View Full Version : The Rich Get Richer While the Poor Get Poorer
From an article just posted on Comcast.net:
"NEW YORK — The rich treated themselves like royalty this holiday season. That spun the holidays into gold for Tiffany & Co. and other high-end retailers.
Wealthier shoppers traded up to more expensive gold and diamond jewelry from silver charms at Tiffany. At Saks and Neiman Marcus designer clothing and handbags were the hot holiday items."
For full article, see: http://tinyurl.com/4fykkaq
IMO, this is the kind of thing that's going to lead to civil disorder in the not very distant future. It reminds me of an audit I did a few years ago where I exited the train station in a main downtown area and saw many homeless people milling about, some using the restrooms to wash up. I walked the two blocks to my worksite where, next door, one bedroom condos were going for $800,000. This cannot last.
While the homeless may be too passive to revolt, there are ghettos within half a mile of those condos where the street gangs aren't so passive. I wouldn't live in one of those condos for free.
Despite what Jim Kunstler has to say about the 'burbs, I'm glad that's where I am!!!
What do the rest of you think about the ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots?
The Calvinists among us will say that God has bestowed good fortune on the rich and powerful, and that the poor deserve their fate.
I often ponder how much better off we'd be if this country hadn't been founded by Puritans.
Tonight on NPR's business program they were talking about the current list of the 400 richest people in the US, and one commentator said that everybody loves to read about the rich because we all hope to join them some day.
On the other hand, I read recently about a study that showed that the greater the disparity between rich and poor in a country, the worse the country fares in government, infrastructure, public health, education, you name it.
There's a book called The Spirit Level (Wilkinson and Pickett) that lays out that premise. I have it here, but haven't yet read it. I understand we have the widest gap between rich and poor of any developed country now. We've become kind of a northern-latitude banana republic.
Dharma Bum
1-11-11, 10:02pm
Let's say all of the 500 richest people in the world that don't already live in the US moved here tomorrow. That would increase the disparity. How does that hurt us?
Tonight on NPR's business program they were talking about the current list of the 400 richest people in the US, and one commentator said that everybody loves to read about the rich because we all hope to join them some day.
On the other hand, I read recently about a study that showed that the greater the disparity between rich and poor in a country, the worse the country fares in government, infrastructure, public health, education, you name it.
Unfortunately, I have also read that in our current society, the chances of climbing from one economic rung to another have become increasingly difficult. Not only are we less likely to become rich and famous, we're less likely to be as successful as our own parents.
Let's say all of the 500 richest people in the world that don't already live in the US moved here tomorrow. That would increase the disparity. How does that hurt us? It's not so much the actual people as the shift. Money = power. An additional 500 people with monstrous amounts of power moving into this country couldn't possibly bode well for the masses of poor they would exploit. Am I worse off because you have a McMansion while I have a dilapidated duplex? No, I might be envious, but I'm not worse off. But am I worse off because you want to monopolize the food market in my neighborhood and sell me poisonous faux-food at astronomical prices and you have the resources to do it, and to lobby government to make it more difficult for anyone to stop you? You betcha!
People and most especially soulless big corporations with that kind of resources and power are often just exactly that mercinary, it's how they got where they are. Not everyone, of course. Some fool buying a Firkin bag and $60,000 worth of cosmetic improvement I couldn't care less about. Someone actively mining the poor for more wealth? That's a problem for me.
Dharma Bum
1-11-11, 10:31pm
I don't accept your equation of wealth to exploitation. If you want to focus on exploitation, fine. But they are not the same.
It's not so much the actual people as the shift. Money = power. An additional 400 people with monstrous amounts of power moving into this country couldn't possibly bode well for the masses of poor they would exploit. Am I worse off because you have a McMansion while I have a dilapidated duplex? No, I might be envious, but I'm not worse off. But am I worse off because you want to monopolize the food market in my neighborhood and sell me poisonous faux-food at astronomical prices and you have the resources to do it, and to lobby government to make it more difficult for anyone to stop you? You betcha!
It sounds like what you really need is a more responsible government. If you penalize the rich, will that make government more responsive to you? I think you're blaming the wrong folks.
loosechickens
1-11-11, 10:49pm
The greater the inequality, the more total power the really wealthy hold, hence, also the ability to turn government toward their needs and desires. That's where the real problem is, the concentration of wealth by the few, which equals power and access and the ability to direct the path of legislation, etc.
You're right, Alan......what I think most ordinary people want is a more responsible government. And people being rich does not, in and of itself, make that any kind of problem. I don't envy the really wealthy their homes, jewels or portfolios. What I don't want is for them to have really outsized ability to be able to see that the regulations, laws, tax policy, etc., are engineered to continue to increase that power.
I agree with kib. It's the very wealthy and the power they have to gain access and control over things that affect our society, to their own advantage that I think is dangerous. Not their wealth, in and of itself.
Let's say all of the 500 richest people in the world that don't already live in the US moved here tomorrow. That would increase the disparity. How does that hurt us?
It hurts the rest of us because public policies are written by and for the benefit of the wealthy. The pain gets worse the lower down on the income spectrum one goes. Having wealth means better housing, food, health care, legal representation, transportation, and education.
I live in a neighborhood with many poor families, the majority of whom have brown or black skin. Their homes and vehicles (if they have any) are in disrepair. The area schools are dreadful. The grocery stores have junk and processed food, and what small quantities there are of fruits and veggies are old and expensive.
It's time for a maximum wage/income law, and a wholesale redistribution of wealth.
Dharma Bum
1-12-11, 9:51am
Why not try to lift people up rather than tear people down?
Would you rather live in a country with more or less economic freedom? Check the list: http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking
What I've personally observed out here in the 'burbs is that even the upper middle class is so removed from city (and rural) poverty that they are oblivious to how bad it is. I left one church because of a prevailing attitude that the poor were dishonest and had to be watched lest they steal a few extra cans of food from the emergency food pantry or the rummage sale. WTF??? I wrote the minister's wife a letter when I departed and pointed out that Jesus wouldn't be the least upset if someone helped themselves to an extra can of peas or an article of clothing that was being discarded anyway. I also pointed out that I've seen plenty of thieving by so-called professional people who pad their expense reports and think nothing of it.
I'm not exposed to the super-rich, but I imagine they are even farther removed from the reality of grinding poverty than my middle class neighbors.
And I agree wholeheartedly with Kib.
In my imagination, the very wealthy will have to live behind gated walls with massive security to avoid the wrath of the "underlings". In just five years, I have noted that the homeless population here has at least doubled. There are woods near my house where they camp out; they routinely break into the homes and garages of the houses along the woods. I think as the sense of separation and exclusion widens, those with no or low incomes will become increasingly bold about taking what they want. What have they got to lose? In my job, I am exposed to the super wealthy and I can say that in many ways, most don't get it. They may claim altruistic ways through their philanthropy, but in the end, the rich really are different and lead very privileged lives.
Why not try to lift people up rather than tear people down?
That's the real question, isn't it. What can we do to provide opportunity to all citizens? The problem is that people seem to think everyone should have the opportunity to become a billionaire. In one way you could argue that everyone does have that chance (no matter how slim), but realistically only a few will ever make it. Why don't we concentrate on giving everyone the opportunity to get a good education, to feel safe in their homes, to earn a decent living for their family, etc.?
One of the impediments to equal opportunity is that the big, rich corporations have hogged resources that rightfully belong to all of us. They dole them out, along with jobs, as they see fit. Our once-democratic government is being run by these behemoths.
The whole concept of corporations is basically evil, IMO. A corporation has all the rights of a living individual, but not nearly all the responsibilities. They can protect themselves with enormously expensive insurance policies and a team of corporate lawyers, not to mention influencing politics with large contributions to the mouthpiece of their choice. They are a man-created monster not so far removed from that created by Dr. Frankenstein.
So many of us are either employed by, living on pensions from, or receiving dividends from these giants it is very, very difficult to get people to see what is going on and even more difficult to get anything done about it.
Rich individuals and families are only a very small part of the problem, but they tend to take the brunt of criticism. I fear that with our economy deteriorating as it is, that they will also be the target of violence.
Dharma Bum
1-13-11, 12:27pm
One of the impediments to equal opportunity is that the big, rich corporations have hogged resources that rightfully belong to all of us. They dole them out, along with jobs, as they see fit.
Baloney. There are pros and cons to everything, but on balance we benefit greatly from collective efforts and modern efficiency. The reason you have a better life is the development of laws that facilitate collective action and commerce.
I always find it amusing when people whine about this on the internet. Maybe you and kib can build adjoining mud huts so you can complain to each other about BIG without being hypocrites. :~)
One of the impediments to equal opportunity is ...
I know this is Pandora's box, but why does opportunity have to be equal for all to be beneficial? People live in different places, have different aspirations, different needs. It's not a one size fits all society so why inflict the brain damage trying to make it so in this regard?
Is wealth zero-sum?
Do the wealthy become so primarily by taking wealth out of the hands of the poor?
I'm quite wealthy. I became so by creating *new* wealth, selling my products in voluntary transactions with willing and uncoerced buyers. And I created thousands of jobs in the process.
So remember that when you come to burn down my house and take me to the guillotine.
bae said: "Do the wealthy become so primarily by taking wealth out of the hands of the poor?" Good question. I would not consider myself wealthy but well off and comfortable. I do not feel I took anything from the poor. My wealth has been increasing during these tough times. I am in the stock market and did not sell a thing when it was tanking. I bought when it was coming back. I invest in dividend paying stocks and interest paying bonds. I feel bad for the people who have lost jobs and have lost their homes.
I will say that the tax code is unfair. Wall street investors like me get to pay only 15% taxes on qualifying dividends. We also pay no state tax on our treasury notes and bonds. My dividends come from companies like GE and AT&T. I say that because these companies did not need my little investment in them to survive. Someone investing in a start-up company is a different situation.
Dharma Bum
1-13-11, 4:15pm
I will say that the tax code is unfair. Wall street investors like me get to pay only 15% taxes on qualifying dividends.
You pay 49% Federal tax on your share of earnings. Add in state and it's over 50%.
We also pay no state tax on our treasury notes and bonds.
And you receive a lower yield because of it. It's an implicit tax.
Is wealth zero-sum?
No, it's not like a pizza, where if I take too many pieces someone else must eat the box. The economy & wealth is dynamic and in any practical sense, unlimited.
You pay 49% Federal tax on your share of earnings. Add in state and it's over 50%.
And you receive a lower yield because of it. It's an implicit tax.
My accountent gives me a statement with my taxes showing the effective tax. Last year my federal effective tax was 8% and my state was 2% and that is in California. As far as US Treasury investments you are missing one very important reason to invest in them and that is safety of principal. If you look at bonds you will see as your principal is more at risk the rate of interest is higher. I don't know where you get I pay 49% on my share of earnings. Yes the corporation pays a tax before they pay out earnings but that has nothing to do with my yield on dividends. I invest in stocks based on the dividend yield to me. We must pay taxes to live in our country. Those who can afford to pay more should.
Dharma Bum
1-13-11, 6:33pm
As far as US Treasury investments you are missing one very important reason to invest in them and that is safety of principal.
Safety is fine and affects yield but not what I'm talking. People invest on an after tax basis. If you don't have to pay tax, you are willing to take a lower yield as you after tax return is the same. This applies to munis too. Way back when I defended Teresa Heinz Kerry against charges she paid little income tax because all her money was in tax exempt bonds. But she got a lower return on those because people will accept x% for a tax exempt bond but require x/(1-y) where y is the tax rate as a decimal for a taxable yield. There is some arbitrage benefit as the result of tax exempts distorting the market but not much and one reason (in addition to liquidity) govt insured CDs yield higher than bonds.
I don't know where you get I pay 49% on my share of earnings.
You're right, I can't type. Should have been 45%. If you own a business and it makes $100, you have income that's taxed at 35%, leaving you $65. Let's say you put it in an LLC. No change, you have $100 income and have $65 left. Now let's say you form a corporation. That same $100 of income has tax of $35 at the corporate level. When it distributes the $65 to you you have $10 of tax leaving you $55. But under you logic you are saving taxes since you have reduced your $35 tax bill to $10 right?
sign me up for one of the adjoining mud huts with Jemima and kib..........
Is wealth zero-sum?
It may be a little more complex than a rising tide floating all boats, but generally speaking the metaphor stands up. I', amazed that any of our universities would even try to teach any other view in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but many (most?) do. DS, who is an otherwise intelligent, articulate and on the way to becoming a well educated individual can not grasp the concept that wealth is NOT zero-sum. He need look no farther than his own family for proof, but it just doesn't click. He is graduating this spring from a top tier school (albeit one in California!), but I really feel he is in for a significant slap down when he gets to the real world. He has professors that will argue that the only 'creation' of wealth in the last thousand years occurred when someone dug more gold out of the ground. Boggles the mind.
Dharma Bum
1-14-11, 12:56pm
sign me up for one of the adjoining mud huts with Jemima and kib..........
I can see a whole village sprouting up. :~)
morris_rl
1-14-11, 11:12pm
"Free people are not equal and equal people are not free."
Lawrence Reed
Further, per R. Cardinali:
http://www.citeulike.org/user/NLRG/article/774247
"Inequality and freedom mean different things to different people; whether inequality should encapsulate ethical concepts such as the desirability of a particular system of rewards or simply mean differences in income appears to be the subject of much debate. The World Bank conceptualises inequality as the dispersion of a distribution, whether that is income, consumption or some other welfare indicator or attribute of a population.
"When Lawrence Reed introduced his seven principles of sound public policy at a presentation at the Economic Club of Detroit, one item that stood out was his principle which stated that "free people are not equal and equal people are not free". He was not addressing the foundation of equality in society but about income and material wealth a person may earn in the marketplace, essentially he was addressing "economic equality".
"Hofstede touches on a number of postulates when he speaks of inequality within a society and how it is visible in the existence of different social classes: upper, the middle, and lower. According to Hofstede, classes differ in their access to and their opportunities to benefit from the advantages of society. He cites education and the benefits derived by advanced education.
"The World Bank has concluded that inequality in intelligence is part of the human condition and inescapably contributes to a substantial degree of income inequality that greater equality of opportunity cannot circumvent. This article examines a number of concepts which dispel formal equality theory and the belief that equality is achieved if the law treat likes alike is faulted."
I would observe that one may strive (and should strive, I think) to ensure equality of opportunity in places such as the public schools, but for one to attempt to mandate equality of outcome in all things is witless, IMHO.
On a practical level, who in this forum seriously advocates confiscating the roughly $1,000,000 financial net worth of "loosechickens" and her husband? Anybody?
Given the choice, I'll opt for freedom over equality imposed by state coercion...
Best,
Rodger Morris
"Brother Railgun of Quiet Reflection"
ApatheticNoMore
1-15-11, 2:14am
Gross inequality is incompatible with freedom. They buy up the political system and make laws to their benefit.
Gross inequality is incompatible with freedom. They buy up the political system and make laws to their benefit.
"Free people are not equal. Equal people are not free."
Lawrence Reed
That said, I am all for equality of opportunity.
Best,
Rodger
"Brother Railgun of Quiet Reflection"
And all I can say is, 'what the heck's up with the search engine here?' I can't believe I missed a whole thread where I existed in a village of like minded mud-hut dwellers. An alterative universe entirely to my liking and I totally missed it. :~)
Looking over the last 15 posts or so, it occurs to me that no, opportunity does not have to be statistically equal to all in order to be of advantage to everyone. However, that might also be the crux of the issue: the further the balance of power and wealth shifts to a smaller number of hands, the less natural flow of opportunity there is. Whether or not to provide opportunity becomes a matter for the wealthy to decide, much like a man with a bulldozer may not control where the rain will fall, but he can decide where the river will flow.
loosechickens
2-10-11, 1:25am
"However, that might also be the crux of the issue: the further the balance of power and wealth shifts to a smaller number of hands, the less natural flow of opportunity there is. Whether or not to provide opportunity becomes a matter for the wealthy to decide, much like a man with a bulldozer may not control where the rain will fall, but he can decide where the river will flow." (kib)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a really good point, kib. And really gets to the crux as well of feelings from many ordinary people about the inequality of opportunity that leads to such exaggerated inequalities in income, etc.
It's not that we don't all understand that some people will be smarter, more able, luckier or any other thing, and come out ahead. And it's not that ordinary people resent or envy success. It's when the playing field is so tilted by advantage to a small, select group, so that it becomes easier and easier for them to accumulate more and more, until finally most of the decisions about what opportunities are available to others are in the hands of those few, that there is a problem. And when those few have almost a stranglehold on what laws get passed, who gets tax advantages, etc. it becomes a huge problem for a democracy.
It's like, it's not a problem that people become rich, it's a problem when they use those riches to obtain more and more power and influence over government, laws, regulations, etc., to bend them to their own advantage, until the very idea of "opportunity" for most becomes almost an empty dream. THAT'S where the problems come. Not from the success itself, but from the outsized ability to influence everything to continually increase advantage for themselves, often at the expense of others.
When the guy's bulldozer is large enough for him to divert most all of the rain to his own advantage, by being able to create the riverbed in which the water flows, so that it waters only his own fields, leaving the fields of others dry, unless HE is willing to sell them water, we've got a huge problem. And that is what is happening with this continuing and accelerating rate of consolidation of the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which means consolidating the power that wealth can buy, as well.
When the guy's bulldozer is large enough for him to divert most all of the rain to his own advantage, by being able to create the riverbed in which the water flows, so that it waters only his own fields, leaving the fields of others dry, unless HE is willing to sell them water, we've got a huge problem.
Interesting analogy. But very flawed. The behaviour you describe is of course why we moved from "I'm an evil landowning noble" English-style water law to first-in-use water law here in much of the United States.
Water isn't a good analogy either, for much of it is a shared resource, and not "wealth".
When I write a cool book, and make a billion dollars from selling it in voluntary transactions, I haven't taken diverted water from your farm.
gimmethesimplelife
2-10-11, 2:01am
Unfortunately, I have also read that in our current society, the chances of climbing from one economic rung to another have become increasingly difficult. Not only are we less likely to become rich and famous, we're less likely to be as successful as our own parents.I remember reading somewhere that upward mobility in the United States has become more difficult than in most Western European countries. Amazing. I was taught in school that in America anything is possible, and one of the reasons for this was the lower tax rates in the US - and now upward mobility is a more likely prospect in Europe! Absolutely amazing how things have changed the past ten to twenty years. Rob of the North Rim Summer 2011
flowerseverywhere
2-10-11, 6:51am
I remember reading somewhere that upward mobility in the United States has become more difficult than in most Western European countries. Amazing. I was taught in school that in America anything is possible, and one of the reasons for this was the lower tax rates in the US - and now upward mobility is a more likely prospect in Europe! Absolutely amazing how things have changed the past ten to twenty years. Rob of the North Rim Summer 2011
Do you think population has anything to do with it? Per the CIA factbook
"Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years."
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Another thing, as I have traveled to several European countries and Australia I was struck by the difference in consumerism. In the US some of our habits: multiple cars, big house, spending on imported junk I just didn't see nearly to the degree as I traveled. I don't know how we can as a society get ahead without a change in our values to control population growth, be better stewards of our land, and buy fewer goods produced in our own country. Yes, the price may be higher if you pay decent wages, but you get what you pay for and we are drowning in a sea of cheap plastic goods destined to end up in landfills instead of a few quality goods that last.
We have a finite amount of clean water and fossil fuels and we haven't been good stewards of either.
When the guy's bulldozer is large enough for him to divert most all of the rain to his own advantage, by being able to create the riverbed in which the water flows, so that it waters only his own fields, leaving the fields of others dry, unless HE is willing to sell them water, we've got a huge problem. And that is what is happening with this continuing and accelerating rate of consolidation of the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which means consolidating the power that wealth can buy, as well.
Of course it is possible to get ahead at the expense of others, but as bae pointed out the creation of wealth does not (by the very definition of creation) need to take something away from anyone or anything. Only the people who believe wealth is static can make that argument, but there is simply too much evidence showing wealth is dynamic to believe otherwise. Water, OTOH is available in finite quantities and, for practical purposes, is not created on a daily basis. Even so, the river diversion analogy is cool and accurate in the sense that economic 'rivers' do change course. The most high profile avenues for wealth creation in just the past few years show a course that meandered through dot.coms, oil, financial services and other industries. To continue with the analogy, there will be another flood that changes the course of the river, and another after that. There will always be people on bulldozers working to divert as much of the changing current as possible to their fields. The smart ones will realize that if they build dikes and try to keep all the water for themselves their fields will flood and they will drown. There are certainly greedy people out there, but they don't tend to have much staying power.
loosechickens
2-10-11, 12:59pm
Bae, you and Gregg are actually missing my point, which obviously has nothing to do with water rights, accumulating wealth, etc. As I said, nothing wrong with wealth in and of itself, and much wealth CAN be created without exploiting others.
What I SAID was that when that huge amount of wealth, consolidated into the hands of a few, is used to have outsized influence and power on our laws, regulations, politics and other things, to bend them so that they gain even more advantage, it is bad for free societies, and bad for democracies.
We have one person, one vote for a reason. But in actuality, because the wealth of those few gives them outsized influence, access and ability to shape policy, their ability to tilt the playing field to their own advantage is FAR greater than their numbers.
Nothing wrong with wealth, nothing wrong with attempting to accumulate. It is how that wealth is used to create ever larger and larger advantages for those few through manipulation of the system where we have problems.
What I SAID was that when that huge amount of wealth, consolidated into the hands of a few, is used to have outsized influence and power on our laws, regulations, politics and other things, to bend them so that they gain even more advantage, it is bad for free societies, and bad for democracies.
We have one person, one vote for a reason. But in actuality, because the wealth of those few gives them outsized influence, access and ability to shape policy, their ability to tilt the playing field to their own advantage is FAR greater than their numbers.
Nothing wrong with wealth, nothing wrong with attempting to accumulate. It is how that wealth is used to create ever larger and larger advantages for those few through manipulation of the system where we have problems.
So, it sounds like you're saying that there's nothing wrong with wealth and that the holders of wealth are not implicitly evil, but rather that a government that is easily swayed is the problem. If that is the case, wouldn't you think that governmental intrusion into every facet of our lives would be a bad thing since it is too corrupt a body for us to allow it license?
loosechickens
2-10-11, 3:36pm
No, I wouldn't say that, because there are many things that don't lend themselves well to a profit model (we could argue all day on that one, I'm sure, so I won't). I see government's role as a balancing force against the weaknesses of capitalism, one of which is greed, so it's ability to define "rules of the road" and limits to the profit making machines is not bad. I also think that such things as roads, bridges, schools, and yes, even health care, are better administered by government than the private sector, although I'm sure you would disagree with me on that. I'd certainly like to see government keeping their intrusive hands off our sex lives, etc. but.....there again, that's another argument.
It does make me an advocate of public financing of elections, taking private and corporate money completely out of the election process, so that representatives can be elected that represent the people of their districts or states, as opposed to the few with the huge amounts of money and influence that they have to please in order to get enough money for their next campaign.
I'd like to see each candidate have equal amounts of airtime on the public airwaves to state their positions, perhaps debates among candidates, and a certain amount of public money per candidate to use to get their message out to the public about how they stand on issues, but that whoever we elect goes into office "owing no one" anything other than their integrity, desire to serve their country, etc.
It just does not serve the best interests of our country, or any other democracy, for a tiny minority to have such outsized influence on how our government is operated. That's all.
But wouldn't that same minority still exert influence on politicians once elected by promising to steer business capital into specific districts or by offering post election employment or by favors to family, friends, associates? If that minority is indeed exerting undue influence on politicians through campaign contributions, once denied that avenue, won't another one simply become the favorite way of buying influence?
Personally, I think that if buying influence is as common as some might believe, it would be better to diminish the amount of influence available.
ApatheticNoMore
2-10-11, 5:21pm
But wouldn't that same minority still exert influence on politicians once elected by promising to steer business capital into specific districts or by offering post election employment or by favors to family, friends, associates? If that minority is indeed exerting undue influence on politicians through campaign contributions, once denied that avenue, won't another one simply become the favorite way of buying influence?
Funneling money to one's district no matter how it it used is pork (getting that new local highway to nowhere built afterall). What loose is talking about is just general funneling of tax money and favored laws to corporations that have donated a lot irrespective of locality, which is a separate problem. Neither one is good, but taking corporate money out of the election process would probably do a lot to fix the second problem, whereas I'm not sure any even hypothetical fix exists for pork barrel politics.
Personally, I think that if buying influence is as common as some might believe, it would be better to diminish the amount of influence available.
But if buying influence is as common as some might believe, this is equally impossible. Why? Because you try to cut government spending on something that is overwhelming benefiting some corporate cronies say, but because those corporate cronies have so much say (read money) in government it can't as a practical matter be done.
But if buying influence is as common as some might believe, this is equally impossible. Why? Because you try to cut government spending on something that is overwhelming benefiting some corporate cronies say, but because those corporate cronies have so much say (read money) in government it can't as a practical matter be done.
But, as an example, if we did not have a national government so out of line with it's original purpose, one that does not feel the need to legislate that a farmer growing grain for the exclusive use of feeding his cattle is engaging in interstate commerce and therefore subject to Congressional oversight, wouldn't we have far less influence to buy or sell?
Re the man with the bulldozer, the point underlying was that this individual has the power to create opportunity or deny it. Not necessarily that he will carve his own river and keep all the water, but simply the idea that the choice is in his hands, is disturbing to me. Bae, everything you've said leads me to believe that you are a wise and compassionate steward of your money. That's wonderful. But its existence still gives you a vast amount of power to force choices on other people, should you choose to exercise that option. You personally might never dream of doing that, but I don't believe you're in the majority there. Perhaps I just don't know enough really rich people.
Alan, I see what you're getting at: if we have an uncorruptible government by dint of the fact that it's agreed to be small and non-intrusive, the ability for wealth to steer the world by bribing it into compliance is limited. But I'm not sure how that actually lessens the amount of overall influence of money. Without the admittedly unappealing complex legalities of the government, those who wish to exert undue influence on others are even less constrained.
That's wonderful. But its existence still gives you a vast amount of power to force choices on other people, should you choose to exercise that option.
I'm a bit curious about how I might use my "power" to "force choices on other people"? I am not allowed to hire a private army and point guns at people to force them to vote a certain way, nor am I allowed to bribe representatives to pass laws and regulations. If I had $100 billion sitting in T-bills, I'd only have one vote myself, and campaign regulations would limit the amount I personally could contribute to any politician's campaign.
Nor do I believe it is moral to even initiate the use of force against another, except in defense.
The problem I see is that there is a lot of self-dealing, looting, and corruption in our government at all levels. That is not a problem of wealth, it is a problem of morals, and lack of consequences, and "citizens" who tolerate it.
I'm a bit curious about how I might use my "power" to "force choices on other people"? I am not allowed to hire a private army and point guns at people to force them to vote a certain way, nor am I allowed to bribe representatives to pass laws and regulations. If I had $100 billion sitting in T-bills, I'd only have one vote myself, and campaign regulations would limit the amount I personally could contribute to any politician's campaign.
Nor do I believe it is moral to even initiate the use of force against another, except in defense.
The problem I see is that there is a lot of self-dealing, looting, and corruption in our government at all levels. That is not a problem of wealth, it is a problem of morals, and lack of consequences, and "citizens" who tolerate it.
Well, I do agree with you about the corruption of government. But while I also agree that a certain self-entitled mentality lacking in any notable moral responsibility for greater good is at play, the whole purpose of the game is to accumulate MONEY. Money is power, and that is what moves the world. Maybe power / money doesn't corrupt everyone it touches, absolutely or otherwise, but I certainly didn't write the homily.
Money isn't power? So ... let's say that gorgeous mountain of yours happens to contain an enormous anthracite deposit. And let's say half of it is owned by that guy with the $100 billion. Who decides to raze his half, take the coal, and dump the tailings on your half. And when you sue him, he just peels off one million dollar bill after another til you're down to chop bone and he's still got about $97 billion, which affects his actual life not a single iota, he'd probably be more upset over a bad hair cut. The problem, when you boil it down? He had more money, he could keep playing the stupid game til you had to give up and let him have what he wanted. ... are you still sure about that rifle policy??
Money isn't power? So ... let's say that gorgeous mountain of yours happens to contain an enormous anthracite deposit. And let's say half of it is owned by that guy with the $100 billion. Who decides to raze his half, take the coal, and dump the tailings on your half. And when you sue him, he just peels off one million dollar bill after another til you're down to chop bone and he's still got about $97 billion, which affects his actual life not a single iota, he'd probably be more upset over a bad hair cut. The problem, when you boil it down? He had more money, he could keep playing the stupid game til you had to give up and let him have what he wanted. ... are you still sure about that rifle policy??
But that's not how it works in the real world. He'd not be able to undertake such an action in the first place, and if he tried, he'd be prevented in about a day.
Our local citizens routinely win against billionaires who are attempting to externalize their impacts onto the rest of us. We've crushed Paul Allen several times, and he's, well, one of the richest men on the planet.
Perhaps the real problem isn't that money creates inequality or even corruption but that enough of it creates a complete lack of vulnerability, a lack of any interdependence that might make him less interested in making a mess of your life. The only vulnerability between you and Mr. Soot Factor is on your side. As it is with each and every relationship with an enormous financial inequality.
Perhaps the real problem isn't that money creates inequality or even corruption but that enough of it creates a complete lack of vulnerability, a lack of any interdependence that might make him less interested in making a mess of your life.
The Scrooge McDuck Theory.
But again, not really how it works in the real world. Billionaires, in my experience, don't seem to act as you fear. They are, under the mountain of gold, human beings.
Corporations where there is no personal accountability, however, seem to be another story...
Sigh. Am I leading with my chin again?
Ok, yes. Mr. Soot Factor was a metaphor for the corporate coal industry. But one entity with a million times the resources of another is basically free to do whatever it pleases, because its underlying security is not the least bit threatened by a financial outlay that would entirely destroy the other. Call it a poker game. If you've never seen someone fold in a poker game because they just don't have the chips to keep playing, no matter how good their hand is ... you haven't watched much poker.
But again, not really how it works in the real world. Billionaires, in my experience, don't seem to act as you fear. They are, under the mountain of gold, human beings... I'm really not sure if you honestly have no experience with being outbid and therefore losing through your own lack of ability to compete financially and therefore think it's a myth, or if you're just goofing on me.
Yes, they're human beings. And while once again I agree with you, the soulless corporation is a bigger problem, the fact that they're humans is less than reassuring. Just look at all those human beings in government - self-dealing, looting and immoral. Just look at all those human beings on Jerry Springer, self-dealing, looting and immoral. Have billionaires necessarily purchased a different class of soul, a Better class of soul, while they've been running around gathering their money like everyone else?
Ok, yes. Mr. Soot Factor was a metaphor for the corporate coal industry. But one entity with a million times the resources of another is basically free to do whatever it pleases, because its underlying security is not the least bit threatened by a financial outlay that would entirely destroy the other.
But they aren't free to do things that significantly impact others, even with unlimited resources.
Assume for the sake of argument that my neighbor wants to mine coal on his half of the island. To do so, he'd have to get appropriate mining permits. He won't be issued them here until and unless he can demonstrate that his activities do not impair the values and functions of the local ecosystem - it's the law. Local, state, and federal. He'd be very unlikely to be issued permits for his project. If he proceeded to begin mining without the permits, within a few hours, a stop-work order would be issued. If he failed to honor the stop-work order, within a very short period of time, the Sheriff would arrive to enforce it. If he resisted, force would be used.
Now, say he bribed a local permitting official to do him a favor and issue a permit. Very shortly after the permit was issued, the independent hearings examiner would have the case in front of him, and issue an order to stop while it was being investigated, and if the claim was valid, go back to the previous Sheriff-with-guns case. If the hearings examiner was bribed, the Superior Court, then the state-level courts would have to be bought out. Then about half a dozen federal agencies and courts.
It's not going to happen, generally.
I'm really not sure if you honestly have no experience with being outbid and therefore losing through your own lack of ability to compete financially and therefore think it's a myth, or if you're just goofing on me.
There's a difference between being outbid, and being forced. I get outbid on projects all the time. That doesn't mean the fellow who won is forcing me to do anything.
My mention of the humanity of billionaires was in response to your claim that they lacked vulnerability, and interdependence with the rest of us. It's simply not true. When the billionaire down the road has a heart attack in the middle of the night, it's his neighbors the volunteer fire/emt folks who respond.
Interesting analogy. But very flawed. The behaviour you describe is of course why we moved from "I'm an evil landowning noble" English-style water law to first-in-use water law here in much of the United States.
Water isn't a good analogy either, for much of it is a shared resource, and not "wealth".
When I write a cool book, and make a billion dollars from selling it in voluntary transactions, I haven't taken diverted water from your farm.
While I agree that getting wealthy doesn't HAVE to mean harming or making others poorer, there are certainly plenty of cases where that is exactly what does happen. The poorly managed deregulation of the electricity markets, successfully pushed for by Enron thanks to their political power and connections, certainly gave them, a powerful corporation at the time, the opportunity to make large sums of money on the backs of electricity consumers in states like CA, while providing these same customers crappy service at the same time.
And actually, water is only a shared resource until a government, at the pushing of elite organizations like the world bank, sells off the water company and water rights to a private company to control and distribute, as has happened in Bolivia and many other countries.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to see water companies in the US get privatized over the next several years as desperate municipalities attempt to bring in some quick cash. If it happens the result will likely be higher water rates and big profits for the rich people with the right connections to be able to take over the water companies.
But they aren't free to do things that significantly impact others, even with unlimited resources.
Assume for the sake of argument that my neighbor wants to mine coal on his half of the island. To do so, he'd have to get appropriate mining permits. He won't be issued them here until and unless he can demonstrate that his activities do not impair the values and functions of the local ecosystem - it's the law. Local, state, and federal. He'd be very unlikely to be issued permits for his project. If he proceeded to begin mining without the permits, within a few hours, a stop-work order would be issued. If he failed to honor the stop-work order, within a very short period of time, the Sheriff would arrive to enforce it. If he resisted, force would be used.
Now, say he bribed a local permitting official to do him a favor and issue a permit. Very shortly after the permit was issued, the independent hearings examiner would have the case in front of him, and issue an order to stop while it was being investigated, and if the claim was valid, go back to the previous Sheriff-with-guns case. If the hearings examiner was bribed, the Superior Court, then the state-level courts would have to be bought out. Then about half a dozen federal agencies and courts.
It's not going to happen, generally.Except in Appalachia, where the people apparently ... apparently what? Apparently don't count? Apparently aren't lawyers? Or ... apparently don't have the resources/power/money to stop it. They've been fighting tooth and nail against mountaintop removal for decades and only recently managed to tweak the EPA ruling to perhaps improve the situation. If not lack of power and money, what's the answer to this fill-in-the-blank?
There's a difference between being outbid, and being forced. I get outbid on projects all the time. That doesn't mean the fellow who won is forcing me to do anything. There is always free will. Was it Elie Wiezel who implied the only thing he owned in Auschwitz was the dignity of his soul, which no man could take from him? Even there, expression of free will over circumstance.
Nevertheless ... I doubt he'd argue that a little more ability to express free will would have been appreciated. That's a pretty straightforward definition of forced, but the question of when someone's life is debased by another and when they are simply outbid might not be as simple as it seems. If the bidding in question is on the property next to mine and the bidder wins by a landslide, I'm not forced to do anything. But ... what if he decides that the very thing for that property is a CAFO dairy farm? Let's say I live where I do because I'm poor and this place is not expensive, and part of that means it's not very regulated. So there's no law in place that says he can't. And there's no money in my bank account to hire a lawyer to change the law. Once Land O Lakes is installed in my back yard, the value of the property I have goes to hell. So I do have free will, no force, I can leave. And do what, go where, with my $3,000 house check? Or I can stay, no force, and live in a cesspool. Someone else has - with no force, mind you - horribly degraded the quality of my life and I had no control over it, because he had more money.
There is always free will. Was it Elie Wiezel who implied the only thing he owned in Auschwitz was the dignity of his soul, which no man could take from him? Even there, expression of free will over circumstance.
Nevertheless ... I doubt he'd argue that a little more ability to express free will would have been appreciated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
Mentioning Elie Wiezel does not ipso facto make an argument reductio ad hitlerum. The point is that even in the most constrained of circumstances free will is still an option for the human spirit, but that doesn't mean the surrounding situation is ethical.
I'm all for the rich people spending their money at Tiffany's. Woo! Spend it.
Some people get rich by starting businesses and taking huge risks. Some people get rich by cheating others. Some companies take government bailouts and then give their executives big bonuses (really?) I guess my biggest problem with the "rich" is when they do stuff like that.
But I also don't like it when our senators vote themselves raises. Or they fill bills with pork for their own state's particular military coffers.
I spend my money on things that I think are important. Supporting the local farmers, rather than Monsanto. Hiring someone to clean my house, rather than buy a big SUV. When "business" does things like give out million or billion dollar bonuses, then cancel health insurance for their employees, it bugs.
If you rely on a company for a job, your risks are just much higher now than they used to be. Companies, if publicly traded, are now in business to make their stockholders happy. They are less likely to worry about their employees. This is not true across the board, of course.
If the bidding in question is on the property next to mine and the bidder wins by a landslide, I'm not forced to do anything. But ... what if he decides that the very thing for that property is a CAFO dairy farm? Let's say I live where I do because I'm poor and this place is not expensive, and part of that means it's not very regulated. So there's no law in place that says he can't. And there's no money in my bank account to hire a lawyer to change the law. Once Land O Lakes is installed in my back yard, the value of the property I have goes to hell. So I do have free will, no force, I can leave. And do what, go where, with my $3,000 house check? Or I can stay, no force, and live in a cesspool. Someone else has - with no force, mind you - horribly degraded the quality of my life and I had no control over it, because he had more money.
