I'm not talking about corporations, wealth accumulation is progressive even in cases of simple agents operating in an ideal free market. It doesn't take a lick of state intervention or corporate chicanery, it's just a natural consequence of how capitalism functions.

A handful of the mechanisms by which it occurs:
* Larger investment = higher rate of return. This is evident when buying anything from a COD to toilet paper. When you buy in bulk, your money is worth more.
* Legacy wealth, not only do parents provide children with starter capital, but also provide debt-free education (pretty much the primary driver of class mobility)
* Budgeted needs. The more wealthy you are, the more wealth you have available for investment, whereas the poor by default spend the vast majority of their earning on temporary goods or rent

Unbridled markets yield to rapid wealth stratification, especially in land- and property-owning classes. You can look to feudal Europe for real world examples, or work it out on paper or computer simulations of ideal circumstances without any state intervention.



[Edited on February 10, 2011 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/10/2011 5:17:51 PM

feudal Europe was driven as much by government as it was wealth. nice try, though

2/11/2011 11:06:30 AM

^^ Without government, all investments are risky. Fortunes are lost when the economy shifts. All those old rich people lost their shirts when new railroads crushed the canal owners, then all those rich people lost their shirts when competition from new railroads bankrupted both the new and old railroads.

It is a natural process of capitalism to build new fortunes and crush old fortunes. It was only with the rise of the Progressive Era's search for "stability" when big became safe through regulation, restraints of trade, and ultimately bailouts of old firms.

The trick is that capital must compete with capital to earn a living, but there is no fundamental limit to the supply of capital. As such, without some way of restraining the growth of capital through corporate and income taxes, the competition eventually destroys capital. Ask any educated communist and they will claim this exact mechanism for why a high income tax stabilizes a capitalist society.

Meanwhile, there is a fundamental limit to the supply of labor. We can only reproduce so fast. As such, all returns ultimately accrue to labor, even those with no capital of their own.

2/11/2011 11:18:34 AM

Quote :

"feudal Europe was driven as much by government as it was wealth."

The government was a creation of wealth.

Larger investment = higher rate of return. This is evident when buying anything from a COD to toilet paper. When you buy in bulk, your money is worth more.

This is called economies of scale.

Budgeted needs. The more wealthy you are, the more wealth you have available for investment, whereas the poor by default spend the vast majority of their earning on temporary goods or rent

This is called marginal propensity to consume

You are very correct to point out that both of these contribute to the progressive accumulation of wealth.

Quote :

"Fortunes are lost when the economy shifts. All those old rich people lost their shirts when new railroads crushed the canal owners, then all those rich people lost their shirts when competition from new railroads bankrupted both the new and old railroads."

Simply because the people who are wealthy is recycled does not in any way address the wealth stratification.

2/11/2011 1:35:19 PM

Quote :

"The government was a creation of wealth."

maybe, but that doesn't matter. the feudal system depended upon people being granted title by the king (government), and that title then allowed them to amass wealth and pass it along to their heirs.

Quote :

"Larger investment = higher rate of return. This is evident when buying anything from a COD to toilet paper. When you buy in bulk, your money is worth more. "

I take issue with this statement on its face. Simply throwing more money at something doesn't necessarily determine your rate of return. In some assets, it does, but that's not true across all spectra. If I throw a shit ton of money into a stock that tanks, I get no better rate of return than the guy who threw in 50 bux.

2/11/2011 5:53:19 PM

Quote :

"maybe, but that doesn't matter"

Yes it does, it points out how stupid what you are saying is. It's as if you're looking at an egg and saying "see if it weren't for eggs we wouldn't have chickens!", I'm simply pointing out that you could just as well say "without chickens we wouldn't have eggs".

Quote :

"Simply throwing more money at something doesn't necessarily determine your rate of return."

To some degree it does. Trust me, economies of scale does exist.

2/11/2011 6:05:29 PM

yes, EOS certainly exist, but not in the realm of what he is talking about. again, throwing a shit ton of money at a losing venture doesn't insulate you from the loss or make your loss any less

Quote :

"Yes it does, it points out how stupid what you are saying is."

No, it really doesn't. The government made the feudal lords. Wealth didn't make the government, on the whole. The emergence of kings is dependent on more than just wealth. In fact, I'd argue that being a king makes you wealthy, not the other way around

2/11/2011 6:23:37 PM

Quote :

"Wealth didn't make the government, on the whole. The emergence of kings is dependent on more than just wealth."

I don't think so, I think the King was just the guy with the most land, money and troops. If someone else had more, they would be king.

