Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

Red Slinger · 11-02-2014, 09:35 AM

The current economic situation reminds me a little bit of North American in the 1920's.

In 2012 it was reported that, in the US, the top 1% own 90% of the wealth. I'm not sure how accurate that is. But even if the top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth that's a problem both economically and socially. Prior to the economic collapse in 2009 things were also bad but since then they've gotten worse.

Compare that to the situation in 2013:

Granted, this is from the Occupy Movement so it's accuracy may be called into question. What is clear though is that income inequality in the US has swayed significantly in the last 5 years towards the rich, really rich and the super-duper mega rich. There are a bunch more statistics here: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...y-2013-11?op=1

In 2010 the Supreme Court, along heavily partisan lines, voted on the Citizens United case which, at it's foundation, allowed (maybe even encouraged) more money to flow into the political estate. Maybe it's a coincidence that the rapid financial disparity took place during the same period when the law allowed those with money to influence the policial realm, but generally where there's smoke there's fire. The ultra-rich generally aren't going to 'sponsor' political decisions that make them less rich. Rather, they'll use their influence and deep pockets in order to grow their influence and deepen their pockets. That's precisely what's happened although there are some notable exceptions of amazing philanthropy from some of the ultra-rich (eg. Gates, Buffet).

Okay, so what? The rich are getting (much) richer, there are fewer people in the middle class and the lower classes are growing. Does it matter? We have a pretty good standard of life in North America.

The 1920's was a time of unprecedented growth and wealth in North America. However, that wealth was not distributed among all citizens. Similar to the current economic situation, the vast majority of wealth was controlled by the vast minority of the population. This economic disparity was one of the leading factors of the Great Depression which, temporarily, shook up the social structure and economic distribution in NA. There are a lot more controls in place now than there were in the 20's to prevent a full scale economic depression, but decisions like Citizens United was a step backwards from those controls. The most prosperous period in US history was in the 1960's when those figures were reversed and there was much more income equality. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that this also coincided with the period in US history where there was a great deal of positive social upheval.

So, yeah, being middle-class in Canada is fine. We have the opportunity to work, save, invest and eventually retire (as long as the Baby Boomers don't bankrupt the social safety net). But there are obviously some very troubling trends. I don't know that revolution will ever come to pass but there's a good chance that a very large shake-up of the system will take place, like a revolution, economic depression or something new.

I'm not sure what the solution is but I think putting in some safety measures wouldn't hurt. For instance:

a more aggresive progressive tax system with fewer loopholes
placing limits on the size of corporations (to avoid a "too big to fail" scenario)
taking money out of politics, as much as possible
establishing firm term limits for all levels of government
publically funding elections with no private money (Canada already does this to some extent)
mandatory voting, similar to Australia
placing limits on executive bonuses and salaries for publically traded companies
stronger penalties and more dilligent enforcement for insider trading and corruption

TLDR; income inequality leads to bad stuff happening, balance in income equality leads to a more prosperous society with positive social change.

11-02-2014, 09:35 AM	#43
Red Slinger First Line Centre Join Date: Feb 2006 Exp:	The current economic situation reminds me a little bit of North American in the 1920's. In 2012 it was reported that, in the US, the top 1% own 90% of the wealth. I'm not sure how accurate that is. But even if the top 1% own 40% of the nation's wealth that's a problem both economically and socially. Prior to the economic collapse in 2009 things were also bad but since then they've gotten worse. Compare that to the situation in 2013: Granted, this is from the Occupy Movement so it's accuracy may be called into question. What is clear though is that income inequality in the US has swayed significantly in the last 5 years towards the rich, really rich and the super-duper mega rich. There are a bunch more statistics here: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart...y-2013-11?op=1 In 2010 the Supreme Court, along heavily partisan lines, voted on the Citizens United case which, at it's foundation, allowed (maybe even encouraged) more money to flow into the political estate. Maybe it's a coincidence that the rapid financial disparity took place during the same period when the law allowed those with money to influence the policial realm, but generally where there's smoke there's fire. The ultra-rich generally aren't going to 'sponsor' political decisions that make them less rich. Rather, they'll use their influence and deep pockets in order to grow their influence and deepen their pockets. That's precisely what's happened although there are some notable exceptions of amazing philanthropy from some of the ultra-rich (eg. Gates, Buffet). Okay, so what? The rich are getting (much) richer, there are fewer people in the middle class and the lower classes are growing. Does it matter? We have a pretty good standard of life in North America. The 1920's was a time of unprecedented growth and wealth in North America. However, that wealth was not distributed among all citizens. Similar to the current economic situation, the vast majority of wealth was controlled by the vast minority of the population. This economic disparity was one of the leading factors of the Great Depression which, temporarily, shook up the social structure and economic distribution in NA. There are a lot more controls in place now than there were in the 20's to prevent a full scale economic depression, but decisions like Citizens United was a step backwards from those controls. The most prosperous period in US history was in the 1960's when those figures were reversed and there was much more income equality. Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that this also coincided with the period in US history where there was a great deal of positive social upheval. So, yeah, being middle-class in Canada is fine. We have the opportunity to work, save, invest and eventually retire (as long as the Baby Boomers don't bankrupt the social safety net). But there are obviously some very troubling trends. I don't know that revolution will ever come to pass but there's a good chance that a very large shake-up of the system will take place, like a revolution, economic depression or something new. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think putting in some safety measures wouldn't hurt. For instance: a more aggresive progressive tax system with fewer loopholes placing limits on the size of corporations (to avoid a "too big to fail" scenario) taking money out of politics, as much as possible establishing firm term limits for all levels of government publically funding elections with no private money (Canada already does this to some extent) mandatory voting, similar to Australia placing limits on executive bonuses and salaries for publically traded companies stronger penalties and more dilligent enforcement for insider trading and corruption TLDR; income inequality leads to bad stuff happening, balance in income equality leads to a more prosperous society with positive social change. __________________ The of and to a in is I that it for you was with on as have but be they Last edited by Red Slinger; 11-02-2014 at 09:40 AM.