Real vs. Imagined Wealth Distribution in the US

Posted by on Sunday, January 2, 2011 · 24 Comments 


The chart above is from a study examining the actual wealth distribution in the US versus what people thought it was and what they believe would be the ideal.  The top line in the chart depicts the actual wealth distribution which shows that the richest 20% own over 80% of the wealth while the bottom 80% own 20%.  The bottom 40% ( 4th 20% and bottom 20%) own such a small percentage of the nation’s wealth that they don’t even show up on the chart.  The remaining lines captioned as “Estimated” and “Ideal” represent what people think it is and what it should be, respectively, broken down by income, sex and voter.  Across demographics, the estimated  and ideal wealth distribution is consistent and dramatically different than the actual.  Basically, most people have no idea of what the actual wealth distribution in the nation is and one wonders what the reaction would be if they had to reconcile the actual with their ideal.   Would the general public would turn into wealth redistributionists?

It’s strange that wealth redistribution is a topic that’s discussed more than the skewed distribution of wealth itself.  Stranger still is the fact that most of those concerned about someone taking something from them are in the bottom quintiles that barely show up on the chart.  Even stranger is their role in the front lines in the fight against their very economic interests.

Wealth is power and a part of that power is the ability to finance and control the conversation through the media.  This results in shaping the public debate towards a predetermined synthesis that never addresses the real issues, but serves to prevent them from ever entering the public debate to begin with.

Vast concentrations of wealth are a risky proposition for any nation mainly because its economic fortunes are tied to a small group.  So if they decide to take their ball elsewhere, the game is over, not to mention the undue influence exerted over the rules while it’s still on.

This is yet another elephant in the room that goes unacknowledged.

Related Posts

Filed under Economics · Tagged with , ,

  • Pingback: Tweets that mention Real vs. Imagined Wealth Distribution in the US | The African American Clarion Call -- Topsy.com

  • Black Diaspora

    “Vast concentrations of wealth are a risky proposition for any nation mainly because its economic fortunes are tied to a small group. So if they decide to take their ball elsewhere, the game is over, not to mention the undue influence exerted over the rules while it’s still on.”

    The founding fathers wrestled with this during the formation of this nation: Simply put, how should they structure the government under consideration to keep the have-nots from taking wealth from the haves.

    That concern was paramount in their minds, and in no small measure helped shaped the final product.

    The American people and its monetary currency constitute whatever wealth this nation can lay claim to. Unless those with the “ball” have something other than U.S. greenbacks (gold, silver, platinum, or what have you) with which to barter, it’s in their best interest to keep the game going.

    So, it’s not surprising that “The Pledge,” currently featured on my blog, is gaining interest, and some of the wealthiest among us are pledging to return to the people from which it came, as much as half of their accumulated wealth–representing billions of dollars of their vast earnings.

    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

      >>The founding fathers wrestled with this during the formation of this nation: Simply put, how should they structure the government under consideration to keep the have-nots from taking wealth from the haves.

      That concern was paramount in their minds, and in no small measure helped shaped the final product. <<<

      This is one thing that the Jefferson had correct. I'm going to post a very funny and enlightening video on this shortly about the concern the founding fathers had with private bankers snatching the wealth from the have nots. They knew that vast concentrations of wealth this weren't sustainable (even as they were clearly about building their own wealth). It lines up directly with what you day above.

  • I own negative wealth

    And we wonder whats wrong with the economy. Most americans have no idea!
    Whats the top 1% own %75 – %80? why create jobs when you already own most of the economy? but thats ok the u.s. dollars they own will soon be worthless

    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

      I own,

      Thanks for dropping by and commenting.  I think if the general public is not careful, we’ll be the ones holding the worthless currency after they use it to acquire real assets and wealth.  Yes, you’re spot on, most Americans have no idea.

  • http://twitter.com/WayneFromNaz Wayne Schissler

    I guess this will have to be filed under “Now for something completely different”….

    Greg L said,
    “Stranger still is the fact that most of those concerned about someone taking something from them are in the bottom quintiles that barely show up on the chart. Even stranger is their role in the front lines in the fight against their very economic interests.”

    Wouldn’t everyone be “concerned about someone taking something from them”? Not so strange.
    How does the fact that there are people wealthier than others go against their economic interests? I find that idea strange.
    And how strange to believe that there is some sort of ideal in wealth distribution. Who decides that? By what moral right?

    Hopes this helps your understanding of what you find strange.

    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

      >>Wouldn’t everyone be “concerned about someone taking something from them”? Not so strange.<>How does the fact that their are people wealthier than others go against their economic interests? I find that idea strange.<>And how strange to believe that there is some sort of ideal in wealth distribution. Who decides that? By what moral right?<>Hopes this helps your understanding of what you find strange.<<

      I still find it strange that some people continue to clamor for our skewed income and wealth distribution to continue. Is it true that the tea party thinks that sky high taxes are robbing them and re-distributing their wealth? Please explain how and why that is as I'm curious where they got that notion. To be honest, I find that strange.

      Perhaps I've missed something here and you know what they say about inquiring minds; we just wanna know.

      • http://twitter.com/WayneFromNaz Wayne Schissler

        Well first keep in mind that I don’t speak for “the tea party”, I speak for myself. But I’m sure there are many that believe as I.

        To make myself clearer, maybe I should have said that I find *the idea* that there is this concept of an ideal distribution strange. I would have balked at answering that poll question. The answer isn’t a certain percentage here for this quintile and another percentage over there. The answer is that, “it is what it is”.

        When I said “Who decides that? By what moral right?” I wasn’t referring to the polling answers. The implication behind an “ideal” is that there’s a right and wrong behind what a person should be allowed to earn. That’s what I find strange.

        Personally I do not feel “robbed” every year. I’m not in that high of a bracket. The one year I felt robbed was when I received an inheritance. And there was one year that I was eligible for EIN and I felt like a thief! EIN actually shocked me. So I think I’ve seen re-distribution.

        Greg l said,
        “It only goes against their economic interests if they wind up poorer as a result. Why would the tea party actually cheer policies that further their continued economic denouement?”

        Could you explain that? Why would I wind up poorer due to a rich person getting richer? Or do you mean something else by this?

        • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

          >>To make myself clearer, maybe I should have said that I find *the idea* that there is this concept of an ideal distribution strange. I would have balked at answering that poll question. The answer isn’t a certain percentage here for this quintile and another percentage over there. The answer is that, “it is what it is”.

          When I said “Who decides that? By what moral right?” I wasn’t referring to the polling answers. The implication behind an “ideal” is that there’s a right and wrong behind what a person should be allowed to earn. That’s what I find strange.<<

          Do you have some notion or expectation of what you'd like your community to look like? I'm certain that you have an idea of what you'd like to see in terms of your public schools' performance on the PSA's. What if 80% of the students at your kid's school scored below standard on the PSA? I doubt you'd dismiss it as "it is what it is". You'd likely have an ideal of what it should be and work towards that.

          The chart shows the actual, expected and ideal wealth distribution. In a way, it reflects perhaps our self perception, especially since the expected and the ideal match so closely. Both are dramatically different from "what is". In a way, the expected and ideal are a function of what's been sold to us as to what America is. That which has been sold is much different than what is actually the case.

          Most people have egalitarian notions about what they'd like to see their society to be. That extends to the allocation of wealth, education, opportunity and etc. Why do you consider that strange?

          More later.

          • http://twitter.com/WayneFromNaz Wayne Schissler

            Re: Education… I guess the ideal is where “all the children are above average” (destroying the concept of average) and for wealth a place where the streets are paved with gold so that it doesn’t matter. See, my ideal is better than yours ;-) but these are heavenly ideas unfitted for reality on earth.

            After that we have the “ideal” that we’re conditioned with, distribution on a bell curve. So when the teacher’s test results are not on the curve he either, “grades to the curve”, dumbs down the test, or works on the children that would bring the results in line with expectations. The first is a false unsatisfying remedy, the 2nd disastrous, the third is probably more in line with reality although we know 1 & 2 does happen. But then in our quest to leave no child left behind we learn that so much is out of the hands of the teacher, that environment and innate ambition/smarts come into play.

            If we would transfer an expectation like that onto wealth then the implication is that the people will have to be manipulated like students to achieve the ideal.

            I have to leave now, maybe more later.

            • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

              >>After that we have the “ideal” that we’re conditioned with, distribution on a bell curve. So when the teacher’s test results are not on the curve he either, “grades to the curve”, dumbs down the test, or works on the children that would bring the results in line with expectations. The first is a false unsatisfying remedy, the 2nd disastrous, the third is probably more in line with reality although we know 1 & 2 does happen. But then in our quest to leave no child left behind we learn that so much is out of the hands of the teacher, that environment and innate ambition/smarts come into play.<<

              I didn't suggest that anything be normed or "re-distributed". I was just responding to your assertion that you thought it was "strange" that people had ideals about their society. I think it's been clearly established that it's quite normal for people to have expectations and those egalitarian notions explain why the expected and desired wealth distribution reflected in the study are as they are. They are also vastly different that the actual. The problem here is that most people have no idea how vastly the actual situation differs from their expectations. That will eventually need to be reconciled.

              Do we live in a zero sum world? It seems to me that many of those in the tea party fear that someone's trying to take something from them or re-distribute something away from them. I'm trying to figure out who you guys think is taking from you. A big government? Other people?

              • http://twitter.com/WayneFromNaz Wayne Schissler

                Greg L said,
                “Do we live in a zero sum world? It seems to me that many of those in the tea party fear that someone’s trying to take something from them or re-distribute something away from them. I’m trying to figure out who you guys think is taking from you. A big government? Other people?”

                No, it’s not a zero sum world.

                I’ve already related my re-distribution experience. Taxed quite heavily one year on income that was inherited (that’s income tax, not inheritance tax) and in another year had received quite a bit of money from Earned Income Credit that seemed like a gift. EIC is not tax refund money – it’s getting back more than you paid in. Much more in my one experience. So I have seen redistribution via the tax code in a personal way. It does happen.

                Is your point that I’m more likely to be in the receiving (EIC or other tax break) quintile than in the “giving” group? So I should be OK with it? Forgive me if I’m reading you wrong, but I’ve seen this attitude expressed by other “progressive” bloggers.

                ———————————————-
                Earlier
                Greg l said,
                “It only goes against their economic interests if they wind up poorer as a result. Why would the tea party actually cheer policies that further their continued economic denouement?”

                and I replied,
                “Could you explain that? Why would I wind up poorer due to a rich person getting richer? Or do you mean something else by this?”
                ————-

                I’m still no closer to understanding what you mean. What are these policies that “further their continued economic denouement?”

                • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

                  >>I’ve already related my re-distribution experience. Taxed quite heavily one year on income that was inherited (that’s income tax, not inheritance tax) and in another year had received quite a bit of money from Earned Income Credit that seemed like a gift. EIC is not tax refund money – it’s getting back more than you paid in. Much more in my one experience. So I have seen redistribution via the tax code in a personal way. It does happen.

                  Is your point that I’m more likely to be in the receiving (EIC or other tax break) quintile than in the “giving” group?<<<

                  I know nothing about your personal situation other than what you choose to provide here and it's inappropriate for me to comment on it directly, so I won't because it's not relevant. Although your anecdotal personal experiences with taxes and the like might make interesting small talk, they certainly don't speak to broad trends encountered by most people and should not form the basis for broad based opinions nor, by extension, public policies. This is so because your anecdotal experiences, while perhaps meaningful to you, do not represent a broad statistical measure of what's happening to taxes and related federal expenditures at large, not to mention that they're subject to your personal "feelings" about things rather than a factual basis about what actually is. What I refer to here is your "feeling" that you've experienced " re-distribution" via the tax code in your personal circumstances and your conclusion that your anecdotal experiences are prima facie evidence of apparent socialist re-distribution inherent in the tax code because low income earners qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

                  I prefer to deal with facts not "feelings".

                  Here's a fact: EITC represents about $ 36 BILLION in spending to 21 million low income families, Yes, it is a poverty program, but it's a poverty program that's generally considered stimulative and a job creator. This is so because many of the folks who receive these refunds spend them immediately consuming whatever the latest consumer gadgets are. This spending, it turn, generates additional taxes for the treasury, hence the program itself may very well be neutral (incremental tax revenues offset the cost of the subsidy). If I find the numbers to support that, I'll provide the information. One thing is clear however, for this program to be a "wealth re-distribution" program, the recipients would have to KEEP the money rather than SPEND it. Hence, if there's any wealth re-distribution associated with EITC, it would be found among the retailers of consumer products and not the recipients. I'll even go one further and suggest that if people ever started actually saving it, this program would be cut overnight. It exists mainly as a subsidy to retailers and others with stuff to sell EITC recipients. Actually, my "feelings" (see I have them too, I just make sure I characterize them as such) are that most welfare and poverty programs are set up similarly.

                  Here's another fact: Total defense spending for fiscal 2010 was about $ 1.0 TRILLION and accounted for 20% to 45% of federal expenditures depending on how one measures it. (If you exclude entitlement spending, the level of expenditure is the 45%– I won't get into all the details as to why you'd want to measure the expenditure level excluding entitlements). This level of expenditure is nearly 30 times EITC and much of this winds up in the coffers of munitions manufacturers.

                  All things being equal when comparing these two, it's clear that the lion's share of your taxes are in fact going for wealth re-distribution, it just so happens that it's not going in the manner in which you "felt". That's frequently a problem with the tea party.

                  I think the best way to overcome facts is with a better set of facts. In other words, facts should support your feelings.

                  Please explain why you believe EITC (or anything else you'd like to choose) is a wealth re-distribution program and who is benefiting at your expense. I'd appreciate your backing it up with facts.

                  (BTW, I'm not ignoring your question to me. We'll get to it in during this series of exchanges).

                  • http://twitter.com/WayneFromNaz Wayne Schissler

                    Here’s the short succinct answer…

                    Greg L. said,
                    “Please explain why you believe EITC (or anything else you’d like to choose) is a wealth re-distribution program and who is benefiting at your expense. I’d appreciate your backing it up with facts.”

                    Government redistributes wealth. It collects money by taxing, not by creating it. Unless it’s collecting fees for services rendered, like toll roads or garbage collection, it’s redistribution. Since you mentioned it, there’s my anything else… just about everything else.

                    At my expense? In May of ’09 our president admited on CSPAN that “We are out of money”. The PA budget is in shambles. Local government debt is similarly out of control. Try adding up what your town, school district, & county debt is for a real eye opener. So… don’t you think that it’s at everybody’s expense, plus interest?

                    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

                      >>Government redistributes wealth.<>Apparently you *feel* that EIC is a more effecatious way to stimulate the economy than spending it on defense. I don’t know how you quantify that out factually since they are two very different programs. <<

                      Actually, I think neither are effective. I'm just drawing your attention to where money is being "redistributed". You implied that EITC recipients are the beneficiaries of this "redistribution" and I've established that they're not.

                      To reiterate, EITC recipients aren't being served by the tax credit. The commercial tax preparers with the refund loans and the retailers are the main parties being served by EITC. At the end of the day, the recipients have nothing and few prospects for anything other than that. So, no, this program doesn't help them.

                      The tax subsidy given to the munitions manufacturers effectively underwrites the R & D to support weapons development for the arms trade. Our nation is the top exporter of arms which means private arms export profits are underwritten by the taxpayer. Our nation also spends nearly half of the world's expenditures on military. In other words, the US spending on military alone is nearly equal to the rest of the world COMBINED; a huge and unnecessary level of expenditure. The conservative argument frequently revolves around the fact that the government is ineffective and inefficient, yet somehow the same government that can't handle other functions is suddenly considered the paragon of efficiency when it comes to defense (more like offense) spending. This is even as we hear about reports of toilets costing $ 3,000 and billions just "lost" in Iraq. The opportunity cost of what could be done with this kind of money is incalculable. Hence, we pay in two pays; the hard costs and the opportunity costs.

                      There's no real "bang for the buck" out of either. You can't have a sustainable economy based on maintaining poverty as an economic stimulus or war as a business model.

                    • http://twitter.com/WayneFromNaz Wayne Schissler

                      Greg L said,

                      >>Government redistributes wealth.<<

                      "If that's the case, then it logically follows that the skewed wealth distribution reflected in the chart is in fact supported by the government's tax policies. It also logically follows that you should now be able to answer this question: " Why would I wind up poorer due to a rich person getting richer? " If you fall in quintiles underrepresented on the chart, then it should be clear that you're clearly not the recipient of the distribution and it also should be clear where the money is going."
                      ———————————————

                      Does the chart show that the rich upper quintile received that money from the government redistribution of wealth? This "logic" has one hell of a leap in it!

                      ——————————————–
                      Greg L said,
                      "This effectively sets up a fight over "scraps from table" while you falsely identify with the top quintile who owns 80%+ of the nation's wealth. This means you're positioned politically to pursue and support policies that are actually inimical to your own interests while you fight with those like yourself whose wealth is so minimal if doesn't even show on the chart."
                      ———————————————

                      This is key to what I've been trying to get across. It is what I have experienced with other "progressives". I think it's that basically you, the observer, see what's occuring with the Tea Party through the prism of your expectations of us as a typical political constituency. It's why you're not understanding my distain for the very idea of an anticipated "ideal" distribution.

