Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" It was done somewhat at the expense of the wealthy(higher taxes for them) and largely through the use of socialism."
If you willing and have the time.... please explain in the context of socialism.
The New Deal, passed in the 30's under Roosevelt, laid the groundwork for sweeping socialist policies for the next several decades. Redistribution of wealth from the top down(the wealthiest Americans paid as much as 80% of their income in taxes at some points), the GI Bill(which turned servicemen and their families into the middle class), a progressive tax structure, high paying pension programs for government employees, guaranteed rights of unions in the workplace, etc. These are all things that today would be seen as radically socialist and wouldn't stand a chance in hell of passing in Congress. And you have to understand, the middle class is not a natural phenomenon. The middle class has to be created and nurtured by the government because the natural state of a capitalistic society is some people having most of the money, and the rest of the population struggling to get their piece of the rest. Socialism created the American middle class, and ever since then pro-corporate, anti-worker policies have crumpled it.
So I was thinking the other day (dangerous I know) and wouldnt any attempt to give the middle class/lower class a stimulus or wage increase just make the 1% RICHER....bear with me now. The 1% own the businesses we buy from....when the typical American gets money, they spend it....when we buy something, it makes the owners wealthier....e.g...if we make more money, the 1% will just get richer?
I think you've stumbled on the essence of economics. Money is like rain water that end up in a few water barrels minus leakages. You throw money at people and in no time at all that money will end up in a few pockets. One must throw money at people all the time to keep them jumping/working. Fixed money supply = death of the complex economy. What's the point of investment if you have all the money in circulation minus peon' maintenance? Luckily, we learned how to create new money constantly via magic of the fractional banking so everybody keeps jumping, and investors keep on investing because money shower doesn't stop raining until it stops because "debt" (a stepchild of new money) becomes too uncomfortable to fathom. Usually, it takes some turbulence to wipe out the fictitious debt new money generated, once the debts are wiped out, new money shower must rain again.
Speaking of New Deal, re-distributive policies become far less important if one can make new money shower rain like it rains today. Think about Obama "stimulus"? Trillions $ popped out of nowhere to be gobbled up by a black hole. We were told that "debt" increased. Why bother with re-distribution if you can "stimulate" economy in that way over and over?
Last edited by RememberMee; 02-21-2015 at 06:21 PM..
No, that's not the case. The 1% are typically CEOs who are paid a fixed amount by contract, and may or may not get a raise based on the performance of the company. The stockholders benefit, and most are people like us in the 99% who have small investments in stocks, or retirement investments that include those companies from which we buy. Most others in the 1% are university football coaches, doctors, professional athletes, top news anchors, and actors/actresses, none of whom benefit from increased purchases by the 99%.
Those people are just toys to the real powers that be. The true oligarchy is the .1%. They want to own/control every resource on the planet. Each one considers himself Emperor of the world.
Collectively they own enough wealth and are diversified to the point that they cannot be affected by market forces. It is simply ebb and flow, like the tides of the ocean. It is the rest of us who are subject to erosion from those tides. People love to have their labels, a neat little box to put everything in. The 99%. Us vs them.
Forget the labels and boxes and learn to know your enemy by his ACTIONS.
1. Economics are much more complicated than your simple question.
2. All this stuff about the "1%" really isn't a truly breakdown of the various economic classes in America. stop believing propaganda.
3. What would a "middle class stimulus" look like? We've had various government "payments" or "rebates" before and things didn't change much.
1: The capitalist economy is like a closed loop electrical circuit. At one end, those with more money invest those funds. They make and sell products or provide services at a profit. The profit is then re-invested to circulate and create more profits. Many smaller loops can be spliced into the main circuit. These are the everyday folks earning and spending money. As long as the circuit remains closed the money continues to flow back to the origination point. As long as the money flows out from the origination point the circuit remains closed. This is the easiest concept for understanding the basic nature of our economy.
2: The 1% is simply a rallying cry for those who are beginning to realize how poorly we as citizens of our nation have been exploited over the last 180 years.
3: The middle class needs no stimulus other than an elimination of legislation created to address so called societal concerns in such a manner as to serve the interests of those who have used their wealth to acquire political power, to be replaced with legislation that meets the standard of what is best for the majority of the citizens who make up our nation. The checks and balances system of government should apply to capitalism as well.
So I was thinking the other day (dangerous I know) and wouldnt any attempt to give the middle class/lower class a stimulus or wage increase just make the 1% RICHER....bear with me now. The 1% own the businesses we buy from....when the typical American gets money, they spend it....when we buy something, it makes the owners wealthier....e.g...if we make more money, the 1% will just get richer?
ThatGuyDownSouth, you’re correct; thinking is certainly disconcerting. I believe you’re on to a truth.
Populist economic policies percolate their nations’ people up through income brackets of increasing purchasing powers. Due to the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers and their effects upon their nations’ median wage and their entire economies benefit.
Although proportional to incomes, lesser earners are greater beneficiaries of populist policies, (because the entire population shares a greater pie), higher income earners receive the greater amounts of benefits due to their nations’ economic improvement.
The obvious question is if populist policies are of such net benefit, why are so many conservatives opposed to them?
Of course if you’re doing so well with the status quo, you’re much less likely to risk change and more likely to believe what has been to your benefit has also been to your nation’s best interests. Although commercial enterprises and their nations’ best interests generally converge, upon some issues they diverge.
What’s seldom discussed is some people’s need to obtain and/or retain superior status over others. These are people of such little confidence in their own self worth that they are impelled to do what they can to restrain and/or diminish others. They cannot admit even to themselves that if they had to choose greater status for themselves or greater wealth and lesser status, their need for status is of greater priority. To their minds the greatest benefit of wealth is the status that that they can derive from that wealth.
ThatGuyDownSouth, you’re correct; thinking is certainly disconcerting. I believe you’re on to a truth.
Populist economic policies percolate their nations’ people up through income brackets of increasing purchasing powers. Due to the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers and their effects upon their nations’ median wage and their entire economies benefit.
Although proportional to incomes, lesser earners are greater beneficiaries of populist policies, (because the entire population shares a greater pie), higher income earners receive the greater amounts of benefits due to their nations’ economic improvement.
The obvious question is if populist policies are of such net benefit, why are so many conservatives opposed to them?
Of course if you’re doing so well with the status quo, you’re much less likely to risk change and more likely to believe what has been to your benefit has also been to your nation’s best interests. Although commercial enterprises and their nations’ best interests generally converge, upon some issues they diverge.
What’s seldom discussed is some people’s need to obtain and/or retain superior status over others. These are people of such little confidence in their own self worth that they are impelled to do what they can to restrain and/or diminish others. They cannot admit even to themselves that if they had to choose greater status for themselves or greater wealth and lesser status, their need for status is of greater priority. To their minds the greatest benefit of wealth is the status that that they can derive from that wealth.
Respectfully, Supposn
Well said. You understand the nature of the divide. When political power can be purchased with wealth, the smallest and meanest of men may wield more power than the mightiest of warriors or the wisest of statesmen. Entire nations can be subjugated by this means.
In recent history, a foolish and vain king attempted to take and hold the richest lands in the world. He did so by sending better men than him to tame a wilderness. With that accomplished, he then decreed that they should turn everything they had worked for over to the Crown.
That didn't work out so well for him. Many lessons were learned about the nature of tyranny and what it means to be free. The wise and brave men who opposed him passed on those lessons for future generations to benefit from. I speak, of course, of the American Revolution and the Constitution.
Our "leaders" have lost the meaning of those lessons.
The middle class has to be created and nurtured by the government because the natural state of a capitalistic society is some people having most of the money, and the rest of the population struggling to get their piece of the rest. Socialism created the American middle class, and ever since then pro-corporate, anti-worker policies have crumpled it.
Thanks for the explanation. Also to ContrarianEcon for the response.
Originally Posted by thatguydownsouth So I was thinking the other day (dangerous I know) and wouldnt any attempt to give the middle class/lower class a stimulus or wage increase just make the 1% RICHER....bear with me now. The 1% own the businesses we buy from....when the typical American gets money, they spend it....when we buy something, it makes the owners wealthier....e.g...if we make more money, the 1% will just get richer?
Which would be fine if the "rich" simply saw their wealth increase due to an increase in the number of consumers and/or consumers with more to spend. Unfortunately this is not how it plays out, for the reason that Supposn mentioned in the below quote. The desire to maintain distinction between varying levels of status represents the ultimate dark side of capitalism, particularly so as those with a greater earning capacity are performing less and less actual work in many industries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supposn
ThatGuyDownSouth, you’re correct; thinking is certainly disconcerting. I believe you’re on to a truth.
Populist economic policies percolate their nations’ people up through income brackets of increasing purchasing powers. Due to the increased migration of employees to wages of greater purchasing powers and their effects upon their nations’ median wage and their entire economies benefit.
Although proportional to incomes, lesser earners are greater beneficiaries of populist policies, (because the entire population shares a greater pie), higher income earners receive the greater amounts of benefits due to their nations’ economic improvement.
The obvious question is if populist policies are of such net benefit, why are so many conservatives opposed to them?
Of course if you’re doing so well with the status quo, you’re much less likely to risk change and more likely to believe what has been to your benefit has also been to your nation’s best interests. Although commercial enterprises and their nations’ best interests generally converge, upon some issues they diverge.
What’s seldom discussed is some people’s need to obtain and/or retain superior status over others. These are people of such little confidence in their own self worth that they are impelled to do what they can to restrain and/or diminish others. They cannot admit even to themselves that if they had to choose greater status for themselves or greater wealth and lesser status, their need for status is of greater priority. To their minds the greatest benefit of wealth is the status that that they can derive from that wealth.
I like being in the 1%. It's worked out well for me.
Obviously being wealthy is better than the alternative. I certainly enjoy life more now that I'm wealthy. But money is power, and power without responsibility is tyranny. The vast majority of people will never be wealthy, but they should be able to live a nice life without constantly worrying about money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
