business

Soaring wealth in U.S. during pandemic highlights rising inequality

8 Comments
By CHRISTOPHER RUGABER

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

8 Comments
Login to comment

Yet the gains flowed mainly to the most affluent households even as tens of millions of people endured job losses and shrunken incomes.

Under Trump's watch the wealth gap widens. Trump's bungling of the pandemic has hit those at the lower end of the economic spectrum hardest. Trump and his fellow 'elite' Republicans continue to show disdain for their fellow citizens NOT from the 'elite's' economic class. Trump, a president serving his own needs, his family's, and his fellow 'elite'.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

The system in the US is designed to siphon off wealth from the middle and lower classes to the oligarch class, whether you look at the tax structure, cuts to social servises, exploitative labor conditions, corporate welfare to companies, corporate tax avoidance, or dumping taxpayer funds into the military-industrial-surveillance complex, which has basically spawned a military that is used as an economic pressure release for areas of the country whose economies have been worst affected by the offshoring of jobs. Corporatism and democracy are fundamentally incompatible.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

The top 1% owned 31%

Divided States of Dystrumpia

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This one not Trump's fault.  A lockdown like we have seen in so many places obviously harms those with only their labour to sell and with no savings  and benefits those with a lot of capital and flexibility to work remotely.  Note most of those benefitting the most are big Democrat backers......

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

In his seminal 1775 book "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations" Adam Smith wrote:

"they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged"

Smith also wrote:

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged"

The right call this "Socialism", and have turned it into a curse word in America. Therefore, they entirely disagree with this:

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable."

The result being that current day America is a society that is most definitely not flourishing and happy, and the greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This one not Trump's fault. A lockdown like we have seen in so many places obviously harms those with only their labour to sell and with no savings and benefits those with a lot of capital and flexibility to work remotely.

True.

Note most of those benefitting the most are big Democrat backers......

False.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The right call this "Socialism", and have turned it into a curse word in America. Therefore, they entirely disagree with this:

The right wing in the US wouldn't know a socialist if one bit them in the backside. They still conflate social welfare programs with "socialism" which is simply not the case. Socialism means the government owns the means of production, or in other words no private industry. It has nothing to do with social welfare programs or with notions of wealth distribution. Some on the right might want to read the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on the dangers of allowing wealth to accumulate in too few hands. They were adamant that estates be broken up upon the owners death and distributed as widely as possible among as many heirs as could be found. In a time where land equated with wealth and knowing as Madison put it that power accrues to wealth, they wanted land to be distributed as widely as possible among the people so that political power was not allowed to concentrate in the hands of a few wealthy landowners.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites