What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
39 Comments
- novenator, on 05/13/2009, -2/+35This is a powerful document that I cite often. Very good post MercyPolitics.
- MercyPolitics, on 05/13/2009, -1/+33Since 1983 the disparity of wealth and income in America has grown at a dramatic rate. It is no surprise that the already existing trend increased exponentially during the Reagan era. The pro-corporations & pro- big business Clinton did not do anything to curtail it.
Historically, there is two outcomes for a society with such economic inequality: Revolution or reforms. France ( in 1789), Russia (in 1917), China ( in 1949) & Cuba ( in 1959) followed the 1st path.
For reform,a good start for reforms in America would be an increase of taxation for the top 1 %, but perhaps more importantly changing the taxation law for estate taxes. In Europe, estate taxes are as high as 60 %. The stumbling block for reforming estate taxes, in the US, is Congress ( both Republicans & Democrats). It could be that they are protecting their personal interests considering that Congressmen belong to the 1 % controlling the wealth & financial assets. - kazz67, on 05/13/2009, -0/+27On a related subject, a recent (2009) publication based on decades of academic research, The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, indicates that economic inequality in economically developed countries is the determinant of all of those social ills usually associated with poverty. Indicators such as health, life expectancy, mental illness, obesity, high prison population, teenage pregnancy, diabetes, infant mortality, etc, etc, usually thought to be caused by poverty are, according to this research, caused by economic inequality and affect whole populations, not just the poor.
Written by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, (both senior lecturers in the UK) and published in the UK by Penguin if anyone wants to look deeper. - anarchist101, on 05/13/2009, -0/+21"According to a study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, only 1.6% of Americans receive $100,000 or more in inheritance. Another 1.1% receive $50,000 to $100,000. On the other hand, 91.9% receive nothing (Kotlikoff & Gokhale, 2000). Thus, the attempt by ultra-conservatives to eliminate inheritance taxes -- which they always call "death taxes" for P.R. reasons -- would take a huge bite out of government revenues for the benefit of less than 1% of the population."
This is why there was a graduated income tax and an inheritance tax to begin with. An inheritance tax and a very high income tax over a certain amount was deemed the only way to prevent the already rich and powerful from owning and controlling everything. The system worked very well when the costs of essential government services were divided up according to the ability to pay, and the economic might and wealth of America was the envy of the world.
"..Congress was reflecting the growing concern among many elements of society that the wealthiest Americans had consolidated too much economic power."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_t ...
Of course, this would not work now, unless the government was restored to its natural and constitutional limits and it was not allowed to to run deficits in times of peace. - booksnmore4you, on 05/13/2009, -3/+17It is solving this increasing gap that was the foundational goal of the Obama budget. But never mind, that was all pretty well gutted by the brilliant imps in the Senate.
I am quite convinced that the U.S. will not even begin to solve any of its pressing problems until the pain level is ratcheted up many more notches. - booksnmore4you, on 05/13/2009, -1/+12Thanks!
- MercyPolitics, on 05/13/2009, -2/+12@Caferrel, I was expecting you to come up with this argument. I don't think government is the problem here. The problem is BAD government. I am talking about a government run by & for an ever smaller elite. In my comment I made a reference to the French Revolution, I think America is in a similar situation ( right now) than France before 1789. The French aristocracy controlled most of the land & wealth of the nation and were very bad at managing it. Does this ring a bell, in comparison to our corrupt politicians in bed with banksters and other corporate crooks. What we need in this country are HONEST politicians getting into public life for the right reason:Serving the good of the people & not their owns. So I don't think your "laissez faire " trust of the "Free market " is the answer either. Unfortunately, and it is part of human nature, most people want to have more than their neighbors, are selfish and do not care at all for human good.
- inactive, on 05/13/2009, -5/+13As a libertarian and a Christian and a human being I find this information sickening, but I differ from my progressive friends in both the cause of the growing gap between the rich and the rest of us and more importantly, I disagree with the means to go about correcting this injustice.
This has happened because of the growing power of the Federal government. All of the people in that top 1% have close ties with politicians, lobbying firms and regulatory bodies. They use the government to increase their market share. They use the government to eliminate their competition. They protect themselves through the government.
The richest of those rich are the hedge fund owners, giant investment bank executives, mortgage company executives, pharmaceutical company execs, defense industry execs, etc. They all work in industries that do not compete in a free market, but rather are joint ventures between corporations and government.
