-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Mother Jones: "Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters"
- Thread starter Shake Appeal
- Start date
- Status
People are seriously saying that they don't see how income inequality is a bad thing?
Okay, let's examine this.
Millions of kids go hungry in America.
Many of our poor can't afford healthy food, and over a third of them are obese.
26,000 Americans die due to lack of health insurance per year.
The poverty rate in the U.S. is increasing.
These are just a few of the problems caused by low incomes at the bottom of the distribution scale. At the same time, you have a few million people hoarding millions or even billions of dollars that serves no societal purpose except for capital formation and increased luxury good purchases.
Now, what is more important to a society: slightly higher capital formation, or universal health coverage and lower amenable mortality? What is more important to a society, higher yacht sales, or affordable healthy food for people at all income levels? What is more important to a society: higher corporate profits, or children not going hungry?
This isn't a case of the wealthy simply creating theirs out of nothing but sweat and tears while everyone below them are jealous haters.
In many cases, the wealthy have become wealthier by taking from those with less. You want examples of this? Every time a department is downsized and its survivors are pushed to 60 hour work weeks, the wealthy are pillaging America. Every time an unpaid internship takes the place of what used to be an entry-level job, the wealthy are pillaging America. Every time a middle class worker loses health insurance benefits, the wealthy are pillaging America. I could go on and on.
We have mainstream publications like CNN telling us that lower wage jobs are here to stay.
A society that values profits over wages, capital formation over a decent standard of living for all of its citizens, and economic "freedom" over the general welfare, is no real society.
This post should basically be the end of debate on this matter. From here on out, the debate should not be about whether income inequality is wrong, but rather, how to fix the inequality that already exists.
Edit: I realize I may have to actually spell out my general point for some of you, so here it is: Inequality would not be such a problem if everyone's basic needs were met. Since everyone's basic needs are not met, inequality currently represents a massive and unacceptable misallocation of resources. That's all there is to it, basically. If the poor are still so poor, then the wealthy cannot be allowed to hoard so many resources that could be used to improve the living standards of people at the bottom.
Okay, let's examine this.
Millions of kids go hungry in America.
Many of our poor can't afford healthy food, and over a third of them are obese.
26,000 Americans die due to lack of health insurance per year.
The poverty rate in the U.S. is increasing.
These are just a few of the problems caused by low incomes at the bottom of the distribution scale. At the same time, you have a few million people hoarding millions or even billions of dollars that serves no societal purpose except for capital formation and increased luxury good purchases.
Now, what is more important to a society: slightly higher capital formation, or universal health coverage and lower amenable mortality? What is more important to a society, higher yacht sales, or affordable healthy food for people at all income levels? What is more important to a society: higher corporate profits, or children not going hungry?
This isn't a case of the wealthy simply creating theirs out of nothing but sweat and tears while everyone below them are jealous haters.
In many cases, the wealthy have become wealthier by taking from those with less. You want examples of this? Every time a department is downsized and its survivors are pushed to 60 hour work weeks, the wealthy are pillaging America. Every time an unpaid internship takes the place of what used to be an entry-level job, the wealthy are pillaging America. Every time a middle class worker loses health insurance benefits, the wealthy are pillaging America. I could go on and on.
We have mainstream publications like CNN telling us that lower wage jobs are here to stay.
A society that values profits over wages, capital formation over a decent standard of living for all of its citizens, and economic "freedom" over the general welfare, is no real society.
This post should basically be the end of debate on this matter. From here on out, the debate should not be about whether income inequality is wrong, but rather, how to fix the inequality that already exists.
Edit: I realize I may have to actually spell out my general point for some of you, so here it is: Inequality would not be such a problem if everyone's basic needs were met. Since everyone's basic needs are not met, inequality currently represents a massive and unacceptable misallocation of resources. That's all there is to it, basically. If the poor are still so poor, then the wealthy cannot be allowed to hoard so many resources that could be used to improve the living standards of people at the bottom.
INCOME INEQUALITY IS NOT POVERTY. See a fucking dictionary.
Here, let me help:
Poverty: the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor.
Economic inequality (also known as the gap between rich and poor, income inequality, wealth disparity, or wealth and income differences) comprises disparities in the distribution of economic assets (wealth) and income within or between populations or individuals. The term typically refers to inequality among individuals and groups within a society.
This post should end the debate on this matter. No one is saying the two are completely independent. We are just saying that one is bad (poverty), and the other is not (inequality).
I heard that already. Correlation is not causation, sample chosen to prove a point, blah blah blah.
TheContact
Member
Rocket Scientist
Member
The pie is a lie!
krypt0nian
Banned
We're either in cluster fuck territory at this point in the thread, or someone is being willfully ignorant here.
My shtick is: I am for a strong social security, free health care, free and high quality education, and less power for big companies. I am, therefore, very interested in fighting poverty.
