Wealth Inequality in America

SMH

Rocket River

 

That may be true, but the only way to change it is through socialism. That doesn't mean you take people's money at once and redistribute it such that wealth is more equally distributed. But it does mean enacting policies which drive the economy in that direction. That is what the right wing and most of the left wing politicians will accuse you of, and they would be right, even they exaggerate it.

Do you want that? I think most voting Americans would say no to that.

If the current distribution is the outcome of capitalism, then do you not want this?

 

"In the direction" of socialism? Like slippery slope?
The word "socialism" (and communism, Marxism, fascism) get thrown around a lot, without much thought to their meaning. Does proposing a 3% tax increase mean using socialism to enact change? If Reagan does it, is it still socialism?

The 2012 election wasn't that long ago.

I personally want the result of a mixed economy. One of the biggest fallacies out there now is this false choice between all-out Ayn Rand capitalism and all out slippery-slope socialism leading to a dystopian communist state. Pretty much every functioning economy on the planet is a mixed economy, balancing free market ideas with regulations thereof. On this sliding scale, American fiscal policy needs to step to the left.

 

I doubt people will vote the 'capitalism' shown in the video.

 

Only the last two minutes of the video are really interesting (I would argue.)

Why do I care what average people estimate about math and economics when asked over a telephone? Of course that's not going to reflect reality.

The reality starts in the last couple of minutes. I wish the narrator was just more straightforward and clinical instead of having the "oh my gosh" tone.

But thanks for sharing.

 

Monopolies and trusts are also the outcome of full-on capitalism. Do we want this? Obviously not.

 

Can't have it both ways. If it was such a big deal, it would be discussed at the debates.

Me thinks the voting population would rather have something called capitalism than no monopolies and trusts. Now that there are monopolies and trusts, changing it would entail taking people's assets away from them.

 

No, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that wants unrestricted full-on capitalism. Monopolies and trusts do not exist solely because of government intervention and people realizing they don't want full-on capitalism back in the 19th century when consumer protection did not exist and workers were getting abused with long hours and low pay.

 

It is socialism. Whether socialism or communism or capitalism: being one of those things doesn't mean that you have the final product of those systems. Being one of those things means embracing the principles of those systems while aiming to go in the direction of their final product.

If the final product of a free market capitalist economy is having one percent of the population holding 40% of the resources... and you want free market capitalism... then you want 1% to hold 40%.

I agree with your final paragraph and wish more people understood that these labels are human constructs. In reality no pure system would succeed because every market has different uses, participants, components, etc. A free market health care system is not always going to be terrible. A free market finance industry will always be cutting edge. Capitalism, socialism and communism do not contaminate each other. You just need the right fit in each market.

 

Ideal would be everyone being equal, but that is impossible and unfair.

It is disturbing that the top 10% (in this video at least) have such are large portion of the pie. I actually find the middle graph to be close to ideal for us. Instead it looks like an 80/20 analysis.

 

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who says "I would like some socialism in America" or "I would like some communism in America".

Sure there are some who will say it. But my guess is that the majority of people who actually go out and vote are terrified and disgusted with those words, their components and the color red.

It's not redistribution, it's "justice".

 

So not wanting full-on capitalism automatically translates to wanting socialism and communism? Its not that black and white. Many people want a balance between a free market and some government intervention. Is that socialism? No. Its a mixed economy...

 

The video reeks of over simplification propaganda of the Occupy Wall Street movement. While the pretty graphs and and twisted statistics make a great case of corporate cronyism, it completely ignores the bigger picture and fails to hold more people responsible.

Since we are discussing the wealth inequality of the US and how corporate America is taking advantage of those poor poor lower folks, take a moment to evaluate the same picture across a global scale. Everyday, we use products that are manufactured overseas using wages beyond our typical poverty in America. Our houses are often built with underpaid illegals, a food is harvest by the same people and we import our food from those who are paid nearly nothing. So while yes, corporate America abuses the lower class, America does the same thing to the rest of the world.

The second point the video chooses to ignore is the choices the poor and middle class choose to make. Its fair game to pick on Wal-Mart and how they treat their employees, but at the end of the day, Wal-Mart makes very little profit on each transaction. Their goal is to push as much product as cheaply as possible, which is great for the poor people. On the other hand, look at Apple. How many "poor" people have Apple products? Apple makes insane profits off of every unit and producing a product not needed, but yet very little is said about their insane yearly profits. This applies across the board. The poor and middle class live in constant debt, buying new homes, cars, clothes, toys, ect..., just to give them the feel good thought that they aren't that poor. With each unnecessary purchase, the interest on that debt goes to make the bankers more wealthy and the corporations wealthier. If the poor and middle class want to improve, they will need to go without the shiny latest and greatest, keep the wealth in their own pocket, and refrain from going into debt.

There are those who think socialism is a possible answer, but the reality is we are more socialistic than not. Corporate America is not the evil darling nor are politicians. The unfortunate reality is that the extreme wealthy/greedy are the ones who run corporate america and they are also the same ones we elect to office. Republicans and Democrats are nothing more than elected rich people fighting over loot at the expense of the people.

Lastly, to have a balanced wealth equality, we will have to give up our grip as the world power. We can't have the most advanced and powerful army. We can't be the strongest catalyst to the world economy. The lower, middle and upper have to learn to live within their means. Our debt to income ratios have to significantly decrease. Everyone will need to save more, spend less and retain their wealth. If any of this were to happen on a wide scale, our economy would come crashing down.

The rich live off of one thing: Fear. The fear that the middle and lower class have of losing all of their possessions and toys, which very often do not belong to them (bought with debt); The fear that they are truly poor, in which they hide under all of the toys and luxuries that they really can't afford in the first place.

 

I love it. The sharp people do well (if they care about money), the beautiful women like smart people, and they both live comfortably ever after. The mediocre people complains. That's why lions can roam solo and deer sit around in the hundreds complaining about them.

 

Great contribution to the thread. Five stars.

 

The thread is about wealth distribution and capitalism in our current American economy, which outlawed trusts and monopolies a century ago.

 

I think we are saying the same thing, the ony difference being I'm saying Americans are still not willing to admit that they want socialstic or communistic policies embedded in their economic system. At least, they won't call it what it is.