The answer is not more government control. Government control will always concentrate power and wealth in a small, entrenched elite. If we want to see equity in the uS again, we need to deconstruct the Federal behemoth and let the free market eliminate the giant, fat corporations that pay their execs too much.
There you go friends, now start the feeding frenzy........ - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -4/+11You didn't say anything. You just made noise.
- EnviroChem, on 05/22/2009, -3/+10Having real thinkers with real morals and ethics would be better then the faux conservatives who run the GOP for the betterment of the "entrenched elite". What is really interesting is how the wealth of our nation began to become severely concentrated in the hands of the richest 1% during Regan administration and continued to concentrate through the "conservative" revolution and deregulation.
- scottknick, on 05/13/2009, -1/+7Caferrell -- I'm not digging you down because I respect your opinion but I'm not digging you up because I disagree with you.
One prediction from your hypothesis is that disparity of wealth distribution goes down in laissez-faire economies. The other would be that the rich won't bother to buy political influence in laissez-faire economies. But neither is in fact the case. Those economies (very few) that run without government intervention tend to concentrate wealth at the top very quickly. And the Gilded Age is a fine example of how the rich wind up running things even when the government intervenes very little in markets.
The fact is that without Government power there is only one power: Money. And the wealthy have more resources to acquire wealth than the middle class; thus wealth accumulates at the top. Unless government acts to regulate markets, empower labor and redistribute wealth, you wind up with an oligarchical structure with no middle class and a huge sea of politically and economically disenfranchised poor. - tzvika613, on 05/14/2009, -0/+6caferrel - Maybe you should move to Texas's 14th district - build up a machine of supporters and position yourself to run in the Republican Party primary when the present office holder either retires or leaves due to health issues.
Can you imagine hearing one day these words: " The Speaker recognizes the honourable Representative Caferrel" ?
I would vote for you if I lived there. ( I really would )
That matter never stopped a Kennedy from running for political office. They are no better than you are. - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -3/+8You know what I find really irritating?
People (cowards) who digg down thoughtful comments without making a comment in return.
Can't we have an honest debate? Are you so unsure of your position that you will not debate but just snipe from the shadows?
Pathetic...... - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -3/+8The country is too big and too diverse and the media is too powerful for good honest, humble dedicated men and women to get to Washington.
When honest humble people do get elected and go to Washington they find that the entrenched power of the bureaucracies make adjustment impossible. The bureaucracies will only be adjusted in the direction that they desire. Their resistance will make any other type of adjustment an effort in futility.
So how do you expect to change this bureaucracy that is clearly under the control of the elites? The efforts of every reformer are diluted and if the reformer stays in Washington he or she will gradually grow to become part of the system. (with a handful of oddball exceptions: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul come to mind).
Look at Obama's attempt to stick it to the rich guy. It is clear that his adjustment of the tax code will not touch a hair on the head of the top 1%. The code is sufficiently complex for them to shelter themselves. Instead his effort will actually increase the breach between rich and poor by punishing the upper middle class.
The only way to make Washington work is to deconstruct the Federal behemoth and start from scratch. Have you read this? Please do and comment on it. I need to do a rewrite, but haven't taken the time
http://reasontraditionandliberty.blogspot.com/2008 ... - homercles337, on 05/13/2009, -1/+6You can add the Great Depression to your list too. We are now very close to the numbers that facilitated the crash. Also, these numbers from the BBC and WSJ are revealing: the top 200 wealthiest people in the world control more wealth than the bottom 4 billion, and 0.01% or 14,000 American families hold 22.2% of the wealth.
I really dont understand why the poor suckers on the right fight for these folks. - MercyPolitics, on 05/13/2009, -7/+12@Caferrell, I think what we need is people like yourself ( with moral, ethics and a brain) to run for office. I am not joking at all, I mean it. I would even run your campaign, free of charge.
- anarchist101, on 05/13/2009, -3/+8Well said, caferrell!
Sadly and obviously true :(
It seems like a small but growing number of our population is realizing this too, so there remains room for hope.
Far better a peaceful social reform than a bloody revolution! - siszam, on 05/14/2009, -0/+5Exactly. We are suppose to be the United States of America. Instead, we have people who try to assume moral superiority while turning a blind eye to the suffering around them. I'll never understand the moral depravity that causes a person to oppose universal health care, equal housing and education.
