Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Xlea321]
    #1007137 -

Alex, please re-read my original post where I stated, " am requesting that leftist ideologues post numbers of deaths caused by free market capitalists..." I know this doesn't fit well with your utopian ideas of the state as a savior of mankind, but both World Wars and Vietnam were waged by governments. According to your simplistic view of the world I'm sure you would blame Eve's eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge on capitalists.

Please state specifically what organizations are to blame for which deaths. Hint: look at my orginal post, I stated a specific company and the event which is to blame for the deaths. Not that I expect you to ever come up with any valid verifiable facts.

Damn Statists:
From 1930-1937, Soviets carried out the systematic murder of 6,500,000 "kulaks," lower middle class peasants.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Evolving]
    #1007618 -

I don't have any numbers at the tip of my fingers to add to this thread, just a few observations on what has already been posted:

foghorn: ...I deny your comparison, assumtions, and question the relationship between Capitalism and Statism; I do not think that the two (for lack of a better word) 'idealogies' are opposing factions...

Why do you not think so? Capitalism forbids the State any power over commerce, Statism insists on it. If that is not opposing viewpoints, what is?

EchoVortex: I think what foghorn and frogsheath are driving at is that this is a false opposition.

See above.

EchoVortex: The problem is that the only power that can exert some kind of control over big corporations is the state

What control is required other than to make sure the corporations are held to the same degree of accountability as individuals are?

hongomon: What will persuade me to think that there isn't presently a "merger" between big business and big government

Nothing, because in a Statist society the connection is unavoidable. The United States government is presently not a Capitalist government. It is a Statist government. Less Statist than many, certainly, but Statist nonetheless.

hongomon: However, when we consider the portals through which information about our world reaches us, and the control over those portals, and the billions of dollars put toward tailoring that information just right, the consumer public may remain a sleeping giant.

Ah. Your oft-repeated implication that the average consumer believes unquestioningly the claims of advertisers. YOU do not, of course... just the rest of us dummies.

carbonhoots: Under capitalism, the product of labour is not kept by those who labour. It is kept by those who own.

I got to keep every pot I ever made. It was my labor that produced them, and it was me who kept them. They were mine ... I OWNED them. I was one of "those who own". However when I sold the pots to buy food to keep myself alive, the Statist government took over fifty per cent of the sale price.

eightball: Damn Capitalists: GREAT DEPRESSSION

Take an Economics 101 course some day and you'll find what the rest of us already know; that the Great Depression was caused by government meddling in the economy.

Evolving, you'll never get the statistics you are looking for in this forum, because there's almost no one here who has the faintest idea of what free-market Capitalism is.

pinky


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Phred]
    #1007852 -

****because there's almost no one here who has the faintest idea of what free-market Capitalism is.****

true dat...


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Phred]
    #1008324 -

"Take an Economics 101 course some day and you'll find what the rest of us already know; that the Great Depression was caused by government meddling in the economy."

The government's RESPONSE to the economic situation before, during, and after the Great Depression was confused and inadequate to be sure, but other than that your statement is completely incorrect.

There were two major causes to the Great Depression: vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth and completely irrational stock market speculation.

Here's an interesting and informative essay representing mainstream economic thinking on what caused the Great Depression. THIS is what a person taking Economics 101 would learn. What you refer to in your misinformed post is what somebody studying right-wing and/or libertarian propaganda would conclude caused the Great Depression. And, as usual, you provide no evidence to back up your sweeping claims.
---------------------
The Great Depression was the worst economic slump ever in U.S.
history, and one which spread to virtually all of the industrialized
world. The depression began in late 1929 and lasted for about a
decade. Many factors played a role in bringing about the depression;
however, the main cause for the Great Depression was the combination
of the greatly unequal distribution of wealth throughout the 1920's,
and the extensive stock market speculation that took place during the
latter part that same decade. The maldistribution of wealth in the
1920's existed on many levels. Money was distributed disparately
between the rich and the middle-class, between industry and
agriculture within the United States, and between the U.S. and Europe.
This imbalance of wealth created an unstable economy. The excessive
speculation in the late 1920's kept the stock market artificially
high, but eventually lead to large market crashes. These market
crashes, combined with the maldistribution of wealth, caused the
American economy to capsize.

The "roaring twenties" was an era when our country prospered
tremendously. The nation's total realized income rose from $74.3
billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929. However, the
rewards of the "Coolidge Prosperity" of the 1920's were not shared
evenly among all Americans. According to a study done by the Brookings
Institute, in 1929 the top 0.1% of Americans had a combined income
equal to the bottom 42%. That same top 0.1% of Americans
in 1929 controlled 34% of all savings, while 80% of Americans had no
savings at all. Automotive industry mogul Henry Ford
provides a striking example of the unequal distribution of wealth
between the rich and the middle-class. Henry Ford reported a personal
income of $14 million in the same year that the average
personal income was $750. By present day standards, where
the average yearly income in the U.S. is around $18,500,
Mr. Ford would be earning over $345 million a year! This
maldistribution of income between the rich and the middle class grew
throughout the 1920's. While the disposable income per capita rose 9%
from 1920 to 1929, those with income within the top 1% enjoyed a
stupendous 75% increase in per capita disposable income.

A major reason for this large and growing gap between the rich
and the working-class people was the increased manufacturing output
throughout this period. From 1923-1929 the average output per worker
increased 32% in manufacturing. During that same period of
time average wages for manufacturing jobs increased only 8%. Thus wages increased at a rate one fourth as fast as productivity
increased. As production costs fell quickly, wages rose slowly, and
prices remained constant, the bulk benefit of the increased
productivity went into corporate profits. In fact, from 1923-1929
corporate profits rose 62% and dividends rose 65%.

The federal government also contributed to the growing gap
between the rich and middle-class. Calvin Coolidge's administration
(and the conservative-controlled government) favored business, and as
a result the wealthy who invested in these businesses. An example of
legislation to this purpose is the Revenue Act of 1926, signed by
President Coolidge on February 26, 1926, which reduced federal income
and inheritance taxes dramatically. Andrew Mellon,
Coolidge's Secretary of the Treasury, was the main force behind these
and other tax cuts throughout the 1920's. In effect, he was able to
lower federal taxes such that a man with a million-dollar annual
income had his federal taxes reduced from $600,000 to $200,000. Even the Supreme Court played a role in expanding the gap
between the socioeconomic classes. In the 1923 case Adkins v.
Children's Hospital, the Supreme Court ruled minimum-wage legislation
unconstitutional.

The large and growing disparity of wealth between the well-to-do
and the middle-income citizens made the U.S. economy unstable. For an
economy to function properly, total demand must equal total supply. In
an economy with such disparate distribution of income it is not
assured that demand will always equal supply. Essentially what
happened in the 1920's was that there was an oversupply of goods. It
was not that the surplus products of industrialized society were not
wanted, but rather that those whose needs were not satiated could not
afford more, whereas the wealthy were satiated by spending only a
small portion of their income. A 1932 article in Current History
articulates the problems of this maldistribution of wealth:

"We still pray to be given each day our daily bread. Yet there is too
much bread, too much wheat and corn, meat and oil and almost every
other commodity required by man for his subsistence and material
happiness. We are not able to purchase the abundance that modern
methods of agriculture, mining and manufacturing make available in
such bountiful quantities."

Three quarters of the U.S. population would spend essentially all of
their yearly incomes to purchase consumer goods such as food, clothes,
radios, and cars. These were the poor and middle class: families with
incomes around, or usually less than, $2,500 a year. The bottom three
quarters of the population had an aggregate income of less than 45% of
the combined national income; the top 25% of the population took in
more than 55% of the national income. While the wealthy
too purchased consumer goods, a family earning $100,000 could not be
expected to eat 40 times more than a family that only earned $2,500
a year, or buy 40 cars, 40 radios, or 40 houses.

Through such a period of imbalance, the U.S. came to rely upon
two things in order for the economy to remain on an even keel: credit
sales, and luxury spending and investment from the rich.

One obvious solution to the problem of the vast majority of the
population not having enough money to satisfy all their needs was to
let those who wanted goods buy products on credit. The concept of
buying now and paying later caught on quickly. By the end of the
1920's 60% of cars and 80% of radios were bought on installment
credit. Between 1925 and 1929 the total amount of
outstanding installment credit more than doubled from $1.38 billion to
around $3 billion. Installment credit allowed one to
"telescope the future into the present", as the President's Committee
on Social Trends noted. This strategy created artificial
demand for products which people could not ordinarily afford. It put
off the day of reckoning, but it made the downfall worse when it came.
By telescoping the future into the present, when "the future" arrived,
there was little to buy that hadn't already been bought. In addition,
people could not longer use their regular wages to purchase whatever
items they didn't have yet, because so much of the wages went to
paying back past purchases.

The U.S. economy was also reliant upon luxury spending and
investment from the rich to stay afloat during the 1920's. The
significant problem with this reliance was that luxury spending and
investment were based on the wealthy's confidence in the U.S. economy.
If conditions were to take a downturn (as they did with the market
crashed in fall and winter 1929), this spending and investment would
slow to a halt. While savings and investment are important for an
economy to stay balanced, at excessive levels they are not good.
Greater investment usually means greater productivity. However, since
the rewards of the increased productivity were not being distributed
equally, the problems of income distribution (and of overproduction)
were only made worse. Lastly, the search for ever greater returns on
investment lead to wide-spread market speculation.

Maldistribution of wealth within our nation was not limited to
only socioeconomic classes, but to entire industries. In 1929 a mere
200 corporations controlled approximately half of all corporate
wealth. While the automotive industry was thriving in the
1920's, some industries, agriculture in particular, were declining
steadily. In 1921, the same year that Ford Motor Company reported
record assets of more than $345 million, farm prices plummeted, and
the price of food fell nearly 72% due to a huge surplus.
While the average per capita income in 1929 was $750 a year for all
Americans, the average annual income for someone working in
agriculture was only $273. The prosperity of the 1920's
was simply not shared among industries evenly. In fact, most of the
industries that were prospering in the 1920's were in some way linked
to the automotive industry or to the radio industry.

The automotive industry was the driving force behind many other
booming industries in the 1920's. By 1928, with over 21 million cars
on the roads, there was roughly one car for every six Americans. The first industries to prosper were those that made
materials for cars. The booming steel industry sold roughly 15% of its
products to the automobile industry. The nickel, lead,
and other metal industries capitalized similarly. The new closed cars
of the 1920's benefited the glass, leather, and textile industries
greatly. And manufacturers of the rubber tires that these cars used
grew even faster than the automobile industry itself, for each car
would probably need more than one set of tires over the course of its
life. The fuel industry also profited and expanded. Companies such as
Ethyl Corporation made millions with items such as new "knock-free"
fuel additives for cars. In addition, "tourist homes"
(hotels and motels) opened up everywhere. With such a wealthy
upper-class many luxury hotels were needed. In 1924 alone, hotels such
as the Mayflower (Washington D.C.), the Parker House (Boston), The
Palmer House (Chicago), and the Peabody (Memphis) opened their
doors. Lastly, and possibly most importantly, the
construction industry benefited tremendously from the automobile. With
the growing number of cars, there was a big demand for paved roads.
During the 1920's Americans spent more than a $1 billion each year on
the construction and maintenance of highways, and at least another
$400 million annually for city streets. But the
automotive industry affected construction far more than that. The
automobile had been central to the urbanization of the country in the
1920's because so many other industries relied upon it. With
urbanization came the need to build many more apartment buildings,
factories, offices, and stores. From 1919 to 1928 the construction
industry grew by around $5 billion dollars, nearly 50%.

Also prospering during the 1920's were businesses dependent upon
the radio business. Radio stations, electronic stores, and electricity
companies all needed the radio to survive, and relied upon the
constant growth of the radio market to expand and grow themselves. By
1930, 40% of American families had radios. In 1926 major
broadcasting companies started appearing, such as the National
Broadcasting Company. The advertising industry was also becoming
heavily reliant upon the radio both as a product to be advertised, and
as a method of advertising.

Several factors lead to the concentration of wealth and
prosperity into the automotive and radio industries. First, during
World War I both the automobile and the radio were significantly
improved upon. Both had existed before, but radio had been mostly
experimental. Due to the demands of the war, by 1920 automobiles,
radios, and the parts necessary to build these things were being
produced in large quantities; the work force in these industries had
been formed and had become experienced. Manufacturing plants were
already in place. The infrastructure existed for the automotive and
radio industries to take off. Second, due to federal government's
easing of credit, money was available to invest in these industries.
Thanks to pressure from President Coolidge and the business world, the
Federal Reserve Board kept the rediscount rate low.

The federal government favored the new industries as opposed to
agriculture. During World War I the federal government had subsidized
farms, and payed absurdly high prices for wheat and other grains. The
federal government had encouraged farmers to buy more land, to
modernize their methods with the latest in farm technology, and to
produce more food. This made sense during that war when war-ravaged
Europe had to be fed too. However as soon as the war ended, the U.S.
abruptly stopped its policies to help farmers. During the war the
United States government had paid an unheard of $2 a bushel for wheat,
but by 1920 wheat prices had fallen to as low as 67 cents a bushel. Farmers fell into debt; farm prices and food prices tumbled.
Although modest attempts to help farmers were made in 1923 with the
Agricultural Credits Act, farmers were generally left out in the cold
by the government.

The problem with such heavy concentrations of wealth and such
massive dependence upon essentially two industries is similar to the
problem with few people having too much wealth. The economy is reliant
upon those industries to expand and grow and invest in order to
prosper. If those two industries, the automotive and radio industries,
were to slow down or stop, so would the entire economy. While the
economy did prosper greatly in the 1920's, because this prosperity
wasn't balanced between different industries, when those industries
that had all the wealth concentrated in them slowed down, the whole
economy did. The fundamental problem with the automobile and radio
industries was that they could not expand ad infinitum for the simple
reason that people could and would buy only so many cars and radios.
When the automotive and radio industries went down all their
dependents, essentially all of American industry, fell. Because it had
been ignored, agriculture, which was still a fairly large segment of
the economy, was already in ruin when American industry fell.

A last major instability of the American economy had to do with
large-scale international wealth distribution problems. While America
was prospering in the 1920's, European nations were struggling to
rebuild themselves after the damage of war. During World War I the
U.S. government lent its European allies $7 billion, and then another
$3.3 billion by 1920. By the Dawes Plan of 1924 the U.S.
started lending to Axis Germany. American foreign lending continued in
the 1920's climbing to $900 million in 1924, and $1.25 billion in 1927
and 1928. Of these funds, more than 90% were used by the
European allies to purchase U.S. goods. The nations the
U.S. had lent money to (Britain, Italy, France, Belgium, Russia,
Yugoslavia, Estonia, Poland, and others) were in no position to
pay off the debts. Their gold had flowed into the U.S. during and
immediately after the war in great quantity; they couldn't send more
gold without completely ruining their currencies. Historian John D.
Hicks describes the Allied attitude towards U.S. loan repayment:

"In their view the war was fought for a common objective, and the
victory was as essential for the safety of the United States as for
their own. The United States had entered the struggle late, and had
poured forth no such contribution in lives and losses as the Allies
had made. It had paid in dollars, not in death and destruction, and
now it wanted its dollars back."

There were several causes to this awkward distribution of wealth
between U.S. and its European counterparts. Most obvious is that fact
that World War I had devastated European business. Factories, homes,
and farms had been destroyed in the war. It would take time and money
to recuperate. Equally important to causing the disparate distribution
of wealth was tariff policy of the United States. The United States
had traditionally placed tariffs on imports from foreign countries in
order to protect American business. However these tariffs reached an
all-time high in the 1920's and early 1930's. Starting with the
Fordney-McCumber Act of 1922 and ending with the Hawley-Smoot Tariff
of 1930, the United States increased many tariffs by 100% or more. The effect of these tariffs was that Europeans were unable
to sell their own goods in the United States in reasonable quantities.

In the 1920's the United States was trying "to be the world's
banker, food producer, and manufacturer, but to buy as little as
possible from the world in return." This attempt to have
a constantly favorable trade balance could not succeed for long. The
United States maintained high trade barriers so as to protect American
business, but if the United States would not buy from our European
counterparts, then there was no way for them to buy from the
Americans, or even to pay interest on U.S. loans. The weakness of the
international economy certainly contributed to the Great Depression.
Europe was reliant upon U.S. loans to buy U.S. goods, and the U.S.
needed Europe to buy these goods to prosper. By 1929 10% of American
gross national product went into exports. When the
foreign countries became no longer able to buy U.S. goods, U.S.
exports fell 30% immediately. That $1.5 billion of foreign sales lost
between 1929 to 1933 was fully one eighth of all lost American sales
in the early years of the depression.

Mass speculation went on throughout the late 1920's. In 1929
alone, a record volume of 1,124,800,410 shares were traded on the New
York Stock Exchange. From early 1928 to September 1929
the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose from 191 to 38.
This sort of profit was irresistible to investors. Company earnings
became of little interest; as long as stock prices continued to rise
huge profits could be made. One such example is RCA corporation, whose
stock price leapt from 85 to 420 during 1928, even though it had not
yet paid a single dividend. Even these returns of over
100% were no measure of the possibility for investors of the time.
Through the miracle of buying stocks on margin, one could buy stocks
without the money to purchase them. Buying stocks on margin functioned
much the same way as buying a car on credit. Using the example of RCA,
a Mr. John Doe could buy 1 share of the company by putting up $10 of
his own, and borrowing $75 from his broker. If he sold the stock at
$420 a year later he would have turned his original investment of
just $10 into $341.25 ($420 minus the $75 and 5% interest owed to the
broker). That makes a return of over 3400%! Investors' craze over the
proposition of profits like this drove the market to absurdly high
levels. By mid 1929 the total of outstanding brokers' loans was over
$7 billion; in the next three months that number would
reach $8.5 billion(end note 42). Interest rates for brokers loans were
reaching the sky, going as high as 20% in March 1929. The
speculative boom in the stock market was based upon confidence. In the
same way, the huge market crashes of 1929 were based on fear.

Prices had been drifting downward since September 3, but
generally people where optimistic. Speculators continued to flock to
the market. Then, on Monday October 21 prices started to fall quickly.
The volume was so great that the ticker fell behind.
Investors became fearful. Knowing that prices were falling, but not by
how much, they started selling quickly. This caused the collapse to
happen faster. Prices stabilized a little on Tuesday and Wednesday,
but then on Black Thursday, October 24, everything fell apart again.
By this time most major investors had lost confidence in the market.
Once enough investors had decided the boom was over, it was over.
Partial recovery was achieved on Friday and Saturday when a group of
leading bankers stepped in to try to stop the crash. But then on
Monday the 28th prices started dropping again. By the end of the day
the market had fallen 13%. The next day, Black Tuesday an
unprecedented 16.4 million shares changed hands. Stocks
fell so much, that at many times during the day no buyers were
available at any price.

This speculation and the resulting stock market crashes acted as
a trigger to the already unstable U.S. economy. Due to the
maldistribution of wealth, the economy of the 1920's was one very much
dependent upon confidence. The market crashes undermined this
confidence. The rich stopped spending on luxury items, and slowed
investments. The middle-class and poor stopped buying things with
installment credit for fear of loosing their jobs, and not being able
to pay the interest. As a result industrial production fell by more
than 9% between the market crashes in October and December 1929. As a result jobs were lost, and soon people starting
defaulting on their interest payment. Radios and cars bought with
installment credit had to be returned. All of the sudden warehouses
were piling up with inventory. The thriving industries that had been
connected with the automobile and radio industries started falling
apart. Without a car people did not need fuel or tires; without a
radio people had less need for electricity. On the international
scene, the rich had practically stopped lending money to foreign
countries. With such tremendous profits to be made in the stock market
nobody wanted to make low interest loans. To protect the nation's
businesses the U.S. imposed higher trade barriers (Hawley-Smoot Tariff
of 1930). Foreigners stopped buying American products. More jobs were
lost, more stores were closed, more banks went under, and more
factories closed. Unemployment grew to five million in 1930, and up to
thirteen million in 1932. The country spiraled quickly
into catastrophe. The Great Depression had begun.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1008374 -

Wanna read more? Yeah, I knew you would! The folks on these forums are so well-informed and such close, careful readers. Such deep thinkers. It's just like a friggin' university seminar around here!

Paul Krugman on the PRESENT state of wealth inequality. Yeah, he's a libbie, I know. He also knows what he's talking about.
----------------------
October 20, 2002
For Richer
By PAUL KRUGMAN


. The Disappearing Middle
When I was a teenager growing up on Long Island, one of my favorite excursions was a trip to see the great Gilded Age mansions of the North Shore. Those mansions weren't just pieces of architectural history. They were monuments to a bygone social era, one in which the rich could afford the armies of servants needed to maintain a house the size of a European palace. By the time I saw them, of course, that era was long past. Almost none of the Long Island mansions were still private residences. Those that hadn't been turned into museums were occupied by nursing homes or private schools.

For the America I grew up in -- the America of the 1950's and 1960's -- was a middle-class society, both in reality and in feel. The vast income and wealth inequalities of the Gilded Age had disappeared. Yes, of course, there was the poverty of the underclass -- but the conventional wisdom of the time viewed that as a social rather than an economic problem. Yes, of course, some wealthy businessmen and heirs to large fortunes lived far better than the average American. But they weren't rich the way the robber barons who built the mansions had been rich, and there weren't that many of them. The days when plutocrats were a force to be reckoned with in American society, economically or politically, seemed long past.

Daily experience confirmed the sense of a fairly equal society. The economic disparities you were conscious of were quite muted. Highly educated professionals -- middle managers, college teachers, even lawyers -- often claimed that they earned less than unionized blue-collar workers. Those considered very well off lived in split-levels, had a housecleaner come in once a week and took summer vacations in Europe. But they sent their kids to public schools and drove themselves to work, just like everyone else.

But that was long ago. The middle-class America of my youth was another country.

We are now living in a new Gilded Age, as extravagant as the original. Mansions have made a comeback. Back in 1999 this magazine profiled Thierry Despont, the ''eminence of excess,'' an architect who specializes in designing houses for the superrich. His creations typically range from 20,000 to 60,000 square feet; houses at the upper end of his range are not much smaller than the White House. Needless to say, the armies of servants are back, too. So are the yachts. Still, even J.P. Morgan didn't have a Gulfstream.

As the story about Despont suggests, it's not fair to say that the fact of widening inequality in America has gone unreported. Yet glimpses of the lifestyles of the rich and tasteless don't necessarily add up in people's minds to a clear picture of the tectonic shifts that have taken place in the distribution of income and wealth in this country. My sense is that few people are aware of just how much the gap between the very rich and the rest has widened over a relatively short period of time. In fact, even bringing up the subject exposes you to charges of ''class warfare,'' the ''politics of envy'' and so on. And very few people indeed are willing to talk about the profound effects -- economic, social and political -- of that widening gap.

Yet you can't understand what's happening in America today without understanding the extent, causes and consequences of the vast increase in inequality that has taken place over the last three decades, and in particular the astonishing concentration of income and wealth in just a few hands. To make sense of the current wave of corporate scandal, you need to understand how the man in the gray flannel suit has been replaced by the imperial C.E.O. The concentration of income at the top is a key reason that the United States, for all its economic achievements, has more poverty and lower life expectancy than any other major advanced nation. Above all, the growing concentration of wealth has reshaped our political system: it is at the root both of a general shift to the right and of an extreme polarization of our politics.

But before we get to all that, let's take a look at who gets what.

II. The New Gilded Age
he Securities and Exchange Commission hath no fury like a woman scorned. The messy divorce proceedings of Jack Welch, the legendary former C.E.O. of General Electric, have had one unintended benefit: they have given us a peek at the perks of the corporate elite, which are normally hidden from public view. For it turns out that when Welch retired, he was granted for life the use of a Manhattan apartment (including food, wine and laundry), access to corporate jets and a variety of other in-kind benefits, worth at least $2 million a year. The perks were revealing: they illustrated the extent to which corporate leaders now expect to be treated like ancien regime royalty. In monetary terms, however, the perks must have meant little to Welch. In 2000, his last full year running G.E., Welch was paid $123 million, mainly in stock and stock options.

Is it news that C.E.O.'s of large American corporations make a lot of money? Actually, it is. They were always well paid compared with the average worker, but there is simply no comparison between what executives got a generation ago and what they are paid today.

Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That's about a 10 percent increase over 29 years -- progress, but not much. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.

The explosion in C.E.O. pay over the past 30 years is an amazing story in its own right, and an important one. But it is only the most spectacular indicator of a broader story, the reconcentration of income and wealth in the U.S. The rich have always been different from you and me, but they are far more different now than they were not long ago -- indeed, they are as different now as they were when F. Scott Fitzgerald made his famous remark.

That's a controversial statement, though it shouldn't be. For at least the past 15 years it has been hard to deny the evidence for growing inequality in the United States. Census data clearly show a rising share of income going to the top 20 percent of families, and within that top 20 percent to the top 5 percent, with a declining share going to families in the middle. Nonetheless, denial of that evidence is a sizable, well-financed industry. Conservative think tanks have produced scores of studies that try to discredit the data, the methodology and, not least, the motives of those who report the obvious. Studies that appear to refute claims of increasing inequality receive prominent endorsements on editorial pages and are eagerly cited by right-leaning government officials. Four years ago Alan Greenspan (why did anyone ever think that he was nonpartisan?) gave a keynote speech at the Federal Reserve's annual Jackson Hole conference that amounted to an attempt to deny that there has been any real increase in inequality in America.

The concerted effort to deny that inequality is increasing is itself a symptom of the growing influence of our emerging plutocracy (more on this later). So is the fierce defense of the backup position, that inequality doesn't matter -- or maybe even that, to use Martha Stewart's signature phrase, it's a good thing. Meanwhile, politically motivated smoke screens aside, the reality of increasing inequality is not in doubt. In fact, the census data understate the case, because for technical reasons those data tend to undercount very high incomes -- for example, it's unlikely that they reflect the explosion in C.E.O. compensation. And other evidence makes it clear not only that inequality is increasing but that the action gets bigger the closer you get to the top. That is, it's not simply that the top 20 percent of families have had bigger percentage gains than families near the middle: the top 5 percent have done better than the next 15, the top 1 percent better than the next 4, and so on up to Bill Gates.

