Thanks for pointing out that we are a nation of ingrates, devoid of humility, which seemingly no amount of money can overcome. Hence the fuck you I got mine attitude of our own 1%. Perhaps that explains why we as 5% of the global population consume 60% of the illegal drugs, and that number goes to 90% when you add prescription medication. Draw your own conclusions.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
America's 99% Are The World's Top 1%
- Thread starter Maverick74
- Start date
Quote from Maverick74:
Not missing the point. The irony is that a lot of our middle class wealth left this country to go to these poorer countries. So now they are growing a middle class. You see, it cuts both ways. They (the rest of the world) are demanding that we (the 99%) give wealth to them just as the 99% in the US want some of the wealth of the top 1% here. I know it hurts dude, but it's the same logic carried over one step further.
You bet it hurts.
If your top priority is global well being, fair enough.
Mine is not. I am much more concerned about communities closer to home--they come first. Just like my family comes first, before you.
Assuming you care about global well being first, I'd argue you are making a lot of hidden assumptions about the growing world middle class. You are ignoring the opportunism that occurs during major market dislocations:
(1) Odds are multinationals will take advantage of that; so the total benefit for the world middle class will be considerably less than the Western middle class before it
(2) Odds are that the Chinese/Indian middle class will try to shut out the Western middle class.
In trading, how many times has ET heard "the market is random, so random entries should net 0 pnl less costs" or "why do most traders lose, wouldn't gains/losses cancel each other out". What this ignores is that the market (left to its own devices) crushes weak hands (i.e. squeezes them for max pain, particularly leveraged weak hands like lower/middle class Americans up to their eyeballs in debt - they are the weak hands )--people get their head handed to them before they know what hit them (this describes a lot of Americans today wondering what the hell happened). As you know, in trading this is related to risk of ruin.
What is criminal, is that these discussions so far have not been allowed to take place in the political process (for over 30 years) through lobbying, misinformation (like those statistics you posted), and divisive politics (Bush, Obama, Herman Cain, take your pick).
I know I am sounding like a broken record, but I think it is important for as many people as possible to be informed. Please humour me and watch the following (6 part) video of James Goldsmith--he articulates very well my arguments, he is an actual "businessman":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PQrz8F0dBI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZTzPmn-87w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_hiEvTNV5k&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yonUgZ2Y6Qs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6KkF6aa_A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDxufaKZLjc&feature=related
For fun, he takes on a Democrat spokeswoman, but the reality is the republicans are just as bad. You're a switched on guy, am curious to hear what you think after watching.
"It should also be remembered that one of the characteristics of developing countries is that a small handful of people control the overwhelming majority of their nation's resources. It is these people who own the major part of their nation's industrial, commercial and financial enterprises and who assemble the cheap labor which is used to manufacture products for the developed world. Thus, it is the poor in the rich countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries. This will have a deep impact on the social cohesion of nations. "
"If by wise policy or blind luck, a country has managed to control its population growth, provide social insurance, high wages, reasonable working hours and other benefits to its working class (i.e. most of its citizens), should it allow these benefits to be competed down to the world average by unregulated trade? This levelling of wages will be overwhelmingly downward due to the vast number and rapid growth rate of under-employed populations in the Third World."
"If by wise policy or blind luck, a country has managed to control its population growth, provide social insurance, high wages, reasonable working hours and other benefits to its working class (i.e. most of its citizens), should it allow these benefits to be competed down to the world average by unregulated trade? This levelling of wages will be overwhelmingly downward due to the vast number and rapid growth rate of under-employed populations in the Third World."
Quote from sme:
Monopolistic corporations want (and are getting) a global labour market. Assuming you care, how are people supposed to compete?
Oh quit worrying. The US workers pay will eventually equal the third world's pay. That will bring the third world up about a percent and take the US down about 99% but hey, it's the yin-yang thingy...
Quote from Eight:
Oh quit worrying. The US workers pay will eventually equal the third world's pay. That will bring the third world up about a percent and take the US down about 99% but hey, it's the yin-yang thingy...
I know you're being sarcastic.
What is frustrating is some smart people seem to be ok with what you've described.
The real stat is: the difference between income (after tax), and the cost of living. Also factor in the intangibles. Go back to rework the numbers, and remove the drama queen hat if you are wearing it.