Discussion:
Why Inequality Matters - Aristotle and the Middle Class
Add Reply
mg
2018-12-05 16:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
extremely wealthy people at the top:

------------------------

"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class

It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.



But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.

The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.

Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!

So, what are the rich to do?

Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)

Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.

On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.

Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"

https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/




------------------------------
The middle class is a milk cow
with millions of tits . . . but it's
getting smaller.
me
2018-12-05 17:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
From Dune, The Butlarian Jihad

"All men are not created equal, and that is the root of social unrest."
Tlaloc
A Time for Titans
Post by mg
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
democracy: When two wolves and a sheep vote 
on what's for dinner.
So what would you expect rich sheep to do?
El Castor
2018-12-05 19:51:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
------------------------------
The middle class is a milk cow
with millions of tits . . . but it's
getting smaller.
Sorry to disappoint, but the Middle Class is getting smaller because
it's members are doing well and moving up the ladder into the upper
middle class. The same is true of the poor, near poor, and lower
middle class -- all moving up. As a society, we are all doing better.
Is that a story you don't want to hear? A bad thing?

"Is the middle class moving up? " ...
"All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and
upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in
the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth
between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. ""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91ed4462c61c
me
2018-12-05 20:15:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
....
Sorry to disappoint, but the Middle Class is getting smaller because
it's members are doing well and moving up the ladder into the upper
middle class. The same is true of the poor, near poor, and lower
middle class -- all moving up. As a society, we are all doing better.
Is that a story you don't want to hear? A bad thing?
"Is the middle class moving up? " ...
"All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and
upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in
the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth
between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. ""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91ed4462c61c
However, about cost of living? During that period it went up more than 400%. It's much worse when government manipulation is removed.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/
http://www.shadowstats.com/inflation_calculator?amount1=100&y1=1974&m1=10&y2=2014&m2=10&calc=Find+Out
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-12-05 20:37:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
------------------------------
The middle class is a milk cow
with millions of tits . . . but it's
getting smaller.
Sorry to disappoint, but the Middle Class is getting smaller because
it's members are doing well and moving up the ladder into the upper
middle class. The same is true of the poor, near poor, and lower
middle class -- all moving up. As a society, we are all doing better.
Is that a story you don't want to hear? A bad thing?
"Is the middle class moving up? " ...
"All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and
upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in
the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth
between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. ""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91ed4462c61c
I'm not surprised to see prosperity for the upper and upper-middle
classes, and am pleased to see that many in the middle class or lower
have moved up. However, those still in the middle class or lower have
been left behind, and they are the ones who elected Trump.
El Castor
2018-12-06 00:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
------------------------------
The middle class is a milk cow
with millions of tits . . . but it's
getting smaller.
Sorry to disappoint, but the Middle Class is getting smaller because
it's members are doing well and moving up the ladder into the upper
middle class. The same is true of the poor, near poor, and lower
middle class -- all moving up. As a society, we are all doing better.
Is that a story you don't want to hear? A bad thing?
"Is the middle class moving up? " ...
"All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and
upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in
the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth
between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. ""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91ed4462c61c
I'm not surprised to see prosperity for the upper and upper-middle
classes, and am pleased to see that many in the middle class or lower
have moved up. However, those still in the middle class or lower have
been left behind, and they are the ones who elected Trump.
The economist behind the study was clear that everyone was benefiting.

"Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor
and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent
of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle
class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and
the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to
32 percent.
All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and upper
middle class and the declining proportion of the population in the
middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth between
1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0ec4b19f9b70

Granted that upper middle and above are doing quite well, but then
they are the ones at the helm of the economy. Should they be punished?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-12-06 04:54:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
------------------------------
The middle class is a milk cow
with millions of tits . . . but it's
getting smaller.
Sorry to disappoint, but the Middle Class is getting smaller because
it's members are doing well and moving up the ladder into the upper
middle class. The same is true of the poor, near poor, and lower
middle class -- all moving up. As a society, we are all doing better.
Is that a story you don't want to hear? A bad thing?
"Is the middle class moving up? " ...
"All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and
upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in
the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth
between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. ""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91ed4462c61c
I'm not surprised to see prosperity for the upper and upper-middle
classes, and am pleased to see that many in the middle class or lower
have moved up. However, those still in the middle class or lower have
been left behind, and they are the ones who elected Trump.
The economist behind the study was clear that everyone was benefiting.
"Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor
and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent
of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle
class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and
the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to
32 percent.
That means many in those classes moved up. But, it doesn't imply that
those who remained in those classes benefited.
Post by El Castor
All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and upper
middle class and the declining proportion of the population in the
middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth between
1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0ec4b19f9b70
Granted that upper middle and above are doing quite well, but then
they are the ones at the helm of the economy. Should they be punished?
As I said, it was the middle class on down who elected Trump. That's
punishment enough.
me
2018-12-06 15:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-12-06 16:27:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by me
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional
base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you
explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a
state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What
must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be
stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
I do find this result surprising. Trump tapped into middle class and
working class resentment (think, mg) among those who traditionally vote
Democratic and almost never vote for an establishment Republican (*).
Democrats need to take heed and pay attention to these voters.

On the other hand, these developments aren't good for Republicans
either. Trump's message has split the party's leaders while his antics
have alienated a large chunk of suburban voters that traditionally
decide elections (such as the 2018 midterms). Whichever party loses in
2020 may see a big makeover in its identity.

(*) Reagan got many of these votes through a combination of social
issues and his personality.
me
2018-12-06 17:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by me
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional
base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you
explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a
state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What
must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be
stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
I do find this result surprising. Trump tapped into middle class and
working class resentment (think, mg) among those who traditionally vote
Democratic and almost never vote for an establishment Republican (*).
Democrats need to take heed and pay attention to these voters.
On the other hand, these developments aren't good for Republicans
either. Trump's message has split the party's leaders while his antics
have alienated a large chunk of suburban voters that traditionally
decide elections (such as the 2018 midterms). Whichever party loses in
2020 may see a big makeover in its identity.
(*) Reagan got many of these votes through a combination of social
issues and his personality.
The body politic is in flux. Here in NY, all three 'minor' parties on the ballot reached 'official party status' by getting 50K votes in the Governor election last month. One was the Libertarian Party which has never reached that threshold before in NYS.
El Castor
2018-12-06 18:14:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional
base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you
explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a
state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What
must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be
stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
I do find this result surprising. Trump tapped into middle class and
working class resentment (think, mg) among those who traditionally vote
Democratic and almost never vote for an establishment Republican (*).
Democrats need to take heed and pay attention to these voters.
On the other hand, these developments aren't good for Republicans
either. Trump's message has split the party's leaders while his antics
have alienated a large chunk of suburban voters that traditionally
decide elections (such as the 2018 midterms). Whichever party loses in
2020 may see a big makeover in its identity.
(*) Reagan got many of these votes through a combination of social
issues and his personality.
What did Hillary have to offer? What are Democrats offering today,
other than open borders and anti-Trump. Anti-Trump is what? No antics?
That is certainly a valuable program.
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-12-06 19:04:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by me
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional
base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you
explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a
state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What
must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be
stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
I do find this result surprising. Trump tapped into middle class and
working class resentment (think, mg) among those who traditionally vote
Democratic and almost never vote for an establishment Republican (*).
Democrats need to take heed and pay attention to these voters.
On the other hand, these developments aren't good for Republicans
either. Trump's message has split the party's leaders while his antics
have alienated a large chunk of suburban voters that traditionally
decide elections (such as the 2018 midterms). Whichever party loses in
2020 may see a big makeover in its identity.
(*) Reagan got many of these votes through a combination of social
issues and his personality.
What did Hillary have to offer? What are Democrats offering today,
other than open borders and anti-Trump. Anti-Trump is what? No antics?
That is certainly a valuable program.
Whatever Democrats offered, it worked in the midterms. But, I agree a
positive message will help their chances.
me
2018-12-06 19:35:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by me
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional
base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you
explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a
state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What
must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be
stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
I do find this result surprising. Trump tapped into middle class and
working class resentment (think, mg) among those who traditionally vote
Democratic and almost never vote for an establishment Republican (*).
Democrats need to take heed and pay attention to these voters.
On the other hand, these developments aren't good for Republicans
either. Trump's message has split the party's leaders while his antics
have alienated a large chunk of suburban voters that traditionally
decide elections (such as the 2018 midterms). Whichever party loses in
2020 may see a big makeover in its identity.
(*) Reagan got many of these votes through a combination of social
issues and his personality.
What did Hillary have to offer? What are Democrats offering today,
other than open borders and anti-Trump. Anti-Trump is what? No antics?
That is certainly a valuable program.
Whatever Democrats offered, it worked in the midterms. But, I agree a
positive message will help their chances.
Dems offered the usual - fear, hate, identity politics, division. They should be proud of their 'success'.
Gary
2018-12-06 22:43:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Don’t you find this surprising? Democrats lost their traditional
base. Republicans are no longer the party of ‘the rich’. How do you
explain that to yourself? Lots of the Democrat faithful must be in a
state of shock by this. Congregates leaving the Democrat church. What
must the Democrat clergy do to stem the tide?! Can the tide be
stopped? Will a new ‘thirty year war’ be the result?
I do find this result surprising. Trump tapped into middle class and
working class resentment (think, mg) among those who traditionally vote
Democratic and almost never vote for an establishment Republican (*).
Democrats need to take heed and pay attention to these voters.
On the other hand, these developments aren't good for Republicans
either. Trump's message has split the party's leaders while his antics
have alienated a large chunk of suburban voters that traditionally
decide elections (such as the 2018 midterms). Whichever party loses in
2020 may see a big makeover in its identity.
(*) Reagan got many of these votes through a combination of social
issues and his personality.
What did Hillary have to offer? What are Democrats offering today,
other than open borders and anti-Trump. Anti-Trump is what? No antics?
That is certainly a valuable program.
Trump and Hillary ? What puzzles me is -- how could a country with 300 million people
have come down to those two as our choice for president ? It is really scary.
El Castor
2018-12-06 18:10:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
------------------------------
The middle class is a milk cow
with millions of tits . . . but it's
getting smaller.
Sorry to disappoint, but the Middle Class is getting smaller because
it's members are doing well and moving up the ladder into the upper
middle class. The same is true of the poor, near poor, and lower
middle class -- all moving up. As a society, we are all doing better.
Is that a story you don't want to hear? A bad thing?
"Is the middle class moving up? " ...
"All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and
upper middle class and the declining proportion of the population in
the middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth
between 1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. ""
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.91ed4462c61c
I'm not surprised to see prosperity for the upper and upper-middle
classes, and am pleased to see that many in the middle class or lower
have moved up. However, those still in the middle class or lower have
been left behind, and they are the ones who elected Trump.
The economist behind the study was clear that everyone was benefiting.
"Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor
and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent
of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle
class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and
the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to
32 percent.
That means many in those classes moved up. But, it doesn't imply that
those who remained in those classes benefited.
Those who moved up did benefit, and those who stayed behind were
smaller in numbers.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and upper
middle class and the declining proportion of the population in the
middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth between
1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0ec4b19f9b70
Granted that upper middle and above are doing quite well, but then
they are the ones at the helm of the economy. Should they be punished?
As I said, it was the middle class on down who elected Trump. That's
punishment enough.
Are Blacks being punished by unemployment numbers that are lower than
at any time in recorded history -- which in this case I believe means
26 years?
Josh Rosenbluth
2018-12-06 19:02:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
{snip}
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
I'm not surprised to see prosperity for the upper and upper-middle
classes, and am pleased to see that many in the middle class or lower
have moved up. However, those still in the middle class or lower have
been left behind, and they are the ones who elected Trump.
The economist behind the study was clear that everyone was benefiting.
"Meanwhile, the poorer segments of the population declined. The poor
and near-poor (less than $29,999 of income) dropped from 24.3 percent
of the population in 1979 to 19.8 percent in 2014. The lower middle
class ($30,000 to $49,999) fell from 23.9 percent to 17.1 percent, and
the middle class ($50,000 to $99,999) decreased from 38.8 percent to
32 percent.
That means many in those classes moved up. But, it doesn't imply that
those who remained in those classes benefited.
Those who moved up did benefit, and those who stayed behind were
smaller in numbers.
And that still doesn;t imply that those who were left behind benefited.
Post by El Castor
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
All in all, it’s an important story. “The growth in the rich and upper
middle class and the declining proportion of the population in the
middle and lower classes indicate widespread economic growth between
1979 and 2014,” writes Rose. "
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-middle-class-moving-up/2016/06/24/214dc04a-3a28-11e6-8f7c-d4c723a2becb_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0ec4b19f9b70
Granted that upper middle and above are doing quite well, but then
they are the ones at the helm of the economy. Should they be punished?
As I said, it was the middle class on down who elected Trump. That's
punishment enough.
Are Blacks being punished by unemployment numbers that are lower than
at any time in recorded history -- which in this case I believe means
26 years?
We can't judge Trump's economic record based on only 2 years.
Gary
2018-12-05 22:36:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by mg
The middle class has been shrinking since at least since the mid
1970s. It's a trend that never seems to stop. Aristotle's concept of
the ideal society was shaped like a four-sided diamond, with a small
class of very wealthy people at the very top, a small class of
extremely poor people at the bottom, and the great mass of prosperous
middle class people in between who were neither rich or poor. However,
since the mid-70s the Aristotelian Diamond, in America, has began to
look a lot like a Third World economic pyramid, with a tiny elite of
------------------------
"Why Inequality Matters – Aristotle and the Middle Class
It’s now evident that the middle class is disappearing, and at an
alarming rate, as can be seen in the video below.
But why does a disappearing middle class matter? “Why should I care
about this thing called ‘inequality’?” you might ask.
The reason why you should care was clearly laid out by a Greek
philosopher, Aristotle, 2,400 years ago.
Aristotle pointed out that if the middle class disappears, then the
poor will become the majority. The poor tend to be less educated than
the rich, and they tend to struggle just to make ends meet. If the
poor are the majority, then in a democracy they will vote to take away
the money from the rich!
So, what are the rich to do?
Well, do away with democracy of course! Democracy, at that point,
becomes too much of a threat to the elite, and the elite start taking
steps to limit the power of government. (Moves to limit voting by the
poor, anyone?)
Therefore, as the middle class disappears, democracy disappears with
it.
On the other hand, with a MAJORITY middle class, democracy works, and
it works well. Why? Because the middle class tends to be educated and
has just enough prosperity that members of that class can see
themselves becoming rich some day, so they don’t punish the rich, and
they have compassion for the poor, being that many of them came from
poverty. The middle class stands between the two extremes, the poor
and the rich, and you end up with a well functioning democracy.
Here Aristotle describes just that in his book Politics:" [. . .]"
https://underground.net/aristotle-and-the-middle-class/
I think the middle class is necessary for free and democratic countries like we have in
the West. IMV, the middle class are exposed to and experience things that the poor and
rich do not come in contact with. Which gives them a broader perspective -- and
understanding of how culture and civilization work. That -- gives them the ability to
operate governments and cultures better.
Loading...