The Rich Get Richer While the Poor Get Poorer

[kib]

And all I can say is, 'what the heck's up with the search engine here?' I can't believe I missed a whole thread where I existed in a village of like minded mud-hut dwellers. An alterative universe entirely to my liking and I totally missed it.

Looking over the last 15 posts or so, it occurs to me that no, opportunity does not have to be statistically equal to all in order to be of advantage to everyone. However, that might also be the crux of the issue: the further the balance of power and wealth shifts to a smaller number of hands, the less natural flow of opportunity there is. Whether or not to provide opportunity becomes a matter for the wealthy to decide, much like a man with a bulldozer may not control where the rain will fall, but he can decide where the river will flow.

[loosechickens]

"However, that might also be the crux of the issue: the further the balance of power and wealth shifts to a smaller number of hands, the less natural flow of opportunity there is. Whether or not to provide opportunity becomes a matter for the wealthy to decide, much like a man with a bulldozer may not control where the rain will fall, but he can decide where the river will flow." (kib)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a really good point, kib. And really gets to the crux as well of feelings from many ordinary people about the inequality of opportunity that leads to such exaggerated inequalities in income, etc.

It's not that we don't all understand that some people will be smarter, more able, luckier or any other thing, and come out ahead. And it's not that ordinary people resent or envy success. It's when the playing field is so tilted by advantage to a small, select group, so that it becomes easier and easier for them to accumulate more and more, until finally most of the decisions about what opportunities are available to others are in the hands of those few, that there is a problem. And when those few have almost a stranglehold on what laws get passed, who gets tax advantages, etc. it becomes a huge problem for a democracy.

It's like, it's not a problem that people become rich, it's a problem when they use those riches to obtain more and more power and influence over government, laws, regulations, etc., to bend them to their own advantage, until the very idea of "opportunity" for most becomes almost an empty dream. THAT'S where the problems come. Not from the success itself, but from the outsized ability to influence everything to continually increase advantage for themselves, often at the expense of others.

When the guy's bulldozer is large enough for him to divert most all of the rain to his own advantage, by being able to create the riverbed in which the water flows, so that it waters only his own fields, leaving the fields of others dry, unless HE is willing to sell them water, we've got a huge problem. And that is what is happening with this continuing and accelerating rate of consolidation of the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which means consolidating the power that wealth can buy, as well.

[bae]

When the guy's bulldozer is large enough for him to divert most all of the rain to his own advantage, by being able to create the riverbed in which the water flows, so that it waters only his own fields, leaving the fields of others dry, unless HE is willing to sell them water, we've got a huge problem.

Interesting analogy. But very flawed. The behaviour you describe is of course why we moved from "I'm an evil landowning noble" English-style water law to first-in-use water law here in much of the United States.

Water isn't a good analogy either, for much of it is a shared resource, and not "wealth".

When I write a cool book, and make a billion dollars from selling it in voluntary transactions, I haven't taken diverted water from your farm.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Unfortunately, I have also read that in our current society, the chances of climbing from one economic rung to another have become increasingly difficult. Not only are we less likely to become rich and famous, we're less likely to be as successful as our own parents.

I remember reading somewhere that upward mobility in the United States has become more difficult than in most Western European countries. Amazing. I was taught in school that in America anything is possible, and one of the reasons for this was the lower tax rates in the US - and now upward mobility is a more likely prospect in Europe! Absolutely amazing how things have changed the past ten to twenty years. Rob of the North Rim Summer 2011

[flowerseverywhere]

I remember reading somewhere that upward mobility in the United States has become more difficult than in most Western European countries. Amazing. I was taught in school that in America anything is possible, and one of the reasons for this was the lower tax rates in the US - and now upward mobility is a more likely prospect in Europe! Absolutely amazing how things have changed the past ten to twenty years. Rob of the North Rim Summer 2011

Do you think population has anything to do with it? Per the CIA factbook
"Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years."

https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../2127rank.html

Another thing, as I have traveled to several European countries and Australia I was struck by the difference in consumerism. In the US some of our habits: multiple cars, big house, spending on imported junk I just didn't see nearly to the degree as I traveled. I don't know how we can as a society get ahead without a change in our values to control population growth, be better stewards of our land, and buy fewer goods produced in our own country. Yes, the price may be higher if you pay decent wages, but you get what you pay for and we are drowning in a sea of cheap plastic goods destined to end up in landfills instead of a few quality goods that last.

We have a finite amount of clean water and fossil fuels and we haven't been good stewards of either.

[Gregg]

When the guy's bulldozer is large enough for him to divert most all of the rain to his own advantage, by being able to create the riverbed in which the water flows, so that it waters only his own fields, leaving the fields of others dry, unless HE is willing to sell them water, we've got a huge problem. And that is what is happening with this continuing and accelerating rate of consolidation of the world's wealth into fewer and fewer hands, which means consolidating the power that wealth can buy, as well.

Of course it is possible to get ahead at the expense of others, but as bae pointed out the creation of wealth does not (by the very definition of creation) need to take something away from anyone or anything. Only the people who believe wealth is static can make that argument, but there is simply too much evidence showing wealth is dynamic to believe otherwise. Water, OTOH is available in finite quantities and, for practical purposes, is not created on a daily basis. Even so, the river diversion analogy is cool and accurate in the sense that economic 'rivers' do change course. The most high profile avenues for wealth creation in just the past few years show a course that meandered through dot.coms, oil, financial services and other industries. To continue with the analogy, there will be another flood that changes the course of the river, and another after that. There will always be people on bulldozers working to divert as much of the changing current as possible to their fields. The smart ones will realize that if they build dikes and try to keep all the water for themselves their fields will flood and they will drown. There are certainly greedy people out there, but they don't tend to have much staying power.

[loosechickens]

Bae, you and Gregg are actually missing my point, which obviously has nothing to do with water rights, accumulating wealth, etc. As I said, nothing wrong with wealth in and of itself, and much wealth CAN be created without exploiting others.

What I SAID was that when that huge amount of wealth, consolidated into the hands of a few, is used to have outsized influence and power on our laws, regulations, politics and other things, to bend them so that they gain even more advantage, it is bad for free societies, and bad for democracies.

We have one person, one vote for a reason. But in actuality, because the wealth of those few gives them outsized influence, access and ability to shape policy, their ability to tilt the playing field to their own advantage is FAR greater than their numbers.

Nothing wrong with wealth, nothing wrong with attempting to accumulate. It is how that wealth is used to create ever larger and larger advantages for those few through manipulation of the system where we have problems.

[Alan]

What I SAID was that when that huge amount of wealth, consolidated into the hands of a few, is used to have outsized influence and power on our laws, regulations, politics and other things, to bend them so that they gain even more advantage, it is bad for free societies, and bad for democracies.

We have one person, one vote for a reason. But in actuality, because the wealth of those few gives them outsized influence, access and ability to shape policy, their ability to tilt the playing field to their own advantage is FAR greater than their numbers.

Nothing wrong with wealth, nothing wrong with attempting to accumulate. It is how that wealth is used to create ever larger and larger advantages for those few through manipulation of the system where we have problems.

So, it sounds like you're saying that there's nothing wrong with wealth and that the holders of wealth are not implicitly evil, but rather that a government that is easily swayed is the problem. If that is the case, wouldn't you think that governmental intrusion into every facet of our lives would be a bad thing since it is too corrupt a body for us to allow it license?

[loosechickens]

No, I wouldn't say that, because there are many things that don't lend themselves well to a profit model (we could argue all day on that one, I'm sure, so I won't). I see government's role as a balancing force against the weaknesses of capitalism, one of which is greed, so it's ability to define "rules of the road" and limits to the profit making machines is not bad. I also think that such things as roads, bridges, schools, and yes, even health care, are better administered by government than the private sector, although I'm sure you would disagree with me on that. I'd certainly like to see government keeping their intrusive hands off our sex lives, etc. but.....there again, that's another argument.

It does make me an advocate of public financing of elections, taking private and corporate money completely out of the election process, so that representatives can be elected that represent the people of their districts or states, as opposed to the few with the huge amounts of money and influence that they have to please in order to get enough money for their next campaign.

I'd like to see each candidate have equal amounts of airtime on the public airwaves to state their positions, perhaps debates among candidates, and a certain amount of public money per candidate to use to get their message out to the public about how they stand on issues, but that whoever we elect goes into office "owing no one" anything other than their integrity, desire to serve their country, etc.

It just does not serve the best interests of our country, or any other democracy, for a tiny minority to have such outsized influence on how our government is operated. That's all.

[Alan]

But wouldn't that same minority still exert influence on politicians once elected by promising to steer business capital into specific districts or by offering post election employment or by favors to family, friends, associates? If that minority is indeed exerting undue influence on politicians through campaign contributions, once denied that avenue, won't another one simply become the favorite way of buying influence?

Personally, I think that if buying influence is as common as some might believe, it would be better to diminish the amount of influence available.