• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

The ever widening gap between the rich and poor

The Rise of the Praetorian Class

Much attention has been paid to the “disappearing middle class” and the “vanishing American Dream.” While the observations are largely accurate, they are also misleading. The traditional three-tier model of the upper, middle and lower class broadly categorizes people according to income and net worth. One significant problem with this model is that membership in any particular class is very much in the eye of the beholder. One man’s “scraping by” is another man’s “opulent living.” This subjective and arbitrary grouping and boundary assessment inevitably gives rise to the simmering class warfare that is starting to rear its ugly head in many Western countries. Such categorization is therefore meaningless at best, if not outright deceptive as it conflates a variety of economic actors.

The chief fallacy of this model rests in the fact that it focuses on how much those actors are compensated, as opposed to how and why they are compensated. A far better perspective is perhaps gained using two classes, the Political Class and the Economic Class, with a third class emerging.

The Butcher, the Baker, the Candlestick Maker – The Economic Class

The Economic Class, at least in the United States, has historically been the numerically dominant group, although in recent decades its dominance has noticeably waned. The economic class would traditionally be called the Private Sector, but even that term has become misleading for reasons we will delve into later in this article.

Members of the Economic Class provide goods and services that are voluntarily sought by consumers and paid at rates that the market will bear. In an unfettered environment, the economic class would count farmers, engineers, coal miners, artists, physicians, janitorial staff, security guards, merchants and company executives among its membership. They participate freely and competitively in the market place, using the economic principles of Division of Labor and the Law of Comparative Advantage to increase the wealth of society as well as improve their personal position. Capital, entrepreneurial and human resources are brought together collaboratively to meet the needs of the market place. This is standard Economics 101 fare and hopefully generates little controversy among the readership. The important factor defining Economic Class membership is not the amount of money a person earns but rather their participation in the free and open market.

The Lazy Highwaymen – The Political Class

Like the Economic Class, members of the Political Class are not properly defined by their wealth but rather by how they exert influence in the market place. Whereas members of the Economic Class engage the market openly and voluntarily, members of the Political Class employ coercion and deceit to achieve their economic objectives. The coercion and deceit may either be exerted directly or, as is increasingly observed, through a variety of proxy agents. The most obvious members of the Political Class are, unsurprisingly, politicians. This group includes elected individuals at every level of government as well as various appointed officials.

In addition to this primary membership category, a second distinct group exists within the Political Class. It consists of various advocates including lobbyists, influence peddlers and miscellaneous other supplicants of government cheese. These creatures exist to serve as envoys for the third distinct group, which is made up of a patchwork of commercial entities that have learned that employing a politically well-connected pitch man replaces the need for an effective sales and marketing organization and in some cases even the requirement to have a desirable product.

Furthermore, it is commonly observed that members of the Political Class routinely migrate between the three aforementioned groups. An unfortunate consequence of allowing these economic actors to “cut in line” is that the rewarded event becomes the prevailing trend. Because of that, there is virtually no industry that has opted out of the rent-seeking game. From the military-industrial complex to agricultural subsidies, to the utterly corrupt banking system, the Political Class is inexorably claiming an increasing share of the world’s economic activity, a highly disturbing trend indeed.

Subsidized inefficiency, intentional destruction of productive assets and confiscation of property are but some of the effects that are observed when the Political Class employs force to serve those that are “more equal than others.” The arrangement can be summed up by saying that economic activity within the Economic Class places the bargaining power in the hands of the buyer whereas the economic activity within the Political Class places the bargaining power in the hand of the seller. This gives rise to dislocations in the free exchange of goods and services as well as widespread misallocations of capital as businesses adjust their practices based not on the normal mechanics of supply and demand but rather based on the dictates of the Political Class. Over the years, the scale of the intrusions of the Political Class into economies around the world, and very definitely here in the United States, has grown to the point where truly free markets are now the exception and not the norm.

Because the Economic Class operates in the realm of voluntary exchange whereas the Political Class employs force to achieve its objectives, many of which are anathema to the Economic Class, it follows that a significant amount of resources must be dedicated by the Political Class to the enforcement of their objectives. This role has traditionally fallen on the wide array of military and law enforcement organizations as well as numerous regulatory agencies and departments.

From the US military’s role in protecting the Political Class’s global interests and the IRS keeping the Treasury full, to the FDA serving “Big Pharma” and various law enforcement agencies maintaining a low-level chronic fear in the populace, the level of physical control that the Political Class needs to extend over productive resources is staggering. And in lockstep with the virtually unchecked growth in the Political Class, so has grown the size and scope of the enforcement branch deployed to protect its interests.

The person who wrote this read far too much Ayn Rand as a teenager.

It was going quite well, until the words "and company executives"; I read that three times to make sure I wasn't imagining things, and then had a good long belly laugh.

If, and it is a big 'if', you have to divide power into 'economic' vs 'political', then the way to do it would be by splitting those who produce from those who tell the producers what to do. Supervisors, managers and executives, like bureaucrats and politicians, are very much a part of the 'political' class; People who tell others what to do, and collect handsome payments for so doing. Why being elected by the board of directors makes this calling noble, while being elected by the people renders it ignoble I have no idea; but then, that may be because I didn't read Rand until I was old enough to see through it.
 
There is a rich-poor gap in this country, but if you look critically you'll see that every time the problem gets worse it is actually a government-nongovernment gap that appears as a rich - poor gap. It is that way because when the gap increases, it is those in the government class using political power to accumulate greater wealth at the expense of those in the economic class.
Whatever the "government class" and the "economic class" are supposed to be. Including how one finds people's class membership. How would someone be able to tell whether or not someone is a member of the "government class"? The "economic class"?
You have to stay up really late reading Libertarian websites. Just as you're becoming tired and emotional, it all starts to make sense. Phrases like "miscellaneous other supplicants of government cheese" acquire profound meaning.
 
The figures on wealth distribution demonstrate the hoarding of wealth: nearly 50% of the worlds wealth is in the hands of 1% of the worlds population, and the gap is still growing.

The ratio of wealth ownership makes its own case. If a certain individual owns 20 houses in prime locations around the world, yacht in the marina, jet on call in the hangar, a billion dollars in company stocks, this wealth is not circulating amongst the general population. The average Joe has no access to it, you or I have no access to it. mostly just the top layers of society get a slice of the pie, advisers, partners, etc.

You still can't tell the difference between hoarding and consumption.

That billion in company stocks is money that others are getting the use of!

I didn't say that others weren't getting use of the it, just not so much the lower layers of society. The big money mostly circulates within high end of town. Big business benefits far more than the bottom 50%. The higher up in the strata you happen to be, the more you benefit.

That was the point, and one of the reasons why the gap of net worth between the super wealthy and the rest of society keeps increasing.
 
Last edited:
The phenomenon is the result of free market capitalism and has led to problems such as the 2008 crash, with bailouts passed on to the public. Such problems are likely to continue given large amounts of unregulated financing involved.

Worse, the value of much of the wealth, which consists essentially of numbers in hard drives, can only be maintained given constantly increasing production and sales of goods and services. That in turn requires ever-increasing levels of energy and material resource use, something that cannot continue given peak oil and global warming coupled with environmental damage.
 
There is a rich-poor gap in this country, but if you look critically you'll see that every time the problem gets worse it is actually a government-nongovernment gap that appears as a rich - poor gap. It is that way because when the gap increases, it is those in the government class using political power to accumulate greater wealth at the expense of those in the economic class. And then those in the government class play class-warfare to convince the rubes that it is actually a rich-poor gap in order to convince the rubes to grant greater power to the government to fix the problem.

Like using more cyanide to treat cyanide poisoning.

But that analysis relies on something factual but rejected in this forum, a recognition of the difference between political power and economic power. When you see the share of wealth accumulating in even smaller portions of the population, that is political power in play. Which is why the dominant economic theories in this forum won't work - they address the symptom by by exacerbating the cause.

Are these guys part of the economic or political class?

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/how-the-stinking-rich-ate-the-economy/253187/

A 2010 study by Jon Bakija, Adam Cole, and Bradley Heim, economists at Williams College, the U.S. Treasury, and Indiana University, respectively, found that among the Really and Stinking Rich -- the top 0.1 percent, who currently make at least $1.7 million -- 43 percent were executives, managers, and supervisors at nonfinancial firms, and 18 percent were financiers. Together they accounted for the majority. The professions next in line were law (7 percent), medicine (6 percent), and real estate (4 percent).

Your analysis is kind of useless.
 
You still can't tell the difference between hoarding and consumption.

That billion in company stocks is money that others are getting the use of!

Really? How?

If I buy stocks (other than in an IPO), then the cash I spend on those stocks goes to the person who is selling some of his shareholding - and despite what Mittens Romney might have told you, poor people typically don't have a lot of shares to sell. Transferring cash between wealthy people in exchange for assets that have a value based on the best guess at future profitability doesn't seem to achieve anything much for the economy, or for the poor. People don't sell Microsoft and buy food; they sell Microsoft and buy Apple. Neither company sees a red-cent; they just change the address to which they send the dividend cheque.

