Remind me in which election everyone voted for this

[Ziggurat]

No, not absolute democracy, just democracy. Shouldn't things pan out approximately in line with what most people probably want?

Government should act roughly the way most people want, but Reich isn't talking about government, he's talking about economics. And you can't change economics merely because you want to.

Let's say we polled the American people in 1970 and asked them: in 44 years from now, is it OK with you if you and your family are slightly better off while a tiny, tiny minority are massively better off and spending their vast wealth buying politicians?

Most people are massively better off than they were in 1970. Which is perhaps why Reich doesn't cite a single figure about standard of living in his diatribe to envy. Seriously, are you not aware of the changes which have taken place since then?

 

[Ziggurat]

One word: globalization

Information technology also plays a role, I think. Information technology makes everyone more productive, but it improves the productivity of the very skilled much more than the low skilled. It increases total wealth, but it also increases inequality.

 

[anglolawyer]

Government should act roughly the way most people want, but Reich isn't talking about government, he's talking about economics. And you can't change economics merely because you want to.

Oh come on. Politics is 95% about economics. What exactly are you suggesting? That elections are only about whether people prefer red or blue?

Most people are massively better off than they were in 1970. Which is perhaps why Reich doesn't cite a single figure about standard of living in his diatribe to envy. Seriously, are you not aware of the changes which have taken place since then?

Let's see some figures then. Show me US GDP growth since 1970 and real income growth of the middle 60% over the same period. And show me where Americans voted for a system where many of them get slightly better off while a tiny proportion get massively better off.

Americans created all that extra wealth, right? How come they don't have a proper share of it?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Americans created all that extra wealth, right? How come they don't have a proper share of it?

So what would the "proper" share be?

 

[theprestige]

So what would the "proper" share be?

This might help answer that question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259327

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Easy---enough believe that any minute now, they're going to be in the percent of people getting massively better off. Everything's in preparation for that rosy future.

 

[anglolawyer]

This might help answer that question:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259327

LOL , that's the second time in about a week somebody linked that. I am not a Marxist but I do believe in Marx's explanation of history.

As to what a proper distribution of wealth would be, i doubt there is one perfect arrangement but I am dead sure the present one and the direction of travel do not suit most Amercans.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh come on. Politics is 95% about economics. What exactly are you suggesting? That elections are only about whether people prefer red or blue?

Elections are about government. Government has limited control over the economy, unless you go commie.

Let's see some figures then. Show me US GDP growth since 1970 and real income growth of the middle 60% over the same period.

Hey, you're the one insisting there's a problem, and yet the problem you claim isn't the one Reich actually describes. You want to make the claim, you back it up.

And show me where Americans voted for a system where many of them get slightly better off while a tiny proportion get massively better off.

Well, we elected Obama, so we kinda did vote for that.

Americans created all that extra wealth, right? How come they don't have a proper share of it?

And how, pray tell, does one determine what the "proper share" of something is?

 

[xjx388]

If relatve wealth inequality is bad, then it must follow that the solution is to make everyone equal. You have to have redistribute income and wealth so that there are no top or bottom 10%. Is that right?

Do you really think that the majority of Americans want Socialism but the evil richers thwart their desires? Or maybe most of us like our Capitalist Democratic Republic just fine?

 

[DavidJames]

If relatve wealth inequality is bad, then it must follow that the solution is to make everyone equal...

No, that's a strawman to avoid an intelligent discussion.

 

[Mark6]

You say "laughable." I say, "thank God I don't live in Italy, Russia, or Portugal."

I would not say "laughable", but I definitely would like to know the details of how that chart got generated. Because I find it very difficult to believe that bottom 10% in US live better than top 10% in Israel.

 

[Ziggurat]

LOL , that's the second time in about a week somebody linked that. I am not a Marxist but I do believe in Marx's explanation of history.

Why would you believe in his explanation of history when his predictions for the future based on that explanation were so catastrophically wrong?

As to what a proper distribution of wealth would be, i doubt there is one perfect arrangement but I am dead sure the present one and the direction of travel do not suit most Amercans.

And what's your metric for that?

 

[xjx388]

No, that's a strawman to avoid an intelligent discussion.

How so? The OP implies that relative wealth inequality is a bad thing. Thus, it follows that equality must be a good thing. But you can't create equality without redistributing wealth. Most Americans are against wealth redistribution. So I'm addressing the OP directly. I think most of us accept that more freedom equals less equality. We don't want equality of outcome only of opportunity.

 

[Seismosaurus]

If relatve wealth inequality is bad, then it must follow that the solution is to make everyone equal. You have to have redistribute income and wealth so that there are no top or bottom 10%. Is that right?

No. It's not so much relative wealth inequality that is bad, it's the degree of it.

Do you really think that the majority of Americans want Socialism

I don't think the majority of Americans even know what socialism is.

 

[Unabogie]

Do you really think that the majority of Americans want Socialism

Well, yes, but only if you don't call it socialism. For instance, do Americans want universal healthcare?

http://www.ibtimes.com/two-thirds-americans-back-universal-health-care-poll-431376

Do they want a minimum wage?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165794/americans-raising-minimum-wage.aspx

In fact, on a whole host of issues, Americans favor government help.

http://mediamatters.org/research/progmaj/

Now, the question of why they don't vote this way is a good one, and subject to partisan spin, so I'll leave it out of this answer. But it's a fact that Americans favor socialist policies.

 

[xjx388]

No. It's not so much relative wealth inequality that is bad, it's the degree of it.

I assume you mean that lesser degrees are better. Is zero ideal? If not, what is?

I don't think the majority of Americans even know what socialism is.

I think they understand it more than you realize.

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

Two replies by conservatives, neither addressing the facts of the article. Surprising? lol. But watching the dancing start.

The argument is simple

#1 The rich are getting richer
#2 The rich getting richer are not making the poor poorer or more in debt
#3 The fact that the rich are getting richer is not threatening democracy

The claims by Reich are false

 

[Elf Grinder 3000]

I'll answer that. What is a democracy if not rule by the people for the people? A measure of whether it works is whether it delivers what the people want. Unless they are nuts, the people do not want increasing relative impoverishment while a tiny number of stinking rich people own more and more of the system. Get out of that. Checkmate. You guys believe in a mirage.

But we have a constitution which is supposed to protect everyone's rights against the tyranny of the majority.

A simple argument is socialism and wealth redistribution are wrong because they violate fundamental rights protected in the constitution. You can't tax wealth, you can tax realized gains on wealth or transfers of wealth but not wealth.

But the real argument against socialism is that the socialist leaders are really overpromising. They believe that with 1$ more they can deliver utopia. The reality is that they can't deliver utopia but will say anything to get their hands on all the money to redistribute.

This usually doesn't end well economically

The war on poverty was started 50 years ago and many would argue the Trillions spent have not helped shrink the persistent underclass in this country.

Obamacare, welfare government spending seem like wasteful spending sold to us by the intellectuals promising a solution to every ill.

They haven't delivered

 

[Seismosaurus]

I assume you mean that lesser degrees are better. Is zero ideal?

No.

If not, what is?

A rather lesser degree than America has right now.

I think they understand it more than you realize.

I think you're wrong.

 

[fishbob]

The argument is simple

#1 The rich are getting richer
#2 The rich getting richer are not making the poor poorer or more in debt
#3 The fact that the rich are getting richer is not threatening democracy

The claims by Reich are false

1 - pretty well documented.
2 - not documented at all - contrary to some evidence
3 - does not necessarily follow.

Therefore the claims by Elf Grinder may well be false.