It’sbegging the question, the fallacy in which “a proposition relies on an implicit premise within itself to establish the truth of that same proposition.”
That’s what I expected too. Prefering unarmed peasants, etc.
I would love to see inequality reversed by a healthy economy that forces companies to hire more and also to give raises to their employees to keep them from jumping ship. I do not expect this to happen, and I think it would be foolish to count on it happening.
Also, it is possible the most recent shooting is one of those tipping points you hear about, re-energizing gun control forces. And I would not be surprised to see conservative activists encouraging gun control legislation (secretly, of course). To them, the NRA and their opponents are tools, just like the anti-abortion and pro-choice groups are tools.
Well, clearly they got branches in the US because the US Justice Dept. gave them a very public wrist slapping.
I’m not at all sorry to disappoint you on those grounds. Violent revolution would get a lot of people killed. I’d really rather see the changes made in the political arena.
But it DOES matter what the rabble think. Fixing elections only works when you get the margins really tight, like we had in 2000. If all the middle and lower class voters had the idea that the One Percent is the source of America’s economic problems … and it is … then they would vote for candidates who advocated changes the One Percent wouldn’t like. So distractions … like gun control … come in very handy. As it is, the widespread willingness to raise taxes on millionaires and the widespread hatred of bankers shows that a lot of the rabble are catching on.
As stated earlier, the widespread willingness to raise taxes on the wealthy and the widespread hatred of bankers and CEOs indicates that touchdown celebrations may be premature. I’ll grant you, the situation of the One Percent is enviable not just financially, but politically as well. Much work remains to be done.
I wrote about Dopers, I meant Dopers. They are hardly a typical sample of the American public.
It’s very much a side argument, largely irrelevant.
While I have my doubts this will still be an issue two years from now, I can see the OP’s point.
I suppose another elementary-school massacre will be needed in mid-2014 or during the presidential primaries of 2016 to keep the plan moving forward.
Can someone explain to me how the 1% are “looting” from me (and the rest of the middle class)? I know there’s greater wealth inequality than ever in the history of the universe in America, and all that, but it’s not like Mayor Bloomberg broke into my house and swiped my jewelry while I was toiling at work like a sucker, or held me at gunpoint and demanded I withdraw a bunch of cash from an ATM and turn it over to him. Why would you describe the rich as “looting the middle class”?
So you notice that the 1% has gained wealth dramatically in the past 30 or so years but have you noticed that the middle and poor classes are losing wealth( relative to inflation ) over the same period. We work longer and are more productive yet we get a smaller and smaller piece of the pie. Do you not see this?
Capt
I see it, I just don’t see it as the 1% “looting” me. If I agree to work at Company XYZ for $__ / hour, that’s my choice. They’re not kidnapping me and enslaving me and do it for free. If I choose to go to a professional sporting event, spend my hard-earned cash on tickets and concessions, and that ends up growing the fortune of some 1%, that again is my choice. They’re not using any sort of force to take what’s rightfully mine, that’s why I think the word “looting” doesn’t fit.
I didn’t say inequality would be reversed, nor do I think it will be. Point being that “the economy” is less of an issue, politically, than it was a year ago and much, much less of an issue, politically, than it was 3 or 4 years ago.
Could be. We’ve seen Bricker several times on this MB encourage Democrats to pursue rigorous gun control legislation. But I think that’s more of a joke, and I doubt this sort of double agent action happens to any appreciable degree in these days of the internet where nothing is a secret anymore.
Every day your family gets a pie. You used to get one quarter of the pie but lately your brother, who does the cutting, has been making his piece a little bit bigger every day. Today your piece is only 1/16th of the pie while his is 7/16ths. The point being, even though he hasn’t physically taken anything from you, you still got your daily piece of pie after all, he is still cheating you by manipulating the division of the pie.
I consider it looting when you use undue influence over the political process to systematically to reduce your tax burden and lay that burden on classes that have little or no counterweight. You are free to see it differently.
Capt
ETA also what 2sense said
Imagine if we were, though . . .
OTOH, consider the POV that environmental radicals like Greenpeace and ELF are a positive boon to the Sierra Club, by making it look reasonable and respectable by comparison.
You make choices based upon the alternatives available. Just because you are free to work at this shitty job or that shitty job doesn’t mean that the system which shapes your choices is not biased against you. It doesn’t mean that it is either. But your reasoning here is flawed.
What the very rich are doing is taking advantage of the fact that capital is inherently more mobile than labor to exploit labor on a global scale. There are fewer and fewer barriers to moving money around the globe these days (a few stroke of a keyboard can transfer millions of dollars), and money doesn’t care what bank it sits in. Tractors don’t care whether they turn over US or Chinese soil, and a factory has no preference as to whether it is sited in the Philippines or Canada. But laborers aren’t so free to move around: even if you discount immigration laws (which you most definitely can’t), there are barriers of language and culture as well as family/community ties which are hard to surmount. (Would you REALLY permanently move to China if a terrific job offer came up for you there? Somehow I doubt it. Something around 50% of expats return to their country of origin within 5 years of leaving home.)
Prior to the 1970s, capital was much less mobile, so investors were more likely to keep their investments in one place for a longer time. So they had to reach agreement with the local labor pool (which in the Western world had legal protections in the form of unions, the right to a 40-hour work week, occupational safety regulations, etc.) Now they can more easily pull up stakes and relocate to places where the local labor force is more desperate, and where those important legal protections are missing. That means the investors can make more money in the short term, because they save on wages, but it also means the quality of the average job is continually declining. Basically, we’ve inadvertently re-legalized sweatshops: they’re just located in rural China or Bangladesh instead of here. But the problems of legal sweatshop labor don’t stay confined to those places; we’re seeing them here in the form of stagnant or declining wages, longer working hours, etc. Instead of concentrated pockets of wealth in some places and concentrated pockets of poverty in others, the world’s looking more like Calcutta, with great wealth and desperate poverty living side-by-side. And high levels of wealth inequality like that make for very unstable societies, so it’s a problem we need to figure out how to fix.