1) You're neglecting the huge amounts held in pension funds and personal retirement accounts.

2) The fact remains that the money in the stock market has bought productive things--which raises the standard of living of society as a whole.
 
What "productive things" has money in the stock market bought?
 
Really? How?

If I buy stocks (other than in an IPO), then the cash I spend on those stocks goes to the person who is selling some of his shareholding - and despite what Mittens Romney might have told you, poor people typically don't have a lot of shares to sell. Transferring cash between wealthy people in exchange for assets that have a value based on the best guess at future profitability doesn't seem to achieve anything much for the economy, or for the poor. People don't sell Microsoft and buy food; they sell Microsoft and buy Apple. Neither company sees a red-cent; they just change the address to which they send the dividend cheque.

1) You're neglecting the huge amounts held in pension funds and personal retirement accounts.
No, I'm not - those funds do not dwindle away as poor people spend them; indeed they tend to get larger in real terms over time. If a fund manager sells Apple and buys Microsoft, then that transfers no wealth to the poor at all. Only that portion of the fund paid in pensions and lump-sums to poor retirees, LESS the portion received in new contributions from the working poor, represents a transfer of wealth from rich to poor. In many cases that number is negative; in no case is it very large.

2) The fact remains that the money in the stock market has bought productive things--which raises the standard of living of society as a whole.

As ksen asks, What "productive things" has money in the stock market bought?
 
So it sounds like he's read Ayn Rand when he describes the economic class as separate from the political class. Actually all free market economists do so, but that's beside the point. The point is ...

Is he wrong?
 
So it sounds like he's read Ayn Rand when he describes the economic class as separate from the political class.
No, that's not quite it; the tip-off that he is a Randroid is his description of who falls into each of these categories - in particular, his choice of company executives as being part of the economic (white hat wearing, all-American, good guy, Jedi knight, unimpeachable) class, rather than political (black hat wearing, unAmerican, bad guy, sith lord, vile) class.
Actually all free market economists do so, but that's beside the point. The point is ...

Is he wrong?
Yes. Yes, he is wrong to divide people into economic vs political (not because the distinction doesn't exist, but because it lacks utility - it doesn't tell us anything useful or novel); and he is wrong in the way he assigns people to the classes he has defined - his stated definition doesn't match with his list of members of the two groups. He is further wrong to imply that one can divide the world into the virtuous and the vicious, the good and the evil; In the real world, everybody has a mixture of these traits, and generates both benefits and harms for their society. The cartoonish division of people into 'good' vs 'bad' categories is counter-productive - and is another hallmark of Randroid thinking.

As I said before, if, and it is a big 'if', you have to divide power into 'economic' vs 'political', then the way to do it would be by splitting those who produce from those who tell the producers what to do. Supervisors, managers and executives, like bureaucrats and politicians, are very much a part of the 'political' class; People who tell others what to do, and collect handsome payments for so doing. Why being elected by the board of directors makes this calling noble, while being elected by the people renders it ignoble, I have no idea. Why managing a public utility is somehow necessarily and importantly different from managing the same utility as a privatised industry, for a profit, is a mystery.

A nationalised company is essentially a publicly listed company where the shares are all held in trust for the people - who own an equal share each - by the government. This is not fundamentally different from a publicly listed corporation where the shares are held in trust by a fund manager for the wider group of people who pay into their superannuation funds (What I understand Americans call 401k accounts). The main difference (at least in my jurisdiction) is that I have more control over the government, through my vote, than I have over my superannuation fund manager.
 
1) You're neglecting the huge amounts held in pension funds and personal retirement accounts.
No, I'm not - those funds do not dwindle away as poor people spend them; indeed they tend to get larger in real terms over time. If a fund manager sells Apple and buys Microsoft, then that transfers no wealth to the poor at all. Only that portion of the fund paid in pensions and lump-sums to poor retirees, LESS the portion received in new contributions from the working poor, represents a transfer of wealth from rich to poor. In many cases that number is negative; in no case is it very large.

But the money in those funds is not money in the hands of the rich, either.

2) The fact remains that the money in the stock market has bought productive things--which raises the standard of living of society as a whole.

As ksen asks, What "productive things" has money in the stock market bought?

The stock market is a secondary market, necessary to have a meaningful primary market for investment. The people who fund startups do so in the knowledge that success means they can sell it in the stock market. No stock market, far less venture capital investing, far less new ideas coming to market.
 
The stock market is a secondary market, necessary to have a meaningful primary market for investment. The people who fund startups do so in the knowledge that success means they can sell it in the stock market. No stock market, far less venture capital investing, far less new ideas coming to market.
Are you under the impression that firms were not sold prior to the existence of a stock market?
 
The stock market is a secondary market, necessary to have a meaningful primary market for investment. The people who fund startups do so in the knowledge that success means they can sell it in the stock market. No stock market, far less venture capital investing, far less new ideas coming to market.
Are you under the impression that firms were not sold prior to the existence of a stock market?

1) The point of a stock market is to make such trades easier.

2) The effect happens whether you have a formal stock market or not. It's just the stock market makes it easier and thus increases the investment.



Why are you making an issue of something that's obviously irrelevant?
 
Are you under the impression that firms were not sold prior to the existence of a stock market?

1) The point of a stock market is to make such trades easier.

2) The effect happens whether you have a formal stock market or not. It's just the stock market makes it easier and thus increases the investment.
So, it is not necessary in order to have a meaningful primary market for investment.


Why are you making an issue of something that's obviously irrelevant?
You need to beef up your sense of irony. Or is this just an attempt to blow smoke over the fact your claim is false?
 
1) The point of a stock market is to make such trades easier.

2) The effect happens whether you have a formal stock market or not. It's just the stock market makes it easier and thus increases the investment.
So, it is not necessary in order to have a meaningful primary market for investment.


Why are you making an issue of something that's obviously irrelevant?
You need to beef up your sense of irony. Or is this just an attempt to blow smoke over the fact your claim is false?

Whether the market is formal or informal doesn't change the argument that was made against it.
 
Some reasons why gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''
 
Some reasons why gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''

The latter two points I can accept, but the first two sound positively bizarre in their phrasing. Shouldn't they be saying "massive wealth inequality is a problem precisely because everyone is only out for themselves! Economic injustice should lead to resentment and lead to the adoption of more populist policies!" The way it's written, it sounds like they want people to remain ignorant, such that any measure to correct wealth inequality would be no better than one that simply conceals it, lest those terrifying populist policies are nurtured to fruition.
 
Some reasons why gross inequality in wealth distribution is bad for society and economic activity:

''One political consequence of inequality that turns into an economic liability is that it creates a feeling that everyone is only out for themselves. This impression undermines the social cohesion that lubricates economies and societies. As people become more fearful, selfish and insecure, corruption flourishes, crime jumps, anti-social behaviours increase, labour unrest stirs and legal disputes tied to commerce rights rise. When people feel they no longer live in a fair society or one where they have much opportunity they will eventually react.

''A second economic liability created by the political fallout from inequality is that the resentment against economic injustice – epitomised by globalisation – nurtures an environment ripe for populist policies''

''A third political threat from inequality that carries economic costs is that the concentration of economic power can undermine democracy because it gives the mega rich too much political power. As the wealthy use this muscle to expand their economic interests (via, for instance, subsidies or anti-competitive moats around their assets), the core political institutions of society are eroded.''

''Lastly, inequality imposes direct long-term economic costs because unequal societies prove to be faulty and inefficient economies. When too much income and wealth gushes to the top, the middle and lower classes are incapable of marshalling the purchasing power needed to fan sustainable economic growth.''

The latter two points I can accept, but the first two sound positively bizarre in their phrasing. Shouldn't they be saying "massive wealth inequality is a problem precisely because everyone is only out for themselves! Economic injustice should lead to resentment and lead to the adoption of more populist policies!" The way it's written, it sounds like they want people to remain ignorant, such that any measure to correct wealth inequality would be no better than one that simply conceals it, lest those terrifying populist policies are nurtured to fruition.
I don't know, separating inequality from people's feelings about it seems reasonable to me. If people aren't feeling resentful or threatened by someone else being richer than them, how is that a problem?
 
The latter two points I can accept, but the first two sound positively bizarre in their phrasing. Shouldn't they be saying "massive wealth inequality is a problem precisely because everyone is only out for themselves! Economic injustice should lead to resentment and lead to the adoption of more populist policies!" The way it's written, it sounds like they want people to remain ignorant, such that any measure to correct wealth inequality would be no better than one that simply conceals it, lest those terrifying populist policies are nurtured to fruition.
I don't know, separating inequality from people's feelings about it seems reasonable to me. If people aren't feeling resentful or threatened by someone else being richer than them, how is that a problem?

Touche. But given that people do feel resentful, the suggestion that we either make them less resentful or more ignorant would be a valid way to solve the problem by the phrasing I was responding to, and I don't think that does justice to the problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom