I'm all for removing private money (including union before someone asks!) from politics. I think most Americans are. But how do we do it?

I'm all for removing private money (including union before someone asks!) from politics. I think most Americans are. But how do we do it?

I'm not sure but when you do find out, let me know. Online forms of marketing are frequently much less expensive than traditional print and television modes. If we're going to get the money out of politics there are some tech companies, I wouldn't mind investing in.

Sadly for your investment plans, I gave up on the US awhile ago. I don't think there is a way short of a very nasty and probably bloody revolution that I have no interest in taking part in. My goal is move out of the country before things get really stupid here.

I'm all for removing private money (including union before someone asks!) from politics. I think most Americans are. But how do we do it?

I'm not sure but when you do find out, let me know. Online forms of marketing are frequently much less expensive than traditional print and television modes. If we're going to get the money out of politics there are some tech companies, I wouldn't mind investing in.

Sadly for your investment plans, I gave up on the US awhile ago. I don't think there is a way short of a very nasty and probably bloody revolution that I have no interest in taking part in. My goal is move out of the country before things get really stupid here.

You all ring Jeffersonian. . .in case you didn't know, he talked about a new revolution often:

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
Thomas Jefferson


“Every generation needs a new revolution.”
Thomas Jefferson


“If once the people become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions.”
Thomas Jefferson


There's only one way to fight wolves though it does get discouraging - politics as is. But, if we abandon the battle (ink as it is now) in which very likely we won't see good change in our lifetimes, what sort of inheritance and example do we leave for our children? Freedom is not the ease and comfort we've gotten used to - freedom is really responsibility. Easier said than done, I know. There's no easy answer and everyone has to do what is best for them.

-Debra

Both parties are corrupt. Time to buy a gun!

And do what with the gun? You sound like you're saying we should assassinate politicians.

Both parties are corrupt. Time to buy a gun!

And do what with the gun? You sound like you're saying we should assassinate politicians.

Oh no. I am not violent. That was a tongue in cheek response to Debra's revolution post

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Okay, so now Mara and Lour get me in trouble. :laugh: It's like having a big sister and brother again!

Seriously though, on the topic of The Atlantic article, why do we keep trying to come up with complicated abra cadabbra changes to this issue? This writer had lots of spot on observations but his solution is more of the same. The excuse against a brilliant simple solution is the murky waters of free speech because, golly geez, if we limit any person or organization's speech, we limit freedom of speech. So? Freedom of speech isn't the problem. . .the problem IS financial inequality. When some people like the Koch Bros. etc. have 100s of millions of dollars to spend on independent ads . . . well, you can’t do much about that, unless it is limit inequality. Wouldn't that be nice? Anyone against limiting inequality? Is that one horse we could all back and work together for?

Therefore, ta da, Maral's suggestion above is on to something. It could return power back to the individual citizen, renew the emblem and shine of democracy and just might save this sinking ship of state before it's too late. Basically, make it so that no one other than a citizen inidividual can contribution to a candidate or elected official and the limit per year is $100 to be spent (or not) however the individual citizen wants for the candidates of h/her choice. Lobbying groups and unions still exist and can persuade their constiuents but those organizations cannot give even a fraction of a cent in real money or valuables like trips, seminars or the like to any candidate or elected office.

Do any of you know of any organization or official who is suggesting anything even remotely common sense as this?

The other part the writer had right - the current system is "unstable", hence the allusions by at least three of us on this thread (not just me!) to drastic measures.

-Debra

Wow do I ramble on when the subject turns to history!

I guess my point was supposed to be that our country has always been run by a handful of wealthy individuals and absent some serious revolution, always will be.

I think our founding fathers, albeit imperfect, had great ideals for this country.

....which have been muddled and fuddled... and they aren't alive right now to see what isn't working. Interesting that the 99% are supposedly the most educated lower classes in the history of the world and yet we as a group have nearly abdicated our responsibility for our own freedom in favor of entertainment and comfort.

What would be wrong with limiting the political free speech of organizations, profit and non-profit, unions and the like, via in favor of allowing campaign and election contributions to only come from citizen individuals? And, in order to insure financial equality, limit the dollar amount to something like $100 per person. Would this help or hurt a democratic republic?

-Debra

Having network problems today, but back on at least for the moment, and I have a question:

Does anyone have a good source for how much we would have (resources, not cash) if everything in the world were equally divided among all of us? I'm trying to find out if the average American would lose or gain by the true redistribution of wealth. I have always assumed there isn't enough to go around, but am I wrong? Is there enough, if everyone shared equally? Not saying this will ever happen, but as a baseline for discussion on wealth, I'm curious.

I have no idea personally but Hubs and I are going out with a close friend tonight who is a social scientist. Bet she knows.

Trouble would seem to be that most people actually accept class and financial inequality in this country and other Western countries. Most would not admit that they do, so it is all unwittingly on their part, but stratisfication is accepted across the board. I learned this in my sociology class last year. There were several group projects to determine how each group would decide to split resources and people up. The groups I was in were the only one who split all resources evenly. We never looked at job title, just counted the heads and divided the loot. On deciding which people could live from our doomed spaceship, we were the only ones who chose randomly - we never looked at qualifications, age, or skills. The professor indicated that in the 30 years she's been teaching, she's only had one other group ever do either of those things in these exercises. Based on that and my conversations with people over the years, it would take many years of education and talking about it before the average Westerner would ever agree that it was even the right thing to do, let alone work for the change and, most importantly, let alone the fact that those already holding the most would never share willingly.

Great ? though, Mara! Can't wait to see what Amy tells me tonight . . .we're going to see the Denver Derby Dolls! I haven't been to roller derby in years and I just know I'm going to have a blast!!! If they serve Guinness, I might even indulge in one. Otherwise, I'll stick to my fuel plan. Don't even know which team I'm going to fall in love with but the four teams racing are (get this - LOL) the Electrocuties vs. Shotgun Betties followed by Bad Apples vs. Green Barrettes. What a hoot!

-Debra

Having network problems today, but back on at least for the moment, and I have a question:

Does anyone have a good source for how much we would have (resources, not cash) if everything in the world were equally divided among all of us? I'm trying to find out if the average American would lose or gain by the true redistribution of wealth. I have always assumed there isn't enough to go around, but am I wrong? Is there enough, if everyone shared equally? Not saying this will ever happen, but as a baseline for discussion on wealth, I'm curious.

Here is the promised reply from a social scientist to Mara's question. This person never answers complex questions simply. I had her email it to me! The answer to Mara's question is in the last section but, honestly, could that part really be understood without knowing her educated assumptions upon arriving at it? So, here's the whole kit and caboodle.

"This very interesting question has been attempted to be answered by several people but there are a few problems with asking and answering it, so I’m going to go over those first.

THE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS
"First, so much of the wealth belonging to the truly wealthy in the world was not created by or connected to ANY form of material or natural resource. This wealth was formed through manipulation of financial markets, currencies, CDOs, abstract mortgage bundles, etc. So, when thinking about “dividing” the type of wealth this manipulation created, it truly cannot be done. As seen in the recent financial crisis, much of that wealth turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors, although many insiders took what they could and ran before the house of cards tumbled.

"The second problem is the idea of "ownership". There are many natural resources that can be divided: waters and aquifers, fertile soils, hardwood forests . . . etc. But who does the water, the soil, the forests belong to? There is a push to privatize everything, to make every natural resource in the world the private property of some person or entity, but there is also a huge pushback. Many populations don’t want their water to belong to any private entity; they want their national resources to be public, to be owned by everyone in the state-territory. So the idea of “ownership” and the controversy surrounding it makes the division of wealth and resources even more difficult.

"The third problem is the expanding global population. A century ago, when the world only had 2 billion people, there was a lot more to go around. Now, with 7 billion, the slices of pie become much smaller. Ecologists who study this sort of thing believe that the world population that is sustainable (that is, the population where we are not depleting aquifers and soil fertility, where we are maintaining fish stocks, etc.) is 2-3 billion. Of course, we can grow larger than that for the moment because we are depleting resources (such as, aquifers and soil fertility) that has accumulated for millions of years before humans began practicing agriculture. But once that’s gone, particularly the water, we have hit a major limitation to growth and, consequently, the ability to create more wealth.

THE ACCOUNTING PROBLEMS
"Now . . . there’s two sides to wealth. First is annual income, how much money and individual makes in a year. The second is net worth . . . how much an individual owns without accumulating anything new. It is far more difficult to calculate net worth because the very wealthy are able to hide much of their wealth in tax shelters, etc. And so it is difficult to know how much they are worth. But, cutting to the chase, the average global annual income ...which you can google and all sorts of articles come up...is about $7,000 (this does not include a recalculation of purchasing power. Almost certainly, things would be cheaper for Americans to buy if the average was only $7000). The average net worth, on the other hand, is probably somewhere between $70,000 and $100,000. This does, numerically, mean that Americans and other richer citizens would be “worse off” than they are now if they had to share. That said, if incomes were averaged across the board, other automatic economic adjustments in prices, etc. would stretch those dollars.

AN ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE:
"Another group of individuals, and I forget where I read this, but I think it was somewhere in the Western Environmental Thought book, say that an equitable, sustainable lifestyle would look something like what American households experienced during WWII – which was consuming about 75 lbs of meat consumed in a year (compared to the 250 lbs avg today), limited access to luxury goods, a reliance on hand-me-downs and heirlooms . . . less, certainly, but comfortable all the same.

A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE
"Let me put in my own two cents: I do not believe in equality of this sort. Trying to enforce it would be impossible and you would end up with a Soviet-style system. But I do believe in EQUITY. There ought to be a reasonable amount of economic parity in society to maintain meaningful democratic institutions. Thirty years ago, the average CEO made 42 times what his or her average worker made; now he or she makes over 300x what the average worker makes. Obviously, that’s absurd (and study after study shows that no CEO is actually WORTH that much money in terms of return in company profits). So we need to start restructuring a system where the economic barriers to entry are not so high because one tiny class of people can afford to purchase anything at the expense of the rest of us even being able to play the game."


This conversation, of course, made the evening with this couple quite diverse. Here we are in the arena watching no-holds barred roller derby and all the fun theatrics that go with that AND talking about financial inequality on a global scale. I rather like mixing my philosophical quandaries with a healthy dose of third wave feminism. Perfect evening actually!

-Debra

Having network problems today, but back on at least for the moment, and I have a question:

Does anyone have a good source for how much we would have (resources, not cash) if everything in the world were equally divided among all of us? I'm trying to find out if the average American would lose or gain by the true redistribution of wealth. I have always assumed there isn't enough to go around, but am I wrong? Is there enough, if everyone shared equally? Not saying this will ever happen, but as a baseline for discussion on wealth, I'm curious.

By resources, do you mean food, property, etc...?

If so, could care less to know because why would anyone put effort into anything? What would be the point of working hard and why should someone with little or no drive to succeed have the same as someone who is willing to work their butt off for success!?

Having network problems today, but back on at least for the moment, and I have a question:

Does anyone have a good source for how much we would have (resources, not cash) if everything in the world were equally divided among all of us? I'm trying to find out if the average American would lose or gain by the true redistribution of wealth. I have always assumed there isn't enough to go around, but am I wrong? Is there enough, if everyone shared equally? Not saying this will ever happen, but as a baseline for discussion on wealth, I'm curious.

By resources, do you mean food, property, etc...?

If so, could care less to know because why would anyone put effort into anything? What would be the point of working hard and why should someone with little or no drive to succeed have the same as someone who is willing to work their butt off for success!?

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm all for rewarding valuable contributors. But people chasing paper money that has no real value and people born to their wealth who never have and never will do a day's work are owed nothing, whether they and the law think they are or not. Nor is it a valuable contribution to take good paying jobs from one country and move them to a country where workers are threatened with violence and are underpaid for their work. Which is exactly how a lot of wealthy people get so wealthy. They take from others in unfair arrangements where they use their family money and power to force others to do the work for them. That isn't contributing, and I have no respect for it.

What about people who are born to wealth, but still have to work very hard to get into the Ivy League schools they are expected to attend, even if they have a high-paying job waiting for them.

Besides, it's not their fault they are born wealthy.. at least that's the argument for allowing illegal immigrants to stay because they were "born" or brought here by their parents as children.

Appealing to pity the "poor noble kid" is NOT the point. The point is that CEO's and their corporate boards and stockbrokers have power, earned or inheritied (makes no difference), and make 300x what the average worker makes. That is obsene and beyond the bounds of equity, fairness or justice especially when those same fat cats injure the very same workers who helped produce their wealth. The evil comes not from the wealth itself but the use of their wealth and power over the most vulnerable and, I would argue, is the most unpatriotic act.

Putting the most productive people on the planet out of work, outsourcing, then resourcing at less than a living wage, just in order to increase their profit margin, is not only inequitable, it shows clearly that they put themselves above the good of country because, in fact, in my time anyway, the most valued resource of this country was its people. What's occuring now is democracy - or tyranny - by minority. Those tiny few who have the most money are allowed to buy the votes and influence. It's immoral and unpatriotic.

-Debra

What about people who are born to wealth, but still have to work very hard to get into the Ivy League schools they are expected to attend, even if they have a high-paying job waiting for them.

Besides, it's not their fault they are born wealthy.. at least that's the argument for allowing illegal immigrants to stay because they were "born" or brought here by their parents as children.

Appealing to pity the "poor noble kid" is NOT the point. The point is that CEO's and their corporate boards and stockbrokers have power, earned or inheritied (makes no difference), and make 300x what the average worker makes. That is obsene and beyond the bounds of equity, fairness or justice especially when those same fat cats injure the very same workers who helped produce their wealth. The evil comes not from the wealth itself but the use of their wealth and power over the most vulnerable and, I would argue, is the most unpatriotic act.

Putting the most productive people on the planet out of work, outsourcing, then resourcing at less than a living wage, just in order to increase their profit margin, is not only inequitable, it shows clearly that they put themselves above the good of country because, in fact, in my time anyway, the most valued resource of this country was its people. What's occuring now is democracy - or tyranny - by minority. Those tiny few who have the most money are allowed to buy the votes and influence. It's immoral and unpatriotic.

-Debra

I can't think of ANYTHING in the world less patriotic than redistributing weath. This is a country built on hard work and people achieving for themselves. Not handouts and making things 'fair'. Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong that some corporations have inflated management and salaries and sometimes pay their workers little but that is the beauty of freedom.

I found the following in an article, by the Catholic Church nonetheless :huh: , but it makes perfect sense to me:

'Usable wealth must first be produced and made available. The primary causes of wealth production are brains, effort, and virtue. The world was given to us in a raw state to see what we would do with it, yes, for one another.If we really want to help the poor to become not poor, the first thing we must do is stop talking of “redistribution,” which is, at bottom, a branch of envy theory. We have to look elsewhere, at innovation, thrift, incentive, proportionate justice, virtue, markets, culture, and growth.'

Hey, FBMANDY, You wrote "Don't get me wrong, I think it's wrong that some corporations have inflated management and salaries and sometimes pay their workers little but that is the beauty of freedom."

I don't understand how you can equate greed with beautiful freedom! ??? At best, it is a mixed message but in actuality seems dangerous. Zechariah Chafee, Jr. wrote about freedom in 1919 by describing a court incident: "Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. 'Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.'"

The individuals in corporate conglomerates have taken away many of their workers ability to make a living. In the context of this debate topic, the fewest, richest people - the 0.01% - have taken away the ability of the others - the 99.9% - to affect policy, laws, and elections. In otherwords, only the 1% are allowed to swing. Be careful when the 99% figure out how to effectively swing back.

-Debra

I don't see it as greed. If I owned my own private business, I wouldn't want someone telling me I make too much or I'm too fortunate or greedy. It's MY business. I hve to adhere to labor laws and minimum wages but no one should be able to tell me or my management that we have to pay workers a minimum wage but have a maximum that WE can be paid... I wouldn't expect a person on the bottom of the totem pole to make the same or more than a person in management. I'm on the bottom as far as my position goes and I EXPECT my boss to make much more than me. Those on the top have much more responsibility, sometimes put in longer hours (they take their work home with them even after an 8-9 hour day) and have to pay for schooling to get their jobs, unlike the people working the entry level positions in the company.

I don't see a problem with any of that. Now, if companies in those positions are in trouble or inflating goods like the oil companies do, I don't want to see bailouts or subsidies from the government.

Old wealth was created by war, slavery, and the theft of resources, and so is new wealth. Not all wealth, old or new, but most. We're talking the big money, here, not just any successful business, not even a business that makes its owners millions. We're talking Walmart wealth here. Their business practices are not virtuous at all!