85 wealthiest people richer than half of the worlds population - what are the consequences?

[Sunstone]

Well, people of the right and people of the left who claim to like learning will probably give you reverse image lists of which sources are using evidence and which are crafting evidence. So I don't see your point that 'it's always pretty obvious'. In fact the exact opposite seems to be the case.

Sure, if you're talking Bill O'Reilly and Al Sharpton. Those two don't even use the same dictionaries. But if you're talking America's handful of remaining serious people, people like David Frum on the right, or Chris Hedges on the Left, then serious people tend to respect credible sources regardless of whether or not they support their initial views.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Credible people, regardless of their own political ideals (the range of which is infinitely more complex and fascinating than a simple "left" or "right"), all use similar, high quality sources of information and can tell the difference between a rational, evidence-based statement and empty partisan rhetoric.

One person's empty partisan rhetoric is anothers evidence-based statements.

A good example would be people telling me that the ACA is going to make my health care cheaper or the democratic party is the fiscal party.

Now, before you shift focus on me, I think both parties have not been fiscally responsible for a long time, but Obama is no Bill Clinton and the ACA is going to be a disaster.

All the things you posted over the years are fairy tales or "partisan rhetoric" no matter how you package it or what you read. You agree with it so it must be true or you want it to be true at the very least.

Now before you get upset, I am guilty of this as well.

 

[Sunstone]

A good example would be people telling me that the ACA is going to make my health care cheaper or the democratic party is the fiscal party.

Actually, that's a poor example. A better example might be the Theory of Evolution. Intellectually honest people of all factions accept the Theory across partisan lines albeit there still shows up some partisanship amongst the less well informed, and the more dishonest members of our body politic.

 

[Alceste]

One person's empty partisan rhetoric is anothers evidence-based statements.

A good example would be people telling me that the ACA is going to make my health care cheaper or the democratic party is the fiscal party.

Now, before you shift focus on me, I think both parties have not been fiscally responsible for a long time, but Obama is no Bill Clinton and the ACA is going to be a disaster.

All the things you posted over the years are fairy tales or "partisan rhetoric" no matter how you package it or what you read. You agree with it so it must be true or you want it to be true at the very least.

Now before you get upset, I am guilty of this as well.

I'm not upset, actually. I haven't bothered trying to work out the particulars of the cost of the ACA - as far as I'm concerned if it isn't universal health care it's basically the same as what you already have. I wouldn't be surprised if costs went up or down. I also don't care for the Democrats. Their single virtue as far as I can see is that they are the last remaining bulwark between the entire civilized world and the vast and terrifying ocean of belligerence and militant stupidity that is the modern American Republican party.

Here's a fun game - if I am such a shameless partisan, can you guess which of Canada's political parties I voted for in the last election, and which I plan to vote for in the next one? Should be an easy question.

But let's stick to the subject matter. I completely agree with Sunstone - political debate in the US didn't used to be a football match with two hordes of grunting fans cheering on their own team and vilifying the other side with simple-minded chants and clever bumper stickers. There were once credible voices from a wide spectrum of political opinion, and it is still a simple thing to tell the difference between a Barry Goldwater and one of these:

 

[LuisDantas]

This article may be of interest:

Robert Reich: David Brooks is full of it - Salon.com

 

[Revoltingest]

This article may be of interest:
Robert Reich: David Brooks is full of it - Salon.com

People in Reich's camp will no doubt cheer his screed, but I found it devoid of analysis & solutions.
Sure, sure, he hurls insults & lists contentious issues, but that's all he offers...preaching to the choir.
Good ole Salon.com....aspiring to be the Fox News of the left.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is analysis enough in there, if you can manage to overcome your cravings to see it as "equivalent partisanship".

For instance:

Brooks also argues that we should not be talking about unequal political power, because such utterances cause divisiveness and make it harder to reach political consensus over what to do for the poor.

Hogwash. The concentration of power at the top — which flows largely from the concentration of income and wealth there — has prevented Washington from dealing with the problems of the poor and the middle class.

Come to think of it, what is an appeal to avoid talking about unequal political power if not an attempt at political castration of one's inconvenient dissenters?

 

[Revoltingest]

There is analysis enough in there, if you can manage to overcome your cravings to see it as "equivalent partisanship".
For instance:

It just seems that Reich has only complaints & objections to Brooks' piece.
The concentration of wealth, or more importantly the plethora of poverty, is
certainly problematic, but Reich only joins a side, & then insults the other.
That's not interesting commentary.

Come to think of it, what is an appeal to avoid talking about unequal political power if not an attempt at political castration of one's inconvenient dissenters?

I don't know what this means.

 

[dust1n]

Revolution? I would think it rather optimistic. I really don't think you could get fifty Americans in a room and make them care enough to die for one another, or even agree for that matter. I suspect if there was something to being particular concern about, it would be food riots, water shortages, bank failures.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Revolution? I would think it rather optimistic. I really don't think you could get fifty Americans in a room and make them care enough to die for one another, or even agree for that matter. I suspect if there was something to being particular concern about, it would be food riots, water shortages, bank failures.

LOL, thats why it is a non-issue. Now if they made a video game that would translate into real life, the younger and poorer generation would kick our butts.

What will happen however is the people who could really help the situation by hiring folks in small business will receive the abuse instead of the ultra rich.

The top 5% is not the problem. The top 1% is mostly not the problem. It is the top percentage of the 1% who cannot be touched or even influenced. There is the problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

It just seems that Reich has only complaints & objections to Brooks' piece.
The concentration of wealth, or more importantly the plethora of poverty, is
certainly problematic, but Reich only joins a side, & then insults the other.
That's not interesting commentary.

I beg to differ. Then again, we knew I would.

I don't know what this means.

Doesn't it strike you as an appeal for giving up personal freedom when Brooks asks people to stop complaining so much?

 

[Sunstone]

Good ole Salon.com....aspiring to be the Fox News of the left.

Umm...then is Salon.com trying to fob off apparent commentary as fair and balanced news these days?

 

[dust1n]

LOL, thats why it is a non-issue. Now if they made a video game that would translate into real life, the younger and poorer generation would kick our butts.

What will happen however is the people who could really help the situation by hiring folks in small business will receive the abuse instead of the ultra rich.

The top 5% is not the problem. The top 1% is mostly not the problem. It is the top percentage of the 1% who cannot be touched or even influenced. There is the problem.

I would agree. I think governmental problems are systematic at this point. So much money is pooled for business lobbies. But there is more of a problem with business. As far as the top percent of the one percent is concerned, yea, I get a little concerned starting around 100, 200 million. How many people actually make it up to that point? 350,000 people? That's the top .001%. I think it would be useful to parse out who of that 350,000 people is messing with stuff.

Top 1% = $368,238 (20.9% of income)
Top 0.5% = $558,726 (16.8% of income)
Top 0.1% = $1,695,136 (10.3% of income)
Top 0.01% = $9,141,190 (5% of income)

Forget the top 1% — Look at the top 0.1% | The Big Picture

I think the real question is, why though these people continue continue to get richer while the majority of the world can't garnish anything themselves?

 

[Revoltingest]

Umm...then is Salon.com trying to fob off apparent commentary as fair and balanced news these days?

Curse you!
I had to google "fob off".

 

[Revoltingest]

I beg to differ. Then again, we knew I would.

Well, yer a commie, & I'm a running dog of capitalism.
But in spite of that, I sometimes see intriguing works on economics.
This just isn't one of'm.

Doesn't it strike you as an appeal for giving up personal freedom when Brooks asks people to stop complaining so much?

No.

 

[George-ananda]

It is the top percentage of the 1% who cannot be touched or even influenced. There is the problem.

What problems are they causing?

 

[Sunstone]

What will happen however is the people who could really help the situation by hiring folks in small business will receive the abuse instead of the ultra rich.

That's exactly why bloody, anarchic revolutions are to be avoided at almost all costs. It's so seldom the real enemies who get the guillotine.

Besides, society needs its "local millionaires" because, among other reasons, they tend to invest in their communities. It's not the guy with 10 million who is the problem. It's the guy with 10 billion who is so often the problem these days.

The top 5% is not the problem. The top 1% is mostly not the problem. It is the top percentage of the 1% who cannot be touched or even influenced. There is the problem.

Yup. The top 1% or .1% is nowadays so often in the business of buying laws and regulations to preserve their dominance at most people's expense.

 

[Sunstone]

What problems are they causing?

Among other things, the uber-rich tend to buy politicians and bureaucrats who then make laws and regulations favoring the uber-rich, often at the expense of other people, including small business people and the owners and employees of mid-sized corporations. For instance, one tried and true tactic is for the uber-rich to purchase regulations that their own companies have the means to implement, but which cripple or impeded up and coming competitors. The practice reduces competition and drives up the cost of products and services to many people.

Put differently, have you ever wondered why during the last recession, the banks and financial institutions got more bail-out money than the entire rest of the US economy, but didn't start lending again to small businesses for quite some time?

Another thing the uber-rich tend to do these days is offshore jobs and capital. "Local millionaires", so to speak, tend to invest something of their wealth in their local communities. They also tend to invest something of their time and energy in local causes, organizations, and issues. So, for instance, you will see local millionaires funding their churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues, which in turn, often perform community services. Uber-rich don't as often make such commitments, but that's a very minor point compared to....

Uber-rich seem much more willing to invest in lucrative industries that use techniques and practices which destroy local environments, such as strip mining the Appalachians. And...

They seem much more likely than local millionaires to hire PR firms that put out false or misleading information about the benefits and/or harms of their practices.

But the main thing, in many ways, is their disproportionate influence on Federal, State, and local governments, and regulatory bodies. As Chris Hedges summed it up, no American today can cast a meaningful vote against Goldman Sachs in a presidential race because any candidate with a real chance of winning on either side is beholden to Goldman Sachs.

 

[LuisDantas]

No.

Color me surprised.