Quote :

"In fact, I'd argue that being a king makes you wealthy, not the other way around"

Both are true. Being wealthy makes you king and being king makes you wealthy. Kings may claim to have some divine right, but those kind of stories are generally made up after the fact.

2/11/2011 6:38:23 PM

Quote :

"I don't think so, I think the King was just the guy with the most land, money and troops. If someone else had more, they would be king."

Strategy, tactical decisions, and real world connections, of course, had nothing to do with outcomes.

2/11/2011 6:41:06 PM

Which one of those things cannot be bought?

2/11/2011 6:43:36 PM

pretty much none of them, at that time. Muhammad didn't get to be the "king" due to him being wealthy.

2/11/2011 8:50:48 PM

of course not, Allah made him king, just like god brought back zombie jesus

2/12/2011 2:47:14 AM

Quote :

"Simply because the people who are wealthy is recycled does not in any way address the wealth stratification."

Sure it does. If the supply of capital far exceeds any hope of demand, then the price paid for capital will collapse, possibly near zero, meaning those with vast wealth will have about the same income potential as those with none.

2/12/2011 3:17:07 AM

All the government needs to do is take 100% of the income of all Americans, and divide it equally among all of those (even those who don't work or make an income).

[/PROBLEMS]

2/12/2011 9:40:24 PM

Not that anyone should have given this oaf credibility to begin with but his laughable budget just proves he doesn't give a shit what happens to america.

Cut the fucking spending you dolt

2/14/2011 3:12:54 PM

^ Excellent chart from the NYT.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html

2/15/2011 10:49:10 AM

^That chart doesn't include the supplemental "war budget", right? With that added 'defense' spending would dwarf everything else I would think. An extra $100 billion, off the books, every six months or so if I remember correctly.

Quote :

"Obama never actually advocated getting rid of supplementals completely. His promise was to end their abuse..."

sigh

[Edited on February 15, 2011 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

2/15/2011 11:33:50 AM

I think "national security" should be taken to mean "maintaining the empire," in spite of the fact that they're unrelated.

2/15/2011 11:39:24 AM

Quote :

"'defense' spending would dwarf everything else"

The extra $200B would not dwarf Medicare and Medicaid. It's cool though, Obamacare will surely bring that cost down.

2/15/2011 8:04:26 PM

Good bye AmeriCorps

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/02/15/republicans-war-on-jobs-propose-cutting-training-americorps/

2/15/2011 11:28:50 PM

Good.

+1 for the GOP.

2/15/2011 11:38:32 PM

Less than kind words from the Economist:

The latest cop-out: Barack Obama has ducked the challenge of grappling with America’s medium-term deficit woes

Quote :

"IMAGINE you have developed a serious weight problem. Things have been going badly for you, and as a result you have been piling on the pounds; in the past three years your weight has ballooned by a shocking 10% a year. Your advisers all say that this will give you a heart attack: not immediately, but in the next decade or so. What do you do? Not many doctors would recommend a diet confined to items that make up only an eighth of your consumption (and were in any case often rather good for you), while slyly sticking to a plan to increase gradually the number of cream buns and cheeseburgers you eat every day. Yet that is exactly what Barack Obama has prescribed for the bloated American government. . . . In a routine that is becoming depressingly familiar, Mr Obama’s camp argues that the time for these things is not yet ripe. Rather than set out any bold proposals of his own, the president would rather leave it to Congress. Once congressional Republicans and Democrats have found some common ground, he will work with them. In fact, a small group of brave senators from both parties is already toiling away to just that end. But neither the president nor Republican leaders have had the courage to support them. In the absence of statesmanship, the chances are that only a crisis in the bond markets will provide the necessary impetus. Economic management by fiscal heart attack is not a very prudent remedy. "

http://www.economist.com/node/18178147?story_id=18178147


Now, for the record, I think this is EXACTLY how a chief executive SHOULD work . . . but from the standpoint of pure politics, he is failing his constituencies expectations.

2/17/2011 8:58:18 PM

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gingrich-Obama-Constitutional-Crisis/2011/02/25/id/387455

Quote :

"Gingrich: Obama Sparks 'Constitutional Crisis,' Raises Impeachment Specter In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV Friday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said President Barack Obama’s decision not to fully enforce the Defense of Marriage law has sparked a constitutional crisis as he has directly violated his constitutional duties by arbitrarily suspending a law. Gingrich for the first time raised the specter of Obama’s removal from office, noting that, if a “President Sarah Palin” had taken a similar action, there would have been immediate calls for her impeachment. Obama Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday that the administration will not defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the courts, which has banned recognition of same-sex marriage for 15 years. President Clinton signed the act into law in 1996. Obama’s decision to forego a legal defense of the law has caused a firestorm of anger from conservative groups. Gingrich slammed Obama for his decision, telling Newsmax that he is not a “one-person Supreme Court” and his decision sets a “very dangerous precedent” that must not be allowed to stand."

2/25/2011 4:35:25 PM

lol

2/25/2011 6:17:28 PM

I never realized anyone viewed News Max as a legitimate source, let alone the former speaker of the house doing an interview with them… weird...

2/26/2011 12:33:15 PM

Matt Drudge does

2/26/2011 3:55:41 PM

Quote :

"by arbitrarily suspending a law"

I love how Gringrich and Huckabee and many on fox are calling this a suspension of the law, or stopping enforcement of the law... even though it is still being enforced.

2/26/2011 5:47:34 PM

exactly. I don't see that the President is required to defend every single law in court...

2/26/2011 6:18:12 PM

No, in fact, he has a duty to not enforce any law that is unconstitutional, and DOMA is clearly a violation of the 10th amendment and 14th amendment.

2/26/2011 6:21:14 PM

Quote :

"No, in fact, he has a duty to not enforce any law that is unconstitutional, and DOMA is clearly a violation of the 10th amendment and 14th amendment. "

Yet another president signed it. There are seperate branches of govt for a reason.

I agree with the president's opinion, but I dont think he has the power. He has a duty to defend the laws. Not trump the judicial branch.

2/26/2011 8:49:28 PM

haha, he’s not trumping the judicial branch, if he was saying something is constitutional that hadn’t been ruled on, that would be trumping the judicial branch. Asserting torture is legal, for example, trumps the judicial branch.

Conceding a lawsuit does NOT trump the judicial branch.

This DOMA thing is
1) the right thing to do
2) reduced scope of federal gov. in one area
3) concedes power to the states

and you’re still against it? It really doesn’t make any sense.

This is essentially the same thing as saying they weren’t going to expend too many federal resources on marijuana crimes (which they have done, if you don’t remember), and no one said the things they’re saying now. It’s just because gay marriage is an issue that tea baggers and right-wing christians are more likely to get upset about that Newt is taking his senseless position, that you seem to be parroting.

If you spent a single second thinking about this on your own weighed against what you actually believe, you’d realize that Newt et al are wrong in their perspective, and it’s obvious they’re trying to spread misinformation in order to energize the religious right.

It seems you think the president should use the Nuremberg defense when it comes to doing things that are morally or ethically wrong, and Obama disagrees. GG Obama for showing some actual leadership.

2/26/2011 8:58:41 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022505562.html

Quote :

"Obama signs temporary extension of Patriot Act WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama has signed a three-month extension of key surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act. The law extends two areas of the 2001 act. One provision allows law enforcement officials to set roving wiretaps to monitor multiple communication devices. The other allows them to ask a special court for access to business and library records that could be relevant to a terrorist threat. A third provision gives the FBI court-approved rights for surveillance of non-American "lone wolf" suspects - those not known to be tied to specific terrorist groups. Obama signed the three-month extension of the provisions Friday. They were to expire Monday. Lawmakers will soon start debating a multiple-year extension of the provisions, which have drawn fire from defenders of privacy rights."

2/27/2011 9:20:11 AM

Looks like I won't be voting in 2012 either. Shame too, he's otherwise not that horrible, for a politician.

2/27/2011 2:27:24 PM

Moron, did you read my post? I dont agree with DOMA.

There are several laws I dont agree with. Im simply saying there is a process of 1. changing a law or 2. it being declared unconstitutional.

I suppose if a President decided to ignore the Civil Rights Act, you would find that ok? Of course not. But but but.. thats different, bc it was a good law. I agree, but you cant have one person deciding these things..right or wrong. It simply isnt his job. Is my point.

So was Clinton signing a unconstitutional law grounds for impeachment? How about Obama? See my point?

[Edited on February 27, 2011 at 2:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2011 2:50:27 PM

^ Yes.

2/27/2011 3:00:54 PM

Quote :

"Yet another president signed it. There are seperate branches of govt for a reason. I agree with the president's opinion, but I dont think he has the power. He has a duty to defend the laws. Not trump the judicial branch."

Nah. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and it's not a hard document to understand. It says exactly what each branch of government can do, and it says what no parts of government are allowed to do. Any person working for the government has a primary duty of upholding the Constitution. If a soldier is told to go to war but the Constitution was not honored, he has a duty to say no. If a police officer is told to enforce a law that is unconstitutional, he has a duty to refuse. Every single person down the line has a duty, first and foremost, to act within the confines of the Constitution, and is obligated to tell their superiors "No, this shit is illegal" if it comes down to it.

Now, in reality, most people succumb to pressure when someone above them hands down an order. Their primary duty, as a person, is to protect themselves, so issues of constitutionality take a backseat. Really, though, we're talking about nullification - the idea that unconstitutional laws should just be ignored, and I support that entirely. The suggestion that anyone going into government leadership has to defend every law on the book is off base, in my view. It's hard to expect, realistically, that we could actually repeal every bad law on the books, or even most of them. Like so many laws, they will go away not when repeal is passed, but when various government actors choose to cease the enforcement of those laws.

2/27/2011 3:50:42 PM

so, where is the left right now decrying the horrible roving, warrantless wire-taps? I'm waiting...

2/27/2011 6:00:44 PM

^exactly. Which is kinda of my point. If you are upset when the opposite party does something wrong, you cant give your party a pass when they do the same thing.

Maybe the NEW president thinks that they really are helpful?

So while I support the presidents OPINION on DOMA, it doesnt justify him overstepping his powers. imo.

2/27/2011 6:36:00 PM

^rare combination, decrying hypocrisy and then immediately admitting to it.

2/27/2011 7:59:30 PM

actually, the left is pretty mad at obama about it. why do you think they are not? its not in the news now because the media has a short attention span, but if you go back a little ways you will find plenty about it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shadi-hamid/why-are-liberals-so-angry_b_623791.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/04/nyt-obama-must-end-warran_n_524732.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/obama-no-change-on-bush-warrantless-wiretaps/
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/
http://gizmodo.com/#!5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just-like-bush
http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/04/09/1446241/EFF-Says-Obama-Warrantless-Wiretap-Defense-Is-Worse-than-Bush
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/06/should-liberals-be-angry-at-president-obama-if-so-how-much-.html

2/27/2011 8:01:33 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shadi-hamid/why-are-liberals-so-angry_b_623791.html
says barely a word about anything related to continuing what Bush did. Only 1 sentence. And the rest is talking about how much he loves Obama, and how he wishes Obama would be more visible.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
wired.com counts as "the left"?

http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/obama-no-change-on-bush-warrantless-wiretaps/
a random Muslim's blog counts as "the left"?

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/180/end-warrantless-wiretaps/
politifact counts as "the left"?

http://gizmodo.com/#!5138271/obama-supports-warrantless-wiretapping-just-like-bush
gizmodo counts as "the left"?

http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/04/09/1446241/EFF-Says-Obama-Warrantless-Wiretap-Defense-Is-Worse-than-Bush
slashdot counts as "the left"?

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2010/06/should-liberals-be-angry-at-president-obama-if-so-how-much-.html
that's the same as the first link you posted, lol.


about the only thing you've got is a NYT editorial from last year. And since then, they've been shockingly quiet

2/28/2011 12:34:44 PM

the media having a short attention span is new to you?

2/28/2011 12:56:54 PM

and yet, the left can't seem to find it in their hearts to bemoan extensions of Bush policy?


btw, I thought we were done with business cronyism now that Obama was elected...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/02/obamas-green-subsidies-attract-do-gooder-bandits

[Edited on February 28, 2011 at 1:11 PM. Reason : ]

2/28/2011 1:07:41 PM

if you look at the news when that was extended
the left was mad
but not so vocal about it
a year later

2/28/2011 3:48:32 PM

and yet, they carried on incessantly about it while Bush was in office. Why so quick to forget now?

2/28/2011 4:40:03 PM

they still do, its just not in the news

similar to before

2/28/2011 7:21:50 PM

Your problem Bryan is you're calling the left of center MSM "The Left". They are not. They are for profit corporations that thrive on having access to...SOMEONE...so long as they have access. They have to as there are multiple left leaning MSM outlets. This is contrasted with the monopoly FNC has on the right. If the left leaning MSM was one voice, you'd see them being just as outspoken as FNC about liberal causes.

Liberal voices are out there and they don't agree with Obama policies that aren't liberal enough or are GWB rehashes

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/07/even-yet-more-warrantless-searches
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/13/citizens/index.html

2/28/2011 7:34:03 PM

Quote :

"Your problem Bryan is you're calling the left of center MSM "The Left". They are not."

Well, they sure did a damned fine job of bitching and moaning about when Dubya was in office. And now, they are curiously silent.

3/1/2011 12:22:19 AM

No one’s silent as rbrthwrd pointed out, but what do you expect the left to do? Vote republican?

They are no better, and typically worse, in this area.

3/1/2011 12:27:16 AM

The left will abstain from voting.

3/1/2011 9:37:00 AM