FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

As the single most important technology to counter the negative effects of economic inequality, we need to create the demand for its development and use now.

CLICK HERE to learn more about the EIRA.

Posted on: » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:15 pm #11

User avatar
Doctor A
Volunteer
Volunteer
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #10, Posted Jun 5, 2018
Here is the bottom line from Jessica's post,
The point is, boycotts do work.
Short of a revolution, which are more often than not usually fast moving violent events, a boycott via the EIRA is our most valuable tool to use.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Doctor A » Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:15 pm

Income Inequality Is A Destroyer Of Civilizations. It Can Be Mitigated By Policy But Only Leveled By Upheaval. For This Reason Political Policy Will Not Stop Income And Economic Inequality But It Can Be Stopped With The Economic Inequality Rating App.

Many of us are politically active but that is not sufficient by itself to stop income and economic inequality. Economic inequality is an extremely powerful driving force that annihilates many of the gains produced by political policy. For all the energy and hope we exert politically, it is just not enough by itself to counter the negative outcomes generated by the wealthy elite. We keep slipping further and further behind.

The Economic Inequality Rating App is a new way to counter the impact of income and economic inequality that transcends the political process and its inability through policy to counter the ravaging impact of the wealthy elite's grip upon us.

Why you ask should we support First Rate Crowd's Economic Inequality Rating App?

The answer is based upon history.

Stanford Professor Walter Scheidel is quite frank when he writes about income inequality in his new book, "The Great Leveler."
"Income Inequality is a Destroyer of Civilizations"

The Professor says, "income inequality can be mitigated by policy, but is only leveled by upheaval - produced by war, state collapse, or revolution"
An interview with the professor by Jack Thomas, Published in The Intellectualist on May 12th, 2018
http://www.collegeofcomplexes.org/Incom ... tions.html

But there is another way; it is a boycott as per First Rate Crowd's EIRA.

If you think there are not enough policy ideas out there to go around, and as the professor states, will only mitigate income inequality, here is a listing form the Washington Post, Wonkblog Analysis

How 12 experts would end inequality if they ran America
by Jeff Stein April 6, 2018
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... -america/?

Imagine if you had complete control of the U.S. government: What one thing would you do to reduce the country's staggering economic inequality?

I. Massive expansion of local housing stock (Will Wilkinson, Niskanen Center)
II. Universal access to child care, funded by a tax on capital (Heather Boushey, Washington Center for Equitable Growth)
III. Ship the 1 percent to Venezuela (David Azerrad, Heritage Foundation)
IV. A big boost to union rights, universal social wealth fund (Matt Bruenig, People's Policy Project)
V. Create a trust for every American baby (Darrick Hamilton, the New School)
VI. Pick up the antitrust stick and wield it (Marshall Steinbaum, Roosevelt Institute)
VII. Dramatically expand Social Security (Valerie Wilson, Economic Policy Institute);
VIII. Give every American a federal savings account (Ernie Tedeschi, former Treasury economist)
IX. Rein in Wall Street, crack down on white-collar crime (Stephanie Kelton, Stony Brook University)
X. A national infrastructure program, funded by the 1 percent (Robert Frank, Cornell University)
XI. Get government out of the way, repeal rules and regulations (Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform)
XII. A federal tax credit for first-time home buyers (Signe-Mary McKernan, Urban Institute)
The other ways to remedy the situation, through war, disease, state collapse, or revolution, are quite unpalatable.

As professor Walter Scheidel points our,
"Are mass violence and catastrophes the only forces that can seriously decrease economic inequality?"

"To judge by thousands of years of history, the answer is yes. Tracing the global history of inequality from the Stone Age to today, Walter Scheidel shows that inequality never dies peacefully. Inequality declines when carnage and disaster strike and increases when peace and stability return. The Great Leveler is the first book to chart the crucial role of violent shocks in reducing inequality over the full sweep of human history around the world."

"Ever since humans began to farm, herd livestock, and pass on their assets to future generations, economic inequality has been a defining feature of civilization. Over thousands of years, only violent events have significantly lessened inequality. The "Four Horsemen" of leveling—mass-mobilization warfare, transformative revolutions, state collapse, and catastrophic plagues—have repeatedly destroyed the fortunes of the rich. Scheidel identifies and examines these processes, from the crises of the earliest civilizations to the cataclysmic world wars and communist revolutions of the twentieth century. Today, the violence that reduced inequality in the past seems to have diminished, and that is a good thing. But it casts serious doubt on the prospects for a more equal future. An essential contribution to the debate about inequality, The Great Leveler provides important new insights about why inequality is so persistent—and why it is unlikely to decline anytime soon."
Certainly the time for action is now with the Economic Inequality Rating App. Sitting on the sidelines is no longer an option.

A Guardian article by Michael Savage, April 7th, 2018 indicates the trajectory we are currently on with the headline, "Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030"
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... point-2030

I also like what Jessica said in her post #10 under the Community Business Venture when she responded as to why the EIRA is so important?
So there you have it, the age old process of the rich using their power to become even richer while cementing their control over the rest of us for their own benefit. This in their minds is inevitable and they act as if it is their ordained privilege.

I for one do not agree. It is neither inevitable nor ordained. Rather it is a manufactured situation and anything manufactured is not guaranteed to last if we are willing to do something about it.

Let us not forget what this evil can do to us. We need only to look to our future as a reflection of our not so distant past.
“This work was strictly voluntary, but any animal who absented himself from it would have his rations reduced by half.”
― George Orwell, Animal Farm

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Although the possible horrors of the George Orwell books were written in the past, they are a prescient reminder of what will happen to the face of humanity should we not act. This is why I became an active member of First Rate Crowd and support the Community Business Venture. It is my way to guard against repeating the atrocities of the past and my bridge to a brighter future. Without hesitation I say what happens on this website is consequential. We are at the precipice and will lose the fight against this cruel tyranny unless action is taken. Donald Trump is the face of this tyranny. It is important we come together as a community to stop him now.
Times Referenced: 3

Posted on: » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:25 pm #12

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #11, Posted Sep 4, 2018
Income Inequality Is A Destroyer Of Civilizations. It Can Be Mitigated By Policy But Only Leveled By Upheaval. For This Reason Political Policy Will Not Stop Income And Economic Inequality But It Can Be Stopped With The Economic Inequality Rating App.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:25 pm

Strong detrimental shock waves to economic inequality will ensue now that four powerful corners of the American political square have been cemented shut because of Brett Kavanaughs' confirmation to the Supreme Court. The Presidency, House of Representatives, Senate, and today's Supreme Court are all insulated from liberal control. Obviously our political system is compromised to a point where the minority party has the leverage to assail the liberal majority. This is an unprecedented level of political power in modern times.

For those of you who hope to impeach Kavanaugh, if the Democrats regain control of the House of Representatives after the November elections, this process is fraught with problems to actually removing him from the bench. Impeachment is merely a charge against an individual and the voting to remove him from the court, should he be found guilty, resides with the Senate. Unless something horrendous comes forth, other than just he perjured himself or was at drunken parties where rapes took place, getting the Senate to a two thirds vote for his removal is nearly impossible unless the Democrats also take the Senate.

Power begets power and a five to four conservative court vote will ensure the demise of Roe v Wade, the passage of laws to suppress minority voting rights, and a continuation of the gerrymandering process as a means for Republicans to stay in control. Are you tired of the political process yet?

Importantly, control of the country's political levers allows the Republicans to maintain their authority over tax policies in favor of the rich and hence the remainder of the population will continue to suffer from unabated economic inequality.

Doctor A in his previous post was correct when he presented the Economic Inequality Rating App as an alternative to putting so much energy into the political process with the following facts,
Stanford Professor Walter Scheidel is quite frank when he writes about income inequality in his new book, "The Great Leveler." "Income Inequality is a Destroyer of Civilizations"

The Professor says, "income inequality can be mitigated by policy, but is only leveled by upheaval - produced by war, state collapse, or revolution"
Our collective psyche has been indelibly imprinted from grade school on that this path of voting in political policy is the way to proceed and has made us blind to other alternatives. With regards to economic inequality, it is not the correct course of action. In fact, "mitigated by policy," the outcome of the political process, is both a slow and an uphill battle. Furthermore, Doctor A's post also presents,
“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.”
― George Orwell, 1984

Well, maybe not quite forever, but nevertheless I for one am tired of having my face stamped on which is why I am focusing my attention upon the Economic Inequality Rating App.

~SV~
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:36 pm #13

User avatar
Jessica
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #11, Posted Sep 4, 2018
Income Inequality Is A Destroyer Of Civilizations. It Can Be Mitigated By Policy But Only Leveled By Upheaval. For This Reason Political Policy Will Not Stop Income And Economic Inequality But It Can Be Stopped With The Economic Inequality Rating App.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Sat Nov 10, 2018 4:36 pm

Political policy undergoes continuous erosion when it comes to correcting economic inequality. Money in politics and regulatory capture (including corporate capture) ensures the wealthy will always comeback into power. The Economic Inequality Rating App is a means to stop this insane never ending process.

Like Sisyphus of Greek mythology who was forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down when it nears the top, repeating this action for eternity, it is the same with our political battle against the wealthy. For those of us who have lived many decades and have experienced this process first hand, we know the political process is a frustrating and demoralizing cyclic endeavor to control the power of the rich. It is said colloquially that power begets power, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the rich get richer. So it has been forever.

There are levers of power that sustain this ongoing insane process. Here are just two such levers:

1) Money in politics

© 2018 Scholars Strategy Network
How Money Corrupts American Politics
Benjamin I. Page, Northwestern University
https://scholars.org/how-money-corrupts ... -politics
the perfectly legal flood of money that pervades American politics has fundamentally corrupting effects.

The effects of money are manifold, subtle, and hard to pin down, but a number of pathways of influence can be laid out. Most are based on judgments about the best available evidence, short of irrefutable proof. But on certain key points the quantitative evidence is fairly conclusive. Political scientist Gary Jacobson and other scholars have pinned down how monetary advantages affect chances of winning congressional elections Large amounts of money are virtually essential if a candidate is to have any serious chance of winning. Inability to raise big money leads to losing general elections, losing party nominations, or giving up even before getting started. Thus the need to raise money acts as a filter, tending to eliminate public officials who hold certain points of view – even points of view that are popular with most Americans.

