the rich get richer, the poor get well, poorer

[which doctor]

source: http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/20..._privilege.html (http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2006/05/perks_of_privilege.html)

IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.

THERE’VE BEEN FEW new additions to the Forbes 400. The median household income has also stagnated—at around $44,000.

AMONG THE FORBES 400 who gave to a 2004 presidential campaign, 72% gave to Bush.

IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.

IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ONLY ESTATES worth more than $1.5 million are taxed. That’s less than 1% of all estates. Still, repealing the estate tax will cost the government at least $55 billion a year.

ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half.

BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.

A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid.

THIS YEAR, Donald Trump will earn $1.5 million an hour to speak at Learning Annex seminars.

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

IF THE $5.15 HOURLY minimum wage had risen at the same rate as CEO compensation since 1990, it would now stand at $23.03.

A MINIMUM WAGE employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.

SUCH A WORKER would take 7,000 years to earn Oracle CEO Larry Ellison’s yearly compensation.

ELLISON RECENTLY posed in Vanity Fair with his $300 million, 454-foot yacht, which he noted is “really only the size of a very large house.”
A World of Difference

ONLY THE WEALTHIEST 20% of Americans spend more on entertainment than on health care.

THE $17,530 EARNED by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4.

5 OF AMERICA’S 10 richest people are Wal-Mart heirs.

PUBLIC COMPANIES spend 10% of their earnings compensating their top 5 executives.

1,730 BOARD MEMBERS of the nation’s 1,000 leading companies sit on the boards of 4 or more other corporations—including half of Coca-Cola’s 14-person board.

THE BIDDER who won a round of golf with Tiger Woods for $30,100 at a 2004 Buick charity auction could deduct all but about $200.

TIGER MADE $87 million in 2005, all but $12 million from endorsements and appearance fees.

THE 5TH LEADING philanthropist last year was Boone Pickens, in part due to his $165 million gift to Oklahoma State University’s golf program.

WITHIN AN HOUR, OSU invested it in a hedge fund Pickens controls. Thanks to a Katrina relief provision, his “gift” was also 100% deductible.

LAST YEAR 250 COMPANIES gave top execs between $50,000 and $1 million worth of wholly personal flights on corporate jets.

THIS PERK is 66% more costly to companies whose CEO belongs to out-of-state golf clubs.
A New Gilded Age

THE U.S. GOVERNMENT spends $500,000 on 8 security screeners who speed execs from a Wall Street helipad to American’s JFK terminal.

UNITED HAS CUT the pensions and salaries of most employees but promised 400 top executives 8% of the shares it expects to issue upon emerging from bankruptcy.

UNITED’S TOP 8 execs will also get a bonus of between 55% and 100% of their salaries.

IN 2002, “turnaround artist” Robert Miller dumped Bethlehem Steel’s pension obligation, allowing “vulture investor” Wilbur L. Ross to buy steel stock and sell it at a 1,000% profit.

IN 2005, DELPHI HIRED Miller for $4.5 million. After Ross said he might buy Delphi if its labor costs fell, Miller demanded wage cuts of up to 63% and dumped the pension obligation.

10 FORMER ENRON directors agreed to pay shareholders a $13 million settlement—which is 10% of what they made by dumping stock while lying about the company’s health.

POOR AMERICANS spend 1/4 of their income on residential energy costs.

EXXON’S 2005 PROFIT of $36.13 billion is more than the GDP of 2/3 of the world’s nations.

CEO PAY AMONG military contractors has tripled since 2001. For David Brooks, the CEO of bulletproof vest maker DHB, it’s risen 13,233%.

AT THE $10 MILLION bat mitzvah party Brooks threw his daughter last year, guests got $1,000 gift bags and listened to Aerosmith, Kenny G., Tom Petty, Stevie Nicks, and 50 Cent—who reportedly sang, “Go shorty, it’s your bat mitzvah, we gonna party like it’s your bat mitzvah.”

FOR PERFORMING IN the Live 8 concerts to “make poverty history,” musicians each got gift bags worth up to $12,000.

OSCAR PERFORMERS and presenters collectively owe the IRS $1,250,000 on the gift bags they got at the 2006 Academy Awards ceremony.

A DOG FOOD COMPANY provided “pawdicures” and other spa treatments to pets of celebrities attending the 2006 Sundance Film Festival.

ONE OF MADONNA’S recent freebies: $10,000 mink and diamond-tipped false eyelashes.

PARIS HILTON, who charges clubs $200,000 to appear for 20 minutes, stiffed Elton John’s AIDS benefit the $2,500-per-plate fee she owed.

ACCORDING TO Radar magazine, Owen Wilson was paid $100,000 to attend a Mercedes-Benz-sponsored Hamptons polo match. When other guests tried to speak with him, he reportedly said, “That’s not my job.”

-- Clara Jeffery (Ed.)

[CombatLiberalism]

Wrong.

Any quick look at the US census bureau shows that while gap between rich and "poor" is widening, the poor are not getting poorer. All this means is that the upper quintiles are getting rich at a faster rate than the lower quintiles.

Since 1959, poverty has gone down about 22% -- for example.

For at least 50 years, populists have been claiming that wages have been going down. But it isn't true. Anyone who has half a brain or who can see what is right under their noses can see that standard of living has gone up for most amerikans over the past 50 years.

