Thank you for posting this. This was originally a response to a poll at http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...hink-youll-make-into-top-1-a.html#post4568612 , but my response ran long so I'm going to make a new thread out of it. I'll add that not everybody accumulates wealth for the sake of seeing who has the biggest pile or wielding power over those without their levels of income. We have a tendency in society to let a few jerks ruin the party for the rest of us because those with a natural predisposition against something will emphasize the negatives they see in the group they're against. For example, look at the news coverage of the Tea Party. One racist out of 100 makes the news, and the Tea Party is racist. Or Occupy Wall Street. One overpriviledged and underachieving kid out of 100 on his brand new iPad makes the news. If you're a Tea Partier or OWS fan, and if you're here chances are you sympathize with one or the other, you probably hate these stereotypical characterizations. So think about this: For every jackass who would fire his own mother for a few points of stock price there are 99 who work hard, work honest, and provide good jobs for people who need them. For every one person computer-trading stock in fractions of a second from their beach house and creating nothing of real value for a living there are 99 stock owners that are hardworking employees who invested in their own companies, or regular folks who work their 40 a week and pay into their 401K. Are we going to shut down the greatest party in the world because a few idiots can't control themselves at the punch bowl? Are we going to let "the 1%" spoil it for "the 99%" who don't realize how good they've got it? It's childish overreaction. There has to be a middle ground to keep "the real 1%" - the people who build upon their wealth by stealing, cheating, gaming the system, or funding elections in return for special favors and the politicians who play along - from ruining the party for the rest of us.
I agree with your point about stereotypes and bad apples etc. well said. I don't see why people say stock traders (arbitragers) don't create value. they help to more efficiently allocate resources over time.
Yes, let's do think about this urban myth. You have to marvel at the people who always trot out the magical 99% of whoever are wonderful and it's just the 1% who are the problem. That's just utter nonsense. If only 1% of **********s, or ows protesters, or ceos, or cops, or soldiers, or teachers, or students, or parents, or doctors, or politicians, or priests, or lawyers, or judges, or whoever the hell you want to name, were the only ones who were corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, racist, greedy, or whatever the hell problem you want to accuse them of, then the world would be a paradise. The fact of the matter is that people just pull that number out of their ass without the slightest idea about the reality of how things really are. The truth is not so rosy or lop-sided as you would like to believe, although it's typically comforting to ignore the beam in your own eye and condemn the mote in your neighbor's eye. Given human nature, and that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, it's more accurate to acknowledge that a large majority of those in any particular group or profession have been all of the things that we like to condemn in that group at one time or another, to some degree or another, and that the problems we have are the result of this steady drip of imperfect actions that accumulate over time and start to drown everyone.
Joe, the idea of 1% was a play on the OWS's 99%/1%. It is not intended in any way to be an actual statistical estimate of how many people there are out there who wish to step on other people to get to the top. It's not an absolute one-or-the-other issue, either. My point is that we shouldn't tear down an entire system that generally works and benefits the vast majority because a relatively small number of selfish people are causing problems. Big picture, in a random stream-of-consciousness sort of way: make the tax system simpler and more fair. Increase revenue. Decrease government costs while keeping as many benefits in place as possible for as many people as possible. Even if it doesn't cover 100% of the gap, it's progress.* Which is better than scrapping the entire system and submitting to reeducation. But hey, then immigration wouldn't be a problem, because "liquidating" the "unrepentant capitalists" would make room for millions of new Americans. That's half of it. The other half is ensuring that "the real 1%" as I called it are stifled in their efforts to hurt others for profit. We need to criminalize and prosecute the kind of financial shenanigans that put us in this situation, rather than stomp our feet and criminalize the building of wealth itself. Back-room deals between lobbyists and government need to be investigated as potential bribery. People need to educate themselves and be conscious of who you purchase from so that on the open market the companies who are behaving badly fail, promoting good corporate behavior. Major financial crimes need to be taken as seriously as terrorism, because they're doing more damage than al-Qaida to our way of life. No one is too big to fail. Even if that means I can't ever buy a Chevrolet again. People need to make that sacrifice for principle, instead of saying, "take from someone else, I still want what I'm getting (and then some...)." That's how we get a complicated government with a million departments and a million special interests pulling Washington in a million different directions and taking a chunk of money out with each pull. And Congress needs to stop the vote trading. Individual issues, voted up or down on their merits rather than what senators can squeeze into the bill to benefit their states at the expense of the rest so that they can buy votes from their constituents in the next election with the pork they brought home. That's just bribery among senators, and needs to be treated as such. It's a compromise. And if the current administration and congress can't compromise for the benefit of all Americans, then they need to go. And I would gladly support marches on Washington if they were for the purpose of forcing a real compromise between the parties. *=Here's the dry, boring policy stuff. Reform the tax system. Wealthy people will end up paying more. Treat capital gains the same as regular income. You're taking money in, it's income, right? Close the gaping loopholes in corporate tax codes. That gets the Democrats on board, I hope. As for the Republicans (and the Dems concerned with Medicare/social security benefits) take a cost cutting approach to the administration of government. In many cases we don't have to cut the actual programs but cut the administrative costs that arise from bad bidding and purchasing processes ($16 muffins, anyone?) and inefficiencies caused by overlapping responsibilities between multiple government agencies. As for actual program cuts, we shouldn't borrow money just to give it to other people. There needs to be a moratorium on foreign aid, for example, until we get our deficit in order. And do we really need to throw million dollar missiles around the world like they're candy at a parade? The military can use a downsizing while still remaining effective, and make sure the downsizing isn't done on soldier's checks and benefits, their families are struggling as it is.[/SIZE] Geez, I just can't write a short post, huh? Been a rough week...
