So you keep smoking that good stuff, because there is no meritocracy. It's a pipe dream America has been selling for quite some time now. Especially during these Bush years. Hell, now "We the People" bail out corpos from bankruptcy, give them huge tax refferals for our kids to pay off, all while they outsource many needed jobs here in the states. "Now that's patriotic!"

I could go on, but I feel you are set in believing what you just alluded to: wealthy people worked hard to get wealthy. That's funny... Ken Lay did too, and Bush, and everyother pimple born to a fat inheritance package. The poor work the Hardest and get shit! I have a problem with that, and see it as the number one enemy of a Democracy. I do believe Bill Gates Sr. would agree with me.

[Jed Dilligan]

21. Yeah, that's a joke

Rich people might not have inherited their wealth... But they inherited their right to snooze their way through some elite college and come out with a career where they'll never hurt their back or even break a nail. Most of what executives do is talk and posture, to me that's not work.

[stepnw1f]

24. It's That Trickle Down Economics

everyone excluded except for friends, family and sychophants.

[Bill McBlueState]

37. great post.

"But they inherited their right to snooze their way through some elite college and come out with a career where they'll never hurt their back or even break a nail."

That is exactly the problem. If your parents have the resources and connections to send you to elite schools, you'll get great jobs without having to work too hard. People will give you one hell of a benefit of the doubt if your diploma says things like "Exeter" or "Yale" instead of "East-Southeast North Carolina State." It's all about the connections. Hell, someone could even become President by being a dim bulb who got passed through the right schools.

[Done]

44. ...someone could become President by being a dim bulb...

who got passed through the right schools.

That could never happen!!! Voters are too smart! We have some of the...wait a minute...never mind.

[bryant69]

28. I don't do Drugs

But let it slide.

Do some people inherit money? Yes. Do some people earn money? Yes.

What sort of economic system do you favor?

[ThomCat]

130. One where everyone has equal access to

education based on their effort and ability, and then have equal access to income based on their skills and effort. One where your parents don't determine your future, and millions aren't condemned to poverty because of what family they were born into.

One where basic necessities, like healthcare, are not reserved for the wealthy.

I don't object to people earning more money if they work for it. But there needs to be a limit on the accumulation of wealth. Once you reach a certain level of economic advantage your money makes you more money and you aren't earning it any more. You're just sucking it away from other people.

[dogday]

34. Rewarding them to the point that

hard workers of many years lose their pension... I cannot accept...

[stepnw1f]

40. Thank You (nt)

[Jim Warren]

42. Yes and did ya see which company

has the largest pension shortfall: EXXON/MOBIL!!!!
see current isssueBusiness Week

[stepnw1f]

47. See That

This is what I mean... there is already a Class War going on in America. People should be furious! It goes against the grain of what this country was founded upon. If there were some balance I would not mind so much...

[Bill McBlueState]

43. also interesting

Where do you get the idea that hard work and ingenuity translate into wealth? That payoff only happens if you choose to apply your hard work and ingenuity to problems that corporate America wants to spend money on.

A lot of us have to choose between doing work that is intellectually challenging or socially valuable and doing work that brings in the bacon.

More specifically, "rewarding hard work and ingenuity" might mean better pay and benefits for teachers and social workers.

[debbierlus]

61. BRILLIANT point - The hard work MYTH

Hard work USUALLY doesn't translate into wealth. How many hard working people do you know who are struggling?

That hits the nail right square on the head.

Wealth has very little to do with deserve. Do celebrities and talk show hosts deserve to make more then nurses or childcare workers? Why? Is acting in a movie or dishing out out gossip more valuable then taking care of people? Do baseball players deserve to make more then plumbers?

[Nederland]

80. The hard work myth

The only myth here is the myth that if a person works 'hard', they should be rewarded. The key is not to work hard, but to work in a way the produces something society needs. Then, and only then, you should be rewarded.

[Jim Warren]

145. "but to work in a way the produces something society needs"

Like the rich producing offspring?

Malcomn Forbes was asked by a group of MBA candidates at a talk he gave:

"What's the best piece of advice you can give someone wanting to get rich in business"

He replied:

"Pick your father"

[Nederland]

194. Confused

Are you saying that people should get paid for producing things that nobody wants? I'm a little confused because I don't think that I said anything really controversial. All I said is that people should only get rewarded when they produce something that someone else wants. Is that not correct?

[Conan_The_Barbarian]

174. A Typical misconception

There is no such thing as DESERVE when it comes to wages. A wage is derived your replacability, and the wealth you generate.

Money is constantly changing hands, if it wasn't the system would just collapse. Maybe a movie-star didn't have to work particularly hard for his/her millions. The skills a movie-star posseses really aren't all that important in the scheme of things. Let's so this particular movie star is known as an infamous ladykiller. A group of producers gets together and buys a script that seems promising from a screenwriter. They both mutually agree on oh lets say 50,000 bucks for the script and the screenwriter walks away happy.

Next the producers need to assemble a cast of actors for this new Romantic Comedy. Looking at previous records of movies this certain movie-star is in opposed to other similar movies he is not caste in the difference in ticket sales is 30 million dollars. The public seems to love this movie-star and don't have any qualms about dropping 10 bucks to see a film he plays the lead in a movie. The Producers knowing that based off the figures they ran just by casting this actor they are likely to make an extra 30 million dollars off this movie. Now the moviestar knows the effect he has on significantly uping ticket sales if he's in a movie, so sure enough when these producers contact him and his agent to star in this movie it's mutually agreed that he will get 1/3 of the average wealth he generates just by being in a movie, so he get's 10million dollars for 2 months or so of his time. The Producers will make the other 20 million. Can somone here explain to me what in this exchange here is wrong and immoral. Humans have always gladly paid for entertainment. Money is representative of many things, one being your time and life energy. America flocks to the movie theaters every Friday night making the statement that they mutually agree with the exchange of goods and services that is taking place. In exchange for their 10 dollars they get 2 hours of blissful entertainment. The ones responsible for creating this blissful entertainment receive your money and continue making films because they know people keep paying to see them.

It's the same story for professional athletes. A homerun hitter who is a national athletic hero to a generation of youth generates insanely large amounts of wealth because people are so infatutiated with this man. He knows this and therefore sees to it that he pockets quite a bit of that himself.

