The One Percent...

The One Percent... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TreasureKY -> The One Percent... (10/15/2011 10:35:23 PM)
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? [&:]

tazzygirl -> RE: The One Percent... (10/15/2011 10:52:51 PM)
quote: 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. I almost agree with this. No pointing political fingers, because both sides of the isle are equally as guilty for allowing the current situation to occur. However, I feel the givernment is equally as responsible as corporate america... a symbiotic relationship, feeding off each other. Its my opinion that the government, through the people, should be keeping corporations in check, and that just hasnt happened. Instead, corporations line wallets and get their way. Government officials get the money and look the other way. I do have to agree that once the threads start to unravel, we will have a huge mess on our hands.

VioletGray -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 1:23:49 AM)
The problem is that campaigns need money, and corporations pay for the campaigns of politicians who will let them have their way.

Louve00 -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 3:05:13 AM)
I look at this from a different point of view, actually. I do think the gov't was involved but I don't think the lion's share of the problem belongs to gov't. Well, really, I may take that back. I think gov't opened up the gate wide and it was a lack of deregulation that allowed the banks to go wild. I think OWS is targetting the right venue. I think it was the banks that enabled the collapse and did that, chiefly, in the housing market. I think corporate greed, and gov't deregulation led to this problem. Other factors leads to this meltdown. For one, England was competing with America and both were encouraging "light-touch" regulation. England's prime minister approached Iceland, Russia got involved, Dubai was considered the largest in building and lending, actually. The greed was spreading all over the world globally. And the banks were showing each other how to do it, starting with Wall St. All Wall St had to do was manipulate the gov't into keeping things deregulated. They (the banksters) didn't even care they were selling bogus, blank, empty, worthless goods to investors overseas. Paris was actually the first to realize what was happening and let the cat out of the bag. It bounced back to England, where the banksters were indignant (just like here in America) and sloughed off any blame. America continued to say it was a little wrinkle and could be worked out. And things escalated and escalated and escalated, until they finally crashed on their sugar high. When that happened, it wasn't gov't that got invited to meet and discuss what happened. It was all the bankers on Wall St that attended the private meeting. On Wall St and England. Without getting political. In fact, without naming a single politicians name, here is a link that tells you the story of what happened on Wall St. It will name plenty of bankers from all over the world who were involved. I think OWS is right and at the correct source for their protests. The politicians didn't become multimillionaires or billionaires over this. The bankers did. The bankers created a scam, took tax payer money from the gov't (because they were too big to fail [8\|] ). I'm not saying gov't played no part in all this. The gov't set the stage to allow the bankers to do this, and did it they did. As the movie said, Wall St turned back the clock to the 1930's. And what boggles my mind is, some of the very institutions that did it the first time around, did it the second time around too. I wonder if, or when, we'll go for a #3? http://wammtoday.wordpress.com/2011/09/28/video-meltdown-the-men-who-crashed-the-world/ Meltdown Video

Endivius -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 3:37:27 AM)
There were three primary factors that were the cause. First, deregulation. As mentioned above. Basically when the lobyists managed to get bills passed that slowly pulled the threads of the safety net placed after the depression eventually it just fell apart. That and the banks lending to people who were clearly in no position to financially support the morgages they were taking out. So much legislation was passed that picked apart the housing market and the economics surrounding it; that there is really no one individual cause, but rather the sum of all of them combined that became a snowball of ever increasing damage. Now add in the bailouts on top of that and it just gets rediculous. Second, the wars. The military industrial complex started spending and spending to support the war, and then we picked up another one in Afghanistan. Those are not cheap, and it's not just the war itself, but the creation of Deparment of Homeland Security as well as integration of several government agencies all cost inordinate amounts of money. The spending on the military industrial complex went out of control, largely based on fear after 9/11 and the lobyists and oil exects patted eachother on the backs. Oil prices sky rocketted and the fed is still subsidizing contracts to mercenearies in the middle east ten years later. Finally, there were all the controllable variables that had far lasting impacts on the economy that were not controlled. Hurricane Katrina, for example. Even though we knew it was coming, and the levies were weak, nothing was done to reinforce them. The damage was far reaching, but Louissianna felt it the most. You combine all the elements together and it's no surprise the economy ended up where it is. It was totally preventable. Insurance companies went belly up over night, along with banks that held on to property deeds that were largely worthless. Ofcourse the people who got contracts for cleanup and rebuilding didn't suffer one bit. There are really a lot of factors that went into it. Now that I think about it more, it's more like a house of cards, too many systems were relying on other economics to keep things balanced, and once one or two fell, everything came crashing down. The wealthiest beneficiaries were the oil companies and the reconstruction companies. I would say a lot of the hedge fund managers who have been speculating oil prices for the last decade had a lot to do with that gap as well.

