quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I think this piece speaks for itself. Although my understanding is that the numbers in this one are at this point about 1.5 years out of date which means the situation is much worse now than it was when the source material was created.

B) If no, then do you believe either Republicans or Democrats are working to do anything about it (and can you show your work)?

Noooooooo.

C) If no, then do you have any thoughts as to how you'd fix it -- realistically?

Yessssssssss.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I think we have reached to a point where more and more people start realizing there is something fundamentally wrong with the economic model in general.
The financial system is basically a pyramid scheme scam. We can not call the US economy capitalist any more, it is a post-capitalist system (crony capitalist maybe). If we would return to a capitalist system there would be an immediate change in wealth distribution ratios (as Too Big to Fail will be cut off the Fed and the government support there would be an immediate massive deflation affecting more the wealthy).
Besides the problems inside the existing system there is a general problem: the economy does not need all the available workers. The solution to this problem would be having a national dividend: every citizen gets certain monthly payment that covers life necessities.
Will anything like this happen? Of course not. The system will become increasingly unstable, the poverty will increase even more, the government will strengthen its police state operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I think this piece speaks for itself. Although my understanding is that the numbers in this one are at this point about 1.5 years out of date which means the situation is much worse now than it was when the source material was created.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM

So two questions.

A) Do you dispute the factual assertion?
B) If no, then do you believe either Republicans or Democrats are working to do anything about it (and can you show your work)?
C) If no, then do you have any thoughts as to how you'd fix it -- realistically?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

I wonder what that same graph would look like on a global scale. That's another angle that has to be looked at, considering that both parties have been pushing more and more towards a global economy.

quote:

Bank Bailout: When a Bonus Exceeds Earnings, How is It Not Fraud?
By: Cynthia Kouril Friday July 31, 2009 12:01 pm

TweetTweet36
digg stumbleupon

via dunwoodynorth

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo put out a report called “No Rhyme or Reason,” which demonstrates that the "Too Big To Fail" banks that got all that lovely tax payer money last Fall—when Hank Paulsen pulled his little bait and switch maneuver on Congress (you know, asking for trillions to help out homeowners by buying up toxic mortgages, while instead handing over the money to the banks with virtually no strings attached?)—have paid out MORE in bonuses to their top executive, than they actually made. (By the way, the report’s title really does sum up what happened.)

Got that?

Citigroup and Merrill Lynch each lost more than $27 billion (a total of at least $54 billion if my math is correct), and were bailed to the tune of $55 billion in taxpayer money. Yet, they chose to pay out bonuses of $5.3 billion and $3.6 billion respectively. That is $8.9 billion in your tax dollars that passed directly through these banks and into the hands of the Masters of the Universe who control those banks.

Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and J.P. Morgan Chase paid out bonuses that totaled much more than the bank actually earned. (Go read the WaPo article for the dollar amounts.)

I do not want to hear the “we had to pay the bonuses to keep key people” crap. If none of the banks had paid bonuses, since no bonuses were justified for poor performance, than no key people would have had incentive to leave in a fit of pique.

But much more important, not paying out the bonuses would have driven home the lesson to the MOTU class that actions have consequences, and taking crazy risk that makes ordinary homeowners suffer and throws thousands of people out of work also will cause Wall Street to suffer. By insulating the risk takers from the consequences of their own actions, the Government has guaranteed that the MOTU will take those same kinds of irresponsible, crazy risks again. And continue to whine every time someone uses the word “regulation.”

I’m sorry, can somebody explain to me how calling these payments a “bonus,” which implies that it is a reward for good performance, is not a fraud?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
I think this piece speaks for itself. Although my understanding is that the numbers in this one are at this point about 1.5 years out of date which means the situation is much worse now than it was when the source material was created.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=QPKKQnijnsM
So two questions.
A) Do you dispute the factual assertion?

quote:

B) If no, then do you believe either Republicans or Democrats are working to do anything about it (and can you show your work)?

quote:

C) If no, then do you have any thoughts as to how you'd fix it -- realistically?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Thus, to be a member of a democratic society is to find oneself saddled with a public office, with a public role as well as a private station. It is this dual status—private person and public official—that makes the theory and the practice of democratic life so difficult and demanding.

It is hardly necessary in an age of individualism to stress the importance of the “private” sphere. Each person is the center of a cluster of values, aims, desires, attachments. He has his career which expresses his bent, his own conception of his life as it should be lived, and lays claim to broad tolerance for his unique and private goods. His private scope is, of course, limited by the external necessities of group life, by the rules of the road, by the law of the land—which we accept more or less as a matter of course if they satisfy our sense of fairness or justice. But within these limits we are free to pursue our private lives.

But much as this is, it is not the whole story. The citizen has yet—if democracy is not wasted on him—to play his public role, to discharge the duties of his public office, to act like and to be a ruler, to take his place in the deliberative forum.


“The Office of the Citizen” was a lecture given at Syracuse University in 1960



http://josephtussman.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/the-office-of-the-citizen/

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Now, as a follow up to your questions, what is the problem with the top 20% having 80% of the wealth (or whatever the exact %-ages are)? Is there only "so much" money to be distributed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Now, as a follow up to your questions, what is the problem with the top 20% having 80% of the wealth (or whatever the exact %-ages are)? Is there only "so much" money to be distributed?

In short, yes. It's more complicated that that when you have an inflationary currency but yes.
The problem, aside from the human misery and suffering such a setup forces, is that it stops an economy from happening. In fact you get exactly what we are seeing now. Those who have money have so much of it that they could not possibly spend it... or even keep up with spending it. So instead it gets tucked away in tax free offshore accounts and does nothing. The middle class has become nonexistent so nobody can buy stuff. That, obviously, leads to lost jobs since if nobody can buy stuff then nobody can make stuff.
What I've come to understand is that a healthy economy can be measured most readily by looking at the health and size of the middle class because that's what is going to make money be in motion rather than stagnating in offshore accounts.
edited to add:
Were that not true then the Fed would have already printed some money and handed it out to to recreate a middle class in the US and all of our economic woes would be history. But money actually needs to have some sort of value attached -- even with an inflationary currency although there it is a losing game by definition.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

Besides the problems inside the existing system there is a general problem: the economy does not need all the available workers. The solution to this problem would be having a national dividend: every citizen gets certain monthly payment that covers life necessities.
Will anything like this happen? Of course not. The system will become increasingly unstable, the poverty will increase even more, the government will strengthen its police state operations.

quote:

What I've come to understand is that a healthy economy can be measured most readily by looking at the health and size of the middle class because that's what is going to make money be in motion rather than stagnating in offshore accounts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
I have no problem with the wealth skew, when it happens from Capitalism (as opposed to Corporatism).