Top 400 Americans control same amount of wealth as the bottom 50%.

[pi-r8]

You know, that line of thinking has always just pissed me off. We have these things called elections where people actually go in and vote for our leaders. They are not chosen by Inver Brass, The Illuminati, Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, or the Stonecutters.

...
We also have these things called "campaign financing" and "political action committees." To say that money has no influence on politics is incredibly naive.

 

[amadeus]

You know, that line of thinking has always just pissed me off. We have these things called elections where people actually go in and vote for our leaders. They are not chosen by Inver Brass, The Illuminati, Freemasons, Knights of Columbus, or the Stonecutters.

But somehow, they all end up being members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Betchel, the Kissinger Associates, Goldman Sachs, etc.

 

[timtofly]

400 families running the country? That's not democracy

I wouldn't have an issue with this if

1. There was no way to influence politicians with money.
2. There was good social mobility in the country

This is what it really boils down to.

No one will listen to me, but socialism does not work in a capitalistic country.

The problem is (now) there are too many people getting government "money" than there are people working to put into that fund. If the government did not take out of the "system" all of that money there would be more "freedom" in how that money was incorporated. The money of the rich is being laundered through the people "in charge". The people "in charge" are taking the money from thin air and making it possible for people to stop working, thus businesses shrivel and the people who own the money are the only ones providing the means to keep that money flowing.

There used to be a more moderate-even flow of money through local businesses owned and operated locally. However when the government took over the "socials" and money had to be distrubuted in a less effecient manner, then bureaucracy forced monopolies and favoratism, thus the middle has vanished and the unbalance began between the top and the bottom.

 

[Truronian]

Moderator Action: Thread title corrected

 

[Whomp]

The destroyed have a bone to pick I'm sure.

Not that any of these people are "self-made," unless they stumbled across a windfall of gold in a creek somewhere, or were a one-man business the entire time.

I'm sure they do have a bone to pick. What it seems people object to is capital is not always pretty or admirable. Fact is, it might take your job.

However, profit is also fleeting for the entrepreneur/innovator because as Marx fully understood innovation moves resources from old and obsolescent to new and more productive. What many economists, like Marx, couldn't grasp is profit does provide an economic function. No one but the innovator makes a genuine "profit" and outsized at that (read about the 270 I mentioned earlier). Thing is, the innovator's profit is always short-lived as competition comes in (see Ames vs. Wal Mart), more capital is needed and "profit" now becomes the cost of staying in business. As Marx recognized ,very clearly, old is replaced by new and ever changing. It's the propulsion of progress, the dramatic changes in one's life and crushing destruction that makes capitalism so sociologically fragile but so economically successful.

A stationary feudal economy would still be a feudal economy, and a stationary socialist economy would still be a socialist economy, stationary capitalism is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Cutlass]

A stationary feudal economy would still be a feudal economy, and a stationary socialist economy would still be a socialist economy, stationary capitalism is a contradiction in terms

I don't see how that quite follows. Stationary capitalism is the goal of many capitalists. This is why anti-trust laws were developed in the first place. Say, rather, that stationary capitalism won't happen so long as capitalists are prevented from bringing it about. And market forces alone can't be counted on for that prevention.

 

[Whomp]

I don't see how that quite follows. Stationary capitalism is the goal of many capitalists. This is why anti-trust laws were developed in the first place. Say, rather, that stationary capitalism won't happen so long as capitalists are prevented from bringing it about. And market forces alone can't be counted on for that prevention.

Which ones? The ones at Eastman Kodak, maybe? It never surprises me how poorly companies perform once they bump up against anti-trust.

There's no stopping what forces will change how people operate whether we're talking about the advent of money markets on velocity or iPads/iPhones on Blackberry.

 

[Cutlass]

What about how poorly they perform when they don't run into anti-trust? You assume that an entrepreneur can beat a monopoly. But whether or not he gets a chance to do so depends on the limits placed on the monopoly.

 

[History_Buff]

That makes the math work out even worse than it does with "families". 400 people do not make up 1% of America's population.

Ah, yes, I see the confusion there. I got caught up in the same title-based confusion as much of the thread it seems. I meant to say that 400 individuals have more wealth than the bottom 50% (that being what Moore said, and is all the buzz on the net right now of course, and thus stuck in my head), which is not really what plarq was talking about when he mentioned families. My bad.

 

[Whomp]

What about how poorly they perform when they don't run into anti-trust? You assume that an entrepreneur can beat a monopoly. But whether or not he gets a chance to do so depends on the limits placed on the monopoly.

Other than natural monopolies, like a toll bridge, I would suggest that deregulating industries like long distance phone service or airlines have been very beneficial. No argument there...

However, monopoly in private business is extremely rare, and even then they only approach monopolistic power bur are not perfect monopolies. The closest I can figure would be Microsoft, I would contend, they've completely missed the boat over the last decade versus the previous decade.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

No one will listen to me

You know why?

This is why:

but socialism does not work in a capitalistic country.