quote:

Everything has been said already. I would stress the big part of the recent wealth gap widening has been artificially pushing up the asset prices (and the rich own most of the assets). It started with Clinton/Greenspan and has been going on since. So, in some sense, lot of the wealth is not even real. Check out for instance the graph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IE_Real_SandP_Prices,_Earnings,_and_Dividends_1871-2006.png
The same price elevation with stocks applies to real estate. For example, asking my friend, who owns a small single family home, when will she finally own it I got a response: never. Somehow the house that took perhaps around 100K to build is priced 1 million. How did this happen? She owns a small business and makes a decent income.
This phenomenon has resulted financial industry making around 40% of all corporate profits (collecting rent on debt).
The whole system is a big Bonzi scheme. The bad news (...or maybe good) is the confidence into the system serving mostly useful purpose is lost. Occupy Wall Street events show it partially. Fraudulent systems run as long as many people do not understand what is going on and participate. The system tries to keep things secret.
The transition to something else will be painful. The rich are not stupid. All they do (as a work) is protecting and increasing their assets.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
For example, asking my friend, who owns a small single family home, when will she  finally own it I got a response: never. Somehow the house that took perhaps around 100K to build is priced 1 million. How did this happen? She owns a small business and makes a decent income.

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

It is big unions that are bankrupting states, munincipalities and companies like GM. They have demanded wages and benefit packages that can no longer be afforded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

At the risk of adding fuel to an already growing fire, I thought it might be interesting to bring this 2006 documentary up for discussion.

The One Percent is a 2006 documentary about the growing wealth gap between America's wealthy elite and the citizenry on the whole. It was created by Jamie Johnson, an heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, and produced by Jamie Johnson and Nick Kurzon. The film's title refers to the top one percent of Americans in terms of wealth, who controlled 38% of the nation's wealth in 2001.

Some of the things I found interesting were the Johnson family's reluctant participation, Warren Buffet's reaction, the political involvement from both sides of the fence (Democrat and Republican), and of course, the relevance to current events... six years after the making.

A copy of mediocre quality in eight parts can be viewed here.

DVDs of the documentary can be purchased here.

While I am sure many will want to lay blame on particular individuals and groups(and I'm sure much is duly warranted), I am more interested in a sincere and civil discussion on the macro causes... of which I am also sure there is more than one. 

In other words, rather than say "it's Reagan's fault" or "it's Bush's fault" or "it's the Republicans' fault" (like I know you want to [;)] ), let's stay in the realm of general areas.  Take you pick... Government, our two-party system, capitalism, greed, global banking, apathy, ignorance, etc... the sky's the limit.

I'm personally leaning toward the opinion that the major problem lies with the government; it is too large and too powerful.  I take great issue with the access and influence that can be had to that great power with money.  That Corporations and the very wealthy take advantage of that, there is no doubt, but does the fault lie more with them or with the governmental system that allows it? 

I say the lion's share belongs to the government.  Which in some respects, leads me to feel that the OWS movement is a bit misplaced.   I think a few of their demands address the government problem, and they have the right idea of making their voices heard... but I believe they are focusing on the wrong entity.

Of course, the big question is, can any of it be realistically solved?  Personally, I have my doubts.  While it is easy to pick out one problem area and focus on that as the major issue, there are indeed a multitude of issues that are intertwined but at odds.  I'm not sure we can pull at one or more threads without risking the entire fabric falling apart.

Cheery and optimistic thought, eh?  [&:]

quote:

I consider myself part of the 1%. No, I'm not rich. But I take full responsibility for whatever financial decisions I've made over the years,...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY
That holds very true in this case, too. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
The answer - according to historic American political theory - is as little as absolutely necessary, and as enumerated in our Constitution.

TreasureKY  can judge by herself it is the wrong question or not, it is to her. Your second assert is not American political theory (that these must be the only powers), and in first I agree, does not change my points, though.

You are taking personal offense at a rhetorical technique of discussion.

As far as my question and answers about historical American political theory, I beg to differ.  The change started with the Great Depression and FDR, but the basis of the founding of the US came from the two pillars that I stated, and they still have a large place in American political thought.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: claree

Just a few thoughts.

The government, in 1995, passed a bill to require banks to provide loans to the "underserved communities" whether they could afford them or not. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were pressed into service to help finance and package these sub-prime loans. This was generally considered to be the very beginnings of the housing bubble. Rep. Barney Franks, who pushed this law, later admitted that "they would probably have been better off if they'd continue to rent." If you want to research it, it was called the Community Reinvestment Act.

quote:

The unions are a major contributor to Democratic campaigns, and pour huge amounts of money into getting laws passed to their own benefit.

quote:

I'm not saying the banks are blameless, but the government got that ball rolling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I haven’t seen that documentary yet, I have watched his previous one, Born Rich.

My take on the rich is this. Water runs down hill. People that have the propensity to make money do and they do it over and over all their life. That is not to say that every venture they get into makes money, but they learn from their failures and so become more successful with the next one.

Making money is like a snowball rolling down a hill. It starts out small at the top but with each turn it gathers more snow and gets bigger. Same with money, many people have started out with very little but they made each dollar count and make more money. Time has a multiplier effect on money.

No matter how hard they worked and struggled and sacrificed to make their fortunes, I believe it is transitory. There is a saying "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations". I believe this to be true. Imo, successive generations simply don’t have the desire, fortitude, savvy to keep that money. Most imo will blow it all either by being lazy and squandering it, by not having the same business acumen that their past generations had, etc. So my feeling is that given enough time, those 1% will lose their fortune cuz the next generation or two will do that. Bronfman almost lost his family fortune by buying the wrong company and taking the family business in a different risky direction. The next generation may finish the job for him and lose it all. Imo, that is perhaps one reason that buffet and gates say they will give away most of their billions, cuz they know the money will be lost on their kids and grandkids. Jmo...

So, the way I see it, life is a circle, eventually the 1% will lose their money and other previously poor people will become wealthy and take their place. Who knows, it could be your kid or grandkid that becomes one of the rich (eg- google, facebook, etc).

I also believe, that money will travel to where it makes the most return. If it is not in the US, then money will travel thru the world to where it does make the best returns. The 1% has homes all over the world, does anyone really think that the rich give a shit if they live in the US or Paris or the Bahamas to protect the money they have? Imo, that is why the US govt wont over tax them, cuz they will move their money offshore as many have already. The US govt can’t stop money from leaving.

So that is my take on it… since you asked.. my opinions are my own and I wont debate them, I don’t have the time right now anyway (I have work to do). Hope ya'll are having a great weekend... [:)]