Studies that try to do a better job of tracking high incomes have found startling results. For example, a recent study by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office used income tax data and other sources to improve on the census estimates. The C.B.O. study found that between 1979 and 1997, the after-tax incomes of the top 1 percent of families rose 157 percent, compared with only a 10 percent gain for families near the middle of the income distribution. Even more startling results come from a new study by Thomas Piketty, at the French research institute Cepremap, and Emmanuel Saez, who is now at the University of California at Berkeley. Using income tax data, Piketty and Saez have produced estimates of the incomes of the well-to-do, the rich and the very rich back to 1913.

The first point you learn from these new estimates is that the middle-class America of my youth is best thought of not as the normal state of our society, but as an interregnum between Gilded Ages. America before 1930 was a society in which a small number of very rich people controlled a large share of the nation's wealth. We became a middle-class society only after the concentration of income at the top dropped sharply during the New Deal, and especially during World War II. The economic historians Claudia Goldin and Robert Margo have dubbed the narrowing of income gaps during those years the Great Compression. Incomes then stayed fairly equally distributed until the 1970's: the rapid rise in incomes during the first postwar generation was very evenly spread across the population.

Since the 1970's, however, income gaps have been rapidly widening. Piketty and Saez confirm what I suspected: by most measures we are, in fact, back to the days of ''The Great Gatsby.'' After 30 years in which the income shares of the top 10 percent of taxpayers, the top 1 percent and so on were far below their levels in the 1920's, all are very nearly back where they were.

And the big winners are the very, very rich. One ploy often used to play down growing inequality is to rely on rather coarse statistical breakdowns -- dividing the population into five ''quintiles,'' each containing 20 percent of families, or at most 10 ''deciles.'' Indeed, Greenspan's speech at Jackson Hole relied mainly on decile data. From there it's a short step to denying that we're really talking about the rich at all. For example, a conservative commentator might concede, grudgingly, that there has been some increase in the share of national income going to the top 10 percent of taxpayers, but then point out that anyone with an income over $81,000 is in that top 10 percent. So we're just talking about shifts within the middle class, right?

Wrong: the top 10 percent contains a lot of people whom we would still consider middle class, but they weren't the big winners. Most of the gains in the share of the top 10 percent of taxpayers over the past 30 years were actually gains to the top 1 percent, rather than the next 9 percent. In 1998 the top 1 percent started at $230,000. In turn, 60 percent of the gains of that top 1 percent went to the top 0.1 percent, those with incomes of more than $790,000. And almost half of those gains went to a mere 13,000 taxpayers, the top 0.01 percent, who had an income of at least $3.6 million and an average income of $17 million.

A stickler for detail might point out that the Piketty-Saez estimates end in 1998 and that the C.B.O. numbers end a year earlier. Have the trends shown in the data reversed? Almost surely not. In fact, all indications are that the explosion of incomes at the top continued through 2000. Since then the plunge in stock prices must have put some crimp in high incomes -- but census data show inequality continuing to increase in 2001, mainly because of the severe effects of the recession on the working poor and near poor. When the recession ends, we can be sure that we will find ourselves a society in which income inequality is even higher than it was in the late 90's.

So claims that we've entered a second Gilded Age aren't exaggerated. In America's middle-class era, the mansion-building, yacht-owning classes had pretty much disappeared. According to Piketty and Saez, in 1970 the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers had 0.7 percent of total income -- that is, they earned ''only'' 70 times as much as the average, not enough to buy or maintain a mega-residence. But in 1998 the top 0.01 percent received more than 3 percent of all income. That meant that the 13,000 richest families in America had almost as much income as the 20 million poorest households; those 13,000 families had incomes 300 times that of average families.

And let me repeat: this transformation has happened very quickly, and it is still going on. You might think that 1987, the year Tom Wolfe published his novel ''The Bonfire of the Vanities'' and Oliver Stone released his movie ''Wall Street,'' marked the high tide of America's new money culture. But in 1987 the top 0.01 percent earned only about 40 percent of what they do today, and top executives less than a fifth as much. The America of ''Wall Street'' and ''The Bonfire of the Vanities'' was positively egalitarian compared with the country we live in today.

III. Undoing the New Deal
In the middle of the 1980's, as economists became aware that something important was happening to the distribution of income in America, they formulated three main hypotheses about its causes.

The ''globalization'' hypothesis tied America's changing income distribution to the growth of world trade, and especially the growing imports of manufactured goods from the third world. Its basic message was that blue-collar workers -- the sort of people who in my youth often made as much money as college-educated middle managers -- were losing ground in the face of competition from low-wage workers in Asia. A result was stagnation or decline in the wages of ordinary people, with a growing share of national income going to the highly educated.

A second hypothesis, ''skill-biased technological change,'' situated the cause of growing inequality not in foreign trade but in domestic innovation. The torrid pace of progress in information technology, so the story went, had increased the demand for the highly skilled and educated. And so the income distribution increasingly favored brains rather than brawn.

Finally, the ''superstar'' hypothesis -- named by the Chicago economist Sherwin Rosen -- offered a variant on the technological story. It argued that modern technologies of communication often turn competition into a tournament in which the winner is richly rewarded, while the runners-up get far less. The classic example -- which gives the theory its name -- is the entertainment business. As Rosen pointed out, in bygone days there were hundreds of comedians making a modest living at live shows in the borscht belt and other places. Now they are mostly gone; what is left is a handful of superstar TV comedians.

The debates among these hypotheses -- particularly the debate between those who attributed growing inequality to globalization and those who attributed it to technology -- were many and bitter. I was a participant in those debates myself. But I won't dwell on them, because in the last few years there has been a growing sense among economists that none of these hypotheses work.

I don't mean to say that there was nothing to these stories. Yet as more evidence has accumulated, each of the hypotheses has seemed increasingly inadequate. Globalization can explain part of the relative decline in blue-collar wages, but it can't explain the 2,500 percent rise in C.E.O. incomes. Technology may explain why the salary premium associated with a college education has risen, but it's hard to match up with the huge increase in inequality among the college-educated, with little progress for many but gigantic gains at the top. The superstar theory works for Jay Leno, but not for the thousands of people who have become awesomely rich without going on TV.

The Great Compression -- the substantial reduction in inequality during the New Deal and the Second World War -- also seems hard to understand in terms of the usual theories. During World War II Franklin Roosevelt used government control over wages to compress wage gaps. But if the middle-class society that emerged from the war was an artificial creation, why did it persist for another 30 years?

Some -- by no means all -- economists trying to understand growing inequality have begun to take seriously a hypothesis that would have been considered irredeemably fuzzy-minded not long ago. This view stresses the role of social norms in setting limits to inequality. According to this view, the New Deal had a more profound impact on American society than even its most ardent admirers have suggested: it imposed norms of relative equality in pay that persisted for more than 30 years, creating the broadly middle-class society we came to take for granted. But those norms began to unravel in the 1970's and have done so at an accelerating pace.

Exhibit A for this view is the story of executive compensation. In the 1960's, America's great corporations behaved more like socialist republics than like cutthroat capitalist enterprises, and top executives behaved more like public-spirited bureaucrats than like captains of industry. I'm not exaggerating. Consider the description of executive behavior offered by John Kenneth Galbraith in his 1967 book, ''The New Industrial State'': ''Management does not go out ruthlessly to reward itself -- a sound management is expected to exercise restraint.'' Managerial self-dealing was a thing of the past: ''With the power of decision goes opportunity for making money. . . . Were everyone to seek to do so . . . the corporation would be a chaos of competitive avarice. But these are not the sort of thing that a good company man does; a remarkably effective code bans such behavior. Group decision-making insures, moreover, that almost everyone's actions and even thoughts are known to others. This acts to enforce the code and, more than incidentally, a high standard of personal honesty as well.''

Thirty-five years on, a cover article in Fortune is titled ''You Bought. They Sold.'' ''All over corporate America,'' reads the blurb, ''top execs were cashing in stocks even as their companies were tanking. Who was left holding the bag? You.'' As I said, we've become a different country.

Let's leave actual malfeasance on one side for a moment, and ask how the relatively modest salaries of top executives 30 years ago became the gigantic pay packages of today. There are two main stories, both of which emphasize changing norms rather than pure economics. The more optimistic story draws an analogy between the explosion of C.E.O. pay and the explosion of baseball salaries with the introduction of free agency. According to this story, highly paid C.E.O.'s really are worth it, because having the right man in that job makes a huge difference. The more pessimistic view -- which I find more plausible -- is that competition for talent is a minor factor. Yes, a great executive can make a big difference -- but those huge pay packages have been going as often as not to executives whose performance is mediocre at best. The key reason executives are paid so much now is that they appoint the members of the corporate board that determines their compensation and control many of the perks that board members count on. So it's not the invisible hand of the market that leads to those monumental executive incomes; it's the invisible handshake in the boardroom.

