America's super-rich get richer

[Free Palestine]

http://img415.imageshack.us/img415/2990/income5de.jpg

And the Economist says:


"Since 1979, median family incomes have risen by 18% but the incomes of the top 1% have gone up by 200%. In 1970, according to the Census Bureau, the bottom fifth received 5.4% of America's total national income and the richest fifth got 40.9%. Twenty-five years later, the share of the bottom fifth had fallen to 4.4% but that of the top fifth had risen to 46.5%. This makes America unusual. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez examined the incomes of the top 0.1% of people in America, France and Britain from 1913 to 1998. The fortunes of the three countries' super-rich kept fairly closely in step for most of the 20th century, until America began to diverge in the late 1970s. Now the top 0.1% of Americans earn two or three times as much as their peers in Britain and France."

http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaySt...tory_id=4148885 (http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=4148885)

[Publius]

Which reminds me, I'll be fucking pissed if my Economist doesn't show up in the mail.

I'm supposed to get it on Saturdays.

But increased inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.

[Free Palestine]

The trend towards increased socio-economic inequality in today's world economy is probably one of the most significant phenomenons. It reveals not only the fall in the rate of returns and profits in the capitalist global economy (which can only grow through ballooning financial speculation and endless mergers and hostile takeovers. If present trends towards economic olygopolic concentration persist, it is estimated that by the year 2050, the entire worlds economy will belong to only 8 huge transnational corporations), but also the dismantling of all historical macro-economic mechanisms for income redistribution instituted after WWII. This institional dismantling is what most economists define as "neo-liberal" policies.


..if you are among the poorest 5% of the population, your chances of achieving an average income are only one in six. If you are among the poorest 1%, they become very dim indeed. Moreover—and this was the most surprising thing about the study—despite America's more flexible labour markets, social mobility there is no longer greater than in supposedly class-ridden Europe, and if anything it seems to be declining.

[Amusing Scrotum]

But increased inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.

You're right there.

For the already rich getting even richer is a good thing. For us "poor folk" getting even less of the cake, is not really that nice. Not that we ever got a decent portion in the first place.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 16 2005, 01:03 AM

But increased inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.

You're right there.

For the already rich getting even richer is a good thing. For us "poor folk" getting even less of the cake, is not really that nice. Not that we ever got a decent portion in the first place.
He meant that even if inequality widens, we still get a bigger piece of cake than we did before.

[JKP]

Originally posted by Marmot+Nov 15 2005, 07:41 PM--> (Marmot @ Nov 15 2005, 07:41 PM)
Armchair [email protected] 16 2005, 01:03 AM

But increased inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.

You're right there.

For the already rich getting even richer is a good thing. For us "poor folk" getting even less of the cake, is not really that nice. Not that we ever got a decent portion in the first place.
He meant that even if inequality widens, we still get a bigger piece of cake than we did before. [/b]
Actually, the "cake" has been getting smaller and smaller since the 70's.

[Tupac-Amaru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 08:11 PM
Which reminds me, I'll be fucking pissed if my Economist doesn't show up in the mail.

I'm supposed to get it on Saturdays.


HAHA, same here!!!! Once i had to wait till a tuesday;... :angry: it was not at time to talk to me...i get violent without my economist.



But increased inequality isn't NECESSARILY a bad thing.

That's true...but if the inquality is too great...than it is A VERY BAD THING!

[Ownthink]

Tupac-Amaru, just a question, where did you get that image in your avatar? I'd like to have the bigger version.

[Tupac-Amaru]

I got it a long time ago. I dunni if this is the exact site i went to, but its the same pic. Here:

http://www.kurtuluscephesi.com/kurcep1/kcfoto/mrtacool.jpg

[Atlas Swallowed]

Conservatives are always against socialism, yet they have no problem with corporate socialism. They do not want government to do anything for the poor or working class. Yet they have no problem with government giving to the super rich and corporations. It like a cow that supports Mc Donalds. Unless you are very wealthy and a conservative you a rube and a sucker giving support to those that repeatedly cut your throat. Not only are they screwing themselves but they are screwing their children. The system is rigged aginst us, most of us will never be wealthy no matter how hard we work. Class war is real, unfortunatly in the USA it is for the most part a one sided battle.

