Citigroup: The rich will continue to get richer at the expense of everyone else

[Not not Mattaru]

Yes, i know you're not a twit like plow, but what i am getting at is that the discussion over whether the rich are mean or good or responsible is a marginal issue and i feel it is distracting from the main point which was that large wealth gaps are bad and the government seems to be involved in their creation. I am not even considering marxist analisis which would say that this is a normal process of capitalism.

True, but I think people's characterization of the rich is important for teasing through what people think the government ought to do and ought not do in regards to the distribution of capital in a society.

I suppose you could say my thought on the income gap is Marxist. That would be partially correct if my view of capitalism was bound to how capitalism exists now. Which it is not. I do believe as long as corporate culture is hierarchic so will the capital distribution, and as power becomes ossified, so will capital distribution. Can the government do or not do things that catalyzes or encourages this process? Yes I think they can, the same way as anyone can try to make power relations more static. Does it have to do so categorically? I do not think so either. In the US I would attribute it to our myopic vision of 'capitalism' and its fervent following.

[Cadsuane]

It's only conducive to political instability when politicians use it in that way. Democrats frame the rich getting richer as stealing from the poor. Obviously that's going to cause instability. But if politicians went around saying the rich getting richer meant more jobs or something of the sort it wouldn't be. It only causes instability if you use it as a populist weapon.

False, trivial to prove it with historical precedent. Democrats, Socialists and satan can't frame any issue any way unless a large number of people want to have it framed that way. Politicians sieze on general attitudes that originate in the public sphere, and this is especially true about issues of social class. That economic inequality causes unrest is a very well substantiated claim (indeed there are those that argue that that's the sole root cause of unrest and war), and the idea that it's a boogeyman conjured up by liberal conspiracy to agitate a public that would otherwise be content with their wages and social class is beyond absurd. That is to say that lots of people on the left and right use it as a "populist weapon" and sometimes stir up some serious shit because of it, but social unrest isn't a political conspiracy.

Shrinking the gap has not produced the results that leftists claimed it would. It is still not supported by evidence. The idea that shrinking the gap would lead to an economic bonanza full of jobs was full of shit. Let's not even get started with government spending.

Any claims you're making on this evidence based line of argument are sort of extremely dubious when your scope of understanding on the subject is limited to you making bollocks conclusions like economic inequality narrowing only during recessions. Furthermore it's not even clear what the opposiing claims are on this subject vis a vis economics besides the social unrest aspect (which is more or less self-evident), so it seems as per usual that you're addressing a liberal straw man that doesn't exist in this thread.

[Plow]

Since the Wall Street issue and especially over John Paulson's douchebaggery I'm a lot more skeptical on the genuine talent that some of the richest have.

The thing about that is, John Paulson is absolutely brilliant and understands economics *WAY* better than any of the people making policy decision.

When you have clueless idiots making the policy decisions, and then someone like Paulson comes along and abuses the living shit out of it, that's when you have big problems like right now.

I'd like to point out that I'm talking about big business in particular when I'm giving a negative glance at CEOs. In particular, IO'm talking about the ones that gather political favor in order to lobby for their own benefit. I'm not sure how large a percent this is, but it still worries me. Going back to my original post, the size and power of the corporation is probably the bigger problem than the CEO himself.
...

Those are some really good examples of CEOs that are in big business, and really have made a positive impact on society with their businesses. I don't really see any problem with those companies as a whole, aside from maybe having less competition than they should. Either way, they don't really abuse anything.

Here's the thing that maybe I'm not portraying clearly enough, but I'm pretty sure people like Beckwin are just conveniently disregarding:

Those aren't just some examples I decided to pull. That list I gave was, in order, the absolute richest people in the U.S. Sure I'm using some personal examples as anecdotes in addition, but what I just showed is that you go through like a dozen seriously successful C.E.O.s and one of the best investors in history before you get to the first "dirty tricks" guy.

And then I expanded as to how that's a trend that continues, and not just with high level executives, but many other lucrative jobs as well, all through the richest groups.

Maybe my distrust is misdirected at a good majority of CEOs and should be redirected at bad practices in Wall Street.

Absolutely. It's shocking how much a simple task force that actually went out and did thorough investigation and legit prosecution would accomplish, and apparently most people would be surprised at just how few people are causing so much damage.

[Plow]

The real problem here, though, is trying to discuss things with all out communists that are protected by the "omg u called me a communist u iz fox newz" internet argument clause.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

False, trivial to prove it. Democrats, Socialists and satan can't frame any issue any way unless a large number of people want to have it framed that way. Politicians sieze on general attitudes that originate in the public sphere, and this is especially true about issues of social class. That economic inequality causes unrest is a very well substantiated claim (indeed there are those that argue that that's the sole root cause of unrest and war), and the idea that it's a boogeyman conjured up by liberal conspiracy to agitate a public that would otherwise be content with their wages and social class is beyond absurd. That is to say that lots of people on the left use it as a "populist weapon" and sometimes stir up some serious shit because of it, but social unrest isn't a political conspiracy.

Any claims you're making on this evidence based line of argument are sort of extremely dubious when your scope of understanding on the subject is limited to you making bollocks conclusions like economic inequality narrowing only during recessions. Furthermore it's not even clear what the opposiing claims are on this subject vis a vis economics besides the social unrest aspect (which is more or less self-evident), so it seems as per usual that you're addressing a liberal straw man that doesn't exist in this thread.

Meh, you could be right, but I would argue that how politicians frame it has more to do with social unrest than the gap actually causing the unrest.

The second quote was just me bullshitting with Kuya.

[Plow]

Meh, you could be right, but I would argue that how politicians frame it has more to do with social unrest than the gap actually causing the unrest.

The second quote was just me bullshitting with Kuya.

It's not that simple, it's an entire mindset, politicians and the media can't spread shit people don't *want* to believe in the first place.

[FNH]

Btw the Idea that you need rich people in an economy to create jobs is ludicrous.

I've never been employed by anyone who wasn't rich.

[Cadsuane]

The second quote was just me bullshitting with Kuya.

Carry on then.

[Rhinox]

I've never been employed by anyone who wasn't rich.

didn't know you accounted for 100% of the population.

Association of Arizmendi Cooperatives (CA)
Network of Bay Area Worker Cooperatives (NoBAWC) (CA)
Western Worker Cooperative Conference (US - W)
Alvarado Street Bakery (CA)
Arizmendi Bakery Oakland (CA)
Box Dog Bikes (CA)
Cheese Board (CA)
Citybikes Workers Cooperative (OR)
Design Action Collective (CA)
Electric Embers (CA)
Inkworks Press (CA)
Other Avenues Food Store (CA)
Pedal Express (CA)
People's Food Cooperative (OR)
Rainbow Grocery Cooperative (CA)
Stumptown Printers (OR)
Tech Collective (CA)
Woodshanti Cooperative (CA)
Mission Asset Fund (CA)
WAGES (CA)
Web Collective (WA)
Quilted (CA)
Blue Scorcher Bakery (OR)
San Diego Day Laborers Association (CA)
Mandela Foods Cooperative

Eastern Conference for Workplace Democracy (US - NE)
Valley Alliance of Worker Cooperatives (MA)
Collective Copies (MA)
Community Builders Cooperative (MA)
Dollars and Sense magazine (MA)
Equal Exchange (MA)
Gaia Host Collective (MA)
GEO - Grassroots Economic Organizing (US)
ICA-Group (MA)
Local Enterprise Assistance Fund - LEAF (MA)
Mariposa Food Co-op (PA)
Partnerships for People/Breaking Barriers (NJ)
Pedal People Cooperative (MA)
Pelham Industrial Group (MA)
Pioneer Valley Photovoltaics - PV Squared (MA)
Red Emma's Bookstore Coffeehouse (MD)
Red Sun Press (MA)
South Mountain Company (MA)
Toxic Soil Busters Co-op (MA)
Valley Alliance of Worker Cooperatives (MA)
Cooperative Development Institute (MA)
Green Worker Cooperatives (NY)
The Working World (NY)
Local Sprouts Cooperative (ME)
Workers Diner (NY)
Ronin Tech Collective (VT)

Black Star Coop (TX)
Tribe Creative Agency (TX)
C4: Cyberspace Central Computer Consultants (LA)
Monkeywrench Books (TX)
Southern Appalachian Center for Cooperative Ownership (SACCO)(NC)

Federation of Workplace Democracies - Minnesota (FWD-MN)
Cooperative Care of Wisconsin (WI)
Friends of the Third World Cooperative Trading (IN)
The Hub Bike Co-op (MN)
Interpreters Cooperative of Madison (WI)
Isthmus Engineering and Manufacturing (WI)
Just Coffee Cooperative (WI)
Union Cab of Madison Cooperative (WI)
Interfaith Business Builders (OH)
Northcountry Cooperative Development Fund (MN)
Seward Childcare Center (MN)

all are worker Co ops just in the United States.

