• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life is good... if you are mega-wealthy.

dust1n

Zindīq
A report by University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez concludes that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression.
The report shows that:

  • Income inequality is worse than it has been since at least 1917

  • "The top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007"

  • "In the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth."
As others have pointed out, the average wage of Americans, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s. See this.

On the other hand, billionaires have never had it better (and see this).
Now, state-run Russian news service RIA Novosti notes that the number of billionaires has soared during the economic crisis:
The current global financial and economic crisis once again confirms the fact that during economic upheavals the rich get richer and the poor become even more destitute.
On Thursday, Forbes Magazine carried an updated list of the world's wealthiest people.



As of late 2009, the number of billionaires soared from 793 to 1,011 and their total fortunes from $2.4 trillion to $3.6 trillion. The number of Russian billionaires almost doubled, from 32 to 62.


***


Despite the crisis, the list of billionaires has grown by 200 people and their aggregate capital has expanded by 50%. This may seem paradoxical but only at first glance. This result was predictable, if we recall how governments all over the world have dealt with the economic crisis.



Anti-crisis measures essentially implied massive infusion of money into the economy. The United States alone spent over $10 trillion. Against the backdrop of a global recession, the funding could only be put to good use on stock and raw materials markets, leading to the creation of new financial bubbles.

***


The volume of federal allocations injected by the Russian government into the economy was much higher than in Europe and the U.S. Forbes tactfully referred to this as the government's cooperation with big business, primarily raw materials companies.



However, even high-ranking Russian officials have repeatedly complained that anti-crisis allocations were either used for stock market operations or deposited in foreign bank accounts.
Life is good ... but only if you are already mega-wealthy.

Even Alan Greenspan recently called the recovery "extremely unbalanced," driven largely by high earners benefiting from recovering stock markets and large corporations.


...


Life is Great ... But Only If You Are Already Mega-Wealthy ~ Washington's Blog
 

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
Tut tut! All this complaining is taking you away from valuable time cleaning my tophats, monocles and houses in the Hamptons.
we_the_people_rich.gif
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Plutarch used to say that no republic can survive a great disparity between its wealthiest and its poorest citizens. Unless something is done to correct the situation, what the figures cited in the OP bode is the end of the American Republic. Or perhaps it's too late already.

At any rate, this is what happens when capitalism is (1) allowed to go unregulated, and (2) there is not an effective redistribution of wealth from the top to the middle and the bottom. Some people like to scream that redistribution of wealth is evil. Frankly, I believe they have lived too long on a diet dominated by pepsi and twinkies to be entirely sane.

Wealth is always getting redistributed in society. It's usual progress is from the bottom and middle of society up to the top of society. That is what the figures in the OP show have been happening in America. If you are concerned about morality, then there are all sorts of moral reasons why that is not the way you want your wealth to be redistributed. And if you are not concerned about morality, but are merely pragmatically concerned with freedom and liberty, then there are all sorts of reasons you do not want your wealth going from the bottom and middle to the top of society.

Increase taxes on the super rich. Do it while you still have a rat's chance of having a voice in your own government, in your own country.
 

Mr. Hair

Renegade Cavalcade
*snipped*

Life is good ... but only if you are already mega-wealthy

*continued-snipping*

Except that many of the things you listed are ambiguous, and have both positive and negative effects and attributes. A low minimum wage, for example, encourages job creation and increased employment amongst the poor and disadvantaged, as well as acting as a subtle weight against inflation, both of which benefit society in general. Compare the US with France, where a relatively high minimum wage acts to 'lock-out' the young and immigrants from anything other than short-term, low paid jobs, which creates an underclass of unemployment and consequently fuels social and political tension. (See the banlieue riots in 2005 as an example of this in action)

That's not to say that the best course of action would be to set a federal minimum wage at a couple of cents an hour and have done with it, but simply that these things are rarely as simple as being 'good' or 'bad'. Even with income disparity, a certain level of it is not only expected but also beneficial to economic growth.

Incidentally, I also don't think that you can easily compare the situation in Russia to other, more Westernised countries, and simply generalise between the two. Russia is a unique blend of centralised state capitalism and obscure bureaucratic patronage, an especially high reliance on natural resources, and a curiously shrinking population demographic and thus in turn a requirement for an unusually high rate of immigration. Russian economic management and practice is significantly different from, say, the United States', and any attempt to directly generalise between the two is never going to work. Really, it's an enigma all to itself.
 
Last edited:

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Whether or not your life is "good" has more to do with your outlook on life in general than your tax bracket.

Just saying.
Hi Kat, what you say is true, but in all reality if America continues as it is, there will be an uprising. When that happens, outlook will be the last thing on your mind. I can assure you, you will be thinking of you and your family's safety, and what side you will ultimately choose to be on, the oppressors or the oppressed.
 

Just_me_Mike

Well-Known Member
Except that many of the things you listed are ambiguous, and have both positive and negative effects and attributes. A low minimum wage, for example, encourages job creation and increased employment amongst the poor and disadvantaged, as well as acting as a subtle weight against inflation, both of which benefit society in general. Compare the US with France, where a relatively high minimum wage acts to 'lock-out' the young and immigrants from anything other than short-term, low paid jobs, which creates an underclass of unemployment and consequently fuels social and political tension. (See the banlieue riots in 2005 as an example of this in action)

That's not to say that the best course of action would be to set a federal minimum wage at a couple of cents an hour and have done with it, but simply that these things are rarely as simple as being 'good' or 'bad'. Even with income disparity, a certain level of it is not only expected but also beneficial to economic growth.

Incidentally, I also don't think that you can easily compare the situation in Russia to other, more Westernised countries, and simply generalise between the two. Russia is a unique blend of centralised state capitalism and obscure bureaucratic patronage, an especially high reliance on natural resources, and a curiously shrinking population demographic and thus in turn a requirement for an unusually high rate of immigration. Russian economic management and practice is significantly different from, say, the United States', and any attempt to directly generalise between the two is never going to work. Really, it's an enigma all to itself.
America is systematically being sold out from under our feet. The world is being set for global leadership.

The way I see it, capitalism is a tool used for a bigger picture. Capitalism survives only on growth, much like a fire it needs fuel. The fuel of capitalism is resource mongering. Which of course knows no boundaries. However, the American people are led to believe America is special and all our soldiers are out there fighting to keep it that way. When we all know they are fighting to feed the fire.

Now once the fire grows weak, and resources are low to feed it, expansion has to happen, but in order to expand certain controls have to be in place. So we send our soldiers out to put that control in place, and then ultimately latch on to distant resources. One problem with this is government collision. So as capitalism evolves, it became obvious mutually beneficial governments (or strategically placed governments) are needed to sustain everything. Which means what?

It means, that our America means absolutely nothing anymore to those in charge, because to them the world is one big America. Only not the America we once knew, and will never see again.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Whether or not your life is "good" has more to do with your outlook on life in general than your tax bracket.

Just saying.

Pretty easy to say when you can pay your bills. Granted, I don't think you saw how much of America's profit is sucked up to the top 1%, though generally the bottom 99% produce 100% of our products.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Except that many of the things you listed are ambiguous, and have both positive and negative effects and attributes. A low minimum wage, for example, encourages job creation and increased employment amongst the poor and disadvantaged, as well as acting as a subtle weight against inflation, both of which benefit society in general.

Um, in case you didn't notice, America isn't doing better than France as far as employment goes, but France can seem to guarantee it's workers longer vacation, infinite health care, more sick pay, longer maternal leave, disability pay, etc.



Compare the US with France, where a relatively high minimum wage acts to 'lock-out' the young and immigrants from anything other than short-term, low paid jobs, which creates an underclass of unemployment and consequently fuels social and political tension. (See the banlieue riots in 2005 as an example of this in action)

The unemployed youth in France can go to college for free. The unemployed youth in America are ****** forever. Not to mention, a lack of social and political tension is not necessarily a good thing.

That's not to say that the best course of action would be to set a federal minimum wage at a couple of cents an hour and have done with it, but simply that these things are rarely as simple as being 'good' or 'bad'. Even with income disparity, a certain level of it is not only expected but also beneficial to economic growth.

The level of unemployment is not that certain level... the 'guesstimates' range from 10 percent to 25 percent depending on who you are asking; that 'certain level' has traditionally been 4 percent.

Incidentally, I also don't think that you can easily compare the situation in Russia to other, more Westernised countries, and simply generalise between the two. Russia is a unique blend of centralised state capitalism and obscure bureaucratic patronage, an especially high reliance on natural resources, and a curiously shrinking population demographic and thus in turn a requirement for an unusually high rate of immigration. Russian economic management and practice is significantly different from, say, the United States', and any attempt to directly generalise between the two is never going to work. Really, it's an enigma all to itself.

...Ok. I didn't see any attempt to compare Russia to America.
 

AzraelsTear

Member
Whether or not your life is "good" has more to do with your outlook on life in general than your tax bracket.

Just saying.

must agree here, seriously.
i lived poor and wealthy, neither of it had really anything to do to my current "happiness", which is a mental issue, you can be all poor you want and happy in life whiles being wealthy and depressed, most likely, i would say, you are more likely to be unhappy wealthy as you have filled your life with stuff rather then what actually makes life good.

just a note
 

dust1n

Zindīq
America is systematically being sold out from under our feet. The world is being set for global leadership.

A global government would be great! Something to regulate the unregulated global market!!! Or the American people can grow a pair of balls and control their own ******* markets.

The way I see it, capitalism is a tool used for a bigger picture. Capitalism survives only on growth, much like a fire it needs fuel. The fuel of capitalism is resource mongering. Which of course knows no boundaries. However, the American people are led to believe America is special and all our soldiers are out there fighting to keep it that way. When we all know they are fighting to feed the fire.

It doesn't have to be a case. Capitalism doesn't necessarily have to overproduce to undermine itself. If capitalism is unregulated, than you are correct, but the government (under the jurisdiction of the people) is suppose to regulated the primordial urges of capitalism.

Now once the fire grows weak, and resources are low to feed it, expansion has to happen, but in order to expand certain controls have to be in place. So we send our soldiers out to put that control in place, and then ultimately latch on to distant resources. One problem with this is government collision. So as capitalism evolves, it became obvious mutually beneficial governments (or strategically placed governments) are needed to sustain everything. Which means what?

Market Facism. Radical Right-Wingism. Mussolini and Hitler are the first to come to find.

It means, that our America means absolutely nothing anymore to those in charge, because to them the world is one big America. Only not the America we once knew, and will never see again.

Very well stated.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
must agree here, seriously.
i lived poor and wealthy, neither of it had really anything to do to my current "happiness", which is a mental issue, you can be all poor you want and happy in life whiles being wealthy and depressed, most likely, i would say, you are more likely to be unhappy wealthy as you have filled your life with stuff rather then what actually makes life good.

just a note


Ok, just to clarify for a lot of people, this is not a literal examination of the amount of 'happiness' due to one's amount of wealth. It's just a little metaphor to the fact that the world's richest people are being exponentially wealthier while middle classes deteriorate.
 
Top