I am not, however, against income inequality, and if that is your goal in society I will oppose you. I think that a perfect society has rich people. I have no problem with not being rich myself, and I don't think I will ever be rich. But I think that the possibility of becoming rich is a huge force that contributes to the creation of wealth.
With that said, I am out of this thread, since people fail to realize the difference between conceptual issues and practical issues.
A simple thought experiment may be helpful here.
Imagine ten people are placed on an island. For whatever reason, the island has an ample supply of fruit, docile wild pigs, vegetables, wood, and a large store of construction tools. Each person has his or her own private stream which flows into the ocean and cannot be contaminated by anyone else's stream. The island has so many resources that everyone, with only the slightest effort, can easily meet his or her needs for food, shelter, and water.
If, several months into our island experiment, one guy has built himself a much larger house than everyone else on the island, and has rigged up a system of heated, running water so that he can take hot showers while everyone else bathes in their private stream like a podunk peasant, is that a problem? No, it isn't. Clearly this is inequality, but this inequality didn't come at anyone else's expense. Anyone with sufficient motivation could have created similar "wealth".
The modern economy is not our hypothetical island. Resources are finite, and labor is extremely divided. Production, for the most part, is undertaken by society as a whole, not by individuals (there are exceptions to this, but as a percentage of overall production, not many).
In a modern economy, it is very possible, and even common, for one person's wealth to come from denying wealth to another. We've seen countless examples of this since 2008. I listed many said examples in my previous post.
Heh. Heh.
Imagine ten people are placed on an island. For whatever reason, the island has an ample supply of fruit, docile wild pigs, vegetables, wood, and a large store of construction tools. Each person has his or her own private stream which flows into the ocean and cannot be contaminated by anyone else's stream. The island has so many resources that everyone, with only the slightest effort, can easily meet his or her needs for food, shelter, and water.
If, several months into our island experiment, one guy has built himself a much larger house than everyone else on the island, and has rigged up a system of heated, running water so that he can take hot showers while everyone else bathes in their private stream like a podunk peasant, is that a problem? No, it isn't. Clearly this is inequality, but this inequality didn't come at anyone else's expense. Anyone with sufficient motivation could have created similar "wealth".
The modern economy is not our hypothetical island. Resources are finite, and labor is extremely divided. Production, for the most part, is undertaken by society as a whole, not by individuals (there are exceptions to this, but as a percentage of overall production, not many).
In a modern economy, it is very possible, and even common, for one person's wealth to come from denying wealth to another. We've seen countless examples of this since 2008. I listed many said examples in my previous post.
Heh. Heh.
I would say that inequality isn't inherently bad. I think even a near perfect society would still have some. But I think high levels of inequality are very much inherently bad. They are especially bad, because, as evidenced in our current US system, those with the wealth can use it in order to change society's rules. They can push who they want in government, and they have far more of a sway than someone at the bottom rung of the ladder. Now, I suppose if you have a foolproof constitution that somehow prevents this, then fine income inequality isn't quite as bad. When you have one that doesn't, however, things start to get kind of screwy. Maybe the pie does grow when the rich get richer, but in certain instances when they have too much power they absolutely do shrink the pie for others. They lobby for tax breaks for themselves, and de-regulation for their companies. They lobby for subsidies. Then when the system comes crashing down they lobby for the government to stop its spending right when its needed the most, and that hurts the people on the bottom, but not the people on the top.
So, anyway, some inequality is indeed good. It serves as a motivator, but at a certain point you stop gaining any benefit from it and start losing quite a lot more in other areas.
I don't think we should rush to that point that quickly.
RJT is right; income inequality is a necessary part of capitalism in practice. It's what builds the basic incentives for competition. A society with no income inequality would grow much more slowly than a society with some income inequality.
I think the issue comes from how that income inequality is created, as you said. RJT mentions programmers as an analogy. Programmers can only create income by producing products. The more useful their output, the more they can earn. That's competition at work, and it's a good thing. We want to reward people who produce things society wants. And when they produce useful things, it often winds up benefiting everybody in the society.
Yet in capitalism, business owners don't earn more just from making good outputs, but also from reducing the costs of inputs. And those cost reductions don't have to lead to lower prices. If a business can do the same job with fewer people, or for reduced pay, the owner takes home more money while everyone else gets the same product at the same price. That kind of consolidation doesn't necessarily lead back into the economy at the same rate. It's the extraction of money from those with less to those with more. We can see this in practice in the United States, where real wages for most people have barely risen in decades, while real wages for the highest earners have skyrocketed.
So while I agree that income inequality doesn't cause poverty, it can be a symptom of a dysfunctional society. I think that if incentives are functioning properly, growth should be reaching all parts of society, because the fruits of competition yield better goods of higher quality for more people. If they're not working right, funds can consolidate more easily, and people suffer.
travisbickle
Member
20 - 30 years of stagnant pay increases for ~90% of the population + 20-30 years of inflation and rising cost of living = Increased poverty.
it's a shame that within a few decades conservatives across the spectrum have either given up or are disdainful of the social contract. insofar as using the power of government to help the destitute and poor is no longer a worthwhile objective and to be avoided at all cost. truly, on this one issue, they found a way to separate church and state in a meaningful way.
Great post overall, but I'm snipping the party I want to reply to.
Theoretical income inequality is not a problem, and a moderate level of inequality does have benefits, as you said.
My posts in this thread have been referring exclusively to the current American levels of inequality, and the fact that those levels have been trending steadily upward.
TheContact
Member
sad attempt at a Romney supporter rebuttal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=207411
this is what Obama said in -1998-:
“The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...=maing-grid7|maing6|dl1|sec1_lnk3&pLid=207411
this is what Obama said in -1998-:
“The trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some [wealth] redistribution -- because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”
Randroids have attempted to turn redistribution into a dirty word, but I think more people are in favor of it post-2008.
Has anybody mentioned the problem where public schools in rich areas are better than public schools in poor areas as parents in the wealthy areas have the wealth to fundraise for their own schools and the time and influence to agitate school boards and local politicians to get more funding and resources from the government?
Income inequality should never lead to inequality of opportunity where some kids have a leg up on others based on access to resources. But that's what is happening.
Income inequality should never lead to inequality of opportunity where some kids have a leg up on others based on access to resources. But that's what is happening.
Mean you should be buying that red bull with food stamps. Man you're doing this wrong.
teruterubozu
Member
Property taxes play a huge role in the quality of schools too.
I *think* I see what you're trying to get at. I *think*.
In a vaccuum, if the rich got richer simply by creating wealth (new ideas/products/technology) that people want, this would be okay. Unfortunately, in the real world this is not the case. Much wealth is created at the expense of the rest of society. Derivatives and CDO's could be considered "wealth creation". Most wealth that is created is not actually created by the people that benefit the most from it's creation, it is facilitated through them. Outside of software, and many cases in software after a company gets big, the people at the top do not come up with the ideas or do the work, they rely on a sort of pyramid scheme where they benefit in a grossly disproportionate way from the wealth creation of people under them. The wealth that comes from a new drug, new technology, a new product, or new idea is usually not created by the major stockholders.
Most of the time the facilitators who benefit the most from excessive income inequality don't create, they invest in creation. Investing is of course necessary, and I'm not saying there should be no income inequality or even that investors shouldn't have the biggest piece of the pie. I do feel like excessive income inequality is an indicator that the facilitators are unfairly compensated over the actual wealth creators. Excessive income inequality is also anti-competitive--simply because it is linked with social mobility. It leads to an environment where fewer people are encouraged to attempt to create new wealth on their own because the likelihood of their effort changing their situation is less. Narrower income inequality means more people are encouraged to create new wealth for themselves.
I am way too tired to be typing right now. I'll revisit this post, your posts, and that essay tomorrow and see if this rant sounds insane. G'night!
metalslimer
Member
Inequality is a necessary part of the system. That's not even close to the issue. The issue is when the inequality drastically gets bigger.
Sanky Panky
Banned
Instead of going through great lengths to show that income inequality is not bad, or how it relates to poverty, this is all a discussion of communism vs socialism vs capitalism.
The only problem is, what we have today in the world as "capitalism" is a far cry from what Adam Smith envisioned. After the birth of big corporations, the pieces have been falling into place (the creation of the Fed/World Bank/IMF, an enabling political force with Reagan), where we already have centrally planned economies, but it is planned by those at the top of the food chain.
There is no democracy (mainly due to an uneducated complacent populace), and there is no capitalism. Obama vs Romney are just two ends of the spectrum of serving corporate interests.
The only problem is, what we have today in the world as "capitalism" is a far cry from what Adam Smith envisioned. After the birth of big corporations, the pieces have been falling into place (the creation of the Fed/World Bank/IMF, an enabling political force with Reagan), where we already have centrally planned economies, but it is planned by those at the top of the food chain.
There is no democracy (mainly due to an uneducated complacent populace), and there is no capitalism. Obama vs Romney are just two ends of the spectrum of serving corporate interests.
Rocket Scientist
Member
Why is the word wealth there, when he doesn't even use that word once in the full context of the quote?
I was thinking this morning how investors are always applauded because they provide capital etc. for start-ups and companies that want to expand. How exactly is that true when I invest in a stock owned by someone other than the actual company? I'm not providing that company with capital, I'm buying it from a third party. Why exactly am I entitled to a lower tax rate in this situation? And aren't most investments and transaction in the stock market like this? Buying stocks etc from a third party rather than actually providing capital to the company itself. When a company issues new stock sure, but it feels like the vast majority of transactions are among third parties. Seems stupid to label that job creation or anything like that. Certainly doesn't warrant a massive cut of the tax rate...
Even if you were a super conservative republican, with stuff like this and his campaign complaining about 'fact checkers' after being caught in multiple lies, and just the general way his campaign has been run; how do you trust this guy to lead the country? That behavior is shady as hell. I wouldn't even let such a person into my house, let alone the white house.
Seriously, every other word out of a person's mouth is a lie, and the rest is just vile shit, and they want to sell you the contents of a box, but won't tell you what's inside before you buy - how do you not just walk away from that?
LiveFromKyoto
Member
538 comes through this morning backing up what I was saying yesterday - this isn't the apocalypse for Romney despite every newspaper trying to play up his "struggling, sinking campaign," that's not what's actually been happening in reality.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com
I don't think Romney's going to win, but I do think the media echo chamber is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground through most of this. They live these news stories every day, but the vast majority of people don't, they're doing other things, or are willing to shrug them off because "he's still better than the other guy," whichever way the gaffes blow.
Nate Silver said:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com
I don't think Romney's going to win, but I do think the media echo chamber is completely out of touch with the reality on the ground through most of this. They live these news stories every day, but the vast majority of people don't, they're doing other things, or are willing to shrug them off because "he's still better than the other guy," whichever way the gaffes blow.
bengraven
Member
Energy drinks aren't covered by food stamps!
Only government assistance money...and I use that to buy weed and porn.
Sanky Panky
Banned
How do you control greed? THAT is the question.
If you centrally planned greed, the ones at the top will cry socialism or worst, communism.
If you try to cap greed, the Friedman's of the world will yell doom and gloom for growth.
Finally, we know that greed won't manage itself out of the goodness of people's hearts.
My best suggestion is to take away the tools of greed. Big banks, political influence, tax shelters, exotic investment vehicles... but heh this won't happen in our lifetimes. It can only get worse.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Tools of greed naturally arise in sufficiently large populations. There's no real good way to prevent power consolidation that we've discovered.
gutter_trash
Banned
if the middle class become poor, they won't be able to consume as much.
the country is built on consumption, if the poverty gap increases... then you have less consumers and the local economy goes to blah
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
But a series of similar events can accomplish two things: establish a narrative that Romney is unfit to lead, and eat up valuable time that Romney could otherwise spend trying to convince the electorate to vote for him. Romney has had to endure one potential campaign crisis after another, and eventually it will cost him, if it has not already.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
Agreed. It's just that when they continually try to paint individual gaffes as THE END it just feels like they're trying to be the observer that saw it first, not reporting what's really going on. Lehman brothers killed McCain because it directly affected people's lives. These other things just don't in the same way.
Yep. I agree with the notion that the media is typically out of touch with how voters really perceive and react to the numerous "gaffes" and "-gates" it cooks up. But as long as the candidates and everyone else in the Beltway bubble convince themselves that these things matter, they will continue to spend more time trying to deal with these "crises" instead of doing things that will actually connect with voters.
Isn't it inevitable that a species like humans, which evolved in a fairly competitive environment, will default to greed?
Mgoblue201
Won't stop picking the right nation
I agree that the punditry is too effusive in its response to what it perceives as gaffes or mistakes by the candidates; I tend to trust Ezra Klein on these things, since he is leery of the impact that gaffes actually have on the race. Still, if the media response is large enough, then it can contribute to the perception of the candidate. Every day that the media talks about Libya or the 47% remark is one less day that the media will spend talking about any of Romney's strengths (as they are) or Obama's weaknesses. Romney, especially, is no longer capable of controlling the narrative.
Bro fistEnergy drinks aren't covered by food stamps!
Only government assistance money...and I use that to buy weed and porn.
From PoliGAF. Thanks PhoenixDark
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE88I1E920120919
Romney's "47 percent" remarks damage his image with voters: Reuters/Ipsos poll
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/19/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE88I1E920120919
Romney's "47 percent" remarks damage his image with voters: Reuters/Ipsos poll
6 in 10? That's way too low.
onadesertedisland
Member
I can't believe the Republicans trying to goad Mittens to double down on his disdain for anyone not wealthy.
Maybe capping salaries based on the total payed out to employees, when company is over X amount of employees?
Afro Gunsou
Banned
He doesn't really have a choice. One of the biggest things that Mitt has criticized Obama for is being a flip-flopper. He knows that if he does the same, people are no longer going to take the flip-flop argument seriously.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
I don't understand this attitude that no matter how wrong or damaging your initial position on any issue, that changing your mind for any reason at all is a sign if deplorable, if not dangerous, weakness.
- Status