Stripping away the distracting BS, this is what it all boils down to. (In my opinion.)

[Armstead]

In our society, there is plenty to go around

But a tiny minority of people have far, far more money than they will ever possibly need or be able to spend in their lifetime.

A much larger minority of people are unable to afford the basics of life.

And a majority of people who have been able to support themselves are now being pushed downward by economic pressures.

The result is that the minority of poor will eventually become the majority. We are being dragged backward into a new Gilded Age of unbelievably wealthy and powerful Robber Barons contrasted with an immense majority of miserable masses.

And this is totally avoidable and can be fixed. But we don't bother to even really try.

Instead, collectively as a nation we either passively accept or actively support a set of values and policies that are intensifying this economic polarization -- and which are undermining the interests of the overall majority of the population.

And we claim to be rational?

[PowerToThePeople]

1. minority of poor?

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

I think this is slightly incorrect.

Minority of "well-to-do" would be correct. I think the majority are poor.

[redqueen]

7. I think the majority are in the middle.

And most of them identify with the rich.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. Bell curve?

Think of what a bell curve looks like. Compare that to the chart in my above post. The distribution is definitely shifted to the poor end of the spectrum.

[redqueen]

10. I don't see an image.

[PowerToThePeople]

12. hmmm.

I linked to another source now, not sure what happened. Here is a google search that should show them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=US+income+distribution&tbm=isch

[redqueen]

26. Aha. Thanks.

It's worse than I thought. I suppose our archaic method of calculating how many are officially categorized as living in poverty influenced my perception.

[JusticeForAll]

20. Very good observation!

It's actually really close to what's called a Pareto distribution. The following is stolen from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution


Pareto originally used this distribution to describe the allocation of wealth among individuals since it seemed to show rather well the way that a larger portion of the wealth of any society is owned by a smaller percentage of the people in that society. He also used it to describe distribution of income.[8] This idea is sometimes expressed more simply as the Pareto principle or the "80-20 rule" which says that 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth.[9] However, the 80-20 rule corresponds to a particular value of ?, and in fact, Pareto's data on British income taxes in his Cours d'économie politique indicates that about 30% of the population had about 70% of the income. The probability density function (PDF) graph at the beginning of this article shows that the "probability" or fraction of the population that owns a small amount of wealth per person is rather high, and then decreases steadily as wealth increases. (Note that the Pareto distribution is not realistic for wealth for the lower end. In fact, net worth may even be negative.) This distribution is not limited to describing wealth or income, but to many situations in which an equilibrium is found in the distribution of the "small" to the "large".

[Armstead]

14. The RW tells them they too can be rich so support the interests of the rich

That's why so many people get brainwashed. Instead of realistically looking at their own situation and prospects in life to form their political worldview, they believe theright-wing corporate lie that "You too can be rich, so you should support the interests of the rich to protect yourself."

[redqueen]

30. Yep, exactly.

There was even a study done in which they asked people which quintile they were in (I think? it was some method to determine how they judged their own income vs. other people's, and people tended to self-identify as more wealthy than they actually were.

Can't help thinking of a Bob Dylan lyric: You just want to be on the side that's winning.

[Rozlee]

44. Yeah, you have no idea how many conservatives I've talked to that were barely getting by who

claimed that they were "middle class." One woman told me that she was tired of her hard earned money going to deadbeats on welfare. She was barely existing on her salary as a waitress and collecting the earned income credit and she was collecting disability for one of her kids. I've heard variations of this litany from conservatives who work at Walmarts and other low-paying jobs who collect some form of government assistance or are barely surviving on poverty or subsistence wages but stubbornly claim that they are middle class. But, the right-wing has vilified poverty and the poor so much that they don't want to be perceived as being part of a group that's viewed so negatively by their peers.

[7962]

46. But if you THINK you're wealthy, does it really matter if you're not??

Think about it, if you think you're wealthy then obviously you are not hurting for food or a place to live or other things. If you have nothing there's no way that you would consider yourself wealthy.
With many people, it doesnt matter how much you make, its what you DO with what you make. My brother would be considered "poor" by statistics, but he is a happy man. I asked him once, what would you do if you bought a lottery ticket and won 10 million? His answer: "I'd give YOU the ticket". I'd love to see if thats true, of course......

