It's The Economy, STUPID!.....

[Double A]

The Elephant in the Room

Despite improvements in financial management since the U.S. government began preparing consolidated financial statements more than a decade ago, three major impediments prevent the U.S. government from obtaining a clean opinion: (1) serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense, (2) the federal government's inability to adequately account for and reconcile intragovernmental activity and balances between federal agencies, and (3) the federal government's ineffective process for preparing the consolidated financial statements.

"Until the problems outlined in our audit report are adequately addressed, they will continue to have adverse implications for the federal government and American taxpayers," Walker said in a letter to the President and Congress.

"The federal government's fiscal exposures totaled approximately $53 trillion as of September 30, 2007, up more than $2 trillion from September 30, 2006, and an increase of more than $32 trillion from about $20 trillion as of September 30, 2000," Walker said. "This translates into a current burden of about $175,000 per American or approximately $455,000 per American household."

[Double A]

The rising tide that lifts all yachts

[FOTD]

Dove tailing the above link....

Reckoning
The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.
by Joseph E. Stiglitz December 2007


http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/12/bush200712

"America's budget and trade deficits have grown to record highs under President Bush. To be sure, deficits don't have to be crippling in and of themselves. If a business borrows to buy a machine, it's a good thing, not a bad thing. During the past six years, America—its government, its families, the country as a whole—has been borrowing to sustain its consumption. Meanwhile, investment in fixed assets—the plants and equipment that help increase our wealth—has been declining."

also

"The administration crows that the economy grew—by some 16 percent—during its first six years, but the growth helped mainly people who had no need of any help, and failed to help those who need plenty. A rising tide lifted all yachts. Inequality is now widening in America, and at a rate not seen in three-quarters of a century. "

and

"Meanwhile, we have become dependent on other nations for the financing of our own debt. Today, China alone holds more than $1 trillion in public and private American I.O.U.'s. Cumulative borrowing from abroad during the six years of the Bush administration amounts to some $5 trillion. Most likely these creditors will not call in their loans—if they ever did, there would be a global financial crisis. But there is something bizarre and troubling about the richest country in the world not being able to live even remotely within its means. Just as Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have eroded America's moral authority, so the Bush administration's fiscal housekeeping has eroded our economic authority."

more.....

"Whoever moves into the White House in January 2009 will face an unenviable set of economic circumstances. Extricating the country from Iraq will be the bloodier task, but putting America's economic house in order will be wrenching and take years.
The most immediate challenge will be simply to get the economy's metabolism back into the normal range. That will mean moving from a savings rate of zero (or less) to a more typical savings rate of, say, 4 percent. While such an increase would be good for the long-term health of America's economy, the short-term consequences would be painful. Money saved is money not spent. If people don't spend money, the economic engine stalls. If households curtail their spending quickly—as they may be forced to do as a result of the meltdown in the mortgage market—this could mean a recession; if done in a more measured way, it would still mean a protracted slowdown. The problems of foreclosure and bankruptcy posed by excessive household debt are likely to get worse before they get better. And the federal government is in a bind: any quick restoration of fiscal sanity will only aggravate both problems."

"In short, there's a momentum here that will require a generation to reverse. "


Read the article to see what the author suggests will need to happen to reclaim our strength....and it's not based on strengthening the military.

[TheArtist]

I know there are problems in our economy. A large part of it imo is the Fed gov borrowing and spending too much. I think a lot of spending that is done by the government should be done locally. If its local debt and spending I think its paid closer attention to, versus federal almost doesnt seem real so it grows and grows and if one state does it and another doesnt then the one that doesnt is paying for the state that does spend and borrow more. A Coburn for example cant stem the tide all by themselves. It just ends up with other states getting "bridges to nowhere and Ice cream museums", yet we are all going to get the burden of paying for those things. If more spending control were local people would be wiser in choosing, hopefully, in what they spend or borrow for, medical research for example.

But. I dont like how this this discussion about income inequality is framed.  To me its not properly framing the truth of the situation and thus hiding any potential solution to any income problems we have.

Income inequality can mean that Jo Smiths income rose... but Sam Tycoons rose a lot more. The assumption often seems to be that Sam Tycoon is either taking something that would otherwise go to Jo, or Sam is not sharing his wealth more fairly. (remember Sam may be investing his money into "shares" to actually create a job that employs Jo.)

If Jo sells burgers at the local burger joint, his income is going to be pretty much the same year after year.  But if Sam owns a chain that starts out with several stores in a city, then more stores throughout the state, then the whole United States and now he is selling burgers across the whole world to Billions.  Sams income is of course going to be astronomical. There will be a huge income inequality between Jo and Sam.

Plus as the whole world gets richer a person or company has the opportunity to sell to ever more people. Instead of a person or company selling, say a million of something and getting the profit from a million, they are selling perhaps hundreds of millions around the world, perhaps even making less profit off of each item, but over all their income is still skyrocketing in comparison to what they could have made 50 years ago, 30 years ago, even 20 years ago.  

One more example. Say your an inventor and invent something completely new, not competing with any local guy. New medical device, post-its, Myspace, watever. You have a hit movie, song, Harry Potter book,,,  In a global market you now have the opportunity to sell to Billions, you will suddenly become extremely wealthy in comparison to those around you. You couldnt have sold to so many a generation ago. The income inequality wouldnt have been as great. It doesnt mean those around you got any poorer.  But by you having a product that you can sell to ever more people, you have contributed to income inequality. Is it bad that you can get so much more richer now yet everyone elses income didnt go up nearly as much?

Now that China has "gone capitalist" the inequality gap there has widened tremendously as well. Huge income inequality but do we think its a bad thing that there are at least some that are now middle class and rich?

Ok, just one more thing, lol... If we dont have super rich in this country, another country will. The super rich buy up other companies. US rich can buy up the "means of production" in other countries, the super rich of other countries, Dubai for instance, can buy up the means of production in our country. In other words, if the rich of the rest of the world were to buy up the means of production in the US you may get your wish of income equality in the US for the profits will be going to those over seas buyers. The profits will be going to rich foreigners and we will all get to be more equally poor. Wont that be great? The super wealthy in our country are competing to stay on top of whats going on in the rest of the world. If we decide that ol Conglomerate USA shouldnt be so rich, then instead of doing the buying, they will be the one bought up.  There is a power struggle going on "up there".

I could go on with other points. But suffice it to say...

Be careful when thinking about income inequality and what it can mean.

[Double A]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

I know there are problems in our economy. A large part of it imo is the Fed gov borrowing and spending too much. I think a lot of spending that is done by the government should be done locally. If its local debt and spending I think its paid closer attention to, versus federal almost doesnt seem real so it grows and grows and if one state does it and another doesnt then the one that doesnt is paying for the state that does spend and borrow more. A Coburn for example cant stem the tide all by themselves. It just ends up with other states getting "bridges to nowhere and Ice cream museums", yet we are all going to get the burden of paying for those things. If more spending control were local people would be wiser in choosing, hopefully, in what they spend or borrow for, medical research for example.

But. I dont like how this this discussion about income inequality is framed.  To me its not properly framing the truth of the situation and thus hiding any potential solution to any income problems we have.

Income inequality can mean that Jo Smiths income rose... but Sam Tycoons rose a lot more. The assumption often seems to be that Sam Tycoon is either taking something that would otherwise go to Jo, or Sam is not sharing his wealth more fairly. (remember Sam may be investing his money into "shares" to actually create a job that employs Jo.)

If Jo sells burgers at the local burger joint, his income is going to be pretty much the same year after year.  But if Sam owns a chain that starts out with several stores in a city, then more stores throughout the state, then the whole United States and now he is selling burgers across the whole world to Billions.  Sams income is of course going to be astronomical. There will be a huge income inequality between Jo and Sam.

Plus as the whole world gets richer those companies that used to be able to only sell their product or services to the middle class, now find they can sell to millions and millions more. Same people owning the company, but now instead of selling, say a million of something and getting the profit from a million, they are selling perhaps hundreds of millions around the world and making, perhaps even less profit off of each item, but over all their income is still skyrocketing in comparison.

One more example. Say your an inventor and invent something completely new, not competing with any local guy. New medical device, post-its, watever. In a global market you now have the opportunity to sell to Billions, you will suddenly become extremely wealthy in comparison to those around you. It doesnt mean those around you got any poorer.  But you have contributed to income inequality. Is it bad that you got so rich yet everyone elses income didnt go up nearly as much?

Now that China has "gone capitalist" the inequality gap there has widened tremendously as well. Huge income inequality but do we think its a bad thing that there are at least some that are now middle class and rich?

One other thing... If we dont have super rich in this country, another country will. The super rich buy up other companies. US rich can buy up the "means of production" in other countries, the super rich of other countries, Dubai for instance, can buy up the means of production in our country. In other words, if the rich of the rest of the world were to buy up the means of production in the US you may get your wish of income equality in the US for the profits will be going to those over seas buyers. The profits will be going to rich foreigners and we will all get to be more equally poor. Wont that be great? The super wealthy in our country are competing to stay on top of whats going on in the rest of the world. There is a power struggle going on "up there".

I could go on with other points. But suffice it to say...

Be careful when thinking about income inequality and what it can mean.

I understand why you want to see the mega rich get richer, more disposable income for them means more chances for you to get on the dole of a rich patron. Paint is your medium, right? Because after that senseless spiel, I am beginning to wonder if it isn't B.S.

[cannon_fodder]

DoubleA, that was possible the most senseless and uncalled for comment I have seen on this forum.  In spite of your repeatedly drive by postings of links with no analysis or explanation of your own, The Artist took the time to very rationally explain his position.   Instead of disagree with him or explaining where his analysis was incorrect, you decide to insult his integrity.

What's more, he was spot on.  In rural China there is very little income disparity because everyone is dirt poor.  In the cities, you have a vast horde that remain dirt poor, a growing middle class, and a small group of wealthy people.  Are the dirt poor somehow worse off now that some other's have wealth?  

DoubleA, yours stuck in a 17th century mercantile thought process of finite wealth.  The fact is in most instances the rich have added wealth into our world and thus have more of it.  Not only labor, but resources, capital improvements,  and intellectual property add wealth into our world - why should those that provide them not reap the additions that they sow.  

Just so you can properly ignore my thesis and insult me, let me provide you with an example.

In my world, a farmer takes a financial risk to lease land and barrow money to buy seed.  He then spends his labor planting those seeds and tending to his field.  If the rain comes but is not too heavy, the sun shines the right amount of time, if insects are kept at bay... the a farmer can then spend more labor harvesting his crop.

When all this is done the farmer, through his investment, risk, and labor has added wealth to our world in the form of a crop.  If he does it well and risks enough (labor is a risk also, since the same labor could be used to secure an income) he can produce enough to sell his excess.  In my world, he then gets to keep this excess.

In your world - this farmer has to give his excess to the farmer down the street who was either too lazy, too afraid of risk, or for other reason was unable to produce more than a simple means of survival.  

Now, do you suppose the productive farmer will bother to do so next year?

[Conan71]

The rich do keep getting richer.  But can anyone dispute that there are far more millionaires in the U.S. than there were 50 or 100 years ago?  How many millionaires were created in the old USSR from the Bolshevik Revolution to the time of the dissolution of the USSR?  How about China from around 1900 to 1990?

Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others:   in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.

A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

The rich do keep getting richer.  But can anyone dispute that there are far more millionaires in the U.S. than there were 50 or 100 years ago?  How many millionaires were created in the old USSR from the Bolshevik Revolution to the time of the dissolution of the USSR?  How about China from around 1900 to 1990?

Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others:   in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.

A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.

Can I get an Amen for the Barbarian.......!






[}:)]

[Conan71]

Rico, that even has a nice Christmas touch to it.
[]

[TheArtist]

I made a few wording adjustments above to hopefully make what I was trying to get at it a bit clear.

One thing I would say that could be done to help with income inequality in the US is to make trade deals in this global economy, or we "should have" made trade deals that indeed increased free trade but also had some stipulations.  In return for access to our markets, allow trade unions to form for instance. Though you would have to get a good part of the rest of the world to go along with you.

If a trade union fights for higher wages, more health care, safety conditions, etc. here and a company in another country can make the product for less because they dont have trade unions, then people will buy the less expensive product from the foreign company.

Say you ban that foreign company from selling that product here because they dont allow unions. Europe, Russia, Canada, the rest of the world, will buy that cheaper product, or service and the US company will not be able to compete in that global market. That will hurt US companies and jobs.

The prices in the US will be higher because people in the US have to pay more for things than someone say in France. If a US person or company pays more for a widget they use to make a product with or thats in another product, and or they pay more in general for things to live on, then the products they make will cost more on the global market than the same product made in France. Also France can still sell its products to the US, but their products will be cheaper because their people and companies can buy cheaper products from that non union country to live on and to use to produce their own products.

Example: I buy my paint and brushes from a union factory here. The artist in France buys his paints and brushes from a non union company in China for less. The French artist can sell his paintings for less in the US than I can. He can sell his products in the rest of the world for less than I can.

Its a global economy......... as it is, the average worker is going to have a hard time increasing his income, yet the person or company that sells to lots of people will continue to be able to sell to ever more and more people in the US and around the world.

As China and Indias middle class becomes larger and more influential they will be able to organize more, start worrying about things like health care, property rights, rule of law as it pertains to capitalism, environmental concerns, etc. Then the wages in those countries will begin to rise as costs go up. But that is going to take time. It may follow the same process that western countries took when those uppity middle class mercantilists started taking power away from the aristocracy and then had enough power and leisure to concern themselves with other matters. I say MAY because in places like China and possibly Russia, the political structure has so much control that it may not be allowed. Thus it may not evolve the way we hope, even as their middle and wealthy classes grow.

One way to increase income with US workers is to make sure they are not doing jobs that compete with the kind of jobs and products that are made in poorer countries. Make sure more US people are highly educated and doing high paying, higher skilled jobs. Though incomes may rise by doing that, it will still not get rid of rising income inequality for the reasons I stated in my earlier post.

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others:   in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.

A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.

I'm never quite sure, when someone says this, how to take it.  Are you telling me to accept the fact that wealthy people will always be wealthy?  that I should thank them for my well-being?  that they will always be different than me?  What are you trying to tell me, here?

Are you trying to scare me away from some sort of commie wealth redistribution scheme?  Is it natural and right for me to rely on a class of oligarchs who will shower me with benevolence and to whom I will always and forever be beholden?  

Really, if we follow your prescription (that is, the wealthy are the engines of our economy by supporting job growth, taking risks with capital, etc), then it would in our favor to close the income gap.  Upwards.  We should simply find ways to make more people rich, because the more rich folks we have the more jobs we'll have.  And inequality is bad because we have fewer people contributing to the job-making machine. Am I reading you right?  

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others:   in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.

A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.

I'm never quite sure, when someone says this, how to take it.  Are you telling me to accept the fact that wealthy people will always be wealthy?  that I should thank them for my well-being?  that they will always be different than me?  What are you trying to tell me, here?

Are you trying to scare me away from some sort of commie wealth redistribution scheme?  Is it natural and right for me to rely on a class of oligarchs who will shower me with benevolence and to whom I will always and forever be beholden?  

Really, if we follow your prescription (that is, the wealthy are the engines of our economy by supporting job growth, taking risks with capital, etc), then it would in our favor to close the income gap.  Upwards.  We should simply find ways to make more people rich, because the more rich folks we have the more jobs we'll have.  And inequality is bad because we have fewer people contributing to the job-making machine. Am I reading you right?  

Come on now, class envy is so 1992. []

Depends on your personal paradigm I suppose.  If you are more liberal leaning, my words will go in one ear and out the other.  If you are more free-market capitalist, have observed global economic systems and the results, and still believe in the original American dream, you will probably nod your head at a few of my comments, if not most.

Why should you have a problem showing that sort of gratitude?  Other than mental or physical disability, there's no limit to what you can  become in this country so long as you have desire and ambition.  As long as you are willing to make the sacrifice to make yourself more valuable to someone else by improving your skills or education, there's always someone who needs you to help them make more money and they are willing to share that wealth.

Aside from jobs and taxes, consider that the wealthy donate billions every year to universities to provide better facilities and to fund professorships and scholarships, so that others may improve their personal station in life.  If you went to college and didn't ever have a scholarship or grant, you still benefitted from the benevolence of wealthy people.

Someone can come from a slum and eventually become chief of staff at a major hospital.  An disadvantaged child can rise from poverty in rural Arkansas and become President of the United States.  

Consider that the wealthy give billions every year to medical facilities and research so that we can all live healthier lives.

Consider that the wealthy invest heavily every year in providing safe agricultural products and improvements in food processing equiment so that you have a healthy supply of food.

Consider that the wealthy re-invest in communities to make them better places to live.

What's not to appreciate and feel grateful for about other's wealth?  It's healthy to appreciate but not to covet.

What would this country look like today if not for people like Ford, Mellon, Getty, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Philips, Gates, Buffett, etc?  What would Tulsa look like without Kaiser, Zarrow, Warren, and wealthy investors who invest in American Airlines, Spirit Aerospace and other publicly-held companies?

All I'm doing is breaking down free-market economy vs. socialism/communism.  The result of communism is corruption, mass poverty, sub-standard housing, sub-standard working conditions, food shortages, and unsafe food supplies.  The result winds up being a far smaller pool of people controlling the wealth while the rest of the country suffers and toils away day after day.

Government confiscating wealth and assets to re-distribute and create social and economic parity has proven to be a miserable failure.

Unless you are independently wealthy- you are going to be beholden to someone for your living-either the government or others who likely have more money than yourself.  If communism was so great, why did so many people die trying to get over or under the iron curtain?  Why did so many people die crossing the Gulf Stream fleeing Cuba?

[RecycleMichael]

"Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures."

Theodore Roosevelt  

[we vs us]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by Conan71


Anyone who has gainful employment in this country has it due to the wealth of others:   in part, taxation of wealthy people (gov't jobs), and/or reinvestment in the economy by wealthy people.

A lot of people have become wealthy due to other people spreading their wealth around by creating income opportunities for others.

I'm never quite sure, when someone says this, how to take it.  Are you telling me to accept the fact that wealthy people will always be wealthy?  that I should thank them for my well-being?  that they will always be different than me?  What are you trying to tell me, here?

Are you trying to scare me away from some sort of commie wealth redistribution scheme?  Is it natural and right for me to rely on a class of oligarchs who will shower me with benevolence and to whom I will always and forever be beholden?  

Really, if we follow your prescription (that is, the wealthy are the engines of our economy by supporting job growth, taking risks with capital, etc), then it would in our favor to close the income gap.  Upwards.  We should simply find ways to make more people rich, because the more rich folks we have the more jobs we'll have.  And inequality is bad because we have fewer people contributing to the job-making machine. Am I reading you right?  

Come on now, class envy is so 1992. []

Depends on your personal paradigm I suppose.  If you are more liberal leaning, my words will go in one ear and out the other.  If you are more free-market capitalist, have observed global economic systems and the results, and still believe in the original American dream, you will probably nod your head at a few of my comments, if not most.

Why should you have a problem showing that sort of gratitude?  Other than mental or physical disability, there's no limit to what you can  become in this country so long as you have desire and ambition.  As long as you are willing to make the sacrifice to make yourself more valuable to someone else by improving your skills or education, there's always someone who needs you to help them make more money and they are willing to share that wealth.

Aside from jobs and taxes, consider that the wealthy donate billions every year to universities to provide better facilities and to fund professorships and scholarships, so that others may improve their personal station in life.  If you went to college and didn't ever have a scholarship or grant, you still benefitted from the benevolence of wealthy people.

Someone can come from a slum and eventually become chief of staff at a major hospital.  An disadvantaged child can rise from poverty in rural Arkansas and become President of the United States.  

Consider that the wealthy give billions every year to medical facilities and research so that we can all live healthier lives.

Consider that the wealthy invest heavily every year in providing safe agricultural products and improvements in food processing equiment so that you have a healthy supply of food.

Consider that the wealthy re-invest in communities to make them better places to live.

What's not to appreciate and feel grateful for about other's wealth?  It's healthy to appreciate but not to covet.

What would this country look like today if not for people like Ford, Mellon, Getty, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Philips, Gates, Buffett, etc?  What would Tulsa look like without Kaiser, Zarrow, Warren, and wealthy investors who invest in American Airlines, Spirit Aerospace and other publicly-held companies?

All I'm doing is breaking down free-market economy vs. socialism/communism.  The result of communism is corruption, mass poverty, sub-standard housing, sub-standard working conditions, food shortages, and unsafe food supplies.  The result winds up being a far smaller pool of people controlling the wealth while the rest of the country suffers and toils away day after day.

Government confiscating wealth and assets to re-distribute and create social and economic parity has proven to be a miserable failure.

Unless you are independently wealthy- you are going to be beholden to someone for your living-either the government or others who likely have more money than yourself.  If communism was so great, why did so many people die trying to get over or under the iron curtain?  Why did so many people die crossing the Gulf Stream fleeing Cuba?

