Yet the US has one of the highest real median annual household incomes in the world.
cybrcatter
This pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter.
The US has the income equality of a third world country, why?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
Some elements of it yes. Hell trade is an element of capitalism and that exists ever since humanity exists. But the version of capitalism promoted by the US and that the world has adopted as the central economic system is flawed, unsustainable and absurd IMO. I'm talking about the version that promotes globalization and free markets managed by corporatism.You can't boil down a system comprised of countless interdependent systems into this simplified rhetoric.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sonicare"]
Certainly capitalism is an imperfect system, but almost every country in the world utilizes some elements of it. Despite what the young idealists of OT think, the US did not invent capitalism and does not have a patent on it.
cybrcatter
Lack of adequate safety nets doesn't mean that most markets aren't efficient.
Trade between two countries with various comparative advantages in which one country sees relatively higher profit margins doesn't mean that the other country isn't better off than it was sans trade.
Picking and choosing anecdotes doesn't mean every other industry mirrors that behavior.
The more I learned about economics in my studies, the more I realised how much I didn't know. I know it's human nature to apply blanket concepts to something that is complex, but this is not one 'something'.
I don't think most markets are efficient, I think there are only a few efficient markets that take advantage of the rest. The whole system is prepared to promote globalization and corporatism just look at international organizations like the IMF and WTO. That kind of capitalism is BS, spoiled and should die IMO.
[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]"Capitalism" is a term that is so broad it has lost all meaning in discourse, pretty much. It can apply to all sorts of economic and governmental systems, many that are not remotely compatible. Using the word "capitalism" without qualifiers is tantamount to a meaningless statement. Marx was actually quite bad at predicting what "capitalism" (as is generally applied by the west) would turn into, by the waykuraimenActually he was right in a lot of things. http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/08/16/dr-doom-warns-wall-street-and-washington-heed-karl-marxs-warning/?xid=newsletter-daily?artId=8680?contType=blog_globalspin?chn=us http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/09/was_marx_right.html
No, he was not . FIrms are not hemoraging jobs for that reason explained in Time, and they make no effort to prove the case. It's because of false incentives, artificially manipulated time preference and malinvestements. Marx's theory of labor, theory of value and inability pre-marginalist notions have not been able to predict the American business cycle well at all, really.
Actually he was right in a lot of things. http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/08/16/dr-doom-warns-wall-street-and-washington-heed-karl-marxs-warning/?xid=newsletter-daily?artId=8680?contType=blog_globalspin?chn=us http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2011/09/was_marx_right.html[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]"Capitalism" is a term that is so broad it has lost all meaning in discourse, pretty much. It can apply to all sorts of economic and governmental systems, many that are not remotely compatible. Using the word "capitalism" without qualifiers is tantamount to a meaningless statement. Marx was actually quite bad at predicting what "capitalism" (as is generally applied by the west) would turn into, by the wayRhazakna
No, he was not . FIrms are not hemoraging jobs for that reason explained in Time, and they make no effort to prove the case. It's because of false incentives, artificially manipulated time preference and malinvestements. Marx's theory of labor, theory of value and inability pre-marginalist notions have not been able to predict the American business cycle well at all, really.
And you make no effort to prove the contrary. I think what the Time article says is spot on on what's happening and I think with such a system like this you can see things like this coming from miles away. It is only inevitable when you put profit above anything else.
You can't boil down a system comprised of countless interdependent systems into this simplified rhetoric.[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Some elements of it yes. Hell trade is an element of capitalism and that exists ever since humanity exists. But the version of capitalism promoted by the US and that the world has adopted as the central economic system is flawed, unsustainable and absurd IMO. I'm talking about the version that promotes globalization and free markets managed by corporatism.kuraimen
Lack of adequate safety nets doesn't mean that most markets aren't efficient.
Trade between two countries with various comparative advantages in which one country sees relatively higher profit margins doesn't mean that the other country isn't better off than it was sans trade.
Picking and choosing anecdotes doesn't mean every other industry mirrors that behavior.
The more I learned about economics in my studies, the more I realised how much I didn't know. I know it's human nature to apply blanket concepts to something that is complex, but this is not one 'something'.
I don't think most markets are efficient, I think there are only a few efficient markets that take advantage of the rest. The whole system is prepared to promote globalization and corporatism just look at international organizations like the IMF and WTO. That kind of capitalism is BS, spoiled and should die IMO.
Since you're just repeating yourself now and sticking to terms that are far too broad for meaningful discussion, I'm just going to smile and nod.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]You can't boil down a system comprised of countless interdependent systems into this simplified rhetoric.
Lack of adequate safety nets doesn't mean that most markets aren't efficient.
Trade between two countries with various comparative advantages in which one country sees relatively higher profit margins doesn't mean that the other country isn't better off than it was sans trade.
Picking and choosing anecdotes doesn't mean every other industry mirrors that behavior.
The more I learned about economics in my studies, the more I realised how much I didn't know. I know it's human nature to apply blanket concepts to something that is complex, but this is not one 'something'.cybrcatter
I don't think most markets are efficient, I think there are only a few efficient markets that take advantage of the rest. The whole system is prepared to promote globalization and corporatism just look at international organizations like the IMF and WTO. That kind of capitalism is BS, spoiled and should die IMO.
Since you're just repeating yourself now and sticking to terms that are far too broad for meaningful discussion, I'm just going to smile and nod.Well you are also using broad terms. Read the GS link I provided on the discussion about a New Economic system here. It is full of details and explains better my thoughts about this issue with specifics.
Crony capitalism and corporatism is the inevitable product of capitalism. Even Marx called it from way before it happened.kuraimen
No they aren't.
Since you're just repeating yourself now and sticking to terms that are far too broad for meaningful discussion, I'm just going to smile and nod.[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
I don't think most markets are efficient, I think there are only a few efficient markets that take advantage of the rest. The whole system is prepared to promote globalization and corporatism just look at international organizations like the IMF and WTO. That kind of capitalism is BS, spoiled and should die IMO.
kuraimen
Well you are also using broad terms. Read the GS link I provided on the discussion about a New Economic system here. It is full of details and explains better my thoughts about this issue with specifics.
No. If you want to discuss something, do so with your own words. If you are incapable of summarizing your thoughts, then perhaps you do not fully understand the subject at hand.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"] Since you're just repeating yourself now and sticking to terms that are far too broad for meaningful discussion, I'm just going to smile and nod.
cybrcatter
Well you are also using broad terms. Read the GS link I provided on the discussion about a New Economic system here. It is full of details and explains better my thoughts about this issue with specifics.
No. If you want to discuss something, do so with your own words. If you are incapable of summarizing your thoughts, then perhaps you do not fully understand the subject at hand. Even though that is a summary of what other person says I completely agree with him. You are making so much effort to explain yourself either by the way, at least I gave you something.[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]No. If you want to discuss something, do so with your own words. If you are incapable of summarizing your thoughts, then perhaps you do not fully understand the subject at hand. Even though that is a summary of what other person says I completely agree with him. You are making so much effort to explain yourself either by the way, at least I gave you something. I have nothing to explain. You made a very broad, heavily regurgitated statement, and I'm attempting to persuade you to narrow your stance into something meaningful that can be discussed; to see why you came to that conclusion; to see if you understand the reasoning behind that conclusion; or, if you're simply regurgitating what someone else said because it seemed to make sense at first glance. Issues in macro econ are rarely, if ever, items that you can quickly assess.[QUOTE="kuraimen"]
Well you are also using broad terms. Read the GS link I provided on the discussion about a New Economic system here. It is full of details and explains better my thoughts about this issue with specifics.
kuraimen
Even though that is a summary of what other person says I completely agree with him. You are making so much effort to explain yourself either by the way, at least I gave you something. I have nothing to explain. You made a very broad, heavily regurgitated statement, and I'm attempting to persuade you to narrow your stance into something meaningful that can be discussed; to see why you came to that conclusion; to see if you understand the reasoning behind that conclusion; or, if you're simply regurgitating what someone else said because it seemed to make sense at first glance. Issues in macro econ are rarely, if ever, items that you can quickly assess. My stance was narrowed in the link I provided since I completely agree with it. If you want to discuss it be my guest but if you choose to ignore it and pretend I don't have a stance then there's not much else I can do but that's not really honest on your part.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="cybrcatter"] No. If you want to discuss something, do so with your own words. If you are incapable of summarizing your thoughts, then perhaps you do not fully understand the subject at hand.
cybrcatter
[QUOTE="cybrcatter"]I have nothing to explain. You made a very broad, heavily regurgitated statement, and I'm attempting to persuade you to narrow your stance into something meaningful that can be discussed; to see why you came to that conclusion; to see if you understand the reasoning behind that conclusion; or, if you're simply regurgitating what someone else said because it seemed to make sense at first glance. Issues in macro econ are rarely, if ever, items that you can quickly assess. My stance was narrowed in the link I provided since I completely agree with it. If you want to discuss it be my guest but if you choose to ignore it and pretend I don't have a stance then there's not much else I can do but that's not really honest on your part. I'm not going to have a discussion with an article, I was conversing with you. I'm sitting on a small hill of macro econ knowledge that rarely sees the light of day, and I'll be more than happy to discuss this issue when your comprehension said issue reaches a threshold for which you are capable of articulating the concepts in your own words.[QUOTE="kuraimen"] Even though that is a summary of what other person says I completely agree with him. You are making so much effort to explain yourself either by the way, at least I gave you something.kuraimen
Cheers.
Indeed. Income inequality is a very poor measure of general welfare, or even welfare among the poor.What does income equality matter when our country still has higher living standards of said third-world countries?
airshocker
My stance was narrowed in the link I provided since I completely agree with it. If you want to discuss it be my guest but if you choose to ignore it and pretend I don't have a stance then there's not much else I can do but that's not really honest on your part. I'm not going to have a discussion with an article, I was conversing with you. I'm sitting on a small hill of macro econ knowledge that rarely sees the light of day, and I'll be more than happy to discuss this issue when your comprehension said issue reaches a threshold for which you are capable of articulating the concepts in your own words.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="cybrcatter"] I have nothing to explain. You made a very broad, heavily regurgitated statement, and I'm attempting to persuade you to narrow your stance into something meaningful that can be discussed; to see why you came to that conclusion; to see if you understand the reasoning behind that conclusion; or, if you're simply regurgitating what someone else said because it seemed to make sense at first glance. Issues in macro econ are rarely, if ever, items that you can quickly assess.
cybrcatter
Cheers.
For making the thread I did about a new economic system I hardly regurgitated what I heard. I had to listen to the speech in spanish, comprehend it well enough to make a less than one page summary in english selecting what I found more relevant and important and what best described my thoughts and I even added my own comments and opinions to it. So again if you answer that you are basically conversing with me but I can't do much if you choose to ignore it.
[QUOTE="airshocker"]Indeed. Income inequality is a very poor measure of general welfare, or even welfare among the poor. I think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems no matter how much welfare is involved.What does income equality matter when our country still has higher living standards of said third-world countries?
chessmaster1989
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="airshocker"]Indeed. Income inequality is a very poor measure of general welfare, or even welfare among the poor. I think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems no matter how much welfare is involved.What does income equality matter when our country still has higher living standards of said third-world countries?
kuraimen
Welfare as in wellbeing, not as in social programs. Sorry I should have made that clear. airshocker's/my point was that that measures of income inequality, such as the gini coefficient, tell you nothing about the absolute welfare of the nation or of subgroups in the nation (one obvious subgroup of interest being the poor). Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say you think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems?
I'd imagine that it has something to do with the fact that it has the richest rich people in the world. Middle class Americans aren't the richest, although I think they're pretty high up in the list. They're definitely far wealthier on average than third world nations, so trying to make a comparison there isn't going to help your case.
This world has a very huge injustice in the distribution of wealth. The richest man on the planet, Carlos Slim Helú has a 74 billion dollar net worth while the poorest of the poor survive on less than 2 dollars a day.
This means that the richest man on the planet is about 100 million times richer than the poorest people on the planet.
I think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems no matter how much welfare is involved.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] Indeed. Income inequality is a very poor measure of general welfare, or even welfare among the poor.chessmaster1989
Welfare as in wellbeing, not as in social programs. Sorry I should have made that clear. airshocker's/my point was that that measures of income inequality, such as the gini coefficient, tell you nothing about the absolute welfare of the nation or of subgroups in the nation (one obvious subgroup of interest being the poor). Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say you think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems?
Countries with a bigger inequality usually have bigger social problems is what I mean. That comes obviously due to the fact that people start to perceive inequality in income as unjust, in creates social resentment and therefore more insecurity and schism between sectors of society and the ones with lowest income start depending more and more on those with bigger incomes.
This world has a very huge injustice in the distribution of wealth. The richest man on the planet, Carlos Slim Helú has a 74 billion dollar net worth while the poorest of the poor survive on less than 2 dollars a day.
This means that the richest man on the planet is about 100 million times richer than the poorest people on the planet.
roboticman2
"Injustice"?
You mean inequality? Nothing about the distribution of wealth is related with injustice, it's the other way around if anything :?
Because in America despite what they tell you "Anything" is in fact not possible. This isn't that Land of Opportunity they talk about in fiction. The system is rigged to keep the rich richer and to give the poor man as many obstacles as possible to avoid him getting a piece of their elitist pie.
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] I think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems no matter how much welfare is involved.kuraimen
Welfare as in wellbeing, not as in social programs. Sorry I should have made that clear. airshocker's/my point was that that measures of income inequality, such as the gini coefficient, tell you nothing about the absolute welfare of the nation or of subgroups in the nation (one obvious subgroup of interest being the poor). Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say you think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems?
Countries with a bigger inequality usually have bigger social problems is what I mean. That comes obviously due to the fact that people start to perceive inequality in income as unjust, in creates social resentment and therefore more insecurity and schism between sectors of society and the ones with lowest income start depending more and more on those with bigger incomes.You say this as though it's self-evident, but do you have any substantive evidence to support it? Now there's no denying that income inequality will lead to some feelings of resentment and jealousy, but I'm not convinced that it is widescale resentment between classes or that it creates the type of insecurity or schism that you suggest. I would guess (fairly groundlessly, I will admit) that individuals care more about their own absolute welfare than about income inequality. Thus, if a person is reasonably well-off they won't be that likely to resent the rich.
[QUOTE="roboticman2"]
This world has a very huge injustice in the distribution of wealth. The richest man on the planet, Carlos Slim Helú has a 74 billion dollar net worth while the poorest of the poor survive on less than 2 dollars a day.
This means that the richest man on the planet is about 100 million times richer than the poorest people on the planet.
N30F3N1X
"Injustice"?
You mean inequality? Nothing about the distribution of wealth is related with injustice, it's the other way around if anything :?
1)fairness: fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made2)system or application of law: the legal system, or the act of applying or upholding the law
3)validity: validity in law
Synonyms: fairness, impartiality, righteousness, reasonableness, evenhandedness, fair dealing, honesty, integrity, uprightness, rightness, justness the term
justice varies to the point where it can and often does conflict with its self. he may be using the fair interpretation and you the legal. in short, lets just say, justice is subjective.
also, cybr great job.