- anarchist101, on 05/13/2009, -0/+4Thanks.
It sounds like a very interesting read.
I like Penguin Books. They publish some true gems on occasion!
The premise just "feels right" to me, so I would have to say it is probably true until I can do more reading/research of my own.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Spirit-Level-Societies-Alm ...
Now to find it somewhere in the U.S..hopefully it is available soon at the local bookstore (which I like to support). - BertaButter, on 05/14/2009, -5/+9Great idea! What say ye caferrell?
- akhomestead, on 05/14/2009, -0/+4The one constant in government is human nature. And human nature abuses power. And humans who seek power for personal gain will be willing to do more than humans trying to fight a good cause. Plus our elections are too corrupt, hell bad men steal them when they can't win.
Furthermore when honestly comes to America people laugh at it. The 2 most honest people in government, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich get laughed at and called long shots whenever they run.
More government means more corruption until we fix human nature. - inactive, on 05/13/2009, -4/+8Quit stalking me creep
- kazz67, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3Glad you both like the post. The book really is worth a read if/when you get your hands on it.
@anarchist. Kudos to you for supporting local (small?) business! - anarchist101, on 05/13/2009, -0/+3Thanks kazz67,
Local and small business are what we all need more of.
It has been my experience that small business >> big business. Much much greater!
You get greater satisfaction in a job well done and the reward of serving your local community. It is also much harder to justify being unkind to, or ripping off, people you know and interact with everyday.
Of course there are always some bad apples, but I personally will not tolerate this in my workplace or in any business who wants my patronage. Life is to precious and short for that kind of crap!
You CAN make money and friends and serve the community by supplying needed jobs. We all should support the local and small businesses who do so.
Reward those who have a sound and sustainable business model with your business! - scottknick, on 05/14/2009, -0/+2Well, thanks for the lengthy response. But I fail to see how an era in which the top 10% owned 75% of the nation's wealth; an era marked by child labor and degrading working conditions; an age in which laborers were willing to risk their lives to unionize, could be defined as "good for the average guy." And the Gilded Age was the (pre-Bush) pinnacle of political corruption. While the rise of industrialization did promote many into the middle class, the inequities of both wealth and political power were monstrous. And deflation was particularly hard on farmers and small businesses who needed to borrow money; the reliance on the gold standard to the detriment of so many was the subject of Bryan's Cross of Gold speech and the reason the Fed was formed in the first place.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -2/+3I wanted to take the time to research my answer well with citations, but I don't have time. so I'll wing it from memory. Some of my facts might be off a little. If you are interested we could continue this discussion later, like this weekend when I have time to research.
The period from the end of Andrew Jackson's Presidency until the First World War was the most successful in our history and it elevated a record percentage of people into the middle class and into the upper class.
This was the period in our history with the least Federal regulation and no central bank. All money was hard money and that absolutely benefitted the average guy. This was a deflationary period. Prices for almost everything dropped between 1830 and 1910. We are now taught that deflation is disastrous, but that is not true. deflation allows the average guy to save and then enter into business with no debt.
Many fortunes were made and it was a small group of these now wealthy men that created the cartels that grew the Federal government. In fact the wealthy were afraid that in the dynamic unregulated economy that they had no way to assure that they could maintain their dominance. Therefore they pushed for the income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank. They also pushed for the totally unnecessary entry of the USA into WWI. These same men became richer and entrenched in Washington as the Federal govt. grew exponentially during the war. Since then the power of government and corporate elites have worked together to hold the little guy down.
But as long as there was sound money, there was very little inflation and the average guy could still save for his future, for university for his kids. The sound money began to be disassembled in 1933 (I think) when Roosevelt confiscated gold. But our money was still relatively stable until 1971 when Nixon disconnected the dollar altogether from gold. From that point until today the dollar has eroded at a pace that does not allow the average guy to accumulate wealth. He is stuck in debt while the rich get richer.
OK lets go back to the post-bellum era. The standard of living among average Americans rose like never before nor after in our history. Opportunity was there for anyone to succeed.
As compared to the stratified class society of the Roosevelt years or the degradation of the standard of living of average Americans from Johnson to the present day, the period from 1870 to 1910 was the best in our history for the average guy.
Thats all I can manage tonight. - NoLibertarians, on 05/14/2009, -4/+5I don't follow him. I try to comment on most negative articles and he just happens to be Mr Negativity. The sky is not falling and it's a shame for diggers to coerce the yougins on digg to think they are doomed. This generation has a once in a lifetime opportunity for success if they don't let the Negative Nellie's of the world tell them otherwise.
- homercles337, on 05/14/2009, -2/+3Much of the problem is where does the discussion begin? You make comments that show your knowledge of history is completely lacking. Your *opinion* is your own, but your facts are totally wrong. I dont come here to completely change the *opinion* of others when they are based on inaccurate interpretations of history. If i spend an hour writing something to show you where you are wrong, you will ignore it. An hour that you should have been exposed to in a high school history class. Maybe youre not done with high school or maybe you choose to ignore the facts presented to you in history class, but i could literally just type for an hour to explain why everything you believe about government is wrong--out of my head with no access to google, or a book. You would ignore it and that would be a waste of my time. So, either educate yourself or get off your high horse because the simple fact is that you are wrong--wrong about nearly everything you type. At the end of the day, if i help one person to wonder its a successful day. Thats all i hope to do here...and today has not been a successful day.
- NoLibertarians, on 05/14/2009, -8/+7Cafferell is a lazy blogger. If he ran for office he would have to argue his points with intelligent people and not be followed around to get help from his internet friends. He thinks folks are too stupid and he has to "advise" them. Same idea as Dr Nut has of his worshipers. He couldn't get elected dog catcher.
- MercyPolitics, on 05/14/2009, -4/+3I will plan to work on my Spanish then....
- MercyPolitics, on 05/14/2009, -4/+3Love lamb, love seafood. Thanks for the invite, I might come sometime
- homercles337, on 05/13/2009, -8/+6The second you neo-libs examine history is the same second that your argument falls apart.
- inactive, on 05/15/2009, -3/+1Thanks tzvika.
Shalom. - BertaButter, on 05/14/2009, -4/+2Your view is as beautiful as your heart is strong. Perhaps we can help change politics here from your new home there?
- BertaButter, on 05/14/2009, -6/+4 And you follow him around because you're obsessed that his points will be read and heeded. Otherwise there'd be no reason for you. He has all that you lack. Honesty, commitment, character. Your points are a house of cards. One fine wind blows it down.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -5/+3You will be welcome in my home for as long as you like Mon ami.
You will eat the best lamb and seafood in the world. - inactive, on 05/14/2009, -6/+4Mercy and Berta, you are wonderful friends.
I am humbled and very grateful for your comments. I think that I know both of you, particularly Mercy through comments and articles here on digg. Your confidence in me is truly appreciated.
I have a degree in political science (and a minor in romance languages), and I have worked on a number of political campaigns in the USA and in Chile. I ran the PR and mailings for a gubernatorial campaign when I was just a drunk University kid. I have often considered that I could do a better job than many politicians, at least I think that I could remain true to my principles. It has tempted me but there are reasons that I haven't thrown my hat into the ring.
I am an alcoholic, recovering alcoholic, but nevertheless I have a very checkered background. I am the only person that I know to have been jailed for drunk and disorderly conduct or brawling in five different countries! My past would be dug up and there is stuff there that I would rather my children did not have to be forced to deal with. That is the biggest reason that I will never run for office. I have been arrested for possession and other things from my wild youth. I have changed, but that doesn't matter in American politics, all that crap would be dug up if I looked like I might challenge the status quo.
Also I am moving back to South America this fall. Aleluia! My company will now operate throughout the US and Latinoamérica. I have been waiting for this all to coalesce and I'd love to talk about it, but there are others reading these threads. Anyway, I am going to reside outside the US of A. I am going to be back in my house on the beach outside of Puerto Montt Chile. Here's what it looks like from my garden http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2062/3530478954_52b ...
So I am going home. It is a lot more likely that I will run for office as a candidate for Renovación Nacional, http://rn.cl/ than here in the USA.
Thanks again for the sentiment. - NoLibertarians, on 05/13/2009, -8/+4Relax Caffee, it's only Digg. it affects nothing.
- inactive, on 05/14/2009, -5/+1There is a lot of hope for Chile. Big problems, but good intelligent people working to overcome them. It is al country with a relatively small population so that a central government can never get so distanced from the people that they lose control over it.
And I am working hard to change things by working to strengthen marriages and families. The only unit that the state should recognize is the individual, but the key unit for society is not the individual, but rather the family. Without strong families, society comes apart.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 