Next talking point please.

[Cadsuane]

Btw the Idea that you need rich people in an economy to create jobs is ludicrous.

You do need financial markets.

[arus2001]

On a more random thought, has anyone ever attempted to propose some kind of rationed pay system that suggests for X dollars the CEO makes, the grunts must make at least Y? More of a variable minimum wage than the fixed types we see now that certainly haven't skewed well with inflation and daily expenses.

It's a neat idea, but it will never get implemented meaningfully.

*wakes up after sleeping in*

Probably not, because in the immediate short term it would logically suggest a CEO would be making less despite arguments they "deserve it" more than the people keeping them afloat. Long term, it might not even be possible for them to return to current profit unless they grew exponentially. In counter, I find myself reminded about all the QQ in Obama wanting to up taxes on people who make more than 250k/yr when I think to myself, "Who the fuck needs that much money to get by?" when it's suggested the rich are rich are because they're savvy spenders. Okay, so what's the end goal in hoarding your riches when, in say 10 years, you'd have 2.5m you're not spending? Making a pool of gold bullion like Scrooge McDuck so you can swim around in it when you're bored?

I guess the overall thought of the idea is a rare, hopelessly idealistic concept from me. If the boss wants more dough, they do more to make more, and in turn may need to hire more, of which those could spend more elsewhere. As more of a standard system of pay, the gap between the classes could narrow, but I guess we'd need to be careful of the rich suddenly deciding that since people are making X times more money, they can just mark up the cost of everything X times, too. I guess that's another tangent regarding item values and how justification for a price might be cool because a small minority would pay for whatever while a vast majority wouldn't, regardless of perceived usefulness.

Right now, I just think to myself, "The only reason I'm getting by at the moment is because I'm not living alone." I'm fucked if that changes. Rural communities haven't exactly been on the up, and the area I'm in is both licking its wounds from decades old steel issues and more recent coal mine disasters. Businesses have closed. New ones are often delayed in construction for various reasons, if not changing their minds. Hiring's scarce. A community can't thrive on everyone in the workforce having to work 2-3 minimum wage jobs, 18 hours a day, 7 days a week, and expect them to feel happy with their lives despite the fact it may afford that self-sufficiency some might say makes a human "worth having around in society" because they can hold their own. I'd actually say there's a difference between being able to hold your own and being held back by the greed of those above you.

[Marootsoobutsu]

You're spinning around the issue, especially with that rise in life standards for even the poor in the US.

As any political theorist can tell you, large wealth gaps in any nation are only conducive to political instability, and much more concretely, large wealth gaps means that political influence is polarized, meaning, a small number of people with a larger share of wealth may use this wealth to a much more efficient degree to influence public policy in their favour. This is the central issue, and none of the points you braught up address or ameliorate it.

Actually, there is a point that addresses it.

Namely, when looking at the wealthiest 10%, one is generally not looking at what most people would really call "wealth." The top 1% starts to get rich, but you have to get to the top .1%-.5% before you start to see signs of that kid of influential wealth.

I'm not saying it can't be bad-- if all of that concentration of wealth occurred in that .1% at the very, very top, then you have a much stronger case that there's increased political capital that's detrimental to others. But, if the majority of that wealth increase occurred in the 2-10% range, then you're looking at a massive base of people, whose ideological bases are spread across the spectrum. In that case, you're not looking at a dangerous concentration of wealth, but more likely the early stages of an economic surge as a broad group of people are creating a new wave in small-to-medium sized businesses.

To further refine that distinction, it's almost certain that the tops of Fortune 500 companies will see laws favorable to business. They are part of that .1-.5%, and so a concentration of wealth there is potentially bad (and I say that as a Conservative). But once you get into that other 9.5%, you're looking more at surgeons, lawyers, doctors, and CPAs, engineers, and such-- people who are often employed by others, and who (rightly) recognize that there will *always* be a demand for their skills. Within these groups, you find much greater political and ideological diversity. Those who do *not* own their business in this category are not as likely to have the same concerns for pro-business laws as are the entrepreneurs in the same wealth range.

Part of why this article makes me suspicious, is that it groups the top 10% together, and makes it sound like they are talking super wealthy people; they aren't. If the article had looked at the relative wealth and income of the richest 1%, or the richest .1%, then you'd start to have a case on concentration of wealth. When you're looking at a spectrum of 30 million people, though, you're not looking at a homogeneous class.

I would agree that 50% of America's wealth in the hands of .5% of the population is bad; I do not agree that 50% of America's wealth in the hands of 10% of the population is bad. That's not a concentration of wealth; that's a growth of the economy. And given (note: an assumption based on my understanding of who is in the top 10%, though I don't have actual data to back it up and would probably revise my opinion if I'm wrong), that the vast, vast majority of those 30 million in the top 10% are not the inheritors of wealth, but the creators of it, it just seems to drive more and more home the point that this is irresponsible class warfare. Whether or not you, Kuya, in particular are under delusions of who the "rich" are as categorized in this report, a quick look through the thread shows a number of people who think mom-and-pops in there are the exception, and who group everyone in the top 10% with the lot of the CEOs on Wall Street (and who, in turn, lump all of the people on Wall Street with a few extremely shady CEOs).


Note, I'm not disagreeing with the premise that concentration of wealth is bad-- it is (or at the least is a real enough possibility to be a concern), for the reasons you listed... especially political control and political voice. I'm saying that this report doesn't indicate that that is happening; it is falsely grouping people together from a very, very wide spectrum, the vast majority of whom are not the group that *most* people think of when they think "wealth."

[Beckwin]

Here's the thing that maybe I'm not portraying clearly enough, but I'm pretty sure people like Beckwin are just conveniently disregarding:

Those aren't just some examples I decided to pull. That list I gave was, in order, the absolute richest people in the U.S. Sure I'm using some personal examples as anecdotes in addition, but what I just showed is that you go through like a dozen seriously successful C.E.O.s and one of the best investors in history before you get to the first "dirty tricks" guy.

And then I expanded as to how that's a trend that continues, and not just with high level executives, but many other lucrative jobs as well, all through the richest groups.

No, here's the thing: even the nice guys are a product of the problem. Sure, they generally aren't cheating and/or doing irresponsible, totally frivolous things with their wealth, but the fact that they have so much while others, some of whom arguably work just as hard, have so much less and are not seeing any real growth over the past couple decades, demonstrates a problem in the system. This Citi email illustrates the problem, even though guys like Gates could be considered benign byproducts of it.

I'm not saying Gates shouldn't be successful or wealthier than most; I'm saying he shouldn't be exceedingly wealthy while millions and millions of hardworking people are not getting any real improvements in their lives. And the cast of excessively wealthy fuckups who've made a mess of the country definitely should not be wealthy at all compared to the millions of hardworking middle-class people.

I think a problem with capitalism is that the most successful(lucrative) profession in capitalism is that of the capitalist. People who move money to make money have among the most power and wealth in the country. Other professions might increase their standard of life by working hard on new ideas, taking on more work, or becoming more efficient; capitalists make increasingly large gambles while protecting their individual assets- and through a variety of factors, we have a cultural, political, and legal climate that accommodates that.

[Kuya]

Actually, there is a point that addresses it.

Namely, when looking at the wealthiest 10%, one is generally not looking at what most people would really call "wealth." The top 1% starts to get rich, but you have to get to the top .1%-.5% before you start to see signs of that kid of influential wealth.

I'm not saying it can't be bad-- if all of that concentration of wealth occurred in that .1% at the very, very top, then you have a much stronger case that there's increased political capital that's detrimental to others. But, if the majority of that wealth increase occurred in the 2-10% range, then you're looking at a massive base of people, whose ideological bases are spread across the spectrum. In that case, you're not looking at a dangerous concentration of wealth, but more likely the early stages of an economic surge as a broad group of people are creating a new wave in small-to-medium sized businesses.

To further refine that distinction, it's almost certain that the tops of Fortune 500 companies will see laws favorable to business. They are part of that .1-.5%, and so a concentration of wealth there is potentially bad (and I say that as a Conservative). But once you get into that other 9.5%, you're looking more at surgeons, lawyers, doctors, and CPAs, engineers, and such-- people who are often employed by others, and who (rightly) recognize that there will *always* be a demand for their skills. Within these groups, you find much greater political and ideological diversity. Those who do *not* own their business in this category are not as likely to have the same concerns for pro-business laws as are the entrepreneurs in the same wealth range.

Part of why this article makes me suspicious, is that it groups the top 10% together, and makes it sound like they are talking super wealthy people; they aren't. If the article had looked at the relative wealth and income of the richest 1%, or the richest .1%, then you'd start to have a case on concentration of wealth. When you're looking at a spectrum of 30 million people, though, you're not looking at a homogeneous class.

I would agree that 50% of America's wealth in the hands of .5% of the population is bad; I do not agree that 50% of America's wealth in the hands of 10% of the population is bad. That's not a concentration of wealth; that's a growth of the economy. And given (note: an assumption based on my understanding of who is in the top 10%, though I don't have actual data to back it up and would probably revise my opinion if I'm wrong), that the vast, vast majority of those 30 million in the top 10% are not the inheritors of wealth, but the creators of it, it just seems to drive more and more home the point that this is irresponsible class warfare. Whether or not you, Kuya, in particular are under delusions of who the "rich" are as categorized in this report, a quick look through the thread shows a number of people who think mom-and-pops in there are the exception, and who group everyone in the top 10% with the lot of the CEOs on Wall Street (and who, in turn, lump all of the people on Wall Street with a few extremely shady CEOs).


Note, I'm not disagreeing with the premise that concentration of wealth is bad-- it is (or at the least is a real enough possibility to be a concern), for the reasons you listed... especially political control and political voice. I'm saying that this report doesn't indicate that that is happening; it is falsely grouping people together from a very, very wide spectrum, the vast majority of whom are not the group that *most* people think of when they think "wealth."

This argument isn't very sound at all. You're saying that the top 10% is actually a very large number, 30 million, thus it really doesn't constitute a concentration of wealth, but we're not talking about just those 30 million. In relation to the rest of the country, 90%, 270million, they are in fact a very small minority. The assumption is that economic power equals political power, and that if 30 million have economic power that exceeds that of say, 100 million or 200 million, then that means that these 30 million have 5, 6, 7 times the political power than the rest. This is not conducive to a democratic order much less a stable one, unless you want to contend that economic power does not equal political power or that contributions don't in fact affect politicians, but i don't think that's been a strong position for anyone other than classical liberals.

Finally, even if 10% out of 300 million + is a lot, the rest of the 270 million + will eventually take notice of how much richer than them, these 30 million are. Hell, i bet this day and age is Alexander Hamilton's wet dream. Economic centralization, and political centralization in the hands of an increasingly more powerful executive branch.

[Plow]

No, here's the thing: even the nice guys are a product of the problem. Sure, they generally aren't cheating and/or doing irresponsible, totally frivolous things with their wealth, but the fact that they have so much while others, some of whom arguably work just as hard, have so much less and are not seeing any real growth over the past couple decades, demonstrates a problem in the system. This Citi email illustrates the problem, even though guys like Gates could be considered benign byproducts of it.

People that good at what they do have to believe their job is worth it, or they will go elsewhere, it's that simple.

I'm not saying Gates shouldn't be successful or wealthier than most; I'm saying he shouldn't be exceedingly wealthy while millions and millions of hardworking people are not getting any real improvements in their lives.

Gates is about the worst example you could possibly use for that; a few years ago he stopped working for profit so he could dedicate the vast majority of his insane 60-80 hour working schedule entirely to his foundation, which does amazing fucking work.

And the cast of excessively wealthy fuckups who've made a mess of the country definitely should not be wealthy at all compared to the millions of hardworking middle-class people.

I don't disagree with you at all on these basic concepts.

What I disagree with you on is the impression that a few bad apples mean the entire bunch is rotten, and the implications thereof.

I think a problem with capitalism is that the most successful(lucrative) profession in capitalism is that of the capitalist. People who move money to make money have among the most power and wealth in the country. Other professions might increase their standard of life by working hard on new ideas, taking on more work, or becoming more efficient; capitalists make increasingly large gambles while protecting their individual assets- and through a variety of factors, we have a cultural, political, and legal climate that accommodates that.

It's not, though. I just showed you this. The absolute best investor in history has only once come in first on the richest list, ever. Right now he comes in 3rd to 2 technology giants, both of whom are not only extremely good at what they do, but extremely lucky.

For the most part, the richest man through the business model you're demonizing has been among the most helpful in creating jobs and helping job-creating businesses reach their potential in recent history.

Going through the Americans after him, the next person to make their fortune trading money is like a dozen people back. He's also, as mentioned, pretty much the polar opposite, and the perfect example *for* your argument. And I completely agree that he has absolutely no business being where he stands now.

However, if Walton was still alive and there was a "Sam Walton & Family" entry like there is for Helu, the 2nd place person would literally be at half the number...

And if the same was true for Fred C., he'd be 2nd, but still less than half of Walton's worth.

The fact of the matter is the kind of trading you're talking about is not the "easiest," "most successful" method for making money. It's extremely effective when you're good at it and lucky (both, neither will last long without the other, hence the commonness of cheating), unfortunately it's extremely hard to regulate effectively.

If it were as easy and reliably lucrative as you imply, it wouldn't be such a problem to regulate because people wouldn't feel it was worth the risk to cheat so regularly. You'd still have your issues and many of the same people doing the same shit, but it would be much easier to deal with if it weren't so widespread.


I'm not sure what more I can do beyond straight up showing you who the richest people are and what they do; that information clearly shows that the most profitable venture in the U.S. is to create a massive business which employs huge amounts of people and fills an important role in society. That's exactly how it should be. Say what you will about Wal-Mart vs small business, they employ over a million people in the U.S., and the vast majority of them are making more money and getting better benefits than they would get anywhere else.

Oh, and btw, while all this richest getting richer during the recession you were talking about was going on...

Warren Buffett lost 25 billion dollars and Bill Gates lost about 15 billion.

[Plow]

This argument isn't very sound at all. You're saying that the top 10% is actually a very large number, 30 million, thus it really doesn't constitute a concentration of wealth, but we're not talking about just those 30 million. In relation to the rest of the country, 90%, 270million, they are in fact a very small minority. The assumption is that economic power equals political power, and that if 30 million have economic power that exceeds that of say, 100 million or 200 million, then that means that these 30 million have 5, 6, 7 times the political power than the rest. This is not conducive to a democratic order much less a stable one, unless you want to contend that economic power does not equal political power or that contributions don't in fact affect politicians, but i don't think that's been a strong position for anyone other than classical liberals.

Finally, even if 10% out of 300 million + is a lot, the rest of the 270 million + will eventually take notice of how much richer than them, these 30 million are. Hell, i bet this day and age is Alexander Hamilton's wet dream. Economic centralization, and political centralization in the hands of an increasingly more powerful executive branch.

Dollars = power units, interchangeable on a 1 to 1 basis. Votes = 0, btw.

You should see the fucking euro to power exchange rate man. That market is ballin.

[Cadsuane]

It's not, though. I just showed you this. The absolute best investor in history has only once come in first on the richest list, ever. Right now he comes in 3rd to 2 technology giants, both of whom are not only extremely good at what they do, but extremely lucky.

A capitalist in the marxist sense that Beckwin is referring to is any business owner, or in other words someone who buys labour and makes a profit off production. He is correct that those who own capital and buy labour are better off than those who simply sell it. You're only confirming it.

[Plow]

Pretty sure he clarified that he's talking specifically about investment style business, not production.

People who move money to make money

Yeap.

[Cadsuane]

Business owners do that as well (making money off of money) with investments into capital. potayto potahto. But if you're right, he's just being dumb and you should either extend his position for him or give him the benefit of the doubt that he's using the term capitalist correctly, just for the sake of argument. How would your rebuttal change if that was the case?

[Pirian]

People who move money to make money

This is my main (and only) source of income, lol

Pays better and is less stressful than a working job. I'll make more before 12pm on Monday than my girl will make working all week as a waitress. I don't spend that much at all, so most of it goes to savings and a small portion of it I leave to grow the amount I can play with to make more. Because I don't actively contribute anything to society through my income source, I guess this makes me an evil capitalist in the making, huh?