
Who Will Stand Up to the Superrich? - nice1
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/opinion/14rich.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB
======
pg
"The bigger issue is whether the country can afford the systemic damage being
done by the ever-growing income inequality between the wealthiest Americans
and everyone else..."

It's striking how dumb this fine sounding claim becomes when you actually get
specific. What "systemic damage" is being done by Larry & Sergey having become
so much richer than they used to be, or more recently, Mark Zuckerberg doing
the same? None at all that I can see.

~~~
pringle
PG,

The cases you cite -- tech entrepreneurs whose startups generate vast wealth
-- aren't really that relevant to Rich's argument.

While I guess they do make up a portion of this class of superrich (without
any research, my hunch is a small portion), the larger problem Rich describes
is that society just isn't rewarding people the way it used to, and that
there's been a deliberate rigging of the system for the past 30 years that is
allocating capital in the hands of a very select few. Pretending like those
few are all Zucks and Sergeys is a deliberate misreading and has nothing to do
with this problem.

I think your reaction to this, judging from your writing, comes from the fact
that you are very much surrounded in a culture of startups and tech
innovation, where money is made by creating new things and expanding the pie,
not reallocating its slices. That's great, but isn't a reason to deny some
obvious -- and depressing -- realities about what's happening to America's
social and economic fabric.

The tech startup scene may be a bright light in this pretty dark trend, but is
not a reason to deny the trend exists.

Lastly, this is bad for startups. The allocation of capital based on merit is
the linchpin of an innovative and growing economy, and the lifeblood of what
you do day in, day out. You really should be on the other side of this
argument.

~~~
pg
_(without any research, my hunch is a small portion)_

It wouldn't have taken long to test that hunch.

<http://www.forbes.com/wealth/forbes-400/list>

The superrich basically consist of company founders, their kids, and hedge
fund managers. So unless your dark conspiracy = hedge funds (in which case why
not just say so?), there's no evidence of it.

~~~
pringle
Come on. I think you very well know that the superrich class being discussed
is more than just the Forbes 400. It's about the top 1% or 5%. There's a whole
lot of room beneath these 400 people that take up space in this class of
superrich that has grown in the past 30 years at the expense of everyone else.
The Forbes list just validates that the way to make the absolute most money is
to start a company. And that's great. But again, irrelevant.

Here's some quick research you could've done to test YOUR hunch:

"These numbers actually understate the wealth of America’s top 1 percenters.
Each Fed Survey of Consumer Finances, as Kennickell notes, specifically
excludes from the survey sample any of the people wealthy enough to make the
most recent Forbes 400 list of America’s richest. In 2007, the Forbes 400 held
a collective net worth of $1.5 trillion.

But in 2007, even without the fortunes of the Forbes 400, the top 1 percent
still held a whopping 33.8 percent of America's total family wealth. Families
in the bottom 90, all together, only held 28.5 percent."

[http://www.alternet.org/story/137540/solving_the_mystery_of_...](http://www.alternet.org/story/137540/solving_the_mystery_of_the_richest_americans%27_missing_wealth/?page=entire)

As for any dark conspiracy, I'll say it again -- just because it isn't a part
of your reality doesn't mean it isn't real.

~~~
pg
The Forbes 400 list isn't just company founders. It's founders, inheritors,
and speculators. Do you have any reason for believing the mix of wealth
sources changes as you go further down the list? In fact, do you have any
specific rich person or type of rich person in mind that would be an example
of the conspiracy?

~~~
pringle
Yes, I do. I think it's pretty logical to assume that you would begin to see
many more money managers and executives as you go down the list. But I don't
really see what that's getting at.

The point is that the same people doing the same things are getting much more
than they used, and it's a direct result of actual policy changes. I'm not
sure why identifying these people as individuals and professions is all that
relevant. But do I think that tech entrepreneurs are a minority in those few
million people? Yes. Call me crazy.

I think the real question is: Do you have reason to believe that the pretty
well-documented overhaul of tax, monetary, and regulatory policy that has
taken place in this country over the last few decades didn't actually happen?

If so, that's a conspiracy I'd love to hear about.

------
rodericksilva
Making $500K per year at Bank of America and earning $20K a year with your
side s-corp does not make you a small business owner that can help
unemployment with a Bush tax cut.

~~~
dpatru
The existence of an employee depends on the existence of an employer and a
customer. Both are needed. When you tax customers, you hurt jobs just as
effectively as when you tax employers.

------
gopi
Why should income inequality matter if the life standards of everyone rises?.
As a guy who grew up in socialized India and saw the effects of this kinda of
rhetoric i am worried about the future of America!

~~~
grandalf
Excellent point. In my opinion this sort of rhetoric is a substitute for
addressing the real issue which is the value actually being provided by
government services.

If you tell a poor person "We spent your social security on the war and now
we're going to lower the amount you receive" that's asking to be voted out of
office. If you tell them "The greedy rich person got a tax cut and that's why
your social security is gone. Let us fight them" that gets a lot of people
upset and helps politicians win elections.

~~~
muhfuhkuh
"If you tell a poor person "We spent your social security on the war and now
we're going to lower the amount you receive" that's asking to be voted out of
office. If you tell them "The greedy rich person got a tax cut and that's why
your social security is gone. Let us fight them" that gets a lot of people
upset and helps politicians win elections."

It's funny how, in both scenarios, it would seem the poor person would likely
vote democratic, yet Republicans still win 6 out of 10 times. Perhaps, it's
because the republican in scenario #1 just issues IOUs to the SS trust while
still waging the wars, but spins it by saying "war is manly and we're awesome
so debts (and deficits) don't apply to us", then when the house of cards fall,
and the democrats scratch out a victory in the next election cycle due to
voter frustration, the republicans whip up the frustration and then pivot it
by saying "see? we told you the liberals would destroy us. debts are TERRIBLE!
give us another chance!"

It's the virtuous circle of modern politics, which is why I don't even bother
with it anymore.

------
Benjo
So presumably the Republicans would vote down an extension of the Bush tax
cuts for the bottom 98%. We don't know because they won't put it to a vote.

Could the Democrats then put to a vote an extension for the bottom 99%? Then
99.5%, 99.9% and so on? Eventually they would have to reach some threshold
where the Republicans would have to compromise right?

Is it a practical matter of time, a matter of the lost tax revenue or just the
risk of alienating rich donors that prevents this?

------
zdw
Is anyone else unable to get over the writers name?

