Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

[NikFu S.]

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/fe...t-201105.print

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.
Continued (page 2 of 2)

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers. Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

[LetItSnow]

EDIT: Nope, I'm staying out.

[NikFu S.]

Out is where they want you to stay.

[ensteele]

Post is too long to read.

[icingdeath88]

Yep, all I see is a wall of text. Do like they do on Nasioc and boldify the highlights.

[NikFu S.]

Pointless. Don't let me catch you guys accusing anyone else of being lazy.

[Wikedjuggalo]

Well I read it, and it was a good read.

[NikFu S.]

Yeah, it is a fairly good read, but the reason why I posted it, why I like it, is because it is essentially a list of reasons of why the Occupy Wall Street protests are happening (most of which armchair Americans don't fully comprehend). It's not all hippies, bongos, and Socialism.

(If you don't know what is going on, you are living on Mars. How's the weather up there, cut off from all of civilization?)

Yes, ALL of civilization. The Occupy movement is worldwide, in most major countries, in most major cities, but that's boring. You guys want to see something cool?
A few of the protests turned violent, mostly in Greece and Rome (those Greeks and Romans, so feisty.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIyhhht5q7c


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OM8znTZYkk


Of course Greece has been at it for a few years, but now the world is watching!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ws29I_Afb48

So exciting.

[michael]

In case you haven't seen this, also interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmPchuXIXQ

[NikFu S.]

The Zeitgeist guys lost a lot of credibility since their truthing days.

The case of debt money and fractional reserve corruption is well documented, though. I just saw this video yesterday. It is a very entertaining take on the issue, professionally animated, not without spurts of humor, won't put the casually informed to sleep like the Zeitgeist narrator does.

[oab_au]

Try to keep out of this forum, but I can feel the change, for the worst.

This is worth a read.




http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...r-davis-hanson

Harvey.

[LetItSnow]

The potential for worldwide rioting from this Occupy thing is pretty staggering. Naturally, this will actually be detrimental to their cause and credibility. Heaven help us if we see this Spring's Vancouver in all of our hometowns. I know we've got 200 people Occupying Syracuse.

[NikFu S.]

There is actually an unofficial set of "rules" going around. The protest organizers want to avoid conflict, but as you can see from various videos it's actually been the police provoking the protesters.

1.We will carry no weapons.

2. We will not vandalize or destroy property.

3. We will not use or carry alcohol or illegal drugs.

4. We will not swear or use insulting language.

5. We will not run or make threatening motions.

6. We will protect those who oppose us from insult or attack, by deescalating conflict.

7. We will not assault, either verbally or physically, those who oppose or disagree with us, even if they assault us.

8. Our attitude, as conveyed through words, symbols, and actions, will be one of respect toward all, including police officers, military personnel, counter-demonstrators, and members of the larger community.

[NikFu S.]

Originally Posted by oab_au

Try to keep out of this forum, but I can feel the change, for the worst.

This is worth a read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...r-davis-hanson

Harvey.

---
"In 2009 and 2010, tea parties turned out hundreds of thousands in protests against the Obama administration’s policies"

Conservative propaganda. The Tea party actually started with Ron Paul in 2007, and was co-opted by the religious right / Fox media clowns. In my meandering experience I see a vast majority of non-Ron Paul Republicans are in offense of Obama's policies regardless of their knowledge, because they didn't vote for him. Of COURSE they disagree with his policies, but to claim this is the purpose of the Tea Party is to essentially claim they are protesting his presidency.

According to Wiki (and fully sourced):
"It [The Tea Party movement] endorses reduced government spending, opposition to taxation in varying degrees, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and adherence to an originalist interpretation of the United States Constitution."

As we well know these are not problems limited to the Democrats.

Mr. Victor Davis Hanson, you are not off to a good start.
---

"Ostensibly, the Wall Street protests rail against a small elite who makes a lot of money by lending, investing, and speculating — although the protesters don’t seem to worry much about the mega-salaries of actors, professional athletes, or sympathetic multimillionaires such as Al Gore, George Soros, and John Kerry."

I wasn't aware celebrities had a hand in destroying the working man's economy...? Many of the protesters do have varying goals and political targets, though. I'm sure plenty of people involved don't like Gore or Kerry, and I'm sure for many of them it has nothing to do with the fact they are Democrats, as the OWS protests are non-partisan.
0 for 2, Mr. Hanson.
---

"American flash mobbers and London hoods thought it was okay to take things that were not theirs, since they have less than others. "

There is no reason to associate this "flash mob" theft with Occupy Wall Street. The thieves represent a VERY small minority of people, but more importantly, the research I am turning up indicates the most recent flash mob theft occurred in August, a full 2 to 4 weeks before OWS even started.

0 for 3, Mr. Hanson.
---

"In response, millions want someone or something to be held accountable — whether Wall Street insiders, or wasteful and corrupt governments, or the affluent, who have more than others."

Hey, you got one!
---

"So here goes an explanation for the multifaceted unrest. For the last six decades, constant technological breakthroughs and growing government subsidies have given a billion and a half Westerners lifestyles undreamed of over the last 2,500 years. In 1930, no one imagined that a few pills could cure life-threatening strep throat. In 1960, no one planned on retiring at 55. In 1980, no one dreamed that millions could have instant access to civilization’s collective knowledge in a few seconds through a free Google search."

Here now he is hyping us up so that before he gets to his next point we begin to believe that everyone's standard of living has been raised to Olympian levels... relative to goat the herders. Many people can not afford health care. Many people can not afford prescription drugs. MANY people can not afford to retire at 55, especially not with this rampant inflation. Google is nice though, problem is people don't use it for the right reasons AHEMCOUGHMr.HARPERCOUGH.
---

"Remember, none of these worldwide protests are over the denial of food, shelter, clean water, or basic medicine."

And your point is...? As I said there are myriad reasons why people are protesting, but the common goal as you have acknowledged is about accountability for corruption, that collusion between Wall Street and government. That is what they believe is the root of many problems. Why attack only a symptom? The protests are not rendered irrelevant simply because the standard of living for many people is adequate to our achieved level of technology.
---

"None of these protesters discuss the effects of 2 billion Chinese, Indian, Korean, and Japanese workers’ entering and mastering the globalized capitalist system, and making things more cheaply and sometimes better than their Western counterparts."

We do not live in China, India, Korea, or Japan. We solve our problems first. This is not an unreasonable position, unless of course you are a war hound, I guess. Once again I will challenge the objective accuracy of your statement. I'm sure someone would just love to talk about emerging industrialized nations and their sometimes-higher-than-U.S. standards of quality control.
---

"None of these protesters ever stop to ponder the costs"

NONE of them do, EVERRRRRRRR.

"and ultimately the effect on their own lifestyles — of skyrocketing energy costs."

Not only are you objectively wrong here, but I can prove it with video I shot myself at a local protest event (which I have not bothered to upload). A TREMENDOUS amount of protesters are concerned about energy (pay special attention to the comments).
---

"Federal and state budgets are near bankrupt. Countries like Greece and Italy face insolvency. The U.S. government resorts to printing money to service or expand entitlements. Near-zero interest rates, declining home prices, and huge losses in mutual funds and retirement accounts have crippled the middle classes."

Ok, nice recap of some common knowledge there, what else you got.
---

"Westerners will have to work a bit longer and more efficiently"

Why? Work on what exactly? It's impossible to discern what you mean unless you are suggesting everyone will have to become completely self-sufficient...?
---

"Otherwise, a smaller, older, and whinier West will just keep blaming others as their good life slips away. So it’s past time to stop borrowing to import energy and most of the things we use but have given up producing — and get back to competing in the real world."

So you are suggesting nobody is at fault for our economic problems, that it's just inherent in the system? I partially agree, our economic system is designed to inflate and it is inevitable many people will not be able to keep up. What it comes down to is whether or not you have compassion for your fellow humans, or would prefer to relegate them to the processes of natural selection.

This also appears to be a statement in veiled support of increased domestic oil extraction. Maybe Mr. Harper is a fan of the Palin school of energy? Drill baby, drill. (Unless he means manufacturing and exporting solar panels, windmills, and ion batteries. Doubt it!)
---

Sorry, Harv, this article reeks of bull**** of the highest order. I could eat a can of alphabet soup and **** out a better article than this.

[NikFu S.]

Further reading, trust me some of you guys need this.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-...b_1019707.html

Everything The Media Told You About Occupy Wall Street Is Wrong

Based on my observations, here's what I consider the Top Ten Myths About Occupy Wall Street.

Myth #1. The Movement Is Violent.

One of the most striking images I witnessed at the demonstration was a young black man holding a sign that read "End NYPD Violence!" in front of a group of police officers.

The officers quickly challenged his accusation. But the young man didn't leave. Next, the police turned away and ignored him. But he still didn't leave. Then the officers chuckled and let out an unexpected laugh when they realized the man wasn't going away. The scene was confrontational, but definitely not violent.

In fact, one of the first things I noticed was a sign posted on a wall that embraced "Kingian Nonviolence," the peaceful principles that guided Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Cliff notes are in the title, take it upon yourself to step outside of your comfort zone and read some.