I found this statement quite amazing.
When wasn’t political access concentrated at the top? What this says is that Americans elect individuals who could care less about them. If that is true, we sure spend a lot of money on programs that nobody has access to.
And about that increase in income; that’s mostly capital gains as a result of the robust stock market. Things didn’t look so good for these folks during the Great Recession, but we all know about the recovery.
I’m still waiting for an honest explanation of what causes poverty. This ain’t it. In fact, I find this rather stupid.
The casual use of “inequality” is an excuse for several things among them a greatly changed global economy, technology, dumbed down education and individual life styles and choices.
What is one cause of poverty?
I would say the rampant inequality. The bottom 20 percent of the workforce has seen a real income decline by double-digit amounts since the Nixon years. The 1 percent at the top, or the 0.1 percent – or if you go even higher, the 0.01 percent, the billionaires – have seen their income increase by not just 1, 2 or 3 percent, but by thousands of percent. What it means is political access is concentrated at the top, and as soon as that happens you end up with a political class that doesn’t respond to the needs of ordinary people. Source: US News September 2013
Categories: Observations on life