Two-Tiered 1%--Issues With The Top 1% OR The Top .05%?

by Justitia Themis 82 Replies latest social current

• 

  james_woods

  You continue to dodge my question. Could the top 1% control 99% of the nation's wealth, and would that be considered economically healthy? Is there anything that would stop the flow of money upwards?

  Answered already - I don't think the top 1% now holds 99% of the nations wealth, and I don't think that it ever will. So, that is a moot point. What I think would be interesting is to take the personal wealth of the top 10,000 people in the U.S., and then divide it up by the number of the rest of the population. How much would there be to redistribute if the rest of the population were to take it all? I don't think it would be like winning the lottery for them.
• 

  JonathanH

  And when I say a zero sum game when it comes to % I mean that the bottom 99% can't control 70% of the nations wealth, and the top 1% control 70% of the nations wealth. It doesn't matter how much is generated, there can only be 100% at any given time. If the top gain a %, then the bottom lose that %.

  So no, I am not Wrong.
• 

  JonathanH

  I didn't say they did, james. I asked if it would be healthy if they did. And you say you don't think they ever will, so what is the mechanism that will stop the upward flow of cash? If a man generates a million dollars of new wealth, but pockets 2 million for himself, he is still getting a bigger piece of the pie. The % of the over all wealth that he controls will continue to rise as he continues to take. And this is something we see. The top 1% controls considerably more of the nations wealth now then they did fifty years ago. So why will this trend stop, and at what point will it stop?
• 

  james_woods

  And when I say a zero sum game when it comes to % I mean that the bottom 99% can't control 70% of the nations wealth, and the top 1% control 70% of the nations wealth. It doesn't matter how much is generated, there can only be 100% at any given time. If the top gain a %, then the bottom lose that %.

  So no, I am not Wrong.

  The total wealth of any person is how many dollars worth of real property they have, not what percent. 100 percent of nothing is nothing. 50 percent of a thousand dollars is five hundred dollars. So yes, you are wrong.
• 

  JonathanH

  That's not what I'm talking about james, I'm not talking about how wealthy and individual is, I'm talking about what % of the money in the country they control.
• 

  JonathanH

  And you still haven't answered. Would it be economically healthy if the top 1% controlled 99% of the money in the US (I'm not saying they do, I'm asking if hypothetically that would be economically healthy), and what mechanism prevents the top 1% from taking a bigger piece of the over all pie.
• 

  james_woods

  That's not what I'm talking about james, I'm not talking about how wealthy and individual is, I'm talking about what % of the money in the country they control.

  And my point is this - what difference does it make (the %) if everyone has what they need for a comfortable life, no matter where they are on the ladder? Maybe Captain Picard had a bigger cabin on the Enterprise, but who cares so long as everybody was well accomodated?
• 

  JonathanH

  That's naive. Money is power. What you're advocating is oligarchy, or even aristocracy, and claiming that as long as you have a big TV, it doesn't matter if democracy no longer exists. All you've done in the scenario is create big government, but a government that only 1% of the people have a say in. And you think people should be satisfied with that, as long as they are comfy. And assuming that once they have 99%, that is all they will want.
• 

  Berengaria

  I maintain that the rank and file on the right are brainwashed to the point of working against their own best interests. AND that of the country.

  The notion that the bottom is wealthier than it has ever been in history is slight of hand bull, and Burn knows it. Productivity has been increasing in this country at a dramatic rate for the last 30+ years, yet wages and wealth for the majority of Americans has stagnated or dropped while the top has gone through the ceiling. What's good for the top has nothing to do with what is good for the rest. Not in the current system.

  For a large portion of the last century, you could actually say that what is good for the majority was good for the top.
• 

  Berengaria

  That's naive. Money is power. What you're advocating is oligarchy, or even aristocracy, and claiming that as long as you have a big TV, it doesn't matter if democracy no longer exists. All you've done in the scenario is create big government, but a government that only 1% of the people have a say in. And you think people should be satisfied with that, as long as they are comfy. And assuming that once they have 99%, that is all they will want.

  Oh hayell yes