Newsgroups: alt.activism
Subject: Re: Rich Richer, Poor Poorer - HOW is the REAL concern
From: 9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au (Wild Child)
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:48:10 +0930
Organization: University of South Australia

In article <1992Sep11.234310.10852@sco.COM>, hiramc@sco.COM (Hiram Clawson) writes:
> 
> 
> It is said that the rich grow richer, and the poor become poorer.

This is outdated! Sure, most of the time the rich get richer, the poor get
poorer, but not all of the time.
The rich will always get richer, but what the happens to the poor depends on
what the poor does - those who stay poor are those who don't get off their
arses and get a decent education. I have NO PITY for such as these. Those I DO
feel for are those who are denied an education.
Not that you REALLY care, since the 'poor' who get an education don't stay poor
for very long, and as far as you're concerned, these are class traitors, aren't
they??!

> How true that was during the capitalist orgy of the 1980's.  Our
> society will be paying for this transfer of wealth well into the
> future.  The book by Kevin Phillips, "The Politics of Rich and Poor", 1990
> has many fascinating charts and graphs detailing the amazing transfer
> of wealth that occurred, not only in the U.S. during the 1980's,
> but also in other "western" capitalistic states.  The most interesting
> thing about Phillips' book is that he not a so-called "liberal"
> whiner complaining about this transfer of wealth that occurred.
> On the contrary, the tone of his book is one of a warning to the
> ruling classes that in order to maintain the disparity, they must
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> be on the look out for the backlash that has historically occurred
> following previous capitalistic orgies.  He contrasts and compares the
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nonsense! Merely making money is not capitalism!

> You will note how the use of the statistic "All Families" average
						  ^^^^^^^^
> income results in a positive sounding increase from 1977 to 1988.
> However, when you break it down into income ranges, you find that
> only the richest families actually increased their income, by so much
		   ^^^^^^^^
> that when averaged in with all other families, the overall statistic
> is still positive despite the fact that 8/10 of the income levels
> actually declined.

You just don't bloody get it, DO YOU!?

Rich FAMILIES get richer, poor FAMILIES get poorer. That's FUEDALISM my friend.
You stupid left wing idiots cling to your failed dreams and still refuse to see
the truth behind the current disgraceful nature of FAMILY power.
Merely making money is not capitalism - any ruling entity can do that.

The real shame today is the same shame of the Victorian era and before, that
power and wealth is HANDED DOWN FROM GENERATION TO GENERATION without poeple
actually earning it.

You sound like one of those idiots who was too dumb to make money the proper
way - the hard way, buying property and using it to run a business.
The eighties are going to cause trouble since the scum yuppies forgot that,
only interested in short term gains instead of long term investments, selling
off anything to the Japanese. This is not capitalism, this is bloody piracy.

There is a BIG difference between the eighties style shame and the 1800's style
shame, but the similarity is that the money makers didn't care where the money
came from, and NEITHER was a true capitalistic way of doing it.

> Changes in Average Family Income
		     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-- 
John McVey, Whyalla campus, Uni S.Australia
Electronic Engineering Student & Terror Tekkie G1 (at 19!)
9051467f@levels.unisa.edu.au, or try
9051467f@wh.whyalla.unisa.edu.au
'An idea isn't responsible for those who believe in it.'  Don Marquis
'Those who believe in an afterlife won't be disappointed'  Me
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Obligatory disclaimer : UniSA hates my opinions...			     |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+