Forum Post: If Capitalism is sacrosanct and holy, then how come only 1% are doing well.
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 1:07 a.m. EST by abmebratu
(349)
from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
They say capitalism is like a national cult in America. Well, That's all fine, but how come only 1% are benefiting from it. According to the stats, for the last 30 year 1% have more than doubled their income, while the bottom 99% have reduced their real income. This tells me that there is nothing hold about capitalism. I don't expect the corporate media to admit this fact, but I hope people will understand what I mean.
Capitalism is not the problem, just like communism wasn't the problem in russia. On paper both are wonderful ideas that benefit the people as a whole. However communism failed and became evil because it's own 1% decided to take the reigns and use the people to better themselves, a lot like how capitalism is working right now. The system would work fine and everyone would benefit (perhaps not equally, but at least benefit) if it wasn't for manipulative and greedy people at the top taking advantage of those below them to better increase their standing, power, influence and finances.
It's kind of hard to say Capitalism is not the problem at this point. Ultimately Capitalism is what created high derivative trading. Am I wrong??
Yes, capitalism allows people to advance. Socialism strongly impairs it.
first of all, we don't have capitalism. that is impossible to do with the federal reserve who controls our money. we also have a government that spends 25% of our GDP, taking from the producers of the country and hard working wage earners, and spending it all on crazy wars, entitlements spending, and other socialist programs. So I don't know what capitalism you are talking about.
There is much more of an answer to your question with this article... I know it's annoying to get sent links but seriously it is a 5 minute read and it will much better answer your question.
http://www.moneytrendsresearch.com/capitalism-and-wall-st-not-the-problem-end-the-fed-occupy-d-c/
The other 99% are too f^%$ busy smoking pot and blogging about OWS
The rich get richer.....because.....they know how to get richer. What's so hard to understand?
It's statistically impossible for them middle class to ever reach the 1%. That doesn't mean that certain large groups of individuals in the middle class (or the poor for that matter) won't move into the 1% at some point in their financial life cycle. Many of the 1% move down to the middle class at some point also. No matter what numerical data set is averaged, you will always have low-mean-high positions.
To put it more economically.....if the middle class income rises so will the cost of goods. A rise in "majority" labor is inflationary. Ie...the middle class will be back to "middle class" in fairly short order.
Only 1% benefiting - WHOA there. I am not close to the 1%, stuck in the middle, but I have a nice home, job, drive on good highways, can travel anywhere, have easy access to food from multiple sources. I also invest in 401K and take advantage of business growth when it grows. The 1% could pay a little more YES, but that ISN'T ENOUGH. Collectively - and only collectively our country MUST reduce our spending or we become like the EURO countries who has spent their way further down the road than we have.
We have to get out of debt!
my standared of living has fallen a lot these past few years. http://www.cafepress.com/wallstreetprotest/8165408 .
my standared of living has fallen a lot these past few years. http://www.cafepress.com/wallstreetprotest/8165408 .
Let's see some data that shows that 99% of Americans are not doing well. I'm in the 99% and am doing just fine.
I love working, and am comfortable, and am very happy. I've noticed others on this forum making similar comments.
This movement represents about .05% at last count (those who have donated and those who have protested combined). Perhaps you have the 1's and 99's inverted.
We don't have capitalism - it has been replaced by Fascism!
Yes, replaced by corporate fascism and capitalistic cronyism
"Well" is relative. I'm not in the 1% and I don't feel that I'm doing poorly. I've earned my own way. I've never had to ask anyone else for anything since graduating from college. I live in a nice house. Maintain a good emergency fund. A job thats a secure as any at the moment.... Not in the 1%.
I believe security does make you happy. But I don't envy people with all of that money. They're not necessarily happier.
It's no envy that drives many people to question the motives of the 1% and the plutocracy in this country, instead it the moral question of right and wrong.......Hey,we all kind of admire wealthy people, but this admiration is acceptable if we can coexist together as in boom times. But middle class and poor people have been assaulted by class warfare waged from above for the past 30 years in this country...Now people are forming an image of how exactly that war has been waged in the form of austerity and cuts to needed programs. And people in this country have seen how austerity is never mentioned when it comes to bailing out the rich. This is just one example of class warfare against the poor, working poor, and the middle class. There are certainly plenty more......So let's get the story straight, it's not envy that's driving OWS. Many of us admire people like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, yet we stand against the systemic, unfair, and gross inequalities present in our society.
I think the big corps and Washington are corrupt and represent the root of the problem. But.....
To say capitalism has only benefited the 1% is flat out wrong. The standard of living for all economic classes of Americans has increased throughout our history. Middle class Americans today have more living space, take in more calories per day and have more TVs, phones and other luxury items than middle class Americans did 50 years ago.
And its not just America. In countries with capitalist systems, the standard of living for everyone increases.
What we have now is a corrupted capitalist system, and we need to change that. Corruption can and does bring down every system--they all look good on paper, but in practice, they become corrupted and people suffer.
The questions we need to answer are:
1) Under which system (prior to corruption) do people most progress, in terms of both economic prosperity and industrial innovation and; 2) Which system allows people the most freedom, both to ensure their happiness and to enable them to correct the system once corruption has set in
I believe capitalism is the best answer in both cases. You may disagree, but don't make the mistake of thinking that some other system, which looks good on paper, will be free of corruption. We don't need to guess about these things--history, both ancient and recent, provide a multitude of examples.
Well, one could also say that the standard of living has increased largely due to government programs and regulations placed on business, coupled, of course, with the struggles of labor unions and other people's movements. For example the 8 hour work day should be considered an improvement of the living standard, yet it was not provided by business or capitalism. It was won through popular struggle. Woman's right to vote and equal pay is also a social movement that resulted in increases quality of life for millions of women. So I wound't be so fast praise capitalism for the increased standards of life we live. If capitalists had it their way they would make us slaves creating wealth for them. It's exactly because they fear the wrath of the people they have "relinquished" in their terms, so much space to the people.
I don't disagree with you, though we need to separate the political system form the economic system to give credit where credit is due.
Voting rights and social movements are possible due to our political system, which grants us the rights to protest, petition the government, etc.
Unions and regulations on business are part of the economic system. Capitalism does not preclude organized labor nor a lack of regulations. Both systems have, for the most part, served the people of our country well. Now, unfortunately, corruption has grown so much that the system is not working, and we need to fix that.
Some other systems I have seen proposed on this board, such as setting a fixed rate for all wages, do preclude things like collective bargaining for labor, which severely curtail the ability to rise against the corruption and abuses that will ultimately set in.
Your opening statement suggesting that the standard of living has increased largely due to government programs is one I will take issue with. First, we have seen a rise in the standard of living for the population as a whole since the founding of our country, most of which pre-dates the government programs we have in place today.
Secondly, it is important to remember that the government doesn't have any money except for what it takes form it's citizens. So government programs, while they do have their purpose, can only raise the standard of living for one set of people by reducing that standard for another. In a growing economy, the standard for all may increase, but for those being taxed to support the others, their standard of living is not increasing as much as it would without the government programs. This can be OK--I'm not opposed to helping the poor, just pointing out that it is a transfer of wealth and not an increase in wealth overall.
The other thing we need to be careful of is the sustainability of such programs. Again, all government programs are paid for by citizens. At some point, this become unsustainable. Right now we have 1 in 6 people in this country receiving some form of government assistance. Were this to continue to grow, we will soon hit a tipping point where the X% can no longer support the Y%.
I believe that government program should be seen as a last resort. A true safety net and, save for the disabled, a temporary program. For all to prosper we need to enable people to support themselves. I'm sure we could argue all day about the bast way to do that :-)
I see where you are coming from, but with all due respect, before government programs were introduced in this country living standards for the vast majority of Americans were appalling. If we say that real goverment regulation and assistant programs were started by the New Deal in response the depression, then we must look to a time before that to see just how bad the living standards were for most American. In the era of unfettered capitalism, which is really form 1910-1929 in this country you had top of the pyramid in this country living beyond the wildest imaginations of "99%". This is very much what we have today. Remember what created a viable middle class in this country is the the reforms that came with the new deal and with other programs during the great depression. Before such government programs we had a very narrow middle class, a tiny upper class, and the vast majority of people were working poor in this country. This is a fact. However, after the introduction of government programs, regulation, and other assistant-ship legislation we began to see the rise of the middle class and the over all improvement of wages, living standards, and trickle down...The GI bill is just one small example of that government program.....Sadly ever since the 1970 and the financialization of our economy what we have seen is a bit by bit dismantlement of this system that has created the upward social mobility in this country. The reason why it was done this way is not hard to find either. Big business/Corporations/Banks don't like the regulations and tax dollars going to things like Social Security or a GI bill. They would rather see wages go down so they could hire at low cost. They would rather see labor unions weaken so that workers would not organize to demand more pay or more better condition. In the final analysis, no matter how much we try to obscure the fact, this is a class struggle, and government has always been the entity that has managed the conflict between big business and labor, essentially between the moneyed class and the average American worker. Unfortunately, our current government has been bought by big business and banking interests......This means we have to look at ways to change that dynamic, in favor of everyday Americans. No matter how you look at it this is going to require systemic change. Now, my hope is that this systemic change will bring meaningful electoral reform, whereby the influence of money is significantly reduced in congressional, mayoral, presidential, and governmental elections in this country. If we manage to make this reform happen within the next 5-7 year I would consider occupy wall street a big success.....Just that one reform will forever change the electoral seen in America. I would also add one little attachment to that, which is we need term limits for all elected officials in this country.....
I don't work an 8 hour work day. I work during the day 8-10 hrs and then I go home and work some before I got to bed. I pull plenty of 12-14 hr days. I'm perfectly happy because I enjoy my work.
I don't know anyone truly successful who works only 8 hrs a day. I do however know a lot of people who work 8 hrs a day but complain that they hate their jobs. Are not going anywhere careerwise. Need to be doing something else....
Do you consider doing well only being a millionaire? As for a monopoly, do you own a cell phone, do you eat at McDonalds, do you watch sporting events (live or on t.v.), do you wear nikes or converse. These are all corporations that people support. They were also started by ambitious men and women who worked hard to get there.
ONE POINT PROGRAM for OWS * Tax reform.
(1). All Taxes should be abolished (2). We ask for a single simple tax collection process. Tax all bank transactions by 2%. (3). Revenue required for Government program can be easily collected by taxing all bank transactions by 2%. There is no need for multiple taxes, e.g income tax, sales tax etc, etc. (4). This process will eliminate all record keeping for individuals, businesses and organizations. No preparation and filing of tax forms. No audits (5). This will make life easy, and more enjoyable.*
We must FOCUS on one point program. Multi-point program get diluted. One Point Program is more likely to succeed.
Success on one specific thing is not enough. We have nothing to lose, but the world to gain. Why go for something so narrow.
Preach it brother
It is not capitalism. It is a monopoly. No one can compete against giant corporations not even countries. The rules have changed and we are not even invited to the parking lot.
Hey, the final inevitable result of capitalism is monopoly, followed by crisis and collapse, or as in our case, followed by bailouts and corporate welfare.
True that. Well said. I like those who can think things out to the end. I will repeat what you wrote to others.
The foundation of the monetary system is built upon competition and inequality. Plus money is only necessary when scarcity exists. So of course hierarchies will eventually form.
The game is rigged in favor of competitors that can capitalize on scarcity regardless of moral or ethical implications.
Fuck Capitalism.
Capitalism=Exploitation.....We need a mutually beneficiary system
Agreed.
What is your plan for creating high paying careers for out of work Americans? I am not playing gotcha, but I would like to hear your ideas, so I can consider them for a plan I intend to deliver to a former Fortune 500 CEO. Better yet, I cannot post on the main forum, would you ask this question for me?
"If you could deliver a plan, to create high paying careers, for out of work Americans, what would your plan be? P.S. Some of your ideas may actually be delivered to a former Fortune 500 CEO, willing to consider supporting a well thought out plan. Please be specific!"
because we have crony capitalism not capitalism. obvious example: bailouts. capitalism is not a system of profits, it's a system of profit and loss.
capitalism does not create a central bank (government does) capitalism lets a free market determine monetary policy - with our system the central bank does. and they can pursue a wrong one that can feed money into a housing bubble. capitalism doesn't bailout banks with public funds - capitalism lets bad banks fail.
where you blame markets or capitalism, what you are likely to find is a corporate+government system that is screwing us. just like there is a military industrial complex, there's a finance industrial complex. and health care, and education, and prison/drugs, etc.
Are you denying the implicit fallibility of capitalism. A few years ago we were hearing about the purity and unacceptability of the market system but here we are. Yet you posts seems to be an apologetic one. It brings up excuses and apologies, but doesn't tackle the systemic and inherent problem of capitalism.
i'm not claiming any system is perfect. i'm not sure to which inherent problems you are referring. a few years ago there was no pure system, it was crony capitalism then in every industry just as it is today. (and along those lines - nothing has really been fixed)
currently we are not very "captialist" buddy. the CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) is currently over ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND pages long. The laws that pertain to business and yourself are that numerous. Essentially its a regulatory overload. Capitalism is viewed as a lack of regulation is it not?
If we are not capitalist, then what are we??? Come on, Stop trying to twist things...
Because they aren't benefiting from true, unfettered capitalism -- they are benefiting from corporate welfare. The government is playing vanguard to established industry without fail.
Hey, the final and inevitable result of capitalism is monopoly followed by crisis and collapse, or as in our case, followed by bailouts and corporate welfare.
Only 1% have benefited? Get an education before posting again. Look around you, the country exists because of capitalism, when it tried to enforce equality instead of liberty, it lost both.
40 million poor ppl in America would disagree.
700 million soviets and Chinese would say fuck the 40 million Americans, they don't know what real poverty is
I'm concerned about the 40 million Americans....
I'm not comparing America with communist China buddy. Plus the Soviet Union is dead....What are you talking about. Wake up. This is the new globalized economy. We're all in it together.
You don't have to, if you forcibly push equality, the USA will be identical to those two countries.
Fundamentally not true....There is no fear to think the U.S will turnout to be the soviet union. The people who say that are fear mongers trying to postpone meaningful and necessary change in this country....I think you are aiding and abiding stagnation by making unfounded claims such as the ones you posted here.
Open a history book. The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Yes, the road to hell is paved good intentions. I agree. like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, like the bailout,like free trade, like the prison industrial complex, like the war on drugs....So it's all the same...on both sides
Oh yea, I forgot we have microwaves so that means were really not poor, right?
Yes it does mean you're not poor.
U have something to microwave. So yes.
That's simply not true! Most people living in capitalist coutries "are doing well" (I'd "extremely well" not just "well")
The problem is that there are just too many lazy communists who never experienced their "dream" first hand... they should be sent to North Korea a little bit (or for good) so that they can understand what what communism is really like...
I don't know who you are calling a communist. There are not around here. All I'm saying is we praise capitalism too much. Capitalism is like a cult in our country. You don't have to be a communist to see this.
Its not just about the reduction of real income - you also have to take a look at what that income, though reduced can buy today. 30 years ago a computer would cost tens of thousands of dollars. Now you can buy a smart phone for $250 that has multiples the computing power of computers in the 80s. The examples go on and on. Everyone benefits from capitalism when you look at the system over time.
I am definitely not the 1% and I would much rather have my standard of living today than that of 30 years ago.
Computers were not even in the market 50 years ago. That's not a good example.
That is EXACTLY my point. They cost "infinity" 50 years ago, and now you can pick one up on any street corner in any major U.S. city for a couple hundred dollars in the from of a smart phone. Capitalism created the personal computer (Microsoft, Apple, etc.) and we all benefit from it. Want a "better" example, take a look at the fuel efficiency and safety performance of automobiles 50 years ago.
Learn economics, then you'll have the credibility to protest it.
you can pick one up on every street corner because of the billions of dollars the public paid in subsidies to these industries through the pentagon, Nasa, DOE, and the university research. So again, We come back to square 1...public funds turned into private profits. Once again.
The government funded computing research mainly for national defense purposes. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs started companies to commercialize this research. To be sure, we all obviously benefit from the government research (funded by the taxes paid mostly by the rich, who made their money using capitalism to their advantage...but I digress) but it is that next step - the commercialization of the personal computer that drove the gains in productivity and leisure time that we all enjoy. The personal computer would not exist if it weren't for the risk / reward allocation capitalism provided innovators like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs stifle innovation with their patent trolling law suits. Not a good example.
So then back to the question of innovation. Where does innovation lay? To me it seems like innovation lays mainly in the public sector. Again research is mainly carried out through government funding in this country. Therefore, I would conclude that the private sector is no where near the public sector when it comes to research and innovation. I'll give the glory of marketing to the private sector though. So where does this leave capitalism in general??? Can it survive without a strong nanny state to prop it up repeatedly.
Corporatism is not capitalism. Durrrrrr.
I mean, communism has worked out immensely well, if you don't actually count the number of people it has murdered.
Socialism works well, but mainly in countries that utilize their natural resources and are composed of mainly one race.
it's capitalism that made the US what it is today: the world leader in technology and innovation, among the highest living standards, and freedom. You've been enjoying that all along. You're using a computer right now, right? You can thank the engineers who worked at private tech companies to innovate and constantly improve and perfect it. if you don't want capitalism, go live in a shitty country that doesn't work that way, and see how you like it.
btw, your stats are probably totally flawed.
Hows the job going @ the American Enterprise Institute dude? You sound like a paid for shill of the Corporatist elite with all this crap your spewing.
Seriously? You think this guy is spewing crap? As a self employed techie working in very entrepreneurial circles I can assure you that there is a lot of great innovation going on in this country today that will lead it into prosperity tomorrow if we will just foster the freedom that a capitalist society allows. I know men worth hundreds of millions of dollars begging for great ideas to throw money at.
The problem is that we have lost our passion and our belief in ourselves as a society. Its really sad.
Whose not fostering? Its the big Corps. that are by all accounts sitting on two trillion in profits dude. So, of whom are you talking about? If your gripe is Gov't bureaucracy blocking the way, sorry but that's nonsense as well, considering much of the so called Gov't in DC is either on the Corp. take a revolving door plant of Corps. or bought off some other way byt large Corps. The problem is there. The large Corps. abd their groups own the system and they block innovation. The rest of us pay the price for this Corporatist nonsense. The problem is you have a massive system of CORRUPTION masquerading as Gov't today. So go ahead and blame away, but at least aim at the right targets. Unemployed and under employed workers and bankrupt families and small business people are not causing this mess. #OWS exists because millions of us know the system as it presently exists and operates is broken.
The high tech sector of the U.S economy should be credited to public funding. Before computers, cell phones, GPS, internet, aeronautic, and almost every other high tech sector became profitable, it was public funding through the pentagon, Nasa, Department of Education, and more that led to these innovations. Boeing, Northrop, or Lockheed Martin would not be where they are today if it wasn't for public funding through pretexts of defense and space exploration. I can make a list of technological sectors that would never have seen the light of say if it weren't for public funding like this. So before you glorify capitalism, you should look deeper and see where the funding for research and innovation has been coming from for the last 70 years.
As an engineer for Northrop Grumman in a previous career, I co-authored two patents being used today by our government and its allies across the world. These patents were the result of R&D investment by Northrop, which of course gets most of its capital from the government through contract revenue and private investors through the sale of securities. So you could say this research was "government funded." However, the key component you are missing here is the incentive capitalism gave me to invent the technology. It was due to my ability to profit from my work that motivated me to do the work in the first place.
Capitalism is about providing people incentives to make a better world. I promise you in two cases, innovation was created because of the incentive system that is capitalism.
Well, did you know that incentive is less important than work satisfaction in creative work. This is not my view by the way. It has been scientifically proven. I'm afraid guys like Einstein were not doing physics for profits sake. On the contrary most of mankind's greatest findings were a result of the inherent satisfaction they produced to the innovator. Profit is no where near this inherent satisfaction when it comes to innovation and creativity, I'm no communist, but didn't the soviets beat us to space. Does this mean that their scientists were making more money than ours??? Of course not. The point is creative work does require an incentive besides the inherent satisfaction it provides. Nevertheless I'm not saying that scientists should not be paid.
