In this crazy world with the constant barrage of news telling us how the big boys screwed up, how supersized banks are poised at the edge of collapse, an average American such as myself, has to wonder. Does it make sense for the federal government to hand out taxpayers’ money to the wealthiest people while regular folks are told to do with less, to tighten their belts, to accept salary decreases in a bloated economy?

How can one business exist whose failure will adversely affect the whole economy? How can a nation as rich and huge as America be financially dependent on a few monster corporations? It seems to me that a company that large should not exist. It’s a threat to national security.

The early years of this century saw prices rise dramatically on houses, energy, medical expenses, and education; essential items. Prices came down on gimcrakery, gadgets and large screen TVs. Yet workers salaries stagnated. Interest rates on passbooks and certificates of deposit plunged. A vast inequity ballooned money into the hands of fewer and fewer people.

In 1980 – 90% of the American population owned 63% of the wealth.
In 2005 – 90% of the American population owned 51.5% of the wealth, which is the same proportion as in 1929. And we all know what happened in 1929.

1927 saw crazed speculation when Wall Street sucked in huge amounts of money invested in real estate and stocks rather than commercial ventures. Interest payments on federal debt grew to 1/3 of the federal budget. Machinery had replaced manpower in industry and occupations in traditional crafts declined. Money spent on advertising to increase customer desires outweighed demand. Workers salaries rose (unlike the past 8 years) but not in proportion with out-put. Sound familiar?

The percentage of wealth owned by the 99% majority of Americans grew from 1922 to its peak in 1976 after which, their share began to decline. By 2001, the top 1% of households owned 33% of the wealth.

In 2001, the top 20% owned 84% of the wealth.
In 2001, the lower 80% owned 16% of the wealth.

From 1950 – 1975, for each dollar going to each person in the 90% majority, $4.00 went into the hands of the top 1%. Okay. That’s fair.

From 1981 – 2005, for each dollar going to each person on the 90% majority, $5,000.000 went to the top 1%. That’s insane!

The imbalance is ludicrous. In the recent past, America’s economy seemed to depend on all of us passing money back and forth, buying and selling giant outdoor grills and overpriced houses. Suddenly, the customers are running out of money. Workers began to produce goods that they could not afford to buy.

So what does the federal government do? They hand out money to banks that were supposed to make more loans available to Joe Lunchbucket for a new car and Joe Who-Wasn’t-Really-A-Plumber for his small business. But the monster banks that received our moola used it to buy up other banks.

AIG, the monster mortgage investment firm handed out 165 million dollars of its share of our money to the very executives who presided over the largest quarterly drop in history! Chairman Liddy claimed that the large bonuses and retention pay is critical to hold on to the best and the brightest. If they are the best and brightest, why do they need our money?

Meanwhile, General Motors, in thanks for federal help, has promised to cut workers salaries and employee share of health benefits. Our tax dollars are going to screw workers out of their livelihood because executives made poor choices.

The great philosopher, Plato, believed that in order for a society to remain healthy, a 5 - 1 ratio of rich to poor was a safe disparity.

J.P. Morgan thought that, in business, the top earning bosses should be compensated 20 times more than the workers.

CEO compensation has quadrupled since 1993. Today, the average CEO's compensation is 364 times the income of his average employee. J.P. Morgan would be shocked.

Nancy Birdsall (founding president of the Center for Global Development and former Director of Economic Reform Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) points out that a certain economic disparity is healthy for stable society. Constructive inequality of wealth distribution encourages growth and benefits the common good. But, she points out, destructive inequality is inefficient, constrains growth, and contributes to civil unrest.

I am sick and tired of hearing about how greedy we all are. The average household earning $50,000 is not the size of a small hotel with a $40,000 SUV the size of a delivery van parked out front.

America has gone crazy. I listen to AM talk shows (so, I’m masochistic). I want to hear what they’re saying. The big whine concerns left wing liberals who want to destroy the county by stealing money from the hardest working Americans. The left wing fiends want to redistribute the wealth!

Fine. Don’t redistribute it. Let the balloon grow until it pops. People aren’t buying now.

Okay, compared to the rest of the world, and Americans who lived in the early part of the 20th century, we are a bit spoiled. We are used to affordable housing, affordable consumer goods and a generally high standard of living.
 
But, respect for authority ceases when authority no longer commands respect. When you’re lied to and cheated out of your hard-earned money, the old rules no longer apply. It works both ways.

Summer is coming. We won’t be holed up shivering in our darkened houses. Well be out there talking. We can’t afford the Mall, restaurants, vacations, or entertainment. Is it safe to have a large population of disgruntled spoiled brats who don’t trust business, the medical establishment, or the government?