Countries with a bigger inequality usually have bigger social problems is what I mean. That comes obviously due to the fact that people start to perceive inequality in income as unjust, in creates social resentment and therefore more insecurity and schism between sectors of society and the ones with lowest income start depending more and more on those with bigger incomes.[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Welfare as in wellbeing, not as in social programs. Sorry I should have made that clear. airshocker's/my point was that that measures of income inequality, such as the gini coefficient, tell you nothing about the absolute welfare of the nation or of subgroups in the nation (one obvious subgroup of interest being the poor). Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say you think the gini coefficient is one of the best predictors of social problems?
chessmaster1989
You say this as though it's self-evident, but do you have any substantive evidence to support it? Now there's no denying that income inequality will lead to some feelings of resentment and jealousy, but I'm not convinced that it is widescale resentment between classes or that it creates the type of insecurity or schism that you suggest. I would guess (fairly groundlessly, I will admit) that individuals care more about their own absolute welfare than about income inequality. Thus, if a person is reasonably well-off they won't be that likely to resent the rich.
Yeah that might be so, I don't have enough info for that particular type of data. I imagine that what it matters the most is how much people perceive that inequality. If both rich and poor have access to the same type of stuff then inequality might be not so evident.
I'm going with the lazy/communist theory.
I disagree. Oppurtunity is open to you if you work for it. My parents are immigrants, I put myself through school, and i'm in medical school and gonna make six figures when my career takes off. The far majority of the poor are there because they slack of in school and end up with minimum wage jobs. It doesn't matter what background you come from. If you work your butt off in school you can become part of the rich.Because in America despite what they tell you "Anything" is in fact not possible. This isn't that Land of Opportunity they talk about in fiction. The system is rigged to keep the rich richer and to give the poor man as many obstacles as possible to avoid him getting a piece of their elitist pie.
Alter_Echo
Since I don't see many compelling statements actually addressing the topic ('that's wrong' does little for discussion), I'll list a few points that I find interesting.
The decreasing estate tax in the US.
The promise our government makes to individuals that they'll be able to enjoy most of their earnings, no matter how large, is a powerful and fundamental incentive in our economic system. Gross generational wealth, on the other hand, does little to maintain incentives. To clarify, I'm not talking about the man who's saved a few million over the course of his life. I'm talking about the higher percentile millionaires and all billionaires.
Culture.
Tough and sensitive subject to address in this context, but nonetheless fundamental to many economic problems in the US.
If you're raised to believe that your prospects in life are limited at best, then chances are likely that this view will become a key part of who you are.Despair is a powerful, insidious, and infectious concept often associated with long tern poverty. Many will simply label this as laziness, but doing so irresponsibly overlooks the real issue at hand.
Systemic poverty can occur in many ways. Even in instances when poverty is artificially imposed on an identifiable group, the poverty often remains when the impositions are removed. The issue is compounded when it is accompanied by geographical segregation of said group. Low local tax revenue and poor access to business networking become a new set of barriers.
Which brings up a another point to consider: It's easier to prevent systemic poverty by maintaining certain levels of structured safety nets than it is to remove systemic poverty once it starts. The problem is it's much harder to sell preventative measures than it is their reactionary counterparts.
America is the greatest country this world has ever seen and don't none of you forget it. This truly is the land of opportunity. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of lazy people that bring the rest of us down. Have a bunch of kids and live on welfare. That's basically how it goes. People don't wanna work hard anymore. You get out of it what you put into it. I did good in school, went to college, got a good job and settled down and had a family. But I worked for it. It wasn't handed to me. todd2rI understand the desire to simply brush it off as laziness. We don't have to empathize, and consequently feel bad for, individuals when we can superficially change them from victims of a situation into its cause.
Income equality as a measurement is pointless with a nation that has no cap on how rich a person can be.
Forced income equality by a particular state is also one of the quickest ways to guarantee that your economy stalls and fails under increase burdens of a growing population.
It has nothing to do with people who are lazy, social welfare programs, war spending, or anything like that. As others have said (and many have decided to ignore), it's all about the median income. The US has one of the higest in the world which is impressive given the size of the nation (300+ million and growing). By basic nature of economics, the USA will never have the highest median income in the world or the highest average income. To many factors spread over to large of population.
It's easy for people to say "X" country is better than the USA because of Y and Z reasons but X country is usually less than half the size of the US in terms of population and land mass. There are always so many factors that determine this. Does this mean the USA is the best country in the world? No. However what do you define as the best? Can it be improved in many ways? Of course. Is it as bad as some people say it is? Heck no.
Yeah it has lots to do with the american dream which translated into a movement in favor of mindless consumerism and production. The inevitable consequence of years of teaching people that having TVs, cars and white fences is part of their ideal life dream.kuraimen
This is probably the biggest load of horse-puckey I've ever heard. I'm at a loss at how to respond.
To me, the American dream doesn't mean having a nice TV, or a car, or a white picket fence. The American dream, for me, is having a good job, having a house or other piece of property that I BOUGHT, and having a family. I have two out of three of those down, and not to mention I get to do everything I love, shoot, play video games, play with my dog.
You sound a little bitter. Is your Pakistani dream not working out for you?
America is the greatest country this world has ever seen and don't none of you forget it. This truly is the land of opportunity. Unfortunately, we have a bunch of lazy people that bring the rest of us down. Have a bunch of kids and live on welfare. That's basically how it goes. People don't wanna work hard anymore. You get out of it what you put into it. I did good in school, went to college, got a good job and settled down and had a family. But I worked for it. It wasn't handed to me. todd2r
Yes its all the fault of the lazy, who do those lazy people think they are working two jobs full time to make ends meat.. I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that equal opportunity does not exist.. If your born poor your given the worse environment, worse cut of the social programs such as public schooling and statistically have the lowest chance of succeeding.. Lazy people may indeed be a problem, I would never argue that.. But the fact of the matter this isn't the land of opportunity, our public government ran systems are still extremely imbalanced and unfair with providing children inadaquate services..
Capitalism is destroying itself and I'm eagerly anticipating it's complete downfall. Maybe then we can get back to working for the greater good of all citizens, not only the rich ones.BrianB0422lol I hope you enjoy having a shortage of toilet paper and a surplus of spatulas.
Indeed. Income inequality is a very poor measure of general welfare, or even welfare among the poor.chessmaster1989
I paid attention in my macro class. ;)
I'd say a big reason for inequality in the US is the lack of unionization. Besides labor unions, what institution has a self-interest in improving the standing of workers, especially in a country with a government that is controlled primarily by money? Washington has been mostly focused on issues concerning businesses and corporations in recent decades (because without the support of businesses and corporations it's much harder to get elected), and then issues facing the general population are easily ignored, because there's less incentive to solve them, and it's much harder to even realize them.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Yeah it has lots to do with the american dream which translated into a movement in favor of mindless consumerism and production. The inevitable consequence of years of teaching people that having TVs, cars and white fences is part of their ideal life dream.airshocker
This is probably the biggest load of horse-puckey I've ever heard. I'm at a loss at how to respond.
To me, the American dream doesn't mean having a nice TV, or a car, or a white picket fence. The American dream, for me, is having a good job, having a house or other piece of property that I BOUGHT, and having a family. I have two out of three of those down, and not to mention I get to do everything I love, shoot, play video games, play with my dog.
You sound a little bitter. Is your Pakistani dream not working out for you?
That's the superficial interpretation of it. If you look at history and the context under which the american dream has been presented, promoted, etc. You can see that it ended up distorted and promoting consumerism. You can say it basically got highjacked although its foundations were not too solid either. Ownby (1999) identifies four American dreams that the new consumer culture addressed. The first was the "Dream of Abundance," offering a cornucopia of material goods to all Americans, making them proud to be the richest society on earth. The second was the "Dream of a Democracy of Goods," whereby everyone had access to the same products regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or class, thereby challenging the aristocratic norms of the rest of the world whereby only the rich or well-connected are granted access to luxury. The "Dream of Freedom of Choice," with its ever expanding variety of good allowed people to fashion their own particular life style. Finally, the "Dream of Novelty," in which ever-changing fashions, new models, and unexpected new products broadened the consumer experience in terms of purchasing skills and awareness of the market, and challenged the conservatism of traditional society and culture, and even politics. Ownby acknowledges that the dreams of the new consumer culture radiated out from the major cities, but notes that they quickly penetrated the most rural and most isolated areas, such as rural Mississippi. With the arrival of the model T after 1910, consumers in rural America were no longer locked into local general stores with their limited merchandise and high prices, and to comparison shop and in towns and cities. Ownby demonstrates that poor black Mississippians shared in the new consumer culture, both inside Mississippi, and it motivated the more ambitious to move to Memphis or Chicago.[23][24] Since the 1920s, numerous authors, such as Sinclair Lewis in his 1922 novel Babbitt, and F. Scott Fitzgerald, in his 1925 classic, The Great Gatsby, satirized or ridiculed materialism in the chase for the American dream. Within 'The Great Gatsby', Gatsby - the character representative of the American dream was killed, symbolizing the pessimistic belief that the American dream is dead. In 1949 Arthur Miller wrote the play "Death of a Salesman" in which the American Dream is a fruitless pursuit. Hunter S. Thompson in 1971 depicted in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas: A Savage Journey Into the Heart of the American Dream a dark view that appealed especially to drug users who emphatically were not pursuing a dream of economic achievement.[32] The novel "Requiem for a Dream" by Hubert Selby Jr. is a study of the pursuit of American success and stability, and is told through the ensuing tailspin of its main characters. George Carlin famously wrote the joke "it's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it."[33] Carlin pointed to "the big wealthy business interests that control things and make all the important decisions" as having a greater influence than an individual's choice.[33] Many counter-culture films of the 1960s and 1970s ridiculed the traditional quest for the American Dream. For example Easy Rider (1969), written by Peter Fonda, Dennis Hopper, and Terry Southern, shows the characters making a pilgrimage in search of "the true America" in terms of the hippie movement, drug use, and communal lifestyles.[34]
While I agree that the income inequality in the US is caused by years and years of policies that favour the rich over the poor it doesn't really have too large a negative connotation for the US. The poor in the US aren't that poor off, at least when compared to the poor of other countries. That said I still disagree with the system favouring the rich since 30 years in it's pretty clear it doesn't really work too well for the country as a whole.Ace6301Income inequality still has it's problem though. Yes, if you are poor in the US you are still better off than you would be if you were poor in Somalia. The US has a very high standard of living. But because of that, the US also has a very high cost of living. So while the standard of living in the US for the poor is much better than it would be in Somalia, it is also much more expensive to live in the US than it is in Somalia. And if the average American is getting less and less of the total income in the US as the cost of living rises, what happens is that they start to take out loans to cover the difference. So then we end up where we are now, with an extremely indebted society.
While I agree that the income inequality in the US is caused by years and years of policies that favour the rich over the poor it doesn't really have too large a negative connotation for the US. The poor in the US aren't that poor off, at least when compared to the poor of other countries. That said I still disagree with the system favouring the rich since 30 years in it's pretty clear it doesn't really work too well for the country as a whole.Ace6301You make it sound like it's a country with only rich people. I think USA's policy benefits the majority of citizens, rich and middle class. Only the poor aren't benefited.
While I agree that the income inequality in the US is caused by years and years of policies that favour the rich over the poor it doesn't really have too large a negative connotation for the US. The poor in the US aren't that poor off, at least when compared to the poor of other countries. That said I still disagree with the system favouring the rich since 30 years in it's pretty clear it doesn't really work too well for the country as a whole.Ace6301I hate the argument that because America's poor aren't living in their own fecal matter that it can't be THAT bad. What a load of crap.
Plutarchy. Woooord.. 8)
That's the superficial interpretation of it. If you look at history and the context under which the american dream has been presented, promoted, etc. You can see that it ended up distorted and promoting consumerism. You can say it basically got highjacked although its foundations were not too solid either.kuraimen
What does any of that quoted text have to do with my American dream? The American dream is different for every single person. I don't even really understand what you're arguing against anymore.
[QUOTE="kuraimen"]That's the superficial interpretation of it. If you look at history and the context under which the american dream has been presented, promoted, etc. You can see that it ended up distorted and promoting consumerism. You can say it basically got highjacked although its foundations were not too solid either.airshocker
What does any of that quoted text have to do with my American dream? The American dream is different for every single person. I don't even really understand what you're arguing against anymore.
