What you don't seem to get is that there's such a thing as undeserved wealth. The problem I have is that EMPLOYEES (of financial institutions, CEO's and executives in general) are being paid in terms that are disproportional to their productivity, not in the least due to a little gem known as establishmentarianism. The upper levels basically decide each other's wages and they have chosen to enrich themselves in ways that I - and others - consider unfair in relation to their contribution to society. In the "old days", the only real way to become that rich (in proportion to the mean) was to increase the value of your equity in a smart way (very cunning investing, entrepreneurship etc) but certainly not by being an employee. This is one of the things that is gobbling up the entrepreneurial soul of the US. I'm not against disproportionate wealth in general - provided it is not being generated by employment.
And then there is the wealth of the people's entertainment. Originally limited to movie stars but now encompassing sports and TV.
Well actually there is a fundamental law prohibiting it, which makes that whole "rightist" speech BS. How do you expect 100% of the people to be in that 1%?... And what do you do with the 99% that by definition can't make it? Let them die? And especially the poorest 1% (and again by definition there needs to be that 1%), what do you do about them? Then again, 85% of americans believe they drive better than average... Ninna
You're a moron. Especially the super wealthy say it's because they are lucky, not because "they deserve it" (and the rest doesn't). If you're born with an IQ of 90, that is a choice? If you're born with an IQ of 130, that is a choice? If you're so ugly nobody will hire you, that is a choice? If your parents push you to become athletic and competitive at age 4-5 to be able to enroll in an ivy league college it's a choice? If your parents are totally unfit for raising a child and let you do whatever it's a choice? Whichever way you turn the argument, nature or nurture (the truth is probably in the middle), you are wrong. I thank fortuna regularly for my above-average capacities and my non-retarded parents. I don't feel above people who are poor, have an IQ of 80, make very little money and were never shown how to properly behave. There is no "I" that you can argue was not pre-decided. Genetics and sociology have shown this, almost beyond all reasonable doubt (not 100% there yet but most of the way). The foundation in nature and/or nurture will restrict the possibilities and chance will dictate the outcomeas within the restriction.
Yup, but that's a gray area to me already because they may actually pull their weight and it's measurable (i.e. they are the best athletes and entertainers the world has to offer because it's a more open and free market). It's also measurable how much revenue is generated during a sports or entertainment event and the slice the athletes and entertainers get isn't entirely disproportionate. The market for athletes and movie stars still more fully resembles the spirit of demand and supply of capitalism than does the market for top-level executives and bankers etc (considering there is very ample supply of those (wanting to get in), very little demand and little to no evidence that an average person would do the job the multiple worse that the salary is inflated).
It's actually pretty frightening to me that many members of this message board cannot see things as clearly as Darkhorse and yourself. We've lived thru years of two party corruption and incompetence and yet all I still see are these imbecilic arguments that completely fail to see what's staring them right in the face. They still believe that some progress will come out of one of these two parties.
To call this bought and paid for government of recent decades -- both sides of the aisle -- a government that represents a capitalist society rather than a rig game is simply crazy. It is amazing to me that people still act as if the game is not corrupt to its core. The economies of the Western world are close to blowing up and they will take Asia down with them. I recommend the book: LORDS OF FINANCE about the lead up to the Great Depression. I believe we are in much worse shape today with even worse leadership. This is insanity.
You have some good points that I would agree with, although bashing the Tea Party at the end takes away some of your credibility. But you're still missing big pieces of the puzzle in regards to income inequality. For too long, income inequality has been used by the far left to push for more generous welfare programs, but the argument that the poor are remaining poor while the rich are getting richer is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that looking at income changes by grouping the country into income percentiles, ie: the richest 10% and the poorest 10% ignores the fact that people are constantly transitioning from one income group to another. It doesn't matter if everyone in this country starts out at minimum wage, IF there is the potential for them to become wealthy through hard work and perseverance in a reasonable amount of time. Income inequality metrics do not capture this, but income mobility metrics do. To make this abundantly clear, take a look at the income mobility graph below covering a 10-year span from 1996-2005. Instead of lumping people into income groups and assuming they do not better/worsen themselves over time, income mobility tracks the changes in income of individuals over time. This graph clearly illustrates the facade that liberals have set up to pander to the wealth distribution crowd. The notion that the rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to stay poor is a myth and a lie that is perpetrated by those with socialist intents. The truth is completely opposite as the graph below demonstrates: From 1995 to 2006, the poorest who were in the lowest quintile (lowest %20 of incomes) had their incomes grow 90.5% over that time span. Those in the 20%-40% quintile had their incomes grow 35%. The richest, however, in the top 20% of incomes, only had their income grow 10% over this time period. The richest 5% actually had their incomes decline -7% over this period, and the big kicker - the richest 1% had their incomes fall a whopping -26%. Below is another way of showing income mobility. This chart demonstrates it not by raw percent incomes but by the percent of people moving from one income group to another over time. Again, the result is the same and the conclusion is inescapable. Those advocating for wealth redistribution are wrong. These graphs suggest that if anything, our hugely progressive tax system is unfairly punishing those in the top income brackets, making wealth accumulation more and more difficult the wealthier the person becomes.