Last night, Bill Maher's 'New Rule' rant was SO spot on. It was similar rant to yours (not that yours is a rant, mind you) --

As a consumer (and a middle class individual who DOES pay taxes) - I am shocked that GE hadn't paid taxes. How can that be? Why aren't we outraged. Your point is well taken about the Tea-partiers -- their collective vents are aimed the wrong way.

It's very disheartening.

Ignoring for a moment the financial executives who most likely committed fraud and have yet to, and will likely never, face criminal charges, where do you imagine all that wealth among the One-percenters would go if they didn't have it?

It wouldn't be magically redistributed downward to the working class as I think many people fantasize. It would remain with the corporation or it would line the shareholders' pockets. If the shareholders own the company and they deem it in their interests to pay executives obscene amounts of money, that's their prerogative.

But it's a fallacy to believe that the bottom 99 percent would have more if the richest one percent weren't so greedily gobbling it up.

Donald Trump, who has repeatedly filed bankruptcy for his companies? Please help us if he actually runs for President...

So strange that shareholders aren't realizing that the extreme bonuses (often more $$ than a family will earn in a lifetime) ARE outright theft. I've never understood how bonuses can be paid if there is no profit for the year. Oh wait. I get it.

Thank you for this piece. Great start to the weekend!

If the top 1 percent of earners made 25 percent in income, what did they pay in taxes?

Also, that story about GE not paying any taxes isn't entirely accurate: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/yes-ge-paid-taxes-in-2010-were-pretty-sure/236802/

Sorry, one other thing. Let's put the myth about GE not paying any taxes to bed.

Megan McCardle of The Atlantic has two informative blog posts on the topic.

Here's the most recent:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/04/yes-ge-paid-taxes-in-2010-were-pretty-sure/236802/

With all these "looters" around, is it any wonder why "Atlas Shrugged" is selling so well? Quote:

When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.

Sadly, it's all about manipulation of perception. All it takes is enough money to control what the masses see and hear and within a short period of time, it becomes virtual mind control. Let's not forget that these same forces are also making it more and more difficult for the average American to get a decent education, paving the way for future generations of ignorant slaves set for their own virtual slaughter. How long this kind of injustice can go on, I have no idea, but I do know this: it didn't do so well in Rome.

Anyone see any Visigoths on the horizon?

pt...

One company I worked for some years ago had 3 types of year end bonuses for its workers: 1, 3 or 6 months of their salary depending on their pay level. This meant that a guy that made (let's use US dollars) about $300 a month could aim at getting a bonus of about that size by year's end, a guy who made $30,000 a month could get, say, a $180,000 bonus. When things went bad with the company (which happened in a hurry), guess which workers were the first to go and which others (basically) never did?
If the one percenters make their money by generating wealth, they are so very welcomed to it. If the Bush tax cuts meant that those deductions would be used to be invested in something that would generate jobs, I would see no problem with them. If only.

Mr. Ebert --

For years, I have loved your take on films. You write extremely well. I have seen some of your previous opinion pieces, and I am in awe of this one: so simple and straight-forward -- who would dare not to agree?

The earliest protest in my life in which I was not able to participate because I was too young was the Vietnam war. Eventually more people came around, but I can't help feeling that it was the corruption that finally brought on Watergate and brought Nixon down that was a part of the start of this era of the entitlement of the rich (and THEY talk about "entitlements" so much!) What I miss about the Vietnam war era was the public sentiment that rose up against the war, through music ("Ohio" by CSNY) and movies (the theme from BIlly Jack: "One Tin Soldier") and many others.

We need that again today. Music is so prevalent in our lives, and there are multiple technologies, from downloads to Pandora, that would enable "the word to get out" that greed is pervasive and we have to fight back.

You have influence. I have my vote and my Facebook page. I'll spread the word. Please, pretty please -- do what you can on your end. This article is a great start.

To your continued health and insightful writing,

--- Steve >>>>

Sooner or later...hopefully sooner...enough people will wake up and enough anger will be generated. Then, hopefully, this anger will be harvested by the right political candidate and THEN, there will be hell to pay. There's lots of money to make with the corrupt status quo but there's tons of it to be made by tearing it down as well. Any volunteers?

I AM outraged. However, I live in Texas. I can vote for the good guys all day long, but the people here have their heads so far up Rick Perry's butt they can't see how much he's ripping them off. It frustrates me to no end that I feel like I don't have a voice. WHAT CAN I DO?

Your wonderful blog today in which you are offended, has already been flagged as offensive on Facebook! Congratulations! I had to email share it. Back to preparing my tax return. . . (obviously in the 99)

The poor are duped into being tea party libertarians for two reasons:
1. Americans vote for their social values, not their economic best interest. Even ebert's argument is one of social morality. I agree with him, but others think that abortion, gay marriage, and so on are more important issues, and plutocrats can use these skewered priorities to their own profit.
2. Poor Americans are really temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Many of these people believe they are waiting for their ship to come in, so when we tell them that they are being duped and robbed blind, they feel personally insulted. The Koch brothers, on the other hand, appeal to their vanity by implying an affinity between the billionaires and impoverished libertarians.

In short, it is a rhetorical battle, not one of economics. If you want to win these arguments and win over the poor conservatives who vote against their own economic interests, couch your arguments in the moral framework of patriotism and christianity. It is possible--even easy--but a tact that liberals are not good at. They need to learn to speak the conservatives' language.

Many people ARE outraged. Our most recent major elections demonstrated that millions of people are upset about the state of the economy, their jobs, their mortgages, and all of those things which occupy the concerns of people who do not own 40% of America. But most people do not read the news - or, worse, they watch it. They are not necessarily ignorant, but they do not have the time, energy, or resources to research and understand the intricacies of corporate malfeasance, especially given the sheer volume of conflicting information and blatantly misleading advertising clogging our news sources.

A better question would be to ask: For those who ARE outraged, what are you doing to raise awareness of these problems? Do you vote (in ALL elections, not just the presidency)? Do you write your representative? Do you volunteer your time? Do you help spread credible news sources, and important stories? Or do you just throw your arms in the air?

I, too, have been puzzled as to why the outrage isn't actually directed to the right people. But I think the same reasoning that gets people to play the lottery is the same reasoning at work here. Somehow people think that one day they will be rich and thus they don't want the government getting whatever it is that they believe will fall from the sky for them. Not to mention the us vs. them rhetoric has been changed to "the people" vs "the government". The irony of course is that the people are the government. Now if we just didn't let less than 25% of the voting population decide who the government is we might actually see things change for better or worse.

Thanks for writing this, Roger. Maybe a few people who simply have not put all this together will read your column and suffer the shock of recognition.

With Wall Street and the lobbying industry running the country, it will take a groundswell of Americans to cut this trend off at the knees.

Thank you, Roger. You've expressed very succinctly the anger I (as one of the other 99%) feel toward the American plutocracy.

I'm also one of their targets: I'm a 20-year public employee in Wisconsin. I've taken part in several of the mass rallies in Madison, and I work close enough to the state Capitol that I can go there daily, if I had the time, to walk around and picket. I haven't brought this sign yet, but I plan to:
Corporations (do not equal) People
Money (does not equal) Speech
Scott Walker (does not equal) King

I think I know why there is no outrage. I live in a fairly conservative area and share the same opinion you do. Wealth should be obtained by legal means.

AH, but what happens when it's no longer considered illegal? Do you think we are heading that direction? Ask that question. When it's no longer considered illegal then we must ask if it is moral and that's the problem we face. Morality and legality are two separate entities. What one may consider to be immoral another may say, "I did this within all legal means." One may say that that is illegal, but the other says, "What is wrong with doing what is necessary to obtain capital?" It's muddled.

I had a conversation with a man the other day. The topic came up with prices going up and wages staying the same. This man was the typical working class blue collar American. He works hard, pays taxes and lives his life to the best of his abilities. I said to him, "Yeah, our wages are the same, but somehow Wall-Street is getting richer."

His response, "Well they're the smart ones. They must be doing something right."

Try to decipher that, because I still don't know what to make of it.

Mr. Ebert, I am very, very hesitant to recommend a movie to a movie critic, and my stomach is flipping as I type these words to YOU of all critics, but by chance did you view a set of documentaries done by Jamie Johnson, of the Johnson & Johnson fortune? Born Rich from 2003 had interviews with young heirs discussing their feelings on wealth and entitlement, and The One Percent from 2006 looks at the gap between the top 1% and the rest of America. Both are streaming on Netflix. I enjoyed them both, but watched in reverse order of production.

Perhaps you've already viewed them, and if so I apologize for the presumption, but given your excellent essay, I wanted to bring them up in case. Thank you.

Roger, you're so naive. Don't you know that if someone isn't wealthy, it's because they're just not trying hard enough? Because if you work hard, you will always succeed. There are only two causes of failure: laziness and bad choices. Me and my fellow 99 percenters deserve it.

By the way, do you know anyone who's hiring?

If you feel that too much money is kept among too few, why don't you surrender the majority of your wealth, which may be minor to the one-percenters but great compared to the common man, to those who did not put in the work and effort into obtaining it as you originally did?

Ebert: Just as a mental exercise, can you appreciate the fallacy of your comment?

Several years ago, a book was published basically describing the US population as being collectively mentally ill for its obsession with materialism. Written by Dr. Peter Whyrow, "When More is Not Enough ...." paints a pretty damning picture of our society. Apparently the shock therapy needed to break behavior patterns have not been sufficient to date to make a wit of difference! The sole justifying role for ever larger corporate profits, the sacred stockholder, ignores the fact that corporate entities are the creation of government seeking to improve "the common good" of the citizens. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of competition was supposed to offset unbridled greed, but Smith was imagining economies of perhaps ten thousand people where everyone knew just who was behaving badly and could keep greed in check by not buying from the miscreant: today, it is hard to avoid buying from the market monsters. A problem with "too big to fail" companies is that the obscene salaries paid is a tiny percentage of the staggering scale of profit, it becomes an irrelevant sum. Thanks, Roger, for your good work.

I have so often enjoyed your thoughtful blog posts Roger, as they make me think, and this is no exception.
I tried to share this article on FB and it would not allow me, as somehow it's been flagged as abusive though!

Perhaps we should just vilify government employees who make low salaries in return for "excessive" benefits like health care and vacation days. That'll show 'em.

I wonder if the lack of outrage maybe stems from a general feeling among the 99% that we've lost. What solution is there but an armed revolt (speaking of Louis XIV)? The people in charge have all the money, own all the power and make all the rules. Are they going to be swayed off their luxurious perch by the rest of us pleading to them, "Come on, huh guys?"

So as not to alarm the men in black suits creeping through the internet looking for phrases like "armed revolt", I could or should add that I wouldn't advocate doing that. But then that could also be seen as cementing my lot with the losers.

Another revolution anyone?

Apparently, someone has decided that links from http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/ are spam if shared on FaceBook. Using a shortener gets around it but just a heads up.

Your piece reminds me of this -- "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- by Steinbeck. At what point do people stop voting for policies and politicians who fleece them and for punishment for those who have already helped themselves?

Funny you should bring up Louis XIV. I find myself thinking that this is approaching French Revolution levels, and that maybe it's time to bring out Madame Guillotine. I think that the problem is that too many people are happy to eat the relatively affordable "cake" of iPhones, XBoxes and 100 channels of cable.

