Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
So our derivatives-based monarchy will look a little different. It won't change its basic nature: peasants go down here, stockholder-royalty goes up here.
Hyperprole!
A purpose. Otherwise, why not just let the financial elite run over everyone else?
The financial elite would like that especially as they think the pur[pose of capitalism is to provide them with lots of capital. Stirring the pot is NOT on their agenda. They want stability -- tranquility, even -- and they're willing ala Alfred Krupp and Otto Von Bismark to pay to get it -- but not too much...
I still don't completely agree on that point. I don't think the social policies aimed at raising the bottom were the problem--the problem was the ability of those at the top, caused by reduced and weakened oversight, to exploit those programs to a disastrous degree.
Not a problem, we can disagree; you blame those at the top, I blame politicians. Both are at fault -- but the politicians had and have the responsibility to mitigate the excesses of those at the nominal top who may or may not be altruistic. Been my observation that altruism needs encouragement...
Possibly, but I don't see the alleged over reliance of the lower strata as causing nearly as much of a problem as the over reliance of the upper.
The detriment is about equal IMO but they're different in their effect. The upper are simply manipulating the system; the lower believe that the government will and can do things that are far from certain thus the incentive to prepare oneself for potential problems or to enhance one's potential for success is removed -- so the nominal underclass stays where it is with little change . Want evidence? Look at the history of the US and its 'efforts' to improve the lot of that underclass over the last 100 years...
That's becoming less true. While the middle class is doing better now--arguably--than it was two decades ago, we're eating into the middle class's savings and shunting them into the lower class.
True to an extent but mostly as a result of our failure in 1990 to start adapting to a world that had changed in the previous 20 plus years. Needed efforts were identified but not implemented because they were not believed to be important or were politically unpalatable. However, my comment reached into all classes -- because all are buying big flat screens (to use a metaphor...). Even those lower class folks, old and new...
What I am in favor of is addressing the issue of generational wealth. In large part, generational wealth has to do with equality of outcome, because the outcome (or rather the income) of one generation directly affects the opportunities of the next. Now, let me be clear: people should never be prevented from using their wealth to improve the lives of their children. But. What concerns me is that lack of generational wealth--people lacking wealth with which to improve the lives of their children--has far too large a negative impact on the outcomes of their childrens' lives. This isn't a matter of Bobby being born in a poor household and growing up to be a poor man, while Charlie is born in a rich household and grows up to be a rich man--this is a matter of Bobby's great-great-great grandfather being poor, and all of Bobby's friends' great-great-great grandfathers being poor, and very few of them ever escaping being poor. At some point, the disparity of outcome between population groups over time becomes a clear indicator that there is a severe inequality of opportunity.
I totally agree there is a severe inequality of opportunity in this country (thus my been to Court lately question). What you say is generally correct --Charlie sometimes fritters away the Shekels and Bobby sometimes gather more wealth than Charlie could have dreamed of -- but by and large, you're right. Where we differ is on the solution. Since the 1930s, we have spent an inordinate amount of money and effort in trying to insure equality of outcome with little success. That's why Bobby and his friends are caught in the trap. You may not think of equality as equality of outcome but your government, mostly, has and that to the exclusion of rectifying the terrible problems of unequal opportunity. Throwing money at schools isn't the answer, nor are jobs programs -- fixing schools and making jobs are the answers. The first is a governmental responsibility and most governments at all levels have done an abysmal job of operating schools and they have killed efforts that succeeded where they could because that might upset the status quo. As a friend said, "Those latte drinkers need Baristas -- and sweepers; plus somebody's gotta build those bike trails."

The second is not (because government will never offer more than scut work on a temporary basis for mediocre pay...). Government just needs set the stage, provide employers some incentives and then get out of the way...