[Armstead]

13. There is still a middle class -- but its getting smaller

[airplaneman]

45. The middle class is 1/3 of the population.

It is not getting smaller it is getting poorer.
-Airplane

[Armstead]

49. The point is the same -- It Sucks

[handmade34]

48. inequality….

[Armstead]

50. Pretty f'ing frightening

[Warren Stupidity]

2. Worse, the effective media propaganda campaign has

convinced many to vote against their own economic self interest, to align themselves with the political interests of the ruling class and in doing so willingly participate in the process that is pushing them outof the post war middle class and into poverty.

[redqueen]

8. Yep. Convince people that being poor is shameful, and it means you're bad.

Convince them that being wealthy means you're smart, and a 'winner', and people will identify with them, and buy into rhetoric which serves their interests, and support policies that serves their interests.

Played like a fiddle.

[Armstead]

16. yep. That is a huge part of the problem

[frazzled]

3. "we ... support a set of values"

This is the root of the issue, to me. Our society values people who make money. We don't particularly value education, or ideas, or altruism, or art, or any of the other things that could be valued.

We think people who make money must be "smart" (or more talented), and we admire them. Well, they're not always; they're usually just more ruthless. (They think they're smarter though; there was a fascinating article in the New Yorker a few years back, at the outset of the recession, talking about how these financial crooks truly believe that because they can snare money in illicit trades, they are somehow smarter than the rest of us.)

We, as a society, are partially guilty for all of this. Look at this season we're in—the Oscars with its high-priced entertainers; the Super Bowl, with its high-priced athletes. This is the stuff we eat up as a culture, so no wonder we marvel at our high-priced titans of finance and leave them alone.

I remember reading an article in the Times many years ago, probably in the early 90s, already talking about income inequality. And it was talking about Norway, I think (one of the Scandinavian countries), in which industrial and financial magnates themselves did not want to earn more than X times what the average worker made ... because they felt it would lead to unrest amongst the masses and therefore be harmful to themselves and to their society. They actually CHOSE not to earn a lot. (I think this has changed even in Norway over the past few decades.)

A culture that reveres money will eventually suffer because of it. Until we start admiring things like morals and ideas and grace and comity more than dollars, we're in trouble. I don't know how it will ever change. The Great Depression helped even things out again for a while, but it was just a slow process of climbing back up the ladder to inequality again.

[Armstead]

17. We all need some glitzy distraction...but it has gotten way out of whack

I think some things, like ooogling the stars at the Oscars, are fine. We're always done that to some degree.

The problem is that it has gone way too far, and now we have come to see that as real life.

[BrotherIvan]

24. You have captured my feeling exactly

I too bemoan the values that put money above all else. When I was teaching, and I asked students what their interests were, every single future path was about making money. Not what truly interested them, or allowed them to travel, or fulfill their dreams: money. I have relatives who put down my choices for a moral, happier life because with my level of education and previous income, I "should be loaded." We shame the poor and praise the rich and famous. How else could someone like Mitt Romney be thought a "good person" and "smart" but the only reason anyone could give was that he was rich; so he must be.

I see that way of thinking as automatic in even my best friends. Money above all else. Money as the primary, exclusive goal. Money as the measure of happiness. Wealth as the measure of all things. I have to make a conscious effort sometimes to check myself when I think that way. We have no idea what to teach our children about how to be a good person and live a happy, successful life besides money. We used to have a picture of what being a good person was: raising a loving family, helping your neighbors and earning their respect, and having personal integrity because that makes one a complete person. I'm not saying everyone lived up to that standard, but it was my impression that middle class folk, who will likely never move up unless there is some great good luck, found those goals to be reasonable. Now, everyone, no matter the possibility, no matter what it takes to get there, we should all be billionaires or famous courtesans of billionaires or we are worthless human beings. Worth less.

I keep saying it, but I don't know how it's done: we need a new vision of the American Dream. One that shows people that working like a slave at a job you hate to buy more crap you don't need is not the path to pursue. The idea that people can be happy without constant consumption (and it's good for the planet too). That things like education and compassion and creativity make one far, far happier. That's the truth we have lost.

