The 1% Solution
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz was interviewed by Vanity Fair Magazine where he lamented the current state of government and the economy where 1% of the population have almost 40%of the wealth and receive an extremely high percentage of the income also. He asserts that much of the increase in the concentration of wealth in the country and the growth in income of the wealthiest is as much a function of the wealthiests ability to game the tax rates. They are able to do this by the access that money can buy through political contributions.
Lincoln said it was government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Stiglitz says it is government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. If you include multinational corporations as people is it any wonder that jobs can go overseas to places where the wages are lower and companies are able to escape taxation in the United States.
These are the laws that have been passed by our own democracy. Please tell me how those without surplus wealth and capital can benefit from this situation. Capital can be invested in many other countries and the jobs will follow the capitial. I know I am able to buy cheaper clothing made anywhere else in the world. Please show me a t-shirt that was made in the USA. Some people say we all benefit from lower prices. I agree.
But, this is always in the long term. People who worked in the textile plants in the South saw those jobs go to South America, Asia and China. Recovering from job loss is not as easy as it once was. And much of the advice of how to recover from job loss, or the bubble economics, or a sick housing market assumes certain things whose truth may be questioned.
Is there enough money available to retrain workers who are unemployed? Have the unemployed saved enough to finance their own retraining? At this point we must ask, do we help those most in need or those most able to benefit from the help.
This is a serious question.
The people in the 1% and those that shill for the 1% are immune from that immediate question. Let me repeat they are immune from that question.
The people that are rich and what you define as rich is always subject to revision.
For example: Free lunch at Public Schools, if you receive public assistance you are almost always eligible for a free lunch. A family of 2 with an income of $27,214 may qualify for free or reduced lunch at a public school. I guess it is an honest question if a family of two with an icome of $27,000 should be able to receive a free lunch at school. If you have to pay the full price for lunch at a public school it is about $2.50 per day.
The question is to make $27,000 per year requires a job that pays $13.50 per hour. Where are those jobs and are there enough of them to support everyone that wants to work.
To make $30,000 from investments you need almost $1,000,000 in investment capitial assuming a 3% return on capital.
And the next question is how many people with $1,000,000 live on $30,000.
To be continued...
Lincoln said it was government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Stiglitz says it is government of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%. If you include multinational corporations as people is it any wonder that jobs can go overseas to places where the wages are lower and companies are able to escape taxation in the United States.
These are the laws that have been passed by our own democracy. Please tell me how those without surplus wealth and capital can benefit from this situation. Capital can be invested in many other countries and the jobs will follow the capitial. I know I am able to buy cheaper clothing made anywhere else in the world. Please show me a t-shirt that was made in the USA. Some people say we all benefit from lower prices. I agree.
But, this is always in the long term. People who worked in the textile plants in the South saw those jobs go to South America, Asia and China. Recovering from job loss is not as easy as it once was. And much of the advice of how to recover from job loss, or the bubble economics, or a sick housing market assumes certain things whose truth may be questioned.
Is there enough money available to retrain workers who are unemployed? Have the unemployed saved enough to finance their own retraining? At this point we must ask, do we help those most in need or those most able to benefit from the help.
This is a serious question.
The people in the 1% and those that shill for the 1% are immune from that immediate question. Let me repeat they are immune from that question.
The people that are rich and what you define as rich is always subject to revision.
For example: Free lunch at Public Schools, if you receive public assistance you are almost always eligible for a free lunch. A family of 2 with an income of $27,214 may qualify for free or reduced lunch at a public school. I guess it is an honest question if a family of two with an icome of $27,000 should be able to receive a free lunch at school. If you have to pay the full price for lunch at a public school it is about $2.50 per day.
The question is to make $27,000 per year requires a job that pays $13.50 per hour. Where are those jobs and are there enough of them to support everyone that wants to work.
To make $30,000 from investments you need almost $1,000,000 in investment capitial assuming a 3% return on capital.
And the next question is how many people with $1,000,000 live on $30,000.
To be continued...
Comments
Post a Comment