Bill Moyers this weekend

I hope this is not a "hot button" topic. If it is, feel free to can this post.

Just got done watching this interview and I have to say I am far more mortified than I previously was in this life. I am actually ashamed of our government, and this country. As someone who was underemployed, sacrificed his retirement, and am still "getting back on my feet" thanks to the recession, I'm glad the film Robert Reich helped to create has finally been made. It is long overdue. The oligarchy in this country has got to go, and K Street needs to be shut down permanently. The original American corporate charter system in 1790 through the Civil War barred corporations from civic life, period. No contributing to political campaigns, no lobbying or "borers" as lobbyists were originally named, they existed solely to conduct business. No more, no less. After the 14th Amendment and "Corporate Personhood" was created money seriously defiled our Republic and our democratic process.

Either check this out, or don't, but if "We" don't listen to this man we will remain in serious trouble. The interview is a solid, but still not totally complete history lesson.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-inequality-for-all/#disqus_thread

 

To HBT for me to say much more. I will say we do not have a democracy, it is a Republic.

I am out. :-D

 

I don't even think it's a hot topic, the only people who believe the middle class should get less and the top 1% get more are the top 1% and they're too busy sailing their yacht to care.:-D

I'd like to get involved in a debate about the political/corporate revolving door in the US but I don't live there so it isn't any of my business but I do agree with you Mekanic recently it's become more and more obvious how little power US citizens have to change things when compared to large corporations.

One point where I disagree with him is on his 'suspension bridge' graph. He noted something happened during the 1970's that changed the distribution of wealth, this isn't so much the corporate political elites as it is globalisation. Companies began to ship labour abroad and now most products aren't made in the US they are made in China.

But the jobs he quoted are in the services field? Taxi driver, bank teller ect. and that's true but as the manufacturing sector shrinks everyone wants a job in services, you have an over abundance of labour and wages decrease.

Many of the worlds largest corporate global headquarters are in the US so you have a huge number of CEO's 'Top 1%' that now have to run a sector of the global corporation so there's lot's of competition between companies to get those good people who now have to be good at their jobs on a world scale so wages go up.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem but the solution as I see it would be to nuke china and india not wall street:-D

I'll add a quote too-

 

@ Rikky:

Only hole in your hypothesis is the ratio of CEO pay compared to the "average" worker.

The "bridge" is quite accurate...

 

My whole theory is filling that hole:-D I didn't say the graph wasn't accurate:confused The average worker has changed he now gets paid less so the ratio goes up. The US or the west in general are no longer the industrial manufacturing power houses they once were just after the second world war, China now has the highest GDP in the world due to it manufacturing capacity.

There is definitely a problem with the amount CEO's are being paid I don't doubt that but in the clips of his documentary he showed wages of average worker dropping without mentioning any of this. An economist shouldn't have omitted the shift in global manufacturing jobs to the east and the rise of centralised Global corporate headquarters in the west.

This is a fact not a theory but I do theorise these two factors play a big role in the ratio of pay, a much bigger role than he lets on and why would he? The whole point of his documentary is so you get angry at the government and corporations not Chinese man power.

 

BUT. There's that dang word again.

Out of 200 or so sovereign nations in the world, our ratio is the widest without question. "We" have the highest degree of disparity among the "developed nations", end quote.

Yes, or no?

 

Yes, I haven't once disagreed with that fact:confused Merely the reasons for that disparity.

The documentary looks very interesting I'll look forward to watching it but you must watch with your critical glasses on and question everything they say. I do this whenever a talking head says the world has gone to shit and he and only he knows why and you can know too for just the price of this book or movie ticket.

I always check these people out to see if they have any political leanings one way or another and can be corrupted by their ideology-

People say I'm liberal so you would assume I'd agree with everything this man says, nope I have a brain

 

Decided to use pictures. Note how When "trickle down" economics got into full swing, the debt began a rather pronounced upward trend in about 1985. The greater the disparity and inflation, the larger the debt.

Also take note that the more egalitarian our society is, the more manageable our debt. The curves are almost identical...

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Prc1952-2005gdp.gif

Can you see any correlation between this graph and your graphs?

 

China has also engaged in massive fiat currency printing. Can't find any data prior to 1996, but it begins at 10 trillion yuan. Of course the "value" of their GDP has skyrocketed.

 

Interesting reading your posts here. I can't comment much, I don't want to get the thread closed. But, I do have one question for both of you. Do you consider The Operah, musical superstars, and highly paid actors and actresses, and sports stars to be part of the "1%"?

 

Of your list, Oprah comes closest to the 1%ers, the rest are merely well paid employees.

 

My list was not inclusive. What of Michelle Jackson back when he was alive? My question is corporate vs star/athlete/actor.

 

Fred why do you always say your out?:-D

Can't you just state your point? And explain what difference each answer would mean.

I haven't even considered who the 1% are, it's not part of my ideology or a term I use, the first time I heard it was on TV during occupy Wall Street.

 

The problems are more systemic than "The 1%", but the Oligarchy which has been created because of it is the root of our ill.

Honestly, the biggest step forward we can take as a society is to educate our populace. Washington Irving did not write a book of history. Christopher Columbus did NOT sail the Atlantic because the world was flat. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow did not write a book of history. Israel Bissell warned the colonies, not Paul Revere. Everyone has heard of Edison, but how many learned about Tesla? The biggest part of the problem in today's society is the "history" most people believe is a work of fiction, and total B*******.

The current Oligarchy needs to be brought to an end. And no, it's not the first one to exist in America. We had one that led to the "Great Depression", and hopefully this one will be the last. A full 95% of the fiscal gains have been accumulated by 1% of the United States population since 2009. That's less than 32 million of our people. All this concentrated wealth and power allows for corporate corruption of our government, our political process, elections, has resulted in a completely lax prosecution of the fiscal industry, and TBTF. "We" had a progressive tax system which worked well for decades. It spurred investment, jobs, and growth via a high tax rate, with deductions and incentives for re-investment. The lower the burden on the top earners, and the lack of incentive which has been implemented by deregulation in the last thirty-five years has given us the highest degree of socioeconomic disparity since the Great Depression. As far as our national debt, it has skyrocketed since 1985 when "Reaganomics" got up and running. The "free market" does not exist, but it's myth pervades our society.

The founders of this country opposed the concentration of wealth, and power. They started a society which was meant to be egalitarian. This country came into existence by throwing off Oligarchy. They opposed "God on the Throne". That's why the original corporate charter system banned corporations and their interests from civic life, PERIOD. No lobbyists, no campaign contributions, no influencing elections, NOTHING. They existed for the sole purpose of conducting business, and were separated from government, just like "church and state". The abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment has allowed corporations to be considered "persons", and they have hijacked our legislative process. Before the Civil war, there was no such thing as "borers" or lobbyists as they have come to be called. We now have a system where the laws are created in favor of the people with money, not in favor of enterprise. The founders knew from experience with England that Corporate, and Government power are direct adversaries. They don't play well together, and whichever has the larger allocation of resources becomes the dominant member of the marriage of the two.

This country looks like the "Merry 'ol England" the colonies rebelled against. In fact, it very well likely has a higher degree of socioeconomic disparity. The Boston Tea Party which sparked the Revolution was because of the way the Dutch East India Company had a monopoly on trade thanks to the English Crown, and the result of said monopoly was the suffocation of trade, and colonial small business. That is from firsthand accounts, and you can read quite a few of them at the NY Public Library.

So, it begs to ask when is the next American Revolution?

 

TYPE-O: "less than 3 million of our people"

 

I often wonder if there was a revolution in the US or UK would the politicians be as ideological as they are when talking and acting on the revolutions in Egypt,Libya,Syria?

Would they arm the rebels who want to over throw them, the governing class? Or would they use the army to protect themselves like all the evil dictators and regimes do?

Would they listen to the concerns of the protesters or revolutionaries and step aside?

I have no illusions that if radical/violent protest or revolution started our police and soldiers would be use against the people and they would fire and kill us, they would call them an 'ill intentioned few' or terrorists, they wouldn't call them freedom fighters as they do in other countries.

 

I say I am out, due to self editing. The Mods seem to like that. My question, if you choose to answer, is really for selfish reasons, you both seem to be on a different side of politics than me. I am curious about what you think. Think of it as a selfish thread hijack. Answer if you wish.

I am restricted as per the forum, but am enjoying you folks replies. This thought came to me, and I thought I would ask the question.

As for what each answer would mean, I suspect HBT. So, again, just asking a voluntary question, without resorting to HBT.

I don't see how I can contribute to the conversation without going HBT, so, I consider myself 'out'.

Jeebus, I am trying to obey the rules... :-D

 

I can probably say this. I see the 1% stuff often. But, almost 50% of the US does not pay income tax. Should we demonize the 1%?

I realize I am on a limb here, but here is a couple of quotes from one of my favorite Economists:

Walter Williams. http://www.quotationcollection.com/author/Walter-E.-Williams/quotes

 

OOps.

 

i am not in the top 1%, in fact i am well in the bottom 1% of 1%. i rent my apt (barely), i do not own a car, i do not own a tv, i live mainly on instant ramen. people who recognize me from other threads will confirm that i use dialup.

and i believe the middle class should get less and the top 1% get more. "to the victor the spoils".

so your entire thesis is ill-founded.

 

My entire joke is ill funny Where's my smiley at the end? The 1% don't have yachts anyway, they float on luxury paper rafts made from mortgage defaults.

Your right Fred that's HBT but it's also trolling, it doesn't have anything to do with the OP. We were discussing the reasons why the gap between the very rich and the middle class has grown considerably in the west in recent years not handouts or healthcare, they will get the thread shutdown.

 

Serfdom, servitude, corruption, and malfeasance are no way to achieve "victory", or build a society. The game has been rigged, and it needs to end.

As Neil Peart so wisely lyricized:

"Sometimes the winner takes nothing." (Roll the Bones, Rush)

 

Don't follow Bill at all, he lost me a few years back, but I do appreciate the following quotes, from two very distinguished Americans...

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.

The former is Mr Franklin, the latter Mr Lincoln.

 

um..."progress"?

why do we have indoor plumbing? why was polio eradicated? why does food last longer?

LOTS of things have improved over the years. just be glad they have.

 

There is also a quote which allegedly is falsely attributed to Lincoln, but any patriot worth his salt that didn't believe corporations should be involved in civic life would call it an accurate portrait of post Civil War America. Elkins did exist, and was elected to the Illinois legislature in 1836, along with Lincoln. Lincoln also appointed Elkins to the Department of the Interior in Springfield Illinois. It does bear mentioning that Jack London used the quote in his 1908 book "Iron Heel", so it might be nice to find the letter to Col. William Elkins somewhere. But, we haven't. The only "persons" this country's government "belongs" to right now are corporations. The founders of this country banned them from civic life for good reason, and they weren't Marxists. Is this quote real? Maybe, maybe not. However, who it is quotable to does not change the truth it contains, or the National Bank Acts of 1863 and 1864 which would have prompted me to say something very similar.


“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”


Maybe a couple people here should take this to heart:

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

~ James Madison in a letter to W.T. Barry, August 4, 1822



"An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others."

~ James Madison, Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788

And, most importantly:

"Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue; or in any manner affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change and can trace its consequences; a harvest reared not by themselves but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few not for the many."

~ James Madison, Federalist No. 62, 1788


If you are knowledgeable of current affairs, the last one should just get up and slap you in the face...

 

You make a good point Sir. I do tend to get OT. Will hang around, let you folks discuss, and maybe post, if I think I have something relevant to say.

 

If your not around it will be just me and Mekanic posting left wing BS

I seriously just want to know the truth, has the gap between the rich and the middle class been caused by the relationship between government and big business, is all the wealth moving up? If not why?

Can a healthy society work in the this fashion? If not can anything be done to change it, without storming our houses of parliament and putting politicians heads on pikes:-D

It's normal for people at the bottom to point at the rich during a recession, so everyone who isn't lucky enough to be rich being selfish? Most of us have to be weary of being bias like this.

 

i think there's MORE than enuf of that here, if ppl seriously think a growing disparity is a BAD thing!

 

ReBar, the last time disparity was reaching current levels we had the crash of '08. Before that, it was the crash of '29.

People who were a whole lot smarter created and passed Glass-Steagall in 1933, and the Commodities and Exchange Act of 1936. Both of those acts were either repealed or meddled with since 1980 and the inception of Reaganomics. Since 1985 the national debt has taken a skyrocketing trend.

I think you need to read more James Madison, and learn your history. No offense intended, comments such as yours dictate a blistering ignorance of said history.

Being wealthy is not a bad thing. Being wealthy through corruption and fraud which puts millions in the poorhouse who were not beforehand is. Must be nice to be an entity or person like HSBC, and be able to launder billions in drug money, get caught, and walk away without any prison time for you any of your employees.


“When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it”

~ Frederic Bastiat, "The Law" (1850)


What has been stated here is not left wing BS. It's pure and simple historical fact that such excessive levels of disparity caused not only the French Revolution, but the American Revolution as well. Look at modern Turkey, Egypt, or Tunisia for current examples of poverty, revolt and socioeconomic disparity. Labeling what you choose not to believe has nothing to do with being "left wing", or the egalitarian foundation this country was laid down upon. This country was created by throwing off Oligarchy. Now, we again exist in one.

 

Geez Do I have to explain for the second time in the same thread I'm joking? Why would you think I don't believe what your saying I included myself which would mean I don't believe what I believe?

I'm tryna put a bit of light heartedness into an emotive thread, chillax.

I'm bored, I'm out

 

Rikky, I know you were. He unfortunately wasn't...

 

This is why we can't have nice things...

People rub others the wrong way, and then fights start (which hasn't happened but I expect it soon).

I am allowing this to continue, but it is skating close to the edge...

I offer no opinion, other than:

Progress doesn't stand for the rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer. That is the polar opposite of progress.

 

I was thinking just recently that one of the very appealing aspects of the original Star Trek was that humanity, on earth at least,
had chosen to put an end to vicious divisiveness and cruelty.

War and poverty had been abolished. The manipulation of societies by callous corporations motivated by greed was no more.
In the earth of the Star Trek future, there was no question as to whether all people would have basic and necessary healthcare.

Acquiring great personal wealth was no longer a coveted goal. Societies were focused on helping each person developing to
his or her best potential.

As for U.S. economic problems, I'll hold my comments for later.

 

While I believe that Utopian society such as Star Trek is the answer to a new Golden Age, I just don't think it will ever happen. Not with racism, religion, and greed running every country in the world. Heck, Star Trek invented new wars and conflicts with aliens just to keep us humans entertained. We thrive on it.

 

fine, red is blue. right is left. war is peace.

if you wanna give arbitrary, ODDBALL, definitions to things, well, then, just about ANYTHING can be proved.

the rich getting richer is what built this country. stop trying to tear them down.

 

So let me ask you, did the poor getting poorer build this country?


Both are happening, despite your insistence on ignoring one of them.

And no...the rich getting richer did not build this nation. Would you mind explaining how you came to that conclusion? Last I checked, this country was built because of excessive taxation and oppression from another government, which means they were getting richer, not us.

 

I don't feel like editing my last post again, but there is nothing wrong with the rich getting richer, unless it is at the cost of other's suffering.

Why would anyone think that is acceptable?

 

the poor are not getting poorer. if you believe that, there's not much point discussing this further.

and i don't recall the rich ever causing me to suffer. while i am probably the poorest one here (no, really), i at least have electricity, plumbing, and access to food, clothing, and basic medicine thanks to the ambitions of the rich. not to mention big stuff like railways.

you wanna live in a society where the disparity between rich and poor is lower, consider latvia or estonia. my parents escaped from the "middle class" there b/c there weren't enuf rich people to lift the rest of us up. they could see, like everyone else, that to be dirt poor in the land of the rockefellars and vanderbilts was a much better deal.

OR you could go on romanticizing your little "equality village". just let me know when you start fiddling on rooftops! :-D

 

That wasn't Roddenberry's vision, though.
NBC rejected the first Star Trek pilot saying it was too cerebral.

What they wanted was cowboys and Indians in space.

A recent documentary suggested that our current violent nature is based in our genetic makeup.

For about 100,000 years or so, our ancestors had to physically struggle to survive.
We no longer have to deal with the same threats from our environment, but the aggressive impulses remain a part of us,
so we fight with each other instead.

Now we are being forced to evolve again through the gradual realization that continuing that kind of violence threatens the
survival of all humanity. We've been so successful that our success is now a threat.

 

See ReBar's post for a partial answer to your query.

 

I rather ignore it, lest I be the one that gets this locked.

I recommend that everyone else do the same because he is just trying to ruffle feathers.

 

i am not trying to ruffle any feathers. i am just citing history.

there are societies where the ambitious have forged ahead unfettered and great things were accomplished. ancient rome, the british empire, imperial china.

then there are societies where an attempt was made to slow the rich down and level the field. the USSR, mao-era PRC, various latin republics.

i think the results speak for themselves.

the exact quote, according to roddenberry, was "more action, less talking, and lose the guy with the ears". :cool

 

We are not talking about a socialist society. We are talking about corruption at high levels, which allows the wealthy and corporations to have a major foothold in this country, allowing them to influence government for their own benefit, and to detriment of others. Corporations should not influence government at all. As it currently stands, the politician with the most financial backing wins, just about every time. They are buying a place in government.

This country was never founded on the beliefs that the elite decide on how it is governed, or that others should suffer so the elite can push their own agenda.


A desire to stop corruption is not a socialist ideal.

So either you are ignoring most of the thread, or you are trying to ruffle feathers.

Now look what you did, you made me part of an HBT topic and now another moderator will have to step in.

Thanks. rolleyes

 

It does bear mentioning that Jonas Salk refused to patent his polio vaccine. He gave his discovery to the world. So did Sabin because of Salk's example.

Imagine if you only could get the vaccine if you could afford it, because the patent made it cost prohibitive?

Via the "wealth gap" it is estimated by the WHO that 90% of the medicine in the world is consumed by the top 15% of the population as an income group. How many people die because they can't afford care not just in the United States, but around the world?

This planet is just so small in the grand scheme of things, yet people fight over it, and it's resources as if it were the entire Universe in one big ball of mud. If we are going to survive as a species to possibly become part of a galactic, if not universal society, we will not do it by stepping on each other's throats to accumulate the most toys. It's a savage way to live, no matter how "civilized" it may appear to some.

And, Adrynalyne thank you for the sacrifice you made to help things along. Believe me, it means a lot.

 

imagine if no one had CREATED most vaccines, b/c there was no personal incentive to do so?

salk and sabin were rare exceptions. u cannot build a nation on charity and altruism. pol pot tried that. it doesn't work.

again with the suffering! who's suffering?!

the wealthy and the corporations CREATE everything in this country, of COURSE they should have a big say in our governance! u use "elite" as if it's a BAD thing -- of COURSE i want to be governed by the smartest, most energetic, most productive individuals. in most cases that means "richest".

"corruption" is a different beast altogether.

 

Totally agree here. I am against corruption by any politician, and tend to agree corporations have too much collusion with elected critters. It does not take much research at all to find companies getting huge 'grants' from the gubment.

Recently, nanny bloomberg spent a lot of money in other states to try to get gun laws passed. And of course Soylendra and the current occupant of the White House. Would not surprise me at all if w hooked up a few oil companies when he was in office.

Think of politicians back in the day. More or less average people served for a term or two, then went back home and worked. Now, even a fairly wealthy person has no chance for major offices unless they have serious backing. And the middle class person, maybe can run for dog catcher.

 

I really don't feel that you are grasping the crux of this discussion. And I don't know what you think you learned about Pol Pot, but a utopia based on charity and altruism is the LAST thing he built, or attempted to build. What he did create was a murdering fascist regime which oppressed and killed untold millions of people. He ordered anyone with an education executed, and in less than five years murdered anyone he thought expendable, and attempted to create an agrarian state of ignorance he could more easily control. He buried people ALIVE after being forced to dig their own graves in the "Killing Fields" so that his army did not waste bullets. Hardly altruistic, or charitable IMHO. This guy was Cambodia's version of Adolph Hitler.

Funny thing is, that selfishness, and hoarding to any degree is a primitive animal instinct which survives with us to this day. It's actually a bona fide travesty toward the evolution of human society when people such as Salk are the exception, not the rule.

You should do great things if you are capable to leave the world a better place, not for self gratification. That's a small part of an advanced trait called "mercy". Its' about evolving a higher level of sensibility. Those who have the ability, have the responsibility to act. It's simply the humane thing to do.

That is completely against the founding principles of the United States, and the original corporate charter system laid down c. 1789 by the founders because of hard lessons learned from governance by an absolute monarch in the form of the English Crown. If leaders of corporations want a say in government, they should have to do it the old fashioned way like everyone else. Run a campaign for election to office if you want to influence lawmaking, not by using gobs of money and lobbyists. That also means NO funding from personal fortunes. You go out, earn the favor of the people, and win their contributions, support, and votes.

Who is suffering you ask? Turn yourself on to a worldwide newsfeed. Believe me, you'll notice...

 

Fred:

The reason we invested in Solyndra was because of it's product. It was a rather advanced type of cylindrical solar cell. What happened to it's product was that China flooded the market with cheap panels of antiquated design.

Their cylindrical design is of superior workmanship, superior functionality, and they were still in existence marketing, selling, and installing their product as of June. Because of market conditions, they have suspended operations and are now facing Chapter 11 as of the end of August. Not because they have an inferior product, but because an inferior product was cheaper and more abundant. You will see their technology again, I promise you that.


http://www.solyndra.com/