The need for money tends to filter out centrist candidates. Most congressional districts are gerrymandered to ensure a big advantage for one party or the other, so that election outcomes are actually decided in low-salience, low-turnout, one-party primary elections. Primaries are usually dominated by ideological party activists and money givers, who tend to hold extreme views and to reject all but the purest partisan candidates. This contributes to party polarization and legislative gridlock in Congress.

The need for money filters out candidates on the economic left. Democratic as well as Republican candidates have to raise big money, most of which comes from economically successful entrepreneurs and professionals who tend to hold rather conservative views on taxes, social welfare spending, and economic regulation. As a result, few candidates whose views are not broadly acceptable to the affluent are nominated or elected.

The quest for money tilts candidates' priorities and policy stands. Countless hours spent grubbing for money from affluent contributors changes candidates' priorities and sense of constituent needs. As they speak with potential donors, candidates hear repeatedly about resentment of progressive taxes and "wasteful" social spending. Special tax breaks for corporations and hedge fund managers start to sound reasonable.

Affluent citizens get extra influence by turning out to vote, working in campaigns, and contacting officials. Campaign contributions are not the only way in which affluent people get involved in politics; these same people tend to be active in other ways too, underscoring their importance to candidates.

Money can tip the outcome of close elections. Money spent on media, organizing, and turnout tends to increase vote totals, giving a significant advantage to candidates favored by money givers.

Money buys access to officials. When big contributors contact officials they tend to get attention. Their economic resources enable them to get a hearing, to offer help with information and expertise – even to draft bills. Research shows that these processes boost the influence of the affluent on the policy topics and ideas officeholders consider, biasing the public agenda toward the concerns of the affluent.

The quest for re-election money affects officials' priorities and policy stands. From the moment they win office, candidates look ahead to the money they must raise for reelection, and this is bound to steal time from official duties and slant their attention toward constituents who are substantial donors.

2) Regulatory capture (and corporate capture)

Wikipedia

"Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies"

"Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[6] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture. Recent evidence suggests that, even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom, more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption (including regulatory capture).[7]"

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
The Corporate Capture of the United States
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation, on
Thursday, January 5, 2012 Editor
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/01 ... ed-states/
American corporations today are like the great European monarchies of yore: They have the power to control the rules under which they function and to direct the allocation of public resources. This is not a prediction of what’s to come; this is a simple statement of the present state of affairs. Corporations have effectively captured the United States: its judiciary, its political system, and its national wealth, without assuming any of the responsibilities of dominion. Evidence is everywhere.
The “smoking gun” is CEO pay. Compensation is an expression of concentrated power — of enterprise power concentrated in the chief executive officer and of national power concentrated in corporations.
This is the essence of “capture” – CEOs are enriched, while all other corporate constituencies, including government, are left with liabilities. A relatively few autocrats have taken control over the policies and wealth allocation of the United States.
The financial power of American corporations now controls every stage of politics — legislative, executive, and ultimately judicial. With its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court removed all legal restraints on the extent of corporate financial involvement in politics, a grotesque decision that can have only one effect: maximizing corporate – not national — value. Today’s CEOs have been granted the power to direct political payments and organize PAC programs to achieve objectives entirely in their own self-interest, and they have been quick to use it.
Capture has been further implemented through the extensive lobbying power of corporations. Abraham Lincoln’s warning about “corporations enthroned” and Dwight Eisenhower’s about the “unwarranted influence by the military/industrial complex” have been fully realized in our own time. Reported lobbying expenditures have risen annually, to $3.5 billion in 2010. Half of the Senators and 42 percent of House members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists, as did 310 former appointees of George W. Bush and 283 of Bill Clinton.
Capture has placed the most powerful CEOs above the reach of the law and beyond its effective enforcement. Extensive evidence of Wall Street’s critical involvement in the financial crisis notwithstanding, not a single senior Wall Street executive has lost his job, and pay levels have been rigorously maintained even when, as noted earlier, TARP payments had to be refinanced in order to remove any possible restrictions.
Finally, capture has been perpetuated through the removal of property “off shore,” where it is neither regulated nor taxed. The social contract between Americans and their corporations was supposed to go roughly as follows: In exchange for limited liability and other privileges, corporations were to be held to a set of obligations that legitimatized the powers they were given. But modern corporations have assumed the right to relocate to different jurisdictions, almost at will, irrespective of where they really do business, and thus avoid the constraints of those obligations.
Like the epic battle between hyenas and lions, this political fighting for economic control between the rich and those that have not is viscous and enduring. This is madness. Let us put an end to this nonsense by supporting the Economic Inequality Rating App. It creates a new environment not controlled by these politically generated forces and can stop economic inequality. The political process is ineffective in creating long term results on our behalf whereas the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) bypasses the pitfalls of politics and directly solves the problem of inequality.
Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:30 pm #14

MaureenCarter
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #9, Posted Mar 30, 2018
I am like minded when it comes to the EIRA. Unless someone can show me a reasonable alternative, I support the EIRA to champion our cause. It is the most effective way in my opinion to to bring about the change we want. Jessica succinctly put the issue into perspective when she says,
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by MaureenCarter » Wed Nov 28, 2018 1:30 pm

There is not much more of an existential threat to our lives than homicide. Murder rates in the USA are driven by income and economic inequality and crime rates are soaring as these inequalities continue to increase. Perceived social status is the main factor fueling the murder problem.

