Zone1 Should A Handful Of Billionaires Own More Wealth Than The Bottom 50% Of All Americans?

[Concerned American]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

HaHaHa! You're concern is disingenuous and hypocritical. These 3 democrats, Gates, Bezos and Buffett have more wealth than 50% of the US population. Amusing that you are all for unbridled capitalism when it is democrats that are being attacked but you have nothing to say when the shoe is on the other foot. The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

 

[Concerned American]

namely, a non-profit, socialized, democratized system based on the same technology that took their jobs.

The scenarios that you describe are no more than tribalism. They were maintained by a "might makes right" belief/reality. I prefer individual freedom over tribalism.

 

[Red Front]

HaHaHa! You're concern is disingenuous and hypocritical. These 3 democrats, Gates, Bezos and Buffett have more wealth than 50% of the US population. Amusing that you are all for unbridled capitalism when it is democrats that are being attacked but you have nothing to say when the shoe is on the other foot. The 3 Richest Americans Hold More Wealth Than Bottom 50% Of The Country, Study Finds

Society shouldn't allow one of its members or one family, to have so much power. Money is power under a capitalist market-based, economic system, and in a democratic society where a small % of the population holds practically all of the wealth, it will have its democracy undermined. This will always lead to cronyism and imperialism, not to speak of gross income inequality and a low standard of living for most people.

The capitalist pursuit of profits is insatiable and inevitably results in the exploitation of cheap sources of labor abroad (including cheap labor domestically in the form of illegal immigrants and prison inmates working for $1 daily) and of the paying consumer in the country that purchases the products produced by that cheap, foreign labor (both the labor and the paying consumer are exploited). We're in the cannibalistic, imperialist stage of capitalism, which is the last phase of its lifespan, when automation technology begins to replace wage-labor, forcing the working-class to choose between techno-serfdom or adopting a non-profit, socialized, and democratized mode of production (a.k.a. high-communism). If the working class chooses the former, then it will be consigned to slavery only temporarily until the wealthy ruling elite figures out a way to consign them to the compost heap.

Ironically, the former capitalists and ruling elite that will remain in power when jobs are replaced with advanced automation technology, will themselves adopt a non-profit, socialized, and democratized system of production among themselves. They will become the surviving, thriving class, living in a high-tech, modern democratic communist society that employs a non-profit system of production. They don't need human employees anymore to work for them, to produce all of the goods and services they consume and use. There will be no more paying consumers or markets, thanks to advanced automation technology.

So either the working class (94% of the population), takes the reins of power and ownership of the technology (the means of production/facilities/robots..etc), owning it together, collectively, using a non-profit system of production to produce all of the goods and services that they consume and use, OR ironically, the rich capitalist, ruling elite (6% of the population) will be the ones who become the high-tech, democratic communists. They will enslave the masses (the working class, their former employees that they no longer need), and eventually eliminate them, through various means. War, drugs, imprisonment, disease, starvation..etc. The so-called "herd" and masses of humanity that used to sell their labor-power to capitalists, will be "culled", and dispatched. They (94% of the population), will be rendered worthless under the domination of the wealthy ruling elite (6% of the population), due to advanced, 21st-century automation technology. This technology can be a blessing to humanity, provided it's in the hands of the commons i.e. public.

If the rich capitalist class is in control of the technology and means of production, then the working-class is doomed to serdfom and extinction. If the working-class rise up and takes the reins of power and wealth, making it a publicly owned property, under the people's control and adopts a non-profit system of production, employing all of the advanced technology to produce everything people consume and use, then humanity will survive and thrive.

The so called "born-again Christians" on this forum, with few exceptions, really don't care what happens to humanity in the future, because they're members of a death cult that expects the world to end in armageddon. Jesus is supposed to return and impose his absolute monarchal rule upon all of humanity. He's going to throw all of the Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, into the lake of fire. So these people are irrational, misanthropic, pessimistic towards anything that seems to exclude their exchatological fantasies. These conservative religious folks are essentially sick (mentally, emotionally, spiritually.etc). But thank goodness that people are waking up to that fact (including myself at the age of 49, soon to be 50). I started attending a secular, universalist church and I find the people there are much more humane and interested in the good and success of others, than in the Evangelical church I used to attend.

 

[Woodznutz]

Society shouldn't allow one of its members or one family, to have so much power. Money is power under a capitalist market-based, economic system, and in a democratic society where a small % of the population holds practically all of the wealth, it will have its democracy undermined. This will always lead to cronyism and imperialism, not to speak of gross income inequality and a low standard of living for most people.

The capitalist pursuit of profits is insatiable and inevitably results in the exploitation of cheap sources of labor abroad (including cheap labor domestically in the form of illegal immigrants and prison inmates working for $1 daily) and of the paying consumer in the country that purchases the products produced by that cheap, foreign labor (both the labor and the paying consumer are exploited). We're in the cannibalistic, imperialist stage of capitalism, which is the last phase of its lifespan, when automation technology begins to replace wage-labor, forcing the working-class to choose between techno-serfdom or adopting a non-profit, socialized, and democratized mode of production (a.k.a. high-communism). If the working class chooses the former, then it will be consigned to slavery only temporarily until the wealthy ruling elite figures out a way to consign them to the compost heap.

Ironically, the former capitalists and ruling elite that will remain in power when jobs are replaced with advanced automation technology, will themselves adopt a non-profit, socialized, and democratized system of production among themselves. They will become the surviving, thriving class, living in a high-tech, modern democratic communist society that employs a non-profit system of production. They don't need human employees anymore to work for them, to produce all of the goods and services they consume and use. There will be no more paying consumers or markets, thanks to advanced automation technology.

So either the working class (94% of the population), takes the reins of power and ownership of the technology (the means of production/facilities/robots..etc), owning it together, collectively, using a non-profit system of production to produce all of the goods and services that they consume and use, OR ironically, the rich capitalist, ruling elite (6% of the population) will be the ones who become the high-tech, democratic communists. They will enslave the masses (the working class, their former employees that they no longer need), and eventually eliminate them, through various means. War, drugs, imprisonment, disease, starvation..etc. The so-called "herd" and masses of humanity that used to sell their labor-power to capitalists, will be "culled", and dispatched. They (94% of the population), will be rendered worthless under the domination of the wealthy ruling elite (6% of the population), due to advanced, 21st-century automation technology. This technology can be a blessing to humanity, but it depends on who's in control of it.

If the rich capitalist class is in control of the technology and means of production, then the working-class is doomed to serdfom and extinction. If the working-class rise up and takes the reins of power and wealth, making it a publicly owned property, under the people's control and adopts a non-profit system of production, employing all of the advanced technology to produce everything people consume and use, then humanity will survive and thrive.

The so called "born-again Christians" on this forum, with few exceptions, really don't care what happens to humanity in the future, because they're members of a death cult that expects the world to end in armageddon. Jesus is supposed to return and impose his absolute monarchal rule upon all of humanity. He's going to throw all of the Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, into the lake of fire. So these people are irrational, misanthropic, pessimistic towards anything that seems to exclude their exchatological fantasies. These conservative religious folks are essentially sick (mentally, emotionally, spiritually.etc). But thank goodness that people are waking up to that fact (including myself at the age of 49, soon to be 50). I started attending a secular, universalist church and I find the people there are much more humane and interested in the wellbeing of others.

The Biblical future is much more likely. Hard to stop a runaway train heading for the cliff.

A good metaphor for the generation that will inherit your utopia is the youngster who walks into a light pole while gazing stupidly at his cell phone.

 

[Red Front]

The Biblical future is much more likely. Hard to stop a runaway train heading for the cliff.

A good metaphor for the generation that will inherit your utopia is the youngster who walks into a light pole while gazing stupidly at his cell phone.

The problem isn't the younger generation, it's people like you. It's not a "utopia", it's simply a better option and necessary if the people are going to survive and thrive, despite technology taking their jobs. Jerks like you are losing and when your cold-war, brainwashed generation is gone, the world will be a much better place. The sooner the better.

 

[Woodznutz]

The problem isn't the younger generation, it's people like you. It's not a "utopia", it's simply a better option and necessary if the people are going to survive and thrive, despite of the technology taking their jobs.

People like me are the solution, here and now.

Sadly, there are too few of us.

 

[Red Front]

People like me are the solution, here and now.

Sadly, there are too few of us.

Fortunately, thank goodness, there are few of you remaining and you're all going the way of all flesh soon. Good riddance.

 

[Woodznutz]

Fortunately, thank goodness, there are few of you and you're all going the way of all flesh soon. Good riddance.

Well, you'll be happy to know that I'm actually irreplaceable.

 

[Red Front]

Well, you'll be happy to know that I'm actually irreplaceable.

In your silly deluded mind.

 

[Woodznutz]

In your silly deluded mind.

When I quit a job once my boss said, "Where am I going to get another (my name)". He knew someone like me wouldn't come around again.

 

[expat_panama]

I dont' want anything changed, I am saying giving power to the government to decide who can be wealthy results in those making the choices to select themselves.

That's an interesting thought, the fact that in reality the governments DO have the right to say who can be wealthy or not. They've pretty much all decided that those that produce the goods and services that are in demand should be wealthy.

So does this sit well w/ u?

 

[BackAgain]

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to changetheir messaging.

They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about working people. This new organization will, they say, “think differently about labor vs. capital than Republicans have in recent generations.”


It’s a cynical effort to capture Trump’s working class base. He’d promised he’d bring our jobs home from China, empower labor unions, raise taxes on the rich so high that “my friends won’t ever talk to me again,” and give every American full health insurance that cost less than Obamacare. Those promises helped win him the White House.

All were lies, but the GOP base bought it and gave him tens of millions of votes; now Hawley, Rubio, et al think they can bottle that populist rhetorical magic and repeat Trump’s shtick for 2024.

Which raises the existential question both economists and politicians have debated for centuries:


America has had two different but clear answers to that question during the past century.

From the end of the Republican Great Depression with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s until 1981 (including the presidencies of Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, who maintained the top 91% and 74% income tax rates), the answer was unambiguous: “The economy is here to serve average Americans.”

Income and wealth during that time rose at about the same rate for working class Americans as they did for the rich, something we’d never before seen in this country.

This was not an accident or a mistake. It was the very intentional outcome of policies put into place by FDR and then maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations for almost 50 years during that pre-Reagan era.

And then came the Reagan Revolution, when Republicans decided that the middle class wasn’t as important as giant corporations and the very wealthy after all, and that the rest of us are here to serve the rich.

Should a Handful of Billionaires Own More Wealth than the Bottom 50% of All Americans?

At the urging of Republican Senators Hawley and Rubio, a new think tank is working out ways for the GOP to change their messaging. They want to shift their rhetoric from support for corporations and the morbidly rich to pretending they care about...

m.dailykos.com

Im sure this will hurt the feminine sensibilities of certain moderators, so I expect it to be moved with not much intelligent input.

“Should” implies a value judgment. Who exactly are you to decide how much “wealth” any person is “allowed” to accumulate.

Also, you do realize that for the most part the accumulate wealth isn’t stored in closets, mattresses and in-home sages and vaults, right? Can you tell me what is done with the wealth accumulated, yiu genious?

 

[Red Front]

When I quit a job once my boss said, "Where am I going to get another (my name)" . He knew I was one in a million.

 

[BackAgain]

When I quit a job once my boss said, "Where am I going to get another (my name)". He knew someone like me wouldn't come around again.

He wanted another wood nut?

 

[Woodznutz]

In the 18 years I owned rental property I was never audited. Possibly because my tax return showed less income and more expenses than usual, meaning that I was making acceptably low income, which satisfied the government.

 

[Red Front]

That's an interesting thought, the fact that in reality the governments DO have the right to say who can be wealthy or not. They've pretty much all decided that those that produce the goods and services that are in demand should be wealthy.

So does this sit well w/ u?

The employees produce everything. Workers. We can take the millionaire leech out of the way and just keep the workers and managers (who are also employees). That's all. See how easy that was? Get rid of the millionaire middleman/parasite.

 

[Woodznutz]

He wanted another wood nut?

He wanted another who actually cared about his business.

My late boss once commented I did more for his business than he did.

 

[Red Front]

In the 18 years I owned rental property I was never audited. Possibly because my tax return showed less income and more expenses than usual, meaning that I was making acceptably low income, which satisfied the government.

The father of modern capitalism, didn't have much good to say about landlords who collect rent. Lazy parasites.




​

 

[initforme]

The billionaires will have a very tough time explaining to God why they needed all that material wealth. The poor and meek shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Esdraelon]

The thing is when the State gets to distribute the wealth, the percentages often don't change, it's just party apparatchiks that are now the "high" and own all the wealth.

That's a history lesson that has to relearned in nearly every generation, somewhere on the planet. They're really going to hate the part where the mass graves get introduced...