servantforuse -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 4:32:42 AM)
Violetgray seems to forget, or leave out the fact that big unions have paid hundreds of millions to Obama and the democrats to get their way.

DomKen -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 6:07:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY 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? You've got the problem exactly backward. Money tends to concentrate. If you have more than enough money to pay for the neccessities and luxuries of life you will invest at least some of the extra. That invested surplus will tend to increase rather than decrease. The money supply is not unlimited so that concentration directly decreases the amount of money in the rest of the economy. Fairly obviously the scale of the investment directly affects the scale of the concentration of wealth, i.e. investing/saving a hundred dollars bring much smaller returns than investing/saving one million dollars. Therefore if nothing external takes money from the wealthy they will tend to accumulate more money which directly impoverishes the rest of society. Which is exactly what we've seen in the last 30 odd years and we saw it in the Gilded Age as well ( a period when the wealthy became much more wealthy but the economy as a whole was stuck in a long term deflationary cycle). The best solution found so far is progressive taxes and taxes on intergenerational wealth transfer. We can directly trace the acceleration of the concentration of this nations wealth in the top 1% to the last 30 years when the income tax was made less progressive and the estate tax was gutted.

VioletGray -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 6:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Violetgray seems to forget, or leave out the fact that big unions have paid hundreds of millions to Obama and the democrats to get their way. Think about what "getting their way" means for unions as opposed to corporations. I mention this specifically for all the deregulations and such that happened under Bush. How much has happened in last few years that had people protesting in the streets about how the unions are bleeding us dry? Sure, on one side is the corporations donating money and on the other side is unions, but I think the corporate agendas are what hurt the country.

Owner59 -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 7:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Violetgray seems to forget, or leave out the fact that big unions have paid hundreds of millions to Obama and the democrats to get their way. It wasn`t President Obama or "big unions" who killed our economy in '08' There were a few 1 percenters involved though.

servantforuse -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:00:44 AM)
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.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:06:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Violetgray seems to forget, or leave out the fact that big unions have paid hundreds of millions to Obama and the democrats to get their way. It wasn`t President Obama or "big unions" who killed our economy in '08' There were a few 1 percenters involved though. My problem with that number is that it is too big. 1% is still 2.500.000 Americans. There were a few 0.01% percenters. And I think this is more relevant. It was not a normal greedy plastic surgeon, or the owner of a small shop with 5 employees (both qualify for 1%). I was the really, really, really rich ones. Have you seen "margin call"? Excellent.

Owner59 -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:19:52 AM)
It`s a figure of speech. Added: Great example of how predator corporations work. 2nd segment. It`s all legal too.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:23:50 AM)
Dear Treasury. Basically you are saying that the corporations are greedy, but this is not their fault because... it is natural. And the Governemt is too powerful, and this is its fault because... ehm... it is not natural? And beeing powerful is bad, but beeing greedy is ok? And to stop the Corporations, the Governemt should be... less powerful? These are the problems I see in your OP. Ok. Let me point you again to the visible beginning of the crisis. 2008. How did it start? It started when the bubble of the finance markets exploded. That was a known problem: Warren Buffet had called the derivates "financial weapons of mass destruction", but as long as there were any expectations of them to still increase their price, everybody was happy trading with something not even they understood (this has been recognised by brokers, afterwards). It points two things: - You are right when you say that the Government did allow this, and shouldn't. Why the Government did not prevent this? Many reasons, between them: because American politicians think that they need a lot of money to make a campaign; because the financial instruments were new so previous regulations did not apply; because Reagain dismantled some of those (and nobody Rep. or Dem., restored them); and because there was a widespread ideology (neo-liberal) saying that the market was able to self-regulate (Alan Greenspan). - The market is NOT able to self-regulate. Set free, the capitalist market adds information inequality and this leads to gambling and (as John Nash proved) a completely unefficient and dangerous setting of the prices. The markeet needs a strong regulation, and some financial instruments must be forbidden. For the same reason, the Government needs enough power to prevent the problems... and to resolve them when they arrive anyway. More power, not less. "The ones who say that the Government should not provide banking services because the Government is unefficient, are the same who consider that the private banking which has destroyed 3 trillion USD in six months is... efficient?" (Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize of Economy 2009). What the Government should do, is to buy the banks with problems, not giving them money for nothing. Control them, prevent them from speculating against the own Government (with the money he gave it to them - yes, this is happening), punishing the culprits (in Islandia the ex-President is in jail, the USA should do the same), force the banks to load to the middle and small companies, and later, when they are healthy again, sell them for a good profit which covers the hole made by the helps. For example. More state intervention. Much more. Not less. Please do not forget how this crisis started. Best regards.

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 It`s a figure of speech. I understand you, I still consider it a bad idea. Have you seen "margin call"?

Owner59 -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:29:52 AM)
No but I`ll check it out.

tj444 -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:35:35 AM)
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... [:)]

TreasureKY -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:45:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ... I feel the givernment is equally as responsible as corporate america... a symbiotic relationship, feeding off each other. That they feed off each other and both are to blame, I've no doubt. I suppose I consider the Government to more "at fault" than the Corporations because if the Government didn't allow it, it wouldn't happen. Kinda like who do you hold more responsible... the parent who leaves cookies on the counter where the child can sneak off with some, or the child? True, the child has done the sneaking... but who is responsible for watching the child? A weak analogy, I agree. [&:] quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I do have to agree that once the threads start to unravel, we will have a huge mess on our hands. I fear "huge mess" will be an understatement.

TreasureKY -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:47:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VioletGray The problem is that campaigns need money, and corporations pay for the campaigns of politicians who will let them have their way. I don't disagree, but I believe this is but just one small portion of the problem.

TreasureKY -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:50:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Louve00 I look at this from a different point of view, actually. I do think the gov't was involved but I don't think the lion's share of the problem belongs to gov't. Well, really, I may take that back. I think gov't opened up the gate wide and it was a lack of deregulation that allowed the banks to go wild. I think OWS is targetting the right venue. If the Government allowed this with deregulation, how is targeting the banks going to be effective?

SpanishMatMaster -> RE: The One Percent... (10/16/2011 8:51:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TreasureKY Kinda like who do you hold more responsible... the parent who leaves cookies on the counter where the child can sneak off with some, or the child? True, the child has done the sneaking... but who is responsible for watching the child? The child is as wise and intelligent as the adult, and has a key with which it can lock the parents out of the house if he dislikes what the parents do. Or... so do the parents believe. If the Government didn't allow it it wouln't have happened. Sure. And if the politician would not allow it, the corporations would try to care that he never gets to the office. Think about lobbies, money for campaign, and pressure over congresspeople and media. So... how is not the culprit, the one who tries to force (succesfully) the other to NOT preventing him to make evil, and then makes evil? How is the blackmailed one, the forced one, the one suffering all the pressure from the one who actually makes the evil, more to blame? Well, I hope this message is not too much, I wrote you already.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02