While there are certainly cases where an individual has been screwed because of the interpretation of laws, and it is always disappointing to see that happen, the entire system does function fairly well for the vast majority of participants. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would only make things worse. Do we need to consider individual cases rather than broader guidelines at societal levels when making laws? I would argue no because, IMO, the purpose of most laws should be to lead the society in the direction of the most benefit for the greatest number of people. Having needs or desires that are in opposition to the laws does not inherently devalue any individual within the society, but it does place the responsibility of proving their case on that citizen. What makes that acceptable is when the individual does have a way to be heard. Versions of the hierarchy bae described in an earlier post is in place throughout the US so that an individual might have a voice, but laws are in place (theoretically) as the voice of the masses. As a purely practical matter it has to be that way to function.
Kib, the literal situation you described above is not unheard of in my part of the country. People around here are generally pretty pragmatic. The consensus here is usually that if zoning laws allow something to be built and it then gets built it should not come as much of a surprise. In the thread's water analogy, if you build your house in a flood plain and it floods it shouldn't leave you wondering how that happened. The flaw in the analogy there is that water doesn't have free will and developers do. Pragmatism leads you to the belief that how and where that free will can be exercised has already been taken into account. The developer of the feedlot might be able to build it next to your land because the zoning allowed, but they probably would not have the option to build it next to a subdivision or an elementary school or a mall. For now our society accepts those types of operations and so zoning laws developed within the society dictate where they can be built to have the least significant impact on the smallest number of people. Whether that type of confinement dairy operation should be built at all is a completely different argument. To end the practice will obviously entail convincing a large number of people that it does more harm than good and that will likely start with an individual on the short end of the stick moving through the system. Until then I would just as soon keep our legislators out of the morality business.
loosechickens
2-16-11, 10:59pm
Just saw this today on CNN/Money........The rich really ARE getting richer, but the middle class isn't, apparently.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm?hpt=C1
I wonder what the Republican governor of Wisconsin thinks about the decline of unions as being given as one of the causes for the decline of the middle class. He is trying to eliminate all public unions.
He isn’t proposing to eliminate public employee unions, but he does want to limit collective bargaining to the base pay rate, and set benefits by law. He’s further proposing to limit increases to the CPI unless approved by a referendum. Contracts will be limited to one year and wages will be frozen until the new contract is settled. Collective bargaining units will have to take annual votes to maintain certification as a union. Employers will be prohibited from collecting union dues and members of collective bargaining units will not be required to pay dues.
What’s bringing out the crowds in Madison is his proposal that employees pay half the cost of their pension (about 5.8% of pay for most) and pay 12% of their health insurance premium. Those represented by police and fire unions are exempt. Needless to say, this has made him wildly unpopular with the public employees. At least from what I’m seeing, however, they aren’t getting much sympathy from the general public.
As a public employee myself (unrepresented), I’m going to feel the sting. But if it saves us from going the way of California or Illinois it may be worth it in the long run.
LDAHL, I spoke with my sister, a public EE in WI who was at the capitol yesterday.
You might actually seek interviews with people for whom you wish to tell others what they think.
You are making a fool of yourself.
LDAHL, I spoke with my sister, a public EE in WI who was at the capitol yesterday.
You might actually seek interviews with people for whom you wish to tell others what they think.
You are making a fool of yourself.
I am a public employee in Wisconsin. One who didn't call in "sick" this week. If you want to know what's in the bill, just read the text of SB-11. It doesn't "eliminate uniions" unless you believe that making membership voluntary will be fatal.
One question would you have the benefits you have without the union. The argument unions make for closed shop is that all employees receive the benefits negotiated by the union. Now if the benefits would only go to union employees that would be another thing and issue.
I managed a union workforce for almost 30 years. On many occasions I heard anti-union remarks from not only management but also union members. I can tell that were it not for union contracts in most legacy companies most, if not all, of present employees would be replace with contract workers.
The days of corporations considering their employees as their most valuable asset are over - it is all about quarterly profits. Employees are expendable and the labor laws are their only protection for the most part.
Many people forget that most small business provides sub-par or no benefits for their employees.
Peace
One question would you have the benefits you have without the union. The argument unions make for closed shop is that all employees receive the benefits negotiated by the union. Now if the benefits would only go to union employees that would be another thing and issue.
I'm not a union member, but you raise a legitimate question. Stipulating that we benefit from the activities of a given group, to what extent should the law force us to belong or contribute? What should our relationship be with the local volunteer fire department, the neighborhood,watch, the Marine Corps or the health insurance risk pool?
I'm inclined to weigh individual freedom more heavily than the collective welfare, although I think either view can be taken to a ridiculous extreme.
early morning
2-18-11, 7:47pm
What should our relationship be with the local volunteer fire department, the neighborhood,watch, the Marine Corps or the health insurance risk pool?That's a good question. Personally, I believe it's important to raise/pay taxes to support these - and to vote for levies as appropriate. (Neighborhood watch around here is just concerned and/or nosy neighbors, lol. No cost involved.) I agree with closed shops, overall. If you don't want to pay union dues, you have the right to work elsewhere. Why, if you (not you in particular!) are anti-union, would you want to work in a union shop? And just for disclosure - I am a public employee, although we aren't unionized.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.