"Winner take all": How did we get here?

[Openmind]

I would like to post an EXCELLENT discussion between Bill Moyers and the authors of the book "Winner Take All."

It is quite long (almost one hour), but it perfectly explains and illustrates what happen to our economy, what happened to our society to bring us to the desastrous condition we are in today.

It is really non-partisan. . .It actually demonstrates that both Republicans and Democrats are guilty.

Please let me know if you had the patience (and the smarts) to watch at least a good part of it, and what you think of it. Good luck.

You are about to clear that fog that may still be hanging before your eyes!

Bill Moyers explores how America's vast inequality didn't just happen, it's been politically engineered.

 

[Gipper]

It can be argued income inequality in the USA, is the consequence of an omnipresent, huge, and powerful centralized government. If our federal government were much smaller and less powerful, it is likely the wealthy would not be able to game the system as they have done today.

The authors speak of how income inequality has dramatically changed over the last 30 years. Over this time income has tilted toward the wealthy. What has grown exponentially over the past 30 years? Of course, it is the federal government.

I bet the authors do not complain about the size of the fed government. What they want is the federal government to continue to grow and control all things. They want the government to confiscate wealth from the wealthy and give it to the middle class. That is not the answer I would agree with, but libs will agree with it. They complain about lobbyists overwhelming the system to benefit the wealthy...well if government were much smaller and less powerful the lobbyists would have less influence.

How does taking more taxes from the wealthy help anyone other than making politicians MORE powerful? The left does not want smaller government. They want bigger more centralized government. So, that they can control who the winners and losers are. I do not think that is the answer.
The answer is forcing the Federal government to limit its power to that outlined in the Constitution. This will not fix all things, but it will be considerably improved over our current situation.
No one on the left believes my answer is correct.

 

[dogtowner]

the authors might benefit from expanding their view back to the early 1800's where they would see the same patterns in other eras. they are correct that government is culpable irrespective of letters after the title and before the state. but the boys neglect some very significant things that impacted changes dramatically as well as the usual liberal canards that are just not so.

 

[Openmind]

the authors might benefit from expanding their view back to the early 1800's where they would see the same patterns in other eras. they are correct that government is culpable irrespective of letters after the title and before the state. but the boys neglect some very significant things that impacted changes dramatically as well as the usual liberal canards that are just not so.

I know that one of the conservative trends is to look back 200 years and dream of "the good old days," but there is NO comparison between today's global world, or even out need for up to date infrastructure needed to be a competitive in the global economy and the scientific/medical discoveries that have obviously created more needs for the average citizens, although everyone hasn't been able to benefit from those advances because of the runaway "manipulated" market.

Their study is clearly stated to cover the period from 1979 to today, not 200 years ago. I am not convinced that you have listen to the whole discussion, but there is no "liberal canards" in it, so it seems that you are just projecting YOUR expectations, and going back 200 years to be able to even find an argument to their data and discussion.

 

[dogtowner]

I know that one of the conservative trends is to look back 200 years and dream of "the good old days," but there is NO comparison between today's global world, or even out need for up to date infrastructure needed to be a competitive in the global economy and the scientific/medical discoveries that have obviously created more needs for the average citizens, although everyone hasn't been able to benefit from those advances because of the runaway "manipulated" market.

Their study is clearly stated to cover the period from 1979 to today, not 200 years ago. I am not convinced that you have listen to the whole discussion, but there is no "liberal canards" in it, so it seems that you are just projecting YOUR expectations, and going back 200 years to be able to even find an argument to their data and discussion.

I skipped the OWS footage as it did not pertain to the book review.

If you look at history you will note that in times of great innovation, such as the post WWII period they mention prominently, the effect they describe occurs. Additionally, government has been up to their tricks from near the beginning of this country (if not time). Lincoln championed the first such really successful one. Like the Hockey stick graph, a little more perspective changes things a lot.

You do not notice the liberal canards because, well, you're a liberal so its just part of your viewpoint.

 

[Openmind]

I skipped the OWS footage as it did not pertain to the book review.

If you look at history you will note that in times of great innovation, such as the post WWII period they mention prominently, the effect they describe occurs. Additionally, government has been up to their tricks from near the beginning of this country (if not time). Lincoln championed the first such really successful one. Like the Hockey stick graph, a little more perspective changes things a lot.

You do not notice the liberal canards because, well, you're a liberal so its just part of your viewpoint.

What they said is that after WWII, EVERYONE's wealth increased. Since 1979, while wealth for the poor and middle class increased by an average of 20%, wealth for the top 1% increased by 256%. They also point out that, if you look even closer, WITHIN the top 1%, the very top (the 0.01 %)'s wealth has increased by an astronomic percentage that is MUCH greater than 256%!

You're kind of funny! For weeks, you spend time criticizing the government, and saying we need less of it. . .but when these authors actually DEMONSTRATE the REAL complains and concerns we should have about the government, you begin to "defend" the government, noting that, basically it is "business as usual," and that the factual numbers provided are "meaningless!"

Why's that? Because they are pointing the finger to ALL government, not just the "Democrats"?

You really need to work on your spinning! I think you are getting confused in your own arguments!

However, I thank you and praise you for having watched that discussion.

Bill Moyers always offers great discussions. I will probably be posting more for the very few here who can grasp slightly more complex and more factual explanations and arguments.

 

[GenSeneca]

I think you are getting confused in your own arguments!

It's more likely that you are confusing yourself because the actual statements being made by those of us on the Right about this subject do not match your Leftist stereotype regarding Conservatives. Dogtowner was correct about the "canards", the entire argument has been built upon a foundation of logical fallacies and fasle assumptions. You point out that after WW2, the wealth of everyone increased, you then go on to point out that since 1979, the wealth of everyone increased - Yet it does not register with you that in both cases, the wealth of everyone increased.

Another problem is the relatively volatile income mobility we have in the states, relative to other nations of the world, this reality is completely ignored by yourself and the author who treat the classes, poor, middle class, and top 1%, as though these are static groups comprised of the same people year after year, decade after decade, when the actual facts and statistics regarding movement among the classes show huge swings into and out of the different quintiles.

 

[Openmind]

It's more likely that you are confusing yourself because the actual statements being made by those of us on the Right about this subject do not match your Leftist stereotype regarding Conservatives. Dogtowner was correct about the "canards", the entire argument has been built upon a foundation of logical fallacies and fasle assumptions. You point out that after WW2, the wealth of everyone increased, you then go on to point out that since 1979, the wealth of everyone increased - Yet it does not register with you that in both cases, the wealth of everyone increased.

Another problem is the relatively volatile income mobility we have in the states, relative to other nations of the world, this reality is completely ignored by yourself and the author who treat the classes, poor, middle class, and top 1%, as though these are static groups comprised of the same people year after year, decade after decade, when the actual facts and statistics regarding movement among the classes show huge swings into and out of the different quintiles.

Do you have problem with reading comprehension?
After WWII, the wealth of everyone increased RELATIVELY evenly (although, obviously the wealthiest's wealth increased more than the middle class's). BUT since 1979, ALTHOUGH EVERYONE WEALTH INCREASE SLIGHTLY (about an average of 20% for the bottom 90%), THE TOP ONE PERCENT"S WEALTH INCREASED BY 256% . . .and the top 0.01 percent's wealth increase MUCH MORE than 256%.

Once again, you "conservative" "conserve" so much energy that you do not read in context, but stop at the "key phrases" that can support your argument!

And, IF you had listen to the WHOLE discussion, you would have heard the authors discussed THE LACK of mobility experienced in the last 30 years. That , IN SPITE of working harder, and longer hours, the middle class no longer can aspire to upward mobility.

The SWINGS have continue to go UPWARD for the top 1%, but are generally DOWNWARD for the greatest majority of the 99%.

 

[GenSeneca]

Once again, you "conservative" "conserve" so much energy that you do not read in context, but stop at the "key phrases" that can support your argument!

Move the goalpost all you like, the fact is that everyone's wealth increased. Furthermore, you have absolutely no factual basis for the belief that people at the top gain wealth faster because their increase is coming at the expense of everyone else. In fact, simple math is enough to explain why someone with more money than someone else would be capable of gaining additional money faster. Example:

I put $100 in the bank, Dogtowner puts $1000 in the bank, Gipper puts $10,000 in the bank, and Big Rob puts $100,000 in the bank - all of us get a 2% interest rate. I earn an additional $2, Dogtowner $20, Gipper $200 and Big Rob earns the most with $2000. Big Rob's wealth grew the fastest and next year it will grow faster still, but his increase in wealth is not coming at the expense of Gipper, Dogtowner, or myself.

It's not an evil conspiracy orchestrated by "rich" people to keep everyone else poor, that's just some kooky Leftist rabble, it's simply an example of the undeniable economic fact of life that states: Wealth begets wealth.

And, IF you had listen to the WHOLE discussion, you would have heard the authors discussed THE LACK of mobility experienced in the last 30 years. That , IN SPITE of working harder, and longer hours, the middle class no longer can aspire to upward mobility.

You accept such statements as "true" on their face value while I do not... Did you, at any point, question the veracity of his claims or were you eager to accept them on blind faith because you agree with his Leftist worldview? Did you bother looking for any information that would confirm or even contradict his claims? I did... But because it's not what you want to hear, I have a feeling you will dismiss it, or ignore it completely, and likely hurl an insult or two at me in the process for bringing some actual facts into the discussion.

The SWINGS have continue to go UPWARD for the top 1%, but are generally DOWNWARD for the greatest majority of the 99%.

A study on Income Mobility done by the US Treasury Dept. shows your assertion to be entirely false:

Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005​

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY​

​

The key findings of this study include:​

• There was considerable income mobility of individuals in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period as over half of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile over this period.​

• Roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom income quintile in 1996 moved up to a higher income group by 2005.​

• Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996 – the top 1/100 of 1 percent – only 25 percent remained in this group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over this period.​

• The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).​

• Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the period from 1996 to 2005. ​

​

• Median incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation. ​

​

• The real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period. In addition, the median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the higher income groups.​

​

Gipper, you were looking for a way to capitalize on the gullibility of the Left and make a few million bucks... Write a book, as this author has done, that panders to the Left and tells them exactly what they want to hear. Reinforce their Leftist worldview with a line of BS that ultimately concludes we need more government, higher taxes and greater regulation, but tell everyone your conclusions are based on "non-partisan facts" and completely ignore the fact that none of what you have written can be supported by empirical data.... It's not like they're going to check anyway. And Gipper... I expect a 10% commission

 

[dogtowner]

What they said is that after WWII, EVERYONE's wealth increased. Since 1979, while wealth for the poor and middle class increased by an average of 20%, wealth for the top 1% increased by 256%. They also point out that, if you look even closer, WITHIN the top 1%, the very top (the 0.01 %)'s wealth has increased by an astronomic percentage that is MUCH greater than 256%!

You're kind of funny! For weeks, you spend time criticizing the government, and saying we need less of it. . .but when these authors actually DEMONSTRATE the REAL complains and concerns we should have about the government, you begin to "defend" the government, noting that, basically it is "business as usual," and that the factual numbers provided are "meaningless!"

Why's that? Because they are pointing the finger to ALL government, not just the "Democrats"?

You really need to work on your spinning! I think you are getting confused in your own arguments!

However, I thank you and praise you for having watched that discussion.

Bill Moyers always offers great discussions. I will probably be posting more for the very few here who can grasp slightly more complex and more factual explanations and arguments.

there is a difference between defending and admitting reality. there is a good reason I am conservative and not GOP, they are far from conservative but given a choice between bad and worse the choice is obvious. Its too bad you ignore Gipper as the choice of the authors does coincide with a significant shift in the direction of more government as crafted by the Ds. if there is any notable differences between this period and the others its worth noting.

Bill Moyers is a pegg3ed hard leftie and has been unabashedly so for, well, ever. That was a pretty good warning as to the nature of this bit.

please consider adding li nks to transcripts for any additional bits. makes it far easier to have people absorb and address directly. these are very often available though not always.

 

[dogtowner]

Do you have problem with reading comprehension?
After WWII, the wealth of everyone increased RELATIVELY evenly (although, obviously the wealthiest's wealth increased more than the middle class's). BUT since 1979, ALTHOUGH EVERYONE WEALTH INCREASE SLIGHTLY (about an average of 20% for the bottom 90%), THE TOP ONE PERCENT"S WEALTH INCREASED BY 256% . . .and the top 0.01 percent's wealth increase MUCH MORE than 256%.

Once again, you "conservative" "conserve" so much energy that you do not read in context, but stop at the "key phrases" that can support your argument!

And, IF you had listen to the WHOLE discussion, you would have heard the authors discussed THE LACK of mobility experienced in the last 30 years. That , IN SPITE of working harder, and longer hours, the middle class no longer can aspire to upward mobility.

The SWINGS have continue to go UPWARD for the top 1%, but are generally DOWNWARD for the greatest majority of the 99%.

this supposed lack of mobility is just not the case as has been documented here before. America has a very fluid rise and fall of millionaires for all the usual reasons. and I'm not just talking about lottery winners (a great many of which end up squandering it all and winding up worse off than before).

the most simplistic notion of working harder has never any guarantee of upward mobility. simply shoveling more rap;idly dows not qualify you for being anything more than a better paid shoveler. working harder has to include bettering yourself. in periods of great innovation there is a better chance simply because demand outstrips supply and someone has to move up.