[frazzled]

36. Yeah, even education has become about making money

We talk about a college education in terms of its ability to get people the best paying jobs. I get it that, with education costs rising, this becomes more of an issue than it was in my generation. But sheesh, whatever happened to simply wanting to explore one's interests or become a well-rounded person, or pursue scholastic endeavors?

The culture wars killed our national commitment to the arts: they're the enemy, because they might cause people to think differently or question authority. Now, the arts are apparently just about how much some Wall Street parvenu (on his way to prison) just paid x-millions for a painting. It's in the business pages.

These, of course, are questions for the already comfortable. For the poor, they're not even in the picture. But maybe that's why the poor are so hopeless now. In earlier times, we didn't think we'd need to be rich to be happy, just comfortable with some interesting work to do and someone to love. Now, the goal is so way beyond the vision of the poor, it seems completely unattainable.

Oh well, these things come and go. I await the next enlightenment ... in which we seek the pleasures of learning, love, and community. Botox and million-dollar housewives may just look like part of the dark ages.

[BrotherIvan]

57. Wow, I wish we could have this discussion over coffee or drinks!

So, so true. Education has become indentured servitude, so I understand many people wanting to leverage it for future earnings. But what has happened is a complete absence of anything resembling being "educated". I often ask people, what does it mean to be an educated person in today's society? We have no idea any more. It used to mean, "well read," literally meaning a person who has read and presumably thought about certain works and ideas. I truly and deeply understand that this was a reflection of privileged, upper-class society. That is why I would love for us to define what it means for us today. When someone comes out of that very expensive college, what is it that they are supposed to know?

As for art, as many have said, art is a reflection of a society. I am very hopeful to see the vibrance of street art. But it seems that commerce captures and shortly kills all creativity. You're correct, it's all about how much money a certain work of art generates. As a filmmaker, I can't tell you how heart breaking it is when discussing a certain film, that the first comment is about box office. Or, it's just entertainment. When in fact, filmmaking is the art of our time, combining creativity, technology, skills that can only be gained through a lifetime of apprenticeship. It deals with all the senses (even approaching taste). And yet, it is now an industry (for the most part union-busted) that in this country especially, produces the most mind-numbing crap. Yes, art is a leisure affair. But it also enlightens us and changes the fabric of our thought.

I never thought I would be living through the Middle Ages in America. And yet, here I am.

[frazzled]

60. I opt for drinks!

It would be so interesting to hear your perspective on filmmaking and education. Here's a virtual martini sent to you.

[BrotherIvan]

62. Me too!

It's nice to meet people who care about education and art. I think we are a dying breed sometimes. Certainly an endangered species.

[llmart]

42. Your post articulates the way I've always felt.....

Thank you for putting my thoughts into such an articulate post. My ex really and truly thought that the entire purpose in living was to make money to buy lots of crap and hoard it. He suffered from depression most of his life but of course didn't recognize it. He didn't have the introspection to realize that all the money and material belongings in the world wasn't making him happy. He thought I had no ambition because I was college educated and extremely smart, and in his opinion didn't make enough money, even though I was happy in my job. He oftentimes had this look of supreme disappointment in me because I didn't want the things he thought I should want.

I read a very good book one time called "Conscious Creatives" (or something like that) that spoke to me about people like me who were outside the mainstream of modern thought. I spent many years as a younger person thinking there was something wrong with me since I just didn't care about the sorts of things mainstream culture told me I should care about.

I wonder if my generation (baby boomers) will become wiser as they age? I think that it takes many people a major life crisis combined with the wisdom of aging before they "get it". I still have hope. Plus, most of us will have a whole lot less to live on when we're older, so we'll have to be more content with the things in life that are truly important.

[BrotherIvan]

58. I will check out that book

I'm glad that you are calling him your "ex" because it sounds like you have chosen a path that fulfills you rather than crushed by his narrow views. I know my mother wasn't so lucky. It does take a while for people to wake up, since the idea of the pursuit of riches being so lauded only reinforces that destructive behaviour.

I often find that the only thing that wakes people up is some sort of tragedy. Most especially my well-off friends who use their wealth as armor to protect them from the slings and arrows of fortune. But one can't outrun it indefinitely. And it truly shocked me to realize that wealth made them feel safe, from uncertainty or grief or suffering. And when it hit them, they were the most ill-equipped to handle it. I often wondered to the universe, How did they get away with it for so long? How were they so demanding and confident they would get exactly what they wanted if they rejected all else? It is so different from my own life experience. But as I grew older, I did find that no one is immune to life's challenges. And some people have grown and improved after great tragedies, sad that they had lived their lives selfishly for so long. It was so apparent with Mitt Romney and the awful stories of tripping is daughter in-law or shoving his grandchild's face in a plate of food (something to that effects) and his creepy sons, that no one in that family actually liked each other. They are most probably waiting for him to die so they can inherit all his money. And I'm sure they cringe at his demanding wife.

I do hope that collectively we wake up. We have let advertising define who we are and it has made a society and culture we don't like. I hope there is some way to change that course. Though I don't know exactly what that is.

[llmart]

71. I agree that sometimes it takes a tragedy to wake some people up......

However, there are still many, many people who can have a tragedy befall them and still they don't change. That was the story of my ex. I stayed and stayed thinking that someday if he had to face a serious health problem or financial challenge he would finally "get it" and realize that his pursuit of happiness through buying stuff didn't work. Then as he got older he had some minor health problems, then a major one and still he didn't change. In fact, he got worse as far as his treatment of me.

So, no, I am more realistic now that I'm older in thinking that more people will realize the futility of the way they waste this life they're given. Now I am more likely to think that people mostly just stay the same and if anything, get worse. Frankly, I think those of us who never got into the vicious circle of conspicuous consumption won't have as difficult a time living a lesser lifestyle if and when we have to.

By the way, sorry for your mother. Leaving was one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make, but I'm much more at peace and content with my life now.

[Cirque du So-What]

4. Hey, this guy is a commie! ^^

How dare you suggest disrupting the natural order of things, where all wealth flows down to the hoi polloi via the generosity of our plutocratic overlords? You should be grateful for the crumbs that fall off their plate!

[bigmonkey]

5. The "natural order of things"!

That's the meme that undermines everyone's thinking. The right wing pushes it relentlessly - corporations are naturally ruthless, humans are as well, regulation therefore messes with the natural order, it goes on and on. Unfortunately, the cries here that "there's nothing we can do, it's human nature for us to be in this mess" are, to my mind, false consciousness - they support the very same "natural order" framing for ruthless behaviour.

[Cirque du So-What]

6. That's why I used it

and isn't that sort of thinking at the root of conservatism? All their efforts to turn back the clock have the same goal in mind: to provide justification for their greed and amassing of staggering wealth.

[bigmonkey]

11. I think it works the other way too, actually.

Some conservatives become so because they are susceptible to the "natural" framing. In other words, some suppress, or become blinkered to, their actually natural altruism because they want to turn themselves into warriors for what they are told is the true order. I think bad Economics 101 courses help with this

Of course, some are actually psychopaths and sociopaths.

[Cirque du So-What]

19. Speaking of bad Economics classes...

I had the misfortune of having an Economics professor for macro and microeconomics (both 200-level, but you get the idea) who worshiped at the feet of supply-side 'economists' and - by extension - Ronnie Raygun's gang of thieves. She would broach no argument in her classes, so both classes were a miserable experience for me. I did my utmost best, however, to convince my classmates that she was peddling utter BS.

[Armstead]

25. That's actually a pretty good label for what we have today -- Sociopathic Capitalism

[Armstead]

23. Yes Conmrade

Actually, I'm basically a free-enterprise capitalist...But a "spread the wealth" version that today is considered commie by some standards.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

15. "But we don't bother to even really try."

Because Americans are cowering in fear, as usual. We're supposedly the "Home of the Brave" but what we really are is the "Home of the Coward".

[davidthegnome]

22. I'm going to disagree on that one.

It requires immense courage just to keep living in this time. It requires immense courage to keep going to work every day, or to live without it, and somehow still convince yourself to get up, get out of bed, and keep looking. It requires immense courage to remain at all upright in what has become such a fast paced, stressful place.

We're not really cowards - we're just not really angry enough yet. Not all of us... not yet. I believe that time is coming, though.

[Armstead]

27. We're cowards because we allowed it to come to this

From the 70's onward, this has been a drip-by-drip process. Take a little away here, a little away there, take away more there, etc.

It was the Emperor's New Clothes, and too many people were afraid to say out loud what their common sense told them. So we sucked it up and allowed it to get steadily worse and worse.

[BrotherIvan]

35. I'm sorry to be rude and jump in, but I disagree with that idea

The term "dumb as an ox" I believe refers to the fact than an animal that weighs ten times as much as a human allows himself to be yoked and whipped until the day he is no longer useful and then he is slaughtered. Every day, the human leads him to the yoke, and every day he shoulders it, when at any time he could kill the human and be free. He may do it because the human gives him hay to eat, not knowing he can eat grass, not remembering his ancestors roamed the plains (figuratively speaking). But while he may buck and squirm, he still allows the very small man to force him to carry all the burden and whip him in the process.

That's not heroic, but that is survival instinct. The ox doesn't know he is bigger or stronger. Neither do workers. I don't expect the poor to do it alone as they have enough burdens. The bosses have them in fear for their lives and the lives of their families. At any moment, you could be fired and your family starving and homeless. That keeps them subservient to accept slave wages (and with the TPP they're going to go lower) while companies reap record profits.

We are at the turning point that allowed the labor movement to take hold. The gilded trappings that your employer will somehow take care of you, is the source of your livelihood, have completely fallen from people's eyes. Now, we need to imagine a way forward, a way for workers to earn fair wages, a way for small businesses to thrive again so not everyone has to answer to a corporate master, a way for communities to thrive again rather than be sucked dry by multi-national corporations. We are a consumer-driven economy. Everyone seems to forget that. If we stop buying, their profits go away. If we all stop working, their profits go away. They need us. But right now, it's flipped and we believe we need them.

But we all have to be willing. People aren't there yet. They're not willing to stop shopping at big box stores. They're not willing to spend their meagre free time at union meetings. Workers aren't pooling their savings and buying the means of production. They don't see the benefit yet. But when they become so crushed and desperate, they will.

[Armstead]

37. good post

[davidthegnome]

43. It's not rude to say what you think.

You have a point - but there is still the fact that, for a lot of us, if we don't keep working... we WILL end up homeless or starving, or overwhelming what little remains of our safety net. If enough of us were to stop all at once... then yes, we could force the changes we seek. We're not talking about a small number of people here, though - we're talking about millions of people, most of whom don't yet realize they're even being whipped. We may be blinking our eyes and wondering what the hell happened, but we're not yet really awake enough to confront the issues of the time.

How do we stop buying? We do not have the survival skills of our ancestors. With some few exceptions (a great many of them older folks who survived the depression, or have some kind of agricultural skill) we are dependent upon what we might find at the grocery store and whatever dollars we have in our pockets or bank accounts. If we stop buying - we stop eating. If we stop buying - many of us freeze to death without fuel in the winter. Yet it goes even beyond that, if we stop working, we stop being able to pay rent, or mortgage, electricity. If we stop buying, everything falls apart.

I say that it is heroic to keep on pushing forward, to struggle on when conditions are terrible, to somehow manage to feed our families despite our exhaustion, our depression, our tears. It is heroic to give of yourself, of all that you have, so that those who love you might survive.

I do not entirely disagree with you... but we do not have the structures, the resources, the things we would need to accomplish what you speak of - not unless we are willing to let millions of people starve, freeze, and/or die for this revolution. It's going to require going back to older methods of survival, smaller communities where people might manage their own food, to work for themselves and each other to survive and perhaps even to thrive. Then we have to think of doctors, of teachers, of security, housing... the sheer logistics of it are beyond mind boggling. We would have to pretty much re-invent the wheel.

This isn't something that can happen quickly, much as I might wish it were. If we all stopped working tomorrow, it might be a heroic revolution, but it would also cause unthinkable suffering. Small beginnings... I think, are the key. One community at a time, until more of us have the ability to survive without the trappings of our modern society.

Personally, I'm willing to go on strike, to stop buying... whatever it takes - but it would be pretty pointless to do it alone. I can only do that to begin with because I have a family that supports me. Too many people have to live with the knowledge that if they don't go to work tomorrow, they lose their homes, their food, their health insurance, their heat...

A whole lot of us also do not work only for ourselves, but for our families, for our friends... for others who depend on us for survival. This too, is heroic and not cowardly. It is not the ox working for comfort, but the compassionate heart giving all it can.

[BrotherIvan]

67. I absolutely hear what you are saying

And agree in many ways. But I think the key is in your post itself.

Because we have built our lives in such a way that we are dependent for EVERYTHING from other people, with the highest being a paycheck that the boss man wields like a cudgel, we are almost becoming infantile in our ability to take care of ourselves. As a child of suburbia and now and urban dweller, I often feel this acutely. We have put ourselves into little boxes, and now we must all tend our little boxes separately. What if that changed? What if there was a sense of mutual support instead of charity? What if we all praised each other for our good works instead of our possessions? What if Made in the USA was the highest designer label? It's just a priority shift.

I often think about the non-compliance strikes that were part of Gandhi's strategy against English colonial rule. Many people were willing to lose their lives or be beaten. They were living in extreme poverty, but were willing to strike because they knew they had to. For themselves and for future generations. Because they were tired of living like slaves.

It worked. They were able to topple the greatest empire the world had ever known. Granted, it hasn't been all roses, but it was a great victory over an overwhelming force. Ditto the civil rights movement. I can be done. The map has already been made.

We're so far away from being self-sufficient and I try my best to rectify that but it takes time to be able to do this. But I do feel a sense of pride when I can make something myself I would have to buy. I often hear my friends complain of all the activities they need to take their children to. I ask them if they have thought about making a garden instead or building things or any number of activities which not only educate but help the family as well. We're losing all of our skills. I wonder about retired people who are great gardeners who share their produce. Or turning an unused back yard into farm land. I know there are organizations working on this. I think there is a way to build community that helps us all in so many ways.

Like I said, I don't have all the answers, but it is definitely an interesting conversation.

[davidthegnome]

70. Not long ago...

in desperation, so overwhelmingly depressed and frustrated with modern society... I sought out a way to live differently. I looked into different Abbeys, thinking perhaps to spend time in quiet reflection with some monks... perhaps they'd have work for me, things I could do with my hands to help people. I'm not the religious sort, but I was looking for a way out. In the end I didn't really have enough money for that adventurous notion to come to fruition.

Then I started thinking about learning how to farm, what I would need to do, how I could perhaps, acquire my own land, or even maybe work for a farmer until I could. I think what convinced me to give up on all of my ideas for rebuilding my own life, was the fact that I would have to pretty much leave behind everything I knew, and that there was no way I could convince my family to come with me.

You are right about our little boxes... my own is becoming more lonely and more sad with every passing month. Some times, I wish someone would shake the hell out of it.

[BrotherIvan]

72. Damn, I've had the same dreams

Even the monastery. I often daydream about owning an asparagus & artichoke farm in Northern California. Or pumpkins which I find endlessly fascinating. Or a vineyard. Glad to hear I'm not the only one.

But it did make me think about what community gardening could be in this country. I also shake my head that humans are so modernized they go to the gym to expend extra calories that are supposed to be used for things like hunting and gathering, farming and building. I also have this crazy notion that the rise of fundamentalism has come from our collective loneliness and longing for community. We could and should help each other in so many ways. Instead of a company store, a community store.

It's a crazy dream and one I don't see coming any time soon. But I wonder if someday people will get their act together and look at us as fools.

[Wounded Bear]

18. Don't forget one big part of the Gilded Age of the late 1800's...

The press. It was 'yellow journalism' that led us into the Spanish-American war based on the exploding of the USS Maine. The press was almost completely controlled by two groups, the Pulitzers and the Hearst family, and they outdid themselves in sensationalistic reporting that fed the fervor for war.

The parallels with what happened back then are truly striking.

[Cirque du So-What]

21. I question whether a truly 'liberal media' ever existed

Sure, there have always been a smattering of liberal journalists around, but their corporate owners are anything BUT liberal.

[Armstead]

29. It's always been a mixed bag

Journalism/media has been an interplay of the liberal instincts of journalists, commercial sensationalism, reactionary business interests, and the more enlightened side of some media owners.

But over the last 30 years, the amoral corporate mentality has pushed out the other instincts, and we -- as a nation -- allowewd the worst elements to totally take over the media.

