Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
The former Finance Minister of Greece, Yanis Varoufakis, argues that the global poor are, at present, being squeezed on two fronts.
On the one hand, if they want to advance their socioeconomic positions, they are compelled to take on large amounts of high-interest debt (by "high-interest" I mean any rate that does more than keep pace with inflation) in the form of student loans, mortgages, car loans, and so on. This has the effect of putting those least able to pay--people born into families without many assets--in the position of being responsible for providing income to those who already have plenty (traders on Wall Street, hedge fund managers, underwriters, ratings agencies, the whole finance and investment-banking industry, basically). Given the extreme (and intensifying) weakness of the social safety net, these loans are essentially predatory.
On the other hand, the global poor are denied the means to earn the income necessary to pay those rates of interest, since the corporations that employ them, correctly sensing the overall precarity of the situation, are hoarding cash. In the U.S., for instance, companies are currently sitting on some $5 trillion in liquid assets--idle cash that could be put to productive use, allowing the poor to produce for society and thereby earn the income they need. This pile of money just sitting there, Varoufakis contends, is uniquely shameful--literally a greedy dragon hoarding gold dubloons.
The context for this situation is one of grotesque, escalating, and embarrassing inequality of both wealth and income. The top 10% of Americans own something like 75% of its total $85 trillion in wealth, and they're """""earning""""" virtually all of the money being paid out, with annual incomes for the bottom 50% hovering around a mean of $20k, while the next 45% make a mean of $80k, and the top 5% earn around $600k.
How can any sane person--one without ideological commitments to absurd, morally bankrupt ideals of private property--deny that this situation is a catastrophe? Or fail to see that it is especially a catastrophe for the most vulnerable members of society? Racial, ethnic, and religious minorities; migrants; women; etc. The 1% are overwhelmingly a bunch of old white Judeo-christian males.
Doesn't this point to the overwhelming failure of the so-called "Third Way," the disastrous hybrid of neoliberal economics, social progressivism, and neoconservative war-mongering that has defined our political era? While we're treated to ideological victories for a free society like same-sex marriage--i.e., victories that have no meaningful economic consequences--social reforms that would have really changed things--the Bernie tax plan, the Equal Rights Amendment--are constantly defeated either (1) by right-wing moralizing or; (2) by left-wing invocations "pragmatism," which is always an apology for the status quo, since it always means "pragmatic" compromise with the right.
I know, I know: WAAF. But what, if anything, can be done about it? Is there any hope of changing the culture that surrounds these geopolitical structures, for instance?
A lot of your numbers are wrong and they need to be corrected. You have a lot of half-truths, that some may believe are "alternative facts", which have no place in 2+2's politics alpha.
So let's begin.
Quote:
If they want to advance their socioeconomic positions, they are compelled to take on large amounts of high-interest debt (by "high-interest" I mean any rate that does more than keep pace with inflation) in the form of student loans, mortgages, car loans, and so on.
.
Not true. Currently undergraduate Stafford student loans are 3.76%. Mortgage interest rates are at historical lows of ~4.00%. Car companies are giving out 0 or 0.99 or 1.99% car loans. Furthermore, if you want to argue that any loan that more than keeps place with inflation is high-interest that abjectly ridiculous. Every loan has a default risk which is priced into the rate. Every loan must make a profit so the bank can pay it's employees. None of the loans you quoted are usurious at current interest rates.
Quote:
In the U.S., for instance, companies are currently sitting on some $5 trillion in liquid assets--idle cash that could be put to productive use, allowing the poor to produce for society and thereby earn the income they need.
This money is currently sitting overseas because those companies do not want to pay the high US corporate income tax rates required to repatriate the money into the US. Congress is considering the idea of a repatriation tax holiday to get this money back into the country. Interesting that you may agree with that idea since it is being pushed by the GOP.
Quote:
The context for this situation is one of grotesque, escalating, and embarrassing inequality of both wealth and income. The top 10% of Americans own something like 75% of its total $85 trillion in wealth, and they're """""earning""""" virtually all of the money being paid out, with annual incomes for the bottom 50% hovering around a mean of $20k, while the next 45% make a mean of $80k, and the top 5% earn around $600k
Your numbers are wrong, data from the Census Bureau
http://www.investopedia.com/news/how...ou-top-1-5-10/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States
Top 5% income is: $214,462.
Median Household income is: $56,516.
------------------------------
Some of your points are well taken, in regards to wealth accumulation. However, the "elite" always must worry overreaching because if they do the population can always throw them out and instill Bernie and Bernie Bros to take it all away.
Nevertheless, there is a reason that Bernie isn't President. It's because the majority of voters do not want that type of European style economics.