Wut? the quoted text are all from analysis and interpretations of the american dream. The american dream is not only a personal interpretation, it is a social movement used by the US government and politicians to promote the US. People even talk about the american dream when migrating there. All those authors historical interpretation of the american dream as a social construct agree with my believe that the american dream basically turned into a way to promote mindless consumerism and I'm not the only one who thinks that.[QUOTE="Ace6301"]While I agree that the income inequality in the US is caused by years and years of policies that favour the rich over the poor it doesn't really have too large a negative connotation for the US. The poor in the US aren't that poor off, at least when compared to the poor of other countries. That said I still disagree with the system favouring the rich since 30 years in it's pretty clear it doesn't really work too well for the country as a whole.Cow4everYou make it sound like it's a country with only rich people. I think USA's policy benefits the majority of citizens, rich and middle class. Only the poor aren't benefited. Nah it doesn't help the middle class at all. It's very much a case of the rich get richer and everyone else gets more poor. Suntzu: I get all that I just didn't feel like bringing it up because I'm lazy. I don't believe that it's a good position to be in but there's certain people in this thread saying that the US is going the way of a 3rd world country and that's simply not true, not unless something drastic happens at least. Trust me I'd be one of the first to blame US policies for the last 30 years for where the world is right now. Brian: It's bad but it's not 3rd world country bad which as I said is what certain people seem to be claiming. Now maybe there's some kind of conspiracy to hide the worst of it from us foreigners but whenever I'm in the US and drive past the impoverished areas it's bad but nothing as bad as I've seen in actual 3rd world countries. The poor still have a ways to fall yet. I really do believe though that policies being continued as they are now will eventually lead to the poor taking another step down which wouldn't be pretty or as Tzu said good for anyone.
Wut? the quoted text are all from analysis and interpretations of the american dream. The american dream is not only a personal interpretation, it is a social movement used by the US government and politicians to promote the US. People even talk about the american dream when migrating there. All those authors historical interpretation of the american dream as a social construct agree with my believe that the american dream basically turned into a way to promote mindless consumerism and I'm not the only one who thinks that.kuraimen
I don't agree with that. At least not the analysis you posted.
"Mindless" consumerism sounds catchy and derogatory but this "mindless" consumerism drives our economy.
[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]While I agree that the income inequality in the US is caused by years and years of policies that favour the rich over the poor it doesn't really have too large a negative connotation for the US. The poor in the US aren't that poor off, at least when compared to the poor of other countries. That said I still disagree with the system favouring the rich since 30 years in it's pretty clear it doesn't really work too well for the country as a whole.Ace6301You make it sound like it's a country with only rich people. I think USA's policy benefits the majority of citizens, rich and middle class. Only the poor aren't benefited. Nah it doesn't help the middle class at all. It's very much a case of the rich get richer and everyone else gets more poor. Suntzu: I get all that I just didn't feel like bringing it up because I'm lazy. I don't believe that it's a good position to be in but there's certain people in this thread saying that the US is going the way of a 3rd world country and that's simply not true, not unless something drastic happens at least. Trust me I'd be one of the first to blame US policies for the last 30 years for where the world is right now. Brian: It's bad but it's not 3rd world country bad which as I said is what certain people seem to be claiming. Now maybe there's some kind of conspiracy to hide the worst of it from us foreigners but whenever I'm in the US and drive past the impoverished areas it's bad but nothing as bad as I've seen in actual 3rd world countries. The poor still have a ways to fall yet. I really do believe though that policies being continued as they are now will eventually lead to the poor taking another step down which wouldn't be pretty or as Tzu said good for anyone. How is low taxes and cheap products bad for the middle class? Yes if you're poor and dependent on welfare you'd probably do better in another country but for middle class.
Nah it doesn't help the middle class at all. It's very much a case of the rich get richer and everyone else gets more poor.Ace6301
I'm middle-class and I've been getting richer.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment