It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Socialism for the Rich

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:00 AM
link   

In most rich countries, inequality is rising, and has been rising for some time. Many people believe this is a problem, but, equally, many think there’s not much we can do about it. After all, the argument goes, globalisation and new technology have created an economy in which those with highly valued skills or talents can earn huge rewards. Inequality inevitably rises. Attempting to reduce inequality via redistributive taxation is likely to fail because the global elite can easily hide their money in tax havens. Insofar as increased taxation does hit the rich, it will deter wealth creation, so we all end up poorer.

One strange thing about these arguments, whatever their merits, is how they stand in stark contrast to the economic orthodoxy that existed from roughly 1945 until 1980, which held that rising inequality was not inevitable, and that various government policies could reduce it. What’s more, these policies appear to have been successful. Inequality fell in most countries from the 1940s to the 1970s. The inequality we see today is largely due to changes since 1980.

In both the US and the UK, from 1980 to 2016, the share of total income going to the top 1% has more than doubled. After allowing for inflation, the earnings of the bottom 90% in the US and UK have barely risen at all over the past 25 years. More generally, 50 years ago, a US CEO earned on average about 20 times as much as the typical worker. Today, the CEO earns 354 times as much.
[...]

‘Socialism for the rich’: the evils of bad economics

I could go on... and on... and on, but this should be enough for a heated debate. Read the whole thing already, it's worth your time.

However. It's not exactly a very new epiphany of sorts, the relentless quantitative easing after 2008 illustrated who really is "too big to fail". But. Still.... the mantra of free markets and trickle down economics is rolling strong as if "nothing happened at all". Thanks to the MSM btw.

This topic is probably better off in another forum, but I'll post it here for frank replies. Have at it!


One machine for vending
The other take empties
This your land of plenty
This your land of plenty
It was all I could do
To speak gently, gently




edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Trickle down economics has a fancy term that some people tend to forget.

Coperate plutocracy isnt healthy. Giving almost all the wealth to a few isn't going to make peoples lives any better and becomes a fragile economy.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Hear, hear!



Trickle down economics has a fancy term that some people tend to forget.


Could be a typo, but I don't get it regardless. Care to expand on that?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

A plutocracy is where only the rich and wealthy run government.

The US is a nation that is controlled by corporations and mega companys pretty much.

Does democracy even stand a chance when all the wealth is at the top? And just look at how fragile an economy is when that happens. The bail outs are a prime example.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

As an interesting social experiment you should go talk face to face with some 70 to 80 year old seniors.

Ask them if things were better when they were young or what their opinions are about today.

Numbers are fun to fiddle with but they really cant tell the whole story about how people live.
Especially when dealing with times we personally didnt live through.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Socialists and progressives think of wealth inequality in zero-sum terms, which is a pretty common cognitive bias.

Try looking at it as a sign things are working as they should and the wealthy as an opportunity rather than pure evil, and you’d be much closer to the truth.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Trickle down economics has a fancy term that some people tend to forget.

Coperate plutocracy isnt healthy. Giving almost all the wealth to a few isn't going to make peoples lives any better and becomes a fragile economy.


That’s because the phrase “trickle-down Economics” is a snarl word. The correct term is Supply-side economics.
edit on 13-6-2019 by TheSteppenwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp





The US is a nation that is controlled by corporations and mega companys pretty much.



Big corporations control the world, not just the U.S.
Corporate Power


As for the OP, I think the author makes a few valid points, but then devolves the article into a "life isn't fair" story.
He downplays hard work and emphasizes luck too much. Sure there are people who get more breaks than me. There are also more talented people and smarter people. But if I want to play guitar like Hendrix, I've got to put in the time and practice. Thousands of hours, practicing while my friends are out partying. I can't buy a guitar, practice for a year, and then say "Life isn't fair" because I'm not a virtuoso. Yet more and more, that's precisely the attitude people seem to have. As Ringo said: "It don't come easy."


In a healthy society, wealth is admired. In a sick society, wealth is despised.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Thanks. Yes, but this is the paradigm of Westeros by now. US, UK, EU, ... the differences are marginal.


HARTMANN: Our Supreme Court has now said, “unlimited money in politics.” It seems like a violation of principles of democracy. … Your thoughts on that?

CARTER: It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

JIMMY CARTER: THE U.S. IS AN “OLIGARCHY WITH UNLIMITED POLITICAL BRIBERY”



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

A couple of flaws and logic gaps in the statistics that get thrown around regarding wealth inequality.

First off, quintiles of income/wealth are just statistical categories. Not actual individuals. In other words, individuals move in and out of those income/wealth quintiles all the time. You will ALWAYS have a bottom percentile and upper percentile. That is basic stats. However, what the numbers cannot show is the individuals that compromise those categories as the individuals are constantly changing. For example, at one point in my life (i.e. college and right after graduation), I would have been in a lower income bracket. However, after a couple of years of working my way up the ladder, I was in the top 5% bracket and for about the past 10 years, I've been in the 1-2% bracket. As I get closer to retirement, my income falls so then I am in a different bracket.

The IRS / Treasury dept has done studies on actual individuals and shown that the vast majority of people in lower income brackets do not stay in those brackets.

During the 40s - 80s we had a thriving middle class largely because the US was the only real player economically. Remember, after WWII, most of europe / japan was destroyed. China was a communist backwater. Same with Russia. The US's economy exploded not only because of our free market, but because we also were the only real manufacturer left.

It wasn't until the 80s as global markets started opening that we see a lot of the wage stagnation of the lower skilled as companies were courted by other countries with lower labor costs. The benefit of this is lower costs of goods but it decimated a portion of our working class.

CEOs are running much larger / global enterprises now than back then and their compensation has increased commensurate with the levels of responsibility. In addition, CEO comp changed to having more equity (stock options). If you look at any CEO income breakdown it is almost entirely in stock options because the boards of directors want the CEO to be incentivized to focus on shareholder growth.

You can make the same claims about CEO pay as you can about actors and athletes who are paid significantly more now than back in the day. The main reason is that sports and entertainment are global now so the revenue associated is much larger.

There has always been wealth inequality. However, at no time in history, has it been easier for someone to move up the income ladder. You are not trapped by birth right or class. If you have hustle and play your cards right you can go from "ashy to classy" fairly easy in the US and most western countries. This is why so many people want to immigrate here. the opportunities are boundless. No, not everyone will become a millionaire, but you most certainly can live a nice life.

Being broke in America is being rich in most of the rest of the world. You only need to make about $35,000/yr to be considered part of the GLOBAL 1%. In other words, someone barely making $15/hr in the US would be considered part of the 1% globally. You also have to look at the standards of living. The poor in the US live like the rich in many countries.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Socialists and progressives think of wealth inequality in zero-sum terms, which is a pretty common cognitive bias.

Try looking at it as a sign things are working as they should and the wealthy as an opportunity rather than pure evil, and you’d be much closer to the truth.


The policies of privatization worked out as they were supposed to do? No sh!t, Sherlock! Where did you get this pure evil whiner Bollocks from anyway, is this your way to deal with facts?

Thanks for making my point, I guess.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Zaniest thing is, we're, collectively [homo sapiens idilolisis] rationally aware that we could, you know, just stop pretending that human nature is immutable and some problems have no answers or solutions, amirite?

For example: tax havens for the "rich." Simple question: what if there were no tax havens?

But we can't even ask that question because sovereignty; -- an idea invented by a local gang-leader (once upon a time) -- is too precious to us. We've literally enshrined it in our holy books.

I've said it before and literally no one cared. It's probably because I don't speak very well. Or maybe I do but I am just speaking a different language. WTF knows?

*** < ---- "crAAApitalism" ------------------------((the optimal solution)) ----------------------------- "socialism" --- >***

Our tendency to see every problem as a nail means the hammer vendors rake in all the gold.

We, the people, might decide, as a species, to do away with the god-king (the sovereign "other") and its gang-leaders at any time, by removing the structure that allows them to feed, directly.

We might replace all the secret code makers with plain language advocates in our legal system. Why should a singular group of BS artists who literally get to "make" the "rules" for everyone reap profit from the artificially created complexity THEY THEMSELVES CREATE on BOTH sides of every single deal?

"Man, if you think convincing them we are "gods" was fun, wait until you see how they grovel when we are LAWYERS!" -- Nero (probably).



"What if you didn't design the game to be as "grindy" as possible while simultaneously selling us "time-savers" in the cash store, god?"

Do you know why the world spins against common sense? Because it isn't a world at all. It's the ride the god-kings, gang-lords and lawyers built to keep you in line and sell you "consolation prizes."

"We" might have been anything. "We" chose this. By the time we figure it out we are too old to do anything about it so we bequeath it to our children and pray they won't hate us for it.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Socialists and progressives think of wealth inequality in zero-sum terms, which is a pretty common cognitive bias.

Try looking at it as a sign things are working as they should and the wealthy as an opportunity rather than pure evil, and you’d be much closer to the truth.


The policies of privatization worked out as they were supposed to do? No sh!t, Sherlock! Where did you get this pure evil whiner Bollocks from anyway, is this your way to deal with facts?

Thanks for making my point, I guess.


Yeah, some people make more money than others, and they are free to do so. But your article, which does the heavy lifting in your op, states wealth inequality as a problem.

Is it a problem because it makes one envious?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

There are laws that enslave men and there are laws that set them free. It comes down to values and what type of society the masses are will to accept. Most people like to kneel to authority. People crave subjugation. It's people's natural state.




posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




You will ALWAYS have a bottom percentile and upper percentile.


You wont always have both ends growing like fck tho, stop bullsh!tting the kids and pick up a book on political science?



The IRS / Treasury dept has done studies on actual individuals and shown that the vast majority of people in lower income brackets do not stay in those brackets.


Cherrypicking. What about the eroding middle-class then? You really think they're all rich by now?



During the 40s - 80s we had a thriving middle class largely because the US was the only real player economically. Remember, after WWII, most of europe / japan was destroyed. China was a communist backwater. Same with Russia. The US's economy exploded not only because of our free market, but because we also were the only real manufacturer left.


LOL. Marshall Plan, anyone? Wirtschaftswunder, eventually?



CEOs are running much larger / global enterprises now than back then and their compensation has increased commensurate with the levels of responsibility.


That's a common myth. The CEO's of German car manufacturers brought us growing levels of fraud and corruption, but they aint the ones who carry the burden of responsibility for their scams.



There has always been wealth inequality. However, at no time in history, has it been easier for someone to move up the income ladder. You are not trapped by birth right or class. If you have hustle and play your cards right you can go from "ashy to classy" fairly easy in the US and most western countries. This is why so many people want to immigrate here. the opportunities are boundless. No, not everyone will become a millionaire, but you most certainly can live a nice life.


That, or it's the Wars on Everything we wage on the rest of the world. You'll have a hard time with that sales-pitch.



Being broke in America is being rich in most of the rest of the world.


Most. Stupid. Argument. Ever.

Being broke in America means you're still broke. You can't go elsewhere to be a rich poor man when you're broke, right?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




People crave subjugation. It's people's natural state.


That's what "They" want us to believe. Yes.
Bite the hand that feeds, it's my people's natural state of mind.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf




Yeah, some people make more money than others, and they are free to do so. But your article, which does the heavy lifting in your op, states wealth inequality as a problem. Is it a problem because it makes one envious?


Is it? Or is it a problem cuz it causes more problems?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s




"We" might have been anything. "We" chose this. By the time we figure it out we are too old to do anything about it so we bequeath it to our children and pray they won't hate us for it.


Looking at the 'Fridays for Future' protests, I'd say they do so already. And rightly so.


edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-6-2019 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Option #2 is too much for me to think about, honestly. That would mean I couldn't use my favorite defensive constructs to shield myself from any feeling of personal sovereignty or agency.

Screw that. Envy it is!



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion




Is it? Or is it a problem cuz it causes more problems?


It seems the only problem is that it makes people opine about the rich. I guess it could be worse.



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: strongfp
In a healthy society, wealth is admired. In a sick society, wealth is despised.


Fair enough. Do you think it is possible that societies become "unhealthy" because wealth is concentrated the way it is and to such ridiculous extremes?



posted on Jun, 13 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Socialists and progressives think of wealth inequality in zero-sum terms, which is a pretty common cognitive bias.

Try looking at it as a sign things are working as they should and the wealthy as an opportunity rather than pure evil, and you’d be much closer to the truth.


The policies of privatization worked out as they were supposed to do? No sh!t, Sherlock! Where did you get this pure evil whiner Bollocks from anyway, is this your way to deal with facts?

Thanks for making my point, I guess.


Yeah, some people make more money than others, and they are free to do so. But your article, which does the heavy lifting in your op, states wealth inequality as a problem.

Is it a problem because it makes one envious?


I don't think its a question of envy but one of greed. The wealth inequality numbers are pretty grim:



If it's a question of some multi-billionaire getting 4 billion per year in profit versus 8 billion in exchange of me having healthcare and retirement security then it seems only fair to me. I don't have envy. I just want some security. And what difference does it make to the billionaire? It does not change their lifestyle one iota other than their prestige and status relative to the rest of the World's billionaires. The thing is people like you frame it solely in terms of "envy". There's another side to the issue that has less to do with envy and more to do with excessive insatiable greed.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join