Breaking: 3 Richest Americans Now Own More Wealth Than Bottom 50%

Good question. Let's review.

The original statement to which I responded was "Unfortunately, so-called "progressives" and "liberals" want to solve this very real problem in exactly the wrong way, by giving the government even more power."

In making my comment, the thought I had in mind was that in a government of a capitalist system, power to govern is generally power to provide beter conditions for the most powerful corporations to flourish and prosper. And that is all we have known in the U.S., so it is interesting to notice how we tend to assume that this is all there is, this is what shall be, and that we must therefore work within the context of this system. We believe "this is what government does" as though there is little alternative to consider. And human existence has not always been this way. There are alternatives, and the sooner we come to grips with all this, the better our chances of making changes before it's too late.

 

"Fraud or theft"? Everything R.A. said happens in the context of laws favoring the corporate elite. So sure it's all nice and legal. That doesn't mean it's right or acceptable. Protests are usually levied against what is completely lawful.

 

Central governments, capitalist and otherwise, are oppressive and exploitative by their very nature. That's the way it's always been and that's the way it always will be. It makes no difference if the central government is capitalist, or socialist, or whatever, it will invariably be corrupt and abusive. That is why we must embrace decentralization, so that power does not become overly concentrated within a single institution.

 

Please prove how bigger donations would give them more say in policy making. It gives more money for a specific candidate to win, in your scenario we would call it influence peddling and there are laws against that.

Then quit and start your own business like most people do who are that unhappy in their jobs. If no one will work for them they either have to raise wages or go bankrupt.

There are donation limits for individuals, I believe it's $2,500. Besides Hillary outspent Trump by almost 2 to one and still won.

Then buy your own property. If you don't make enough money do what I did, work 2 jobs till you have enough money to do so. It's just lazy to do otherwise if you really want "your" slice of the pie.

If you're right you'll win no matter how much money you have. I beat a former employer's fancy lawyers representing myself and availing myself to Governmental agencies like the Department of Labor.

It does have it'a advantages but easily overcome for anyone willing to put in time and effort. Your arguments apply to the lazy and sloven that want everything handed to them. Follow Prof Peabody Sr's advice..."The only thing fare in life are the coins you drop in the box to ride the bus, if your looking for fairness you're just chasing rainbows."

 

I'll bet that if you were given a position like "senator" in a new and different kind of government and were given the instruction or guideline that you are to govern for the benefit of your family, the people of your community, the people of your state, and the people of the nation, you would have no trouble choosing to not be oppressive and/or exploitative. That is what socialism is to be and that is the way existing worker-owned, worker-controlled co-ops function.

 

You're in denial .... -denial of the fact of A.L.E.C., denial of the effectiveness and power of a team of top notch corporate attorneys, vs. one attorney that the citizen could hire, and denial of an abundance of history.

 

It absolutely is not easily overcome. But you already knew that.

 

Unemployment rate, stock market growth, private sector profits.
Are you really saying it isn't strong?

 

Yes, I am. Capitalism demands profits and growth. The high level of employment attempts to extract work at a lower cost (lower wage) to boost profits. People are often working 2, 3, or even 4 jobs to make ends meet. The stock market rise is-and-was fueled by QE1, 2, 3 to the tune of $4 TRILLION, and by corporate stock buy-backs. That was the source of the corporate "profits" that fueled the stock market.... -not prosperity or sales or market share. Also, corporations have reduced operating costs in some cases by merging and thereby ending redundancy and its cost. And "private sector profits"? What "private sector profits"?

 

Not tough at all. The freedom to associate or not associate with those of one's choosing is a pillar of freedom. The freedom to enter into contracts or not enter a contract is another pillar of freedom.

When two entities voluntarily agree to a contract, it cannot seriously be considered a loss of freedom. If an entity doesn't like the terms, then that entity doesn't have to enter into the contract. Both sides have the freedom to decide whether or not to agree with and follow the terms. Freedom demands that two parties should be able to enter a contract if they so desire.

Do you feel it should be illegal for workers to form an association (union)?
I think that workers should have that freedom. And there should be no laws forcing a person to join a union either.

Do you feel it should be illegal for workers to collectively bargain with their employer?
I think workers should have that freedom.

Do you feel it should be illegal for an employer to bargain with a group of workers?
I think that an employer should have that freedom. And conversely, if an employer doesn't want to bargain with a group of workers, he should have that freedom.

Do you feel it should be illegal for an employer and his employees to agree to the terms and conditions of employment?
I think they should have that freedom. And if either side doesn't want to agree to the terms and conditions, they should have that freedom.

Yes, I believe in freedom, perhaps at a higher ideological level than what is portrayed in your post.

P.S. The government needs to stay out of it, because government is what limits freedom.

 

I strongly oppose such laws (and have been vocal about it) but I have a feeling that's not what he's talking about.

 

Wow, I thought something was inconsistent. One post, you badmouth unions, and in a previous post, you disparage those who badmouth unions.

 

Actually, I'm very in favor of unions. I just don't see them through rose colored glasses. If someone is unable to do as simple a task as move a tool bag without repercussion, then the union is forcing its will on others and taking away freedom. As I said, freedom is an ideal more than a reality.

 

Freedom demands that the employer and the employees should be able to enter into a contract which determines what should happen to the tool bag. If either party disagrees with the terms, then they don't have to enter the contract in the first place. The silliness and diminished freedom occurs when the government steps in and makes laws which affect the negotiating process.

Agreed. I like to believe that I am a proponent of a laissez-faire supply-and-demand free market, but occasionally question what that system would ultimately lead to.

Edit to add: Does a society have more freedom when its government mandates "freedom," or when the government simply allows freedom?

 

Oh, to get this thread back on topic....

If Bill Gates offers software to the mass of consumers for X dollars, and the majority of consumers happily exchange X dollars for the software, then I find it difficult to find fault with either party. Now, if Bill Gates got rich because of government interference in the free trade, perhaps it is the government interference that needs to receive the shout of "evil!" instead of Bill Gates.

 

So we can abolish the Dept of Labor then?

 

Thank you for admitting that you want what others have but are unwilling to work for it.

 

I have enough personally. I wish it was accessible to others.

 

I hope you understand that the median of anything is that point at which 1/2 are on either side. It isn't an average. It is the mid point. So half the people will be below the median income no matter what incomes are.

 

This is simply false. Every time the government prints another dollar, it dilutes the value of everyone else's dollars even further. Inflation is the result of printing more money with no economic basis to do so. Milton Friedman's Nobel Prize winning tome, The Monetary History of the United States, proved that it is the money supply that controls inflation and deflation, nothing else. Why do you think the income of the middle class is always adjusted for inflation? It's because an increase in the money supply drives up wages AND prices, resulting in ZERO real improvement in middle class income. If you make twice as much money this year as last year but prices double, your "real income" has stayed exactly the same. And what drives the overall price level in the economy? The money supply. More dollars = higher prices. Fewer dollars = lower prices (something we haven't seen since the Great Depression). Efficiency can lower the prices of goods in individual markets, such as computers and smartphones, but then more and more features get added to keep their prices up. A television today costs about as much as one did 50 years ago, but they are much larger, have flat screens, and have a wealth of additional features TV's of 50 years ago didn't have. But that's a tangent, we're talking money supply. With no downside? That's just not so.

 

I remember reading that Eisenhower was appalled to learn that half the population was below average.

 

Smoke and Mirrors Economic.

 

What percentage of University Endowments do the top 3 universities hold? Where is the outrage??? What have the top 3 Universities done to justify such inordinate wealth?

 

Why wouldn't it be? Charitable donations are tax deductible, what's stopping you?

 

Your entire premise is specious.