Ma Bell; She's Back. Net Neutrality in Jeopardy ©
In March 2006, American Telephone and Telegraph offered to buy BellSouth for $67 billion. At the time, there was much concern. Should the two tie the knot, it would appear to reverse a decision made twenty-two years earlier, the breakup of the Ma Bell monopoly.
However, in this era of Bush Cheney corporate favors, conglomerate are considered wise and wonderful.
The new AT&T will be the local phone company in a 22-state territory, and will be a behemoth in wireless, long-haul voice and Internet traffic, and phone directories.The merged companies will use the name AT&T; it is familiar and a friendly reminder of the past for many Baby Boomers. The moniker is expected to increase market share and oh, what a share of the market this "new" firm will have. Certainly, the association with Ma Bell will not be merely a memory.All those services will operate under the AT&T brand, which SBC took over with its acquisition of AT&T Corp. in November. The company hopes to save billions in advertising costs simply by consolidating AT&T, BellSouth and Cingular marketing under one brand.
Oh, I am among those with fond memories; however, what I loved about Ma Bell will not return. I recall indestructible telephones. When I think of the old Ma Bell, recollections of equipment that does not fail comes to mind. In the 1970s, my family went house hunting. In one glorious, home we discovered a telephone cubbyhole built into the stairwell wall. Within the hole was a study black rotary telephone, circa 1930. It still worked. For me, that was among the deciding factors. I wanted to live in that dwelling and chatter away on that phone.
I also embrace the days when the telephone company was efficient. Repairmen and wiremen came to the home if there were problems with the equipment or the line. The only need for repairs that I recall was weather related. Ma did not insist on an additional charge for house calls. All was included in a nominal bill.
Operators, oh, I loved the operators. I still do on the rare occasions I speak with one. Not only am I too frugal to call for assistance, if or when I do, I am reminded a human voice is only available during very limited hours . I crave that former human connection.
As a child, when I was learning to speak, my Mom would call the ever-running weather recording and I would chat with the mechanical woman. To assist me in acquiring manners, my parents would have me make information calls. Do you remember when telephoning information was not a toll call and you could chat with a delightful human being? Those were the days. Though the monopoly Ma Bell is returning, none of these lovely features will be forthcoming!
If there is any similarity between the past and the present it is that, this business will be bulging; it will be all-powerful, formidable, so much so it may be out of control. The current Federal Communications Commission was barely able to manage it in these recent negotiations.
The newer AT&T will be much like its mother
With roots stretching to 1885, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company was split by the government in 1984 into eight regional Bell companies and a long-distance and equipment company that retained the AT&T name.Although there was some concern and two Democratic Commissioners opposed the amalgamation, ultimately a compromise was reached.The Telecommunications Act of 1996 partly deregulated the industry, enabling a rapid re-consolidation.
Southwestern Bell, later SBC, proved to be the most aggressive of the Baby Bells. Under Chief Executive Ed Whitacre Jr., it quickly snapped up its siblings Pacific Telesis and Ameritech, in addition to Southern New England Telecommunications.
There was even talk in 1997 of SBC buying AT&T, but that idea was shot down by the Federal Communications Commission as soon as it was mentioned in the media.
AT&T was at the time flailing somewhat for direction. In its main business, long distance, it was facing nascent competition from the Baby Bells, which were allowed entry into that domain by the Telecommunications Act — as long as they opened their local business to competition.
But it was much harder for AT&T to break into the local business than it was for the Baby Bells to sign customers up for long-distance. To get its own lines to homes, AT&T began buying up cable systems, but the massive debt it took later forced it to sell them off at a loss.
Since SBC was already too large to pass antitrust muster as a buyer of AT&T under the regulatory principles of the time, it fell to BellSouth to come to rescue the old head of the family. The companies were in advanced merger talks in 2001, but media leaks apparently gave BellSouth cold feet, and the deal was called off.
With progressively looser regulation, more options opened up for the Bells, and last year, SBC finally did acquire AT&T.
On Thursday, December 28, 2006, details were released and the Federal Communications Commission approved the buyout.
Among the conditions offered by AT&T is a promise to observe ''network neutrality'' principles, an offer of $19.95 per month stand-alone digital subscriber line service and a vow to divest some wireless spectrum.Perhaps, I am less so. There are aspects of the compromise that I favor, somewhat. If I had a choice, greater provisions would have to be met before the buyout was approved. However, the Justice Department and the FCC never asked me what I thought.The FCC's approval was the last major regulatory hurdle for the proposed deal, which is the largest telecommunications merger in U.S. history.
AT&T offered the concessions after a little more than a week of marathon negotiations with lawyers who work for the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein.
Adelstein said Friday he was pleased with the agreement.
''We got substantial concessions that are going to mitigate a lot of the harms that would otherwise have resulted from this merger,'' he said.
The reaction from Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, however, was decidedly negative. The chairman found some conditions to be ''unnecessary'' and said that some ''impose burdens that have nothing to do with the transaction, are discriminatory, and run contrary to commission policy and precedent.''
Copps was cautiously optimistic, saying that the approval was ''not a triumph for huge corporate mergers but a modest victory for American consumers.'' He added that he was not entirely satisfied with the compromise but believed it is ''a genuine step forward'' in several areas.
The Justice Department approved the merger on Oct. 11, but it attached no conditions, a move that prompted outrage among many Democrats.I am thankful for extended restraints. I am grateful for the two Democrats at the door. I think they did a fine job considering. Nevertheless, there is still much to fear. Among the items most worrisome, is the temporary status of net neutrality! Please allow me to define net neutrality for those unfamiliar with the concept.In an effort to gain the support of Copps and Adelstein, AT&T submitted a set of concessions on Oct. 13, but they were rejected.
In AT&T's letter committing to the new conditions, the company's senior vice president in charge of regulatory affairs, Robert W. Quinn Jr., noted that the new concessions were ''significantly more extensive than those submitted on Oct. 13.''
The new offer extends the lifespan of many conditions from 30 months under the old deal to 42 months or longer in some cases.
Among the promises made by the company:
--An offer of stand-alone, DSL Internet service to customers in its service area for $19.95 per month for 30 months. The ''naked DSL (digital subscriber line)'' offer would allow those who live in AT&T and BellSouth's service areas to sign up for fast Internet access without being required to buy a package of other services.--To cap rates for ''special access'' customers, usually competitors and large businesses that pay to connect directly to a regional phone company's central office via a dedicated fiber optic line, for 48 months.
--To divest all of the 2.5 GHZ spectrum currently licensed to BellSouth within one year of the merger closing date.
--To ''repatriate'' 3,000 jobs that were outsourced by BellSouth outside the U.S. by Dec. 31, 2008, with at least 200 of those jobs to be located in New Orleans.
Network neutrality is a principle analogous to the Bill of Rights. If the Internet is open, as it currently is, we are all, equally free to speak. Our access is not based on income, status, or the company we keep. If the Internet remains neutral, it favors no one, while favoring everyone. A neutral net is an unbiased avenue for information. A impartial Internet does not provide privileges for businesses or governments, while restricting rights for the average Jane or John. We, the people on the worldwide web are all created equal in a neutral cyberspace community. "Today, the neutrality of the Internet is at stake as the broadband carriers want Congress's permission to determine what content gets to you first and fastest. Put simply, this would fundamentally alter the openness of the Internet."
Scary; given the opportunity companies and, or Congress can take away our rights to communicate, to access information; they can decrease the speed at which we travel and restrict the hours. Currently, the people govern the Internet; many want this to change.
AT&T had clearly drawn a line in the sand on the issue, and was not prepared to offer any promises that would not affect the telecommunications industry as a whole.Two short years; how quickly these will pass. In some respects, the security of the services has already been compromised.The company's position has been receiving generally positive reaction from proponents of the concept, but some skepticism from others, who are concerned with the wording of AT&T's commitment.
AT&T says it will ''maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service'' for two years and that it would not sell services to Internet content providers that ''privileges, degrades or prioritizes'' traffic over its wireline broadband service.
But it [AT&T]makes an exception to the company's Internet Protocol television service.So much could be better. Imagine a world where large corporations do not gobble smaller businesses up. Ponder a planet where we work together, where the Internet was a tool to connect us in cyberspace, and not a mechanism to bleed us dry. Ma Bell, please have mercy. This "new deal" will bring in $117 billion annually. Is that not enough to satisfy your insatiable appetite?Martin is unconvinced the network neutrality provisions are necessary.
''The conditions regarding net neutrality have very little to do with the merger at hand and very well may cause greater problems than the speculative problems they seek to address,'' he wrote. ''These conditions are simply not warranted by current market conditions and may deter facilities investment.''
Meanwhile, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, indicated his displeasure in a statement that said the process followed by the FCC may be '''suitable for committee review.''
Earl Comstock, president and CEO of Comptel, a group that represents competitors of AT&T, said he would have preferred to see more conditions from AT&T, and questioned why the compromise came so quickly.
''Compared to where it was in the fall, there was definite progress,'' he said of the deal. ''But given the negotiating position (of the Democrats) it could be better.''
Please sign Net Neutrality petition. . .
The Bell is Tolling . . .
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on December 29, 2006 at 10:35 PM in Abundance and Scarcity, AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth , Business, Communities and Communication , Consumers Rights, Corporate Profits, Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Thanksgiving. Will Our Past, Our Present Be Prologue? ©
As the celebration continues and the cynicism mounts, a delivery was made to me. I thank William S. Burroughs for his Thanksgiving Prayer. I am grateful to bzbb of My Left Wing fame. S/he shared the text and resource with me.
After reading my Thanksgiving story of genocide, some decided that they knew I loathe the holiday; I do not. I do have disdain for humans that knowingly hurt other humans. I am disquieted when I realize that man, woman, or child intentionally commits crimes against nature.
When people speak against "evil" and then act in ways that I think they might deem "sinful" I am confused. While, I personally do not believe in either concept, I wonder why those that do think these constructs are valid behave in ways that could be defined as wicked.
As I listen to William Burroughs and read the text of his musings, I am miffed. What are we giving thanks for on this the fourth Thursday in November? What do we welcome in the days that follow? I offer the Burroughs prayer so that we all might ponder.
Thanksgiving Prayer
By William S Burroughs [1914 to 1997]
American Novelist, Essayist, and Social Critic
Thanks for the wild turkey and the passenger pigeons,
Destined to be shit out through wholesome American guts.
Thanks for a continent to despoil and poison.
Thanks for Indians to provide a modicum of challenge and danger.
Thanks for vast herds of bison to kill and skin leaving the carcasses to rot.
Thanks for bounties on wolves and coyotes.
Thanks for the American dream,
To vulgarize and to falsify until the bare lies shine through.
Thanks for the KKK.
For n****r-killin' lawmen feelin' their notches.
For decent church-goin' women, with their mean, pinched, bitter, evil faces.
Thanks for "Kill a Queer for
Christ" stickers.
Thanks for laboratory AIDS.
Thanks for Prohibition and the
war against drugs.
Thanks for a country where nobody's allowed to mind the own business.
Thanks for a nation of finks.
Yes, thanks for all the memories-- all right let's see your arms!
You always were a headache and you always were a bore.
Thanks for the last and greatest betrayal of the last and greatest of human dreams.
I cannot thank William Seward Burroughs II enough. My mind would never travel in the places his did. However, perchance, you dear reader might relate.
If nothing else, I think this performance might provoke a deeper pondering. I invite each of us to reflect, to meditate, and contemplate, what does Thanksgiving Day mean to us. What does the holiday season connote?
How might our past relate to our present and what will our future be.
"Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them."
~ George Santanya
"What’s past is prologue."
~ William Shakespeare
Consider Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and Korea. Is there talk of occupation or might we overthrow regime after regime?
Contemplate racial profiling. Does the Patriot Act make this legal.
Look within your local cities. Are there slums, ghettos, gangs, and girls walking the streets to make a decent wage? Perhaps, workingwomen are not the only ones looking for work. There are those that lost their employ so long ago they are no longer counted by government tallies. They dropped off the rolls, and have since dropped out of sight. In actuality, these persons are still visible; look out your window. There they are, on the avenue.
Are Blacks treated as whites; are the rich revered, are the poor?
What of women; what of immigrants?
Might we recall the Native Americans and the wilderness that welcomed our forefathers? What became of these?
What occurs in your home or that of your neighbors? Is communication prevalent in your abode, or in that of those living adjacent to you? Is care evident and flourishing or is this concept one you and others crave, but only dream of. I wonder.
What did you give thanks for yesterday and what will you be grateful for tomorrow?
Thanksgiving. The Past, Present, and Pondering
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on November 25, 2006 at 12:09 AM in Abundance and Scarcity, American Dream, American Family, American Jobs, American Patriotism, Black History, Past/Present, Communities, Communities and Communication , Compassion, Conflict, Complex, Current Affairs, Dreams Live and Die , Economics, Looking at Life, Politics, Profound , Society, Success. Failure., “When is Enough, Enough?” | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Income Inequity. The Real Reason the Rich Get Richer. ©
For years, scholars have discussed whether the situation has changed or remained the same. They discuss cause and effects. Intellectuals say the middle class is shrinking. The prosperous are not growing capital as expected. The “super-rich” are becoming wealthier. Academicians and regular Americans alike wonder, what are we to do?
Welfare is reformed and the results are devastating. Proposals are submitted to increase the minimum wage. Yet, this solution was too little too late. It was also tied to amendments that would ravage federal revenues and thankfully, or not, the measure did not pass. People ponder the discrepancy between rich and poor as though it were unusual; however, for me, this subject is not a novel one.
It has been on my mind for as long as I can remember. I was born into a household of means; however, the family that cared for me, the people I felt closest to lived the inner city. I spent much time traveling from one neighborhood to the other. The disparity was striking. As a child, I began to theorize, what caused such a discrepancy. Why were the rich so prosperous and the poor so impoverished? Why did they not intermingle freely?
Being intimately a part of two very different worlds simultaneously, my mind was stimulated; questions flooded my reality. Fortunately, I was encouraged to think about my concerns and ask of these. My earliest memory was of the streets, which ones were used when and by whom. I was well aware that freeways were the preferred passageways for the affluent. Expressways allowed for a free-flow of traffic. There were few if any visual distractions. The highways were walled off from the city. Slums were not seen; nor were those living there heard from. As the affluent passed through town, all was a blur.
Those with lower incomes were more likely found on the slower urban streets. I often heard how dangerous the metropolitan thoroughfares were. Yet, I played on those avenues when with my second family. I lived there for days at a time. People were always pleasant to me. There was a sense of community in these ghetto boulevards. Still, the well-off avoided these roadways. I concluded the rich did not wish to see the poor. They did not want to be reminded of what they had created and allowed to flourish.
The moneyed preferred to believe that all were thriving, just as they were; thus, they created a world that allowed them their beliefs. However, in truth a large portion of society was barely able to survive. In fact, I think the affluent knew this, and purposely, conveniently chose to ignore it. They knew that they had imposed their reality on the poorer public in order to prosper.
The rich understood they needed the poor to serve them. A less-well-informed, undereducated, underprivileged population could and would meet the needs of the affluent. Those born with silver spoons in their mouths trusted that they would associate with the proper people. They would be groomed, breed, and grow greater. The rich would learn how to build empires and indeed, they have.
It is my contention that the most affluent among us centuries ago established a system that they knew was flawed; nevertheless, it endured. I think, the idea of scarcity, supply and demand breeds a world divided. This economic theory presumes there is only so much to go around; resources are limited. Therefore, those that have, horde, and those without, want. All are dissatisfied, thinking there is never enough, though in truth, there is.
Man creates deficits and depletes resources; nature replenishes continually.
For the most part, the poor have been unwittingly satisfied to just pass. In earlier eons, the poor and middle class were not punished so severely for their station. There was a time when those of lesser means still had hope and some were able to do well and move out of poverty, though their numbers were always kept in check.
A modicum of security, with the potential for limited growth quelled the masses. As a consequence of the freight experienced during the Great Depression Americans embraced the approach of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Even the wealthy were willing to accept the initiation of Public Work programs. More people were able to have a scrap of safety. After all, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
As revealed by Journalist Teresa Tritch in The Rise of the Super-Rich,
In post-World War II America, between 1947 and the early 1970’s, all income groups shared in the nation’s economic growth. Poor families actually had a higher growth in real annual income than other groups.Still, they remained humble and subservient. Most felt well taken care of. Businesses offered benefits, and the government was a supposed friend, or so it seemed. Employees were loyal to those that served them, not realizing, in truth, they, the laborers were servicing the master. For without a working force there was no wealth for the entrepreneur.
In those post-World War II years, labor and productivity increased. Workers produced more materials. Corporations were generous with their profits. The economy grew and entrepreneurs were willing to share. Actually, the government demanded this.
Government policies worked to ensure that productivity gains translated into more pay for Americans at all levels, including regular increases in the minimum wage and greater investment in the social safety net . . . Full employment was also a government priority.Fair wages, generous salaries, and reasonable benefits were given to employees. Laborers were recognized for their worth. A happy worker is and was a good worker. A satisfied staff would serve the customers well. The businessmen and women would benefit; corporate owners would reap the greatest rewards.
In those years, unions were a driving force. Workers had bargaining power. Of course, that was before the Reagan reign, and prior to his presidential dictums, those that promoted union busting.
Then beginning in the
mid-1970’s until 1995, the trend reversed. The gap between the rich and poor widened at a rapid clip. The upper echelons — generally the top 20 percent of American households — experienced steady gains, while families in the bottom 40 percent were faced with declining or stagnating incomes.Once again the planets were aligned, or at least an ancient economic theory was.
For centuries, there was a well-known belief that twenty percent of the population owned eighty percent of the wealth. In 1906 one man, Italian Economist Vilfredo Pareto created a mathematical formula to describe the unequal distribution of dollars that he observed within his own country. Later that code would be named the Pareto's Principle. This principle presupposed that there was only a given amount of assets. These limited treasures must be divided among the masses. However, because the supply was small and the rich already retained much of the wealth that was, there was little leftover for those of lesser means. As the population increased the prosperous became more so; they understood the rule of 72.
This canon is evident in recent reports.
Rich people are also being made richer, recent government data shows, by strong returns on investment income. In 2003, the latest year for which figures are available, the top 1 percent of households owned 57.5 percent of corporate wealth, generally [realized as] dividends, and capital gains, up from 53.4 percent a year earlier.The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington think tank, compared the latest data from Mr. Piketty and Mr. Saez to comprehensive reports on income trends from the Congressional Budget Office. Every way it sliced the data, it found a striking share of total income concentrated at the top of the income ladder as of 2004.
• The top 10 percent of households had 46 percent of the nation’s income, their biggest share in all but two of the last 70 years.
• The top 1 percent of households had 19.5 percent (see graph).
• The top one-tenth of 1 percent of households actually received nearly half of the increased share going to the top 1 percent.
Whether we speak of centuries past or the present, the poor continue to pound the pavement. They were, and are, searching for their lump of salt.
In America, the Puritan work ethic feed and feeds the folly of scarcity, sacrifice, and service well. The standard suggests
a Calvinist value emphasizing the necessity of constant labor in one's calling as a sign of personal salvation. Protestants beginning with Martin Luther had re-conceptualized work as a duty in the world for the benefit of the individual and society as a whole. The Catholic idea of good "works" was transformed into an obligation to work diligently as a sign of grace.However, few noticed that the most well-off worked little. They had and have servants, slaves, and subordinates. For many of the moneyed, wealth was and is handed down. The truly well-to-do worked and labor little; yet it was believed and thought true today, they are superior and certainly would be well received at the Pearly Gates.
It was and is the majority population, the masses that labor diligently. The poor and the middle class hope to get ahead. At least they yearn to stay solvent. The middle and lower classes sweat, they slave, they survive, and looked forward to salvation. They do this while the wealthiest continue to reap greater gains from their toil [capital gains.]
It seems obvious that the populace has adopted a misleading notion, that there is only so much to go around, or they believe that they must pay their dues before they can prosper. It seems to me that people, for the most part accept their station, and expect others to recognize theirs.
Those of color, minority races, ethnicities, or creeds rarely are given opportunities to excel; nor do they truly and deeply believe they will be able to do so in a society such as ours. Individuals in the middle, as few as there are nowadays, are gratified when they have enough. They expect little more than meets their needs. They have been taught not to crave more than creature comforts. They learned their lessons well. The wealthiest among us are the masses mentors.
In 1906, Italy, and in America today, I think poverty is imposed. Scarcity is supported; the idea of abundance for all is avoided, intentionally.
I have actually heard many prosperous persons speak of their need and desire to keep the poor, poor. Thus, I present my personal theory for your “consumption.” I think until we truly address the issue of attitudes, and more importantly, the perception of scarcity, nothing will change.
I believe this myth was originated within the world to preserve opulence for the few. The fable has long been maintained by “superior” beings. The blue-bloods believe they are deserving. Thus, they deem it just. The poor and impoverished must sacrifice their souls while working in meaningless jobs; they must spill their blood while the rich wage war and they do.
I proclaim the legend is not true. There is abundance for all. Let us look at nature.
If we enter the ocean and exit with a bucket full of water, we will leave no hole. The space we made will be filled instantly. If we scoop up a pail of sand, no void will be visible. Within minutes the wind, the water, and Mother Nature herself will replenish what we took away. Granted we can strip the land naked. Nevertheless, we cannot kill it, though human beings certainly try.
A polluted pond will produce algae in abundance. Life grows. A concrete highway will not seal away the weeds. Look between the cracks. Consider the bugs, the vermin, and viruses. Man tries to kill these; yet, they never truly die. More emerge where others once existed.
You may question my thinking and suggest our limited supply of oil. I offer this. Were it not for man’s spoils, his need to accelerate the depletion/reproduction cycle within his surroundings, the Earth would be replenishing the petroleum supply. Actually, it is. We simply steal from the source before it can create greater resources.
The super rich have created the illusion of scarcity and we all believe it. They have sold society this package of goods and we buy it. Those that live lavishly have created a civilization of consumerism. They need us and we want to be them.
However, contrary to popular belief, I think a world of disparity devastates our social order. I have little complaint for the rich getting richer. I struggle with the poor getting poorer, and the comfortable middle becoming less so. Again, I contend there is abundance for us all.
I invite you to explore. Please take some time to assess life, the real world of plenty, and the artificial world of scarcity. Observe it from an alternative perspective. I ask you to be cogent; are you accepting and expecting less because you were taught, “you should.”
Please witness nature and absorb the wisdom. Watch the plants, the animals, the insects, the water, the sand, and see for yourself. Ponder the prospect. Were it not for the influence of man would resources be in balance, reproducing and reducing only to ensure stability and beauty? I think they would. Oh, what we do and have done. Then we wonder why is there income inequity. We continually create it.
~ You may enjoy discussions on the New York Times article, Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity, By Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt. August 28, 2006.
• Brad DeLong offers, Greenhouse and Leonhardt on Real Wages and Productivity
• Max Sawicky presents The Poverty of Pedantry
• Mark Thoma tenders Paul Krugman: Wages, Wealth and Politics
Plunge into Poverty, Pass into a Life of Simple Pleasures, or Seek the Land of Plenty . . .
• The Catch-Up Economy, By Jared Bernstein. The Economic Policy Institute. August 22, 2006
• Left Behind Economics; [Op-Ed], ByPaul Krugman. New York Times. July 14, 2006
• Jared Bernstein, Economic Policy Institute.
• The Official Paul Krugman Web Page
• J. Bradford DeLong
• Pulling Apart, A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends. By Jared Bernstein, Elizabeth McNichol, Karen Lyons. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and The Economic Policy Institute. January 2006
• Driving Forces Behind Rising Income Inequality: Tracking the Internet Debate, By Brad DeLong, Economist. August 20, 2006
• Welfare Deform -- A Sad Anniversary, By Robert Reich, Former Secretary of Labor. August 23, 2006
• Real Wages Fail to Match a Rise in Productivity, By Steven Greenhouse and David Leonhardt. New York Times. August 28, 2006
• The Rise of the Super-Rich, By Teresa Tritch. New York Times.July 19, 2006
• Wages, Wealth And Politics; [Op-Ed], ByPaul Krugman. New York Times. August 18, 2006
• Paul Krugman: Wages, Wealth and Politics, By Mark Thoma. Economist's View. August 18, 2006
• Rural Oregon Town Feels Pinch of Poverty, By Erik Eckholm. New York Times. August 20, 2006
• As rich-poor gap widens in U.S., class mobility stalls,By David Wessel, The Wall Street Journal. Friday, May 13, 2005
• Protestant Work Ethic. Wikipedia.
• Scarcity. Wikipedia.
• Dividend and Capital Gains Tax Cuts Unlikely to Yield Touted Economic Gains, By Joel Friedman. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Revised October 7, 2005
• Pareto's Principle - The 80-20 Rule. About.
• The Rule of 72, By Joshua Kennon. About.
• Supply and Demand. Internet Center for Management and Business Administration, Incorporated.
• Economics Basics: Demand and Supply Investopedia Incorporated.
• "The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business Is Selling Less of More",The 98 Percent Rule. By Chris Anderson. USA Today. July 11, 2006
• Richest Are Leaving Even the Rich Far Behind, By David Cay Johnston. New York Times. June 5, 2005
Posted by Betsy L. Angert on August 30, 2006 at 11:00 AM in Abundance and Scarcity, Brad DeLong, Economist, Consumption and Content, Democracy or Monopoly, Discussion, Economics, Humans, Self-Destructive, Income Inequity, Inequality in America, Jared Bernstein, Economist, Mark Thoma, Economist’s View, Nature, Nature or Nurture, Paul Krugman, Economist, Philosophy, Poverty , Poverty in America, Profound , Protestant Work Ethic, Question Everything, Raise Minimum Wage, Reality or Perception, Social Order Teaches , Society | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Death Tax Keeps The Wealthy Rich. With Increased Wages, Poor Lose ©
I recently read an article in the New York Times titled, “The Rise of the Super-Rich.” Journalist Teresa Tritich reports, under the auspices of a Compassionately Conservative Administration even the affluent are not doing well. She states that the axiom, “The rich are getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer,” is no longer completely accurate. Currently, the super-rich, the upper crust is profiting; all others are left behind.
As I read this information, I was reminded of a two-pronged topic that I think needs discussing, “Abundance and Scarcity.” Apparently, there is a belief amongst Americans, that there is only so much wealth to go around. We must divide what there is. Some will prosper and the others must suffer. I think this