 

[Gipper]

Gipper, you were looking for a way to capitalize on the gullibility of the Left and make a few million bucks... Write a book, as this author has done, that panders to the Left and tells them exactly what they want to hear. Reinforce their Leftist worldview with a line of BS that ultimately concludes we need more government, higher taxes and greater regulation, but tell everyone your conclusions are based on "non-partisan facts" and completely ignore the fact that none of what you have written can be supported by empirical data.... It's not like they're going to check anyway. And Gipper... I expect a 10% commission

Not a bad idea Gen. Of course, you are right. Writing a book that confirms liberal beliefs, while completely lacking in facts and reality, will sell with libs and get awesome book reviews in the NY Slimes.

This just points to something we have long know about liberals. Most of what they believe is completely unfounded. It is sad that so many Americans are uninformed and ignorant of the truth.

This conflict between left and right could result is something very ugly. And it is all because leftists believe untruths.

My wife's family suffered terribly under Soviet communism in Lithuania (her grandfather had 9 siblings...he was the only one to survive Stalin's horrors). It amazes me how quickly they recognize tyranny here in the USA. They know what tyranny looks like. Many American liberals unfortunately fail to recognize tyranny when it is right in front of them.

 

[dogtowner]

Not a bad idea Gen. Of course, you are right. Writing a book that confirms liberal beliefs, while completely lacking in facts and reality, will sell with libs and get awesome book reviews in the NY Slimes.

This just points to something we have long know about liberals. Most of what they believe is completely unfounded. It is sad that so many Americans are uninformed and ignorant of the truth.

This conflict between left and right could result is something very ugly. And it is all because leftists believe untruths.

My wife's family suffered terribly under Soviet communism in Lithuania (her grandfather had 9 siblings...he was the only one to survive Stalin's horrors). It amazes me how quickly they recognize tyranny here in the USA. They know what tyranny looks like. Many American liberals unfortunately fail to recognize tyranny when it is right in front of them.

the frog does not notice the water getting hotter until ts too late.
or
those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Openmind]

there is a difference between defending and admitting reality. there is a good reason I am conservative and not GOP, they are far from conservative but given a choice between bad and worse the choice is obvious. Its too bad you ignore Gipper as the choice of the authors does coincide with a significant shift in the direction of more government as crafted by the Ds. if there is any notable differences between this period and the others its worth noting.

Bill Moyers is a pegg3ed hard leftie and has been unabashedly so for, well, ever. That was a pretty good warning as to the nature of this bit.

please consider adding li nks to transcripts for any additional bits. makes it far easier to have people absorb and address directly. these are very often available though not always.

I prefer to watch a discussion rather than read a transcript. I am certain that if you are interested in getting a transcript, you can do so.
And if you are not interested in watching the discussion through a video, no one forces you to do it.

Bill Moyers is a very reliable and respected person. This discussion was NOT partisan, and demonstrated that BOTH democrat and republican adminstrations were basically playing the hands of the very top elites for the last 30 years.

It is not because you do not agree with it that it is wrong.

 

[Openmind]

this supposed lack of mobility is just not the case as has been documented here before. America has a very fluid rise and fall of millionaires for all the usual reasons. and I'm not just talking about lottery winners (a great many of which end up squandering it all and winding up worse off than before).

the most simplistic notion of working harder has never any guarantee of upward mobility. simply shoveling more rap;idly dows not qualify you for being anything more than a better paid shoveler. working harder has to include bettering yourself. in periods of great innovation there is a better chance simply because demand outstrips supply and someone has to move up.

The point that you seem to be missing is that IN SPITE of working harder and longer hours, in spite of increased productivity, the mobility of Americans in general, with the exception of the very wealthy, has greatly slowed over the last 30 years, and has basically stopped and even declined over the lats 10 years.

Haven't you noticed the number of "adult children" moving back with their parents? Have you not noticed that most young adult have little chance to be as successful as their parents?

How are your kids doing? It takes more formal education (and more debts to get that education) to get a job that can sustain a middle or upper middle class living style, and yet most young adults will never be able to retire.

Sorry, you can continue to live in lala land. . .do not face reality if you don't want to. As you say. . .the frog doesn't notice the water getting hotter until it's too late. The water has started to boil, and you are denying it.