I read in the introductory header of this website regarding the Economic Inequality Rating App that, " It is the most powerful technological idea to stop income inequality and economic inequality as the most existential threats to our lives." These threats are not an exaggeration or hyperbole. To the contrary, they are an every day reality for most people.

I would like to focus on the threat of homicide from my previous posting #5, under The Community Business Venture. Although it is only one of many presented in my listing of variables caused by inequality, it is one of the most frightening. At the very heart of the matter is murder; getting killed is as existential as it gets.
Here is my list.

Wars (increased)
Terrorism (increased)
Life expectancy (decreased)
Math and literacy (decreased)
Climate change (increased)
Infant mortality (increased)
Homicides (increased)
Imprisonment (increased)
Teenage births (increased)
Trust (decreased)
Obesity (increased)
Mental illness (increased)
Drug addiction (increased)
Alcoholism (increased)
Social and work mobility (decreased)
Impact of money in politics (increased)
Pollution (increased)
Women's rights (decreased)
Racism (increased)
The Guardian sheds light onto this matter with an article declaring , "inequality predicts homicide rates ‘better than any other variable’, says an expert – and it is linked to a highly developed concern for one’s own status."

The surprising factors driving murder rates: income inequality and respect
By Maia Szalavitz Dec 8th 017 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... cide-rates

The following excerpts from her article flesh out the truth of this issue,
17-year-old boy shoots a 15-year-old stranger to death, apparently believing that the victim had given him a dirty look. A Chicago man stabs his stepfather in a fight over whether his entry into his parents’ house without knocking was disrespectful. A San Francisco UPS employee guns down three of his co-workers, then turns his weapon on himself, seemingly as a response to minor slights.

These killings may seem unrelated – but they are only a few recent examples of the kind of crime that demonstrates a surprising link between homicide and inequality.

While on the surface, the disputes that triggered these deaths seem trivial – each involved apparently small disagreements and a sense of being seen as inferior and unworthy of respect – research suggests that inequality raises the stakes of fights for status among men.

The connection is so strong that, according to the World Bank, a simple measure of inequality predicts about half of the variance in murder rates between American states and between countries around the world. When inequality is high and strips large numbers of men of the usual markers of status – like a good job and the ability to support a family – matters of respect and disrespect loom disproportionately.

Inequality predicts homicide rates “better than any other variable”, says Martin Daly, professor emeritus of psychology and neuroscience at McMaster University in Ontario and author of Killing the Competition: Economic Inequality and Homicide.
Maia Szalavitz presents more evidence in her Scientific America article, "Income Inequality’s Most Disturbing Side Effect: Homicide"
Where financial disparities are greatest, the murder rate tends to be high. November 1st 2018 https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -homicide/
Income inequality can cause all kinds of problems across the economic spectrum—but perhaps the most frightening is homicide. Inequality—the gap between a society's richest and poorest—predicts murder rates better than any other variable, according to Martin Daly, a professor emeritus of psychology at McMaster University in Ontario, who has studied this connection for decades. It is more tightly tied to murder than straightforward poverty, for example, or drug abuse. And research conducted for the World Bank finds that both between and within countries, about half the variance in murder rates can be accounted for by looking at the most common measure of inequality, which is known as the Gini coefficient.

The murders most associated with inequality, it seems, are driven by a perceived lack of respect. Like most killings, these are mostly perpetrated by males—and in societies with low inequality, there tend to be very few murders. To an outsider, these deaths, which make up more than a third of the homicides with known motives reported to the FBI, seem senseless: a guy looks at someone else the wrong way, makes a disrespectful remark, or is believed to have winked at another man's wife or girlfriend. These incidents seem too trivial to be matters of life and death. “A prosperous guy like me, if someone [insults me] in a bar, I can roll my eyes and leave,” Daly says. “But if it's your local bar, you are unemployed or underemployed, and your only source of status and self-respect is your standing in the neighborhood, turning the other cheek looks weak, and everyone soon knows you are an easy mark.”
I am fearful and mistrusting when walking about in my own community. The super rich where I live can afford tens of millions of dollars a month in security systems and personnel to protect themselves especially from murder. It should not be this way. In light of the fact that they are the ones creating the inequality, and hence the killings, I see a way out of this threat to my existence by reducing economic inequality via the Economic Inequality Rating App.
Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:46 am #15

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #13, Posted Nov 11, 2018
Political policy undergoes continuous erosion when it comes to correcting economic inequality. Money in politics and regulatory capture (including corporate capture) ensures the wealthy will always comeback into power. The Economic Inequality Rating App is a means to stop this insane never ending process.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Sun Dec 02, 2018 11:46 am

The concept of capture, be it political, corporate, state, or policy is an extremely powerful force maintaining the status quo of the 1% power. Noam Chomsky gives more credibility to the powerful process as he describes it in the following excerpt from my previous post #7 Under Economic Inequality, the Singularity, Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%. It is a problem that will not be solved politically and we need to embrace the EIRA as a long term solution.
Finally, and to the section addressing regulations and the creation of laws supporting those regulations in favor of the wealthy, Noam Chomsky’s new book is discussed by Moyers and Company on May 11th 2017. In his new book: Noam Chomsky , “Requiem for the American Dream,” reveals the Running Of The Regulators, with the following excerpt,

If you look over the history of regulation — railroad regulation, financial regulation and so on — you find that, quite commonly, it’s either initiated by the economic concentrations that are being regulated, or it’s supported by them. And the reason is because they know that, sooner or later, they can take over the regulators and essentially run what they do. They can offer what amounts to bribes — offer them jobs or whatever it may be — it’s an advantage to the regulators to accommodate themselves to the will of the powerful. It happens naturally in many ways, and ends up with what’s called “regulatory capture.” The business being regulated is in fact running the regulators. The banks and bank lobbyists are actually writing the laws of financial regulation — it gets to that extreme. That’s been happening through history and, again, it’s a pretty natural tendency when you just look at the distribution of power.

As Moyers and Company points out,

[The book]is a primer in Chomsky’s analysis of the faults of the American political and economic system. Taking as its backbone the idea that “a significant part of the American Dream is class mobility: You’re born poor, you work hard, you get rich,” Chomsky systematically documents the many ways the system is rigged from top to bottom to ensure that corporations always win.
As journalist Chris Hedges notes in a blurb for the book, “Its power to write its own laws and regulations, Chomsky points out, has ultimately created a mafia economic system and a mafia political system that is exemplified in the rise to power of the demagogue Donald Trump.”

Taken all together, the conservatives who are currently in power will have the opportunity to abuse the legal system in their favor now and even more so in the future. With shortened time frames between technological events, and with massive quantities of events, by the time we as an underclass figure out what is going on with individual and corporate actions, we will be severely injured by the elite. In the blink of an eye, and without technology capable of keeping up in the law profession relative to other arenas, a significant amount of damage can be done. When seen through Mr. Chomsky's view that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in human history, and combined with their staunch allies like those corporations creating their own regulations through a process of, “regulation capture,” there is little wonder as to why we need to be fearful and take action now, not later.
~SV~
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:35 pm #16

MaureenCarter
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #14, Posted Nov 28, 2018
There is not much more of an existential threat to our lives than homicide. Murder rates in the USA are driven by income and economic inequality and crime rates are soaring as these inequalities continue to increase. Perceived social status is the main factor fueling the murder problem.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by MaureenCarter » Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:35 pm

I would like to focus on climate change as a form of homicide perpetuated by the rich upon the poor. It is one of the elite's weapons to commit murder. Yes, murder! It may be a slow form of murder, but so can be poisonings, knifings, or torture, some of which can make an individual suffer prolonged periods of time before their final demise. Nonetheless, the result is the same, the eventual death-dealing blow to a person by a perpetrator. Does it matter if the killing was done with an axe or a gun, or can it be something more insidious and hidden such as a pen signing a piece of legislation; the latter pen signing many times done under the cloak of legal jurisdiction in the name of doing something seemingly positive.

Wealth creates more wealth which in turn concentrates political power into the hands of the few. This political power is then used to create a manufactured economic inequality. Just take the case of NIMBY,(Not In My Back Yard), where the wealthy through legislation will dictate that a polluting coal plant be located in a poorer section of a county. It is well know what the toxic fumes of these industrial facilities do to the poor who live closest to them. Yes, murder I say. It is slow and insidious with no regards to the suffering individuals will endure by these legislative actions carried out to protect the rich who, like the insects I studied for a living, cocoon themselves off from the dangers of the world.

And now we can look forward to murder on a grand scale with climate change.

The Weather Channel
Climate Change Death Rates Will Soar by 2050, Experts Say
By Pam Wright, February 23 2018
Death rates as a result of climate change could top a quarter of a million a year by 2050, according to experts and the World Health Organization.

Saskia Heijnen of Wellcome Trust, a London-based biomedical research charity, told attendees of the Global Health conference at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh in Scotland that an estimated 250,000 deaths will be directly attributed to climate change by 2050.
Is inequality bad for the environment?
The Guardian by Danny Dorling, 4 Jul 2017
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality ... nvironment
there is growing evidence that countries with a bigger gap between rich and poor do more harm to the planet
That equality matters in terms of health and happiness has been clear for some years. But it is also better for the environment. The evidence (which is still emerging) suggests the most unequal affluent countries contribute more to climate change via pollution than their more equal counterparts.

The Guardian
'Inequality is not just bad economics – it’s bad for the planet too'
By Craig Bennett, 02 Nov, 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... lanet-too
When we are in the midst of economic strife, as we saw in 2008, the health of our environment often gets shunted down the priority list by tough-talking governments. Environmental problems are often characterised as oppositional to raising living standards.

Research also suggests that more unequal societies find it hardest to deliver strong environmental policies. Indeed, as Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, authors of The Spirit Level, argue, “inequality is being taken up as an important environmental issue; because it drives status competition, it intensifies consumerism and adds to personal debt.”
The Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Health of Everyone: The Relationship Between Social Inequality and Environmental Quality
Authors: Lara Cushing, Rachel Morello-Frosch,Madeline Wander, and Manuel Pastor
From the Annu. Rev. Public Health 2015. 36:193–209 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25785890

Abstract A growing body of literature s ... ss healthy

From: Grist
Inequality isn’t just bad for the economy — it’s toxic for the environment
By Susan Holmberg, Jul 5, 2015 https://grist.org/politics/inequality-i ... vironment/
Economist James Boyce argues that, because wealth ultimately converts into political power, a society with high levels of wealth and income inequality leaves those at the bottom less able to resist the powerful interests that benefit from pollution. That’s consistent with the environmental justice movement’s message, but Boyce takes it further by arguing, “the total magnitude of environmental harm depends on the extent of inequality. Societies with wider inequalities of wealth and power tend to have more environmental harm.”
From my previous post,
The Guardian sheds light onto this matter with an article declaring , "inequality predicts homicide rates ‘better than any other variable’
It doesn't take a super detective to discover who the murder is. The wealthy are stabbing a knife into the backs of the poor to fatten their own portfolios. Let us call it what it is; murder. It is not hard to predict that homicides will continue to rise with escalating inequality and a lack of action regarding climate change by the rich.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:49 am #17

User avatar
Jessica
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #16, Posted Jan 7, 2019
I would like to focus on climate change as a form of homicide perpetuated by the rich upon the poor. It is one of the elite's weapons to commit murder. Yes, murder! It may be a slow form of murder, but so can be poisonings, knifings, or tor...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Jessica » Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:49 am

The Trump administration's EPA wants to deregulate the oil industry by reducing the number of inspections and repairs of methane leaks at fracking wells guaranteeing an increase in climate change. These actions are a slow form of homicide with the conservative Republicans being the perpetrators; their murder weapon is regulatory capture of the political process. One does not need to read the murder mystery's ending to know they have blood on their hands. The poor will disproportionately suffer the consequences of these actions. My contempt for the elite also grows disproportionately larger the more I read about this issue.

The previous post also has Maureen stating,
It doesn't take a super detective to discover who the murder is. The wealthy are stabbing a knife into the backs of the poor to fatten their own portfolios. Let us call it what it is; murder. It is not hard to predict that homicides will continue to rise with escalating inequality and a lack of action regarding climate change by the rich.
ENVIRONMENT 01/16/2019
New U.S. Oil And Gas Drilling To Unleash 1,000 Coal Plants’ Worth Of Pollution By 2050
The great American fracking boom threatens to undermine efforts to avoid climate catastrophe in this century.
By Alexander C. Kaufman https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us ... baf5422c43
Amid mounting calls to phase out fossil fuels in the face of rapidly worsening climate change, the United States is ramping up oil and gas drilling faster than any other country, threatening to add 1,000 coal plants’ worth of planet-warming gases by the middle of the century, according to a report released Wednesday.

By 2030, the U.S. is on track to produce 60 percent of the world’s new oil and gas supply, an expansion at least four times larger than in any other country. By 2050, the country’s newly tapped reserves are projected to spew 120 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.

That would make it nearly impossible to keep global warming within the 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial averages, beyond which United Nations scientists forecast climate change to be catastrophic, with upward of $54 trillion in damages.
But methane ― the main component in natural gas, which traps more heat than CO2 but dissipates in the atmosphere much faster ― leaks during the drilling and shipping process.
The report calls on federal and state lawmakers to cut off the $20 billion in subsidies fossil fuels receive each year and urges regulators to ban new leases, licenses and permits.

That seems unlikely to happen under President Donald Trump. Promising a new era of “energy dominance,” the White House last year laid out an ambitious plan to expand oil and gas production in federally controlled waters and lands as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department moved to cut regulations on the industry.

Bloomberg politics
Trump Takes His Assault on Obama Climate Regulations to Oil Wells
By Jennifer A Dlouhy
EPA proposes less-frequent monitoring of methane at oil wells
Measure represents third strike on Obama-era climate rules
September 10, 2018 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -gas-wells
The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed relaxing Obama-era mandates meant to block rogue methane leaks from oil and gas wells, part of a broader assault on federal regulations designed to combat climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency proposal takes aim at requirements forcing energy companies to find and stop methane leaks at new and newly modified oil and gas wells, amid industry concerns the mandates are unnecessary and too expensive.

The proposal would lessen the frequency of required inspections to hunt for methane leaks, remove a requirement that professional engineers certify some equipment designs and make it easier for energy companies to deploy emerging technologies to monitor emissions.

The EPA said its changes would save an estimated $484 million in regulatory costs from 2019 to 2025 -- or $75 million annually.
The proposal will now be subject to a public comment period, paving the way for final changes next year.
The oil and gas industry is the leading source of methane, an intense but short-lived greenhouse gas shown to warm the atmosphere 84 times more than carbon dioxide when measured over two decade. That potency increases when measured over a century; methane is estimated to be 25 times more powerful at warming the atmosphere over that 100-year timeline.
“With this methane safeguard rollback, President Trump’s EPA just sacrificed public health and climate for oil and gas industry profits,” said Lauren Pagel, policy director at Earthworks. “And he did so despite some of the world’s largest oil and gas companies endorsing the need for methane rules.”
EPA’s own scientists estimated that some 1,100 to 2,700 premature deaths could be attributed to emissions from the oil and natural gas sector in 2025 in research published in the Environmental Science & Technology journal in July.
If we had advanced warning of Binladen's New York City terrorist attack on 9/11 where nearly 3,000 people died, I am sure we would have taken actions to prevent it. Why aren't we doing the same with climate change?
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:13 am #18

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #13, Posted Nov 11, 2018
Political policy undergoes continuous erosion when it comes to correcting economic inequality. Money in politics and regulatory capture (including corporate capture) ensures the wealthy will always comeback into power. The Economic Inequality Rating App is a means to stop this insane never ending process.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:13 am

Senator Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax on the rich. However, there are some major obstacles to implementing this program. If it does pass, a major concern is its sustain-ability over the long term due to the obscene amount of money in politics and poor-governance related to regulatory capture. I believe the policy would soon be eroded by the the rich, who would undoubtedly vehemently oppose this legislation.

My initial response to the idea is, I love it. But this exuberance is tempered with an uneasy anxiety about how long it can be maintained due to the power of the rich. (See my post #15 in this same topic regarding regulatory capture) As Jessica said:
Like Sisyphus of Greek mythology who was forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down when it nears the top, repeating this action for eternity, it is the same with our political battle against the wealthy. For those of us who have lived many decades and have experienced this process first hand, we know the political process is a frustrating and demoralizing cyclic endeavor to control the power of the rich. It is said colloquially that power begets power, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the rich get richer. So it has been forever.
and
Like the epic battle between hyenas and lions, this political fighting for economic control between the rich and those that have not is viscous and enduring. This is madness. Let us put an end to this nonsense by supporting the Economic Inequality Rating App. It creates a new environment not controlled by these politically generated forces and can stop economic inequality. The political process is ineffective in creating long term results on our behalf whereas the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) bypasses the pitfalls of politics and directly solves the problem of inequality.
Here is the basic substance to Warren's proposal and some of the trepidation to its passing and long term survive-ability,

MSNBC news
Elizabeth Warren's plan to tax the super-rich has been tried before. Here's what happened.
Versions of a "wealth tax" proposed by the 2020 hopeful have been put in place in a number of countries. Most have gotten rid of them.
Jan. 29, 2019, By Benjy Sarlin https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-e ... ed-n963971
Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has made a splash with her plan for a "wealth tax" on the super-rich, a major break from typical Democratic proposals that target income, investment gains and inheritances.

While wealth taxes aren't a new invention and a handful of developed nations currently have them in place, they are on the decline: The number nations that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development with a wealth tax dropped from 12 to four from 1990 to 2017, according to a report by the organization last year.

With inequality hitting new heights, though, Democrats running for president have made finding new ways to tax the rich and distribute the benefits downward a key part of their economic message. Wealth taxes are making a comeback in policy discussions abroad as well, led by French economist Thomas Piketty's call for a global tax on the rich.
Under Warren's proposal, households with over $50 million in assets would pay a 2 percent tax on their net worth every year. The rate would rise to 3 percent on assets over $1 billion. Warren's plan would affect just 75,000 households total.
"When you tax people's wealth, they manage to somehow reduce their taxable wealth," Gruber told NBC News. "We don’t know if it's by saving less or by hiding it."

Critics point to these shifts as evidence that a wealth tax is an inefficient way to collect taxes. While the IRS can easily check the price of a publicly traded stock, it may be hard to value a privately held company or a rare art collection until it's sold, which is often a source of legal battles in calculating estate taxes. But unlike an estate, which is taxed once at death, the government would have to figure out the value every year.

"It's really difficult to enforce," said Alan Cole, a former adviser to House Republicans on tax policy. "That's why almost everyone goes the capital gains tax route and very few go the wealth tax route."
Gruber's study does cut against another top concern raised by critics of a wealth tax — that it will cause taxpayers to pack up and move. Even with lower-tax options inside the same country, their research found little sign of people moving to avoid higher rates.

The fear that the ultra-rich will not just lowball their fortunes, but pack up and take them to a rival country, is a significant reason the wealth tax has declined. In France, President Emmanuel Macron replaced the country's decades-old wealth tax with a narrower tax on real estate partly in response to data suggesting 60,000 millionaires had left the country since 2000.
Warren's plan would apply to Americans based on citizenship, not where they live or where their money is earned, so the ultra-rich couldn’t easily move to avoid it. If they renounced their citizenship, they’d have to pay a one-time 40 percent "exit tax" on their net worth.
With the Republicans currently controlling the Senate, no real progress will be made on Warren's policy project until the next election cycle. Even then, the Democrats would probably need to control all three branches of government to get this passed. Still, how long would this reprieve of abuse from the conservative elite realistically last should this legislation come to pass? Given the power of the rich, history has shown over and over again they will eventually unwind it in short order, just like they did to Obama Care, only worse. How many times do we need to experience this insanity over and over again where by we move forward only to have our gains stifled by them in the next election cycle? We are the progressive party but this political process seems more like stagnation to me. This is why I support the EIRA because I view it as the only realistic means I know of to take us out of this cycle of bondage by the rich.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:35 pm #19

MaureenCarter
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #18, Posted Feb 1, 2019
Senator Elizabeth Warren wants a wealth tax on the rich. However, there are some major obstacles to implementing this program. If it does pass, a major concern is its sustain-ability over the long term due to the obscene amount of money in ...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by MaureenCarter » Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:35 pm

Elizabeth Warren"s plan to tax the rich may be unconstitutional because only certain types of taxes can be levied and her plan does not meet the constitutional criteria. No matter how much I like the idea, it may never get out of the starting gate.

Jewish World Review
Elizabeth Warren's popular plan to tax the rich is probably unconstitutional
By Jonathan Turley The Washington Post Published Feb. 15, 2019
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/jonath ... 21519.php3
The Massachusetts Democrat wants an annual charge of 2 percent on the holdings of anyone with more than $50 million in assets. Billionaires would be subject to a 3 percent tax, to "make sure rich people start doing their part for the country." Polls show that Warren's "ultra-millionaire tax" is overwhelmingly popular, with 60 percent of voters favoring it, including a majority of Republicans.

It is also probably unconstitutional. A legal challenge against it would immediately rekindle a debate first argued by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Our founding document says the federal government can levy only a few, very specific kinds of taxes. Warren's plan is outside the rules.
Warren's proposal would constitute a radical expansion of federal taxing authority. While Congress currently imposes a wide variety of open and hidden taxes and tariffs (including taxes on property transfers,payroll, inheritance, capital gains, dividends and corporate profits), this would be something new: forcing individuals to account for their assets and annually pay for having such wealth. It's always possible that a future President Warren could pick a Supreme Court majority to uphold her wealth tax. But that would still require a transformative change to our reading of the Constitution.

Warren's proposal is popular, since the only people affected would be what she describes as the "tippy-top 0.1 percent." The closest most of us will get to this type of wealth is a Monopoly game; currently, less than 1 percent of the country seems to own virtually all the property on the board. Inequality is a serious matter.

Yet constitutional integrity also matters. There are legal ways to address inequality, such as an income tax or even a constitutional amendment for taxing authority. How we do things is as important as what we do. The framers sought to bar the "tyranny of the majority" against the minority - even if they are at the "tippy-top."
The EIRA will not be subject to such a constitutional tax review and is another reason why it should be considered as the premier contender to stop economic inequality.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm #20

janebird21
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:00 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #19, Posted Feb 17, 2019
Elizabeth Warren"s plan to tax the rich may be unconstitutional because only certain types of taxes can be levied and her plan does not meet the constitutional criteria. No matter how much I like the idea, it may never get out of the starting gate.
...
none

Re: FirstRateCrowd's EIRA

Post by janebird21 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 7:31 pm

Elizabeth Warren isn't the only one with plans to tax the rich. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez suggests a 70% tax on income for anyone making above $10M in the US and it's forcing even the Republicans to talk about it.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... t-tax-rich

Unlike Warren's plan, this tax is completely constitutional as it focuses on anyone bringing in more than 10 million dollars. Although Cortez's statement was in response to funding climate-change initiatives and not specifically economic inequality in the US, it is forcing Republicans to talk about the issue.
even when conservatives are fuming about Ocasio-Cortez, they cannot stop talking about her ideas. The Green New Deal climate change plan has gone from marginal to mainstream almost overnight... They are frustrated in part because the more they denounce “socialist” ideas, they more popular the ideas become.
This is an example of the types of seeds that should have been planted back in the 1970s when American policy began shifting in order to better line America's wealthy. No one paid attention then and the more light we can shed now will greatly impact present and future decisions. This article even brings up the bigger issue that if a blanketed 70% tax policy was established, having millionaires actually pay the tax is another struggle altogether.
This is, in part, because the rich would circumvent the tax through loopholes and moving money overseas. But this, in itself, is not an argument for not levying the tax: it’s an argument for closing loopholes and finding ways to effectively restrict the international movement of capital.
So my argument is simply, why not make it more difficult for the wealthy to circumvent paying their share of income taxes? Go ahead, start moving your money oversees. In the meantime, the same policy discussions that created the tax can then concentrate on those exact loopholes. We might not like it the slow progress but this forward moving policy is the turtle to win the race on economic inequality.

So as Republicans continue using ridiculous arguments and ancient scare tactics, the more the middle class learns to denounce these statements.
Many of the arguments against taxes on the wealthy are “moralistic” rather than empirical. The argument that taxes on high earners are “slavery” is incoherent. Nobody forces you to earn $10m. When you are enslaved, someone makes you do work. Being wealthy is a choice – you could avoid the tax whenever you like by shedding your wealth and joining the working class. If we want to talk about “freedom”, the concentration of wealth at the very top has made the super-rich more free do as they please than anyone else, while it’s poor people who are faced with the choice to either work or suffer. If we want to talk about morality, having tremendous wealth when there is terrible deprivation cannot be justified.
With bold players such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rattling the Republican mainstream, the future doesn't look too bleak.
Times Referenced: 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest