1% now owns 40%
Imagine if you were on an airplane where 1% of the passengers had 40% of the seats? That’s approximately the wealth pattern in America. More…
10 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Archives
- June 2008 (10)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
That’s a silly analogy.
Comment by dbvader | June 15, 2008
What if they bought the tickets and … the 99% didn’t? Stupid analogy. Lol.
Comment by Shaun | June 16, 2008
If no one was rich, no one could afford a plane, and then no one could fly
Comment by lebaron151 | June 18, 2008
Is that logic? People on planes buy tickets. The only way for 1% of the passengers to have 40% of the seats is to buy them.
Wealth is produced. As long as it is produced unequally it will be distributed unequally. Apparently you think everyone should have a equal share even if that means they have to take what others produce. That leads to another fallacy. You seem to assume that the levels of wealth production would stay the same if you confiscate it fromt he producers. As socialism in practice has proven, redistribution means much lower levels of production and thus much wealth.
Instead redistributing wealth you are merely redistributing poverty. You are not bringing the poor up but the rich down. That doesn’t benefit anyone but ia apparently makes you feel good.
Comment by CLS | June 23, 2008
Liberalism = envy.
Comment by RTS | June 23, 2008
To those who say it’s a silly analogy, thank you for derailing further conversation entirely. I always enjoy when analogies and examples are attacked so the point that’s being made doesn’t have to be addressed.
To those who argue that socialism in practice proves anything, please note that the socialisms we have seen have been usurped by the same power-hungry mentalities we see perpetrating the kinds of economic unevenness this post was meant to address. Truly participant-based socialism has not been seen in groups larger than a commune, as the consciousness of potential members is something crafted under a capitalist system. One of the central premises of Marx’s critique of capitalism, indeed, of systems of economy in general, is that those living under it are specifically what they are because of it. To force a group of capitalists to live as socialists is to invite the wolf into the chicken coop, so to speak.
Why not make the gesture towards evenly distributed basic resources? No one should struggle to eat, have shelter, bottom line. To say otherwise is to ignore the fact that certain people are disadvantaged from the get go. And many of those disadvantages are systemic, meaning that if we as a society merely further the status quo, the disadvantaged will remain disadvantaged. Do we believe in caring for one another in spite of faults, flaws, etc? Or are we the cutthroats our capitalist upbringing has lead us to believe we are?
Comment by heddy | June 23, 2008
what? huh? they bought them because they could. What’s wrong wit dat? If my understanding of this analogy is correct, u r saying distribution of wealth is a good idea. Well I disagree. the whole pt. of the us is that people have freedom to earn and keep their money.
Comment by Anonymous | June 24, 2008
In A country well governed,poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed,wealth is something to be ashamed of.
Why Don t You people take that plane to some Socialist Island where you all belong.
Comment by Tom Alongi | June 24, 2008
I still don’t get how the notion of taking care of the poor became a bad word. Be careful, the boogie man might kidnap you and force you to live in a socialized state where people can survive whether or not they were born into privilege.
George Will likes to say that conservatives favor liberty over equality, while liberals favor equality over liberty. But doesn’t his notion of liberty gloss over the fact that there is such a thing as underprivileged? Tell me that a child born into an impoverished family in an impoverished town in an impoverished state really has the same opportunities to exercise “liberty” that Pitt-Jolie’s latest progeny does (nothing against him/her/them). The problem is, quite simply, that the playing field isn’t level, and if we are to believe in a notion of social justice, if we are to overcome the ruthless nature of laissez-faire capitalism, if we are to live up to the teachings of whichever spiritual leader we choose to follow, we must work to level the playing field. It won’t simply happen on its own. Colorblindness, while an understandable approach to racism, is wrongheaded because it denies the existence of systemic racism and so furthers such a problem. Similarly, insistence that liberty should be valued over equality denies that those who lack equality from the get go are systemically underprivileged. Telling a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome (statistically more common in underprivileged homes) to pull herself up by her bootstraps is just cruel. She wasn’t provided bootstraps to begin with. She doesn’t have the same ability to exercise this “liberty” of which Mr. Will speaks so eloquently. Hard work, while an admirable trait, does not correlate 1-to-1 with accumulation of wealth unless you are economically predisposed to be able to accumulate wealth.
Comment by Nathan | June 24, 2008
Until a conservative can provide me with an answer to how incomplete information and nepatism don’t completely destroy their “those who work harder get more” mentality I think I will stick with good old fashioned logic.
For instance, has Paris Hilton worked harder than the man/woman who puts in 50 hours a week in a factory? That blew your small conservative mind, I know.
And Will’s argument is so faulty it is hardly worth debating, but let me put it plainly- conservatives are about restricting freedoms not bolstering them, except when it means they can trample others. Freedom comes from being able to make decisions for yourself, not being beholden to your church leader, corporation president etc.
Comment by Anonymous | June 25, 2008