While the minimum wage may be officially around 5.15 (or whatever) nationally, many states have higher minimum wages and most entry level work for amerikan citizens is closer to 10$/hour. Those who get stuck with the bottom end entry level wages are mostly youth and migrants. Only an idiot would think that most amerikans are making 5.15 an hour. Use some common sense. Per Capita income, including those not working, is 24,000$ per amerikan. Think about that!

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 04:25 am
Wrong.

Any quick look at the US census bureau shows that while gap between rich and "poor" is widening, the poor are not getting poorer. All this means is that the upper quintiles are getting rich at a faster rate than the lower quintiles.

Since 1959, poverty has gone down about 22% -- for example.

For at least 50 years, populists have been claiming that wages have been going down. But it isn't true. Anyone who has half a brain or who can see what is right under their noses can see that standard of living has gone up for most amerikans over the past 50 years.

While the minimum wage may be officially around 5.15 (or whatever) nationally, many states have higher minimum wages and most entry level work for amerikan citizens is closer to 10$/hour. Those who get stuck with the bottom end entry level wages are mostly youth and migrants. Only an idiot would think that most amerikans are making 5.15 an hour. Use some common sense. Per Capita income, including those not working, is 24,000$ per amerikan. Think about that!
Just out of curiousity, where are you from?

[colonelguppy]

how does this illustrate that the poor are getitng poorer?

[razboz]

how does this illustrate that the poor are getitng poorer?

Theres a lot of info there so which part are you referring to?


IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.


That bit, for example shows that the rich are getting richer.


POOR AMERICANS spend 1/4 of their income on residential energy costs.

While this bit shows poor people being poor.

Most of the info though, shows rich people getting richer.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 06:00 am
how does this illustrate that the poor are getitng poorer?
Because the bad actions of a few actors or some failed policies mean the entire system sucks.

Except, like, when a few bad actors enact some failed policies in the name of my system. That's, like, totally different.

[razboz]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 27, 2006 02:56 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 27, 2006 02:56 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 06:00 am
how does this illustrate that the poor are getitng poorer?
Because the bad actions of a few actors or some failed policies mean the entire system sucks.

Except, like, when a few bad actors enact some failed policies in the name of my system. That's, like, totally different. [/b]
As per usual, t_wolf, i dont agree wiht that analysis. In both systems the few bad actors clearly do not discredit the entire system. What we see in capitalism are a conistnet string of failures. While with communism we have a couple of outstanding cock-ups, which can easily be explained by the megalomaniac distortion of Communist ideas by men (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) who felt that they were better than the rest. What we see with capitalism is a pattern spanning several hundred years.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 03:07 pm
As per usual, t_wolf, i dont agree wiht that analysis. In both systems the few bad actors clearly do not discredit the entire system. What we see in capitalism are a conistnet string of failures. While with communism we have a couple of outstanding cock-ups, which can easily be explained by the megalomaniac distortion of Communist ideas by men (Lenin, Stalin, Mao) who felt that they were better than the rest. What we see with capitalism is a pattern spanning several hundred years.
It wasn't so much analysis as it was impudence.

I'll trust your explanation the moment I see a communist or socialist revolution that doesn't involve a strong-man or a tyrannical "vanguard".

Regarding the failures of capitalism, there always will be such failures. But I'd rather be subject to those failures than the likelihood that I'm executed for saying the wrong thing in the living room of my dormatory in the People's Glorious Apartment Complex while my telescreen was on.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

Regarding the failures of capitalism, there always will be such failures.

Of course.

Capitalism is a system of "gains, profits and LOSSES" because without such losses, the system could not improve itself.

Wal-Mart and its predecessors (and their predecessors) is a perfect example of gains and losses.

Ditto for typewriters and word-processing applications on computers and as well as DVD players and Laserdiscs.

[Gradualist Fool]

This is true. However, modern economies cannot remain stable anymore without a middle-class. "Skilled labor," provided by the middle-class is an integral part of the modern economy, so they cannot forcefully turn the middleclass into peasants, even if they wanted to.

Furthermore, the gains made by poor countries are astounding. See Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat."

Wealthy countries will benefit most from social democracy, but poor countries will benefit most from free trade and laissez-faire economic policies.

[CombatLiberalism]

Saying that amerikans allegedly spend 1/4 of their income on energy does not mean they are getting poorer! Have you done a historic study over the past 50 years and compared it to today?

In fact, it can indicate they are getting richer, they own bigger houses and more cars. For example, average square footing per amerikan has gone up substantially over the past 50 years. It addition, more people own cars than in the past. This requires more energy cost, hardly a sign of poverty!

Go check out the US census bureau online and check out their historic income tables.

You people need to wake up and smell the super-profits.

Another example: The poor of today are actually richer in terms of houshold items and income than the "middle class" of the mid 70s.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 02:31 am

how does this illustrate that the poor are getitng poorer?

Theres a lot of info there so which part are you referring to?


IN 1985, THE FORBES 400 were worth $221 billion combined. Today, they’re worth $1.13 trillion—more than the GDP of Canada.


That bit, for example shows that the rich are getting richer.


POOR AMERICANS spend 1/4 of their income on residential energy costs.

While this bit shows poor people being poor.

Most of the info though, shows rich people getting richer.
well i didn't dispute that the rich were getting richer, and i already know that the poor are relatively poor. i asked how this proved that the poor were getting poorer

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 27, 2006 03:33 pm

Regarding the failures of capitalism, there always will be such failures.

Wal-Mart and its predecessors (and their predecessors) is a perfect example of gains and losses.


Wal-Mart is a perfect example of profit over people. The embodiement of your glorious system.

"They've got you by the balls"

-George Carlin (more relevant then ever)

[colonelguppy]

walmart is also the perfect example of how the market can best serve the people.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 08:42 pm
walmart is also the perfect example of how the market can best serve the people.

Refusing a handicapped person a seated position despite her being hired in full knowledge of that handicap, and then firing her for not being able to work.

Pressuring employees to work off the clock so as to not accrue overtime, while threatening them with termination if they do not comply OR if they mention it to the Labor Department.

Keeping managers up to speed on state and local aid programs so that their underpaid employees can be a burden to the locality in which they live, rather than the company for which they work. Who deserves a living wage, anyway?

Claiming that all their goods are made in America, when in fact very few are.

Offering Chinese workers dormitory style housing adjacent to their factories...and deducting the rent for those dormitories whether or not they choose to live there.

Spending 100,000 dollars on surveillance equipment to spy on (and terminate) any employees who discuss unionization, rather than spending LESS than that to improve conditions such that employees don't feel they need unionization.

You're right, Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what the market does to people.

[colonelguppy]

while simultaneously providing unbelievably affordable products in vast quantities in a very convenient way for the rest of the people.

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 09:09 pm
while simultaneously providing unbelievably affordable products in vast quantities in a very convenient way for the rest of the people.
How doo they do it?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 01:00 am
how does this illustrate that the poor are getitng poorer?
IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Raj Radical+October 27, 2006 04:12 pm--> (Raj Radical @ October 27, 2006 04:12 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 09:09 pm
while simultaneously providing unbelievably affordable products in vast quantities in a very convenient way for the rest of the people.
How doo they do it? [/b]
sound business practices i suppose


IN 2005, 25.7 million Americans received food stamps, a 49% increase since 2000.

ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

so what?

[Enragé]

so what?

cant you read!?

that means they ARE GETTING POORER

let me spel it out for you
minimum wage = the minimal amount of money you get, the money lots of poor people get

since it has fallen by 42%, that means that lots of poor people have less money, they are therefore poorer

not exactly rocket science now is it

[Tungsten]

Raj Radical

Spending 100,000 dollars on surveillance equipment to spy on (and terminate) any employees who discuss unionization,
Someone's imagination has been doing overtime.

You're right, Wal-Mart is a perfect example of what the market does to people.
The market is just a system of buying and selling. A free market is a system of buying and selling with minimal restrictions. What, realistically, is that going to "do" to anyone? What do you propose as an alternative?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by Raj Radical+October 27, 2006 04:12 pm--> (Raj Radical @ October 27, 2006 04:12 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 09:09 pm
while simultaneously providing unbelievably affordable products in vast quantities in a very convenient way for the rest of the people.
How doo they do it? [/b]
Exploiting millions of third-world workers. Forcing american manufacturing jobs overseas. Driving out smaller, local businesses in the towns they move into.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 04:49 pm

so what?

cant you read!?

that means they ARE GETTING POORER

let me spel it out for you
minimum wage = the minimal amount of money you get, the money lots of poor people get

since it has fallen by 42%, that means that lots of poor people have less money, they are therefore poorer

not exactly rocket science now is it
no it means the fed hasn't raised the minimuam wage to keep up with inflation, it says nothing about whether or not alot of people actually make this wage. you fail at stats.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 05:09 pm
Driving out smaller, local businesses in the towns they move into.
yeah with sound business practices

[Raj Radical]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 10:01 pm
What do you propose as an alternative?
You do know what forums you are on, right?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 27, 2006 05:19 pm--> (colonelguppy @ October 27, 2006 05:19 pm)
[email protected] 27, 2006 05:09 pm
Driving out smaller, local businesses in the towns they move into.
yeah with sound business practices [/b]
Was that supposed to be sarcasm?

[CombatLiberalism]

well i didn't dispute that the rich were getting richer, and i already know that the poor are relatively poor. i asked how this proved that the poor were getting poorer

They aren't getting poorer. Any quick look to the online census bureau numbers will show this. Look at the historic income tables. They break the adjusted incomes down by "race" and quintiles. So, you can get a real picture of who is doing well and not. Overall, the rich are getting richer at a faster rate and the poor are getting richer at a slower rate. Some of the quintiles have been stagnant at times, for example, Black lower quintiles.

White populists, from Pat Buchanan to social-fascists posing as socialists on "Revleft," have been saying this shit for decades. Every year, the numerically challenged say that things are getting worse for their social base white nationalist audience. "Outsourcing," "Mexicans taking jobs," "wages falling," "loss in manufacturing," blah blah blah..

They also aren't "relatively poor" by any reasonable standard. An amerikan making minimum wage (and very few amerikans actually make 5-6$/hour), is actually in the richest 15% of the world's population. And, I am being overly generous here and rounding substantially down. So, who are these social fascists agitating for? They are agitating on behalf of the richest 15% in the world! They are not socialists, they are social-fascists. Socialism in words only. These people are no different that the Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs white nationalist grumblers. Even if they don't know it, they are playing the same goddamn role.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by FoB+October 27, 2006 07:24 pm--> (FoB @ October 27, 2006 07:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 05:19 pm

[email protected] 27, 2006 05:09 pm
Driving out smaller, local businesses in the towns they move into.
yeah with sound business practices
Was that supposed to be sarcasm? [/b]
well kind of, they do tend to exploit city governments to get the zoning done to their advantage, but yeah for the most part they do business better than anyone else so thats why they're succesful.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I expect to not get any replies from anybody but here goes nothing.


BUSH’S TAX CUTS GIVE a 2-child family earning $1 million an extra $86,722—or Harvard tuition, room, board, and an iMac G5 for both kids.

A 2-CHILD family earning $50,000 gets $2,050—or 1/5 the cost of public college for one kid.

OK... the rich family gets back more than the "poor" family earns in a year. HELLO!!! That's because we're taxed on a progressive percentage basis! In order for the rich person to get that big of a tax CUT means that they're paying monumentally more than the person getting the smaller cut... AND STILL DO. That's how percentages WORK.

DUH!


THE $17,530 EARNED by the average Wal-Mart employee last year was $1,820 below the poverty line for a family of 4.

Jeez, I love this one.

First is, that if the sum of your life's experience qualifies you to work only at places like Walmart, you've got no business trying to support others on that income. To attempt to do so is a CHOICE. There's no requirement that someone with limited ability marry and bear children.

Second, I believe that the "average" Walmart employee is providing a second income or supplimental income. Therefore, his or her "average income" bears little relevancy.

Finally, when Walmart goes a-hiring...thousands upon thousands apply for a few job openings...Walmart hires people who probably couldn't work elsewhere...Walmart is usually one of the biggest contributors to their local community...and I'm sure you have no idea how much money Walmart pays in corporate taxes, huh?


EXXON’S 2005 PROFIT of $36.13 billion is more than the GDP of 2/3 of the world’s nations.

What is their PERCENTAGE of gross profit as it relates to sales, or better yet, what's its net profit percentage? How does that compare with other industries, even though it's hardly an apples to oranges comparison?

While we're on the subject, how do purely socialist based economies fare in the global marketplace?

And what does it say that America's "poor" have a far higher standard of living than the citizens of those 2/3 of the planet's countries?


IN 2005, there were 9 million American millionaires, a 62% increase since 2002.


And this is a bad thing how?


ONLY 3% OF STUDENTS at the top 146 colleges come from families in the bottom income quartile; only 10% come from the bottom half.

How does the fact that education isn't much of a priority at the bottom of the economic scale figure into your calculations?

And besides? Where did this clown of an author along with the rest of the stupid muppets of Mother Jones get their degrees???

Please, tell me....I'm dying to hear!


THIS YEAR, Donald Trump will earn $1.5 million an hour to speak at Learning Annex seminars.



That's pretty good money if you can get it.


ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, the federal minimum wage has fallen 42% since its peak in 1968.

A MINIMUM WAGE employee who works 40 hours a week for 51 weeks a year goes home with $10,506 before taxes.



Who makes minimum wage, as a rule? How many people are there that earn minimum wage? How long does it take someone to earn more than minimum wage, or is it a lifetime sentence? If minimum wage was magically raised tomorrow to a "living wage," how long would it be before that wage was no longer enough to live on? Would having everyone on a "living wage" close the gap between the "haves and the have nots?"

Yeah, capitalism sucks for those who can't reach the brass ring. Some because they lack ability, others because they lack initiative and ambition. In America, we compensate somewhat with social programs, which in of themselves breed dependence and stifles the human spirit.

Yes too, there's exploitation involved. But there's no other economic model where exploitation is avoided. It's a fact of human nature that seems to escape you that when there's something to be exploited, be it people, resources, or situations, ambitious people everywhere will readily do so.

But capitalism is the only model in play today where ambition is rewarded. Greed is a necessary component of ambition, and ambition is what allows mankind to achieve.

Is achievement a bad thing?

[Raj Radical]

OK... the rich family gets back more than the "poor" family earns in a year. HELLO!!! That's because we're taxed on a progressive percentage basis! In order for the rich person to get that big of a tax CUT means that they're paying monumentally more than the person getting the smaller cut... AND STILL DO. That's how percentages WORK.

Really. You like numbers.

How about the top 1% reaps around 50% of the tax cuts and even the new tax cuts on investments.

Are you going to tell me that the top 1% bears 50% of the tax burden?



Jeez, I love this one.

First is, that if the sum of your life's experience qualifies you to work only at places like Walmart, you've got no business trying to support others on that income. To attempt to do so is a CHOICE. There's no requirement that someone with limited ability marry and bear children.






You have no right to judge the situation of poor workers, and especially no right to blame them for not making more money.

"Why can't everyone be rich like me and my daddy?" - ..whines capitalistlawyer



Second, I believe that the "average" Walmart employee is providing a second income or supplimental income. Therefore, his or her "average income" bears little relevancy.

Let me get this straight, because the way that Wal-Mart trests their workers like shit, forcing them to balance it with another job - then they have no right to complain.




What is their PERCENTAGE of gross profit as it relates to sales, or better yet, what's its net profit percentage? How does that compare with other industries, even though it's hardly an apples to oranges comparison?

I don't think you understand. Exxon(a multinational corporation) makes more in profit than 2/3 of the worlds countires gross production.




And what does it say that America's "poor" have a far higher standard of living than the citizens of those 2/3 of the planet's countries?

Thats a given. Im take it you are finally feeling empathy for the millions of nameless victems?

Or are you claiming that the profits of Exxon are responsible for the relativly comfy life of American poor?

I have trouble believing either one.




How does the fact that education isn't much of a priority at the bottom of the economic scale figure into your calculations?

So the fact that the poor are horribly underrepresented in prestigious universities is because getting an education and getting out of their shitty situation "just isent a priority"? Or is it that those places are generally considered boys clubs where all the little punk has to do is walk and chew bubble gum and have an alumni parent who can make a $30,000 donation and he can take the spot of a much more deserving student.




If minimum wage was magically raised tomorrow to a "living wage," how long would it be before that wage was no longer enough to live on?

What? Probably until inflation has taken its toll?


Yes too, there's exploitation involved. But there's no other economic model where exploitation is avoided. It's a fact of human nature
.

...Human spirit

...Human nature.
...Human Spirit
...American Dream


For all your claims of realism, you capitalists sure use alot of (unfounded)metaphysical rhetoric as last ditch attempts at defending your system. ;)

[colonelguppy]

How about the top 1% reaps around 50% of the tax cuts and even the new tax cuts on investments.

Are you going to tell me that the top 1% bears 50% of the tax burden?

they pay like 22%. who cares if they get 50% of the tax cuts?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+October 30, 2006 10:14 am--> (patton @ October 30, 2006 10:14 am)
[email protected] 29, 2006 07:52 am


they pay like 22%. who cares if they get 50% of the tax cuts?
What planet are you from how about they pay there fair share of taxes. [/b]
fair share? they already pay upwards of 30% of their income, after the tax cuts. what the hell do you define as fair?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+October 28, 2006 11:12 am--> (colonelguppy @ October 28, 2006 11:12 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 07:24 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2006 05:19 pm

[email protected] 27, 2006 05:09 pm
Driving out smaller, local businesses in the towns they move into.
yeah with sound business practices
Was that supposed to be sarcasm?
well kind of, they do tend to exploit city governments to get the zoning done to their advantage, but yeah for the most part they do business better than anyone else so thats why they're succesful. [/b]
Wal-Mart has anything but sound business practices.

*ruining the environment
*manipulating city governments
*not paying overtime
*sexism and other forms of discrimination

and many many more

[t_wolves_fan]

Are you going to tell me that the top 1% bears 50% of the tax burden?

The data is right here. (http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/1941.html)


You have no right to judge the situation of poor workers, and especially no right to blame them for not making more money.

It works in reverse: what gives you the right to judge wealthy people who try to make more money? Is it different just because it's you?


I don't think you understand. Exxon(a multinational corporation) makes more in profit than 2/3 of the worlds countires gross production.

So what? Really, why does this matter? Isn't it possible that those countries aren't very productive?


Or are you claiming that the profits of Exxon are responsible for the relativly comfy life of American poor?

I have trouble believing either one.

Exxon's profits enable them to not have to lay off any workers, which means they have a job. More importantly, Exxon's success means the small business owners who run a franchise are doing well.

Your mistake is that you view this all as a zero sum game. If a company does well then by definition some poor people are getting hurt. It doesn't even remotely work that way.


the fact that the poor are horribly underrepresented in prestigious universities is because getting an education and getting out of their shitty situation "just isent a priority"? Or is it that those places are generally considered boys clubs where all the little punk has to do is walk and chew bubble gum and have an alumni parent who can make a $30,000 donation and he can take the spot of a much more deserving student.

You do understand that even prestigious universities have thousands of students, not all of which are legacies.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+October 30, 2006 05:04 pm--> (patton @ October 30, 2006 05:04 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 09:52 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 10:14 am

[email protected] 29, 2006 07:52 am


they pay like 22%. who cares if they get 50% of the tax cuts?
What planet are you from how about they pay there fair share of taxes.
fair share? they already pay upwards of 30% of their income, after the tax cuts. what the hell do you define as fair?
No tax cuts and 30% tax rate i think is pretty fair. [/b]
i think no income tax is pretty fair for everyone

[colonelguppy]

we did it for a long time i don't know why you would think it wouldn't work

[Capitalist Lawyer]

I need a better communist to debate here but I'll respond anyway.


I don't think you understand. Exxon(a multinational corporation) makes more in profit than 2/3 of the worlds countires gross production.


I understand perfectly.

But in this country's economy, they're a comparatively small component. Your original statement made it seem there was something evil about what Exxon declares as a profit. In your Star Trek economy, that's probably true, but outside of the Federation, their gross profit percentage is not obscene, nor is their net.


Thats a given. Im take it you are finally feeling empathy for the millions of nameless victems?

Millions claw their way out of poverty. They're determined to do whatever it takes to legally grab the brass ring. That's what's great about capitalism.

It's not about me feeling empathy, it's about people doing it themselves.


So the fact that the poor are horribly underrepresented in prestigious universities is because getting an education and getting out of their shitty situation "just isent a priority"? Or is it that those places are generally considered boys clubs where all the little punk has to do is walk and chew bubble gum and have an alumni parent who can make a $30,000 donation and he can take the spot of a much more deserving student.

No...the determination to be better than you are separates those kids who go to college from those who don't.

Ivy league schools are dying for "diversity." They scour the country for inner city kids so they can pat themselves on the back and point to how compassionate they are.

Trouble is, there aren't many kids who can truly succeed in those environments. Partly it's the parent's fault for not pushing their kids nor demanding quality education, and part of the problem is that for some reason, inner city schools spend so much at headquarters that little money trickles down to the kids.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

A question that I forgot to ask:

Is the "economic wealth pie" finite according to you?

[Marsella]

Some interesting statistics I found:

At the end of the twentieth century, wealth is concentrated among the G8 and Western industrialized nations, along with several Asian nations. In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the total wealth.

The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorests people.

The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.

Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+October 31, 2006 11:06 am--> (patton @ October 31, 2006 11:06 am)
[email protected] 30, 2006 10:38 pm
we did it for a long time i don't know why you would think it wouldn't work
Do you know how high the tarrif rate would have to be to pay for the almost 1 trillon dollar US budget like 300%. [/b]
well obviously we'd have to cut the budget

[Qwerty Dvorak]

I don't think there is any doubt that the poor in developed countries, by and large, are getting ever so slightly richer as the years go by; indeed, it seems to make perfect sense to me. However, this does not prove that capitalism is some sort of godsend that keeps everyone happy all the time. For example, it is obvious that while the poor may be getting slightly less poor, the rich are most certainly getting richer at a much faster rate, which creates more economic inequality, and thus more social instability.

Also, you have to remember that as capitalism expands to the furthest reaches of civilization through globalization, capitalists will have to answer to the crippling economic problems faced by those in the third world, and will be held responsible for the economic and social shortcomings in these countries, too.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by patton+October 31, 2006 12:23 pm--> (patton @ October 31, 2006 12:23 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 05:02 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2006 11:06 am

[email protected] 30, 2006 10:38 pm
we did it for a long time i don't know why you would think it wouldn't work
Do you know how high the tarrif rate would have to be to pay for the almost 1 trillon dollar US budget like 300%.
well obviously we'd have to cut the budget
HAHAHA Cut spending!! those guys in House and Senate cut spending!!! your killing me!!! :lol: :lol: [/b]
well its more realistic then most people views on this forum

[t_wolves_fan]

However, this does not prove that capitalism is some sort of godsend that keeps everyone happy all the time.

That is not a realistic goal of any political or economic system. Do you understand that?


For example, it is obvious that while the poor may be getting slightly less poor, the rich are most certainly getting richer at a much faster rate, which creates more economic inequality, and thus more social instability.

Not really, we are the most socio-economically unequal society on earth and we don't have much social instability.

Equality is not equivalent to stability, nor is it equivalent to justice.


Also, you have to remember that as capitalism expands to the furthest reaches of civilization through globalization, capitalists will have to answer to the crippling economic problems faced by those in the third world, and will be held responsible for the economic and social shortcomings in these countries, too.

No they don't. If their government allows me to employ them for 36 cents an hour, then their government has to answer to them first.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

That is not a realistic goal of any political or economic system. Do you understand that?
I was using hyperbole. Do you understand that?

What I meant is that the particular problem with capitalism discussed here, the problem of economic inequality, which you have claimed not to exist or to be of any real importance because the poor are getting richer, still exists and is still of relevance.



Not really, we are the most socio-economically unequal society on earth and we don't have much social instability.

I assume you're talking about the US, in which case you should take a look at some of the ghettos where more than 50% of the population live below the poverty line. In some of these areas society is not only unstable, but nigh on defunct. It just so happens that in the US the rich areas are further removed from the poor. Also, there is the fact that a lot of poor areas are steeped in religion, which reduces their will to take action against and destabilize society. But religion is undeniably dying out.

Also look at France, and the social instability there. And don't say France is a Socialist country, because it's not.



No they don't. If their government allows me to employ them for 36 cents an hour, then their government has to answer to them first.
And in allowing you to do this they are becoming proponents of the ideology of capitalism.

[t_wolves_fan]

I was using hyperbole. Do you understand that?

Just wanted to make sure sport, because some of you folks seem to think that is precisely government's job.


What I meant is that the particular problem with capitalism discussed here, the problem of economic inequality, which you have claimed not to exist or to be of any real importance because the poor are getting richer, still exists and is still of relevance.

Of course it exists, but its relevance is subjective.



I assume you're talking about the US, in which case you should take a look at some of the ghettos where more than 50% of the population live below the poverty line.

I drive through it every day.


In some of these areas society is not only unstable, but nigh on defunct. It just so happens that in the US the rich areas are further removed from the poor. Also, there is the fact that a lot of poor areas are steeped in religion, which reduces their will to take action against and destabilize society. But religion is undeniably dying out.

Having the poor within robbing distance would make little difference because it's not like these people have no idea what it's like to be either rich or middle class. It's also quite difficult to get ahead in a very unstable society; you're complaining that the ghetto is unstable but seem to think the answer is to destabilize the rest of society too.


Also look at France, and the social instability there. And don't say France is a Socialist country, because it's not.

It's pretty freaking close; if it's against the law to fire someone because they're a crappy employee, then the lines between whatever it is and socialism are pretty faint.

But yes, France is unstable precisely because of socialistic programs that allow people to lay around all day doing nothing and still get paid for it, and for a cowardly attitude that says we can't tell people not to misbehave for fear of offending them.


And in allowing you to do this they are becoming proponents of the ideology of capitalism.

Yet capitalism does not require their acquiescence.

[Son of a Strummer]

Combatliberalism wrote:

“Any quick look at the US census bureau shows that while gap between rich and "poor" is widening, the poor are not getting poorer. All this means is that the upper quintiles are getting rich at a faster rate than the lower quintiles.

Since 1959, poverty has gone down about 22% -- for example."

and

"Go check out the US census bureau online and check out their historic income tables.”

It should be recognized that statistics and the definitions underlying them were not handed down from an objective and omnipotent deity- they are man-made and as such every major statistic is a political battleground. You say “go look at the census statistics” but you don’t you don’t go so far as to question where those statistics are coming from or their history.

As Michael Parenti has argued the “historic income tables” (the ones that we are supposed to check) have a fatal flaw, namely they don’t accurately count the incomes of the super-rich. http://www.michaelparenti.org/Superrich.html “The super rich, the less than 1 percent of the population who own the lion's share of the nation's wealth, go uncounted in most income distribution reports.”

Both the statistical flaws and the political nature of official statistics are even more glaring when one considers the measurement of poverty in the U.S. It is widely acknowledged that the methods for arriving at the official U.S. poverty rate are obsolete and useless relics from the ‘60’s that even their creator, Mollie Orshansky now forsakes. The “poverty” of the U.S. poverty rate has been widely recognized at least since the National Academy of Sciences established an interdisciplinary panel that found the measure significantly deficient in 1995. Even Census bureau executives have expressed a desire to change to new measures but have noted political resistance because new proposed measures will tend to raise the official poverty rate. According to Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute “The one I consider most reliable, because it factors in child-care costs for working parents, has shown poverty rates that average about 3 percent above the official figure, implying that there may be 9 million more Americans whose incomes are inadequate for their basic needs.” http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatu...ensus_poor_data (http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_census_poor_data) . For further discussion see this article from In These Times: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2513/

Errors are further compounded when one recognizes the deficiencies related to undercounting in the Current Population Survey. John Schmitt and Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research have found that “undercounting in the CPS has a substantial impact on our national measures of employment, poverty, and health-insurance coverage, and that the extent of the impact is likely to be growing over time.” http://www.cepr.net/publications/cps_decli...age_2006_08.pdf (http://www.cepr.net/publications/cps_declining_coverage_2006_08.pdf)


Since panglossian assertions about the global economy were also spouted it is worth noting that the global statistics on poverty released by World Bank economists, who at least bother to acknowledge the uncertainty of their exercise (typically in their footnotes), are hardly more reliable than the official U.S. poverty statistics. Meanwhile the culture of punditry exemplified by corporate-funded think tanks, mags like The Economist (http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/22/economist/index.html) and cheerleaders like Thomas Friedman and David Brooks of the New York Times habitually simplify and distort such statistics. Ideally this requires a separate thread for discussion, but in this instance it suffices to reference the devastating critiques of World Bank measurements by economists such as Sanjay Reddy and Thomas Pogge, James K. Galbraith, Michel Chossudovsky among others. According to the global civil society coalition, Social Watch:
“In fact the main use of the USD 1 per day indicator is ideological and political. This indicator has led World Bank researchers to claim that “globalization is working”, since it seems to imply that the proportion of people living in poverty in the world as a whole is declining at a rate that will make Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 1 achievable.
When we look more closely at the numbers, we find that even according to that indicator, extreme poverty is not declining and is even increasing in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Eastern Europe and most of Asia, with progress concentrated in Vietnam, India and China. India and China do register high economic growth in the last decade, but long term trends of poverty in China are difficult to establish due to the lack of reliable historical statistical series, while in India “there is good evidence that the official estimates of poverty reduction are too optimistic, particularly for rural India.” http://www.socialwatch.org/en/informesTematicos/92.html

more resources on official global poverty statistics:

http://www.columbia.edu/~sr793/count.pdf How Not to Count the World’s Poor by Reddy and Pogge

http://www.transnational.org/features/chossu_worldbank.html Global Falsehoods by Michel Chossudovsky

http://www.brettonwoodsproject.org/article.shtml?cmd[126]=i-126-241b14a5be9a5b47cd5a88778ac79532 The Bretton Woods Project

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Facts.asp Globalissues.org


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020701fare...he-numbers.html (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020701faresponse8531/james-k-galbraith/by-the-numbers.html) James K. Galbraith of the Texas Inequality Project explains how World Bank economists are using incomplete and unreliable data sets.


My point here is merely to highlight the importance of questioning official statistics. As to the slogan, “The rich get richer, while the poor get poorer,” I think it is sometimes inappropriately used and that we communists should be engaging such issues while keeping our values of economic justice and self-management in mind rather than merely trying to prove that such and such slogans are factual or not. Even if the poor were getting richer at a slow rate while the rich were getting richer rapidly, and thus the gap was widening rapidly, such a condition is unacceptable in terms of economic justice. We should be dissenters even in vastly improved social democratic regimes that feature universal healthcare, full employment and universal base income because such regimes, though an improvement, do not go far enough in fostering the economic justice and capacities of self-management necessary for a society of free citizens.

From this perspective we can find ourselves largely in agreement with the valuable work of the Center for Economic and Policy Research who claim that the last 25 years associated with globalization have been a time of diminished progress for the majority of important social indicators, and that this is important to each of the numerous individual lives that could have been improved but were squandered thanks in large part to the greed, selfishness, and ignorance of corporate,financial, and state elites directing the processes of global economic integration. http://www.cepr.net/publications/development_2005_09.pdf

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 31, 2006 07:05 pm




We should be dissenters even in vastly improved social democratic regimes that feature universal healthcare, full employment and universal base income because such regimes, though an improvement, do not go far enough in fostering the economic justice and capacities of self-management necessary for a society of free citizens.

What on earth more is required besides writing checks to people simply for being alive?

[Son of a Strummer]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+October 31, 2006 07:13 pm--> (t_wolves_fan @ October 31, 2006 07:13 pm)
Son of a [email protected] 31, 2006 07:05 pm




We should be dissenters even in vastly improved social democratic regimes that feature universal healthcare, full employment and universal base income because such regimes, though an improvement, do not go far enough in fostering the economic justice and capacities of self-management necessary for a society of free citizens.

[/b]

What on earth more is required besides writing checks to people simply for being alive?

Freedom is in important ways the development of capabilities, particular those related to self- management, and the exercise of our creative potentialities. It also involves the opportunities to exercise these capacities. Typically self-management flourishes inasmuch as people have the opportunity to have a say over the decisions that affect their lives- this is the ideal of economic democracy. Moreover I'm from the camp that says we cannot assume a utopian condition of post-scarcity, in the foresseable future we will always be presented with conditions of relative scarcity wherein we will have to prioritize some economic resources over others. Obviously, in order to provide society what it wants in terms of sustainable consumption it is necessary to undertake sustainable production. People will have to devote part of their lives to work. A universal base income, inasmuch as it is unconditional, is best seen as an adjunct, rather than as a primary economic institution. A workplace is not merely a black box that produces ouptuts for people to consume- people entering a workplace have their personalities partially formed by their workplace experiences. Therefore it is important to consider closely the question of what the work process does to each worker in terms of their capacities for self-management. Our work roles are social contructions, it cannot be assumed that they are natural or inevitable. If I am right in placing self-management (economic democracy) and economic justice as fundamental values, then in light of these values, economic roles and relationships may require restructuring and redefinition so as to foster these values. A regime with universal base income may still feature unrewarding work roles, or the exit option in the form of the UBI may be too paltry, or without proper reflection society may underreward socially valuable work. People could also lack sufficient access to insitutions (economic,political,cultural,etc.) that allow people a voice in decision-making in proportion to which they are affected by those decisions. If one considers the organization of workplaces as exceptional to considerations of economic justice one cannot exclude the possibility that they could be despotisms, or at least foster sub-altern attitudes among many, while privileging a minority, which could lead to a reversion to class structures.

[t_wolves_fan]

That was very touching sloganeering, but I'm curous how it would work in a nuts and bolts fashion.

How do you structure the workplace to make everyone feel good about themselves and enhance their talents, while at the same time giving everyone a say in what goes on, while at the same time meeting consumers' needs and wants?

[Son of a Strummer]

That was very touching sloganeering

Not any more so than some of your previous comments in this forum. The difference is that I abstained from cynical antagonism.


How do you structure the workplace to make everyone feel good about themselves and enhance their talents, while at the same time giving everyone a say in what goes on, while at the same time meeting consumers' needs and wants?

I think it's important to understand that the process begins with thinking about what values are best, and then criticizing existing institutions and envisioning better institutions and strategies based upon those values. As such, it is not an exercise in patchwork theorizing. To properly understand it you really have keep a complex of values in mind. So I suggest that if you are really serious the book by Robin Hahnel on radical political economy called "Economic Justice and Democracy" may be the best place to start. And of course - it should go without saying- approach it with a "beginner's mind".

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Son of a [email protected] 31, 2006 09:33 pm
I think it's important to understand that the process begins with thinking about what values are best, and then criticizing existing institutions and envisioning better institutions and strategies based upon those values. As such, it is not an exercise in patchwork theorizing. To properly understand it you really have keep a complex of values in mind. So I suggest that if you are really serious the book by Robin Hahnel on radical political economy called "Economic Justice and Democracy" may be the best place to start. And of course - it should go without saying- approach it with a "beginner's mind".
Criticism is easy and theorizing is useless if the theory cannot be implemented effectively. I have a master's degree in what amounts to political theory and now that I work in government I can tell you most of it is bunk.

Since I do not have the inclination to read such a book, let alone the time, how about you summarize for me the nuts and bolts operation of such a political economy; focusing specifically on how to bring it about.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Of course it exists, but its relevance is subjective.
Well it seems to me that, considering that this thread is about the extent of economic inequality in a capitalist system, it is pretty damn relevant, but if you think it's subjective then here's no point arguing about it really.



Having the poor within robbing distance would make little difference because it's not like these people have no idea what it's like to be either rich or middle class. It's also quite difficult to get ahead in a very unstable society; you're complaining that the ghetto is unstable but seem to think the answer is to destabilize the rest of society too.
Okay, not quite sure I get you here (I'm tired) but I'll give it a go.

My point about rich areas being further removed from poor areas in the US had nothing to do with having an idea what it's like to be either rich or middle class, it was that, because rich and middle class areas are so far removed from poor areas, the instability of the lower classes in the US is not as apparent to the middle and upper classes.

Also, I didn't say that destabilizing the rest of society would be an answer to any problem.


It's pretty freaking close; if it's against the law to fire someone because they're a crappy employee, then the lines between whatever it is and socialism are pretty faint.
But if, as you capitalists constantly claim, Socialism is opposed to democracy and freedom of speech, then why does the National Front have an average of approximately 16% of the French vote?

Oh and by the way, people own property in France. Privately. QED.


But yes, France is unstable precisely because of socialistic programs that allow people to lay around all day doing nothing and still get paid for it, and for a cowardly attitude that says we can't tell people not to misbehave for fear of offending them.
Actually, it is common knowledge that the relevant problems with French society (e.g. the riots) are a result of economic inequality.


Yet capitalism does not require their acquiescence.
Irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they do acquiesce, and that they espouse the economic ideology of capitalism.