Jump to content



Photo

The Price of Inequality


  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Geomean

Geomean

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 10:25 AM

This Vanity Fair article on the 1% cites, for example, how the six Walmart heirs wealth equals the entire wealth of the bottom 30 percent in the US --- and references Joseph Stigliz's book " The Price of Inequality" in which Stigliz describes how the growing wealth disparity in this country hurts the economy. Vanity Fair article

Stigliz noted in a recent VF article: "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. .... 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. " Stigliz VF article

Here is a numerate description of the challenge. Fractal Inequality and Politics --The Numbers and Scope

The I Ching ("Laws of Change") Hexagram 42 "Increase" sets forth ancient wisdom on the attitudes needed to improve oneself and in turn the wealth of a society. Hexagram 42 commentary

"The idea of increase is expressed in the fact that the strong lowest line of the
upper trigram has sunk down and taken its place under the lower trigram.
This conception also expresses the fundamental idea on which the Book of
Changes is based. To rule truly is to serve.

A sacrifice of the higher element that produces an increase of the lower is
called an out-and-out increase: it indicates the spirit that alone has power to
help the world.


THE JUDGMENT


INCREASE. It furthers one
To undertake something.
It furthers one to cross the great water.

Sacrifice on the part of those above for the increase of those below fills the
people with a sense of joy and gratitude that is extremely valuable for the
flowering of the commonwealth. When people are thus devoted to their
leaders, undertakings are possible, and even difficult and dangerous
enterprises will succeed. Therefore in such times of progress and successful
development it is necessary to work and make the best use of time. This time
resembles that of the marriage of heaven and earth, when the earth partakes
of the creative power of heaven, forming and bringing forth living beings.
The time of INCREASE does not endure, therefore it must be utilized while it
lasts.


THE IMAGE


Wind and thunder: the image of INCREASE.
Thus the superior man:
If he sees good, he imitates it;
If he has faults, he rids himself of them.

While observing how thunder and wind increase and strengthen each other,
a man can not the way to self-increase and self-improvement. When he
discovers good in others, he should imitate it and thus make everything on
earth his own. If he perceives something bad in himself, let him rid himself
of it. In this way he becomes free of evil"

Other important cultural texts, including the social gospel and the Talmud, reference the same notion.

As Jack Balkin notes in Cultural Software: A Theory of Ideology (Yale University Press 1998):

"Oppressive discourses, worldviews, belief structures, and mystifications all arise from the diverse tools of human understanding. The components of cultural understanding include beliefs and judgments. But they also include cognitive mechanisms that help produce and fashion beliefs and judgments. These cognitive mechanisms include, among other things, heuristics for decision, narrative structures and social scripts, conceptual homologies (A is to B as C is to D), metaphor and metonymy, and methods of ego defense. Each of these cognitive mechanisms can be beneficial and useful in certain contexts, but in others each can mislead and help produce or sustain unjust conditions." Link to Chapter 1

ATB

Geo

Posted Image



"Billonaires Behind the Hate"

Edited by Geomean, 26 August 2012 - 10:26 AM.

Opportunity knocks on your door every day-answer it.

#2 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 07:30 PM

This Vanity Fair article on the 1% cites, for example, how the six Walmart heirs wealth equals the entire wealth of the bottom 30 percent in the US ---

How did they acquire their wealth? By speculating on the British pound?

Or by being the largest private employer in the world?

It is also the biggest private employer in the world with over two million employees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#3 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,878 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:05 PM

Equality of opportunity or of outcome? They are VASTLY different.

The Price of Inequality? Have you considered the price of Equality? (which doesn't exist)

Good Intentions are NOT enough any more!

Everywhere that equality and diversity has become a government goal it has ended up costing money, without exception.

Forbes have estimated the cost of diversity training being $10 billion to the US economy, while various equality acts, including the ruinous disparate impact laws (the equivalent of indirect discrimination), have been economically as well as socially damaging.
The Equality Act 2010 will actually cost at least £10m annually while tying small businesses in red tape.

http://blogs.telegra...ain-65-million/

Read Atlas Shrugged. You'll see the result of "equality".
Or look at East Berlin, or Detroit.

Haunting Images Of Detroit's Decline (PHOTOS)
http://www.huffingto...696.html#218521
Posted Image

Berlin: http://familysurviva...of-east-berlin/
Posted Image

Edited by Rogerdodger, 26 August 2012 - 09:20 PM.


#4 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,878 posts

Posted 26 August 2012 - 09:29 PM

http://articles.chic...-public-housing

OPRAH's Poverty Program FAILS!
Despite High Hopes, Only 5 Families Graduate In 2 Years
In September 1994, the most famous woman in Chicago decided to tackle one of the country's most deep-rooted problems.
Standing before a clump of television cameras, media mogul Oprah Winfrey single-handedly took on poverty, saying she would finance a program to move 100 families out of public housing, off public aid and into better lives.
The program was called Families for a Better Life, and no other experiment in shifting people from welfare to work had a better chance to succeed than this one.
Families for a Better Life began with the promise of $3 million and the freedom to spend it without government red tape. Chicago's best-known social services agency, Jane Addams Hull House Association, was in charge.
They even handpicked the first group of families for their likelihood to make it: no drug users, no alcoholics, nobody who lacked motivation.
But almost two years and $1.3 million later, only five families have completed the program and the project itself is on hold.

Whether Winfrey will continue her sponsorship is uncertain, and Hull House officials say if they can't find other benefactors, they may abandon it altogether.
What happened?
It wasn't that the program simply failed. Nor was it a case of a celebrity abandoning a charity once the spotlight turned away, though Winfrey certainly hasn't held any news conferences on the program's fate. Through her company, Harpo Productions, she declined requests for an interview.
At its most basic, the lesson of Families for a Better Life may be that the lives of the poor are so chaotic and infused with a "mind frame of entitlement" that they defy even programs specifically designed to overcome these obstacles.
As the nation launches into its massive experiment in welfare reform--a project that will affect about 9 million children and 4 million adults--the experience of Families for a Better Life offers sobering evidence that lifting people out of poverty is more daunting and costly than almost anyone imagines.
Winfrey wound up contributing $843,000 of the $1.3 million. From an administrative standpoint, officials spent a great deal of time and money to determine on whom to spend money. The screening was so arduous that by the time a handful of families were selected and well into the program, officials realized the project needed retooling and refinancing before other families could enter.
Even candidates chosen for their drive struggled with attitudes that caused them to focus on issues that had little impact on their lives.
One woman, for example, had run up huge credit card bills she couldn't possibly pay, but she wanted to keep her cellular phone.
"It was difficult for them to come to grips with important things in their lives and continue on that course," said Gordon Johnson, president of Hull House.
The course often was detoured by the paradox that crisis may be the only constant in the lives of the poor.


Oprah's FAILED experiment on helping welfare families
Short version:

"In September of 1994, the talk show host Oprah Winfrey made the surprise announcement that she was funding a new program designed to move 100 families out of public housing, off welfare, and toward independence. :cheer:

Jane Addams Hull House Association, one of Chicago’s most prominent social service agencies, was promised $3 million and given total freedom in designing and implementing the program....

By 1996, however, the program had spent $1.3 million and had managed to serve only seven families. Of the five families who completed the program (two families dropped out), three succeeded in moving out of public housing. The employment gains were equally disappointing: Two parents found full-time work, two worked part-time, and one parent was enrolled in a training program. Of course, these modest outcomes do not justify the program costs, which amounted to over $250,000 for each of the five families."

The challenges are huge. Many people have never had the experience of waking up every morning and going to work, whether they feel like it or not. If they get criticized by the boss they quit. If they get bored they quit. There probably are a handful of people who only need a little boost of the right kind of help to enter the realm of self-sufficiency. Unfortunately, the real lesson from Oprah's experiment may be that it costs way too much to figure out who they are.
The article is available here:
http://www.philanthr...ly/frumkin.html

Edited by Rogerdodger, 26 August 2012 - 09:41 PM.


#5 Geomean

Geomean

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:04 AM

Roger,

I read Ayn Rand in my teens, and ultimately concluded that a narcasictic approach to life was not for me.

It was too crabbed and unfeeling, emotionally unsatisfying, and distancing from my fellow man and woman. My conclusion was that for me I'd much rather act based on love, to think based on observation of present conditions, to feel based on an attitude of generosity, and to recognize that there was enough for all needs, but not enough for all greeds and wills for power.

Instead in addition to my day jobs, for decades I've worked in the inner city, serving in organizations that helped the poor, took care of the elderly, and assisted the mentally ill.

I've observed both decay and rejuvenation, the building of health clinics, nursing facilities, and health systems, the building of homes and communities, the support of education, and attainment for many.

My late father did the same thing in his 50's and 60's, helping administer a Children and Youth Clinic in the middle of the poorest 4 census tracts in the State of Kansas. My late sister was President of our local chapter of Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and spent her whole life on community building. Some of the organizations she helped start are going strong today, supported by the general community, not a single rich billiionaire with a selfish agenda. The clinics Dad helped administer are still providing medical care today.

Citing an instance, if true, where the help hoped for was not as much as wished, does not justify not caring, selfishness, or narcissism, nor does it denigrate the values associated with notions of social justice.

I often worked with people with strong Christian faiths who studied the bible intensively. Their goal was to feed, clothe, nurse, and comfort the poor and disadvantaged.

When faced with the obvious large scope of their task and the sometimes limited tools or results, they sometimes would point out an important observation Jesus made about social justice, a part of his work that has been called the "social gospel".
This passage can be found in Matthew,

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” (Matthew 25:41-46)

The old testament has a similar suggestion:



Deuteronomy. 15:10-11“Give liberally and be ungrudging when you do so, for on this account the LORD your ******* will bless you in all your work and in all that you undertake. Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’”…


These are old ideas of fairness and justice that are found in all cultures.

Ayn Rand was not motivated in the least by these notions.

ATB

Geo
Opportunity knocks on your door every day-answer it.

#6 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 06:28 AM

Classic Milton Friedman on Equality vs. Liberty

"You can only aim at equality by giving some people the right to take things from others. What ultimately happens when you aim for equality is that A and B decide what C shall do for D; except that they take a little bit of a commission off on the way."


http://mjperry.blogs...quality-vs.html
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#7 Geomean

Geomean

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 1,177 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 08:26 AM

Classic Milton Friedman on Equality vs. Liberty

"You can only aim at equality by giving some people the right to take things from others. What ultimately happens when you aim for equality is that A and B decide what C shall do for D; except that they take a little bit of a commission off on the way."


http://mjperry.blogs...quality-vs.html


Dear Stocks

"Take" is one of those linguistic "cues" the progagandists for the selfish billionaires use to mislead people into not acting in their best interests.

(not all billionaires are selfish, but the ones who engage in selfish behavior need to be called out for how they are behaving)

For example, many people who suffer from an inequal tax structure don't think logically about the numbers because they have been pyschologically prepared to have "emotional" reactions to prevent thought and logic by the use of words such as "take". Making the middle and lower class afraid of someone 'taking' from them, and the selfish billionaires avoid paying their fair share)

This has been the approach and agenda of the selfish billionaires pych ops campaign for over a generation.

There are many methods to promote equality.

The economist Paul Romer has demonstated that the rate of increase in what economists call public goods, both tangible and intangible, is a key distinguishing characteristic between slow and faster growing economies. Much of what we have in the way of 'public goods' does not involve 'taking',.

His is important research to understand and easy to find in google.

How about making the rich equal before the law?

Why should the wealthy pay lower tax rates than the less wealthy in a society? Why does the middle class pay a higher percentage of it's income in taxes than the wealthy? Why have the states in the last two decades moved to sales tax rates approaching 10% in many areas, while they formerly were in the 2% area?

Ask the question, are sales taxes regressive? In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich — there is an inverse relationship between the tax rate and the taxpayer's ability to pay as measured by assets, consumption, or income.

Or how about social security and medicare taxes? Why do the poor and the middle class pay such a proportionately high percentage of their income or wealth for these taxes on the order of magnitude of 8%, while the rich almost completely escape them, often paying fractions of 1%.?

Is is fair to permit the rich to impose indirect costs on others? Are the subsidies they receive (corporate welfare) equal? Think of the Koch Brothers, who pay so much for propaganda and hate and try so hard not to be treated equally.

Or ask, when the selfish billionaires engage in predatory behavior shouldn't they be prosecuted?

How much of the sub prime loan fiasco due to this kind of behavior?

Is it OK if they act to hurt others, to foment discord and hate, and to undermine public institutions?

It is important to try to escape the emotional cues that folks have been trained to follow and to engage in rational discussion, questioning, resource sharing, and thought.

It is only through this kind of interchange will the barriers of hate the selfish billionaires have promoted will be overcome.


ATB

Geo
Opportunity knocks on your door every day-answer it.

#8 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,878 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:07 AM

There is NO EVIDENCE that seeking equality of outcome is possible.
In fact the evidence is that it is destructive, as shown in all experiments in collectivism.

My brother spent his life as a director of the state welfare system.
He actually had the same heartbreaking experience as Oprah did in her failed attempt to get 100 families out of poverty.
It seems that poor people continue doing the things that make them poor.
Additionally he told me that:
"Only 20% of each tax welfare dollar reaches the poor.
Assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor."

The Old Testament required the poor to go the the fields and collect leftover sheaves of grain and make their own bread.
Further the Apostle said: "If anyone does not want want to work, neither let him eat."

The expression "Helping" the poor needs definition.
A hand out is always destructive if it encourages slothfulness.
Do you "help" a wino by giving him a dollar for more wine?

Codependency is actually a sickness and a cancer on society as "enablers" keep the poor trapped in despair.
Many enjoy the feeling of superiority they get from "helping the poor" remain poor.
That's codependency: "the dependence on the needs of or control of another."
And Ironically, "Narcissists are considered to be natural magnets for the codependent."
That's right. The real narcissist may be the one demanding "help" from others!

Likewise the Apostle said:
"If anyone does not provide for those who are his own, he worse than a man without faith."
Burdensome taxation, spent mostly on bureaucracy and friends of politicians, is requiring many parents to abandon their own families in order to pay those taxes.
Likewise government programs encourage young women to have children out of wedlock, condemning those children to a life of poverty without a father.

See the reality:
The "Great Society" Fails our children, families
"first and foremost we have a parent problem"

Edited by Rogerdodger, 27 August 2012 - 09:20 AM.


#9 stocks

stocks

    Member

  • Traders-Talk User
  • 4,550 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:23 AM

This Vanity Fair article on the 1% cites, for example, how the six Walmart heirs wealth equals the entire wealth of the bottom 30 percent in the US

A Syllogism

Apple Computer is the richest corporation in world history.
Super rich implies super evil.
Therefore Apple Computer is super evil.
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change, 
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
 

#10 Rogerdodger

Rogerdodger

    Member

  • TT Member*
  • 26,878 posts

Posted 27 August 2012 - 09:25 AM

PS: I spent the day yesterday patching the leaking roof of an elderly man, buying the supplies out of my own pocket. But that probably doesn't count, since no government bureaucrats were involved and he got 100% of the benefit. ...and I bought the supplies at Walmart. :P

Edited by Rogerdodger, 27 August 2012 - 09:29 AM.