Is no one paying any attention to the implications of Tom's post? Tom worte:
As hard as this may be to perceive, the financial wealth of the 1% is, in effect, a fiction. It's made up of imaginary titles to things that presumably give the wealthy the power to compel everyone else to do their bidding. The financial wealth doesn't have to be "spread around amongst the lower 99%" to lose its illusory power. ------ Put more crudely, there is nothing to redistribute! So what is anyone talking about when they propound on redistribution? Carrol Carroil -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of raghu Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 12:46 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Malcolm Gladwell's New Book Asks Us To Pity the Rich On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 4:43 PM, David <[email protected]> wrote: Some years ago I did the arithmetic for Australia. The wealth of the top one per cent if spread around the bottom 10 per cent of households was sufficient to buy each of the latter a modest suburban home and a small family car. Things have gotten worse since then and probably more so in America. It is not too hard to see how much difference even a modest amount of redistribution can make. Top executives routinely make 350 times the pay of an average worker. If you half the CEO's pay, you can give a 20% pay raise to about 850 of your average workers. Or better, give an extra week of vacation time to 2000 people. This is really the choice that corporate boards are making today: forcing 2000 proles to work a week extra a year each in order to give overpaid CEOs even more $$$. -raghu. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
