Maybe you should trickle down south, become a US citizen and then you can vote accordingly. Otherwise the occasional drips of your irrelavent opinion are pretty much wasted, no?
In a "free and capitalist" society and economy (which is what our Founders wanted and designed for us), there is SUPPOSED to be "income disparity"... the rich are SUPPOSED to "keep getting richer while the poor stagnate"... that's how it works. And every citizen is "allowed the opportunity to become rich" (that is, not deliberately prevented from doing so by government). There are more "riches and benefits" in a capitalistic society for all, regardless of income disparities. Pussy little wankers who bitch about how much somebody else has should spend their efforts in increasing their own lot... rather than jealously whining about the success of others.
This is so utterly ignorant (I mean that in the value-neutral sense of the word) that one does not know where to begin. Hundreds of hours of study are missing. You're quick to blame conspirators for everything, is it possible they have shaped your understanding of US history?
I note that your inflammatory post does not actually defend the non-existent and illusory but nevertheless much touted "virtues" of supply side, trickle down "economics." Just so that we're clear and in agreement that the poor will stagnate under the kind of economic and political system you favor. And that the economic and political system you favor essentially leads to that two-tier distinction: the rich and the stagnating poor. Thanks for the much needed clarification.
I just wanted to comment that I believe widening income inequality isn't necessarily a reflection of economic direction. More than anything it is a resultant of the age of the capitalist system. If you think of a population forming a distribution curve that curve becomes more defined and accurate the longer the period of observation. Population growth is one of the main reasons for this change. The larger the population the greater the number of possible outcomes. What you get is a far greater number of sub categories in the overall population. We have the genuinely poor. The lower middle class that would be considered middle class in most countries. The middle class and upper middle class which although struggling in recent times by American standards are far above the standard of living in the rest of the world. Above the upper middle class is the lower and mid wealth classes. This is an entire class that is new to American history. People of what could be considered extreme wealth who in comparison to the ultra wealthy are still irrelevant. There is also ultra wealthy. The point is that the distribution curve is still intact there is just greater variety. The extremes of the curve tend to move far faster than the interior. This in no way means the interior is becomes less wealthy. They are only becoming less wealthy in relation to the exterior. When applied to the world the top 50% of Americans get put into the top 5% of the world. We enjoy standards of living that the elite prior generations could only dream of.
Without a balanced income disparity, the economy collapses and anarchy ensues. It's all about proportion, and what we have today is so wildly out of proportion it cannot possibly succeed. What we have is the financial rape of the working class, orchastrasted by corporate America and facilitated by the radical right in government.
Great post! I think the concept of relative value is lost on most here. I think the best example of this was given by Nassim Taleb in "Fooled by Randomness" in which he talked about a moderately successful lawyer living on Park Ave in NY. Even though he made 500k a year, his wife was terribly disappointed in their lifestyle, because when compared to the uber wealthy that lived in their building, they felt poor in comparison. It was only when they moved to a middle class suburb in NJ did the wife of this lawyer finally feel rich again. It was all due to their surroundings. I think because the geometric rise in wealth of the top 1%, we all feel poorer in comparison. But this simply is not true. If we take a middle class family today and compare it to a middle class family even in the idyllic 1950's, you would see that they are far better off. As long as the top 1% continue to grow at a geometric rate (as they should), the rest of us are always going to feel left behind and poor in comparison.
Materially yes, we are better off than the middle class family of the 50's. I know, I was there. All we have had to do is sell our souls to get it. Technologically, it's been one great advancement after another. Socially, we are living it abject poverty. As a species we have yet to figure out how to balance the two.
True. But that's because we changed religion from a society based on judeo christian values to one based solely on material gain. That we can't reverse. History has shown that religion always loses out to material wealth over the long run. Hence why the poorest nations tend to be the most religious and the wealthiest countries, the least.