Those who formed, form and will form such massive economies, didn’t, don’t and won’t stop forming them.
Then don’t ask them to. What happens is the combination of what is and what you cause. When asking doesn’t cause what you wish, stop asking.
Your concern is the disparity between the highest wealth and the lowest. When all of the wealth is under the same domain, the highest will always be that tiny little portion on top of the pyramid. But then imagine that instead of having a single huge pyramid, there are 100,000,000 pyramids. The same “highest wealth” is now distributed over 100,000,000 people. And even better is the fact that the lowest not only didn’t get any lower, but are now closer to the wealthiest. They have more in common. They know each other. They know of each other’s problems. And if done properly, they even know why each is doing what they do. There comes common understanding between the highest and the lowest.
The result of such nearness tends to be a blending of affluence, wherein there isn’t a great deal of difference in suffrage. Isn’t it really the equality of suffrage that you are after?
All behavior … ALL … behavior … of conscious beings is due entirely to Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT. To alter any behavior, simply alter the person’s perception of hope and threat. Greed and lust are no exception. When the need is no longer perceived and the hope has found a new home, the behavior WILL change in every case without exception. There is no option.
You merely have to cast a stone in the eye of David.
The system itself is based on violence, as its rules are enforced by police and military.
But I didn’t, don’t and won’t ask them.
Violent overthrow of the system is likely to end in a much more unequal system, as rights and norms of equality are cast aside by whoever is in charge. I don’t think the history of violent overthrow justifies an expectation that it would end in a more egalitarian system.
Better is to elect politicians that think that redistribution is a worth goal, and keep pressure on them to pass incremental reforms towards a more equal society. Things like changing capital gains tax and expanding EITC and child benefits are small but make a big difference over time. More radical reforms would include implementing a national land value tax and decreasing income taxes. Taxing income makes social mobility harder, and taxing land is about as close as we can realistically get to a wealth tax, since a lot of wealth is held in the form of land.
The whole idea of just wiping out the entire system is just lazy. Yeah, we all wish we’d done things a little differently in the past, but we’ve also improved a lot of lives in the interim. And there are many more ways to make things worse than there are to make things better. We should keep what we have and make it better slowly; the alternative is not to make it better quickly, it’s to make it worse quickly.
Explain how to keep pressure on them effectively? Who holds Congress accountable to their word, their handshakes, their written platforms? Once they are elected the public is screwed.
You are advocating more of the same with small failed attempts to get Washingtoneers to stop serving themselves over the best interest of the public. Why would we want more of the same? Today’s politicians (particularly Congress, Governors, and Mayors) are in the pockets of corporate America and those folks have no real interest in making their constituents come first so explain to me how working with the current system is going to accomplish any significant change for the better or even stop the downward spiral of our economy and the gaps in wealth?
In the meantime, what about the full-time working poor who aren’t earning enough to feed and clothe their families, let alone have money set aside for emergencies.
Just a hint (again):
“As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.”
You suffer from hidden judgments, choices, and manipulations (largely that of mass hypnosis).
Our government needs an overhaul, not more of the same.
It is also a bit comparable with the ILP situation. 
I agree with carleas that revolution cannot fulfill what is needed. As with all revolutions, nothing really changes except the players. The top and bottom exchange places with the middle being screwed over.
We shouldn’t allow frustration dictate a reasoned approach to our problems. Evolution, not revolution.
I grow tired of saying the same thing over and over, but… EDUCATION. People can and will act when they see their particular ox (oxes?) being gored. You want to put pressure on our so-called representatives? Informed constituants is the answer. Sure, it isn’t instant gratification but slowly and surely changes take place. Too slow? Maybe. I want what I want NOW!
It just doesn’t work that way. Every generation is in a hurry to fix their parents screw ups, but reality gets in the way most of the time.
All those who voted to “drain the swamp”, “drown government in a bathtub” , look around. How’s that working for you?
