<http://www.drudge.com/news/139159/sinking-islands-fight-climate-change> http://www.drudge.com/news/139159/sinking-islands-fight-climate-change And then take a look at the comments following... M
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Gurstein Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 12:04 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION' Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]Ultra-richgettingricherwhile middle class stagnates Ed, That's my point... the current position of say the "deniers" seems to me to be utterly irrational from almost any perspective (unless they have access to a spaceship and a friendly host planet that we don't know about, or of course if they are among the 110,000 elect after the rapture... As I understand the history of both the social welfare state and of philanthropy they were largely motivated (from the elite persepctive) by a recognition that for example typhus (from bad living conditions) isn't necessarily stopped by a doorman at the curbside... So, we do something about that because my kids can succumb to typhus or the plague alongside anyone else's... It would seem to me that the (even remote) possibility of major changes in sea level would scare the bejeezus out of Upper East Side Manhattanites just as much as anyone else. But maybe I'm missing something... M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:11 AM To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters]Ultra-richgettingricherwhile middle class stagnates Not sure of what they'd gain Mike, except being on the deck that sinks last. I believe that one has to recognize how people behave in hierarchical systems in which power and wealth is greatest in the stratum at the top and least or not at all in the stratum at the bottom. That seems to be the way the world operates in its economic, political and religious institutions. That is how the systems that comprise our world have operated regardless of the ideologies or theologies that underpinned them. Following the Russian Revolution all people in the Soviet Union were supposed to be equal players. But of course they weren't. Within a short time, enormous differences in power and prestige appeared. The founding fathers wanted America to be the ideal democracy, but look at the huge differences in wealth and power now. And look at the hugely stratified medieval church, supposedly based on the simple and egalitarian words of Christ. I don't think it really matters very much whether the Titanic is sinking or remains afloat. What seems to matter most is to move up to the layer above and then shut the door behind you to keep others from moving up too. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael <mailto:[email protected]> Gurstein To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME <mailto:[email protected]> DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' Sent: Sunday, December 05, 2010 5:50 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-richgettingricherwhile middle class stagnates Ed and all, I think I understand the "how" what I don't understand is the "why"... If we are all on the Titanic (as many are now arguing) this time there don't seem to be any realistic lifeboats for the rich to elbow or buy their way into so what does anyone gain by hastening the sinking? M -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 6:30 AM To: [email protected]; RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich gettingricherwhile middle class stagnates I'd have to reread parts of Hacker and Pierson to give you a good answer, Harry, but I believe their argument is that the rich got richer by maneuvering things in their favour. Via legislative and other means, they moved power toward themselves and with that power came wealth. Tax cuts for the rich, part of trickle down economics, came into being under Ronald Reagan. Unions, once a very powerful force, declined into being almost impotent. Lobbying played a significant role in moving political matters to favour the rich. Under a Supreme Court ruling corporations in which the super-rich play a major ownership role can now virtually buy members of the House and Senate by funding their elections. I'd better stop before I put myself into the role of having to reread the book. Do read it yourself, Harry. It's well worth it. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Harry Pollard <mailto:[email protected]> To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME <mailto:[email protected]> DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' ; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 11:13 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich getting richerwhile middle class stagnates Points well taken, Ed. How exactly did they become mega-rich - or even just rich? Just how was the wealth shifted? Harry From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2010 7:33 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Ultra-rich getting richer while middle class stagnates I posted something on the American situation re this a few weeks ago. Here's some of what I said: I've been reading "Winner-Take-All Politics" by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, two political scientists. Hacker and Pierson examine the period from the 1970s to the present and find a very large shift wealth from the bottom and middle classes of American society to the uppermost classes. While all classes gained some income between 1979 and 2006, the incomes of the top one percent of all recipients increased by 256%! By 2007, the richest one percent received some 23% of all of the income earned or accruing to Americans. Along with this upward redistribution, the power of unions diminished, unemployment rose and the political clout of the middle class faded away. We Canadians like to look upon our neighbors to the south with a little disdain. Hey, we're not like that, we tell ourselves. Well, perhaps we are, at least a little. Hacker and Pierson have a chart that shows that Canada's top income recipients were not very far behind their US counterparts between 1973 and 2000. During that period, the share of income held by the US top one percent rose from about 7% to about 16%, whereas in Canada it rose from over 8% to over 12%. I'd have to take another look at Hacker and Pierson, but what they were arguing is that the ultra-rich have spent a lot of time rigging the p0litical process to suit their purposes. Increasingly, members of Congress have been working in their interests and not in those of the population as a whole. It matters little to them that the country as a whole is on a downward economic slope. What matters is that their power and wealth increases. Things are not quite like that in Canada yet, but we may be heading in the same general direction. It seems that wealth and power have become the game, and not the common good. Ed
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