                      The idea that the economy is a pie and that all we're doing is looking for policies that make sure "we got ours", or the scraps as you say, is a disgusting concept to us. In fact at one point during Friday night's general meeting (which was open to all) the fact that our efforts toward lower taxes, less debt, and small goverment will affect many of us adversly was acknowledged as necessary sacrifices.

                      What I'm trying to say is that politicians have for too long assumed that they can buy the votes that keep them in power by breaking up the populace into competing constituent groups that they can promise goodies to. By stepping out of this mindset you put the politician on the defensive. It's why the esthablishment of both parties have resisted and attempted to co-opt our efforts. They don't understand something that can't be bought.

                      ————————————————-
                      Greg L. said,
                      "Actually, I think neither are effective. I'm just drawing your attention to where money is being "redistributed". You implied that EITC recipients are the beneficiaries of this "redistribution" and I've established that they're not.

                      To reiterate, EITC recipients aren't being served by the tax credit. The commercial tax preparers with the refund loans and the retailers are the main parties being served by EITC. At the end of the day, the recipients have nothing and few prospects for anything other than that. So, no, this program doesn't help them."
                      —————————————————

                      First, you do not need a tax preparer or a refund loan to obtain EIC money. In fact you can have your future EIC amount calculated and it will be added to your future paychecks. And to say that since the recipients have nothing to show for it at the end of the day is proof that the program doesn't help them is like saying if I spend my entire paycheck then my job doesn't help me either. I'm sorry, but what you think you've esthablished is certainly not what you meant to, even though I'd agree that it doesn't help them in the long run. Making people comfortable (to varying degrees) in their poverty does not lift them out of it.

                      As for defense, I understand your points. I think the majority of the Tea Party membership would be opposed to $3,000 toilets, missing billions, or defense projects funded more for creating jobs in a congressman's district than for their need in our actual defense. The same for our worldwide presence, providing defense for allies that should provide for their own. I don't think you'll see the majority of us (though there are some) that would like to see it cut to the levels I sense you would like to see it cut to. Residual cultural cold war expectations (we're #1) and the current conflict complicate that. You're welcome to fault us for that.

                      I'm not sure if there's anything left to be said. Maybe this…

                      The idea that we feel that we are the rich that needs protection from government might be an argument you have heard or infer fron your bar chart — like the redneck bumber sticker, "Keep Working, Millions on Welfare are Depending on You!" HaHa. Yes, it's drool and it's not on my car. But that idea doesn't preclude the notion that the driver of that car doesn't realize that there's plenty of people richer than him. Does he necessarily think that those richer than him should support him? Not if he realizes it's unfair for him to support others. Rich is a relative term… it's the guy making a buck more than you.

                      Nothing will get done as long as we let the politicians continue to buy our votes.

                    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

                      >>Does the chart show that the rich upper quintile received that money from the government redistribution of wealth? This “logic” has one hell of a leap in it!<>It’s why you’re not understanding my distain for the very idea of an anticipated “ideal” distribution.<>First, you do not need a tax preparer or a refund loan to obtain EIC money. In fact you can have your future EIC amount calculated and it will be added to your future paychecks. And to say that since the recipients have nothing to show for it at the end of the day is proof that the program doesn’t help them is like saying if I spend my entire paycheck then my job doesn’t help me either.<>I think the majority of the Tea Party membership would be opposed to $3,000 toilets, missing billions, or defense projects funded more for creating jobs in a congressman’s district than for their need in our actual defense. The same for our worldwide presence, providing defense for allies that should provide for their own. I don’t think you’ll see the majority of us (though there are some) that would like to see it cut to the levels I sense you would like to see it cut to.<>What I’m trying to say is that politicians have for too long assumed that they can buy the votes that keep them in power by breaking up the populace into competing constituent groups that they can promise goodies to. By stepping out of this mindset you put the politician on the defensive. It’s why the esthablishment of both parties have resisted and attempted to co-opt our efforts. They don’t understand something that can’t be bought….. Nothing will get done as long as we let the politicians continue to buy our votes. <<<

                      On this point, we are in agreement and again, I thank you for expressing your views.

  • I own negative wealth

    Very true

    How valuable is the currency when its not built to create wealth but its designed to be spent upon possesion? Todays dollar is a clone of the mIners coin. we the “%40 or average” america work to consume/servive while the corpirates make money on both sides of the deal. So what are we to do continue plaing the “ball game” or not participate and watch the show from a distance?

    We to can take our ball somwheres else and they can have the game

    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

      We to can take our ball somwheres else and they can have the game

      I think this is going to be a big trend as people see where the game has led us.  Many people are going to take their ball and say to hell with the game.

      In a way, the behavior of many people were shaped so they could be “gamed” and what they’re left with is debts and joblessness.  I think a lot of people are going to re-examine this whole thing and in the end, they’ll function like the older depression era folks.  Actually, had everyone been thinking like that versus all this mindless consumerism, they could have never run this game to begin with.

  • http://functionalculture.blogspot.com Constructive_Feedback

    Greg L:

    Can you define for us what “WEALTH DISTRIBUTION” is AND (note the conjunction) what YOU are willing to do to ENGINEER more “balance”?

    IF a “Least of These” person was lifted up to the MEDIAN rate and did NOTHING ORGANICALLY to support this higher rate – would it trouble you that this person has no particular increase in skills that he SOLD to someone to substantiate this higher standard of living?

    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

      CF,

      Before I respond, please point out where I’ve made the argument that things ought be “re-distributed” or “normed”.

      Wayne Shissler came in here arguing that he and his tea party felt that things were being taken away from them and given to the “least of these” and I fail to see where that is evidenced and Shissler produced nothing to establish that.  What is clear however is that there is a redistribution scheme that’s been deployed and that reflected in the chart and supported by a number of policies.  Those policies have centralized wealth and power and are at the root of the current economic challenges.

  • SWAMPTHANG2

          What drew me to this site was…..about 2 yrs ago i sponsored a youth summit at a local park and my flier was titled a “clarion call”. So many people asked me who was Clarion. Tje flier was changed. What a waste of a good education if all i can use is 3rd grade words.
          Now on to the economic delimna… If you’ll take a look at nielsonwire.com and examine african american consumer power, I can not understand why we don’t realize the potential power that we  possess?
          Until all the broken down, washed out voters realize the extreme power that they possess within their spending habits, I ask you to zip it up and stop expecting an average guy to do more for you than you do for yourselves. I’m speaking of those of you who make the asinie comments of the lack of backbone that you perceive our President not to have. Well how about the times when you complain about the cost of gas, then you wave at your children at the mall or the drivethru in the families’ extra car. Or what about the half-witted attempt you make at being stylish and in the know changing cell phones like you change undies!
          I took this quandry to the streets and ended up in the camp of a well seasoned soldiette, my blessed 82 yr old mom, and she armed me with these pearls of wisdom while my dad quenched the spirits. “You must LEARN!,..Then you must ACCEPT THAT that you have learned!” “There will be no positive movement until this takes place!  Ain’t that a real mother for ya!
          I find that wealth gain in this manner (nearly a trillion dollars annually from african americans alone) is somewhat perverse because it makes the poor giver love its oppressor and the oppressor enthralled in the stupidity of the oppressed, feels compelled to treat the poor and oppressed with disregard, disdain and disrespect. The oppressor never imagined he would have so much wealth but the oppressed just keep giving what they really don’t have. Everyone involved is put in a precarious position here…ALL PERVERSED!!.

    • http://theafricanamericanclarioncall.com Greg L

      >>>I find that wealth gain in this manner (nearly a trillion dollars annually from african americans alone) is somewhat perverse because it makes the poor giver love its oppressor and the oppressor enthralled in the stupidity of the oppressed, feels compelled to treat the poor and oppressed with disregard, disdain and disrespect.<<
      Generally, African-Americans need to become fully aware of the potential of the dollars in our pockets and how their misuse winds up working against us.  Those of us who are aware of this, need to undertake teaching others and modeling the appropriate behavior when it comes to money.  I think it really gets down to a value system and the system needs to move away from valuing bling and move towards valuing freedom.  When one values freedom in the truest sense, he will never allow his behavior to become the fuel that others use to  enslave him.  Some call this enlightened self interest.
      Thanks for visiting and sharing your thoughts.

      ________________________________

  • Pingback: Real Wealth Income Generator Trade Alert Software

Page 1 of 11