In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.
i don't believe any problem is insoluble.
Speaking as a Christian, here's the thing about poverty: its the church's job to fix it. The link between Christianity and the right in America is clear. There's a lot of great Democrats of faith as well, but I don't need citations to prove the correlation between the church and the GOP in the US. So, as the poverty indexes and indicators continue to grow, and the yawning gap between the poorest Americans and the richest continues to grow, I see two problems: 1) the church isn't doing its job, and 2) the richest Americans are typically (again, does anyone really need a citation?) more closely aligned to the Republican party. The implications of #1 I'll get to in a second, but the implications of #2 are pretty straight forward: lots of very rich "Christians" go to church. There are a shit ton of very well moneyed churches in the US and I'd wager that the large majority of them are doing fuck-all for the poor in their communities.
flapjax at midnite: Needs cite.
Actually, to anyone with anything other than a reactionary, conservative worldview and mindset, it doesn't. It's clearly and painfully obvious, and it doesn't need a fucking cite on Metafilter.
Jeff Mangum's Penny-farthing: Anybody who is against violence is implicitly *for* the current state of affairs.
One bad tenant can stop paying the rent, use all the legal methods to avoid eviction, and cost you tens of thousands of dollars.
Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price, is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land.
No, slavery has really nothing to do with capitalism. It's a much older model.
Those aren't socialist projects except to tea partiers. It's capitalists who demanded those things and saw that they got done.
the socialist Confederacy
Voter cynicism aside, the tax-cut issue was of Lilliputian proportions in comparison with the question of whether our constitutional rights are derived from the natural and God-given rights of human persons or from their race, sex, religion, and ethnic origin. This was the basic issue in the American Civil War, which pitted individual rights as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence against collective rights, called states' rights.
« Older The New New Girl | As with all my new pets, I... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments