Depends on your definition of "poor", really.
Poor in America is much different than poor in, say... Rwanda, agreed?
Did their worth suddenly drop? No, of course not. But if everyone else's wealth in the area seems to go up, then they could certainly be seen to be more "poor".
Then I don't see what all the fuss is about. Guys like Bill Gates can't spend their money in their own lifetimes (barring some crazy ass bad investments). By comparison to Gates, most of us live in abject poverty. That doesn't make me want to grab a torch and pitchfork and head over to the Gates compound.
This isn't Rwanda or Mexico, I don't care if our poor are better off than theirs.
The poor of this country deserve to share in the pie. Period.
It is the children of these families that spill blood for this country in the military. The rich have a lot to be thankful for.
Bill Gates gave away half of this fortune, tens of billions, and spends all of his time giving it away to help humanity.
You need a better example.
Nope. In fact in the case of Gates, you could take a look at his charitable foundation which is giving away a billion dollars a year and make a pretty good case that Gates becoming mega wealthy has made life better for the poor.
That is a question I would like to have data to answer.
Given that:
1) Our economy has grown steadily
2) the only segment of the population that has benefitted with real income growth is the upper quintile of income earners
This would seem to me to suggest that the answer is, yes.
BUT
I will be the first to admit that I can no more support that answer, than someone could support a "no" answer.
Is there some uber rich dudes that don't give away a ton to charity? I don't have an example.
Some of you lack compassion and understanding in this matter.
Continue to blame the poor as being "lazy" and there because they want to be.
Those type of statements give me a signal, they tell me that you have not really suffered in life. You have not been exposed to the reality of the world.
Didn't Microsoft create a whole slew of millionaires? Even secretaries? Wouldn't you think that these people are hiring housekeepers, landscapers, etc?
Ah yes, the supply-side argument.
Tell me, how would you go about supporting this thesis with actual data or economics principles?
Let's start with a fairly simple concept from macro/micro economics. I will post it and check back later today on my afternoon break.
R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.
How much has this transaction changed GDP?
Last edited by RandomGuy; 04-13-2010 at 11:22 AM.
"not ending well" for the haves could as bloodless as letting all dubya's tax cuts expire, including the estate tax cuts which cost $800B.
raising capital gains tax to 25%.
Another "not end well" is to force hedge funds managers to pay income tax on their fee income, rather than capital gains tax on their fee income (their fees are not capital gains).
forcing hedge to publish their public accounts.
repealing the financial reform law of 2000.
make credit default swaps, derivatives, MBS, illegal or at least completely regulated and published.
re-installing full Glass-Steagal
forcing corps to list all the political contributions.
a medicare-for-all public option (guts the for-profit insurance companies and their shareholders)
If, instead, the money that is now concentrated in the hands of those two individuals, or even all of the millionaires in question, were put into the salaries of the average workers at their respective companies, how many jobs would those workers have created with THEIR additional spending/saving/investing?
I am reminded of something Buffett once remarked on concerning investment returns.
He said it was easier to earn great returns on $10,000,000 than it was to earn the same kinds of returns on $100,000,000 or a $1Bn.
My instinct says that our economy would benefit from higher growth if our concentration of wealth no so... concentrated.
Same point as WC, so I will ask the same question.
R. Guy is given $100,000. He decides he wants to save/invest that, and goes to his broker, and tells his broker that he wants to purchase $100,000 of Ford stock. The broker goes out and purchases $100,000 worth of Ford stock from Mutual Fund A.
How much has this transaction changed GDP?
Basically, the rich are controlling the economy. I didn't vote for them. I didn't help elect them to that position of power.
So why do they have control over me? Wealth = power
In fact, the wealthy control a lot more than just the economy. They have the money, so they decide who to fund for scientific progress.
Let's take Nikola Tesla for example.
JP Morgan funded Tesla. However, he pulled all funding when he figured out that he couldn't make money off of Tesla's research.
This kind of power in a stranger, non-elected citizen is ridiculous.
The rich and corporations mostly only fund projects that bring $$.
Many top scientists in many fields go into private R&D to develop a better tasting tomato instead of solving the world's energy problem.
It's sad.
There is now a good bit of money pouring into R & D for the energy problem.
You have your finger on a rather important aspect of modern science though.
That is the disparity between basic research and private research directed to producing specific products.
Our species' basic knowledge of the universe wasn't discovered by people specifically looking to invent/patent the next mousetrap. It was done purely for the sake of advancing knowledge.
We are today doing precious little basic research (IMO), because the ultimate outcome of such research does not always produce readily attainable/measurable results.
Hence why I used the analogy of neighbors.
Bill Gates and other "elites" usually live far off, so people don't really think about it. But if they were confronted with it every day, or if their level of wealth dropped below a certain level (ie. unable to buy creature comforts and similar items), then you'd see more unrest.
I don't think it's likely to occur in the near future, but it's a hypothetical possibility.
Actually, I have been below the poverty line twice in my life.
DarrinS does have a point. Nobody es about the income disparity between the middle class and the upper middle class. To do so would be an evident absurdity, and it highlights why the emphasis on inequality might be a wrong turn in the conversation.
The problem isn't inequality of income per se. To me it makes more sense to say the problem is that there are too many people who don't have enough (scarcity), with no real prospects of changing that situation themselves (lack of social mobility).
I don't know, but hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions?) of IT professionals wouldn't have work.
Although, as I said earlier, we do live in a country where a kid from a so-called broken home, who was not born into super wealth has become the most powerful man on Earth. The same country that he feels the need to repeatedly apologize for.
Anecdotal, and "broken" is not synonymous with impoverished. The most reliable predictor of financial success in the USA is having wealthy parents.Although, as I said earlier, we do live in a country where a kid from a so-called broken home, who was not born into super wealth has become the most powerful man on Earth.
you're still making this stuff up..
Well, that probably goes without saying.
Bill Gates and Microsoft are not special.
The computer industry was coming, no matter what.
Microsoft was just the first huge software company.
If it wasn't Microsoft, it would have been someone else.
Don't make the mistake of thinking these people are special or different.
What I do see, is a "spot", a "slot" being taken up. Whenever you have an industry, someone or some corporation is going to dominate and become the wealthiest.
All of that wealth is now in their hands.
Now what will they do with it?
In the case of Bill Gates and Microsoft, they are good human beings. I am happy with them and will continue to support this company because of what Gates has done with his philanthropy.
But what about the other fields?
in telecommunications? and many other fields?
What are the "top dogs" doing with the wealth?
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