[Publius]

Conservatives are always against socialism, yet they have no problem with corporate socialism.

Of course we do.

Have you read any libertarian literature?

All forms of government intervention/intrustion are bad.

Repeat after me: ALL forms of government intervention/intrustion are bad.

Some are less bad, some are a lesser evil, but all are innately bad to some degree.



They do not want government to do anything for the poor or working class. Yet they have no problem with government giving to the super rich and corporations.

Yes we do.

We have a problem with any government giving any money to anyone.



It like a cow that supports Mc Donalds. Unless you are very wealthy and a conservative you a rube and a sucker giving support to those that repeatedly cut your throat. Not only are they screwing themselves but they are screwing their children. The system is rigged aginst us, most of us will never be wealthy no matter how hard we work. Class war is real, unfortunatly in the USA it is for the most part a one sided battle.

I agree.

[TheComrade]

Isn't this all good fuel for obtaining more support for ideals that promote equality? (like euhhh...communism?)

[Atlas Swallowed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 05:53 PM

Conservatives are always against socialism, yet they have no problem with corporate socialism.

Of course we do.

Have you read any libertarian literature?

All forms of government intervention/intrustion are bad.

Repeat after me: ALL forms of government intervention/intrustion are bad.

Some are less bad, some are a lesser evil, but all are innately bad to some degree.



They do not want government to do anything for the poor or working class. Yet they have no problem with government giving to the super rich and corporations.

Yes we do.

We have a problem with any government giving any money to anyone.



It like a cow that supports Mc Donalds. Unless you are very wealthy and a conservative you a rube and a sucker giving support to those that repeatedly cut your throat. Not only are they screwing themselves but they are screwing their children. The system is rigged aginst us, most of us will never be wealthy no matter how hard we work. Class war is real, unfortunatly in the USA it is for the most part a one sided battle.

I agree.
My apologies, I should have stated most conservatives. I have read some Libertarian literature. I disagree with alot of it but strongly agree with less government.

[JC1]

Of course we do.

Have you read any libertarian literature?

All forms of government intervention/intrustion are bad.

Repeat after me: ALL forms of government intervention/intrustion are bad.

Some are less bad, some are a lesser evil, but all are innately bad to some degree.


Thing is, with the exception of the small firm owner, libertarianism work's for nobody. That's why there is no political party anywhere that has state power at the same time up holding libertarianism.

In in it's first 50 year's, Marxism had created mass party's all cross the industrializied world.

In Libertarianism's first 50, well, nothing.

History has shown the viablility of libertarianism.

[Pencilneck]

Communism has done a bang up job also. Comparing early Marxist movements to the present Libertarian movement is a poor example to say the least.
History has shown the viablility of libertarianism.

As compared to the viability of marxism? Yeah, there mass movements of Marxist, or rather a few hundred "freedom fighters" hiding out in caves in Peru, Phillipines, and other nations with mass movements where they are holed up in basements, college campuses.

Claiming Marxism is viable when after 150 years it has been reduced to it's current state which is as viable as the Prohibition Party is doing Marxists no favors. Libertarianism, while not as glamorous as Communism or Socialism with the slogans, and red flags, and idol worship, it at least has real substance and ideas that withstand time, and without the great suppresion of civil rights that communist bring along that I need liberating from.
I would rather live in a treehouse than under any dictatorship... hmmm I mean liberation from the exploiting capitalists that the revolution will bring against capitalist, :o who provide these here computers that the exploited classes use to complain about well everything..

[JKP]

Marxism has nothing to do with the leninist states.

Communism has never existed; communism has no state.

[TheComrade]

JKP is right - the only way a Communist state will ever exsist is when everyone within it is equal, there is no class struggle and it's stable (obviously.) Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc never complied with all these needs - its incredibly sad that such a beautiful idea was abused and mistreated by people like Stalin, Mao etc.

[poster_child]

How is it equality of opportunity if you are born into a rich family and never have to work a day in your life! How is it fair that someone can be born into a life of poverty and homelessness, and have it still be called equality of opportunity!? This is a MAJOR (one of many) flaws in capitalism.

[Free Palestine]

The difference between stupid media and intelligent media, both talking about the same person:

Washington Post:


"The king, who was educated in the West, promotes democracy and has championed Muslims to stand together against extremism."