This is bull crap. We're not all wired the same. I've worked in a creative environment for 12 years. It was fun working for nothing the first 3-5 years. But at this point if I didn't make the money that I now make I'd be trying something different.
Its no longer just about the creativity. Its about providing for my family. I know what I'm capable of now. I don't need to go to work for the sake of proving to myself how great I am. But I do need a decent paycheck to afford the lifestyle that I'm accustomed to (which is a nicer lifestyle than a non-capitalist society will ever provide).
So you believe the Soviet scientists toiled freely because of some inherent belief in what they were doing? It had nothing to do with the government holding a gun to their head?
I completely agree that truly great innovators are driven by more than profit - no doubt about it. But capitalism provides incentives for average people who have families and don't want to spend their lives devoted to their work, to get up everyday and benefit from their skills without undue sacrifice. Try feeding a 5 year old off the back of the "inherent satisfaction" you take in your work.
What this movement is trying to do is substitute individual skills for the power of a mob. It is attempting to benefit from off the backs of others without participating. It wants to make taking the easy way out OK in American.
There's a huge gap between raw research and engineering things into cost-effective products. The effect that competition has is also an important factor.
The problem with unregulated free market capitalism is simple, it naturally results in monopolies. That's just how natural selection works in the artificial economic system we all know. That is why REGULATED capitalism works, and unregulated free markets do not. It's not a difficult concept.
Does regulation include bailouts?
A bit of a loaded question and probably more in depth than I have the experience to answer. But a simply counter response is, why should they need a bailout? Corporate accountability should mean something. If I as a business person make bad decisions and my business goes into debt and can't turn profit, then I have to close up shop or try to get a loan on a failing business. Ideally my business closing up shop because it has bad practices wouldn't matter much because another can step in to fill the void.
Instead we have super-banks that if they fail will crash the global economy. That to me seems like a pretty big problem, as well as a reason to break up monopolies.
That's the problem my friend. In this interconnected global economic system that we live in today if governments don't act quickly and prevent banks and other major sectors form collapse the whole system could come tumbling down. You cannot wait for a large bank such as bank of America to collapse without affecting other banks and many other non-banking sectors of the economy. This is why our government had to step in to save its capitalist masters.........Say for instance we follow your advise and let all banks with toxic assets collapse then you could in theory collapse the whole world economy. People's money would be worthless overnight. This would lead to a broad failure in capitalism, which is unacceptable to elites who control the world and rip the benefits form the current system.
"Does regulation include bailouts?"
No. Businesses should be allowed to succeed or fail based upon their own accord, within the confines of the law. The law that WE THE PEOPLE are supposed to regulate. We are not the regulators anymore.
Indeed. WE THE PEOPLE stopped regulating our politicians and they turned into a free market.
What the 1% call capitalism isnt capitalism. It is corrupted version of capitalism called crony capitalism. Capitalism should work for all income classes. You should be able to move up in classes by working hard and making good decisions. Not going into debt enough to buy a house because all the people that are suppose to know what they are talking about tell you go to school get degrees and get good jobs. They forgot the part of their has to be jobs to get.
da phck are you taking about
polls suggest only 56% agree with this movement...IN GENERAL
NOT including a lot of its hyper-socialist ideals
50%+ making 33K or more...sounds like doing fine to me.
Seriously?
Haven't you noticed what has been happening? The more government control... the more wealth inequality. You can thank socialist tendencies for that. We need to go BACK to Capitalism. Right now, we are far from what TRUE capitalism is.
I hate to be rude on here, but, frankly, you're a complete idiot. We have nothing near to socialism. You clearly have no concept of what socialism means. Furthermore, corporations have all bought the regulators who regulate their industries. They are not government controlled. They control the government. That's the problem. People in social democracies in Europe, with real "socialist tendencies", and higher standards of living, I might add, where everyone gets appropriate health care and education, and, in fact, where unemployment is much lower, those people are laughing their arses off at how stupid Americans are, precisely because of idiots like you.
