|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Dec 11, 2013 3:51:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 11, 2013 12:42:45 GMT -5
I would be interested in knowing what their standard is for being classified as "poor", "middle class" and "rich" as far as income goes. I feel like what this video says the "reality" is isn't correct. If it were, most of US would be dirt poor or very close to it. If that's the case, I don't see it and I would think it would be fairly obvious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Dec 11, 2013 13:47:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Dec 11, 2013 14:43:42 GMT -5
Anyway the standard is irrelevant. The point is that most of the available wealth is in the hands of a small group of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 11, 2013 17:28:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 11, 2013 18:11:17 GMT -5
Oh darn! You found out my secret. Yes, I do have all the money.
$$$Bob$$$
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 11, 2013 19:13:05 GMT -5
Anyway the standard is irrelevant. The point is that most of the available wealth is in the hands of a small group of people. The standard is quite relevant. Many "poor" people here in the USA own cars, televisions, and cell phones making them wealthier than most of the rich people in previous centuries. As long as the "poor" are that well off, what is the problem? Rich people who make their money honestly have earned it and deserve to keep it, don't they? The economy is not a fixed pie. Many of those rich people made their money by doing things that created more value. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by Blarney Rubble on Dec 12, 2013 6:34:05 GMT -5
No, the standard is not relevant. If you are going to say that because people are comfortably-off it should not matter to them that most of the available wealth is in the hands of a few people, then that's a different argument.
The argument here - the point the video highlights - is the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth. It is not an argument for socialism.
We can all agree (if we are good little capitalists) that people deserve to keep the money they earn. And if they become wealthy as a result of their efforts, or their ingenuity, that's okay too. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here - or what the video deals with - is extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth at the top end. We're not talking about people who have a few million in the bank, or even a few hundred million. We're talking about individuals and families that control more wealth (which they are able to convert into political power) than the combined wealth of large sections of the population. We're talking about people who are able to amass thousands of millions of dollars, almost always through the legalized theft that is the banking system.
It's not as if the system isn't rigged in favour of this wealthy elite, is it?
Relative wealth/poverty is a different issue. When I was a kid we were poor. That meant we sometimes had to go barefoot because we couldn't afford to buy shoes. Or we didn't always have dinner. We certainly didn't have a car or a TV or a phone or a refrigerator. But most of our neighbours were in the same situation, so the question of "relative deprivation" didn't arise.
The definition of poverty today is very different (and so it should be, because society has changed). Now you are poor if you can't afford a TV, because a TV is considered to be essential. Most people have a TV, so if you don't have one because you can't afford one, then you are relatively poorer than everyone else. So the poverty line has to change with every generation.
According to the US Census Bureau, 16% of the population live below the poverty line. (The government's definition of poverty is based on total income received. The poverty level for 2012 was $23,050/year for a family of four.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 12, 2013 13:58:40 GMT -5
No, the standard is not relevant. If you are going to say that because people are comfortably-off it should not matter to them that most of the available wealth is in the hands of a few people, then that's a different argument. The argument here - the point the video highlights - is the gross inequality in the distribution of wealth. It is not an argument for socialism. We can all agree (if we are good little capitalists) that people deserve to keep the money they earn. And if they become wealthy as a result of their efforts, or their ingenuity, that's okay too. But that's not what we're talking about here. What we're talking about here - or what the video deals with - is extreme inequality in the distribution of wealth at the top end. We're not talking about people who have a few million in the bank, or even a few hundred million. We're talking about individuals and families that control more wealth (which they are able to convert into political power) than the combined wealth of large sections of the population. We're talking about people who are able to amass thousands of millions of dollars, almost always through the legalized theft that is the banking system. It's not as if the system isn't rigged in favour of this wealthy elite, is it? Actually, I agree with you here. There are plenty of people who have accumulated wealth through political means. This is "Crony capitalism", not Free Market Capitalism. There has been plenty of talk here about the 1%. It's not the 1%. It's more like the one-hundredth of one percent. These are the people who are making money by manipulation instead of by production, and the manipulation is a direct result of government policy which they control. Bob Marks |
|