Just so's you know, I'm not really a hysterical leftist, per se.  After rereading my post from last night, I realize I might have come across as a little shrill . . . and no one wants a shrill newbie hanging around []

But I've heard your reasoning before -- almost verbatim in some places -- and in the end it defends the status quo, which is increasing inequality.  I won't argue that invested wealth doesn't create more wealth -- believe it or not, I'm a capitalist, too, and I believe in its dynamics -- but trickle-down economics seems to me inherently undemocratic.  Maybe it works in pure capitalism, but we're not a purely capitalist society.  We're democratic capitalists.  As Americans we also believe in certain equalities, and equality of opportunity would seem to be one of them.  Trickle-down economics accepts and encourages exactly the opposite behavior.

Also, I'm certainly no communist.  I'm by no means arguing for abolishment of private property, or centralizing our economy or anything remotely of the sort.  What I am suggesting is that we get back to emphasizing equality of opportunity again, and not assuming that a caste system is the perfect way to structure our country. In my mind the American Dream is to aspire to more wealth by hard work, but our country's increasing inequality shows that aspiring to more is becoming harder and harder.    

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us


Just so's you know, I'm not really a hysterical leftist, per se.  After rereading my post from last night, I realize I might have come across as a little shrill . . . and no one wants a shrill newbie hanging around []

But I've heard your reasoning before -- almost verbatim in some places -- and in the end it defends the status quo, which is increasing inequality.  I won't argue that invested wealth doesn't create more wealth -- believe it or not, I'm a capitalist, too, and I believe in its dynamics -- but trickle-down economics seems to me inherently undemocratic.  Maybe it works in pure capitalism, but we're not a purely capitalist society.  We're democratic capitalists.  As Americans we also believe in certain equalities, and equality of opportunity would seem to be one of them.  Trickle-down economics accepts and encourages exactly the opposite behavior.

Also, I'm certainly no communist.  I'm by no means arguing for abolishment of private property, or centralizing our economy or anything remotely of the sort.  What I am suggesting is that we get back to emphasizing equality of opportunity again, and not assuming that a caste system is the perfect way to structure our country. In my mind the American Dream is to aspire to more wealth by hard work, but our country's increasing inequality shows that aspiring to more is becoming harder and harder.    

Wevus- not a personal attack on you, but you sound quite younger than myself and not that far from the ideological clutches of liberal college professors who live in a vacuum and don't seem to realize they owe their jobs to a capitalistic society and wealthy people they seem to despise.  I'm still amazed there are so many journalists who have perpetuated such thoughts who owe their living to the Randoph Hursts and Rupert Murdochs of this world, who would otherwise be starving coffee house poets.

What is so wrong with the status quo in our country?  Other than Lee Harvey Oswald, I've never heard of anyone who returned from a communist country who still thought our way of life and economy sucked.  In case you didn't notice, LHO was a slacker. []

I want to say you are young and idealistic, but I have a hard time finding idealism in comments which detract from the reality which has created wealth for millions of Americans and continues to perpetuate year after year.

Until you've run your own business and figured out that the government reserves the right to take double what you take personally out of a business via taxes and some overly protective regulations, you will never appreciate how confiscatory our taxes and other fees are to small and large business alike.

Saying we have a caste system in the U.S. is pure hyperbole.  A true caste system will limit you from advancing in life by your very family name like as it works in India.  No such restriction exists in this country and there should be a new "Godwin's Law" for statements like that.  

A last name like "Siegfried" might get you a little higher salary fresh out of college in Tulsa (assuming you went to work anywhere else BUT Nordam), but unless your family is totally comprised of dude bags, it won't keep you from getting ahead if you are willing to work a little harder than the next guy.

It's one thing to aspire to greater wealth, it's entirely another to get up off ones arse and put in the hard work or investigate what it really takes to get there.  Most of the people I know who biznitch about not making near enough have put themselves in that situation through their own inaction and refuse to make the personal sacrfices others have done to reach their aspirations.  

Instead of telling me you think economic parity is a good idea, please explain to me why that's an ideal I or others should share with you.  Share a benefit, if you know of any.  I might struggle to understand it because I've put myself into a postion where my income is directly a result of the effort I put out on a daily basis (commissioned/bonused sales).  It keeps me self-motivated.  

I'm certain there are people I went to prep school with who came from families of less means than my own who are now making more money than I am.  It's because they were willing to work hard to get into schools like Vanderbilt, Brown, Columbia, and Yale, then work hard when they got there and get a great job based on their work ethic and academic results, not who their father was.