It’s worth noting that this same system brought about a society that has raised standards of living for all its members, ushered in world-changing technological advances, and set an example that has been the model of good government for the world for two centuries. You’re looking at the last three decades of increasing partisanship and deadlock and calling it “more of the same”. Would that it were.
There is some evidence that the increased transparency has led to worse government. A lack of transparency can enable compromises that are too costly to individual politicians when they must made in public, so they don’t get made, and we get gridlock instead of better-than-nothing solutions.
A similar argument favors pork-barrel spending. While they are usually wasteful, nepotistic projects when viewed separately, they help to align the personal incentives of legislators and enable cooperation, which pays dividends collectively.
Do we trust the Washington Post? They have recently reported that “almost three-quarters of the rise of Americans living in poverty since 1990 reflects increases in Hispanic poverty — increases linked to immigration, whether legal or illegal.”
The first thing we have to do is to diagnose who is rich and who is poor. If, for instance, most poor people are recent arrivals, especially illegal arrivals, we’d have different solutions than if those poor people are mostly legal factory workers. I am not stating that one group is more worthy than another, but just that the causes may suggest the solutions better than a pie chart does. It’s also helpful to know what the permanence of poverty in a group is.
We also have to acknowledge that yesterday’s middle class may be today’s poor class not only because of government policy, or tax laws, but because relative affluence is a moving target. Does anyone know how many poor households have air conditioning, a car and an iPhone?
Exposing a few serpents to the light of day hardly makes for an honest, open governance. Depending on the few you choose, it is certainly likely to make things worse.
What middle? That’s the problem…there is no middle.
If you consider yourself an informed constituent, what are you able to do to put pressure on those elected? How do you fire them for not doing the job they agreed to do? Once they are elected, once they’re in…where are the checks and balances…for the people they represent?
So everyone knows that they are crooks…what then? Don’t elect that crook again, but oh yeah, we have a new crop of crooks, elect them. What?
Congress needs to be held accountable, but how?
By and by, the major newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have lost a big chunk of their credibility with all their Presidential lies. Why would anybody believe that there are only increases in Hispanic poverty?
Most poor people have a $100 5000 BTU window unit air conditioner, a 15+ years old car, and a real cheap smart phone. No central air, no newer cars, and no iphones.
How can illegals be as worthy as legal citizens? It’s difficult to read pure craziness.
aka criminals are as worthy as the law abiding
Just look at some buildings:
Also:
These are the US poverty guidelines:
aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines
Is an income of $12,060 (for a single person) too high or too low to be considered a reasonable dividing line?
Wendy suggested $40,000 as a threshold.
wendy:
I think that in many ways, illegals are not equal to citizens. I am just not using that as a premise.
Alf - Your pics illustrate my point, to a degree. That 50’s middle class house doesn’t represent a middle class house today, in many markets. I will say this - my house is about that size, yet i am solidly middle class. The middle class has decreased in recent years, but is lately making a comeback. This depends upon just what kind of income you call middle class, of course. There is no universally accepted definition of that term. By most measures, more have moved up than down.
To tentative and all - we have been , on this thread and others, talking about how most factory workers cannot sustain a middle class lifestyle (although married couples who both work in factories sometimes can - I know many such people). But what is the imperative that factory workers be middle class, except that for a relatively brief period of time, in circumstances that would be difficult to repeat, this was so?
But again, we have to look at what money buys and not just income. If the “poor” are relegated to that 50’s cape, is that so bad?
Now, I know poor people whose housing is much worse, to be sure. But again, some are first generation. Twas ever thus. Some have criminal records and drug problems. Aren’t these some of the problems we should be looking at as well as income?
Violence is always an option, though riots and revolutions are mostly no real solution.
I’m not saying that it is my option, but that it is always an option.
See above: Violence is always an option, though riots and revolutions are mostly no real solution.
It depends on the extend and on the quality of the kind of change whether nothing or something changes.
Would it have been better, if the people of the posterior United States of America hadn’t defeated their colonial masters?
Do you wanna live in a colony?