NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/1.html

since the late 1970s wealth inequality, while stabilizing or increasing slightly in other industrialized nations, has increased sharply and dramatically in the United States. While it is no secret that such a trend is taking place, it is rare to see a TV news program announce that the top 1% of the U.S. population now owns about a third of the wealth in the country. Discussion of this trend takes place, for the most part, behind closed doors.

During the short boom of the late 1990s, conservative analysts asserted that, yes, the gap between rich and poor was growing, but that incomes for the poor were still increasing over previous levels. Today most economists, regardless of their political persuasion, agree that the data over the last 25 to 30 years is unequivocal. The top 5% is capturing an increasingly greater portion of the pie while the bottom 95% is clearly losing ground, and the highly touted American middle class is fast disappearing.

---

UN economists blame "free-trade" practices and the neo-liberal policies of international lending institutions like the IMF and WTO, and the industrialized countries that lead them, for much of the damage caused to Third World countries over the past 20 years. Many of these policies are now being implemented in the U.S., allowing for an acceleration of wealth consolidation. And even the IMF has issued a report warning the U.S. about the consequences for its appetite for excess and overspending.

Funnily enough, us "neo-liberals" point out that this is becuase of the mercantilist policies which infringe on free trade. A true free market would have the opposite effect.

Wealth inequality doesn't bother me too much, since enforcing equality can waver on the side of oppression. What bothers me more is having a basic standard of living throughout the world, where every person is clothed, fed, watered and whatnot.

Wealth inequality doesn't bother me too much, since enforcing equality can waver on the side of oppression. What bothers me more is having a basic standard of living throughout the world, where every person is clothed, fed, watered and whatnot.

ah, but at any one time there is a limited amount of wealth in the world. and under the current system it mainly goes to and stays with the richest 10 to 20%, with a huge percent of that going to just the top 1%. the more wealth is concentrated, the less there is available to allow people to have a basic standard of living.

I believe that those who earned their wealth through hard work deserved it; those who were served life on a silver platter don't; they don't understand the life of the average middle class, or even impoverish citizen, yet, we find that they are the ones who run the nation. Until such times as our leader is middle class, or one who has risen from the ashes of poverty, I don't see the income gap narrowing.

Back in what... the 50's?, a one income family where one parent stays at home, were able to afford to purchase a home and send 4 kids off to college. (A friend of mine had told me how his grandfather was a milkman and was able to do just that... A MILKMAN!!!)

It's pretty pathetic how much harder we all have to work to get a lot less.

Back in what... the 50's?, a one income family where one parent stays at home, were able to afford to purchase a home and send 4 kids off to college. (A friend of mine had told me how his grandfather was a milkman and was able to do just that... A MILKMAN!!!)

It's pretty pathetic how much harder we all have to work to get a lot less.
That's just so amazing! Yet, a sad reminder that we now have so much less than we could have. If during the '50s they could finance a house and send four children through college, why has it suddenly become such a burden and almost impossible below a certain level of income? Isn't education as important now as it was then?

Funnily enough, us "neo-liberals" point out that this is becuase of the mercantilist policies which infringe on free trade. A true free market would have the opposite effect.

a true free market, especially with free and easy immigration would have some mitigating factors, for sure. but the thing which truly creates extreme income inequality is the disproportionate rewards claimed for mere ownership, and the ability to use those disproportionate rewards to own further things which grant disproportionate rewards. i somehow don't see those rewards being proportionally lessened or spread more evenly without some fundamental structural changes beyond just getting rid of the corporatist (i prefer this term over mercantilist) nature of the current system.

What about the people in other countries who live off a $1 a week or less. The multi-nationla corperations who exploit them, as the WTO won't impose international minimum wages. Of course the WTO is in the hands of politicians who are forced by the corperations to tow the line. Otherwise those corperations will leave the country for somewhere less difficult, weakening that countries economy. Hence no minimum wgaes internationally, or large taxes on corperations or even the ability to find a company liable. After all if a man dies at work its no ones fault, the company takes a little hit but the directors aren't charged with manslaughter. Yet a company can act as an individual when it's in their interests...

The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow, particularly now the 'threat' of communism has more or less dissapitated and most ledt-wing parties have given up (particularly in the UK, we have no strong socialist parties - Labour have gone right wing, the bastards). Without left wing pressure the right don't need to appease the left with moderate liberal/social reforms. So while your avergae workers toils below the bread line the corperate fat cats buy a few dozen new houses and a nice island retreat in the pacific.

Back in what... the 50's?, a one income family where one parent stays at home, were able to afford to purchase a home and send 4 kids off to college. (A friend of mine had told me how his grandfather was a milkman and was able to do just that... A MILKMAN!!!)

It's pretty pathetic how much harder we all have to work to get a lot less.

F**KING INFLATION!

Wealth inequality within a country isn't necessarily a bad thing, what causes it can be. If the richest people in America make 5000x the average, there's going to be huge inequality - but it says nothing as to how the poor are getting along. The poor in America, relative to other countries (measured in relationship to the median income) aren't as bad off as the inequality might suggest.

a true free market, especially with free and easy immigration would have some mitigating factors, for sure. but the thing which truly creates extreme income inequality is the disproportionate rewards claimed for mere ownership, and the ability to use those disproportionate rewards to own further things which grant disproportionate rewards. i somehow don't see those rewards being proportionally lessened or spread more evenly without some fundamental structural changes beyond just getting rid of the corporatist (i prefer this term over mercantilist) nature of the current system.
This is simply not true. The gap only widens (roughly speaking) if the interest rate is higher than the rate of wage rising. With a truly free market interest rates would fall (they are artificially propped up by central banks and govt borrowing) and wages would rise rapidly as anything historically approaching a free market shows.

What about the people in other countries who live off a $1 a week or less. The multi-nationla corperations who exploit them, as the WTO won't impose international minimum wages. Of course the WTO is in the hands of politicians who are forced by the corperations to tow the line. Otherwise those corperations will leave the country for somewhere less difficult, weakening that countries economy. Hence no minimum wgaes internationally, or large taxes on corperations or even the ability to find a company liable. After all if a man dies at work its no ones fault, the company takes a little hit but the directors aren't charged with manslaughter. Yet a company can act as an individual when it's in their interests...

The gap between rich and poor will continue to grow, particularly now the 'threat' of communism has more or less dissapitated and most ledt-wing parties have given up (particularly in the UK, we have no strong socialist parties - Labour have gone right wing, the bastards). Without left wing pressure the right don't need to appease the left with moderate liberal/social reforms. So while your avergae workers toils below the bread line the corperate fat cats buy a few dozen new houses and a nice island retreat in the pacific.

I think it is funnly how liberals point out that the gap between wealthy and poor has grown so dramatically since the 50s. (or even 70s). Then try to blame it on conservatives. They completely ignore that in the 50s our government was CONSIDERABLY MORE CONSERVATIVE than today.

As the government has become more liberal, the poor have fared worse.

The conservative ideas of self-reliance and responsibility have been traded in for dependency and entitlement. It has not worked.

Back in what... the 50's?, a one income family where one parent stays at home, were able to afford to purchase a home and send 4 kids off to college. (A friend of mine had told me how his grandfather was a milkman and was able to do just that... A MILKMAN!!!)

It's pretty pathetic how much harder we all have to work to get a lot less.

Well, that's inflation for you.

This is simply not true. The gap only widens (roughly speaking) if the interest rate is higher than the rate of wage rising. With a truly free market interest rates would fall (they are artificially propped up by central banks and govt borrowing) and wages would rise rapidly as anything historically approaching a free market shows.

wait, is it your contention that under a free market profit would decrease and wages would increase? i am aware of the argument that free banking will cause the interest rate to drop. but surely without some other factors coming into play (a radical labor movement perhaps) that would just encourage the already existing capitalists to expand their operations in search of more profit. or perhaps they would all just go into landlording.

or have i missed something?

ah, but at any one time there is a limited amount of wealth in the world. and under the current system it mainly goes to and stays with the richest 10 to 20%, with a huge percent of that going to just the top 1%. the more wealth is concentrated, the less there is available to allow people to have a basic standard of living.

There is no set amount of wealth in the world

Back in what... the 50's?, a one income family where one parent stays at home, were able to afford to purchase a home and send 4 kids off to college. (A friend of mine had told me how his grandfather was a milkman and was able to do just that... A MILKMAN!!!)

It's pretty pathetic how much harder we all have to work to get a lot less.


Then he was really overpaid. If everything was that cheap, how much did the professors get paid? It doesnt add up.

There is no set amount of wealth in the world

so at this precise moment there is an infinite amount of wealth available and in circulation?

so at this precise moment there is an infinite amount of wealth available and in circulation?

ah, then let me rephrase that.

obviously, at this very second, there is a set amount of wealth - like there is a set amount of oxygen, people, whatever...however, the wealth that is in circulation is being used to create more...

My point is that there is no limit to the potential availability of wealth; it can be created. The wealth of the US does not prohibit Nigeria from becoming wealthy. On the contrary, it spurs development and wealth creation - so as long as there is free trade.