How Does The Right Expect Wealth Inequality To Continue To Rise Without Revolution???

P

PoliTalker

Diversity Makes Greatness
This one is hard to figure out.

The unregulated capitalism the right supports leads to more and more extreme wealth inequality.

The right accepts this, and apparently does not perceive it as a problem.

Do they ever think about the big picture? Do they ever wonder how it can keep going like that?

What is the point of having an economy which rewards relatively fewer and fewer people, eliminates as many well paying jobs as possible, all to make a relatively small number of people extremely rich, while the masses continue to fall behind, AND the nation goes deeper and deeper into debt?

That doesn't make sense.

How can we ignore the rising national debt?

How can we continue to pay taxes which support the workers who earn the wealth of the richest?

Incomes are not keeping pace with long term inflation.

Even people whose incomes are rising don't realize it but they are also falling behind the richest.

At what point does this turn ugly and people take to the streets en masse? We saw it in the Occupy Wall Street movement. That resentment of being screwed by the rich and powerful has not been resolved. It will be back. President Trump is making wealth inequality greater. Does he really think those who are left out are going to just keep taking it forever?
 
The problem is beyond imagination, Poli.

It is inconceivable that there still is a significant segment of our population willing to support the economic structure that is causing this disparity.

Right now, the top 1% of our population own 40% of our nation's wealth.

The top 20% own 90% of our wealth.

In other fora I have asked how skewed things would have to get before some of the status quo people would get off their butts. It is amazing how many say they will never change...no matter how skewed things get.

So I would ask the die hards here:

Would you become concerned if the top 1% owned 80% of the wealth...and the top 10% owned 99%?
 
Oh Boy! :palm:

I think we have gone over this before. How many times must it be repeated?

Blanket surveillance. For-Profit-Prisons. Fat, lazy, stupid Americans. Student Loans.

The 10% keep amassing their Fortunes that will be handed down to their children and grandchildren.
The 'Trouble Makers', slow-wits, and 'Excess People' will be sent to the Prisons where Investors can make a decent return.
All the little cry babies that graduate college but can't find work in their field will be hired as Prison Guards so they can pay back their Student Loans at a fair Market rate.
The other fat, stupid, lazy Americans will be fed a steady diet of TV ... sitting in their Lazy-Boy chairs, Big Gulp in hand ... slowly dying and accepting their Fate.

I think this is the accepted Game Plan, ... I thought everybody knew this?
 
Frank Apisa said:
Would you become concerned if the top 1% owned 80% of the wealth...and the top 10% owned 99%?
Click to expand...

Nope. The masses owning 1% would still be 1% more than they would own under your communist manifesto disguised as a DNC platform. Standards of living are rising, even for the poor. As I have previously stated, 1/6th of the stockmarket is held by 401K's alone. That does not include IRA's, land, etc. People are not poorer by any objective standard that doesn't involve ignorance of what statistics represent because the graphs look pretty to their bias. The reason me and millions of others will continue to have income well into retirement is because we move present income off books via retirement programs. In the end, I really don't care if the kid who tried to copy off my papers or the kid who put their head on their desk and didn't even bother to take the quiz have to survive with significantly less. That was their choice to make. When are you going to stop making excuses for failures?
 
Kacper said:
Nope. The masses owning 1% would still be 1% more than they would own under your communist manifesto disguised as a DNC platform. Standards of living are rising, even for the poor. As I have previously stated, 1/6th of the stockmarket is held by 401K's alone. That does not include IRA's, land, etc. People are not poorer by any objective standard that doesn't involve ignorance of what statistics represent because the graphs look pretty to their bias. The reason me and millions of others will continue to have income well into retirement is because we move present income off books via retirement programs. In the end, I really don't care if the kid who tried to copy off my papers or the kid who put their head on their desk and didn't even bother to take the quiz have to survive with significantly less. That was their choice to make. When are you going to stop making excuses for failures?
Click to expand...

Anyone who would be okay with 1% of the American population owning 80% of its wealth...and the top 10% owning 99 %...

...is fucking morbidly stupid. I do not mean "ignorant"...I mean STUPID.

But you are entitled to be okay with whatever you want to be okay with, Kacper.
 
Frank Apisa said:
Anyone who would be okay with 1% of the American population owning 80% of its wealth...and the top 10% owning 99 %...

...is fucking morbidly stupid. I do not mean "ignorant"...I mean STUPID.

But you are entitled to be okay with whatever you want to be okay with, Kacper.
Click to expand...

I am not the one who is so stupid they do not understand the basic economic concept of supply and demand. The top 1% do not own 40% of the nation's wealth because that 40% is directly dependent on the other members of the top 1%. If Bezos put all his stocks on the market, you could afford to buy it to wipe your ass with.
 
Kacper said:
Nope. The masses owning 1% would still be 1% more than they would own under your communist manifesto disguised as a DNC platform. Standards of living are rising, even for the poor.
Click to expand...

"even for the poor." I hope you don't think capitalism did that. Try: the socialist Safety Net, ie the DNC platform.

Kacper said:
As I have previously stated, 1/6th of the stockmarket is held by 401K's alone. That does not include IRA's, land, etc. People are not poorer by any objective standard that doesn't involve ignorance of what statistics represent because the graphs look pretty to their bias. The reason me and millions of others will continue to have income well into retirement is because we move present income off books via retirement programs. In the end, I really don't care if the kid who tried to copy off my papers or the kid who put their head on their desk and didn't even bother to take the quiz have to survive with significantly less. That was their choice to make. When are you going to stop making excuses for failures?
Click to expand...

We would be fooling ourselves to pretend everyone has the same opportunity and those who don't make it simply didn't try hard enough. Some Americans have had their spirit of self confidence broken generations ago. They don't know how to be good parents because they had no good examples of it. They don't know how to succeed, nor instill the motivation in their children to do so. When people who have given up on success raise children, the children get the idea the world is simply against them. They get it from their parents and when they have kids themselves their kids get it, too.

It is NOT simply a matter of trying hard enough. There are people who work very hard all day long at jobs that do not pay well. These people are poor. They live in poor neighborhoods. They have poor schools. They mostly rent, have no savings, live paycheck to paycheck, moving frequently because they have no security. Kids come home from school and find they have no home, that they lost everything they owned, and all their friends; and they will be sleeping in the car until somebody can earn enough to rent another dive with little to no references. When a kid has to worry about where their next meal is coming from and try to catch up in a new school program, while fighting off the weariness of not getting a good night's sleep in a secure place, it's kind of hard for them to get a 4.0, or ever have a chance of getting into 'the right schools,' or knowing 'the right people' to achieve success.
 
PoliTalker said:
"even for the poor." I hope you don't think capitalism did that. Try: the socialist Safety Net, ie the DNC platform.



We would be fooling ourselves to pretend everyone has the same opportunity and those who don't make it simply didn't try hard enough. Some Americans have had their spirit of self confidence broken generations ago. They don't know how to be good parents because they had no good examples of it. They don't know how to succeed, nor instill the motivation in their children to do so. When people who have given up on success raise children, the children get the idea the world is simply against them. They get it from their parents and when they have kids themselves their kids get it, too.

It is NOT simply a matter of trying hard enough. There are people who work very hard all day long at jobs that do not pay well. These people are poor. They live in poor neighborhoods. They have poor schools. They mostly rent, have no savings, live paycheck to paycheck, moving frequently because they have no security. Kids come home from school and find they have no home, that they lost everything they owned, and all their friends; and they will be sleeping in the car until somebody can earn enough to rent another dive with little to no references. When a kid has to worry about where their next meal is coming from and try to catch up in a new school program, while fighting off the weariness of not getting a good night's sleep in a secure place, it's kind of hard for them to get a 4.0, or ever have a chance of getting into 'the right schools,' or knowing 'the right people' to achieve success.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be at Dick's buying a pair of Nikes?
 
The wealth gap is worse than it was during the Gilded Age. It is not just money. Money=power. They are getting closer and closer to absolute power. They are going to end healthcare for the poor, unemployment insurance, min. wage, Medicare, Medicaid and other programs for those who are unlucky or ill.
 
PoliTalker said:
This one is hard to figure out.

The unregulated capitalism the right supports leads to more and more extreme wealth inequality.

The right accepts this, and apparently does not perceive it as a problem.
Click to expand...
Because they do NOT look at the big picture. They see numbers, not people. For centuries, families went straight from high school into manufacturing. The pay was sufficient to live a comfortable middle class life.

Manufacturing is gone. Profits are through the roof. Goods are cheaper than they were in the '70s, and the ultra wealthy think they're doing the peasants a favor
 
pareto


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto


Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto (Italian: [vilˈfreːdo paˈreːto]; born Wilfried Fritz Pareto, 15 July 1848 – 19 August 1923) was an Italian engineer, sociologist, economist, political scientist, and philosopher, now also known for the 80/20 rule, named after him as the Pareto principle. He made several important contributions to economics, particularly in the study of income distribution and in the analysis of individuals' choices. He was also responsible for popularising the use of the term "elite" in social analysis.
He introduced the concept of Pareto efficiency and helped develop the field of microeconomics. He was also the first to discover that income follows a Pareto distribution, which is a power law probability distribution. The Pareto principle was named after him, and it was built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by about 20% of the population. He also contributed to the fields of sociology and mathematics, according to the mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot and Richard L. Hudson:
His legacy as an economist was profound. Partly because of him, the field evolved from a branch of moral philosophy as practised by Adam Smith into a data intensive field of scientific research and mathematical equations. His books look more like modern economics than most other texts of that day: tables of statistics from across the world and ages, rows of integral signs and equations, intricate charts and graphs.[1]
 
Althea said:
Because they do NOT look at the big picture. They see numbers, not people. For centuries, families went straight from high school into manufacturing. The pay was sufficient to live a comfortable middle class life.

Manufacturing is gone. Profits are through the roof. Goods are cheaper than they were in the '70s, and the ultra wealthy think they're doing the peasants a favor
Click to expand...

... as they retreat from society into their version of Versailles.
 
Look at the Stock Market! See how everybody is doing GREAT! Third Quarter ends September 30, I think we will ALL be happy when we open up our Statements.
 
Economics and sociology[edit]
In 1893, he succeeded Léon Walras to the chair of Political Economy at the University of Lausanne[2] in Switzerland where he remained for the rest of his life. In 1906, he made the famous observation that twenty percent of the population owned eighty percent of the property in Italy, later generalised by Joseph M. Juran into the Pareto principle (also termed the 80–20 rule). In one of his books published in 1909 he showed the Pareto distribution of how wealth is distributed, he believed "through any human society, in any age, or country".[5] He maintained cordial personal relationships with individual socialists, but always thought their economic ideas were severely flawed. He later became suspicious of their humanitarian motives and denounced socialist leaders as an 'aristocracy of brigands' who threatened to despoil the country and criticized the government of Giovanni Giolitti for not taking a tougher stance against worker strikes. Growing unrest among labor in Italy led him to the anti-socialist and anti-democratic camp.[6] His attitude toward fascism in his last years is a matter of controversy.[7][8]
 
PoliTalker said:
This one is hard to figure out.

The unregulated capitalism the right supports leads to more and more extreme wealth inequality.

The right accepts this, and apparently does not perceive it as a problem.

Do they ever think about the big picture? Do they ever wonder how it can keep going like that?

What is the point of having an economy which rewards relatively fewer and fewer people, eliminates as many well paying jobs as possible, all to make a relatively small number of people extremely rich, while the masses continue to fall behind, AND the nation goes deeper and deeper into debt?

That doesn't make sense.

How can we ignore the rising national debt?

How can we continue to pay taxes which support the workers who earn the wealth of the richest?

Incomes are not keeping pace with long term inflation.

Even people whose incomes are rising don't realize it but they are also falling behind the richest.

At what point does this turn ugly and people take to the streets en masse? We saw it in the Occupy Wall Street movement. That resentment of being screwed by the rich and powerful has not been resolved. It will be back. President Trump is making wealth inequality greater. Does he really think those who are left out are going to just keep taking it forever?
Click to expand...

How Does The Right Expect Wealth Inequality To Continue To Rise Without Revolution???

Capitalism.

They really can't see what's going on any more than Marie Antoinette could.
 
he was an evil fascist asshole who discovered that if you push the 80/20 mode below 20 the people revolt


these idiot republicans want to break the nation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top