But then why weren't executives paid lavishly 30 years ago? Again, it's a matter of corporate culture. For a generation after World War II, fear of outrage kept executive salaries in check. Now the outrage is gone. That is, the explosion of executive pay represents a social change rather than the purely economic forces of supply and demand. We should think of it not as a market trend like the rising value of waterfront property, but as something more like the sexual revolution of the 1960's -- a relaxation of old strictures, a new permissiveness, but in this case the permissiveness is financial rather than sexual. Sure enough, John Kenneth Galbraith described the honest executive of 1967 as being one who ''eschews the lovely, available and even naked woman by whom he is intimately surrounded.'' By the end of the 1990's, the executive motto might as well have been ''If it feels good, do it.''

How did this change in corporate culture happen? Economists and management theorists are only beginning to explore that question, but it's easy to suggest a few factors. One was the changing structure of financial markets. In his new book, ''Searching for a Corporate Savior,'' Rakesh Khurana of Harvard Business School suggests that during the 1980's and 1990's, ''managerial capitalism'' -- the world of the man in the gray flannel suit -- was replaced by ''investor capitalism.'' Institutional investors weren't willing to let a C.E.O. choose his own successor from inside the corporation; they wanted heroic leaders, often outsiders, and were willing to pay immense sums to get them. The subtitle of Khurana's book, by the way, is ''The Irrational Quest for Charismatic C.E.O.'s.''

But fashionable management theorists didn't think it was irrational. Since the 1980's there has been ever more emphasis on the importance of ''leadership'' -- meaning personal, charismatic leadership. When Lee Iacocca of Chrysler became a business celebrity in the early 1980's, he was practically alone: Khurana reports that in 1980 only one issue of Business Week featured a C.E.O. on its cover. By 1999 the number was up to 19. And once it was considered normal, even necessary, for a C.E.O. to be famous, it also became easier to make him rich.

Economists also did their bit to legitimize previously unthinkable levels of executive pay. During the 1980's and 1990's a torrent of academic papers -- popularized in business magazines and incorporated into consultants' recommendations -- argued that Gordon Gekko was right: greed is good; greed works. In order to get the best performance out of executives, these papers argued, it was necessary to align their interests with those of stockholders. And the way to do that was with large grants of stock or stock options.

It's hard to escape the suspicion that these new intellectual justifications for soaring executive pay were as much effect as cause. I'm not suggesting that management theorists and economists were personally corrupt. It would have been a subtle, unconscious process: the ideas that were taken up by business schools, that led to nice speaking and consulting fees, tended to be the ones that ratified an existing trend, and thereby gave it legitimacy.

What economists like Piketty and Saez are now suggesting is that the story of executive compensation is representative of a broader story. Much more than economists and free-market advocates like to imagine, wages -- particularly at the top -- are determined by social norms. What happened during the 1930's and 1940's was that new norms of equality were established, largely through the political process. What happened in the 1980's and 1990's was that those norms unraveled, replaced by an ethos of ''anything goes.'' And a result was an explosion of income at the top of the scale.

IV. The Price of Inequality
It was one of those revealing moments. Responding to an e-mail message from a Canadian viewer, Robert Novak of ''Crossfire'' delivered a little speech: ''Marg, like most Canadians, you're ill informed and wrong. The U.S. has the longest standard of living -- longest life expectancy of any country in the world, including Canada. That's the truth.''

But it was Novak who had his facts wrong. Canadians can expect to live about two years longer than Americans. In fact, life expectancy in the U.S. is well below that in Canada, Japan and every major nation in Western Europe. On average, we can expect lives a bit shorter than those of Greeks, a bit longer than those of Portuguese. Male life expectancy is lower in the U.S. than it is in Costa Rica.

Still, you can understand why Novak assumed that we were No. 1. After all, we really are the richest major nation, with real G.D.P. per capita about 20 percent higher than Canada's. And it has been an article of faith in this country that a rising tide lifts all boats. Doesn't our high and rising national wealth translate into a high standard of living -- including good medical care -- for all Americans?

Well, no. Although America has higher per capita income than other advanced countries, it turns out that that's mainly because our rich are much richer. And here's a radical thought: if the rich get more, that leaves less for everyone else.

That statement -- which is simply a matter of arithmetic -- is guaranteed to bring accusations of ''class warfare.'' If the accuser gets more specific, he'll probably offer two reasons that it's foolish to make a fuss over the high incomes of a few people at the top of the income distribution. First, he'll tell you that what the elite get may look like a lot of money, but it's still a small share of the total -- that is, when all is said and done the rich aren't getting that big a piece of the pie. Second, he'll tell you that trying to do anything to reduce incomes at the top will hurt, not help, people further down the distribution, because attempts to redistribute income damage incentives.

These arguments for lack of concern are plausible. And they were entirely correct, once upon a time -- namely, back when we had a middle-class society. But there's a lot less truth to them now.

First, the share of the rich in total income is no longer trivial. These days 1 percent of families receive about 16 percent of total pretax income, and have about 14 percent of after-tax income. That share has roughly doubled over the past 30 years, and is now about as large as the share of the bottom 40 percent of the population. That's a big shift of income to the top; as a matter of pure arithmetic, it must mean that the incomes of less well off families grew considerably more slowly than average income. And they did. Adjusting for inflation, average family income -- total income divided by the number of families -- grew 28 percent from 1979 to 1997. But median family income -- the income of a family in the middle of the distribution, a better indicator of how typical American families are doing -- grew only 10 percent. And the incomes of the bottom fifth of families actually fell slightly.

Let me belabor this point for a bit. We pride ourselves, with considerable justification, on our record of economic growth. But over the last few decades it's remarkable how little of that growth has trickled down to ordinary families. Median family income has risen only about 0.5 percent per year -- and as far as we can tell from somewhat unreliable data, just about all of that increase was due to wives working longer hours, with little or no gain in real wages. Furthermore, numbers about income don't reflect the growing riskiness of life for ordinary workers. In the days when General Motors was known in-house as Generous Motors, many workers felt that they had considerable job security -- the company wouldn't fire them except in extremis. Many had contracts that guaranteed health insurance, even if they were laid off; they had pension benefits that did not depend on the stock market. Now mass firings from long-established companies are commonplace; losing your job means losing your insurance; and as millions of people have been learning, a 401(k) plan is no guarantee of a comfortable retirement.

Still, many people will say that while the U.S. economic system may generate a lot of inequality, it also generates much higher incomes than any alternative, so that everyone is better off. That was the moral Business Week tried to convey in its recent special issue with ''25 Ideas for a Changing World.'' One of those ideas was ''the rich get richer, and that's O.K.'' High incomes at the top, the conventional wisdom declares, are the result of a free-market system that provides huge incentives for performance. And the system delivers that performance, which means that wealth at the top doesn't come at the expense of the rest of us.

A skeptic might point out that the explosion in executive compensation seems at best loosely related to actual performance. Jack Welch was one of the 10 highest-paid executives in the United States in 2000, and you could argue that he earned it. But did Dennis Kozlowski of Tyco, or Gerald Levin of Time Warner, who were also in the top 10? A skeptic might also point out that even during the economic boom of the late 1990's, U.S. productivity growth was no better than it was during the great postwar expansion, which corresponds to the era when America was truly middle class and C.E.O.'s were modestly paid technocrats.

But can we produce any direct evidence about the effects of inequality? We can't rerun our own history and ask what would have happened if the social norms of middle-class America had continued to limit incomes at the top, and if government policy had leaned against rising inequality instead of reinforcing it, which is what actually happened. But we can compare ourselves with other advanced countries. And the results are somewhat surprising.

Many Americans assume that because we are the richest country in the world, with real G.D.P. per capita higher than that of other major advanced countries, Americans must be better off across the board -- that it's not just our rich who are richer than their counterparts abroad, but that the typical American family is much better off than the typical family elsewhere, and that even our poor are well off by foreign standards.

But it's not true. Let me use the example of Sweden, that great conservative bete noire.

A few months ago the conservative cyberpundit Glenn Reynolds made a splash when he pointed out that Sweden's G.D.P. per capita is roughly comparable with that of Mississippi -- see, those foolish believers in the welfare state have impoverished themselves! Presumably he assumed that this means that the typical Swede is as poor as the typical resident of Mississippi, and therefore much worse off than the typical American.

But life expectancy in Sweden is about three years higher than that of the U.S. Infant mortality is half the U.S. level, and less than a third the rate in Mississippi. Functional illiteracy is much less common than in the U.S.

How is this possible? One answer is that G.D.P. per capita is in some ways a misleading measure. Swedes take longer vacations than Americans, so they work fewer hours per year. That's a choice, not a failure of economic performance. Real G.D.P. per hour worked is 16 percent lower than in the United States, which makes Swedish productivity about the same as Canada's.

But the main point is that though Sweden may have lower average income than the United States, that's mainly because our rich are so much richer. The median Swedish family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are if anything higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. And as you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are way ahead of those in the U.S. Swedish families with children that are at the 10th percentile -- poorer than 90 percent of the population -- have incomes 60 percent higher than their U.S. counterparts. And very few people in Sweden experience the deep poverty that is all too common in the United States. One measure: in 1994 only 6 percent of Swedes lived on less than $11 per day, compared with 14 percent in the U.S.

The moral of this comparison is that even if you think that America's high levels of inequality are the price of our high level of national income, it's not at all clear that this price is worth paying. The reason conservatives engage in bouts of Sweden-bashing is that they want to convince us that there is no tradeoff between economic efficiency and equity -- that if you try to take from the rich and give to the poor, you actually make everyone worse off. But the comparison between the U.S. and other advanced countries doesn't support this conclusion at all. Yes, we are the richest major nation. But because so much of our national income is concentrated in relatively few hands, large numbers of Americans are worse off economically than their counterparts in other advanced countries.

And we might even offer a challenge from the other side: inequality in the United States has arguably reached levels where it is counterproductive. That is, you can make a case that our society would be richer if its richest members didn't get quite so much.

I could make this argument on historical grounds. The most impressive economic growth in U.S. history coincided with the middle-class interregnum, the post-World War II generation, when incomes were most evenly distributed. But let's focus on a specific case, the extraordinary pay packages of today's top executives. Are these good for the economy?

Until recently it was almost unchallenged conventional wisdom that, whatever else you might say, the new imperial C.E.O.'s had delivered results that dwarfed the expense of their compensation. But now that the stock bubble has burst, it has become increasingly clear that there was a price to those big pay packages, after all. In fact, the price paid by shareholders and society at large may have been many times larger than the amount actually paid to the executives.

It's easy to get boggled by the details of corporate scandal -- insider loans, stock options, special-purpose entities, mark-to-market, round-tripping. But there's a simple reason that the details are so complicated. All of these schemes were designed to benefit corporate insiders -- to inflate the pay of the C.E.O. and his inner circle. That is, they were all about the ''chaos of competitive avarice'' that, according to John Kenneth Galbraith, had been ruled out in the corporation of the 1960's. But while all restraint has vanished within the American corporation, the outside world -- including stockholders -- is still prudish, and open looting by executives is still not acceptable. So the looting has to be camouflaged, taking place through complicated schemes that can be rationalized to outsiders as clever corporate strategies.

Economists who study crime tell us that crime is inefficient -- that is, the costs of crime to the economy are much larger than the amount stolen. Crime, and the fear of crime, divert resources away from productive uses: criminals spend their time stealing rather than producing, and potential victims spend time and money trying to protect their property. Also, the things people do to avoid becoming victims -- like avoiding dangerous districts -- have a cost even if they succeed in averting an actual crime.

The same holds true of corporate malfeasance, whether or not it actually involves breaking the law. Executives who devote their time to creating innovative ways to divert shareholder money into their own pockets probably aren't running the real business very well (think Enron, WorldCom, Tyco, Global Crossing, Adelphia . . . ). Investments chosen because they create the illusion of profitability while insiders cash in their stock options are a waste of scarce resources. And if the supply of funds from lenders and shareholders dries up because of a lack of trust, the economy as a whole suffers. Just ask Indonesia.

The argument for a system in which some people get very rich has always been that the lure of wealth provides powerful incentives. But the question is, incentives to do what? As we learn more about what has actually been going on in corporate America, it's becoming less and less clear whether those incentives have actually made executives work on behalf of the rest of us.

V. Inequality and Politics
n September the Senate debated a proposed measure that would impose a one-time capital gains tax on Americans who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Senator Phil Gramm was not pleased, declaring that the proposal was ''right out of Nazi Germany.'' Pretty strong language, but no stronger than the metaphor Daniel Mitchell of the Heritage Foundation used, in an op-ed article in The Washington Times, to describe a bill designed to prevent corporations from rechartering abroad for tax purposes: Mitchell described this legislation as the ''Dred Scott tax bill,'' referring to the infamous 1857 Supreme Court ruling that required free states to return escaped slaves.

Twenty years ago, would a prominent senator have likened those who want wealthy people to pay taxes to Nazis? Would a member of a think tank with close ties to the administration have drawn a parallel between corporate taxation and slavery? I don't think so. The remarks by Gramm and Mitchell, while stronger than usual, were indicators of two huge changes in American politics. One is the growing polarization of our politics -- our politicians are less and less inclined to offer even the appearance of moderation. The other is the growing tendency of policy and policy makers to cater to the interests of the wealthy. And I mean the wealthy, not the merely well-off: only someone with a net worth of at least several million dollars is likely to find it worthwhile to become a tax exile.

You don't need a political scientist to tell you that modern American politics is bitterly polarized. But wasn't it always thus? No, it wasn't. From World War II until the 1970's -- the same era during which income inequality was historically low -- political partisanship was much more muted than it is today. That's not just a subjective assessment. My Princeton political science colleagues Nolan McCarty and Howard Rosenthal, together with Keith Poole at the University of Houston, have done a statistical analysis showing that the voting behavior of a congressman is much better predicted by his party affiliation today than it was 25 years ago. In fact, the division between the parties is sharper now than it has been since the 1920's.

What are the parties divided about? The answer is simple: economics. McCarty, Rosenthal and Poole write that ''voting in Congress is highly ideological -- one-dimensional left/right, liberal versus conservative.'' It may sound simplistic to describe Democrats as the party that wants to tax the rich and help the poor, and Republicans as the party that wants to keep taxes and social spending as low as possible. And during the era of middle-class America that would indeed have been simplistic: politics wasn't defined by economic issues. But that was a different country; as McCarty, Rosenthal and Poole put it, ''If income and wealth are distributed in a fairly equitable way, little is to be gained for politicians to organize politics around nonexistent conflicts.'' Now the conflicts are real, and our politics is organized around them. In other words, the growing inequality of our incomes probably lies behind the growing divisiveness of our politics.

But the politics of rich and poor hasn't played out the way you might think. Since the incomes of America's wealthy have soared while ordinary families have seen at best small gains, you might have expected politicians to seek votes by proposing to soak the rich. In fact, however, the polarization of politics has occurred because the Republicans have moved to the right, not because the Democrats have moved to the left. And actual economic policy has moved steadily in favor of the wealthy. The major tax cuts of the past 25 years, the Reagan cuts in the 1980's and the recent Bush cuts, were both heavily tilted toward the very well off. (Despite obfuscations, it remains true that more than half the Bush tax cut will eventually go to the top 1 percent of families.) The major tax increase over that period, the increase in payroll taxes in the 1980's, fell most heavily on working-class families.

The most remarkable example of how politics has shifted in favor of the wealthy -- an example that helps us understand why economic policy has reinforced, not countered, the movement toward greater inequality -- is the drive to repeal the estate tax. The estate tax is, overwhelmingly, a tax on the wealthy. In 1999, only the top 2 percent of estates paid any tax at all, and half the estate tax was paid by only 3,300 estates, 0.16 percent of the total, with a minimum value of $5 million and an average value of $17 million. A quarter of the tax was paid by just 467 estates worth more than $20 million. Tales of family farms and businesses broken up to pay the estate tax are basically rural legends; hardly any real examples have been found, despite diligent searching.

You might have thought that a tax that falls on so few people yet yields a significant amount of revenue would be politically popular; you certainly wouldn't expect widespread opposition. Moreover, there has long been an argument that the estate tax promotes democratic values, precisely because it limits the ability of the wealthy to form dynasties. So why has there been a powerful political drive to repeal the estate tax, and why was such a repeal a centerpiece of the Bush tax cut?

There is an economic argument for repealing the estate tax, but it's hard to believe that many people take it seriously. More significant for members of Congress, surely, is the question of who would benefit from repeal: while those who will actually benefit from estate tax repeal are few in number, they have a lot of money and control even more (corporate C.E.O.'s can now count on leaving taxable estates behind). That is, they are the sort of people who command the attention of politicians in search of campaign funds.

But it's not just about campaign contributions: much of the general public has been convinced that the estate tax is a bad thing. If you try talking about the tax to a group of moderately prosperous retirees, you get some interesting reactions. They refer to it as the ''death tax''; many of them believe that their estates will face punitive taxation, even though most of them will pay little or nothing; they are convinced that small businesses and family farms bear the brunt of the tax.

These misconceptions don't arise by accident. They have, instead, been deliberately promoted. For example, a Heritage Foundation document titled ''Time to Repeal Federal Death Taxes: The Nightmare of the American Dream'' emphasizes stories that rarely, if ever, happen in real life: ''Small-business owners, particularly minority owners, suffer anxious moments wondering whether the businesses they hope to hand down to their children will be destroyed by the death tax bill, . . . Women whose children are grown struggle to find ways to re-enter the work force without upsetting the family's estate tax avoidance plan.'' And who finances the Heritage Foundation? Why, foundations created by wealthy families, of course.

The point is that it is no accident that strongly conservative views, views that militate against taxes on the rich, have spread even as the rich get richer compared with the rest of us: in addition to directly buying influence, money can be used to shape public perceptions. The liberal group People for the American Way's report on how conservative foundations have deployed vast sums to support think tanks, friendly media and other institutions that promote right-wing causes is titled ''Buying a Movement.''

Not to put too fine a point on it: as the rich get richer, they can buy a lot of things besides goods and services. Money buys political influence; used cleverly, it also buys intellectual influence. A result is that growing income disparities in the United States, far from leading to demands to soak the rich, have been accompanied by a growing movement to let them keep more of their earnings and to pass their wealth on to their children.

This obviously raises the possibility of a self-reinforcing process. As the gap between the rich and the rest of the population grows, economic policy increasingly caters to the interests of the elite, while public services for the population at large -- above all, public education -- are starved of resources. As policy increasingly favors the interests of the rich and neglects the interests of the general population, income disparities grow even wider.

VI. Plutocracy?
In 1924, the mansions of Long Island's North Shore were still in their full glory, as was the political power of the class that owned them. When Gov. Al Smith of New York proposed building a system of parks on Long Island, the mansion owners were bitterly opposed. One baron -- Horace Havemeyer, the ''sultan of sugar'' -- warned that North Shore towns would be ''overrun with rabble from the city.'' ''Rabble?'' Smith said. ''That's me you're talking about.'' In the end New Yorkers got their parks, but it was close: the interests of a few hundred wealthy families nearly prevailed over those of New York City's middle class.

America in the 1920's wasn't a feudal society. But it was a nation in which vast privilege -- often inherited privilege -- stood in contrast to vast misery. It was also a nation in which the government, more often than not, served the interests of the privileged and ignored the aspirations of ordinary people.

Those days are past -- or are they? Income inequality in America has now returned to the levels of the 1920's. Inherited wealth doesn't yet play a big part in our society, but given time -- and the repeal of the estate tax -- we will grow ourselves a hereditary elite just as set apart from the concerns of ordinary Americans as old Horace Havemeyer. And the new elite, like the old, will have enormous political power.

Kevin Phillips concludes his book ''Wealth and Democracy'' with a grim warning: ''Either democracy must be renewed, with politics brought back to life, or wealth is likely to cement a new and less democratic regime -- plutocracy by some other name.'' It's a pretty extreme line, but we live in extreme times. Even if the forms of democracy remain, they may become meaningless. It's all too easy to see how we may become a country in which the big rewards are reserved for people with the right connections; in which ordinary people see little hope of advancement; in which political involvement seems pointless, because in the end the interests of the elite always get served.

Am I being too pessimistic? Even my liberal friends tell me not to worry, that our system has great resilience, that the center will hold. I hope they're right, but they may be looking in the rearview mirror. Our optimism about America, our belief that in the end our nation always finds its way, comes from the past -- a past in which we were a middle-class society. But that was another country.



Paul Krugman is a Times columnist and a professor at Princeton.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1008447 -

Your post makes scant reference to the establishment of the Fed and it's monetary policies which laid the groundwork for the speculative investing in the stock market and malinvestment of capital. There had been similar economic downturns before the great depression but none had ever been so severe, could this have any thing to do with the establishment of the Fed and it's policies?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Phred]
    #1008477 -

Well , I'm proud of you pinksharkmark, making pots. Making anything yourself, selling it and making a good living at it is what it's all about. I hope to be in that situation myself someday.

Sorry about your HIGH taxes. You must be a little player?
They normally only go after the little guys, while letting, say, George Soros make 1 billion dollars in 1 day tax free.

Say your became rich of your pots. Say you owned a whole chain of pot factories, and you and your investors made Millions each year, living the high life, never even working cuz you've got labourers and managers to run it all for you. All you gotta do is collect the cash.

Would you feel right paying minimum wage, with no benefits, to your workers? While you lived a life of privilege, your workers would live paycheck to paycheck, never getting ahead, never owning their own house, all that.

Cuz that's whats happening at Walmart, McDonalds, tons of places. It's not right and it undermines society.



--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1008481 -

An overly wordy tanget and deviating quite a bit off topic. You really like to bore people don't you? What's you tactic, throw enough bullshit on the wall till people can't see the color of the brick? Can you start a new thread with your cut and pastes?

Damn Statists:
5 deaths at the shroomery from boring, long winded polemics aimed at distracting from the topic at hand.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: EchoVortex]
    #1008494 -

There were two major causes to the Great Depression: vast inequalities in the distribution of wealth and completely irrational stock market speculation.

Excellent point echo. Glad to hear someone with a knowledge of free market and economics.

Our current era wasn't the only time big business had massive control over the economy, they tried before in the era leading up to the great depression. The result was obvious to all - they ran the economy straight into the ground.

It was only through massive government intervention and "communist" policies such as the new deal that life became tolerable again for the average american. Following the communist like policies of the new deal and reducing corporate power led America into it's greatest period of prosperity and economic growth in the 50's and 60's. Once the economy had recovered thanks to government influence, big business once again attempted a takeover in the late 70's and 80's. The result has been the same as it was in the 30's. A massive explosion in the gap between rich and poor, economic mismanagement, environmental catastrophe and a future that looks ever more bleak.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1008519 -

EVOLVING

It's obvious why people from Canada are coming to USA for private medicine...TO BUY THEIR WAY TO THE FRONT OF THE LINE!!

That's how the market settles disputes in situations of scarcity. By raising prices. In Canada's 'socialist' system of medicare, priority is based on NEED. Need is something that makes no sense to the market.

I assure you, very few of us here can afford to do that.

I admit the lines are a bit long now. That's because the system is underfunded. All goverment(democratic) finances are strained right now, in all countries, because of this mad ideological takeover of political thought. (obviously an opinion)

Your statement about the establishment of the fed and how it laid the groundwork for speculative investment floors me. Where did you learn that? Quite the opposite is true.


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Edited by carbonhoots (10/30/02 11:50 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1008538 -

Carbonhoots, have you ever run a business?

Have you ever risked your life's savings to start a business, uncertain if you would lose everything or not?

How many jobs have you created through your own ingenuity and hard work that wouldn't have existed without your business?

How many people do you personally know who have done so? Do you know what it's like to have people depend on you for their livelihood?

Do you know what it's like to have to make the choice of letting one person go or letting your business go bankrupt trying to keep the same number of employees?

Do you honestly think that everyone who runs a business is out to screw their employees?

What would happen if every single employer decided to quite "exploiting" their employees and just closed their businesses? Would that make you happy? Where would all the "exploited" workers get there income then?

Damn Statists: In Communist North Vietnam, the class of landlords was targeted for elimination, when it was discovered that this class did not exist in any meaningful sense, the communists redefined "landlord" to mean anyone with an above average income (say, an extra cow), or anyone who once upon a time had an above average income, or anyone whose ancestors had had an above average income. The lower class peasants were instructed to choose which of their fellow villagers fell into this category, and kill them. The central government laid down a death quota- 5 percent of the population of each village were to be killed. From 1953-1956, an estimated 150,000 people were killed in this manner. Peasant rebellions that followed these extermination campaigns were suppressed, at the cost of an additional 10,000 lives.


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Evolving]
    #1008597 -

Calm down Evolving.

No I don't think all employers are out to screw emlpoyees. I think, say NIKE is.

And all this talk of long suffering investors risking everything, well, there certainly is a class of people who count their fortunes in the 100s of millions of dollars, billions even. How much risk are they experiencing?

I'm not talking about a small business who will go broke if they don't fire someone. I'm talking about the huge, behemoth corporations, who profit millions and billions. Like Walmart, who come into towns, like mine, and all the local hardware stores go broke...or maybe they survive by firing somone.

Man, (shakes head)

The small businesses need an evironment to flourish. Small businesses fit with the basic socialist premise of a more even distribution of wealth, (less wealth concentration)

Maybe we're not so opposed in our opinions?


--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1008613 -

Carbon, ever wondered how many workers have made fat idle boss's rich? Remember when micheal moore had to shame the boss of Nike into giving a pitiful few thousand to help the wretched conditions of the workers in his factories? That bastard was making millions off the backs of other peoples hard work.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: carbonhoots]
    #1008641 -

In reply to:
Your statement about the establishment of the fed and how it laid the groundwork for speculative investment floors me. Where did you learn that? Quite the opposite is true.


When the money supply is expanded through easy credit, where will the money will go if the quantity of the money is greater than that needed for capital investment? Could it go towards speculative investments? (meaning the expectation of a simple increase in price as opposed to paying dividends - such as we've seen in the recent stock market bubble) When the money supply is drastically contracted, couldn't this create deflation? (price deflation is a consequence of a less money being offered for goods and services). Won't monetary policies which affect the money supply influence investment and spending behaviors? If the monetary policies of a central bank are ill timed and mismanaged, couldn't they conceivably create boom and bust cycles or in the very least make them worse?


--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.'  Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence.  Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains.  Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Evolving]
    #1008781 -

Well, this is quite technical.

When the money supply is expanded through easy credit, the inbalance results in inflation.

Speculative investment is a product of unregulated capitol markets. Capitol markets must be regulated in order to tie investment to real production, and to direct investment where democracy deems it neccessary. Otherwise you get, for example, currency speculation, the practice of betting on whose currency is going to rise and fall.

1.7 trillion dollars A DAY goes through international currency markets, and very little of it it tied to trade in goods and services. Most of it is money parked for a few minutes or hours. How is this real investment? It's not. It's a casino.

The Fed, like the Bank of Canada, was an attempt to bring some democratic control over broad trends in the economy. Their architects never really realized the full democratic potential of these institutions. The vision was there, but it was defeated politically by the financial elite.

Central banks now mostly set the interest rate, which is at the very heart of the economy. Central banks also distribute the estimated 0.3 percent of the money supply that is in the form of paper currency. The other 99.7 percent is in the form of credit, which is created by PRIVATE banks. This means that a group of individuals (the owners of banks) have the right to CREATE MONEY. Yes. Just like a money printing machine. Every time a private bank grants a loan, IT'S NEARLY CREATED MONEY! How's that for a consesion? When the loan is repaid, the money supply shrinks. It's called the debt-money system, and it's the number one reason economies fuction poorly orfall in to recesion.

The Canadian government spends 21 billion for intrest on the national debt. More than any other expense, including (socialist) health care. This money could of been created publicly, rather than privately. The US government created public money (in the form of the greenback) to finance the war of independance. It was a big reason why a colony won a war with the empire.




--------------------
  -I'd rather have a frontal lobotomy than a bottle in front of me

CANADIAN CENTER FOR POLICY ALTERNATIVES

Edited by carbonhoots (10/31/02 01:10 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: akjakj]
    #1009419 -

"Big business bankrolled Hitler causing the second world war."

I believe it. The mid-30s saw all kinds of labor uprisings and unrest all over Europe, and it had both the upper-class--the bourgeosie--and the nobility scared. Hitler was seen as their best bet to put down the rising, and to to take care of the growing leftist threat in Russia.

The U.S. did the same thing in the far east with Japan. We totally beefed Japan's industry up, providing them with steel and other resources they didn't have, in hopes of a powerful Japan preventing communist China from overrunning Asia.

Now, here we are, fifty years later, the power elite still creating beasts, still pushing for big wars to take out the beasts. It's really fucked up, you know?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Evolving]
    #1009464 -

Sadly, the countless people who suffer poverty/death due to capatalist exploitation. I.e Arbitrage deals on poor currencies which cripple economies etc are not countable. Theres only so much wealth to go around in the world. and for every one "winning" the capatalist game i.e accumulating more money than they actually need. there are thousands who suffer in poverty. Dont tell me, they should lobby somebody or get off their lazy african butts and open a mcdonalds right? I am not against the free capitalist ideal. It can work. Sadly the underlying motive of most people involved is greed.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Edited by GazzBut (10/31/02 06:40 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: GazzBut]
    #1009491 -

****Theres only so much wealth to go around in the world. *****

wealth is not a static statistic...there is no limit if the desire is there

****accumulating more money than they actually need****

who's to determine this?

****there are thousands who suffer in poverty. Dont tell me, they should lobby somebody or get off their lazy african butts and open a mcdonalds right? ****

why would you say that? libbies like to think that WE think the worst...

****I am not against the free capitalist ideal. ****

as long as everybody gets the same amount of wealth ie: your first comment hence socialism.

****Sadly the underlying motive of most people involved is greed. ****

all people are greedy/selfish to some extent or another..noone is immune


--------------------

America....FUCK YEAH!!!

Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Phred]
    #1009554 -

--hongomon: What will persuade me to think that there isn't presently a "merger" between big business and big government

--Pinky: Nothing, because in a Statist society the connection is unavoidable. The United States government is presently not a Capitalist government. It is a Statist government. Less Statist than many, certainly, but Statist nonetheless.

What I meant to say was I don't believe a "pure capitalist" government would remain that way. That's why my next question was about what mechanism in a capitalist society would prevent that merger. Didn't you say the U.S. began as pretty close to pure capitalism? What happened?

--hongomon: However, when we consider the portals through which information about our world reaches us, and the control over those portals, and the billions of dollars put toward tailoring that information just right, the consumer public may remain a sleeping giant.

--Ah. Your oft-repeated implication that the average consumer believes unquestioningly the claims of advertisers. YOU do not, of course... just the rest of us dummies.

First of all, you're clearly exaggerating my implication. "Believes unquestionably"? Hah! I see now why you dismiss out-of-hand the notion that advertising influences. No one is saying that advertisements do that. Do you dispute that products with greater advertising are purchased more? More specifically, do you do dispute that advertising is a factor in that inrease? What else can be "sold" in that way? Ideas? Values? I think they can. I think they can because advertising is applied psychology. We humans have fears and hopes, and if these are played on, and a product is presented as a solution, you can sell the product. It's nothing new, look at organized religion.

Second, advertising is only a small part of what I was driving at this time around. Very close to it is propaganda, another applied psychology. Did you hear Bush's state of the union address back in early 2002? The man said the word 'terror" 34 times! Cram this shit down our throat! Please protect us!

And of course there is the mainstream media, which I'm sure you'd like to tell me all about. There's enough disinformation and misinformation to go with the information, I just don't think we stand a chance at really understanding what's going on. But how many people in the U.S. go beyond the mainstream media? It's not like it's knocking on your door. If it was, it would be mainstream. And some people think the mainstream media is adequate. I mean, you see something in print, it takes discipline to remind yourself that it could be straight up and it could be full of shit. And if mainstream media is tailored, either in what is reported, or what page the story makes, or whatever, then the fact that a lot of people trust it is disturbing, becase those people will put their trust in a source that could very well be lying to them.

Third, if I ever said that I was immune to the influence of advertising, find where I said it and I will publicly apologize. I have said that to consider a "herd" concept to mass culture is not to rise above it for it isn't as simple as that. A lot of people see televisions as foul instruments causing far more harm than good. Does that make them elitist snobs?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Evil Capitalists vs. Enlightened Statists [Re: Innvertigo]
    #1009559 -


"wealth is not a static statistic...there is no limit if the desire is there"

No, it isnt static. But you dont just create it out of thin air. It develops. And if people are satisfying their greed there will always be an imbalance at the top and the bottom. Why should we have this desire for limitless wealth?Ego game. Please define how you determine "wealth".

"as long as everybody gets the same amount of wealth ie: your first comment hence socialism."

No, I just think there should be a maximum wage. Make it ?1 million a year. Nobody needs more than that.

"all people are greedy/selfish to some extent or another..noone is immune "

I wouldnt knowingly cause somebody else to suffer just so I could have more food than I actually needed and I think you'll find there are significant amounts of people who are daily trying to transcend these outmoded beliefs and programs.


--------------------
Always Smi2le

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   MagicBag.co All-In-One Bags That Don't Suck   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale

General Interest > Political Discussion
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )		 trendalM 17,901 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred
* Is the drug war anti-capitalist?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )		 LearyfanS 15,093 151 08/12/04 10:49 AM
by CJay
* Cops shot homeless man 100 times!?
( 1 2 all )		 LearyfanS 1,966 20 04/11/03 01:24 AM
by enacid
* Interesting Statistics on Incarceration afoaf 955 10 07/28/03 12:12 PM
by Azmodeus
* Are Americans more evil?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 Swami 5,763 64 12/18/03 10:13 AM
by medicinebag
* Hitler V Saddam
( 1 2 all )		 germin8tionn8ion 4,487 28 07/03/04 09:20 AM
by Ed1
* Revolutionary=Evil=Terrorist Ishmael 1,312 5 11/05/01 10:12 PM
by Lenore
* Iraqi Weapons Imports (1973-1990) wingnutx 799 13 10/13/03 03:17 PM
by Xlea321

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
7,277 topic views. 1 members, 40 guests and 27 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.027 seconds spending 0.005 seconds on 16 queries.