How is everything not collapsing in the US?

[Commodore]

I was just heading off anyone that would have made that connection on their own.

There's that photo in the other thread, of a different confrontation, where the police are standing between the two sides, clearly focusing their attention on one side and literally turning their backs to the other. (In that scene, there didn't appear to be any violence happening. I think it was just a protest-counterprotest.

I'm not familiar with the situation in question here, but just from what you described, the police may have been focusing on the group they felt was a bigger threat to themselves. I mean, if one side of a protest is anti-police and the other is pro-police, it could be seen as reasonable for police to expect violence against them to come from the anti-police side and treat them accordingly. That doesn't necessarily mean they are showing support for the pro-police protestors, just that they don't see them as a threat and thus don't police them as heavily as they do the anti-police side.

Of course I must reiterate that the above is just based on what you described without any further knowledge of the particulars of the incident. There may be additional details that do, in fact, indicate that the police were using their authority to bully political opponents.

 

[innonimatu]

On the racial discrimination discussions in the US, specifically the 'anti-racism' initiatives:

In fact, if you look at how white and black wealth are distributed in the U.S., you see right away that the very idea of racial wealth is an empty one. The top 10 percent of white people have 75 percent of white wealth; the top 20 percent have virtually all of it. And the same is true for black wealth. The top 10 percent of black households hold 75 percent of black wealth.

That means, as Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project recently noted, “the overall racial wealth disparity is driven almost entirely by the disparity between the wealthiest 10 percent of white people and the wealthiest 10 percent of black people.” While Bruenig is clear that a discernible wealth gap exists across class levels, he explored the impact of eliminating the gap between the bottom 90 percent of each group and found that after doing so 77.5 percent of the overall gap would remain. He then examined the effect of eliminating the wealth gap between the bottom 50 percent - the median point - of each population and found that doing so would eliminate only 3 percent of the racial gap. So, 97 percent of the racial wealth gap exists among the wealthiest half of each population. And, more tellingly, more than three-fourths of it is concentrated in the top 10 percent of each. If you say to those white people in the bottom 50 percent (people who have basically no wealth at all) that the basic inequality in the U.S. is between black and white, they know you are wrong. More tellingly, if you say the same thing to the black people in the bottom 50 percent (people who have even less than no wealth at all), they also know you are wrong. It’s not all the white people who have the money; it’s the top ten percent of (mainly) whites, and some blacks and some Asians. The wealth gap among all but the wealthiest blacks and whites is dwarfed by the class gap, the difference between the wealthiest and everyone else across the board.
[...]
Complaints about disproportionality are liberal math. And a politics centered on challenging disproportionality comes with the imprimatur of no less a Doctor of the Church of Left Neoliberalism than economist Paul Krugman, who asserted in his role as ideologist for the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign that “horizontal” inequality, i.e., inequalities measured “between racially or culturally defined groups,” is what’s really important in America and dismissed Sen. Bernie Sanders’ elaborate program for social-democratic redistribution as “a pipe dream.”
It’s the fixation on disproportionality that tells us the increasing wealth of the one percent would be OK if only there more black, brown, and LGBTQIA+ billionaires. And the fact that antiracism and antidiscrimination of all kinds would validate rather than undermine the stratification of wealth in American society is completely visible to those who currently possess that wealth - all the rich people eager to embark on a course of moral purification (antiracist training) but with no interest whatsoever in a politics (social-democratic redistribution) that would alter the material conditions that make them rich.

It's collapsing and this one percent has been successful at keeping the course...

Also worth quoting:

The median hourly wage for white non-Hispanic men in eight out of eleven of the occupational categories in which black woman are underpaid is less than $20 an hour (and in a ninth, Healthcare social workers, it’s barely over $20.) Disparity tells us the problem to solve is that the black women make $.20 an hour less than the white men. Reality tells us it’s not that $.20 an hour that makes those black women workers’ economic situations precarious. Everyone receiving an hourly wage of less than $20 is in a precarious economic position. And it’s not just that this report makes no reference to the need to raise the wages of all workers in those eleven front-line occupational categories. Every time we cast the objectionable inequality in terms of disparity we make the fundamental injustice - the difference between what front-line workers make and what their bosses and the shareholders in the corporations their bosses work for make - either invisible, or worse. Because if your idea of social justice is making wages for underpaid black women equal to those of slightly less underpaid white men, you either can’t see the class structure or you have accepted the class structure.
The extent to which even nominal leftists ignore this reality is an expression of the extent of neoliberalism’s ideological victory over the last four decades. Indeed, if we remember Margaret Thatcher’s dictum, “Economics are the method: the object is to change the soul,” the weaponizing of antiracism to deploy liberal morality as the solution to capitalism’s injustices makes it clear it’s the soul of the left she had in mind.

 

[Lexicus]

The numbers in that piece really validate what I've been trying to say all along, which is that materially benefitting 90% of black people means redistributing a lot of wealth from rich people to poor people.

Thanks for sharing @innonimatu

 

[Birdjaguar]

For the bottom 50% of the nation the problem is an income problem (not enough to get by let alone build any wealth). For the top 5% the inequity is a wealth problem. They own more assets than they should. Each problem has to solved differently.

 

[Lexicus]

For the bottom 50% of the nation the problem is an income problem (not enough to get by let alone build any wealth). For the top 5% the inequity is a wealth problem. They own more assets than they should. Each problem has to solved differently.

corporate wants you to find the difference between these solutions
(it's the same solution)

 

[Birdjaguar]

corporate wants you to find the difference between these solutions
(it's the same solution)

They are different. How one takes away or limits assets is a very different process than how one distributes income.

EDIT: If assets are distributed rather than income, then that is a very different problem from distributing income.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Every time I see the title of this thread the only answer I can think of is "who says they aren't?"

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Keep in mind that wealth inequallity before ww1 was much higher than today but living standard before ww1 was maybe higher than anything before 1950. So high wealth inequallity don't mean low living standard and and low wealth inequallity don't mean high living standard.

In fact many of the countries with highest wealth inequallity also have the highest living standard: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country

Like the scandinavia countries are some of the most wealth unequal countries in the world but at the same time have some of the lowest income inequallity.

 

[innonimatu]

Keep in mind that wealth inequallity before ww1 was much higher than today but living standard before ww1 was maybe higher than anything before 1950.

Where exactly was that, which specific statistics are you using to come up with that statement?

In fact many of the countries with highest wealth inequallity also have the highest living standard: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/wealth-inequality-by-country

The table and the text in the page you linked to contradict each other. Have you looked at the primary sources?

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The table and the text in the page you linked to contradict each other. Have you looked at the primary sources?

Because they switch between wealth and income inequallity which are two different things. Countries like Sweden have extreamly high wealth inequallity but low income inequallity and the same apply to Denmark and Norway.

Wealth inequallity is not automatically bad because there are many factors that cause it. Material inequallity is much worse but is going down. For example the difference between a society in which the rich own a car and the poor don't own a car and a society in which the rich own 10 cars and the poor own one car is quite big in terms of material inequallity, the society in which the poor also own a car is far more material equal since the difference between having and not having is far greater than having and having alot of an item. So even if the society in which the rich own 10 car score alot worse on wealth inequallity, it is probably still the better society to live in.

Where exactly was that, which specific statistics are you using to come up with that statement?

Well we can start with saying that the time period of 1914 to 1945 or 31 years had two world wars + great depression, in comparison the decades before atleast in western europe had been relative peaceful.

 

[Socrates99]

Because they switch between wealth and income inequallity which are two different things. Countries like Sweden have extreamly high wealth inequallity but low income inequallity and the same apply to Denmark and Norway.

Wealth inequallity is not automatically bad because there are many factors that cause it. Material inequallity is much worse but is going down. For example the difference between a society in which the rich own a car and the poor don't own a car and a society in which the rich own 10 cars and the poor own one car is quite big in terms of material inequallity, the society in which the poor also own a car is far more material equal since the difference between having and not having is far greater than having and having alot of an item. So even if the society in which the rich own 10 car score alot worse on wealth inequallity, it is probably still the better society to live in.

Well we can start with saying that the time period of 1914 to 1945 or 31 years had two world wars + great depression, in comparison the decades before atleast in western europe had been relative peaceful.

I'm with Innonimatu here, where and when are we talking about here? In the US the early 1900s saw some pretty gross inequality and I dont think the living conditions for the bulk of the population were any better before WWI than they were in the period leading up to the Depression. Most people lived in multigenerational homes they didn't own. Labor laws were almost nonexistent. Men 16 and up worked an avg of 55hrs a week. Workplace mortality was quite high. People's diets consisted of as much lard as they did meat.

Funny part is your example of a car was really the only thing that wasn't a problem before WWI. We had much better public transport back then in the streetcar system. You didnt need to own a car to easily commute.

I mean you could say two wars and a depression made things more rough but that has about squat to do with inequality.

 

[innonimatu]

Because they switch between wealth and income inequallity which are two different things. Countries like Sweden have extreamly high wealth inequallity but low income inequallity and the same apply to Denmark and Norway.

And they make that switch without properly labeling things. Which was the point I was trying to draw attention to. The piece does not strike me as trustworthy, at least regarding the competence of the author.

Wealth inequallity is not automatically bad because there are many factors that cause it. Material inequallity is much worse but is going down. For example the difference between a society in which the rich own a car and the poor don't own a car and a society in which the rich own 10 cars and the poor own one car is quite big in terms of material inequallity, the society in which the poor also own a car is far more material equal since the difference between having and not having is far greater than having and having alot of an item. So even if the society in which the rich own 10 car score alot worse on wealth inequallity, it is probably still the better society to live in.

Well we can start with saying that the time period of 1914 to 1945 or 31 years had two world wars + great depression, in comparison the decades before atleast in western europe had been relative peaceful.

That is another vague statement.

On the cars comparison, having seen places where indeed one in 10 had cars, and times where everyone had (past times) I will say that inequality is higher now. When just a few had cars most people still owned the basics, indeed were nearly self-sufficient. Mules or hoses or oxes did the transportation before cars and trucks, at least as far as the places where trucks or train picked up the goods and people, and did so effectively. The car was a luxury that the big local landowner or local priest used more to impress in a few trips than in daily use. Now we have people too poor to own a car, and a horse or mule does not cut it, nor does walking, as it did back then, for today's needs require car transportation.

Having see the loss of that near self-sufficiency, and what it did to people's self-regard, I say without the slightest doubt that today we're worse of as a society. It wasn't necessarily so, that we are worse today is due to the fact that the "needs" multiplied but these needs became businesses and many people can't afford them all. For one example apart from cars, good luck trying to deal with today's bureaucracy without a computer and internet connection, the second of which puts you paying a monthly rent to some "provider".
And here in Europe we don't have it nearly as bad as people on the other side of the Atlantic, because some are still socialized.

Speaking of bureaucracy: plenty of old people here built their own homes. With hired or free help, they could do it. Family and friends provided informal loans that were quickly repaid. And bureaucracy was minimal.

Today before even starting to build a home their grandchildren have to:
- hire an architect to do the design
- hire an engineer to design the structure
- hire a certified electrician or an electrical engineer (it depends) to do the electrical project
- hire an engineers to do the plumbing project
- hire an environment engineer or someone with a certification to to an "energy use" calculation (entirely and utterly useless in practice, it's a tax)
- buy some kind o renewable energy system (heat exchange, solar or photovoltaic panels) from an approved installer
- pay the municipal fees and wait for approval, which may or may not come.
- own the necessary land in an area zoned for urban construction, which is heavily inflated in price compared to other land, due to managed artificial scarcity.
- hire a licensed construction company to do the building.
And I'm sure I forgot plenty of other imposition.

You will argue that all this means is necessary and makes a house built today much "better" that a house built 50 years ago before all this crap was necessary. Thing is, more than half the people around here live in those 50+ years houses, modified as necessary over time. The "value" added by all these modern impositions does not seem that important, does it? But the practical effect is creating more "business": good for GDP I'm sure... not good for the people who would have built their own houses 50 years ago and now have no chance of ever owning one.

This is another way in which inequality increased: the importance of money to pay for all the authorizations and needs of modern life, which increased hugely, means that the poor are more excluded from society, or more precariously desperately clinging to a lawful life, than their fathers and grandfathers were.
Excessive complexity kills societies.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

(I'm avoiding the political angle of this as much as I can, but I can't avoid it 100%.)

The USA is collapsing, it has not collapsed yet.

Why hasn't it taken longer to collapsed sooner; as in why the Americans still have electricity at this very moment? The USA used to be rich. Remember, folks owned houses back in the 90's.

Imagine if you threw an ice-cube into the hot-sun. Now imagine if that ice-cube (USA's economy) were to be very, very big; it would take longer for it to melt. Some parts would melt quicker, such as the top part that is exposed to the sun.

Also, Trump, while undeniably extremely horrible and is truly doing an extraordinary level-of-damage, tends to make a lot of noise.

That's basically it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The numbers in that piece really validate what I've been trying to say all along, which is that materially benefitting 90% of black people means redistributing a lot of wealth from rich people to poor people.

That sentence works just as well with one word removed.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Every time I see the title of this thread the only answer I can think of is "who says they aren't?"

"who says it isn't?" surely.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"who says it isn't?" surely.

I refuse to have my English corrected by someone who can't spell color.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

The difference between the collapse/collapsing of the USA and the Roman Empire (perhaps the Cold War) is that we have a combination of [1] Trump, [2] nuclear-weaponry, and [3] climate change.

We didn't have this combination in history before.

-----

Try to focus on the present moment. I don't mean in a sense of getting drunk or anything like that. I literally mean focus on the actual three seconds ahead of you.

 

[Socrates99]

The difference between the collapse/collapsing of the USA and the Roman Empire (perhaps the Cold War) is that we have a combination of [1] Trump, [2] nuclear-weaponry, and [3] climate change.

We didn't have this combination in history before.

-----

Try to focus on the present moment. I don't mean in a sense of getting drunk or anything like that. I literally mean focus on the actual three seconds ahead of you.

Well, Rome had plenty of loony emperors to parallel your number 1 but 2 and 3 are unique.

 

[red_elk]

Nuclear weaponry doesn't have much effect on the process of collapse of your country.
Trust me.

 

[Crime Doesn't Pay]

I've stated my thoughts. I'm happy that you have different views(s) from me. GL HF with your games.