The ever widening gap between rich and poor

[stmichael]

A new study by Oxfam found that the richest 1% of the world's population will own 50% of the planet’s wealth by the year 2016! It shows the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor in capitalist countries. This contradiction is prevented from exploding through the following means: 1) an abundant technical capacity that is spent in the production and distribution of waste, planned obsolescence, environmental destruction, military products, space junk, cheap gadgets, low-cost technology, and affordable luxury goods that are spread to the broad strata of the Earth’s population, thereby increasing the overall standard of living but at the same time concealing the radical inequality and anarchy at the heart of the capitalist system; 2) the concentration and expansion of the police and military state to protect and preserve the rich as well as an anarchic obsolete capitalist system is accomplished through the monopolization and mobilization of economic, political, and technological power, which is combined with a high degree of governmental intervention in the economy and in the private spheres of human life; 3) the passivity and indifference of the masses is further achieved through the scientific manipulation of private and group behavior, both at work and at leisure, including consciousness and the unconscious, for political and economic purposes by a massive propaganda machine that works day and night in support of the capitalist system (i.e., Internet, TV, news media, mass advertising for the latest and fastest gadgets and technology, satellite radio, Hollywood movies, constant political lies and manipulation, the spread of the so-called "terror" threat, atheist diversion from the class struggle, etc, etc,).

FOR MORE:

https://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano

 

"THE POET IS JUST THE MOUTHPIECE OF THE GODS" - Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human (1878)

Edited January 24, 2015 by stmichael

[dimreepr]

“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

[iNow]

There are several active open threads on inequality. What do you want to discuss, specifically?

[stmichael]

“Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

TELL ME, WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

Edited January 25, 2015 by stmichael

[dimreepr]

The truth, is, whatever happens to be the reason for the current epoch.

[Strange]

TELL ME, WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

 

 

Great film with a fantastic soundtrack.

[StringJunky]

It's interesting how a statistic can be manipulated to look and be received how it's author - Oxfam - intends.

 

You only need assets of $798 000 (£530 000) to be in the top 1% in the world.

 

You only need $77 000 (£50 000) to be in the top 10%.

 

To be in the top 50% you only need $3650 (£2400)

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30949796

[hoola]

It is a long standing criticism that capitalism causes social problems. I disagree. The problem is the overall stupidity of humanity that will screw up any economic system in place. I think any real social progress would be better served to analyze why we have this self-destructive species-wide behavior. The reason we have capitalism and variations of it, is that it is more resilient to this corrosive aspect of large populations of humans, and as the populations soar, the overall quality of life will continue to descend, regardless of any supposed improvement in governments or more well distributed incomes...I think the quickest and most effective single change that could effect positive social results is very tight regulations on the advertizing industry...a second and longer term change would be promotion of population reduction.

[StringJunky]

.....a second and longer term change would be promotion of population reduction.

Good luck with that one ...reproduction is the raison d'etre of all organisms.

[Strange]

a second and longer term change would be promotion of population reduction.

 

The best way of achieving that is to improve wealth and education (especially of women).

[cladking]

The reason we have capitalism and variations of it, is that it is more resilient to this corrosive aspect of large populations of humans, and as the populations soar, the overall quality of life will continue to descend, regardless of any supposed improvement in governments or more well distributed incomes...

 

We no longer have capitalism in the US. It was acquired in a hostile takeover in the 1980's.

 

"Too big to fail" means that an interest is closely woven to the governing interests of the country. It means incompetence and malfeasance can be rewarded through ever shrinking tax rates on the real policy makers on Wall Street (not to mention Madisom Avenue). In the last several years Washington DC has gone from the poorest and least educated city in the country to the wealthiest and best educated city in possibly the world.

 

Some might believe this is good for the country but those poor uneducated people kicked out of DC and no less poor and no more educated than they were. Every year more schools fail, more people are excluded from the middle class, and more wealth is destroyed or shipped abroad to profit Wall Street at the expense of the weal. More resources are destroyed to profit the few.

[hoola]

While I agree that socialism is to varying degrees present in western governments, they are still basically capitalist. More specifically, capitalism in decline as populations increase...nothing will change in larger society until environmental issues force governments to address the issues. This will be met with a concordant change in corporate propaganda, as they all profess turning over a new green leaf. "Look to the future, not the past". Sound familiar?

Edited January 25, 2015 by hoola

[cladking]

It's not socialism but idiocracy.

 

"Enviromental concerns" is just another tool of the few to extract the wealth of the many.

 

If there were really enviromental concerns then Congress would not have mandated that cities expand into the coming flood plane. Everything is a ploy to funnel more wealth to the few. The world breaths in and the wealthy get more, the world breaths out and the poor lose more.

[Bignose]

Congress would not have mandated that cities expand into the coming flood plane.

So, which resolution was this exactly? I don't think congress controls any city, except maybe d.c. to a limited extent.

 

I don't disagree with your overall post, but the part quoted above seems pretty unreasonable, so please cite the bill the was passed that you think controls where cities expand.

[cladking]

So, which resolution was this exactly? I don't think congress controls any city, except maybe d.c. to a limited extent.

 

I don't disagree with your overall post, but the part quoted above seems pretty unreasonable, so please cite the bill the was passed that you think controls where cities expand.

 

Just a few months back Congress refused to force insurance customers to pay for the calculated odds of flooding at sea level even under current conditions without extrapolating for the supposedly rising oceans. In other words taxpayers not only have to foot the bill for cities which are expanding onto the beaches but also for any increased damage that results from rising sea levels. Rather than allowing cities to march back onto high ground Congress is assuring that storm surges and "rising oceans" cause even more damage than in the past. Most of the port cities will be on the beaches.

 

This might mean that Congress doesn't believe in global warming but there are other interpretations possible. Whatever the case it's apparent that our leaders are not walking the walk. They say one thing and do another.

The executive and legislative branches of the federal government siezed power long ago from these united states.

 

The Constitution was illegally adopted over the Articles of Confederation.

[Bignose]

Just a few months back Congress refused to force insurance customers to pay for the calculated odds of flooding at sea level even under current conditions without extrapolating for the supposedly rising oceans...

Sure, sure. Where is the mandate ("an official order or commission to do something") to make "cities expand into the coming flood plane [sic]"?

 

All the above says is that flood insurance rates can't change. I don't see how this is an official order to do anything.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Bignose

[cladking]

Sure, sure. Where is the mandate ("an official order or commission to do something") to make "cities expand into the coming flood plane [sic]"?

 

All the above says is that flood insurance rates can't change. I don't see how this is an official order to do anything.

 

Congress has authorized tax payer money to cover losses incurred by the comntinued growth of cities in low lying areas. This is where people generally prefer to build. It's been said that people would build a house on the beach when the tide went out if you let them. Congress is pledging the money of people who live on high land to allow cities to build where destruction is certain in the event of "global warming".

 

The entire playing field is defined by government regulation. The entire economy is defined by what government does. The government has defined the city limits by holding insurance premiums at artificially low levels. This simply assures additional destruction with every storm but more importantly assures calamity in the event that sea levels actually rise. Infrastructure built in low lying areas will be of no value if oceans rise. It won't be safe to occupy or operate and will have to be rebuilt elsewhere. The wealth that was consumed to build it will be destroyed and the middle class will be poorer.

 

Wealth can only be produced through mutual benefit between two parties. There is only destruction is sea level rises.

[iNow]

So, you exaggerated. Decided the facts shouldn't get in the way of a good narrative, right?

[cladking]

So, you exaggerated. Decided the facts shouldn't get in the way of a good narrative, right?

 

I think of it as hyperbole.

 

But when an action has the effect of law and only one possible result then "mandate" isn't so very much hyperbolic.

[Bignose]

Look, I agree that there are a lot of dumb people who do dumb things like build in flood pains. I lived near the Mississippi during the flood of 1993. People learned their lesson about that flood all of 6 months.

 

And government not disincentivizing construction in those areas is very annoying.

 

But using a very strong word like mandate when there isn't is at least mildly intellectually dishonest. Rather than appeal to emotion about 'look what the government is making us do !!!1!!', why not just state the fact that they choose to ignore reasonable predictions about future flood likelihoods?

 

Even your last post has more 'hyperbole' in it. Of course there is still more than one choice. People don't have to build in flood areas. They certainly may choose to do so, and the government isn't making it very difficult to do so, but there is obviously still a choice. I'm not even going to waste my time to find someone who filed for a building permit not in a future flood area, because obviously that is still happening.

 

I guess my request here is to minimize the drama, hyperbole, exaggeration, whatever you want to call it. Because the story doesn't need it. And worse, when someone finds out it was an exaggeration, it becomes very easy to dismiss the rest of the message. And I don't think you want that. As I write above, in general I think your message is correct, you just don't want to open yourself up to criticisms like this unnecessarily.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Bignose

[Wolfhnd]

Correlative data suggest that income disparity is associated with increased dysfunctionality of the markets. You don't have to be against capitalism to be concerned about income disparity, or the lack of regulation. To exist capitalism has to be protected from monopolies, unfair trade practices, unfair labor disputes, etc.. The other failing of capitalism is that it has proven that the mystical "invisible hand" does not provide sufficient foresight for necessary infrastructure to be established. History has shown for example that left to it's own devises capitalism will fail at establishing what could be thought of as the life blood of free trade transportation. Transportation networks have repeated needed to be provided by government entities for capitalism to survive. Capitalism also must be protect by a military and police force and when protection services have been the providence of industry they have proven to be hostile to democracy.

 

The most tragic misunderstanding amongst the proponents of capitalism is a failure to understand what could be called the darwinian perspective. This is most evident in a failure to understand that because the "natural" system is characterized by a lack of foresight competition always leads to extinction. They also fail to understand that intraspecies interaction is characterized by cooperation not competition in "nature". It is this fundamental misunderstanding that society is dependent on virtue far more than greed to motivate it's workers that makes modern economic theories so idiotically out of touch with reality. At the same time that proponents of capitalism insist that markets be deregulated for efficiency greed invariably leads to the system near demise when they are deregulated. What a society needs to function above anything else is ethics. The current manifestation of capitalism is devoid of ethics and where ethics are lacking an authoritarian government will step in to provide order.

 

Fair trade, open markets, fair competitions, and the other things we value about capitalism are all characterized by one thing a sense of fair play regulated by the ethical cooperation of a moral population. Once you take the position that people are naturally greedy and insufficiently ethical to regulate there activities by anything other than the competition of the market place you have doomed capitalism.

 

It is no more ethical to draw a paycheck while doing as little work as possible than it is for traders to engage with insider knowledge. The enterprise of creating a functional capitalist society requires the cooperation of all members of society. It will only work if the participants see it as a fair game and the cheaters are removed to the sidelines. We do this primarily by peer pressure not by authoritarian government intervention but the criminal element both amongst the mighty and the small will always be with us. Criminal traders should be fired as well as lazy workers and these things require that their peers demand them. The government must remain the umpire ever vigilant to point out the cheaters to the other players. Enforcement should be except in extreme cases the prerogative of the peers.

 

Government support unfortunately will always be needed because the game is played in the moment and lacks foresight. The purpose of regulation should be to not only referee the game but to help the game evolve toward something other than extinction. Service that are not profitable in the moment should be carefully selected and provided by the Government with a mind toward some ultimate goal which while never reachable should reflect the democratic consensus.

Edited January 26, 2015 by Wolfhnd

[Bignose]

I think that biggest thing is that mankind as a whole needs to mature beyond the point where acquisition of material wealth is such a driving force.

 

It has been known for some time that there is a number out there where people don't report being happier despite an increase in money earner per year. http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/saving/why-rich-people-really-arent-happier.aspx

 

The number changes every so often. I seem to recall the most recent one being $75k USD/year, for example. And it obviously is a little different per individual.

 

But my main point is that it isn't the things we have that makes us happy. This is mainly spelled out in Gregg Easterbrook's book The Progress Paradox. Basically, he shows that despite by every objective measure -- number of cars a family has, size of the house, amount of college education, number of TVs in the house, etc. -- America is better off than we've ever been. But, we're reporting that we're unhappier, too.

 

In short, it isn't stuff, wealth, and material goods that makes us happy. It is things like friends, and camaraderie, and community, that do. Once mankind matures enough to actually understand and accept that, the acquisition of wealth doesn't see quite so important anymore. In my opinion, this really addresses the root cause of this gap between rich and poor.

[dimreepr]

Couldn’t agree more; those that chase money/power do so with little thought of contentment and no understanding of value.

[Wolfhnd]

Couldn’t agree more; those that chase money/power do so with little thought of contentment and no understanding of value.

 

The only thing I would add is that fair competition is rewarding and has social benefits. A hippy may be happy but a hippy could be defined as someone in need of a bar of soap and a job application. The lazy irresponsible self indulged individual is as unethical as the inside trader. Values and contentment do not make us moral.

[Phi for All]

In short, it isn't stuff, wealth, and material goods that makes us happy. It is things like friends, and camaraderie, and community, that do. Once mankind matures enough to actually understand and accept that, the acquisition of wealth doesn't see quite so important anymore. In my opinion, this really addresses the root cause of this gap between rich and poor.

 

From what I've read, many of the rich are trying to make this about stealing the wealth they have currently that they worked so hard to earn, calling it class warfare. But most of the best solutions are more of a leveling of the playing field, shifting regulations and closing loopholes to help us back to a time when a lot more people had a shot at economic prosperity. The opportunity for good wages allows the rest of us to participate fully in the economy.

 

I hope we can eventually see that our dependence on wealth has allowed the wealthy to narrow our options to the point where we can't do anything else but work for them. We're too afraid of not having what we think we should have.

 

But as you say, can we ever uncouple our desire for material wealth from our happiness? I've always said I just want enough money so I don't have to worry about money. For me, it's not so much about the acquisition of stuff, it's about the freedom from stress that comes from knowing that I won't go hungry if the car breaks down.

 

Values and contentment do not make us moral.

 

I think they go a long way in curbing the need for socially unacceptable behavior. Remove the need to steal, change the process that makes people want stuff they don't have, and you make it easier to be a moral person.

 

Unless you're suggesting our morality comes from somewhere else, but that's probably a different topic.