Amen
Yep. ...but we should be less inflammatory anyway.
True capitalism without the nanny state would burn itself out and lead to another economic system.
Amen brother.
If you think we have been using a capitalistic model in this country, you are sadly mistaken. Our public servants, on both sides, have been bought. Generations of Americans have let elected public servants enact laws that enable themsleves to be legally purchased. Corporations, lobbyists, pacs, super pacs, and other non-profit entities. They in turn enact laws favoring those entities. Our system is perverted.
http://sanityscribe.wordpress.com/
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/top10000.phtml
I'm pretty sure the number of people doing well is above 1%. Anyway if you want something to unite behind, think about eliminating all corporate contributions and reducing access of lobbyists to congress.
Agreed. In 2008, 10% of the nation made at least $114K. They are all doing pretty well.
Thank you! Great post!
Big government is what is hurting the 99%. Big government creates fear in America. Big government hurts small businesses. If our government didn't put out so many regulations, more people could become wealthy. Many of those in the top 1% have been wealthy longer than 30 years. Others have created things that no one else thought of and made a killing off of it. Then there are those who are government has aided. If the government takes interest in something you are doing, the more likely you are to make it in to that top 1% category. Until we shrink the size of the federal government, opportunity is going to continue to disappear for the bottom 99%.
Without government business with abuse worker and turn them into virtual slaves. Is that what you want??
Ummmm, no. I didn't say I wanted NO government. I want SMALL government, which is the exact thing that the founders of this ONCE great nation created. Unfortunately, through the late 1800's and early 1900's, we had a few presidents try and expand our government. Franklin D. Roosevelt being the most successful. Since FDR, our government has gotten larger and larger. More regulations and more government handouts. This creates a burden on the taxpayer my friend. This creates a burden on Americans.
Hey buddy, I think most economist would agree that big governments are needed to save capitalism. How can a small government bailout big banks, provide subsidies, take care of cash injections. Common buddy, We all know Capitalism cannot survive without the nanny sate. That's why governments continually get bigger. The enlargement of the state sector is a result of expanded private industry not the other way around.
Capitalism can't survive with big government regulation, buddy. How can you not understand that??? What economist are your getting this information from? Sounds to me like Marxist economist that would like to see America and capitalism fail.
Our environment can't survive WITHOUT regulation, nor will labor be treated justly or fairly. You like having weekends, vacations, health care? You have those because of labor laws. You like having clean air and water? You have those because of environmental regulations. You like being treated justly, having recourse if a product you buy doesn't function, say, your car's brakes stop working, you like being able to demand repair or replacement? You have that because of business regulations.
Hey buddy America is already failing. Ask the middle class and the working poor and they will tell you it's failing. I'm suggesting we take a long hard look and think hard about our cult religion, namely Capitalism. We can keep the good parts of it, but we must get rid of the bad stuff. I'm no communist. Trust me. I'm just a realist, who thinks scientifically about things.
That's the thing though. We aren't capitalist anymore. We haven't been a capitalist nation in a long time. We have some free market aspects, but for the most part we aren't. We are a corrupt democracy that is getting closer and closer to full blown socialism. The closer we get, the worse we are. Try and understand that. A free market democracy America would be so much better than this. America isn't what it was and will probably never be what it was. Sad.
You have no understanding of what socialism is, "You'RE so Dumb". We have nothing even remotely close to socialism.
Social democracies in Europe, where everybody gets appropriate health care and education, where unemployment is far lower than here, where the standard of living is, in fact, higher, they laugh at you.
Big Global LOL. A country that considers basic health care "Communism" is no where near being socialist!
Hey I think we are far from socialism. We are getting closer to fascism though. I mean the definition of Fascism is a state where corporate private power is merged with the state. If you look at how our government is dominated by private corporate power today you would come to the conclusion that we are inching our way to fascism. We may not have the same characteristics of Nazi Germany, but the coming together of capital and state, which is a characteristic of fascism, is obviously visible in America today.