Wall Street Protests

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

Oh come on... that's a cheap shot.

What are you trying to say ?

One of the main arguments justifying OWS is that income disparity has been increasing rapidly over the past 20 - 30 years. UT's graph shows that while the top 1% more or less steadily gained a higher percentage of income, besides late 80's and early 00's, that the great recession actually hurt the 1% harder in proportion terms.

While it does slightly invalidate OWS's argument, especially against the argument that the top 1% weren't affected by the recession at all, it doesn't predict the future and it doesn't take the sensitivity difference from income loss into account either, your argument that people in the middle and lower class are hurt more from a 10% drop in income than someone in the upper class is from a 20% drop. From the graph, I would guess that the top 1% would continue their increase at some point and eventually pass their previous highest income share percentage.

[classicman]

looking inside the top 1% is an enlightening exercise.
The disparity within that subset is HUGE.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

While it does slightly invalidate OWS's argument, especially against the argument that the top 1% weren't affected by the recession at all,

A 40% loss among the 1% is only chump change. Virtually no adverse affect. A 10% loss among the lower 50% is a major financial problem.

The American standard of living and resulting economic power comes from the lower 50%. Who are, BTW, the source of most future jobs. When the 99% got richer, American was more powerful. When income disparity increases, recessions are created. Jobs are lost. And the country recedes economically, militarily, and becomes politically less stable.

One reason why American was so desireable to immigrants. The little people are the source of American wealth, innovation, and power. A diminishing reality since America has lately and slowly started to become more like other less desireable countries. Where the rich get wealthy at the expense of all others.

[piercehawkeye45]

You missed the next part:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

it doesn't take the sensitivity of income loss into account either, your argument that people in the middle and lower class are hurt more from a 10% drop in income than someone in the upper class is from a 20% drop

[classicman]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You missed the next part:

See tw's user title.

[piercehawkeye45]

Keep forgetting that.

[classicman]

[infinite monkey]

Originally Posted by tw

A 40% loss among the 1% is only chump change. Virtually no adverse affect. A 10% loss among the lower 50% is a major financial problem.

The American standard of living and resulting economic power comes from the lower 50%. Who are, BTW, the source of most future jobs. When the 99% got richer, American was more powerful. When income disparity increases, recessions are created. Jobs are lost. And the country recedes economically, militarily, and becomes politically less stable.

One reason why American was so desireable to immigrants. The little people are the source of American wealth, innovation, and power. A diminishing reality since America has lately and slowly started to become more like other less desireable countries. Where the rich get wealthy at the expense of all others.

Yep, like I said, the weight loss analogy.

Thanks tw!

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You missed the next part:

I didn't miss any part. My post exactly replies to that. Which part did you not understand?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm not concerned so much with how much more rich the rich are than the rest of us, as I am with whether there is the genuine opportunity for upward mobility in our society, or whether one must already be above a certain income level before one can expect to become significantly richer.

Who's responsibility is it that these opportunities occur?

[Clodfobble]

It is the government's job to ensure that the economic system we work under remains vibrant. To that end, they should and do have the power to do things like break up monopolies, prosecute cases of fraud or exploitation, shut down the stock market for periods of time when hysteria rather than rationality is ruling the trading floor, and otherwise perform checks on the system to keep it within a general middle ground.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It is the government's job to ensure that the economic system we work under remains vibrant. To that end, they should and do have the power to do things like break up monopolies, prosecute cases of fraud or exploitation, shut down the stock market for periods of time when hysteria rather than rationality is ruling the trading floor, and otherwise perform checks on the system to keep it within a general middle ground.

Generally I would agree on principle. None of those powers are given to the Federal Government in the Constitution. But that does not extend to bailouts and spending of taxpayer dollars on failed programs.

...as I am with whether there is the genuine opportunity for upward mobility in our society...

And how does the first paragraph assign responsibility to ensure this opportunity. The Federal government does not have the power to do this.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And how does the first paragraph assign responsibility to ensure this opportunity.

The 1996 Federal Communication Act gave all an opportunity to become profitable internet providers. Large numbers of companies were founded because 1) the incumbent providers refused to provide broadband internet access, and 2) the American people were being denied technology that should have been available 15 years earlier.

Because of that Federal law, DSL (a 1981 technology) finally was implemented after 1996. Internet on cable and fiber optics quickly followed.

Then Michael Powell, et al took over the FCC. Subverted the 1996 Federal Communication Act to destroy all but the two 'chosen' providers in any region. As a result, innovative companies (ie Covad, Dieca Communications, NorthPoint Communications, Rhythms NetConnections, PSInet) were bankrupted. America has dropped from an internet world leader to somewhere below 20. Jobs, increased productivity, free market competition, and commercial opportunities all lost when a political agenda was intentionally implemented to protect the 'chosen' two.

Comcast then intentionally tried to subvert network neutrality by attacking Skype, Google, BitTorrent, and others. All because free market competition was subverted by a political agenda during the Michael Powell reign.

1996 Federal law made opportunity possible by destroying protected monopolies that refused to innovate. Refused for 15 years to install current technologies. Threatening companies such as Bell Atlantic and Time Warner by forcing them to innovate; due to laws that made possible and encouraged free market competition. Laws that stopped them from subverting packet switching to protect their obsolete technology circuit switched hardware.

Today, the 'chosen' companies no longer need to innovate. Laws restored so that free market competition can no longer survive. The duopoly is again doing only what is in their own interest - at the expense of customers and the nation. Protected by laws to enrich them at the expense of innovators and consumers.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

And how does the first paragraph assign responsibility to ensure this opportunity. The Federal government does not have the power to do this.

It's true that the power is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. But many laws have been added since then, as the founders did intend, including the powers listed above to break up monopolies, etc. Whether those laws should ever be repealed is also something the authors intended for us to always have the power to consider. Personally, I think the laws are still relevant and important to our society, and if anything the Federal government should be working harder to apply them more thoroughly.

[Stormieweather]

How about preventing insider trading by our lawmakers? How about preventing lawmakers from actively voting on laws from which they personally will benefit? How about remove corporate financing of campaigns? It's quite simple really.

How about making the political process more about ALL of the people these representatives are supposed to represent, and not just the ones that can do them a favor? Eliminate the deck-stacking in favor of the top echelons and start paying attention to what will benefit the MOST members of one's constituency...

I'm not in favor of handouts. But I think our political system is heavily skewed and the lower/middle classes are getting screwed as a result.