How the rich keep geting richer,look over there!

[WWWTT]

Some people may have seen this clip before.

And I was not sure as to where to start this thread,but this is as good as place as any.

Kind of hard to fight the logic behind in this one.

http://www.moveon.org/share/72e232/hollywood-legend-ed-asner-has-outraged-republicans?rc=share-810f39

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

I saw this video, and it's interesting but it is also simplistic.

Also - this pertains to the US right ? Financial arguments are mathematical arguments and need to be made based on numbers. If we don't teach people that first and foremost then they will continue to be swayed by arguments that are persuasive, but not fact based.

If you agree with the message of the video, then ask yourself - how did we get to this place in history ? If you think about it, you'll see that persuasive arguments such as this one were made, and were successful.

[Canuckistani]

No, financial arguments are not just about the numbers. If it were, we wouldn't have the financial problems we run into. Behind it are human emotions, hence the attempt to create neuroeconomics.

[Michael Hardner]

No, financial arguments are not just about the numbers. If it were, we wouldn't have the financial problems we run into. Behind it are human emotions, hence the attempt to create neuroeconomics.

I think I said as much. They are not currently about numbers, but they should be. Also - the arguments are not just about numbers, you're right. After all, we manage the economy to maximize the public good and you can't easily reduce 'good' to a number.

[eyeball]

I saw this video, and it's interesting but it is also simplistic.

Also - this pertains to the US right ? Financial arguments are mathematical arguments and need to be made based on numbers. If we don't teach people that first and foremost then they will continue to be swayed by arguments that are persuasive, but not fact based.

If you agree with the message of the video, then ask yourself - how did we get to this place in history ? If you think about it, you'll see that persuasive arguments such as this one were made, and were successful.

What financial arguments? This video is about governance. We got here by design, pure and simple.

[eyeball]

After all, we manage the economy to maximize the public good and you can't easily reduce 'good' to a number.

Who's this we you're talking about?

Good can be reduced to a feeling and if something feels like abuse it probably is.

[Pliny]

Nothing more than class warfare a la Marx.

Of course, the whole thread of the short is about money and how he thinks it is being unfairly hoarded by the rich.

It is only a fiat currency that is being hoarded it isn't wealth. The more government prints the larger the gap appears.

Why do socialists focus so heavily on money, especially other people's money. They are far worse than capitalists who only worry about their own money.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

What financial arguments? This video is about governance. We got here by design, pure and simple.

Exactly - I didn't see many of them in that video. The video claims that some people are worse off and some are better, as well as why. Need proof, otherwise we might as well be listening to a persuasive guy the other side of the argument.

[Michael Hardner]

Who's this we you're talking about?

Good can be reduced to a feeling and if something feels like abuse it probably is.

There is a "we" - and you need to ask everyone their feelings about this. If it feels like abuse to you, and it feels great to me then where are we really ?

[Pliny]

What financial arguments? This video is about governance. We got here by design, pure and simple.

It's about money. It's about redistributing wealth.It's about class warfare. It's about the centralization of power. It's about government's right to thievery and the erosion of the right to private property.

[kimmy]

Nothing more than class warfare a la Marx.

Of course, the whole thread of the short is about money and how he thinks it is being unfairly hoarded by the rich.

It is only a fiat currency that is being hoarded it isn't wealth. The more government prints the larger the gap appears.

Why do socialists focus so heavily on money, especially other people's money. They are far worse than capitalists who only worry about their own money.

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

If money is so unimportant, why are the wealthy and the banks and the corporations so determined to keep it?

-k

[Pliny]

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

If money is so unimportant, why are the wealthy and the banks and the corporations so determined to keep it?

-k

Money is important, fiat currencies and such tokens not so much, and they are in a little dangerous territory now. I think you will find banks and corporations converting their "money" into some other asset. The

confusion is that people, and I do it myself, make the mistake of calling it money.

The rich will always have the means to avoid poverty. Who will really be pinched are people who stoically remain confident in government backed currencies, the people who have pensions in the mutual funds market will suffer. Public pensions in Spain were invested 95% in Spanish bonds. How confident do you think they feel?

I believe that 2008 is about to be revisited.

Demand for gold as a hard asset has never been stronger as people dump their paper gold assets for cash to buy the hard asset.

The possibility of a currency collapse is just that, a possibility. Governments may be able to save them

if they can purloin some of the "wealth" (if an electronic entry on a bank's ledger can be called wealth) in the bank accounts of the rich. But before they do that the very privileged will move their money...er..

currencies into hard assets.

The video is at least six months old already and I think there was a thread on it here before.

As I said it is about, centralization of power, inciting class warfare to justify further confiscation of "money" from those that hold it.

The worst scenario is that 1933 is revisited and the ownership of gold is made illegal.

Gold may not become "money" again but it will certainly be held as a hedge against the possibility of a currency collapse. But who can predict how far governments, starved for revenues, will go.

Edited April 20, 2013 by Pliny

[Rocky Road]

Check www.peakprosperity.com for related info on this topic

The site creator is Chris Martenson, he is an activitist.

[Pliny]

The site creator is Chris Martenson, he is an activitist.

Good article. I think the squeeze is on. Gold took a hit but I think the reason is that people wanted cash to buy the hard asset. Cui bono on the hit? Well, people could benefit unless it is just for the big boys and other things are in store

for the masses.

[cybercoma]

I don't like it when people say "the rich keep getting richer" as if this is a problem. This certainly isn't a problem. It's a great thing and I hope it continues to happen. The problem is when the poor continue to get poorer and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. That's an issue, as there's plenty of credible research that shows there's a significant association between social problems and poor health with wealth disparity in advanced industrial nations. Don't mistake this as advocacy for everyone having the exact same thing because that can be just as bad. There's a proper balanced amount of stratification that is optimal, while large disparities and absolute equality are detrimental to nearly every metric of societal health.

Edited April 20, 2013 by cybercoma

[Pliny]

Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

If money is so unimportant, why are the wealthy and the banks and the corporations so determined to keep it?

-k

Another reason they might want to keep it is that there is a hue and cry to confiscate it. This video is only an example.

What else do you think it suggests other than tax the rich?

[cybercoma]

Nobody's confiscating anything. You want to live in a community, benefit from its laws and people, then you're obliged to contribute to the maintenance of that community. If you don't want to contribute and you don't want to have any responsibility to the society in which you operate then piss off out of it.

[Bonam]

Nobody's confiscating anything. You want to live in a community, benefit from its laws and people, then you're obliged to contribute to the maintenance of that community. If you don't want to contribute and you don't want to have any responsibility to the society in which you operate then piss off out of it.

As a member of a society, there is nothing wrong with advocating that the "maintenance fee" and the scope of the services paid for by said fee is reduced (or increased) if one believes that is the best course of action. Furthermore, if there were some option for people to "opt out" of being a member of said society, perhaps some people would do so, but that option is not available, unless one first goes and becomes a member of some other society (aka immigrates to another country), which is a time-consuming and difficult process, and still does not free one from the obligations to a society, but merely replaces one society with another. There are not really any habitable places on Earth where a person wishing to live free of the rules and requirements of society can do so, so you're suggestion about "pissing off out of it" is not practical.

[Pliny]

Nobody's confiscating anything. You want to live in a community, benefit from its laws and people, then you're obliged to contribute to the maintenance of that community. If you don't want to contribute and you don't want to have any responsibility to the society in which you operate then piss off out of it.

Yes, they are confiscating it and they want more. Think of government as a corporation or an individual, would you as an

individual or corporation be able to take a portion of others earnings for your own benefit?

Income taxes or taxes that take, overriding the choice of the individual, is confiscation... or a better word is

extortion.

You are getting more than your fair share, no doubt, or you would see it for what it is.

A tax such as a sales tax is far fairer, but perhaps, as has been suggested government should just inflate the currency by creating money out of thin air to pay for itself rather than simply inflate the currency and take it out of the economy, inflation being another form of stealth.

[Canuckistani]

I think I said as much. They are not currently about numbers, but they should be. Also - the arguments are not just about numbers, you're right. After all, we manage the economy to maximize the public good and you can't easily reduce 'good' to a number.

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. I agree with your last sentence.

[Canuckistani]

I don't like it when people say "the rich keep getting richer" as if this is a problem. This certainly isn't a problem. It's a great thing and I hope it continues to happen. The problem is when the poor continue to get poorer and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen. That's an issue, as there's plenty of credible research that shows there's a significant association between social problems and poor health with wealth disparity in advanced industrial nations. Don't mistake this as advocacy for everyone having the exact same thing because that can be just as bad. There's a proper balanced amount of stratification that is optimal, while large disparities and absolute equality are detrimental to nearly every metric of societal health.

Hallelujah. You lost me in the first couple of sentences but got me back at the end. The degree of diparity is the problem, and we're headed in the wrong direction.

If the rich keep getting richer by widening this gap, raping the environment or malfeasance, then it's not a great thing. If the rich really do float all boats, create a strong, sustainable society, then more power to them.

[silver72]

There are disadvantages of being rich and one is having all that money and hiding it from the government and now, apparently, the feds are trying to get some of that back and I wonder if any of those people would do jail time. To me, being rich is having more money than one can spent and I think more people would be happy to have enough money to pay their bills, and live comfortable and stress-free. People with money are always stressed , trying ways to keep their money. Another item against the rich, if the middle-class earner keep disappearing, then it will be those very rich people paying higher taxes, because the low don't pay taxes.

[cybercoma]

Yes, they are confiscating it and they want more. Think of government as a corporation or an individual, would you as an

individual or corporation be able to take a portion of others earnings for your own benefit?

Income taxes or taxes that take, overriding the choice of the individual, is confiscation... or a better word is

extortion.

I always find it patently absurd when people make these foolish arguments advocating that there be no taxes whatsoever (granted you said there should be consumption tax). I'm sorry, but this is a completely indefensible position that looks entirely asinine when you consider the benefits that even the rich and corporations get from government programs and services. Those that make these obnoxious libertarian arguments are the first to loudly trumpet the principal of responsibility, whilst completely denying the fact that they have a responsibility to the society that fostered their success. I find it incredibly selfish and a moot point anyway, since the end result of such myopic thinking is a society that wouldn't be the least bit conducive to their success going forward.

[Argus]

It's about money. It's about redistributing wealth.It's about class warfare. It's about the centralization of power. It's about government's right to thievery and the erosion of the right to private property.

Well, it is about redistributing wealth, that's true. Except for the last generation the redistribution has been working in the wrong direction. What do you call it, Pliny, when the wealth is being taken from the poor and middle class and given to the rich? Is that not about class warfare too?

Don't believe me. How about looking at a few easy to understand charts from those left wing radicals at Business Insider magazine?

http://www.businessinsider.com/wealth-and-income-inequality-in-america-2013-4?op=1

[Argus]

I don't like it when people say "the rich keep getting richer" as if this is a problem. This certainly isn't a problem. It's a great thing and I hope it continues to happen. The problem is when the poor continue to get poorer and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to widen.

And as the little cartoon points out, one of the major reasons that's happening is the rich are paying less and less in taxes, while shipping their money overseas and buying off politicians to make it all legal.

If I save my money and start a business I will still pay taxes on the profits, well, if it's a small business. But if I put my money in the stock market instead then I pay 15% maximum. What a saving! I personally pay well over 40%, but if all my money came from dividends and capital gains my taxes would drop by almost two thirds! What a neat trick!