The Economist, the best magazine there is:


"For all the talk of modernisation and political pluralism, Jordan is still a politely authoritarian state run by a king whose near-absolute power is underpinned by a ruthless and watchful security service. His reforms are being imposed from the top down. The press, though it breathes a bit more freely, is co-opted and still occasionally muzzled. A recent poll by the Centre for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan found that 77% of respondents felt they could not “criticise the government without fearing punishment”, against only 16% who thought they could."

[Korol Aferist]

I found this to be little bit funny...
The basics is that 1 out of a 10 of the top 1% is getting rich.
I did my research also and this is what I found out...
So basically 9 out of the 10 of the top 1% is losing money ?
And you complaining about that 1 out of 10 of the top 1% of the richest ?

Hmm....

I think you have problems....

Did the professor that failed you was jewish ? Is that why you're against Zion?
Did a cappie ripped you off on a lollipop? Is that why you're against Capitalism?

[Luís Henrique]

Conservatives are always against socialism, yet they have no problem with corporate socialism.

Of course we do.

Have you read any libertarian literature?

Libertarians are not Conservatives; Conservatives know the State is necessary to the protection of private property.

Libertarians are just nutcases.

Luís Henrique

[Nyder]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:42 PM
Marxism has nothing to do with the leninist states.

Communism has never existed; communism has no state.
That's just the thing - you can't enforce communism without a state. If you really want everyone to be a communist, you have to have central control and be willing to deal out brutal punishment to anyone who resists. That's exactly what Stalin did. Because he wouldn't have been able to achieve such widespread control without eliminating all of his enemies and locking up anyone who didn't agree with his policies.

I don't mind 'voluntary communism' but if it's voluntary that means you don't have to do it. Otherwise just shoot me in the head and get it over with...

[JKP]

Communism is a libertarian(in the original sense) society; there should be no coercion. Everything must be voluntary. Additionally, you make it sound as if communism has to be "imposed" on to people.

Communism will only exist because people want it to exist.

Finally, there is no statist version of communism; any form of statism is something other than communism. Read this brief definition of communism:

http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.ph...rt_from=&ucat=& (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 06:53 PM
JKP is right - the only way a Communist state will ever exsist is when everyone within it is equal, there is no class struggle and it's stable (obviously.) Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc never complied with all these needs - its incredibly sad that such a beautiful idea was abused and mistreated by people like Stalin, Mao etc.
JKP is wrong.

Cuba is socialist and has everything to do with Marxism.

There will be (and can be) no advance to communism without a socialist transition -- in whichever form it takes.

Frequently Asked Questions about capitalism, communism, and socialism. (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/faq.html)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Nyder+Nov 29 2005, 04:18 AM--> (Nyder @ Nov 29 2005, 04:18 AM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 06:42 PM
Marxism has nothing to do with the leninist states.

Communism has never existed; communism has no state.
That's just the thing - you can't enforce communism without a state. If you really want everyone to be a communist, you have to have central control and be willing to deal out brutal punishment to anyone who resists. That's exactly what Stalin did. Because he wouldn't have been able to achieve such widespread control without eliminating all of his enemies and locking up anyone who didn't agree with his policies.

I don't mind 'voluntary communism' but if it's voluntary that means you don't have to do it. Otherwise just shoot me in the head and get it over with... [/b]
Oh no? How is it then that you explain that the vast majority of time humans have existed we lived in primitive communism? Class society isn't that old in the overall sense.

[JKP]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Nov 29 2005, 01:14 AM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Nov 29 2005, 01:14 AM)
[email protected] 21 2005, 06:53 PM
JKP is right - the only way a Communist state will ever exsist is when everyone within it is equal, there is no class struggle and it's stable (obviously.) Russia, China, Korea, Cuba etc never complied with all these needs - its incredibly sad that such a beautiful idea was abused and mistreated by people like Stalin, Mao etc.
JKP is wrong.

Cuba is socialist and has everything to do with Marxism.

There will be (and can be) no advance to communism without a socialist transition -- in whichever form it takes.

Frequently Asked Questions about capitalism, communism, and socialism. (http://www.freepeoplesmovement.org/ry/faq.html) [/b]
Socialism is not communism.