Bitcoin Forum

The 400 Richest Americans Are Now Richer Than the Bottom 50 Percent Combined. During the Economic Crisis Wealth of 400 Richest Americans Increased by $30 Billion.  ....they must have been the "early adopters"...




http://www.good.is/post/the-400-richest-americans-are-now-richer-than-the-bottom-50-percent-combined/

It's not the inequality that's the problem. It's merely a symptom of a quite larger one, mainly huge government-enabled corporatism.

The poorest 10% of today are richer than the richest 10% from 1965.

Inequality is bunk.

Update:

Got my figures wrong, but the sentiment right.

"In fact, it turns out that in real terms the bottom 25% are now considerable richer than were the top 25% in 1961"

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-poor-got-richer.html

I'm an American with 37 cents in my bank account and zero debt. That makes me richer than at least 10s of  millions of other Americans.

Measured how?

In money.

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2010/05/how-poor-got-richer.html

bonkers

 you could also buy a coke for 2 cents in 1961.

The figures were adjusted for inflation, in case you missed that.

You need to qualify that statement with: IN THE FIRST-WORLD or IN THE US.

Not really, since they got real stuff in exchange for their debt and when they don't pay it off you will get to help bail them out.

that's nice.

were the numbers also adjusted for today's bottom 25% being almost twice as populous?  (in 1961 there were 180M of us - today there are over 310M.)

and for the top 25% in 1961 including less of a now-mostly-vanished middle class?  (the top 25% today would have to include the entire upper middle class - and most of the lower middle class as well.  what's left of them.)

and for the disparity in CEO vs. worker wages in 1961 coming out to around 20:1 - whereas today it's something like 800:1?

and...

and...

?

Anywhere in the world, depending on how you look at it.

In 1965, the richest man in the world couldn't have a cellphone, but the poorest Somalian has the potential to get cellphone service. Same thing for basic computers, etc

No, not even close.

Poorest 10% today:

http://thefourcornersclassroom.wikispaces.com/file/view/globalisation.jpg/31972271/globalisation.jpg

http://www.indianurbaninfrastructure.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/slum3.jpg

(Ethiopia)

Richest 10% in 1965:

http://withfriendship.com/images/h/36703/the-j-paul-getty-museum.jpg

(Jean Paul Getty)



Yea, so much progress on a world-wide scale.  How's that fantasy world you're living in?

You make a fine point, But I think you may be looking at the 99th and 1th (1st?) percentiles, there.

You may want to compare the second picture to say, upper class suburbia. Still different, but not as drastic.

You're so beyond stupid that I'm beginning to get the feeling you must be 12 years old.  No adult with access to the internet could possibly have such a limited worldview.

Educate yourself you moron.  The poorest 40% world-wide aren't even as well off as the top 10% of the 1960's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_inequality

Coming from you, I view that as the highest compliment. Yes, I know that outside of the first world, life is shit. But look at the kids in the second picture. Aside from the street, those three could be any three kids from '60s suburbia.

I should point out, though, that the article actually used the 25% mark. All this stuff about 10% is way off base. That said, You are right, it should be limited to the First World.

What I was saying is that the starving kids in Ethiopia and the mansion are not representative of the 10% mark, putz.

Then you don't really know what you're saying and you're just trying to save face.


Yea, aside from the street full of garbage that's 1960's suburbia.  Aside from the fact that my Honda isn't a Ferrari, my Honda is a Ferrari.  ::)


You're right, they aren't representative of the 10% mark.  The starving kids in Ethiopia are more representative of the ~40% mark, which really blows your argument to pieces.

And of course it should be limited to first world like I said in the first place.  Because the rising tide DOES NOT raise all boats.  The top ~20% of the world progressed and the bottom 50% were thrown into oblivion, because the progression of the first-world was done AT THEIR EXPENSE.

All of which makes you no less a putz.

I'm lol'ing at you right now.

And that affects me how, exactly?

Did 1960s suburban kids' parents die due to lack of healthcare or military conflicts, and have to wander the streets providing for themselves? There situations are not comparable at all!

Yea, but bro, they LOOK the same.  Just look at those kids... they have two legs and two arms... shit they're IDENTICAL to 1960's American kids!!   ::)

Don't confuse myrkul with reality.  He has a simple mind and it may hurt him.

What is this, I don't even...

You've made your point. Those kids would look horribly out of place walking down the street in a '60s suburb. After all, they're brown.

http://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20091104&t=2&i=12201406&w=460&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=2009-11-04T165645Z_01_BTRE5A31B2Q00_RTROPTP_0_SOMALIA-TELCOMS
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.lib.umn.edu/chang437/architecture/masaai.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.lib.umn.edu/chang437/architecture/&usg=__m3bIvWkq6SsanDlcTML5VLIJrm0=&h=400&w=500&sz=187&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=2rMad8TAx8_CyM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=183&ei=ZEwNTo-YBrOEsALExZWpCg&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsomali%2Bcell%2Bphone%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26biw%3D1680%26bih%3D886%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=512&page=1&ndsp=40&ved=1t:429,r:16,s:0&tx=105&ty=78

The richest man in 1965 had no cellphones or internet. Try again

The fact that human attributes/capabilities are distributed in a bell curve, while wealth and income generally follow power laws is a fascinating contrast.

I'm not sure on how I would test the hypothesis that this difference is due to ability. Bring everyone on the same level and give them the same exposure - basically Sparta II. But Sparta itself survived only due to slave labour. So, it's not a great model.

Almost any pure meritocracy will degrade with time, because of the fundamental need for parents to shield their children.

I have great sympathy for the ideas of Henry George with the land tax and citizens dividend, but I've seen too much of politics to realise that ideas in a pure form are almost never implemented.

I think the best hope of the world would be in more competing jurisdictions, Paul Romer's charter cities idea and seasteading - Patri Freidman's idea. Let the world re-organize into phyles and tribes of people's own choosing.

This.

Economies are not a zero sum game.  Nothing was gained at someone else's expense.  This is a fact.  How do I know this?  Because in a free market, both parties to a trade walk away happier.  All trade is voluntary, therefore both parties must value what the other party has more than what they have.  When a million African's buy a million mobile phones, Africa has become richer.

Go and watch this video and try your "rising tide DOES NOT raise all boats" line again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

Can't argue with stupid.  ::)


The laws of the universe disagree with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
When a million Africans buy cell phones, they now have something that THEY FEEL was worth the money spent.  The person that sold them the phones now has money that THEY FEEL was worth the cell phones spent.  Objectively, neither party is better off than they were before, because VALUE IS RELATIVE.  Nothing was created or destroyed during this transaction except SUBJECTIVE VALUE.

Furthermore, let me know when you find a free market.  I said nothing about a free market.

Who determines value? Subjective value is the only type of value which matters, because our subjective priorities are the only way of determining whether a transaction is worthwhile. As for progress being done at the third world's expense, that's bullshit. Ask the Chinese or the Filipinos whether they'd rather the factories disappeared and they could go back to living in rural farming communities with 13 hour working days for sustenance.

This whole ridiculous argument about the third world avoids context. This isn't the evil West forcing third world people out of wonderful Unicorn land and into slavery in a factory, to them it's a way out of the farms, into urbanisation and into a better future for them and their families. The fastest improvements these days are coming in the developing world. Countries like China, Nigeria and India (not the USA, Japan et al) are experiencing the fastest growth rates in the world (http://www.dnewsglobal.com/10-highest-economic-growth-countries/3034.html).

The left likes to paint the developing world as a dystopia of doom and gloom but it just isn't. Life expectancies are rising, birth rates are falling, economies are growing (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/hows-the-third-world-doing/). The left push for aid but in reality it is those countries suckling on the aid teat the most (Africa) which grow the least. Encouraging this dependance isn't just a waste of money, it's harmful to the countries involved and to their progress.

And yes, in the first world, we are all kings now (http://www.rationaloptimist.com/videos/everybody-working-everybody-else). The division of labour and globalisation have given us all far more choice than royalty throughout history enjoyed and at a far lower cost.

Thank fuck for the market.

Like I said, can't argue with stupid.  Your mind is made up and no amount of history lessons or reality checks will change it.


Thank fuck for that anything but free market though, right?  It's a free market when you want it to be and a government controlled scam when you want it to be.  Oh wait, we've come full circle.

http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/01/vulgar-libertarianism-watch-part-1.html

I see what you did there

Arguing with caricatures isn't gonna work. Try again.

It's pretty simple, really.  You can't attribute something you favor to the free market and say "thank fuck for the free market"... then when I point out an evil of the market, you turn around and say it's not a free market, so that's why bad things are happening.

Having your cake and eating it too.  Seems to be a reoccuring dilema for libertarians.

You buy a large, tasty cake from the bakery and eat it. Ninjas suddenly jump in, break your legs, and steal your television. They are two different events altogether. Going by your logic, the bakery and its cake is responsible for breaking your legs and stealing your television.

Why do I even bother

Good point.

It's not a free market, but it's a lot better than a command economy.

Irrelevant.  That does not address my point.  Address my point.  Here it is again: why do you attribute all good actions of our current market to it being a "free market" and all negatives to it "not being a free market"?

...Because the positives occur despite the state, not because of it?

The negatives to the free market are either only negative to certain individuals (say, bankers who get easy money from central banks in the current system) or just as negative as every other system because of human nature/reality (for example, starvation in a poor country will still occur regardless of how free it is, it would just begin to lessen as prosperity rose)

Also, the free market is a system composed of billions of individuals, not an organization. Blaming the free market for something is like blaming the environment for something. If a bear eats your buddy, or you get struck by lightning, the bear and lightning (or maybe bad luck) are responsible, not the "environment". Likewise, individuals within the free market are responsible for doing bad things, not the free market itself.

LOL, so like I said, anything good is because of the free market.  Anything bad is caused by regulation.  I think that's the only line you need to know to argue like a libertarian.




The same is true of government, but that's never stopped you from blaming the evil ole' goobermentz as an entity itself.  ::)

Government is a group of individuals, true, but it is aiming towards one goal, controlled by one person (or group of people if you prefer), and acts as a single entity, like a corporation. A free market doesn't act as a single entity.


LOLHANDWAVE


You do realize you aren't presenting an argument here, right?

I just realized that libertarians are on intellectual par with Marxists, feminists, and creationists.

Government bad, free markets good rabble rabble rabble

Everything is just fine, rabble rabble rabble, let's just repeat history, rabble rabble rabble

The major difference being, I've never actually said everything is fine.  So.... strawman.

Yet you propose solutions that have already been tried.

Every system is doomed to eventual failure, because such is human nature and such is the power of those that will always managed to control all systems.  My solutions delay the inevitable for at least a few hundred years.  Yours brings it on immediately.

Government and modern-day corporations alike are similar, and different from 'just a group of people'. They are granted special powers and legal status above the rest of us peasants. Whether this is good or bad, I'm skeptical. I don't think we need governments with unlimited or near-unlimited power, and I don't think we need corporations which are in bed with governments.

Also, I never said that everything bad is due to government, or everything good is due to the market. Stop attacking a straw man. What I did say is that the market has done more to address poverty in developing nations than anything else, hence 'thank fuck for the market'.

You're right, it has done a lot to address it.  It's done a great job of making sure poor people stay poor.

It is designed to push down all but the ruling elite class and push up all the lower classes to eventually have a two class world system.

The rulers and their subjects to serve them.

Thats [part of] what trade treaties and global orgs have been designed to do. Kill the middle and upper middle classes to bring them down to just above poverty levels by allowing global free unregulated and unrestricted trade so the businesses take their jobs overseas. This also raises the poverty stricken in those countries to just above poverty levels as well. The final product is everyone is forced at gunpoint to throw their stuff in a pile so everyone can share it. One World. One Dream. Everyone is reliant on The State because things are so bad, everything costs so much, that only the state can regulate and provide. They will make everything so expensive and tax you so much you wont even be able to afford to keep the land your ancestors paid for many times over. Its already happening. Why is it that everything keep going up and wages keep going down? Wheres has all that wealth evaportated to? Did it just disappear or was it siphoned off by interest from debt based currency to the ruling elite?

Also, why do you think those poverty-stricken 3rd world nations never get better with all the trillions of dollars pumped into them by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank? Could it be because those financial institutions know the governments of those countries will take that money for their own purposes and not help their own people? And why is there never any stipulations on how all that money is to be used? Because maybe they dont care and simply need them addicted to the debt to have a support or vote for an agenda. Could it be that they know they will never be able to pay off the interest, let alone the principle, so they would be more apt to vote how the elites want then to in international affairs and at the UN?

Everything else is fluff to cloud the main issue.

Its about a few people stealing all the marbles, controlling everyone else.

yea ... I guess I am unhinged, as one poster put it in a previous thread.