[Wounded Bear]

31. The whole concept of a 'liberal media' is just the RWers working the refs...

It's been largely successful, too. It's come to the point where no American outlet can be fully trusted to actually tell a story objectively.

It's rather sad when the best 'news' source is called Al-Jazeera.

[Egalitarian Thug]

61. Certainly, but also remember the biggest part of all was played in DC. With very few exceptions,

the robber barons got to be robber barons through government contracts, connections, and subsidies. IOW, the old upward redistribution of wealth scheme. Sounds kind of familiar, huh?

The mythology of the self-made man was always a myth developed and spread by the rich to excuse the rich.
& R

[cantbeserious]

32. Who Stole The American Dream

[valerief]

33. Republicans do what Jesus tells them, and RW media and the pastors they own

tell Republicans what Jesus says.

[Armstead]

38. That's one of the big mistakes liberals made

We let the right wing steal religion, and allow corrupt fundamentalist pastors to CONvice too many people that Jesus was a Republican Conservative.

Liberals have been trying to play "catch up" in recent years, and say "No Jesus was a liberal." It looks phony and defensive and phony because it is trying to change a wrongheaded meme that was cunningly implanted in the public mind decades ago by the conservatives.

Maybe the current Pope can help to rectify this...But look at the flack he's getting from the fundamentalists and the CONNEDservatives.

[dawg]

54. Pro-wealth, pro-establishment conservatives ...

very rarely get put to death at the behest of the religious and political leaders of the day.

[heaven05]

34. les mise'rables

I agree, I'm one of them.

[SHRED]

39. Yeah but don't you realize Christie closed a bridge?

Last edited Sat Jan 18, 2014, 03:26 PM - Edit history (1)

And then there is Bengazi.

You know...the important topics.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

40. I tell Right Wingers that Reagan believed in VOLUNTARY wealth redistribution....

That was the entire concept behind "trickle down". That money was supposed to go into PAYROLL.

Then I tell them the rich BETRAYED Reagan and kept the money for themselves.

Gotz to use simple words for simple minds.

[Enthusiast]

75. Yeah. It sure didn't go into payroll.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

77. I like to tell people to picture the guy busting his ass getting his boss a bunch of new business...

The boss then claims he can't afford to give the guy either a raise or a bonus. Then the boss's wife pulls up in her new Caddy wearing her new mink.

Then it turns out that's not his wife.

The wife is the one in the ten year old Dodge wearing a jacket from Walmart.

Oh, and if the guy says anything about it to his friends they call him a commie.

[Enthusiast]

78. That is not an entirely inaccurate picture.

The problem is the American people have an inaccurate image that is being carefully fabricated by the media from all sides.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

79. "Shark Tank" has got people all over America saying, "Why don't YOU do that???"...

As if Capitalism really DOES reward you for being smart.

"Oh sure, I'll just pop out into the garage and invent an anti-gravity device. Where's the nearest panel of rich bastards to show it off?"

[abelenkpe]

41. "as a nation we either passively accept or actively support a set of values and policies that are

intensifying this economic polarization"

Pretty much sums it up.

[mountain grammy]

47. watched "Wolf of Wall Street" last night.

Like watching Caligula and the fall of Rome and it was based on truth. It was a long movie. I was sick of it before it was over. The overabundance of wealth leads to depravity.

[gulliver]

51. Distractions

I actually think economic polarization is a distraction. "Robber barons" and inequality too.

Our core problem is that society does not create an economic demand for the best possible world. We just wait until the moods strike us instead of single-mindedly devoting ourselves to the idea that everything is better when everyone's prosperity and contributions are maximized.

Until the robots start doing everything (evolving us from this bionic system we currently find ourselves in), people are desperately needed to do the real work. Our problem is that we don't demand the work from them as much as we should. If we demand that everything we are currently doing be done better and in a completely clean and sustainable way, we will create jobs. Those jobs will require us to get the most out of everyone.

And of course, you can't get the most out of everyone while people are in poverty. Those folks should not be thought of as expense but as demand. There should be a floor on poverty in this country.

Short term, I support obvious policy fixes like upping the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, maintaining/extending Social Security, health care, a floor on poverty, and eliminating the drug war. But for the long term (maybe the next 5-100 years) we should be focusing on where the economic demand that drives capitalism (yes, definitely capitalism) comes from. I think that demand is "promoting the general welfare" through green jobs and eliminating poverty.

[Armstead]

64. I'm a little confused by your response

You seem to be agreeing and disagreeing with my basic point.abundent resources

Basically, I am saying the majority are being systemically robbed and beaten down to fill the coffers of a relative few. And it is theft, because there are more than enough resources to go around if they were more equitably distributed by our system.

[gulliver]

68. It's a tough issue.

I agree with the basic premise that the operation of the system is creating polarization in income. But more directly and to the point, the system is creating a ridiculous and intolerable level of misery. I think it is the misery we want to go away.

I don't think anyone would care if the Kochs had a trillion dollars in checking if there were no poverty and everyone had the opportunity to achieve their best potential. If that were the case, the Kochs would just be a couple of nasty old men whose daddy gave them everything.

What I really think is that we build the economy from the middle out as Obama keeps saying. We need to tax the wealthy a lot more and we need to create not just widespread and equal opportunity but demand. Some things we demand ourselves as consumers. Some things businesses demand. But other things the people demand are through their democratically elected government. I think the government needs to "demand" a lot more.

I think income inequality is a bit off the mark as anything but a rallying point. It may motivate the changes needed, but it is just as likely to produce a chain reaction of useless finger pointing. First principles like opportunity and demand seem more important to me. If we had higher demand, then we would not need to treat opportunity as a scarce consumer product that needs to be rationed based on our ability to pay.

[pansypoo53219]

52. gotta paint the 2% as the REAL takers. the vampire squids.

[kentuck]

53. Very thoughtful.

Thanks Armstead.

[Armstead]

65. Hi Kentuck

tnx

[dawg]

55. Free trade and improved automation make labor less valuable.

So owners of capital thrive and workers suffer.

Should the government do something to intervene? YES, YES, A THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!

Not only is it an issue of fairness and humanitarian compassion, it's also good for American business in the long run. The society that finds the best, most productive use for it's surplus labor is going to be the society that thrives. We don't get there by letting our surplus labor wallow in unemployment and poverty.

When the private sector isn't providing enough productive and useful jobs, the public sector is the only thing that can fill the gap. Our failure to do so is one of the largest political dysfunctions of our time.

[WillyT]

56. EXACTLY !!! - K & R !!!

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. No McKinley or Roosevelt on the horizon. All effective opposition has been swept away,

and the parasite view is the only view left in the halls of power.

The thing that still gets me every now and then, is how enormous and blatant it is and has all been, yet still a whole lot more people than one would reasonably expect are determined to not see that the house they are in is burning down around them.
& R

[Armstead]

66. Yes, the lack of awareness and concern is baffling

I'm saying that politely.

Less politely I'd say we're a nation of morons.

[Egalitarian Thug]

73. Unfortunately, I came to the same conclusion.

I've wracked my brains trying to create any scenario where I can excuse us, but it just won't come. They/we are determined in their commitment to illusions and fantasy.

It wouldn't be so bad if there were some way to escape the lunacy, or at least the worst of what they're bringing down on us all, but I haven't found it, yet.

[Armstead]

74. I guess one could try and live as simply as possible, but

Everything that is needed for survival has been hijacked in one way or another.

[Fumesucker]

63. Humans are not rational animals so much as they are animals that rationalize n/t

[TBF]

69. In the Socialist Progressive Group

we are of the opinion that the capitalism needs to go. It is an economic system that only rewards greed and is inherently unequal in that only the few at the top share the riches. Not a good system for the majority.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. I'll tip, but I won't say 'all'.

But this is a good summation of economic inequality under our current setup.

It obviously doesn't address non-economic disparities such as social injustices applied to every sort of minority group, but it does provide a parallel that applies if you substitute out 'money' for other things. Those that 'have', whether it be money, justice, societal acceptance, are worried about losing what they have, and feel that sharing it means they 'have' less. Some small number 'have' far more and act like they believe on one else should have any, many have some small amount, and many more have virtually nothing.

Equality in all things should be our abiding goal. We will never achieve it, but we should always strive to minimize inequality, and start by recognizing the ways in which what we do or say contributes to inequality.