Unfortunately he's wrong in implying that the fallacy is believed by the Occupy folks while it's not believed by the 1-percenters. In fact, the 1-percenters probably believe in it even more strongly—which is why they're so unwilling to share.
That is so far out of whack that it cannot possibly have anything to do with a general Zero Sum Fallacy application. It's a serious problem. There is no justification for one family having wealth equal to the bottom 30%. There's no argument for it, nor should we allow it to continue one day longer. It's a problem that must be addressed.
It has nothing to do with Republicans versus Democrats or Left versus Right. It may have a lot to do with a new labor movement, but nothing similar to previous labor movements. Looking at the figures through Richard Wolff's eyes, we find that income growth among workers stopped increasing in the 70s while obscene skimming of money was being taken by the corporate bigwigs. To then turn around and try to re-phrase the issue as Zero Sum, is another obscenity. Yes, there was a certain amount of income coming in, and it was not going to the people who were earning it the old fashion way, the ones who were working for it, the bottom 30% of the wage earners in this country, many of whom were and have been working for WalMart.
Yes, there is only so much food production and land. The number of jobs is getting lower and lower. People are selling their family heirlooms to pay for second mortgages that will ultimately be going into default--an effect no different than if thieves were breaking into homes to take people's valuables. There are only so many family heirlooms and homesteads. And no, the 1-percenters may not have them any more.
He's right about the Zero Sum Fallacy.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately he's wrong in implying that the fallacy is believed by the Occupy folks while it's not believed by the 1-percenters. In fact, the 1-percenters probably believe in it even more strongly—which is why they're so unwilling to share.
Here's a reality check: Walmart Heirs Worth Same Amount As Bottom 30 Percent Of Americans In 2007: Analysis.
ReplyDeleteThat is so far out of whack that it cannot possibly have anything to do with a general Zero Sum Fallacy application. It's a serious problem. There is no justification for one family having wealth equal to the bottom 30%. There's no argument for it, nor should we allow it to continue one day longer. It's a problem that must be addressed.
It has nothing to do with Republicans versus Democrats or Left versus Right. It may have a lot to do with a new labor movement, but nothing similar to previous labor movements. Looking at the figures through Richard Wolff's eyes, we find that income growth among workers stopped increasing in the 70s while obscene skimming of money was being taken by the corporate bigwigs. To then turn around and try to re-phrase the issue as Zero Sum, is another obscenity. Yes, there was a certain amount of income coming in, and it was not going to the people who were earning it the old fashion way, the ones who were working for it, the bottom 30% of the wage earners in this country, many of whom were and have been working for WalMart.
Yes, there is only so much food production and land. The number of jobs is getting lower and lower. People are selling their family heirlooms to pay for second mortgages that will ultimately be going into default--an effect no different than if thieves were breaking into homes to take people's valuables. There are only so many family heirlooms and homesteads. And no, the 1-percenters may not have them any more.