Money Matters

[ysabetwordsmith]

I first saw this on Doug's computer screen, from the commentary essay "Money Matters."  This is the quote that caught my eye:

The truth is that while the proximate cause of America’s economic plunge was Wall Street’s excesses leading up to the crash of 2008, its underlying cause — and the reason the economy continues to be lousy for most Americans — is so much income and wealth have been going to the very top that the vast majority no longer has the purchasing power to lift the economy out of its doldrums.

Well, yes. I have been saying that for quite some time. But the person who said this version has served as the 22nd Secretary of Labor. You might ignore me, but he has all the fancy paper and experience to show for it. Of course the obvious is still the obvious: no matter what you try, 20% of the wealth can't run 80% of the economy. Further thoughtful details appear in "The Republican Shakedown," which explains how Republicans are digging in taxpayer pockets. The problem with a shakedown, though, is that eventually you get down to pocket lint. Working Americans are running out of pennies to fund the government, or anything else for that matter.

Comments

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

So, yeah, that's what led up to October, 1929.

How does it not occur to wealthy people that whatever a person with one billion dollars
can do with a second billion dollars
could be done better by a million people with a thousand dollars each?

Yes...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>>So, yeah, that's what led up to October, 1929.<<

That's why history makes me pessimistic about much contemporary news. Too much sounds like what preceded this or that howling disaster.

>>How does it not occur to wealthy people that whatever a person with one billion dollars
can do with a second billion dollars
could be done better by a million people with a thousand dollars each?<<

Because they aren't thinking about what could be done; they're thinking about what they want. If you gave me a billion dollars, I'd dig out of the hole, secure a future income, and spend the rest on making the world a better place. That is not how most rich people handle money.

To be fair, much can be done with a big chunk that can't be done with smaller chunks. The question is: will the billionaire actually DO something with that second billion that couldn't be done with smaller chunks, and if so, will that create a better benefit than the result of all those smaller chunks helping the economy to cycle? Usually, no. But once in a while rich people do something amazingly useful. Right now, I think we're at (past, actually) the point where what could be done justifies draining funds what what NEEDS to be done. The current allocation of wealth does not produce a functional economy, which is bad for everyone.