Is there a benefit to racism?

[Beaker]

Are there individuals or groups that benefit in wealth and power by keeping Americans racially divided?

[Au165]

It makes people feel good about themselves?

[treee]

(08-14-2018, 06:05 AM)Beaker Wrote: Are there individuals or groups that benefit in wealth and power by keeping Americans racially divided?

Are there individuals or groups that benefit in wealth and power by keeping Americans nationalistically divided?

[Belsnickel]

(08-14-2018, 06:05 AM)Beaker Wrote: Are there individuals or groups that benefit in wealth and power by keeping Americans racially divided?

Yes. Throughout history it has been advantageous for the wealthy to foster racial divisions in order for the poor to not come together against them. Every time there has been an organized movement to advance the cause of the lower and lower-middle class people in this country by bringing together poor white people and poor people of color, there has been a strong effort by corporations and wealthy individuals in power to squash those efforts. Not to get too conspiracy theorist, here, but do we think there is any coincidence that MLK was assassinated after beginning his efforts for the Poor People's Campaign? He was moving from racial justice to economic justice, bringing people together, and then he was murdered.

If poor white people and poor people of color were to come together it could be very bad for those with the money and power, so stoking those racist flames is to their benefit.

[Millhouse]

Yes.

The more division and distractions among us peasants, then less attention will be paid towards those that wield unchecked power hidden behind walls within the government.

[Benton]

(08-14-2018, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Throughout history it has been advantageous for the wealthy to foster racial divisions in order for the poor to not come together against them. Every time there has been an organized movement to advance the cause of the lower and lower-middle class people in this country by bringing together poor white people and poor people of color, there has been a strong effort by corporations and wealthy individuals in power to squash those efforts. Not to get too conspiracy theorist, here, but do we think there is any coincidence that MLK was assassinated after beginning his efforts for the Poor People's Campaign? He was moving from racial justice to economic justice, bringing people together, and then he was murdered.

If poor white people and poor people of color were to come together it could be very bad for those with the money and power, so stoking those racist flames is to their benefit.

Agreed.

It's not so much that some people benefit off racism, they just it as a tool to divide people. Because division keeps everyone insulated from other ideas.

The last time poor people came together en masse and supported lawmakers who were making changes to help the poor was the New Deal. That turned out to be the laundry list of things businesses would love to do away with: repealing prohibition (business needs a sober workforce), minimum wage, child labor prohibitions, crop insurance, 44 hour (now 40) work week, etc. Pro-business complain about SS and things that developed out of the New Deal, but those really were never the issue, it was the cost of saying businesses have to at least meet a minimum of working conditions.

[Dill]

(08-14-2018, 06:05 AM)Beaker Wrote: Are there individuals or groups that benefit in wealth and power by keeping Americans racially divided?

Yes, there are people who perceive a benefit in racial division (often poor whites) and there are others who actually reap benefits--like getting elected by promising policies that target racial and ethnic groups perceived to disadvantage the dominant race or races.  People who benefit from the current president's policies--companies ready to drill on Bears Ears National Monument land--owe that benefit in part to the racially divisive rhetoric which got him elected. Voter id policies benefit one party more than another, and the effort to convince people they are necessary keeps Americans racially divided. 

[fredtoast]

(08-14-2018, 09:01 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yes. Throughout history it has been advantageous for the wealthy to foster racial divisions in order for the poor to not come together against them.

This.

The top 10% of the richest citizens in this country have been taking all the new wealth created for decades, but a large portion of the middle and lower classes think poor Mexicans are the ones taking their money.

There are also a small group of "Leaders" on both sides who benefit.  The leaders of white supremacists groups and black activist groups benefit from selling fear to their members, but that is literally only a handful of names.

[Vlad]

(08-14-2018, 03:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

The top 10% of the richest citizens in this country have been taking all the new wealth created for decades, but a large portion of the middle and lower classes think poor Mexicans are the ones taking their money.

There are also a small group of "Leaders" on both sides who benefit.  The leaders of white supremacists groups and black activist groups benefit from selling fear to their members, but that is literally only a handful of names.

"Taking"?...I know, that word just naturally comes out when you hate the rich. "Amassing" would have been a better word.
 
Nevertheless your statement:
The top 10% of the richest citizens in this country have been taking all the new wealth created for decades.
Sounds weird. Can you clarify?

Wealth is created, not taken from someone else.

Speaking of "leaders", Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have gained power by their overblown and false claims of racism thus exacerbating racial division.

[Dill]

(08-14-2018, 10:44 PM)Vlad Wrote: Wealth is created, not taken from someone else.

 
Good to know.  So if an accountant embezzles 100,000 dollars from his employer, then he is "creating" or "amassing" wealth, not taking it from some one else? Or perhaps money is something separate from wealth?

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2018, 07:45 AM)Dill Wrote:  
Good to know.  So if an accountant embezzles 100,000 dollars from his employer, then he is "creating" or "amassing" wealth, not taking it from some one else? Or perhaps money is something separate from wealth?

I think you are seeing the disconnect that a lot of people seem to have regarding capitalism. With a free market, there are going to be winners and losers. The winners win at the expense of the losers. This is the entire premise of capitalism and it doesn't work without it. A winner is taking wealth from the loser through business practices, both legal and illegal, to increase their own holdings. Why people try to deny this basic tenant of capitalism is beyond me.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 09:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think you are seeing the disconnect that a lot of people seem to have regarding capitalism. With a free market, there are going to be winners and losers. The winners win at the expense of the losers. This is the entire premise of capitalism and it doesn't work without it. A winner is taking wealth from the loser through business practices, both legal and illegal, to increase their own holdings. Why people try to deny this basic tenant of capitalism is beyond me.

So if my stock goes up 10%, who lost? If the value of my home goes up 10% who lost?

[GMDino]

(08-15-2018, 09:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So if my stock goes up 10%, who lost?  If the value of my home goes up 10% who lost?

I suppose it depends on the reason.  If your stock went up due to buybacks made with tax cut money then employees that didn't get raises lost.  If your home value rises so will your real estate taxes.  And those of your neighbors eventually.  If income does not rise with that then you all lose.

You are "richer" because you have more things of value...but you don't have any more money.  You got the promotion with the fancy new title...but no raise in salary.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2018, 09:26 AM)michaelsean Wrote: So if my stock goes up 10%, who lost? If the value of my home goes up 10% who lost?

Those things are all valued based upon the estimate that someone is willing to pay for them. Your wealth in those sorts of assets is predicated on the idea that you will be taking money from someone else. The assessed value of your home or the stock valuation of your portfolio is nothing more than some finance person saying "I can make someone pay this amount for this thing to get you money."

You realize that value of your portfolio when you sell, hopefully at a high point, at which point someone will purchase those stocks and, if you did things right, lose value on them because you sold at a high point. You've now created a loser out of the person that purchased those stocks.

Your home's value works in very much the same way. The real value of the home is in the materials that make it up and what is inside of it. Anything beyond that is just speculation on what someone will pay for it. The added value isn't tangible and can be lost at any time. There are a variety of reasons to sell, but the same principal exists in real estate as it does in stocks. You sell to increase your money, hopefully at a high point in the market. If you sell at a high point in the market, then the person that buys will lose out when the market decreases.

Capitalism.

Seriously though, as an accountant, this is the way we tend to think about things. The world of finance is all about this sort of stuff. You get to see how the sausage is made in a free market.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 09:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: I suppose it depends on the reason.  If your stock went up due to buybacks made with tax cut money then employees that didn't get raises lost.  If your home value rises so will your real estate taxes.  And those of your neighbors eventually.  If income does not rise with that then you all lose.

You are "richer" because you have more things of value...but you don't have any more money.  You got the promotion with the fancy new title...but no raise in salary.

That would be like saying when you make more money you pay more income tax  so you are now a loser.  If for every winner there were a loser, then wealth would be static.  

[GMDino]

(08-15-2018, 09:36 AM)michaelsean Wrote: That would be like saying when you make more money you pay more income tax  so you are now a loser.  If for every winner there were a loser, then wealth would be static.  

It would be.  If those who made more paid more like we do.

But the system is set so that a few people make money and pay less/no taxes.  Or they run their business unfettered by regulations and government interference...until they need help and get some tax dollars to bail them out.  

The majority of us do not have those options.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 09:36 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Those things are all valued based upon the estimate that someone is willing to pay for them. Your wealth in those sorts of assets is predicated on the idea that you will be taking money from someone else. The assessed value of your home or the stock valuation of your portfolio is nothing more than some finance person saying "I can make someone pay this amount for this thing to get you money."

You realize that value of your portfolio when you sell, hopefully at a high point, at which point someone will purchase those stocks and, if you did things right, lose value on them because you sold at a high point. You've now created a loser out of the person that purchased those stocks.

Your home's value works in very much the same way. The real value of the home is in the materials that make it up and what is inside of it. Anything beyond that is just speculation on what someone will pay for it. The added value isn't tangible and can be lost at any time. There are a variety of reasons to sell, but the same principal exists in real estate as it does in stocks. You sell to increase your money, hopefully at a high point in the market. If you sell at a high point in the market, then the person that buys will lose out when the market decreases.

Capitalism.

You don't have to sell to have wealth.  The materials are also what someone would pay for it.  There is no value to anything that isn't based on what someone will pay, and what they pay with is subject to market changes.  So when someone says we are willing to give you $60 for that stock you paid $55 for, then my wealth increases even if I didn't sell it.

[*michaelsean*]

(08-15-2018, 09:39 AM)GMDino Wrote: It would be.  If those who made more paid more like we do.

But the system is set so that a few people make money and pay less/no taxes.  Or they run their business unfettered by regulations and government interference...until they need help and get some tax dollars to bail them out.  

The majority of us do not have those options.

Quit thinking about super rich people.  If you get a raise you pay more in taxes.  Now that one is balanced out as the owner now has less, but I'm saying that paying more taxes on more money in this case doesn't make you a loser.  Unless your tax rate is over 100%.

[Dill]

(08-15-2018, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You don't have to sell to have wealth.  The materials are also what someone would pay for it.  There is no value to anything that isn't based on what someone will pay, and what they pay with is subject to market changes.  So when someone says we are willing to give you $60 for that stock you paid $55 for, then my wealth increases even if I didn't sell it.

I think you are refering to exchange value here, which is different from use value. The latter is certainly a "value" even if only indirectly related to exchange.

[Belsnickel]

(08-15-2018, 09:43 AM)michaelsean Wrote: You don't have to sell to have wealth.  The materials are also what someone would pay for it.  There is no value to anything that isn't based on what someone will pay, and what they pay with is subject to market changes.  So when someone says we are willing to give you $60 for that stock you paid $55 for, then my wealth increases even if I didn't sell it.

But even when you look at the speculation it still involves winners and losers. You mention in your post to Dino about wealth being static if this is the way it works, but it isn't. The reason is because the government injects money into the economy. So as wealth is added to the economy through monetary policy. As this money is added into the economy, it is distributed out. If it is distributed out evenly, then there are no winners and losers. However, it doesn't get distributed evenly. When money is injected into the economy you will see an overall increase in wealth. That increase in wealth will go to some people more than others because of things like the speculative market. When there is an overall increase in wealth and you gain during that period, someone else is not gaining from this injection into the economy.

The moving parts to all of this are massive and complex. There are people with degrees in this subject that don't understand all of the ins and outs, and I certainly don't come close. I was actually just talking to an economist friend about this and something else last night at the bar, which is the only reason I can really talk about it like I am. By the end of the week I will have forgotten the conversation.

Addition: The other thing we were discussing was government budget deficits and how they aren't as bad as people think they are. I just realized that this was relevant to this conversation because that is another way that the overall wealth in the nation is increased. The reason deficit spending is used to pull an economy out of a recession is because a budget deficit puts money into the economy while a budget surplus removes money from it.