A talk show host is an EXTREMELY important tool used by the film industry to plug a movie, the plugging talk show hosts do for certain products usually results in a sharp increase of sales, they know this and therefore indirectly get a percentage of those sales. The public makes rich people rich by consuming the products they produced.

A nurse and child-care worker does not generate wealth, you'll find often that the personality types that work those jobs are the same ones who pout and stamp their feet claiming the system is corrupt. If you want money it means you need to do more than deserve it, need it, want it. You have to go earn it! You have to have something that other people want and are willing to pay for it. It might be as simple as buying a ton of stock in a company that suddenely takes off, or it might be as hard as being a reclusive engineer working tirelessily for years to develop a robot that can clean the floor. Obtaining wealth is as hard as you make it.If you're an EMT or a paramedic that's great, you're helping people, way to go but you're not generating any wealth so don't expect to get paid like it, and certainly don't hate others that do.

[Phx_Dem]

126. I agree that there is more in play than just hard work

Some work is more "valued" than other work. Working in the helping professions will usually not lead to higher wages for a lot of reasons.

Nevertheless, hard work CAN pay off. In my little part of the world, I just promoted a kid to an asst. mgr. position. He went from part-time to full-time with benefits, and is receiving a much higher wage. What placed him at the top of my list is that he is a very hard worker.

[rman]

68. Not making excuses for the wealthy = not rewarding hard work?

Interesting spin, that.

Ok not really interesting because it's ancient. But it's spin nonetheless.

How hard does a single mom holding three part-time jobs work, compared to exxon's CEO? $5/hr versus $150.000/hr ... does the CEO work 30,000 times as hard as the mom? I don't think so.

[Greyhound]

202. "Hard work" and ingenuity have nothing to do with wealth in amerika

Except for a few, very brief, moments in history it is, and always has been, about which family you were born into and who you know that determines whether or not you will become wealthy.
Oh yes, and luck too.

[acmejack]

5. What are those ways?

I am all for it, but what shall we do and how shall we implement these actions? I will be back about noon and look to continue our discussion on this matter!

Oh and a very good morning to you, my friend!

[cspanlovr]

6. And good morning to you!

I see someone's woken up on the left side of the bed today!

[stepnw1f]

32. Actually...the Middle

Don't presume this is a stance of just the left. That would be a mistake.

The absudity of our economic system is something EVERYBODY is seeing. Even REPUBLICANS I know. They are not coming from the "Left". This is no longer a "left", "right" issue. Nope... the GOP lost that argument.


Although, I will admit, I am a Leftie and damn proud of it too.

[panader0]

8. Check Lou Dobbs' column on CNN this morning

"Bush and Congress have told the middle class to go to hell"

[stepnw1f]

22. This is One Reason I Like the Guy

While I disagree with him on going after illegals as much as he has, I still respect him for saying something for we "fictitious little guys".

[neoblues]

10. Absolutely...

This wealth gap is sick and wrong in the worst way. That it's legal does not make it right. That there's tremendous popular--though manipulated--world view components that react strongly against any complaint that Capitalism is unjust or that the Free Market does great harm and if not regulated will self-destruct (into Oligopolies that Oppress the People (their source of cheap Labor)), still doesn't make it right.

We have to be willing to go against that false popular wisdom (which was so strongly burned into the national consciousness owing to the struggle against the terrible "Communist" "threat"--so "coincidentally" similar in kind to this new "Terrorist" "threat", alas, both did or do represent some level of threat) that anything resembling "Socialism" (aka "Communism") is totally wrong and evil. Nothing much is totally wrong and evil--excepting our present leadership.

Our national resources, including wealth in all it's forms, must be distributed more fairly. "Life's not fair" is no excuse--and doesn't make it right. Something will give at some point, but we should seek to make the change as soon as possible to avoid as much suffering as possible.

[bunkerbuster1]

12. b-but a rising tide lifts all boats!

and tax cuts increase revenues!

(A fat drug addict told me.)

[Gormy Cuss]

72. that rising tide works well unless

the yachts are allowed to plow through the midsections of the dinghies.

[lonestarnot]

154. hmmmf... who can afford a boat.?

[FreakinDJ]

13. DING DING DING…We have a winner

Exactly the difference between the Clinton Economy and the Bullshit trickle down Bush economy.

[stepnw1f]

26. That's WHy They Hated Clinton SO Much

He actually was giving people a chance to climb the economic ladder. He wasn't perfect, but damn was he a good President that actually gave a damn about everybody. That is Democracy for me. The team, not "just" the individual.

[Jim Warren]

19. "It is not sufficient that I succeed. Everyone else must fail"

This little ditty commonly attributed to G. Khan but could very well be the rallying cry of the modern corporate officer class.

I too am sick of it, and precisely the way you stated it.
Last night my 17 yo son floored me saying "Dad, the world is broken".
He's right, I cannot disagree.

There are times, and now for me it is time, when you ask what am I doing and what is forth fighting for?

I'm there and I am not looking back.

[ThomCat]

134. You are so right.

That could be the mantra of many people.

I know of one millionaire who loved to say (often) that the best thing he could do to help the poor was to not be one of them. So by accumulating massive wealth and hoarding it he thought he was someone helping people.

The blinders people can wear to justify their selfishness is astounding.

[Jim Warren]

141. Forget who, some fuckwad said

"The purpose of a depression is to return money to its rightful owners"

[ThomCat]

142. That is sick.

The idea that some people are "rightfull owners" of wealth... :grr:

[Common Sense Party]

182. Actually, it was: "The purpose of a stock market correction is to

return stocks to their rightful owners."

Big difference.

[marions ghost]

33. the wealthy

tend to be too blind to realize that a society that is healthy for all will be healthy for them. Otherwise there is huge resentment, dysfunction and moral decay. They never seem to get it, despite all the lessons of history. Marie Antoinette Syndrome (I made that up). They don't mind fending off beggars and walking over bodies in our city streets. And the middle class must be squeezed til it visibly hurts--that's how they know the bidness sector will make excess profits. This gives them big thrills and helps maintain that essential sense of 'privilege' they thrive on. EVERYONE who "has money" KNOWS the truth of what I am saying here.

Anyone care to refute this?

[dogday]

35. I cannot wrap my beautiful mind

around the fact that people are poor and needy....:sarcasm:

[Sinti]

38. IMO, you can start by not giving one more dime to them than you have to

Un-American as it sounds, refuse to buy things. If it's an absolute necessity, no buy. Also, convince everyone you can to do the same, get your facts together and show folks the destruction they're leaving in their wake, while collecting up every penny we ever had. Most people give nearly every penny they get right back to the top 10%, who don't need it.

Boycott GE, Wal-Mart, Dell, Microsoft, basically every large corp we've got. If you can get enough people to stop buying (turn off their TV and think for a minute) we might get a little foothold.

I was doing a job the other day which had Warren Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger as speakers. They were talking about the dramatic executive pay increases we've seen in the last short while. Apparently, it's not that they want or need the money, it's not about lifestyle, it's about getting more than the other guy. It pisses Munger off, who prefers the dude from Costco, because he's got some morals, or something. You can only wear so many suits, and eat so many meals, they said.

In this same conference, a couple of European CEOs were talking, and complaining that someone better "quell" the discontent here in the U.S. re: outsourcing, and wage stagnation/deflation. Apparently, we'd better get used to it, because they want cheap labor, even engineers and such can be gotten cheaply in Eastern Europe. The old Soviet satellites are chock full of hungry scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

Rewarding hard work ... okay... :spray:

[stepnw1f]

45. Good Post... I Do That Now

as much as possible. And will seek other methods to keep from giving them anymore then I already do (taxes). I see the governemt now launders money to the wealthy, that's why I inserted "taxes". It once went to society and the infrastructure of this country... now it doesn't. The "New Deal" has been severed by those at the top. They have declared war on me so I now will fight back.

[Sadie5]

55. Bush and Congress have told the middle class to go to hell

This was done close to five years ago. I sure miss the clinton economy. Those who griped about Clinton and went along with the Repugs ought to be very ashamed of themselves, but they are paying a price for their stupidity.

[stepnw1f]

116. Well... We Have Each Other At Least

I think the "rugged Individualism" died sometime ago. Team work is what we need again.

[Finder]

53. Here we go again...

Who is the "we" and who are the "they" you speak of?

There are many wealthy people who are good people, earned their wealth, and give back to society in numerous ways. There are also poor people who are lazy, have no ambition and don't even try to succeed.

Generalizing according to class is not rational.

[debbierlus]

57. There is NO way to EARN multi-million and billions of dollars

Earn...

I have no problem with people being rewarded for hard work.

But, THAT is NOT the way it is set up in the current system.

It takes SO much money to buy a home, start a business, get an education...many people are excluded.

I, personally, do not think it is ethical (nor beneficial to society) to have 95% of the wealth concentrated in in the top 5% of the population.

The days of people EARNING their wealth are rapidly disappearing. The middle class is disappearing and the poor are getting poorer. The system is turning into a wealthy elite and the rest struggling. It is broken. Investors are valued above workers and people are a mere commodity in this system.

What can anyone possibly due to EARN a billion dollars? How many people toil, work, and slave and contribute tons of good with very little financial reward?

I am sick of it. Until, we stop thinking that people having obscene wealth is fine (no matter who they are or what they do), it will stay this way.

I am so sickened by the way wealthy people feel entitled to live while people struggle to feed their families. Thousand dollars for a pair of flimsey heels. (Just an example).

[deaniac21]

70. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in

which the working classes--










Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I'm being repressed

[ThomCat]

135. Generalizing according to class

is perfectly rational. The Social Sciences do it all the time.

[Nederland]

63. That statement is inherently false

It assumes that the amount of wealth in the world is fixed, and the only question is how that wealth should be divided. The last 200 years shows that idea to be completely false.

[rman]

69. It's delusional to think there's an infinite amount of wealth.

It's disingenuous to suggest that a few collecting ever more wealth is not detrimental to many others.
Just look at how the income gap has grown over the past decades. Minimum wage is at a 50 year low while income for the super-rich has increased several 100%.

[Nederland]

73. I never said there was infinite amount of wealth

so your point is moot.

[rman]

75. You put words in the mouth of the OP by saying

"It assumes that the amount of wealth in the world is fixed."

So your point is moot as well.

[Nederland]

76. Sorry

I'll break it down for you so you can see the connection.

The OP said:

"When They are Rich, You are Poor"

and

"that in order to build a hill to stand on, you must dig a hole for others"


The juxtaposition of these two statements implies to me that the OP believes that wealth is like dirt, i.e. there is a fixed amount of it. If that isn't true, I'll leave it to the OP to correct me.

[rman]

77. What the OP said holds true if one assumes there is a finite amount

of wealth.

[Nederland]

79. You clearly don't get it

The OP presumes that wealth is something that exists in a finite amount just lying around to be distributed. It's not. Wealth is created by work. The amount of wealth therefore, is a function of the population, work and the efficiency of said work. A person can, for example, develope a more efficient process for generating electricity. In doing so that person has created wealth without taking a dime from anyone else.

The bottom line is the OP is wrong. It is possible to become gain wealth without taking anything from anyone. My example (and I could give you dozens more) demonstrates that.

[rman]

81. You don't know what exactly the OP assumes,

let's wait for clarification.

[Nederland]

84. Sure I do

He said "When They are Rich, You are Poor". That's simple not true. The average global standard of living is much higher today than it was 100 years ago. If it were true that nobody can get rich without someone else becoming poor, that could not be true. It's simple math really.

[stepnw1f]

92. heh.... How is it not true?

and who's standard of living are you talking about?

[Nederland]

99. Response

who's standard of living are you talking about?

In my post I was referring to the "average global standard of living", therefore I was referring to everybody.

As for proof, I think the math speaks for itself. If the average went up, the total amount of wealth cannot possibly be fixed. QED.

[stepnw1f]

102. While Being Poor, "average global standard of living"

means nothing to us. I'm talking about a system that allows a small minority to hoard wealth in this country and around the World without investing it back into the system. The facts are out on the street, and man o man are there many streets with many folks who are pissed off... the system is corrupt and leading us quicker than ever towards fascism. Hard work doesn't cut it; "it's who you know' hint, hint, or just plain luck.

Very little of capitalism exists anymore, at least the kind that is open to all. In theory it's supposed to be fair, but it isn't, and not too many people I know feel it is. I say it has become an excuse for greed. As Reagan said, "greed is good".

Anyway, nice talking...

[Nederland]

106. Reagan never said, "greed is good"

That was a line from a Hollywood movie called Wall Street, and it was uttered by the character Gordon Gekko played by Michael Douglas.

Anyway, you completely missed the point of my post, so yeah, nice talking to you.

[stepnw1f]

111. ooops... correction

I thought he did say it, although I do remember Michael Douglas saying it in the movie you just mentioned. Anyway...

[hfojvt]

107. long run vs. short run

In the short run, it is fixed, and the short run is where we live. Also, look at the last 30 years in the US. Average wealth has gone up, but average for the bottom two quintiles has gone down, for the middle quintile has remained static, and for the upper group has gone way up. Their gain has been our loss - loss of income, loss of benefits, loss of relative standing, and loss of free time.
Ted Rall sums it up very well in "Revenge of the Latch-key kids"
"As Juliet Schor, author of 'The Over-worked American', says, society could choose to exploit the postwar productivity gain in any of several ways:
+ we could all have double salaries
+ We could be working 20 hour weeks
+ We could work six months a year
Instead some of us are working multiple jobs with insanely long hours for low wages while others cannot find work at all.
The money generated by that hidden boom in productivity didn't disappear. The vast majority of it went to create an unprecedented upper strata of wealthy Americans." pp 66-67

[Nederland]

109. Have a link for that statistic?

Also, look at the last 30 years in the US. Average wealth has gone up, but average for the bottom two quintiles has gone down, for the middle quintile has remained static, and for the upper group has gone way up.

I know that the wealth of the top 20% has increased dramatically, but I was under the impression that the lower quintiles were static. Plus, are you talking about wealth, or income?

[hfojvt]

133. yes I was talking about income

although that is usually what we mean when we say "the wealthy" we mean "those with high incomes". I thought that statistic was pretty well known. Google's 2nd result for "income growth" gave me this:

http://ideas.repec.org/p/irs/iriswp/2003-11.html

"Descriptions of the US experience typically emphasize that income
growth was greater for the rich than for the poor. For example, Danziger
& Gottschalk (1995, Figure 3.3) have shown that the income of a family at
the eightieth percentile rose sharply during the 1980s, whereas the income of a family at the twentieth percentile hardly changed at all over the same period, or fell slightly. (See also Gottschalk & Smeeding (1997, Table 3) or Karoly (1993).)"

Yet they somehow also say income growth was "pro poor" meaning something like "those who kept their jobs experienced greater percentage income growth than the rich and moved up out of the bottom quintile to be replaced by those who were down-sized and fell into one of the bottom two quintiles."

[Nederland]

144. That contradicts what you said

Descriptions of the US experience typically emphasize that income
growth was greater for the rich than for the poor.

What I take this to mean is that income grew for everybody, but that it grew significantly less for the poor.

[hfojvt]

146. and you did not keep reading to

this: "whereas the income of a family at the twentieth percentile hardly changed at all over the same period, or fell slightly."

which does not contradict the first part since any growth at all is greater than a shrinkage.

[Nederland]

168. You are correct

My bad :)

[treestar]

224. A new discovery creates new wealth

Look at the internet.

The planet supports more people, but in a better style than it did 100 years ago. How can that be unless wealth can be created?

But it can't if choked by rules assuming limits and scarcity.

The guy with the new idea needs to have the capital to flourish. He won't if 1000 restrictions mean only the wealthiest can afford to go into business.

I've seen it over and over. People have great ideas but run into obstacles proving only the big corporations have the money to put those into reality.

[ThomCat]

138. You are incorrect.

The amount of wealth at any given time is finite. That's the important concept. Fixed is something entirely different.

While the amount of wealth that exists may change over time, that has nothing to do with how the currently available wealth is distributed.

It also ignores that the current distribution of wealth influences who gets all that new wealth that gets created.

[Nederland]

171. Irrelevant

Yes, the amount of wealth at any given point in time is finite. But the OP is referring to the accumulation of wealth--an activity that occurs over time. Thus, even though the amount of wealth is finite at any given point in time, it is possible to accumulate wealth by creating it over time.

[ThomCat]

176. But the amount of wealth you have now

is the single biggest factor in how much you can create, so it is not irrelevant. Your reasoning seems simplistic. Perhaps you might want to look beyond the feel-good mythology of capitalism and try to see the actual complexity of economics?

[Nederland]

180. I have

I've looked well beyond the feel-good mythology of capitalism. What I've found is that people like the OP who don't understand economics are usually the worst at criticising capitalism. Sure, capitalism has flaws that need to be rectified by regulation, but before you can set about creating a sensible set of regulations you need to understand how the system works. The OP obviously doesn't.

You accuse me of being simplistic--isn't the notion that "in order to build a hill to stand on, you must dig a hole for others" a bit simplistic? Isn't it simply wrong? I believe that my point regarding wealth creation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is false. Wealth is constantly being created, and the idea that the primary issue is simply that it should be divided is fairly is short sighted.

Yes, obviously the rich have a huge advantage over other people when it comes to making money--and that is one big reason why I am opposed to repealing the estate tax. However, I fail to see how the OP's view of the world takes into account that there are a great number of people that created the wealth that they have without the benefit of rich parents. The two richest men in the world right now--Bill Gates and Warren Buffet--both came from middle class backgrounds. There are literally millions of people in this country that had the same opportunity that these two had and yet are not rich. What are we to say then, that they simply got lucky? That the fact that Bill Gates worked 100 hour weeks for most of his adult life had nothing to do with his success? At some point we to have to admit the fact that some people in this world are simply smarter and more talented than the rest of us and a system that allows them to acquire a great deal of wealth so they can leverage that talent to accomplish great things is probably not a bad idea.

Don't get me wrong. The Paris Hilton's of the world are worthless and do not deserve the wealth that they have. However, my main criticism of the OP is that his view is simplistic. Not all wealthy people got that way by making other people poor. In fact, most of them didn't.

[ThomCat]

185. I disagree.

I do think that most rich people got that way by making other people poor.

Perhaps it's just my perspective being a Corporate Consultant, but I've seen a lot of businesses with different management styles. The ones that produce wealth at the top are ones where the employees get treated poorly, paid poorly, and all the credit for their work goes to the bosses.

The companies were credit goes to the people who earn it, and where pay and bonuses are at least nominally equitable don't produce wealth at the top but do produce more middle class people throughout the staff.

I don't think you can concentrate wealth in a few people without denying it to the people who worked to create it.

I also think that the creation of wealth is secondary to the accumulation of wealth for two primary reasons.

1. Only excess wealth generates wealth. The less wealth you have the greater the amount of it that goes for necessities instead of investments. Poor people don't have excess wealth so they don't get any of that newly created wealth (except nominally when new jobs are created, but that wealth gets used for necessary expenses, not for further income-

2. The more wealth you have the more influence you have in setting the rules. This is a "one-dollar, one-vote" democracy. So wealthy people stack the deck to get public money flowing their way. So the wealthy not only benefit from their own investments, they also benefit from public money as well.

Because the created wealth gets channeled according to who has the existing wealth, it is subordinate to the distribution of existing wealth. Stressing the creation of wealth as if that somehow represents opportunity for everyone is misleading, to say the least.

[Nederland]

186. Question

How does a person make another person poor? Have I missed out on the fact that poor people are having guns put to their heads and their money taken from them? I simply don't see it. Bill Gates didn't make a dime that didn't come from another person willingly handing over their money in exchange for a product they wanted. In my experience, it's difficult to get rich by taking money from the poor. After all, they don't have much. No, the easiest way to become rich is to provide a product or service that rich people want. Getting money from them is a hell of a lot easier because they have so much of it.

You said this:

Perhaps it's just my perspective being a Corporate Consultant, but I've seen a lot of businesses with different management styles. The ones that produce wealth at the top are ones where the employees get treated poorly, paid poorly, and all the credit for their work goes to the bosses.

Why do people at a place like this put up with this treatment? I've worked at places like that and left after a few months...

[ThomCat]

187. Are you serious?

If you have power over someone it's very easy to make people poor.

Bosses do it by making decisions to hoard company income at the top and under-pay at the bottom. Placing people at the top or bottom for cultural reason rather than reasons of skill or knowledge is another. It's well known that people get hired and promoted based on how much they have in common with the boss. That's why Corporate America has stayed so largely white, male, and wasp. That is also why Corporate America can seem to have such a homogeneous political opinion some times, because there is a cultural element to getting to the top of Corporate America.

People stay because there is an insufficient safety net if they leave. Basically, they can't afford to leave unless they have another job lined up, and they can't easily look for another job while holding the current one. That is especially true with increasing demands for unpaid overtime and constantly increasing productivity.

And just as important, the workplace is a hierarchy. The boss is in charge. All power rests at the top. So escaping one job isn't going to help if your next job is going to be the same. You can choose to leave, but you can't benefit from it because you have little or no barganing power.

This is a simplification, of course, of decades of social sciences research. But the point is there. People are often stuck where they are, or only have the option of moving to places that are just as bad. And whereever they are, all money is pulled to the top. Thousands of people work to create wealth so that the five people in the top suite can take it all home. That is how people get rich by making other people poor.

[Nederland]

192. Hold on

You are saying that the people at the top are making the people at the bottom poor. How, by giving them jobs? Paying them a salary? Would these people be better off without a job? Your criticism makes no sense.

[ThomCat]

196. It makes perfect sense.

A company acquires or produces a certain amount of wealth. The question is, how to you determine how much of that wealth each person is responsible for?

Keep in mind that even people who are considered overhead do work to maintain the companies ability to accumulate wealth, so they need to be factored in somehow. Say, for example, that an employee's work generates $100,000 of that wealth per year. If you pay them only $35,000, and another $20,000 goes to overhead, then you are stealing $45,000 of their labor per year and giving it to someone else.

Your logic is to black and white, and backwards. By your reasoning, anyone who has a job should be on their knees thanking their boss for paying them a dollar. The boss gets all the credit for paying, no matter how little, but the employee gets no credit for producing.

Bill Gates doesn't write, debug, manufacture, or destribute his product. But you give him all the credit. Then you assume that his employees should be greatful for the opportunity to produce wealth, but give it all to him. And then you further assume that he earned it. He earned some of it, but because of his position at the top he has the power to take more than his share.

I can anticipate your next shot. That without him there would not be a company. That is true for his particular company. But if his did not exist then there would probably be others. The idea that he is forever entitled to pay for something he did 30 years ago is an odd concept that only gets applied to executives. You don't pay your tailor again every time you wear a suit. You don't pay your landscaper again every time the flowers bloom. You get paid once for your work, then you work some more if you want to get paid some more.

Only corporate executives (and investors) get the free pass to keep earning money in-perpetuity for something they did one. And that money they keep taking was earned by someone else who was doing the actual work.

[Nederland]

197. Step by step

Let's break this down step by step. Here is your example:

Say, for example, that an employee's work generates $100,000 of that wealth per year. If you pay them only $35,000, and another $20,000 goes to overhead, then you are stealing $45,000 of their labor per year and giving it to someone else.

Here is the question, if the employee's work generates $100,000 of wealth, why did they agree to work for $35,000?

[ThomCat]

200. Because that's what jobs pay.

If you're only offered that much, you can't get more. Most job offers are take-it-or-leave-it. It's the nature of mass economies that you won't know how much you are actually producing, nor will you get all of it.

You are asking questions that assume theoretical ideals without any concept of reality. For example, you assume that employees are free to bargain, that they know exactly how much they produce, or that they could get a job somewhere where they could keep everything they produce.

In an ideal world where everyone had infinite knowledge people would know how much they produce, but not in the real world.

In an ideal world where everyone had equal power employees would be able to bargain for a fair share of what the produce, but not in the real world.

In an ideal world where anyone with a good idea and skills could get the capital to start a business people could leave and work for themselves, but not in the real world.

[Nederland]

201. Question

Perhaps I wasn't clear. If a person is creating something that is worth 100k, why are they agreeing to create it for someone else for only 35k? It has nothing to do with what they job market is like. If you can create something worth 100k, why not just do it? Why settle for working for someone else?

[ThomCat]

203. Because most things are created cooperatively.

Things you can produce as part of a company are not necessarily things you can produce alone. It is rare that anyone can consistently produce wealth by themself. The employee can't do it without being part of the company, and the boss can't do it without having the employees.

That's the entire reason for forming companies. Companies provide the support staff and the stability for consistent business.

[Nederland]

206. Several questions

If the item cannot be produced alone, how do you really know that value of the individual's contribution? How was it calculated? In your example, how did you come up with the 100k number?

Here is my point. Any item or service is worth only what another person is willing to pay for it, period. No more, no less. It makes absolutely no sense to say that a person's labor is "worth" X dollars if no one is willing to pay them X. This is just a fundamental reality of economics.

[ThomCat]

207. There is no sure way

to calulate each person's contribution. It is too theoretical. The 100k was a theoretical example. However, overall productivity can be measured, and by assigning some portion of that productivity to each person you can put a dollar amount on what each person contributes. There is no reason to assume that the amount someone is willing to pay you is true amount you are worth. In fact, for reasons I've stated above there is a lot of reason to assume most people are worth more than they are paid.

If you arbitrarily say that employees have no value except what the boss decides to assign to them then you are implicitely stating that economics is based on power, not value. The boss has the power to dictate what people are worth, and their level of production becomes irrelevant.

Yes, in reality it's all about power. It's about the power of the people at the top to decide that they get to keep all the money. It's about the power of the people at the top to decide that you get only some of the money you produce while they keep the rest. That just takes us full circle to the question about how the wealthy steal from the poor. They do it because the distribution of money is based on power.

[Nederland]

208. No

There is no reason to assume that the amount someone is willing to pay you is true amount you are worth.

There is an excellent reason to assume this--there is no other alternative that works. One possibility that has been tried and failed miserably is to have government set prices and wages. Well, the 20th century showed us what a disaster that idea was. If you believe that there is some other third way, I'd love to hear it.

[ThomCat]

209. I've hinted at it throught this thread.

Take the total productivity produced by a company and divide it among the employees based on hours worked, skills used, and results produced.

Again, assuming that the ONLY value of an employee is what a boss is willing to pay is broken. In your logic, Slavery was a valid economic model and slaves had no value (until they were sold). They were entitled to nothing as a result of their labor because the boss was able to pay nothing.

You are parroting the text book answers, but that results in bosses basing their worth on their employees productivity, but employess basing their worth inversely on the power and authority of the boss.

[Nederland]

211. No

Let me address the slavery issue first, because that is the most offensive notion you've posted. Clearly I've indicated that I believe that wages should be set by the market. The generally accepted definition of "the market" is two uncoerced actors coming to an agreement on a price. Slavery, by definition, is forced labor and therefore fails to meet the definition of two uncoerced actors.

Let me now address your suggestion. You suggested:

Take the total productivity produced by a company and divide it among the employees based on hours worked, skills used, and results produced.

How exactly does one divide by "skills used"? Granted, total productivity, hours worked, and the other values are numerical quantities. But what exactly do you mean by "skills used"? How does one translate the skill of answering the phone or writing a computer program into a number?

My answer is very simple. You translate the skill of answering the phone or writing a computer program into a number by allowing the market to set the wage for that particular skill. Since you have rejected that idea, I'm curious what your alternative is.

[ThomCat]

214. There is no such thing as two uncoerced actors.

You're still talking idealized theory that has no basis in reality. In the real world there will be an imbalance of power and authority. One person is always coerced.

The issue in wages isn't whether or not people are coerced but how much. For example, high unemployement means that workers are disposable, so there is a higher level of coercion to accept whatever the boss offers. That's why wages drop.

As for dividing productivity among employees, that's a broad topic of economic theory. We won't hash that out here. Get to grad school and start looking at academic journals.

Your insistance in letting the market decide everything is flawed. There is no "market." There are decision makers with authority who dictate rates. The boss dictates what he's willing to pay, with only minor modifications based on outside factors.

The 'Invisible hand of the market' only exists in those rare cases where you truly have two equal people, with equal knowledge, negotiating an agreement. That is never true in employment.

[Nederland]

217. Unproven assumption

In the real world there will be an imbalance of power and authority. One person is always coerced.

You state this as fact but without proof. As I disagree, I ask for proof. Given that it the basis for the entire rest of your post, I think you need to prove it before continuing.

[ThomCat]

218. You've stated that there are equal actors

and provided absolutely no proof. Sorry, we're not going down the path of you demanding proof and providing none. This is not a discussion where I keep talking until you find something to pick apart.

I think, at this point, this discussion is done. You're just regurgitating talking-points from your econo 101 text books. Come back and talk when you've held a job and actually know something.

[Nederland]

219. I made no such statement

I never said equal actors, I said uncoerced actors, there is a huge difference. Please stop twisting my words.

Moreover, what makes you think I've never held a job? Given that I've worked as a Software Engineer for 16 years I'd say you are wrong on that score. Which brings up an important fact: you have a habit of making a lot of unproven assumptions. It is that lack of intellectual rigor that puts you on the losing side of the major economic arguement of the last century. Go ahead and knock the market if you want to. It doesn't care and will leave you in its wake.

[Common Sense Party]

216. Capitalism is the WORST economic system in the world...

...after all the other ones.

[Nederland]

220. Exactly

I've never said it's perfect, I just haven't found anything better yet.

[Common Sense Party]

221. Nobody has.

It's sad how people around here have forgotten that all the other economic experiments haven't fared too well.

[leftofthedial]

78. i'm all for bringing down the rich

and their control of every aspect of our nation

[Yupster]

83. Write a letter to the Senate

Maybe Senators Rockefeller and Kennedy will sponsor your bill for you.

[leftofthedial]

93. of course they won't

[stepnw1f]

94. I Just Want a LEVEL Playing Field

to revive the dream of success in this country, but unfortunately the power brokers are making it harder and harder everyday for "We, the fictional Little Guys" to do just that.

[leftofthedial]

96. the chances for a poor person to become rich

are actually lower in America than in the rest of the industrialized world.

rich capitalists have been waging class war and using the American middle, working and poor classes to defend their interests forever, but it has escalated since WWII to the point that it is has become class-based genocide.

Destroy the rich as a class. Get them out of our government, our economy, our culture and our country.

[Priorities in Order]

98. Speaking of the rich getting richer . . .

Senator Frist is pushing for a repeal of the estate tax and is planning to to vote on a repeal the week of June 6th.

I work with Coalition for America's Priorities, http://www.coalition4americaspriorities.com/ , to raise awareness about the attempted repeal of the estate tax. I find this absolutely irresponsible for Congress to even discuss a repeal as they continue to spend like drunken sailors, running huge deficits, and neglecting the fiscal stability of our country. The estate tax affects less than 2% of Americans and if repealed would cost $75 billion a year in federal revenue and over a trillion dollars overall.

I would urge everyone to contact your Senators and let them know how you feel, you can do so through this link.

http://www.coalition4americaspriorities.com/takeaction.htm

[stepnw1f]

100. Thank You for Posting This... KICK! (nt)

[novalib]

215. I Agree. But....

"the power brokers are making it harder and harder everyday for "We, the fictional Little Guys" to do just that."

In my view, their is nothing "fictionl" about the Little Guys.

They are REAL. And they Suffer.

And those REAL Little Guys suffer because other real guys -- white, rich, smug, arrogant, self-satisfied and self-important RICH guys enjoy inflicting suffering on those they consider to be their "inferiors".

[novalib]

213. AGREED!

"i'm all for bringing down the rich and their control of every aspect of our nation"

Absolutely!

It's the rich, along with their control over absolutely EVERY aspect of our nation that has so messed up our nation.

THEY are the reason so many people live in abject poverty.

THEY are the reason so many people cannot afford decent health.

At the base of EVERY SINGLE social problem, you will find the rich -- and the control their wealth gives them.

Bring them all down -- and make them suffer -- just as they have caused such tremendous suffering!!!!

[Hosnon]

101. Well...what if there is enough dirt to fill the universe and you are using

an ordinary shovel?

I think there's enough wealth to go around.

[stepnw1f]

112. In a Regulated Sytem that Works

yes... "there is enough to go around", but some are keeping that from happening.

So in the mean time.... hole makes mound.

[Hosnon]

120. No I'm talking about a fixed amount of wealth that is simply

proportionately enormous to the population. Dig your hole all you want...there may be plenty of "undug" ground around for everyone else.

[stepnw1f]

124. Lol... "digging my own hole"

That's a cop-out. How about this one... "Pick yurself up by yur bootstraps"

Nice try.... Here's to your pipe dream!

[Hosnon]

136. How is that a cop-out? I'm trying to remain true to the original analogy.

I have to have 5 units of dirt to create my little hill and I remove those from the ground, creating a hole. That hole is only a detriment if I've dug from someone else's spot.

My point is that the size of wealth (available "undug" dirt) may be enormous, say 1 x 10^100 units.

My digging of 5 wouldn't put much of a dent in the whole.

[rman]

159. There'd be enough wealth if it weren't so that a few use their wealth to

hoard ever more of it, leaving ever less for the rest of us.

You do realize that it becomes easier to get more rich and more powerful, the richer and the more powerful you are?
It's a self-reinforcing "winner takes all" mechanism - all it takes is greed and lack of scruples, and there's plenty of both. Regulations? Sure, it's just that having power means you get to change the rules.

[noonwitch]

108. That's true, but big stuff is sometimes cheaper

I can't afford fancy clothes during Bush administrations, but the economic troubles usually lead me to a good deal on a new car.

Of course, it now costs $30 to fill up the gas tank.

[stepnw1f]

113. That's a Lousy Trade Off No?

I know it's healthy to look on the bright side, but today it's pretty obvious the majority is getting screwed.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

114. what a great rant! sorry I missed it this morning!

[stepnw1f]

118. still going on...

[Rex]

132. Left unchecked, the wealthy will destroy the middle class.

Oh wait...they already did. :(

[Jim Warren]

143. Still ragin' on this one

Chomsky said something in a missive some time back, though I'm sure he's not the first or only one to have thought of it, that framed a thought in a way easy even for a dunderhead like me to hang on to.

If there is a king and his minions who oppress the many whose numbers far exceed the king + minions, what prevents the many from overtaking the few?

[stepnw1f]

148. Entertainment and Fear

also ignorance. I believe this is an issue the Left is going to win, because the difference between the haves and have nots is just to obvious these days. And I think the Right knows it...

[Odin2005]

150. If you EARNED your wealth you can keep it.

If you get your weath fron inheiritance (which violates the principle of meritocracy) or stock dividends ( which is exploited wealth that should of went to employees) you are a worthless parasite on the system.

[Nederland]

172. Agreed

The tough thing is creating a system that distinguishes between the two.

[Nevernose]

153. Your wise man was full of shit on that one

Some people do, indeed, build hills, thus digging holes for others. See the encyclopedia's entry for "Pyramids" as an example.

I say that most of the hills are already out there, and all we have to do is climb them. And when we get to the top, we should help the others climbing after us. Also note that there is plenty of high ground for everyone.

The New Deal, while sick, isn't dead yet. Unfortunately, the ilness isn't conservatives, it's apathetics. People need to get off their asses. DUers are probably doing more than most already, but we need to make ourselves HEARD. It's hard to do that when typing.

Good post, byt the way; amazing response.

[lonestarnot]

155. Yell it out your fucking window!

I won't tell.

[Nevernose]

156. Knocked on doors all afternoon, after work.

Tired now. Time for beer. Time for choir practice.

[lonestarnot]

164. You knock'n today?

[Jed Dilligan]

157. High ground for everyone

including those who are already at the top and whose only aim in life is to push others down the slope. That's the majority at the top of your ready-made hills. Time for a NEW New Deal, another massive redistribution of wealth.

[stepnw1f]

195. It's Been Time

New Deal....

[rman]

158. The hills that are out there are build by the filthy rich

As someone else noted, when you try to climb those hills the rich will push you down.

The only reason why the New Deal is sick and why people need to get off their asses to make it healthy again is because the rich have spend the past decades poisoning the New Deal - they hate it because it reduces the hight of the hills they live on.

[Jed Dilligan]

163. Yeah, god forbid they should have to see eye-to-eye

with the rest of us, that would be almost like democracy.

[NashVegas]

179. Going On Pure Semantics, You're 100% Correct

Anytime you name one group of people as "they," you automatically set up a group you belong to, "we," as their opposites.

The woman who lives next door to me is rich. I'm not - not by a long shot. And I'm not bothered by that.

Some people work (dig that hole?) for their wealth, some are lucky enough to be born with it. They are well aware of their fortune, most of them, and give back in various ways.

I'm not defending the wealthy: I'm refusing to call "them" my enemy.

[marions ghost]

222. DUPE

;)

[marions ghost]

223. You are obviously not downtrodden though

I don't resent the rich their "things." Whoever said 'you don't own them, they own you' was absolutely correct when it comes to having too many things. So I'd agree with you there.

HOWEVER when it comes to the rights and privileges that money can buy, it's another matter.

Money can buy you Health Insurance.
Money can buy you Freedom from worry (about money).
Money can buy you the occasional vacation.
Money can buy you Lawyers.
Money can buy you better schools.
Money can buy you retirement security.

Etc Etc--incomplete --it's a long list of what the difference is between the 'haves & have nots.'

The rich are invested in creating and maintaining these inequities. We could have a long debate about whether the rich "give back." What I mainly see is how they are MUCH more concerned with holding onto it. Funny thing about money, the more you have, the more you need. People I hear around me who are always crying poor have plenty of money. I think I'm correct in saying that, relative to income, the not-so-rich are far more generous in giving time and money to others. Maybe there used to be more social return from the rich, but not anymore.

So while you're worried about insensitivity to the rich it's a bit insensitive to the less well off not to see how some among us would resent the rich their access to rights and privileges that are supposedly guaranteed in a democracy.

[NashVegas]

226. Obviously

..

[marions ghost]

228. it wasn't obvious from what you said

that you are OK with the rich having all those rights and privileges, and denying them to others.

You "seem" to be fine with that inequity, so how do you reconcile that? It seems obvious to me that those who defend the rich as a whole (and claim that they "give back" to society so much) are part of the problem. I see and know a lot of these rich people. I don't see the generosity of which you speak. I don't see the benefits to my community whatsoever. I follow local politics and see a lot of miserly policies and skinflint attitudes from that sector. No vision of community. The rich where I am do not have much of what you would call civic pride or interest in bettering the place. They do not seem to get the idea that a community is not just your car, your house, your shopping. If they do get involved in local politics, it's usually for some personal gain.

While not villifying people, I do believe in calling a spade a spade. The rich these days are very selfish, and that will continue to be so, especially in such an uncertain climate.

[NashVegas]

230. First It's Obvious, Then It's Not?

You seem to be confused.

Yesterday morning, when leaving for work, I found a dead possum in my driveway. I had heard it in a fight earlier. Didn't have time to deal with it, so it was still there when I got home. I did it wrong - pushed it to the curbside with a hoe instead of just bagging it. Some leftovers had to be cleaned up. Made my second mistake, tried to hose them out of the driveway, but didn't have enough hose. 45 minutes later, the moisture from the water had become super miracle-gro for the maggots, which were everywhere. Had to go get some Clorox and splash that all over, and while I was doing that I noticed ants all over, carrying home their gourmet maggot lunches.

We all feed on each other. That doesn't change. Every minute a person spends feeling helpless about something equals an hour not being spent improving the situation.

191. I found this website with a blurb on cheap labor in China

it is chilling how these corporatists think.

I found this site while browsing Free Republic. This guy posts some really awful stuff over there, like the ACLU is helping Al Queda. And horrible picture of Helen Thomas. These are Americans for America??


""China Operations
The cost of labor in China is 25% that of Mexico (source: The Economist, July 26, 2003). That's the good news if you're looking for lowered Cost of Goods Sold. But how are you going to deal with changing (and confusing) laws, the need to protect Intellectual Property, and the real-world possibility of aggressive Chinese competition putting you in a losing position? We've got the knowledge and experience to help you manage your risk...""

http://www.stonegiant.com/services.htm

[Ksec]

210. repukes are puppets

for the ultra wealthy. Their ideology is flawed in the thinking that they make rich people happy, because someday theyll be rich. The flaw in that thinking is that by making the rich richer , you put up barricades and use the lower incomers to get richer. If the ideology wasnt so fraught with misconceptions , I may even subscribe to it, but when you use the middle to enrich the richest you make it harder for them to excel and prosper. How about they give us incentives and such to help us get rich instead of using my money to enable the richest to get more? Theres an idea.

[Ladyhawk]

212. As a disabled person, I feel cheated out of a life of my own.

The way the system is set up, I can't legally make enough to live on. I suspect (but don't know for sure) that pollution created by our current lifestyle may have contributed to some of the illnesses causing my disability. I can speculate forever and not know for sure. Still, the fact is I don't "fit in" in this money-hungry society.

Why does money equal success in our culture anyway??? I'm successful in other ways, but in the eyes of society I'm worth nothing.

[stepnw1f]

225. You Are Worth More Than Money to Me

In the eyes of society, we are what WE say we are, not the other way around. I hear what you say, just know that I'm a part of that society, and value people more than I value money.

[Bluerthanblue]

229. thank you...

for this entire post-
..... you have given me a much needed reminder to step back, take a breath, and remember what life really is. And I agree with you completely- We need to remind each other what is really worth 'fighting' for- and working towards.

peace,
blu

[Bluerthanblue]

227. Ladyhawk-

I say this to you, in part because I need to hear it more and more myself- We share a similar path-

It is relatively 'easy' to get money- You can steal it, you can print it, you can inherit it, you can cheat to get it, you can sell yourself for it- you can 'possess' it- (but that is a matter of perspective, many people live for their money, not use money to live).

I don't make enough cash to get by, and I can't 'earn' enough cash to cover medical expenses- and it's only getting harder and harder each day- But 'money' doesn't 'define' me- OR you- While our lives may be far more challenging than other peoples in physical, material, and tangible ways, I KNOW the incredible pleasure that 'simple things' can bring- Things that come easy, or are hardly noticed by people who have material wealth, can mean a LOT to me- Like having someone pass along a bag of hardly used summer clothes for my youngest son- (fancy brand name ones at that!) A smile, or a hug, or a listening ear, when everything seems hopeless.

- The painful/poigniant gift of not only witnessing the kindness and compassion of others, but learning how to recieve it, and recognizing opportunities to 'pass it on' to others, in unexpected, and surprising ways.

You are worth more than all the money in the world Ladyhawk- and don't ever let anyone encourage you to believe otherwise. I read something today that makes ironic sense- something to the effect of ..."The rich would have to eat money if the poor did not provide food"...

The best 'things' in life aren't 'things'-

Money=power= people who are addicted to power, often don't know they have power that no one can take from them- and value that isn't measured in numbers, or 'things'. Like the 'ruby' slippers, Glenda showed Dorothy she was never without what she needed, "you had the power with you all along" ....

I wish you comfort, provision, peace, and joy Ladyhawk-...always-

blu-