5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the Flo

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: AlternNet


Any of the ten richest Americans could pay a year's rent for all of America's homeless with their 2012 income.

The first step is to learn the facts, and then to get angry and to ask ourselves, as progressives and caring human beings, what we can do about the relentless transfer of wealth to a small group of well-positioned Americans.



1. $2.13 per hour vs. $3,000,000.00 per hour

Each of the Koch brothers saw his investments grow by $6 billion in one year,

which is three million dollars per hour based on a 40-hour 'work' week. They used some of the money to try to kill renewable energystandards around the country.​

Their income portrays them, in a society measured by economic status, as a million times more valuable than the restaurant server who cheers up our lunch hours while hoping to make enough in tips to pay the bills.​

A comparison of top and bottom salaries within large corporations is much less severe, but a lot more common. For CEOs and minimum-wage workers, the difference is $5,000.00 per hour vs. $7.25 per hour.​

2. A single top income could buy housing for every homeless person in the U.S.

On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost of $558 per month, any ONE of the ten richest Americans would have enough with his 2012 income to pay for a room for every homeless person in the U.S. for the entire year. These ten rich men together made more than our entire housing budget.​

For anyone still believing "they earned it," it should be noted that most of the Forbes 400 earnings came from minimally-taxed, non-job-creating capital gains.​

3. The poorest 47% of Americans have no wealth

In 1983 the poorest 47% of America had $15,000 per family, 2.5 percent of the nation's wealth.​

In 2009 the poorest 47% of America owned ZERO PERCENT of the nation's wealth (their debt exceeded their assets).​

At the other extreme, the 400 wealthiest Americans own as much wealth as 80 million families -- 62% of America. The reason, once again, is the stock market. Since 1980 the American GDP has approximatelydoubled. Inflation-adjusted wages have gone down. But the stock market has increased by over ten times, and the richest quintile of Americans owns 93% of it.​

4. The U.S. is nearly the most wealth-unequal country in the entire world

Out of 141 countries, the U.S. has the 4th-highest degree of wealth inequality in the world, trailing only Russia, Ukraine, and Lebanon.​

Yet the financial industry keeps creating new wealth for its millionaires. According to the authors of theGlobal Wealth Report, the world's wealth has doubled in ten years, from $113 trillion to $223 trillion, and is expected to reach $330 trillion by 2017.​

5. A can of soup for a black or Hispanic woman, a mansion and yacht for the businessman

That's literally true. For every one dollar of assets owned by a single black or Hispanic woman, a member of the Forbes 400 has over forty million dollars.​

Minority families once had substantial equity in their homes, but after Wall Street caused the housing crash, median wealth fell 66% for Hispanic households and 53% for black households. Now the average single black or Hispanic woman has about $100 in net worth.​

What to do?

End the capital gains giveaway, which benefits the wealthy almost exclusively.​

Institute a Financial Speculation Tax, both to raise needed funds from a currently untaxed subsidy on stock purchases, and to reduce the risk of the irresponsible trading that nearly brought down the economy.​

Perhaps above all, we progressives have to choose one strategy and pursue it in a cohesive, unrelenting attack on greed. Only this will heal the ugly gash of inequality that has split our country in two.​
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

You won't let poor people work as they see fit, and you supported giving rich people trillions of dollars in taxpayer money, for a recession they caused with fraudulent loans, while codifying Too Big to Fail.

What did you think would be the results of those kind of values?

That was rhetorical because we both know you'll just say its the Republicans fault and they tricked the Democrats.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Poor people are working. They aren't getting paid anything. You might want to re-read this:

Minimum wage not enough to beat poverty, research says
Must be nice in your world that the unemployment rate is zero and there are no discouraged workers, and black people's unemployment must not be double the rates of whites.

You might want to re-read your own thread and notice how people who don't work at all are being addressed.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Must be nice in your world that the unemployment rate is zero and there are no discouraged workers, and black people's unemployment must not be double the rates of whites.

You might want to re-read your own thread and notice how people who don't work at all are being addressed.


The unemployment rate is deplorable. But do you deny that there is a concerted effort to decrease the hourly wages rate of workers?

You and Lammar can ignore this but it has/is playing it self out!

"When their jobs come up from $1 an hour to $6 an hour and ours go down from $6 an hour then it will stop being disruptive. But in the mean time you've wrecked the country."


<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Rkgx1C_S6ls" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

The unemployment rate is deplorable. But do you deny that there is a concerted effort to decrease the hourly wages rate of workers?

You and Lammar can ignore this but it has/is playing it self out!

"When their jobs come up from $1 an hour to $6 an hour and ours go down from $6 an hour then it will stop being disruptive. But in the mean time you've wrecked the country."
How can the unemployment rate be deplorable? You said poor people are working.

And who denied anything about wages? Weren't we all in agreement in the other thread regarding wages and productivity?

We all finally bonded and came together and now you've ruined it. Thanks alot.

By the way, how does supporting a government policy of giving bankers trillions of dollars address wages or inequality?

It's just you accuse me of ignoring things, even when you link to threads where I talk about those things, but you don't comment on your government currently giving bankers $80 billion a month in perpetuity.

what we can do about the relentless transfer of wealth to a small group of well-positioned Americans.
Who facilitated the transfer if not the government?

What to do?

End the capital gains giveaway, which benefits the wealthy almost exclusively.

Institute a Financial Speculation Tax, both to raise needed funds from a currently untaxed subsidy on stock purchases, and to reduce the risk of the irresponsible trading that nearly brought down the economy.

Perhaps above all, we progressives have to choose one strategy and pursue it in a cohesive, unrelenting attack on greed. Only this will heal the ugly gash of inequality that has split our country in two.
What to do? Maybe never give away trillions directly from the government to rich people?

They only thing government needed to do was clear the streets so bankers wouldn't hurt anyone when they landed after capitalism made them poor.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

How can the unemployment rate be deplorable? You said poor people are working.

Do you know difference between "poor" and "working poor"?

And who denied anything about wages? Weren't we all in agreement in the other thread regarding wages and productivity?

I'm going to find your post where you said you were against the minimum wage.


We all finally bonded and came together and now you've ruined it. Thanks alot.

I feel like you're just a DNC computer with a limited number of responses for every situation.

You need to stop being so sensitive and taking things personally.

This must come from
By the way, how does supporting a government policy of giving bankers trillions of dollars address wages or inequality?

No

It's just you accuse me of ignoring things, even when you link to threads where I talk about those things, but you don't comment on your government currently giving bankers $80 billion a month in perpetuity.

Search my posts. I was among the first to criticize the bailouts.

Who facilitated the transfer if not the government?

You lambaste "government" as an institution. You cannot name any functioning, civilized society in history that didn't have an a proactive government. I'm not against government per se, I am against "bad' government.

In a democracy, government is what you make it. Either you work to better it or you complain.

What to do? Maybe never give away trillions directly from the government to rich people?

They only thing government needed to do was clear the streets so bankers wouldn't hurt anyone when they landed after capitalism made them poor.


You repeat the talking point that the bankers are at fault. I contend that the bankers and the corpitists are the problem
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Do you know difference between "poor" and "working poor"?
Do you, because you didn't make that distinction earlier.

Search my posts. I was among the first to criticize the bailouts.
Did you criticize the very existence or did you criticize the terms? Because I'm pretty sure you criticized the terms and the lack of accountability afterwards, which is a respectable position at the time (I didn't have it though).

But now that the fear is years-old, it should be obvious the bailout should have never happen right?

You lambaste "government" as an institution. You cannot name any functioning, civilized society in history that didn't have an a proactive government. I'm not against government per se, I am against "bad' government.
We've had this conversation before, no one has ever been free on this Earth. There has always been someone with a gun demanding something they didn't work for, and it's usually been a governmental authority.

Proactive, that's an understatement.

In a democracy, government is what you make it. Either you work to better it or you complain.
Or you admit that savagery will be ever-present in humans and try to limit the damage, however I can, from people like you who thinks it's fine to steal just because its done with a computer instead of a club.

You repeat the talking point that the bankers are at fault. I contend that the bankers and the corpitists are the problem
OK, now what. They should be broke not saved.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

They should be held accountable.
How has that worked out the last 4 years.

I see in the the other threads you're back to the blame Bush mentality to explain Obama's responsibilities.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

How has that worked out the last 4 years.

I see in the the other threads you're back to the blame Bush mentality to explain Obama's responsibilities.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You must sleep well!


Inflation Views Could Change Under Bernanke
By RACHEL BECK, AP Business Writer
Fri Nov 11, 1:18 PM ET

NEW YORK - Trying to fix something that isn't broken has its risks, and that's raising concerns about a possible shift at the Federal Reserve over how it tackles inflation.

Assuming the Senate confirms Ben Bernanke to replace Chairman Alan Greenspan, the central bank could for the first time in its history adopt a specific target for the inflation rate and then make adjustments to interest rates as a way of trying to keep it in that range.

But is that really necessary? It may be tough to see the need now, given that the Fed's current tactics have kept inflation remarkably tame despite soaring energy costs.

This topic has come under great debate in economics circles since Bernanke was tapped last month to succeed Greenspan, who is expected to leave the Fed on Jan. 31 after 18-plus years during which there were two stock-market collapses and economic recessions as well as numerous other financial crises.

While Greenspan has long pursued a low-inflation policy during his tenure, he has been against setting an actual "inflation target," whereby the Fed discloses its goal and its forecast for inflation. His view is that the Fed can control inflation without setting a specific rate that it must then chase, which he believes could hamper its flexibility to act in a time of need.

That stance has proven successful time and again, including in the last year as energy prices have skyrocketed but the core inflation rate — as measured by the consumer price index excluding energy and food costs — has remained at only around 2 percent, low by most standards.

The Fed has done that by raising the rate that banks charge each other on overnight loans, known as the federal funds rate, in 12 quarter-point increments so that it now stands at 4 percent. The Fed began its current credit tightening cycle in June 2004 when the funds rate stood at a 46-year low of 1 percent.

Like Greenspan, Bernanke — a former Fed governor who now serves as President Bush's top economic adviser — favors low inflation, but he wants to be more forthcoming and open about what that actually means.

He has argued in the past that by setting an inflation target, it will lead to a more stable economic environment because businesses and consumers would be more certain about how the Fed will deal with interest rates and inflation. Bernanke has also said that in times of financial crises, the Fed could depart from its normal rules to do whatever it can to stabilize the economy.

Supporters say such change would raise the Fed's accountability and limit the discretion of future Fed leaders. In addition, they point to the successes abroad, with many countries including Australia and Sweden as well as the European Central Bank now employing some inflation targeting.

"The Fed has gained a lot of credibility under Greenspan's tenure, and all Bernanke is saying is that we can reinforce that by setting an inflation target," said Lyle Gramley, a former Fed governor in the early 1980s who now is a senior economic adviser at Stanford Washington Research Group. "This will make it explicit to the public what the Fed's expectations are."

Still, there are many questions over whether there is any need for such a change, something that will likely be addressed during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Banking Committee on Nov. 15.

One issue is whether "Bernanke would want to target a growth range on inflation, not a specific price index level, because a miss in the target could prove extremely punishing on the economy," Merrill Lynch economist Kathleen Bostjancic said in a note to clients.

For instance, she notes, if the Fed's target for core CPI is 2 percent for the year, but actual inflation comes in at 2.5 percent, then inflation would have to come in well under 2 percent in the following year to meet the target. And getting to that level could require a considerable slowdown in the economy, presumably triggered by the Fed cranking up borrowing costs.

Another point is whether an explicit inflation target would actually improve economic performance. Wells Fargo economist Eugenio Aleman says that even without an inflation targeting mechanism, the U.S. economy has had superior economic growth than many countries that implemented inflation targeting.

There is also the issue of whether setting an inflation target would subordinate the Fed's other Congressional mandate to maintain a sustainable level of employment. The worry is that the Fed will become more interested in meeting its inflation goals rather than creating job growth.

The good news is that Bernanke is known as a consensus builder. Chances are that he won't rush to push his agenda, but will work to convince those who are opposed of its merits. That, however, could be a mighty hard task.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111...rEF;_ylu=X3oDMTBjMHVqMTQ4BHNlYwN5bnN1YmNhdA--
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

More bullshit.
Income inequality has increased in America.

The Fed is currently providing $80 billion a month in perpetuity to banks to prop up their assets.

Do you have anything to say about that? Just wondering.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Income inequality has increased in America.

The Fed is currently providing $80 billion a month in perpetuity to banks to prop up their assets.

Do you have anything to say about that? Just wondering.

Go back over the US economy thread and ask yourself when the shit hit the fan where were you and you should answer that question for yourself.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Good reads
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

They should be held accountable.

:lol: You waitin for Holder to initiate this?

My bad, (not trying to hijack the thread) I know EH is very busy these days......Thought1, what is your reaction to this? Truthfully

Ex-Enron CEO Negotiates Early Release with US Justice Department

CNBC has reported that the former CEO of Enron, Jeff Skilling, is currently in talks with the Department of Justice to formulate an agreement that may see him released from jail early.

Skilling has already served six years of his 24 year sentence after he was convicted for his involvement in the epic collapse of the energy giant in 2001. He was found guilty of conspiracy, fraud, and inside trading in 2006.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

:lol: You waitin for Holder to initiate this?

My bad, (not trying to hijack the thread) I know EH is very busy these days......Thought1, what is your reaction to this? Truthfully

Ex-Enron CEO Negotiates Early Release with US Justice Department
His reaction will be, "Obama could do better."

He would rant about crony capitalism if it were Bush.

I asked him about Obama's accountability for the last four years and he just brought up Bush.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Both of you ignore posts you get smashed in and refuse to answer simple questions. I consistently call President Obama out. I have never seen a Greed post calling GW out. In fact, under GW, deficits didn't matter according to Greed.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Both of you ignore posts you get smashed in and refuse to answer simple questions. I consistently call President Obama out. I have never seen a Greed post calling GW out. In fact, under GW, deficits didn't matter according to Greed.
What post do I ignore? And what questions do I refuse to answer?
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

More? Are there degrees of libertarianism?

Sounds like being a little bit pregnant.
And you don't think it's odd to bring up a circumstance where you responded to something I said 4 months after I posted the original statement?
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

And you don't think it's odd to bring up a circumstance where you responded to something I said 4 months after I posted the original statement?


You may have responded, but you didn't answer the question.
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

You may have responded, but you didn't answer the question.
Because it's a stupid question and you don't care about the answer anyway. You just wanted to get that stupid pregnant line out there. I'm not motivated to be your straight-man
 
Re: 5 Ugly Extremes of Inequality in America The Contrasts Will Drop Your Chin to the

Because it's a stupid question and you don't care about the answer anyway. You just wanted to get that stupid pregnant line out there. I'm not motivated to be your straight-man

Consistent.

you don't care about the answer anyway


Filed
 
Back
Top