Second Gilded Age?

Post Reply New Topic

We were studying the Gilded Age in AP US History and I thought about the possibility of the Second Gilded Age. Later, I found this article:

Second Gilded Age

I have to agree. The rich have been controlling everything from business opportunity to prices for trade and it's killing people (literally in some cases).

Pretty soon it'll be a class war for survival.

How these rich people can stand by and watch people suffor when they can help is beyond me, that just goes way beyond greed.

Those who say that inequality does not matter, that if people gain a little ground or tread water it makes no difference if certain people are gaining ten times more money, they should understand that money is power and power is a zero sum game. When someone takes power someone else loses it. When the person gaining ten times more whilst others stagnate gain all that extra power, they take it away from everyone else, from those who are stagnating. Then those people use that power to change the rules to increase their wealth and power even more, perhaps to the point where the others not only stagnate, but lose ground in real terms.

we need a new critical mass of progressives, a new lafollette or teddy roosevelt to push through much needed reforms.

My favorite magazine, the Economist, did an expose on inequality around the world. Indeed, income inequality is rising sharply in the U.S, and most other countries are seeing varying measures of rising inequality. That said, the income inequality gap between nations has fallen dramatically.

I also think any comparison between the Gilded Age and today must consider that the vast majority of people are wealthier than in the Gilded Age, and have more purchasing power.

Economic systems do not exist in a static state.

I think we are certainly entering a new "gilded age," and with that entry also come the seeds of a new paradigm shift, and an economic shift.

The paradigm shift is rooted in the fact that the one thing that the 1% cannot ever overcome is the voting power of the 99%. They can spend billions to persuade the weak-minded and easily duped that the prosperity of the 1% is essential to the prosperity of all, but eventually the failure of that rhetoric to bring new prosperity to a majority of the electorate will lead to political revolt.

The economic shift is rooted in the fact that the prosperity of the 1% is entirely dependent upon the spending of the 99%. If we stop buying goods and services because we can no longer afford them, the economy grinds to a halt. The accumulation of wealth in a small number of hands inevitably leads to economic crisis, and a subsequent redistribution.

So--we can either manage change, or we can wait for World War III and the next Great Depression to do it for us.

Though I'm a Brit, I think in this respect the UK and US are close enough for me to comment.

While I agree this situation is getting worse, several things need to be taken into account of the modern era.

1st: Most people are better informed, better connected and better financed relative to previous periods in history .

2nd: the technology and information to grow your own food and generate your own energy are available to more people.

3rd: It is possible for a person to limit, or at least reduce, their need to interact with a capitalist system through point 2. Even though the method and means of point 2 may be controlled in some way by a member of an elite group, the possible revenue from it will likely ensure its continued availability. Its worth remembering that the super rich are competing with each other, so if one individual or faction sees a profit in helping those poorer than them I doubt they'll restrain themselves.

I wonder how long it will take for someone to come in and call Americans or Britons complaining about income inequality "whiners" because being poor in the US/UK is nowhere near is hard as being poor in your average third world country. Okay, I get it, people should be grateful they aren't worse off, but seriously, if everyone just decides to be "grateful" for all eternity that will just ensure that things never improve and indeed get worse and worse. From the perspective of history, if the during the early Gilded Age, lower classes were simply "grateful" for their low wages and awful working conditions since they at least did not have to deal with starvation as people in less technologically advanced nations did, conditions during the first Gilded Age conditions today would be as they were back then.

It would not bother me one bit that the "1%" have done exceptionally well if not for the fact that since the last recession the poor have actually gotten poorer. That is a major negative systemic trend that can't easily be excused away.

In the 1970s, capital gains tax was 40 percent, and the highest income tax bracket paid a rate of 70 percent. Under George W. Bush, these rates dropped to 15 percent and 35 percent, respectively. For example, it emerged a few weeks ago that legendary investor Warren Buffett earned $63 million last year but was only required to pay 17 percent in taxes.

...wow. I knew that our tax code favored the very rich, but I didn't know that it was such a recent and sudden change brought about by Bush. This just sucks. I don't see how anyone can defend these kinds of policies. And yet Republicans defend these tax cuts to the death, and from what I hear, Mitt Romney wanted to cut taxes even more for the rich. And nearly half of Americans voted for this guy? Am I missing something here?

Isn't the Guilded Age type nonsense what led to a rise in Labor Unions? It seems like that is one of the best means of pushing back against modern "Barons" of industry.

Otherwise, the more foolish modern Robber Barons will implode like ENRON. I'm not sure how bad that is if it was handled right. I mean really Ken Lay or Jeff Skilling needed fined for millions and that money should be used to prop up the rank and file ENRON employees who were innocent and defrauded by their executives. Unfortunately, I suspect if Jeff Skilling was fined the government pocketed the money.


I have also wondered if the wealth gap is boosted by inflation. If the very wealthy get access to "New Money" first. This approaches that whole Keynsian Vs. Austrian thing which has to many opinions and interpretations I'm not sure what to think other than it stinks.

The main difference between the first Gilded Age and the second is that nothing is being produced in the second. The first saw a network of railroads being laid, telegraph lines going up to the point that there was quite an impressive network of telegraph lines by the 1890s, a major expansion of industry in the United States and somewhat in Germany and even Argentina, and all the stuff that industry was producing saw a major expansion of wealth not just among the moneyed elites but a middle class started to emerge for the first time in the USA and Germany. Even Russia started to see the beginnings of industry and a middle class.

Today the plutocrats produce nothing, they make money with money and via official printing of money, basically making their wealth via inflation instead of through producing goods and services. The Austrian School of economists called this a "catastrophic bull market", or inflationary crack up boom. The plutocrats hoard the money they make, so that money's velocity is very low. All that cash being printed is simply going into the hoards of the rich, and not being spent. That is why we haven't seen hyperinflation in the US.

They are betting on commodities, and increasing prices while decreasing wages. Gasoline is at $4/gal, the price of food keeps going up, while wages go down. The rich want to have their cake and eat it too, pay low wages while raking in cash via high prices. They filled the gap with debt for a while, but the people have taken on so much debt that the point of diminishing returns was passed a long time ago.

The second Gilded Age is all predicated on inflation and debt, without industries to back it. Eventually the system will collapse, and when western civilization collapses that's it for humanity, it's all over for us as a species. We no longer can live without technology, and when the technology goes away we all die.

http://www.working-minds.com/money.htm

^^^
ayn's mentality is what is making america into a living hell for average folk at whom the randians look down their noses and dismiss as just so many "takers."