Interesting stats. Didn't expect to see a high percentage from real estate.
I am curious to see how pro-capitalists could justify these statistics.
Results 1 to 20 of 48
Who are the top 0.1%
http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp...TopEarners.pdf
They are 40.8% executives and managers in non-finance corporations (28% executives, and 12.3% managers/supervisors)
18.4% in finance
6.2% layers, 4.7% real estate, 6.3% not working (or dead between the time of the tax return and the time of the survey collected), then you have some other categories, like technical/enginerring, medical and so on.
Also we need to understand, the top 0.1% get half of all capital gains.
I think its better personally to look at the top 0.05% or even the 0.01% as these are the real controlers of the United States.
Now let me ask you pro-Capitalists, did executives suddenly because extremely more productive? Did those in the financial industry suddenly produce THAT much more value?
Interesting stats. Didn't expect to see a high percentage from real estate.
I am curious to see how pro-capitalists could justify these statistics.
Patience has its limits. Take it too far, and it's cowardice. -George Jackson
There is no such thing as an innocent bystander. -Abbie Hoffman
Most people in the top 1% at any given time are there only briefly- the sale of a house could put somebody into that category.
Unless there is too be perfect income equality, there will always be a top 1%.
That's not a problem. A top 1% will always exist as long as income exists.
The problem is their POWER over the wealth, economy, and thus politics of society. And, the huge DIFFERENCE of wealth between the 99.9% and the 0.1%. Which contributes a lot to the power of the latter.
Power corrupts, whether the state has the power or the corporate executives have the power. Thus, we must find a way to take away power from the corporate executives. (Who are pretty much controlling the state in favor of their ideas, market conservative ideas....)
Also, class mobility is actually smaller in the US then in most European countries.
Last edited by DinodudeEpic; 25th November 2011 at 17:50.
Liberté, égalité
Liberty, Equality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYfXBoN9cU
top .1 (ten) percent? or top .01 (one) percent?
Not trying to troll, honestly just confused.
0.1%, made a typo.
Liberté, égalité
Liberty, Equality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYfXBoN9cU
0.1% isn't 10%It's 1/10th of a percent.
That's right - half of America's wealth, owned by 1/10th of a percent.
Who can explain how an executive deserves millions of dollars in bonuses after bankrupting his company. [FONT="]
[/FONT]
I'm gonna call bullshit on your first statement, I'd say most people in the top 1% stay there, and especially the top 0.1%.
As for your second statement sure, but not a 1% that controls 40% of the countries wealth.
More bourgeois ideology, I presume?
Do you think power will not exist in a socialist mode of production? It will.
And the power the proletariat will have over the class enemy will be more unstoppable and powerful then Bourgeois dictatorship.
Power does not corrupt, as nothing truly "corrupts". For something to corrupt means that there was an imparity from start.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
0.1% isn't 10%
That's right - half of America's wealth, owned by 1/10th of a percent.
I thought it was 1 percent. Not 1/10th of a percent.
Crap, we gotta get on this. Somebody resurrect che!
Wait, so it is bourgeois to criticize the power of the bourgeois over our society? Why would a bourgeois ideology criticize the bourgeois? The bourgeois wouldn't want to have an ideology that calls for their untimely demise from ruling society. (Even then, class doesn't determine ideology. Many socialist intellectuals were either nobility, bourgeois, or petite-bourgeois. There is no collective class conscious. Reducing everything to class and economics will make you blind to the other parts of society.
No one would have power over one another in a socialist economy, since the enterprises would be shared by the workers or owned individually if there is only one person in it. There would be multiple enterprises that are kept in check through the free market and anti-monopoly regulations.
Also, you focus way too much on how the revolution will be achieved, and way too little about what the revolution will actually be for. Have an ideal! A goal! Don't treat society like it's a science.
Liberté, égalité
Liberty, Equality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYfXBoN9cU
You are confusing a socialist economy with a mixed-economy.
There are no "free markets" in a socialist economy.
These statistics are incredible. In the U.K 1% own 70% of the nations wealth. Rationally, know one can seriously support the status quo such as conservatives with these statistics in mind. This is plain wrong whatever political colour you wrap around the politics. Its hilarious that conservatives actually support this or propose no serious solution to change it. What a fucked up world we live in
A mixed economy is just capitalism with plenty of state-regulation.
Note that when I say free market, I'm referring to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutuali...omic_theory%29
Liberté, égalité
Liberty, Equality
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evYfXBoN9cU
It is Bourgeois to adhere to bourgeois philosophical standpoints like " power corrupts "
Mutualist economic theory? So you're not even a Utopian Socialist, you're a Bourgeois romanticist
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
No, its not, its bourgeois to make your living by controling the means of production and taking the surplus from other peoples labor.
Having independant thoughts, including the very rational viewpoint that "power corrupts," is just being rational.
Mutualists are AGAINST CAPITALISM? Stop calling shit bourgeois that clearly is'nt bourgeois, i.e. just everything that is'nt marxist-leninist.
Why is'nt YOUR position bourgeois? Actually its more so, because the bourgeois, use the stalinist boogyman to try and keep people away from socialism, and you totally reinforce that, you totally reinforce the support of gulags and dictatorships (And don't give me this DOP bullshit, what you support is NOT an actual workers democracy, its a centralized top down state), so really its YOUR ideology that is the bourgeois one, your just reinforcing their propeganda.
If you knew Marxism, you would know that the bourgeoisie evolves not only as a relation to the mode of production, but as a culture. Bourgeois ideology is something that is created to "Back up" their position as a class. Art, music, etc.
And to say Power corrupts is based within the costraint of bourgeois thinking, i.e. Idealism, that humans will naturally, in all conditions act a certain way regardless of the material and social conditions placed before them.
no it's not, it's a baseless statement that is only true if Bourgeois philosophy and Idealism are valid, which they are not. Power does not corrupt, for something to corrupt would mean that it was impaired from start. In this sense "corruption", in terms of human social behavior does not exist.
And yet they wish to retain the capitlaist mode of production, and flower it all up with this altruistic communal bullshit. It is still running off of the capitalist mode of production, and the very existence of "Free Markets" and "Businesses" signifies it. It is no better then social democracy or "the welfare state".
You don't even know that the Bourgeoisie is a culture as a whole and regulates the ideas of society. And I'm not a Marxist Leninist so stop talking out of your ass.
Because I'm a materialist, and the position I hold is completely materialist and scientific.
You don't know what the term "Bourgeois" means. They don't use the Stalinist boogeyman, they use Bourgeois philosophy like "Human nature is flawed" or "Power corrupts" etc. etc. or Fukuyama philosophy, that capitalism is "the best we have".
And I do, fully support Dictatorship, but Gulags... Not so much.
And who are you to make that judgement?
The state that is directly controlled by the proletariat themselves. The state is not a third party being in class politics, it must be controlled by a class in order for it to exist. Again, more Bourgeois symbolic representations of the world, this time from you.
[FONT="Courier New"] “We stand for organized terror - this should be frankly admitted. Terror is an absolute necessity during times of revolution. Our aim is to fight against the enemies of the Revolution and of the new order of life. ”
― Felix Dzerzhinsky [/FONT]
لا شيء يمكن وقف محاكم التفتيش للثورة
Third parties are free to make contracts. The government should not try to dictate what I should or shouldn't pay you to perform a [legal] service.
I heard that the top 15,000 Americans collectively own 1/2 the GDP of Brazil. Is that scaled up/down?
Da Fok?
