Divide between rich and poor

[athon]

Does anybody else find it misleading that a constant cry of the left (BTW, I'd count myself on that side of the fence, although only by about foot or so) is how great the divide between the rich and poor is getting?

I don't know if I just don't understand something (entirely possible, in which case somebody here will put me in my place), but from what I do understand the rich are indeed getting a lot richer, but so are the poor. I only really referring to countries like Australia, where the poor can still eat, get and education and seem to have enough money left over each week for those 'necessary pleasures' such as smoking and drinking. These 'battlers':mad: then complain how much money politicians and businessmen get. It sickens me.

So am I missing something? While the 'divide' between rich and poor is expanding, are the poor also getting greater access to technologies and welfare they didn't get fifty years ago?

Sorry - I guess it's 'Ray Martin' syndrome. It just swallows me up every now and then.

Athon

[The Don]

There is a case to make saying that the divide is getting larger. The net worth of the top n% is growing more rapidly than the rest of the population. Everyone is getting better off, just the better off are do so more rapidly.

A couple of things which skew the arguement...

- Things are becoming more affordable, so even if I'm not better off I can still have more stuff
- By definition, the top n% are those with all the money. If I was previously part of that group and suddenly had a significant financial reverse, I'd no longer be part of the top n%

I guess it depends who you compare and over what period.

Compared to Bill Gates, I've done badly in terms of net worth over the last few years. Compared to Enron directors, relatively well

[karl]

Certain limited resources, such as land or vintage baseball cards, can become more expensive for "ordinary people" if there is a great divide, because the price is not determined by production costs. Rather, it will be the result of a bidding competition. Then a wealth increase for one person means a wealth reduction for the rest, as their relative bidding power for such resources will drop.

But this isn't the reason why "the left" are concerned about a growing divide. I really can't think of any meaningful answer.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by karl
Certain limited resources, such as land or vintage baseball cards, can become more expensive for "ordinary people" if there is a great divide, because the price is not determined by production costs. Rather, it will be the result of a bidding competition. Then a wealth increase for one person means a wealth reduction for the rest, as their relative bidding power for such resources will drop.

But this isn't the reason why "the left" are concerned about a growing divide. I really can't think of any meaningful answer.

The reason why I am concerned (I don't feel like I speak for all left-leaning liberals) is because in the US, money is power. Concentration of wealth is a concentration of power. And it is my personal opinion that industry leaders are not good stewards of the nation.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
The reason why I am concerned (I don't feel like I speak for all left-leaning liberals) is because in the US, money is power. Concentration of wealth is a concentration of power. And it is my personal opinion that industry leaders are not good stewards of the nation.
I agree w/ this to a certain extent. IMO, only individuals should be allowed to donate to political campaigns. No companies, trade groups, unions, etc. Imagine, politicians actually having to pay attention to the voters! Lobbying (these groups would be allowed to lobby) should be open, and disclosed on the internet so anyone could keep track of it.

Radical stuff, I know, and it would probably require a Constitutional amendment.

[Gregor]

Power has always been brokered. There's nothing new about a limited number of people getting near exclusive access to leaders. You think in WW2 rich people didn't want to get richer on govt contracts?

The solution is not to tax rich people out of existence, it's to limit the size of government and limit regulation.

If there's nothing to lobby for (corp welfare, huge programs, etc.), there's less input from lobbists.

[Malachi151]

It comes down to a few things.

#1 During what was known as teh greatest economic time in Americna history the gap between rich and poor was decreasing, and a truely strong middle class was developed for the first time in America. This lastest from 1945 to 1980. After 1980 the trend was no longer towards convergence, but separation. The last time there was a great separation between rich and poor in America it was the predacessor to the great depression. In other words, the gap grew, and then collpased and the Great Depression is what resulted.

#2 There is strong evidence from around the world and years of studies that economic inequality leads to a poorer economy as oppertunity is not as equally shared and the creation of strong classes leads to social fragmentation and social stress.

#3 Between 1980 and 2001 the percentage of AGI (The agrigate income of the US) that went to the rop 1% went from 8% in 1980 to 20% in 2001.

The trend is continuing and shows no sight of letting up, so at that point when do we say that there is a problem? Take it to the extreme. Let's say that the top 1% takes in 100% of all income and the bottom 99% have no income. Okay, do you say that that is a problem or not?

Assuming the anwser is yes, then where along the line do we say that a real problem is present? When the top 1% takes in 10% of the income, 20%, 30%, 40% 50%, 60%?

#4 The fact that the top 1% of the population is definately a problem of SOME kind. No matter how you look at it IMO, the fatcthat 1% of the populaiton is taking in 20% of the nations' income is a problem. Its either a problem with our society that the rest of the 99% of the population is not able to compete with these people for some reason, be it education, they aren't working as hard, they don't have the skills needed, etc. If the bottom 99% is really that far behind because of "merit" then it says we have a problem in that the majority of our population is not up to the task. What can we do to create a society for more skilled people?

However, I don't think thats really the case though. The real issue is that our system natually consolidates wealth and power in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Its essentially somewhat like king of the hill. There is only so much space at the top. Its not as though there are not more people who are capable of doing more or of doing what many of the people at the top do, its just that there is only one CEO in a company, period. There may be 100 people in that company that can do as good a job or bette than the current CEO, but the structure only allows for one, so there is only one, and they get the big bucks. Its a function of structure and our whole society is structured that way, and it will continue to be structured that way and get even more that way.

So the question is then, do we continue to fight over the limited space at the top forever, or can we share some of that space a little bit?

#5 Can Democracy and highly concentrated wealth exist together? Many of America's greatest minds since its birth of have said no. Obviously one of the things that was behind the creation of America in the first place was the breaking away from the system of royalty, inherited wealth, and aristocracy. Many of the founders stated that democracy and a high concentration of wealth in the hands of a few could not exist together, because money is power, and power corrputs. This sentament was repeated with the Progressives of the ealry 20th century by men like Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt. It was echoed again by FDR and was an idea that formed the backbone of the economic ideology that guided us through the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Reagn's administrtion attacked this ideology adn pretty much trashed it,a dn from Reagan on the fight has been wages by the wealthy to tell Americans otherwise, and at the same time they are not honest, they try to hide just how wealthy they have gotten with deceptive stastics. Why are they trying to disguise the truth?

#6 The idea that our economcy truely and accurately reflects merit and contribution to society is completely bogus. Some people don't claim that it does, and others do. Some say that its important that it does and others don't. If you claim that compensation accuretely reflects contribution to society then how exactly do we explain porn stars that make more money than teachers or even doctors? The AVERAGE salary of an NBA player is now 2.5 million a year. That same NBA player made about $30,000 a year 40 years ago, and less far than that 60 years ago, virtually nothing. Obviously the ability for these people to make this kind of money is completely dependant on a system that they have no part in creating, the sports broadcasting and marketing system. Them running up and down the court and playing a game is the same thing now as it was 50 years ago, yet before the advent of broadcast sports it wasnt'a highly paid career. They themselves are not really earning the money, the marketing and broadcasting system is that allows billions of people to watch a few people play a game.

This is part of the general effect of consolidation. Its just a natural tendancy within our system and the NBA players are a fortunate benfactor of it as a smaller and a smaller number of people are able to meet the demands of larger and larger markets. The problem is, where does all that lead, and since we know that this is a function of systems, not really personal effort, is it not somewhat unreasonable to reward people as though it is a function of personal effort?

The natural tendancy of human beings is to try to consolidate power, wealth, and control. Is this something that we want to simply sit back and let happen?

#7 The assumption is also that the rules of our economy are fair, which they are not. At the high level rules are heavily influenced in our country by very powerful special interests. These rules have major impacts on how wealth is obtained in our economy. For example when the Reagan tax cut went through the representative from Texas requested that in order to get his vote and that of his followers an exemption would have to be put in to remove the rax on domestic crude oil when it is sold from the pump. That's just one example, but our laws are filled with such types of things, some guy gets a loophole in for special treatment of real estate, or this or that. These large companies request these laws, and when they are passed they have programs designed around taking advantage of them, people generate millions and billions of dollars by taking advantage of specific legislation which they offer payback money to politicains for supporting and getting passed. This is how the really big players in our economy work. Tobacco, oil, food, drug, etc all have billions of dollars riding on laws.

Obviously the mor ethat money works on the political system the more the system gets catered the the interests of big money, and its a never ending cycle. The system get's addicted to money and corruption, and thats where we are at right now. In the middle of a system totally currupt by private money.

#8 It takes money to make money. This again leads to a snowball effect in the economy. People become wealthy for many different reasons, but once wealthy they can easily become more and more wealthy with less and less effort. Of course we know this, which is why we all want to become wealthy. However this does little justice to those working their ass off.

There is a huge amount of wealth in America in private hands that has come from very budious sources. Take the Kennedy family for example. Do you know how the Kennedy's got rich? Bootlegging during Prohibition. Durring Prohibition Joseph Kennedy ran a major bootlegging operation between Canada and the US and made millions of dollars. This is pretty much equivilent to let's say a major cocaine distributer making millions of dollars and then if we made drugs legal, he then becomes a politician and his family becomes one of the most powerful familiies in the country with his son as a president.

That's just one example, but there are many, the initial Bush family fortune came from investments in Aushwitz labor camp prior to American entry into WWII, just another example, but in reality there are thousands of these examples. And the reality is that once wealth is consolidated into a family they have a huge advantage in our economy. Many other people never have that oppertunity or advantage, and as we have seen all throught history, the more people have a competative advantage the better. The more fair the competition is for everyone, the better the whole system is. Concentration of wealth by definition reduces the fairness of that competition.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
...the initial Bush family fortune came from investments in Aushwitz labor camp prior to American entry into WWII...


Evidence please...

[Malachi151]

http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.3.html

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/bushies.htm

http://www.lightwatcher.com/culturejam/bush_slave_profits.html

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/bushhitlerprojecthtm.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html

It was not a malicious attempt to help enslave the Jews or anything, and apparently he did pay some reparations, but the fact remains that he was invested in Germany industry that used slave labor and he profited from it. It may be that he was not even aware of it at the time, or of the full impications, that I don't doubt, but nevertheless.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Malachi151
http://www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.3.html

http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/bushies.htm

http://www.lightwatcher.com/culturejam/bush_slave_profits.html

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/bushhitlerprojecthtm.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html

It was not a malicious attempt to help enslave the Jews or anything, and apparently he did pay some reparations, but the fact remains that he was invested in Germany industry that used slave labor and he profited from it. It may be that he was not even aware of it at the time, or of the full impications, that I don't doubt, but nevertheless.

Wow! :eek:

Thanks, Malachi...

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Kodiak


Wow! :eek:

Thanks, Malachi...


there was a CNN news story about Bush meeting with Jewish leaders a while ago to dismantle the conspiracy theories about Prescott Bush's involvement and to apologize.

I'm trying to dig it up again....

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



there was a CNN news story about Bush meeting with Jewish leaders a while ago to dismantle the conspiracy theories about Prescott Bush's involvement and to apologize.

I'm trying to dig it up again....

It seems any Bush involvement with the NSDAP was not only accidental or coincidental, but genuinely regretted as well.

It's still surprising and something I hadn't known before today.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Kodiak


It seems any Bush involvement with the NSDAP was not only accidental or coincidental, but genuinely regretted as well.

It's still surprising and something I hadn't known before today.


there were many families and companies involved with what would become the Nazi party. The attempt to weave a vast conspiracy out of Prescott's monetary involvement with Germany is being ridiculously warped to gain more dupes for "the cause".

Microsoft was also involved with the Nazis too.

Go the the holocaust musuem and you'll see an IBM booth that counted the jews going into concentration camps. This fact can be easily warped by leftist maniacs in their pursuit of science fictional reality.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser

Microsoft was also involved with the Nazis too.

Go the the holocaust musuem and you'll see an IBM booth that counted the jews going into concentration camps. This fact can be easily warped by leftist maniacs in their pursuit of science fictional reality.

Ummm... Since when does Microsoft = IBM? How old was Bill Gates during WWII?

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Ummm... Since when does Microsoft = IBM? How old was Bill Gates during WWII?

forgive my english.

correction : The conspiracies link Microsoft to IBM to Nazis.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser



there were many families and companies involved with what would become the Nazi party. The attempt to weave a vast conspiracy out of Prescott's monetary involvement with Germany is being ridiculously warped to gain more dupes for "the cause".

Microsoft was also involved with the Nazis too.

Go the the holocaust musuem and you'll see an IBM booth that counted the jews going into concentration camps. This fact can be easily warped by leftist maniacs in their pursuit of science fictional reality.

Who said anything about conspiracy? And why does the fact that many American companies were investing in the Nazi infrastructure and aiding the Nazis financially and making profits from business with teh Nazis make it all "okay".

Its the fact that so many American companies and individuals were doing business with the Nazis that allowed them teh financial and industral means to develop their war machine, thats extremely significant in understanding how military powers come to rise. It shows that business without ethics and without concern can easily contribute to horrible consiquences and even world war.

I don't think that Prescott Bush had any intent to intentionally profit from the concentration camps of was part of any conspiracy to aid the Germans, most likely he simply didn't know what the money was going to exactly, and he didn't care, he was just in it for the profits as a money manager and banker.

The fact still remains that a large part of the Bush fortune was made in this type of activity. The question is where do these fotunes come from, well this si an example of where they come from. There are also people in America right now today that made millions of dollars doing business with Saddam Hussein. They have gone to dinner with him and shaken hands with him and made business contracts with him. Does that mean that they conspired to gas Kurds? No, it does not, but they have profited from his regime nonetheless, and he profited from their business to make his regime stronger. That's what happens when people put profits before prudence, and now we all pay the price, yet they are still rich from problems that they helped to create.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Originally posted by Malachi151

Who said anything about conspiracy? And why does the fact that many American companies were investing in the Nazi infrastructure and aiding the Nazis financially and making profits from business with teh Nazis make it all "okay".


what you've so conviently chosen to exclude is that companies from all over the globe were supporting it. Just like the Russians and French did for Saddam Hussein.....many companies were involved.....but you chose only to mention American ones.



Its the fact that so many American companies and individuals were doing business with the Nazis that allowed them teh financial and industral means to develop their war machine, thats extremely significant in understanding how military powers come to rise. It shows that business without ethics and without concern can easily contribute to horrible consiquences and even world war.

I don't think that Prescott Bush had any intent to intentionally profit from the concentration camps of was part of any conspiracy to aid the Germans, most likely he simply didn't know what the money was going to exactly, and he didn't care, he was just in it for the profits as a money manager and banker.

The fact still remains that a large part of the Bush fortune was made in this type of activity. The question is where do these fotunes come from, well this si an example of where they come from. There are also people in America right now today that made millions of dollars doing business with Saddam Hussein. They have gone to dinner with him and shaken hands with him and made business contracts with him. Does that mean that they conspired to gas Kurds? No, it does not, but they have profited from his regime nonetheless, and he profited from their business to make his regime stronger. That's what happens when people put profits before prudence, and now we all pay the price, yet they are still rich from problems that they helped to create. [/B]


you simply hate America and choose to ignore any other country.

same ole anarchist/fascist bullsh_t.

[shanek]

Originally posted by athon
I don't know if I just don't understand something (entirely possible, in which case somebody here will put me in my place), but from what I do understand the rich are indeed getting a lot richer, but so are the poor.

I've made this point several times in several different threads. People have just glossed over it like I never said anything. They just don't want the facts to get in the way of their agenda.

So am I missing something? While the 'divide' between rich and poor is expanding, are the poor also getting greater access to technologies and welfare they didn't get fifty years ago?

Absolutely. I don't know about Australia, but in the US the poor was getting richer at a much greater rate before government programs were imposed to "help" them. But here, the poor have temperature control, DVD players, and many of them even have cars.

[shanek]

Originally posted by The Don
A couple of things which skew the arguement...

- Things are becoming more affordable, so even if I'm not better off I can still have more stuff

That only skews it if you don't count it right. Being able to buy more for your money does indeed count as an increase in wealth.

- By definition, the top n% are those with all the money. If I was previously part of that group and suddenly had a significant financial reverse, I'd no longer be part of the top n%

EXCELLENT point!

As I've said before, the argument basically boils down to, "Hey! Look! The rich are rich because they have more money!"

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
The reason why I am concerned (I don't feel like I speak for all left-leaning liberals) is because in the US, money is power.

Why? How can someone make you do something you don't want to do, or stop you from doing something you do want to do, solely with money?

[Dancing David]

Nice post Athon,

I agree that there are times it bothers me that some incompetant doofus gets fired and gets 13 million dollars for the privilege. And it bothers me that there are plenty of people who get to the top on much less than thier own merit. But it doesn't really bother me that the rich are rich.

What bothers me is more of an issue when someone has to work two part time jobs to make ends meet because the firms that are hiring do so only on a part time basis.

But for the rich being wealthy, well more power to them, I just disapprove of all the inside deals and influence peddling that goes on. It would be nice if the standard of living continues to rise for ewvry one.

[DanishDynamite]

Perhaps slightly off-topic, but just yesterday I saw a "60 minutes" broadcast which had a report on the demise of Montana Power.

Montana Power on "60 Minutes" (http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/02/07/build/energy/sixtymin.php?nnn=6)

An excerpt:“Montana Power, once worth $2.7 billion, now sits on the verge of bankruptcy. The lawyer for the shareholders says the New York brokerage firm Goldman Sachs is as much to blame as the company’s CEO for the debacle,” according to “60 Minutes” preview material posted on its Web site.

Attorney Frank Morrison, one of several trial lawyers in Montana suing the company on behalf of shareholders, told the program that Touch America CEO Bob Gannon and company executives orchestrated the deal but they needed the New York-based Goldman Sachs to pull it off.

“Gannon could never have sold this plan to the board. He didn’t have enough credibility,” Morrison is quoted as saying.

The program also states that only Goldman Sachs and a few higher ups in Montana Power seems to have profited by the transformation.

The report claims that the investment firm received $20 million for its assistance while four company executives collected $5.4 million in a change of control agreement.

....

The company’s stock, which once traded above $60 a share, closed Thursday at 37 cents a share.
While I'm a fan of the Free Market, I seriously despise "golden parachutes", especially for executives who have bankrupted a company.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
While I'm a fan of the Free Market, I seriously despise "golden parachutes", especially for executives who have bankrupted a company.

So do I.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by shanek


So do I. :eek: ;)

[fishbob]

Things are becoming more affordable, so even if I'm not better off I can still have more stuff Why are things more affordable? Because more and more stuff is made in China, where labor is cheap. Those Americans, Aussies, Brits, and others whose jobs disappeared may be able to have more stuff, but less opportunity to earn much more than minimum wage.

Anyway - are you better off working at McDonalds and owning a DVD player or working at a DVD player manufacturing company? This is the position that many of the lower income earners are in.

[corplinx]

Unless the disparity is such that it affects national security, I don't see how it could be an issue. In theory its none of the goverment's business how much money you make.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

Why? How can someone make you do something you don't want to do, or stop you from doing something you do want to do, solely with money?

I opted for succinctness rather than accuracy. Of course having money doesn't neccesarily give someone more power.

Tell me you don't know what I mean when I say "money=power", and I'll be less succinct.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
:eek: ;)

Hey, what's so surprising about me saying that people should be responsible for their actions? Allowing people to get away with such things is antithetical to a free market, IMO, since the market has every reason to make sure they don't go around bankrupting companies.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
Why are things more affordable?

Because wealth is created in the economy and improves the standard of living for everybody. "Cheap labor" has little if anything to do with it. Despite inflation, the poor have more and more buying power as time goes on.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
I opted for succinctness rather than accuracy. Of course having money doesn't neccesarily give someone more power.

Tell me you don't know what I mean when I say "money=power", and I'll be less succinct.

Please do.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

Please do.

You have to say it...

[athon]

Thanks for the post, Malachi. While some points are purely speculative, for the most it offered me a different way of seeing the situation. Cool.

I guess I never really cared how rich some people got. And while money is indeed power, that's always been the case. As long as there was a basic level of affordibility, I couldn't care less if Mr. Trailerpark couldn't afford a high definition television, or the latest computer. As long as he had health, food and education, that was all he needed to be able to afford.

Anyway, I can happily say I've got some new perspectives on this concept now.

Cheers all,

Athon

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


You have to say it...

Say what? Please explain what you mean by money=power.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

Say what? Please explain what you mean by money=power.

Personally, I think you're being intentionally obtuse by "not understanding" what I wrote. If so, then I can be intentionally obtuse by requiring you to tell me you don't understand what I'm talking about. Petty, I know....

Money doesn't equal power, but money can influence. It can especially influence those who are in power.

Influence comes in obvious ways, like donating money to politicians, or lobbying. Or, more vulgar, with bribes and kick-backs.

It can also come into playing on the fears and needs of politicians, like, "we'll build our fancy new headquarters and bring hundreds of good jobs to your area, but only if you give us a break in taxes." Or, more generally, "what's good for GM is good for the country."

These types of influences have real effect in government. And, quite frankly, I'm surprised that you seemed hostile to the idea. The effect to the government is not about levelling the playing field. It's laws that favor the powerful at it's most basic, and at it's worst, like Dancing David said, it's "inside deals and influence peddling."

...and of course, we the people have the ability to stop this corruption by the power of our votes. Which is why manufacturing consent is so important, and that, too, takes money.

[fishbob]

Because wealth is created in the economy and improves the standard of living for everybody. Wealth is moved into the Chinese economy from the American economy. Wealth is created from productivity and the Chinese have the opportunity to be quite productive - in the short term anyway. American workers and Brits, Canadians, Aussies, Germans, etc are losing the opportnity to be productive as the jobs move to the cheap labor countries. Who knows - maybe the standard of living for American workers will rise again someday, owning more inexpensive electronics is not my idea of improved living standard.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by fishbob
Wealth is moved into the Chinese economy from the American economy. Wealth is created from productivity and the Chinese have the opportunity to be quite productive - in the short term anyway. American workers and Brits, Canadians, Aussies, Germans, etc are losing the opportnity to be productive as the jobs move to the cheap labor countries. Who knows - maybe the standard of living for American workers will rise again someday, owning more inexpensive electronics is not my idea of improved living standard.

Actually wealth is flowing from the Chinese economy to America. America is getting the greater benefits, the problem is that those benfits go largely to a very small number of people in terms of profits, and to the rest of us in terms fo cheap goods.

"America" as a whole is on the better end fo the trading bargan, we get a lot more then they get, otherwise we wouldn't be doing it, as I said, the prolem is that it goes to a very small percentage of people.

That's why corporations are now, and have been for a while, multi-national. Capitalism depends on buying low and selling high, which means buying labor where it is cheap and selling the fruits of labor where labor is high.

With no restrctions on labor or ways to keep labor cheap where it is being used this inevitably causes the price of labor to rise where it is employed and fall where it is not. The multi-national corporation then, being a global entity can simply change where ti sells to and where it produces. So these things flip flop back and fourth. They go about chasing the cheap labor all over the world, as they employ cheap labor in one place it will go up in price and the price of labor will fall in the other, then they simply change the flow of trade.

Labor becomes a commodity that is traded like on a stock market.

[shanek]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
Money doesn't equal power, but money can influence.

But influence is not the same as power. Influence is a form of voluntary persuasion.

It can especially influence those who are in power.

Influence comes in obvious ways, like donating money to politicians, or lobbying. Or, more vulgar, with bribes and kick-backs.

I agree that all of these are undesirable, but if our politicians were forced to obey the Constitution and weren't ever given this power in the first place, it would hardly matter because they wouldn't be able to influence the politicians to do anything.

Your complaint is about government having too much power.

...and of course, we the people have the ability to stop this corruption by the power of our votes. Which is why manufacturing consent is so important, and that, too, takes money.

But it isn't even supposed to come down to that! They're not supposed to be able to do those kind of things in the first place!

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
Wealth is moved into the Chinese economy from the American economy.

No, it isn't! It's exactly the opposite! The wealth is created in China (through the production of new goods) and moved to America when it is sold!

Do you pay for these goods in yuan or dollars? In dollars, of course! So the manufacturers have to exchange their dollars for yuan...which means that there must be people out there with an equal amount of yuan that they want to change for dollars. Why would they want those dollars? Either to buy goods or services from America or to invest in America.

I really, really wish people would learn some basic economics before they start making claims like this.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by shanek


Hey, what's so surprising about me saying that people should be responsible for their actions? Allowing people to get away with such things is antithetical to a free market, IMO, since the market has every reason to make sure they don't go around bankrupting companies.

Funny thing about that ShaneK, it couldn't be government regulation that would cause this to happen, we can hope that the media might publicise it, so how should that self corrrective action take place?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Funny thing about that ShaneK, it couldn't be government regulation that would cause this to happen,

When did I say it was?

so how should that self corrrective action take place?

You probably couldn't depend on complete self-correction. You'd likely have to do exactly what they're going now: Take the @$$holes to court. Hopefully the stockholders can retrieve the assets that were swindled away from them.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by shanek

But influence is not the same as power. Influence is a form of voluntary persuasion.

I agree that all of these are undesirable, but if our politicians were forced to obey the Constitution and weren't ever given this power in the first place, it would hardly matter because they wouldn't be able to influence the politicians to do anything.

Your complaint is about government having too much power.

But it isn't even supposed to come down to that! They're not supposed to be able to do those kind of things in the first place!

You and I disagree on the value of government having power. I see it as a problem of transparency, rather than as a problem of who has the power. That's OK by me. It's not really going to be resolved here. :)