... a conundrum in these times, all the same.
The Washington Post and Calculated Risk got into the issue or rising disparity of incomes in the U.S. of A.:
... Income inequality has been on the rise for decades in several nations, including the United Kingdom, China and India, but it has been most pronounced in the United States, economists say.
In 1975, for example, the top 0.1 percent of earners garnered about 2.5 percent of the nation’s income, including capital gains, according to data collected by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez. By 2008, that share had quadrupled and stood at 10.4 percent. ...
It's relatively obvious (if you're paying attention) that the top income earners -- the point one percenters -- have been doing lots better than almost everybody further down the economic food chain.
If you believe these folks are the Job Creators and should keep more of the money they take in, then this is a good thing. But if you believe the other, lesser brackets need to be getting a bigger bucket of the cash flow so they can send their kids to college, buy a new car and nicer appliances to keep the wheels of commerce humming, you're probably of the opinion that it's not so great.
I was a history major in college. And I took a lot of courses that covered the Robber Barons and the Haymarket Riots and the grinding poverty that existed in the 1890s and beyond. The U.S. had a lot of dynamic aspects back then, but it also had large-scale unrest and massive inequalities that only started to be addressed when Teddy Roosevelt became President.
My problem is, I really don't want to slide back to the corporatism, social unrest and shorter life spans of those years. But I recognize that's the way we could be marching without too much trouble.
... In world rankings of income inequality, the United States now falls among some of the world’s less-developed economies. ...
On the other hand, if we become a large, banana republic, I guess I can go buy a white suit and try to fit in.
Posts
7 comments:
Here is the simple explanation...
http://youtu.be/JTzMqm2TwgE
And now corporations want a "tax holiday" for their offshore money. Last time that happened, 97% of the money went to pay executive bonuses and to ship more jobs overseas. with corporate corporate tax rates lower in the U.S. than they've been in over 50 years, the answer should be"ok" but only if 97% of the money is spent in the next 5 years in the United States to create jobs. Otherwise--NO. This isn't profit-- it's Taxpayers Money we're talking about.
Remember--ayn rand was a liar.
well, most of us are wondering about the prospect of another market crash like in 08. A lot of people have been pulling out in the last few weeks...
The markets are worried that the teabaggers will derail the raising of the debt ceiling (not remembering it was raised 6 times under bush & co. as they tripled the deficit). Teabaggers want everything for free. But that's not how this Country works. Thank goodness we have a level headed man in charge who, like the rest of use, enjoys watching the teabaggers squirm as big business dumps them in favor of the majority who will do the right thing.
http://tinyurl.com/3fttlze
^ Oh, somebody made a poster, so it must be true.
When in our history has the government actually "controlled" the economy? The demonization of ANY government supervision of ANYTHING is the cornerstone of corporatism. The "market" isn't magic. The success of an individual corporation has no predictable direct correlation or corresponding influence on the overall economy. The GNP is not the economy, just one very narrow indicator, like the Dow Jones average.
There is also no correlation between political freedom and economic license. That's pure corporate sponsored propaganda. There are many more historical examples of economic disasters caused by lack of regulation than over-regulation.
Post a Comment