Couldn't agree more regarding the Tea Partiers. Especially when they protest things like "Obamacare". They are the very ones that benefit from the program. How Faux News can convince these people that they need to stage protests on behalf of drug companies and scam health insurers, I'll never know. If only there was an IQ test that you had to pass before you could vote.

Allow me to quote Arundhati Roy in this regard;

"The corporate revolution will collapse if we refuse to buy what they are selling – their ideas, their version of history, their wars, their weapons, their notion of inevitability. Remember this: We be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing."

Sincerely,
DR

Last week at numerous locations around the country, was the exclusive one night premier of the film 'To Catch a Dollar'. The film follows Nobel Prize winning economist Muhammad Yunus as he opens a branch of Grameen Bank in New York City. Yunus is famous for developing a system of banking made exclusively to service the poor, mainly women. The barrowers don't require any collateral for a loan, their only obligation is to attend regular meetings with fellow barrowers. The bank boast a return rate greater then 95%. Just as the NYC branch of Grameen was giving out its first loans to start-up women entrepenures the banking crisis of '08 hit. As large "reputable" banks with billions in assets were either melting down or being bailed out Grameen was giving out loans. You can go on to the 'To Catch a Dollar' website right now and vote on the next location branch for Grameen Bank. You might be interested to hear Roger that Chicago, IL is one of the possible locations.

Thank you Roger for this rant. If more people cared about such things, they would no longer exist. Trump is on TV because he has lots of viewers, WalMart pays huge bonuses because people shop there thinking they are getting a deal, the Social Safetynet has become the Social Hammock because many people feel entitled.

We can all make a difference by putting our money where our mouth is ~ buy local and as natural as possible, drive less (or get solar panels on your house, and an electric car), don't care what Donald Trump, Paris Hilton or any other "celebrity" is doing, stop texting while driving (your LIFE does not depend on that message!).

It is not just the rich, unfortunately, who are out for only themselves. The society is I'm getting mine, because he got his! Real charity is not advertised - it is just done.

Please stop now, before we go the way of Romulus and Remus

I think I know why there's not as much indignation as would be expected or even required: most Americans don't have a clue about what's going on. Many 18-30 year olds, for example, are too busy watching Snooki fight and binge drink on "Jersey Shore" to care about the fact that their own futures are being swindled from under them by greedy politicians trying to fund their own interests. I'm not saying that I think that Americans are stupid, it's just that many of them don't know what's going and don't care to learn about it. As long as so many remain willfully ignorant, there can be no change. Americans must wake up to what's happening around them.

Americans still believe in the free lunch. Too bad most of us are working in the kitchen.

I cant agree more with the author but what can we as individuals do? Can we really make a difference? These 1%ers are deeply embedded in our governments. Try and stand up and revolt and you'll get your skull cracked by a crowd control cop. We went wrong when we decided to uproot the simple life the native Americans were living and replace it with monolithic corporations. Damn how I wish it were simpler.

Why don't you stop complaining about what others earn and get off your fat ass and make your own fortune, you socialist jerk?

It's pansy-assed whiners like you that have turned this great country into a nation of entitlement beggars.

Ebert: I did.

Trump's one true success has been in convincing millions of people that he is a successful businessman; this image is, however, a complete sham: the man has declared bankruptcy repeatedly, failed in the majority of his business ventures, and is so associated with late payment that he can't get a loan anymore--which is why he's turned to television and, terrifyingly, politics.

As one of those firmly in the middle class, I find myself mystified as well. After seeing your review of "Inside Job," I was really angry. I have since seen other documentaries on this debacle and on other examples of financial mismanagement (e.g. Enron). I think there are a few reasons you don't hear more screaming:

1. The biggest one for me is knowing what to do. I see all these movies and read these articles that say we need to take action. I've tried writing my congressman/senator, but have had little success in the state of GA where the general belief seems to be more tax breaks for business and more taxes for individuals. I vote every election, but as you pointed out, the fincancial issue is suprisingly non-partisan (considering the Democratic party was originally founded to be anti-big business and banking). People need to do something but the question is what?

2. Lack of critical thinking skills. The ability to question a proposition or argument seems to be lacking in the general public now. I risk sounding elitist, but I don't understand how clearly partisan news organizations like FOX and MSNBC can survive if people are really thinking critically abuot what is happening. I think the knee jerk reactions to what happened with NPR bears this out further. Either people do not have time to think things through, or they no longer have the skills. I certainly hope it is the former.

3. Not enough people watch The Daily Show. Okay, this one is only half serious. Yes it's entertainment and not real news. However, humor, like Science Fiction, can be a wonderful vehicle to use when you want to discuss serious topics and make people think. Of course, to get what is being said on that show, you also need to be informed about what is going on.

4. It's just not bad enough yet. I sometimes feel like Americans are the frog in the pot of hot water. Those who want the wealth and power have been raising the temperature verly slowly. My fear is that we won't realize we are boiling until it is too late.

Thanks for the insights. I think you are spot on.

This is why the wealthy should pay astronomical taxes. A wealthy person would argue -- why penalize me, I worked my tail off for what I have. But in fact, he does not work nearly as hard as Jose the groundskeeper. The wealthy are wealthy because our form of capitalism rewards a certain kind of acumen. The price of playing on this generous gameboard of ours should be a way higher tax rate. Don't like it. Then don't use our board anymore.

"One of the challenges facing the One-Percenters these days is finding ways to spend their money."

Why don't they give it to charity? It was Andrew Carnegie who said, "He who dies rich dies disgraced."

America is a rich country; I don't avocate socialism, but we ought to put the highest taxes on the rich because they are the ones who can most afford it, and we ought to have a decent social safety net for the poor.

Since money now solely dictates policy in Washington, resulting in our elected officials failing to exercise the will of the people, it will take a grass roots movement greater or equal to the civil rights movement of the 60's to return social and economic equality to this country. For those who say we cannot bring our jobs back to our soil, I nonsense. If there is a will, there is a way.

Even though the Fat Cat's and Robber Baron have the money and the power, we the people still have power by numbers and just like a blockbuster or a academy award winning movie, it's all about everything coming together.

Where do we sign up to help green light this movement?

Like Stockholm Syndrome, maybe there's a "Stockholder Syndrome." Except that as you say in your remarks about Trumps appeal, this tendency we have to take vicarious pleasure in our own exploitation seems pervasive. It would make sense if evolutionarily we're predisposed to be content to be ruled--conditionally, anyway, on how we perceive the circumstances. Taking vicarious pleasure could be part of how we manage that, in the same way that vicarious outrage at the mistreatment of others may spur us to march and to revolt. Maybe it's down to how many hours of TV are devoted to each, but let's hope not.

Yet the most visible plutocrat in America is Donald Trump, a man who has made a fetish of his power. What kind of sick mind conceives of a television show built on suspense about which "contestant" he will "fire" next?

A man who cynically knows that even if he has lost some of the envy and clout he had in the 80's, he can still get by as a symbolic cartoon character who fosters his own cult-following by BEING the cartoon-character others expect of him, as broadly as possible...Dignity, shmignity, just keep the royalty checks coming in on the catchphrases and T-shirts.
(Found it ironic that Trump, once the founder of a bestseller and eponymous board game, was, on the "Celebrity Apprentice" season, lord-in-hell presiding over the professional fates of Tom Green, Gene Simmons and Andrew Dice Clay...What, no Pauly Shore?) ;)
As for "why people watch", I'm sure the essay on "What social trigger makes weary victims of tough times want to watch other people backstabbing and fighting" has already been written many times.

And rather than go into a long historical sidebar about how much the "Tea party" faction got their name wrong (1775 tea with tax would technically have been cheaper than you could get anywhere else, and was being offered as a goodwill apology for the voluntary repeal of the REAL taxes of the Stamp Act)--
I'll simply applaud your restraint in being able to be cowed and fearful of Vanity Fair headlines, stay to the socially handwringing topic, and not try to spin the larger-abstract "Athies like worrying" opportunity out of it:
When I was a kid in the 70's, I grew up listening to Bill Cosby, Elton John and Siskel & Ebert--Do you know how ungrounding it is as an adult to hear all three of them turn into old, paranoid ranting cranks lowering us to heck in a handbasket? :(

Many aren't outraged because they're fearful, selfish, cruel, and stupid. I really do believe this. It's the only rational explanation.

The rest of us aren't outraged because we're using all our energy trying to hang on to our jobs and homes (or, find new ones after losing them). There's nothing left at the end of the day to be outraged with.

Perhaps the most deplorable effect of Donald Trump's celebrity status is that many an employer has probably sat in front of the television, drenching their ego with the idea that there is something to be proud of in firing someone. Viewers have allowed a man to form a legacy based on nothing more substantial than dismissing people from employment. Yes, you're correct in suggesting viewers might "envy his power." I'm afraid some of them might take it upon themselves to perform the ritual in their own places behind the desk with the same smugness they've grown to appreciate.

There will always be those in power, but I don't think it's becoming to abuse power by assuming it makes one more virtuous in some way. People such as Mr. Trump appear to be feeding the egos of the power hungry, while at the same time rendering them blind to their fellow humans. In a sense, each time viewers hear the words "You're fired," and find it somehow amusing, they lose it little more respect for people on the other side of the desk. Couldn't power be better utilized by humans if it didn't seem to require viewing the less powerful as less human?

Hi Roger,

From I understand there is a fairly good justification for eliminating certain kinds of corporate taxes. The sad truth is that capitol moves much more easily around the world than labor. This means taxing large corporations heavily will lead to them moving their capitol elsewhere, which is damaging to the labor that can't move with them. They will do that as long as someone else is willing to oblige them with a lower rate. The US pretty much has to lower corporate taxes to keep corporations.

I've probably blundered some of this, but I think you may enjoy reading this:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/08/the-logic-of-cutting-corporate-taxes/?partner=rss&emc=rss

It also mentions some nice alternatives.

Love your blog love your reviews! Keep it up.

Ebert: The billionaire Koch brothers payroll right wing front organizations...

The Kock brothers are just standard Libertarians. Libertarian is a legitimate political movement in this country with a long tradition of specific support for limited government. I myself have voted for Libertarian candidates in an election or two. It is in my mind the foundational forerunner of the Tea Party movement. So, what, Libertarians can't participate in the political system and fund political action groups? The left's current obsession with the Koch brothers is delusional and unfounded.

By contrast, you have no problem with leftist billionaire George Soros - an internationalist currency speculator with no allegiance to the United States. He did, after all, make some of his billions by shorting British currency. Soros is the poster child for greed and for globalism. If he could make money by crashing the dollar, he will. America is not his allegiance. Money is. Focus on him if we are talking about greed.

All for one(%), one(%) for all.

For what it's worth, I hate banks. Always have. They represent pure greed to me, and will exploit every dime out of you that they can while providing you a service that you need.

There is an alternative which works for me at my level of middle-class poverty: Credit Unions. They provide all of the financial services that I need personally while doing so with integrity. They are member-centered and are not in it for extreme profit. I have no accounts in banks, on a Credit Union.

Oh, wait. My mortgage is at a bank - which wasn't my choice. It got sold to a bank. I hate them too.

Truly excellent post, Mr. Ebert.
I have no doubt as to the veracity of your claim, but can you point your readers to a report showing that dropping the Bush tax cuts would slash the deficit that significantly? Not being the beneficiary of them, I'd like to see just how much damage those tax cuts can do.
Also, I have heard the argument numerous times (often as I masochistically watch Fox News), that the obscene bonuses and pay for these CEO's are necessary because we want to attract the top talent to these position, and they will simply go elsewhere without the requisite compensation. I have 2 comments: first, this is the top talent? Their largesse and utter unwillingness to compromise in the pursuit of a dollar, even one they knew didn't fully exist, got us into this mess. It was mass incompetence and fraud on a scale we haven't seen, possibly in the history of American economics.
Second, most or maybe all of these financial corporations have been bailed out by the Federal government, so in some way their CEO's are public workers. Why not use the same pay-scale-attracts-talent argument, which some defend so ardently for executives, and extend it to teachers? Want to fix American education? Make the starting teacher salary $100,000 and see who signs up; teaching would be competitive instead of understaffed, and talent could rise to the top. I'm about to graduate college, and I know many fellow students who would love to teach, only many of us wouldn't be able to pay off our loans - a sad commentary on the American educational system.

Ebert: The patriots wave their flags and don't realize they're being duped.

I'm not being duped by anyone. I am fully engaged and aware. We just arrive at different conclusions, which you are characterizing as being duped.

I could just as easily say that you are being duped by Soros, the Democratic Party, Media Matters, Salon, and every mainstream liberal publication that you read. In fact, Michael Moore could have written this article. Are you a dupe of Michael Moore?

We are both engaged. We both care. We both want the best for our country. There are two predominant ideologies for how to arrive there and we both legitimately fall into different ones.

We just disagree. Neither of us are dupes.

Funny you inquire about the culture of protecting our exploiters. Allow me if you will to summarize a recent experience I had in an online debate regarding this very topic. A poster smugly remarked that the poor should have worked more and saved for a rainy day. I replied that it must have been nice to have been working and to have had something to save. That poster informed me that if I had lived within my means, I would have had savings. I countered that that was awfully presumptuous and then shared my particular story (as follows):

In 2005, I was diagnosed with Crohn's disease with a year remaining on my bachelor's studies. Crohn's is currently incurable, and there are only a few medical treatment options, most of which concentrate on weakening the immune system. It's a lot like living your every day with food poisoning, and the best I can hope for is a day that feels like the food poisoning is almost over (though I know it never will be). My luck with Crohn's has been better than some, not as good as others; I'm probably in the middle of the pack. Like other Crohnies, I was diagnosed early in adulthood, before I ever had a chance to build a life for myself and stockpile savings; nor was I insured at the time, and have encountered the "pre-existing condition" wall ever since. I have been humiliated to be in the supposed prime of my life and reliant upon a meager income from disability.

It was the response I received that is the gem of the entire thing, and speaks to what confuses you, Mr. Ebert.

“I'm truly sorry for your illness...and understand since I've had debilitati­ng health problems also. We pay over $15K a year for insurance; it's by far our biggest expense.

I think where we part ways is the assumption that taxpayers or our children, grandchild­ren should be liable for our expenses.

Please look up the % of taxes that the wealthy pay, then the well to do and you will be shocked when you transpose the amount the middle class (which we are) and over half of Americans pay NO taxes. Why, How - do you expect others who live in constant stress; many have sacrificed everything they had or could borrow and given up family time- CHALLENGIN­G, TIRING WORK, mentally and physically to pay for everyone else? I know what you see on TV , etc., but being responsibl­e for employees and their families with benefits- sorry , I just can't get my arms around this nonsense - liberal's ideas are great in theory, but who pays the high taxes?"

There's your answer. These people have mistaken their good fortune for evidence that they've done something right, which must mean that anyone less fortunate has done something wrong. They're awfully concerned about hypothetical future generations carrying a burden, but expect real people living here and now to fend for themselves. Other societies take care of their elders. We expect them to not inconvenience us with their poor health and deaths. And the idea that there are enough missed soccer games to equate the misery of being successful with the misery of not being able to take care of oneself is an offensive fairytale.

And, no, I'm *not* the middle class. I never had the chance to enter that upper echelon of society. I was born working class, and now, thanks to a health condition I could do nothing to prevent, I'm outright poor. But any American whose bills are paid is convinced that he's middle class, and these tax schemes by the liberals are meant to rob him to bankroll lazy people who just want to live on his dime.

Which brings me to my final thought: As someone who lives off disability, I can tell you: no one receiving government benefits is pocketing that money and having a grand old time with it. It's recirculated into the economy by the end of every month in the form of paying bills and buying necessities. Contrast that with the top 1%, whose strategy appears to be to stockpile their money and to recirculate it amongst themselves through irresponsible investment schemes.

Ebert: Your story is a version of such a common experience. People who give advice like that have apparently never suffered a misfortune not of their own making.

I've wondered the same thing off and on for the last six years. Why aren't people more angry? Why do people vote against their own best interests? Why is this even tolerated?

After talking about it with friends, the only thing that seems to make sense is this idea that seems to have insinuated itself into the American consciousness. This idea that if we are patient, if we "play by the rules" and work hard that amazing financial success is just around the corner. In other words, we yearn to belong to that class of rich and powerful people who are beyond want, beyond need, and treat the rest of us like serfs.

People stuck in the middle tend to think that if only they catch a break, or win the lottery, or have a rich, distant relative die off they'll suddenly have millions of their own dollars, and they don't want ANYONE taking that away. Ponder that for a moment: They're afraid of being taxed ("redistributed wealth") on money they don't even have yet. They're afraid of imaginary taxation.

Add to that the scare tactics of the right, with their dog-whistle terms ("welfare queen", et. al.) and this climate has been created where we are all suspicious of each other, all sure that, somehow, the "other guy" is screwing the "taxpayers" out of something. Usually the phrase "my hard-earned money" comes into play.

People are afraid. It's hard to imagine that there will ever be a truly successful middle class in America again. So many manufacturing jobs taken overseas, college enrollment dropping, colleges themselves lowering admission standards and issuing undeserved grades because of the interference of helicopter parents...

What is it going to take for us to realize we're being sold down the river and the wealthy in America don't consider themselves, economically at least, as Americans anymore? When it comes to their wealth, they consider themselves citizens of the world.

Mr. Ebert - I'm sure you're going to receive flak from certain quarters for stepping outside your "area of expertise," so let me be one of the voices to congratulate you and thank you for speaking out. I, too, am "mystified by the lack of indignation," and I sincerely hope that your words may reach some people who normally don't think much about politics or get their information from certain media sources. Thank you for speaking up!

" I am shocked that GE hadn't paid taxes. How can that be?"

Government made that possible with "green" subsidies.

"the Tea-partiers -- their collective vents are aimed the wrong way"

They're aimed at government, the same government that allowed GE to pay zero. Maybe you're on the same side? LOL!

I've been a fan of Roger Ebert's writing skills for two decades now. And Bravo on the content of this blog! For so long I've complained about how things were being handled in the great USA. It was like complaining about being five pounds overweight...everyone would say chill, don't worry about something so small. My reply was if I don't do something about the five pounds then it turns into ten pounds, then fifteen, you get the picture. That's how concerned citizens have been treated for decades. Nobody wants us to rock the boat. Meanwhile, we got manipulated out of our middle-class status and any dream of our hard work leading to a comfortable living. I would think the one-percenters wouldn't want to eliminate the middle-class because then who would pay for our "socialist" programs. I don't expect these unenlightened souls to see how elevating those in need elevates all of us, but we the people need to get back some of our power. Michael Moore's solution is through the vote, but I don't think that's enough. We need to pool our outrage together and change our corrupt systems! Frankly, I'd be ashamed and embarrassed to live in Trump-like excess while children go hungry in this country and good families find themselves homeless for many reasons including health-care failures. Instead of the government giving deep-pocketed corporations a free ride, let them help small businesses hire more employees so the Americans who are lucky enough to have a good job aren't forced to do the work of four people. Make it easier, tax-wise, for small businesses to employ a larger workforce. This would lower unemployment and create new jobs! I don't expect to see the employee at the gas station who used to check the oil in your car and wash your windshield again, but there are plenty of other small positions that I miss when I navigate through my everyday life. But somewhere along the line we deemed so many tasks beneath us and not worth the expense and it cost us....Sorry this ended up being so long.

One comment? What does that tell you?

Ebert: It tells me I hadn't posted any comments yet, because the damnable Movable Type locked me out.

H.G. Wells becomes more and more prophetic with each passing day. Eventually all society will become divided between Morlocks and Eloi.
Just not quite sure where the Tea Partiers belong.

Your analysis regarding the lack of indignation is spot on. However, I'd like to point out that by the nature of how shareholders are paid, as long as they don't get shortchanged, there tends to be no incentive to ask about bonuses to executives. In other words, by cutting out or back on workers in this country (through eliminating benefits or out-sourcing jobs or whatever) neither executives nor shareholders notice nor feel that they have anything to lose.

To answer your question about why no one has gone to jail, Rolling Stone had an article a couple months back that thoroughly detailed the relationship between Wall Street, Wall Street's law firms, and the S.E.C.'s leadership and lawyers. I'm not sure that even outrage could change such tangled social web.

The flip side of this is: what exactly do these one-percenters (or even top five-percenters) imagine as the end-game from these policies?

Destroying a welfare system, be it Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or any other "New Deal" style policy, doesn't suddenly make those people dependent on the system disappear. Scaling back on pay and benefits to any worker, public or private, only means one thing in the long run: they will have less to spend on your products or services.

Any notions of living off of credit, or in a constant state of debt, are ludicrous answers to these problems. Such a lifestyle of constant credit being owed is indentured servitude. Paying off debt constantly means: you work for a pittance for so many years, with any excuse being given as to why you should continue working longer still for such a pittance.

So if we as a common people have been duped with how these policies will turn out for us, what about those who created these policies? Why do they insist on these "Prince John"-styled policies?

Arguments are constantly made that workers should make sacrifices for the good of the system. Steel workers should give up pensions so that the steel company doesn't go under. Public workers should give up benefits altogether, so that state budgets can get under control.

But these people have so little to give up by comparison. How many jobs at $56,000 per year, or even $40,000 per year, could a company keep in this country if a CEO like Jamie Dimon "sacrificed" even a quarter of his salary? Sure, an executive might have to scale back on buying extra cars and unused guest rooms. But I have yet to see any remote proof that "he who dies with the most, wins." Whether winning would be a high score posted in the heavens at night, or more realistically just being remembered by an awful lot of people, having the most has yet to achieve either of these results.

On the other hand, like you mentioned with Ford, Carnegie, and even Rockefeller, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that "he who gives the most, or at least a hell of a lot, is not forgotten anytime soon." In terms of being remembered in ways that don't include either ruthless dictatorship or divine intervention, that sounds like a damn bargain to me. It also has benefit of being, if not necessarily honest, than at least sincere.

Hi, Roger. You've fallen for the fallacy that there's a problem with working to get rich and getting rich. Actual wealth in dollars is not bad no matter how rich you get. The problem is where our society allows more dollars to get you more political power.

Capitalism is good. Crony Capitalism where people with wealth get to write their own laws to help themselves and put competition out of business is what the U.S. has, though, and that's not capitalism. It's evil.

Ignorant people talk about greed as being bad and having lots of money being bad. Note I say ignorant (lack of knowledge) rather than dumb. Wiser people rant against private banks like the fed that control our company or rant against corrupt politicians including Obama and also almost every senator and republican in the country except Ron Paul (R) and except Dennis Kucinich (D).

Wiser people rant against laws that print money to give to their crony interests at the expense of everyone else. Even where I work I notice regulations being made all the time that pick what operating systems you can use and making you spend a fortune if you want to use anything else regardless of whether the one you want to use is better.

Wiser people rant against giving (subsidizing) money to rich companies and farms for not growing certain crops or livestock while independant farms and people go out of business due to the lack of honest capitalism where everyone is even.

Wiser people rant against giving money to big financial institutions and firms and car companies that can't run themselves well and letting smaller institutions, firms and companies go out of business.

Roger, you're making the same mistake they try to feed us on TV and newspapers all the time. You're mistaking capitalism, money and the self with evil, but those three are not the evil. The distribution of power is the evil. The ability for any small group of individuals to control the country's monetary system and to control what companies can live and which can die is the evil.

Did you watch this link? It's not the best that tells the story; it's kind of like South Park meets a history professor. But it's an enjoyable half hour movie, and it touches a little bit on what the real evil is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPWH5TlbloU

My beliefs on what's wrong with our system came long before that cartoon, but the cartoon does a great job.

Heck, while we're on what's wrong with the system, the other day I went to get glasses. I just wanted some basic prescription sunglasses, so I went to Lens Crafters as they'd made good lenses for me before, and I didn't feel like paying $600 like most places charge. I picked out a pair of basic ben franklin glasses and single vision polarized lenses, and the bill came out to about 411 bucks. I didn't expect cheap sunglasses to be that much, so I said, "Is it okay if I use my insurance?"

She looked at me funny for a moment, then went and did a bunch of typing and doubled the cost of the lenses part so the final bill came to almost $600 and so they could charge the insurance and me more.

In other words, if you use insurance at Lense Crafters, they double the bill. Yeah it saved me a little (ended up being $337 or so instead of $411), but they jacked up the price artificially.

I called Blue Cross and Blue Shield to report the insurance scam, and they said they were okay with what Lense Crafters did, that they worked it out in advance.

Do you see what's wrong with that system? People have to pay hundreds of dollars a month (usually more) on insurance because we have a system that allows people to gauge it.

Our U.S. dollar has lost over 40% of its power in the last few years because we have a system that allows the already powerful to have more say than anyone else. The price of oil isn't going up. Our dollar is dropping.

Money's not the problem, Roger. The system is. The inequality and corruption is.

Strange that there are so few comments.

While right-wingers believe that war and corporatism are the answers to America's problems, this post reminds us that leftists believe taxes and legislation are the answers.

If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under?

1. Yes, it is socialist to believe in state redistribution of one person's income to pay for another's vote. 2. The U.S. uses a type of soft fascism (socialized cost of production, privatized profits), or "state capitalism", a close partnership between heavily cartelized industries, like banking and war profiteering, and the state. The current banking system, for example, was institutionalized into existence officially in 1913 (federal reserve act) by a group of elite bankers and politicians.

It is a misunderstanding of human nature to say that only some people are primarily concerned with their own welfare. Everyone is this way. Mankind does not operate, and has never operated, any other way. It is not surprising that, given the enormous reigns of power, humans would abuse it. In other words, we create mega-states with legal authority over inconceivable amounts of money and power, and we are then surprised when we get establishment plutocrats, transnational corporations, and a permanent underclass of powerless, penniless apathetic people. The reason for the latter is that we are educated in establishment schools into believing that we have arrived at "the end of history", -- we have the perfect form of government, the sainted "democracy", and that whatever problems may exist, well, we just need to get the right people in charge. These people don't exist.

I implore leftists who still believe the kinds of things in Ebert's post to read Kevin Carson and others in the libertarian left for explanations of, and solutions to, these issues, that go beyond the decades-old rhetoric you're so used to.

The Eighteen-Percent Revenue Rule and the wasted breath carping about the rich not paying their fair share: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1auo-HQk-Tk

I have some expertise in the finance industry. I spent 17 years originating residential mortgages - from 1991 - 2008 when I closed my office for lack of sustainable income.

From my experience early on, RESPA violations were blatant. Some of the Realtors I solicited to get buyer referrals came right out and demanded agreement for $250 in a plain white envelop at closing for every deal. They had no concern for the illegality. I refused and found professionals that referred me business because I provided honest, efficient and friendly service which led to happy customers who referred their friends and came back next time they needed to buy a house or refinance.

As the years went on, I was invited to be an "in house" representative of Realtor owned mortgage companies. This was a way to circumvent the intent of the law banning bribes. Since the mortgage company and real estate firm were owned by the same guy, Realtors could receive "incentives" for directing business to the in house lender. I refused.

As the toxic loans came into play, I actually insisted my borrowers could actually pay, regardless of the liar loans. When they asked "How much can I get?", I asked "How much can you afford every month?". I explained terms and never sold any of the payment option ARMS because when people realized the implications, they backed off. Unfortunately, many of these same customers went to the big advertisers to get the same loan because the ignorant "loan officer' telemarketers didn't have a clue what that would do to the average consumer.

When the Metro-Detroit market started to stagnate, customers wanting equity withdrawal refinances demanded I hire an appraiser that would give them the value they wanted. I refused. I lost plenty of business due to accurate appraisals.

Bottom line - consumers fall for the greed-based advertisements, ignorant sales people, law breaking professionals and get burned. The public is so doped up on prescription anti-depressants and hypnotized by entertainment news, they think more about implications of characters on "reality shows" that they do about life.

That said, all that is due to 30 years or more of focused lies and diversions of the very rich to the masses in an effort to control all the resources in the world. People get pitted against each other in make-believe divisions (like party lines) and tear one another apart. In the end, we all lose.

Thank you for this article.

The view from Barlett and Steele:

http://americawhatwentwrong.org/story/How-banks-government-fail/

"This grotesque inequality is the calculated result of deliberate government policies engineered by members of the American ruling class, which began seizing control of the country through its enablers several decades ago. They fervently believe in taking care of themselves at the expense of everyone else. They never possessed a moral compass. As for the moral compass that once guided the United States, especially so prominently through the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, it disappeared long ago."

There need to be more people like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Feuerstein

Jocelyn, you took the words right out of my mouth. I find the complacency on the part of all Americans shocking. Unfortunately, I think our society as always been like that to some extent, Jacksonian era to now.

A fine and well-structured polemic!
It shows that the problem's systemic.
But urges acquisitive
Aren't just derivative;
Pas un SHILLing à greed epidemic!

:o)

G

The attitude of most people my age is, I think: outrage is too exhausting. Apathy achieves just as much without wearing you out. I've spent most of my life hovering around the poverty line, but outrage costs more energy than I have anymore.

It's repulsive what the top two percenters get away with. It's sad that so many in the lower middle class think that they, themselves, are in the top two percent and wind up voting against themselves. It's too bad I won't ever be able to see a dentist until I start making more money. But where's outrage gonna get me?

There's nobody in a position of power getting outraged for us, there's nobody in government who cares about the working poor, so why expend the energy issuing complaints that fall on deaf ears?

One wonders if the mighty theory of evolution provides any way out of the poisons of hate, greed and distrust which seem to be the eternal lot of Adam's progeny.

I think people are indignant... but no one in America has organized... yet.

I think there is a lot of outrage about all this, it just doesn't get covered much in the media. I hear about protests all the time, but they rarely get any kind of coverage, unless they are exceptionally large in number.

I think there is also a feeling of...what can we really do? We vote, we protest, we talk, we listen, and nothing changes. Unless something drastic happens, and no one really wants that. A revolution? I'd rather not. I just wish that the laws already in place would enforced. That is what they are there for, is it not?

Rabble, rabble.

Oh Roger... so so so in agreement. Gets me all upset & makes me feel ill... and when I said so on Facebook (about an $12+ million banker's bonus, that they so clearly do not "need"!), a 'friend' called me delusional, and after I linked an article just like the Stiglitz piece, I was called trite. What?!

I am indignant. VERY indignant... and yet I say so publicly, and very few seem to care. I just don't get it.

I've come to the sad conclusion that the only crime people care about is blue collar crime.
You'd care if someone stole your wallet, why don't you care when someone steals unimaginable sums from your nation's wallet?

Oh and I am really disliking that captcha thing. I know it has its purpose but I am not a spambot, and I'm having issues getting through it. Might be just me though.

Nice post. It's rare that you go into a politically charged tear. it's refreshing when you do. As for why there's not more outrage over the socio-political deterioriation of the country over the past 30 years (actually longer, but I think that's when people really started noticing) - there is plenty. Just talk to your relatives and neighbors. The real question is why there isn't more organized opposition to the policies and practices behind this phenomenon. Once you realize that this is more of a systemic criticism (rather than one targeted at any particular political figures or groups), the answers begin to slowly emerge. Civil society itself is on it's deathbed as an anticipated result of these policies, and without that, you're not going to find much organized opposition. We can all rant, and even blog till our fingers fall off - and this may help inform and educate people (certainly important), but without organized political action, not much will come of it. We are an atomized, isolated people at this time in our history and I believe therein lies the most serious problem. Most developed countries have something like a labor party, which derives it's popular support from unions and similar organziations. If you look, you will find that it was pressure from such organizations historically which led to such needed reforms as paid holidays and social security (both threatened). Pressure from these groups also limited the worst excesses of the monied elites. This is precisely what we don't have today. One thing,however, should be clear to all: without such groups - wihout an informed and politically engaged population, the criminal appropriation of weatlth and resources from the public sector will continue (and maybe even accelerate).

Beautiful, Roger!

My view fwiw:

Today's GOP is giddily taking from those who work for a living and passing it ever higher up the foodchain to distinct, tightly connected constituencies.

Today's Democrats are gleefully taking from those who will work for a living in the future and passing it ever more aggressively to distinct, tightly constrained constiuencies.

I think the Dems' policy is worse. But it's more likely a push.

Wow. This is incredibly upsetting news.

I can't imagine why people aren't getting angry about this. I'd like to think that it's simply because they aren't aware of what's being done to them--just as I wasn't aware, until only a little while ago.

Well, in any case, now I do know, and I'm certainly outraged. Please, Roger, tell me there is something that we can do, those of us who are now aware of the situation? Is there anything you can advise? Or is it all we can do to know and be angry, short of maybe getting into business and/or politics ourselves?

Ha. Opposing Obamacare was a move that favored insurance companies? It forces people to buy insurance or be fined.

That'll show those insurance companies!

Really, Roger. I have no politics-I'm really agnostic on them-but I can't help but call people on their myopia when they're so sure they're right. Usually they're the easiest to prove wrong.

Roger,

You articulate the problem so well. As an aspiring engineer making their way through college, it is becoming more and more apparent to me just how much work will need to be put into making my wage in the world, but that fact by itself doesn't frustrate me. Like you said, a day's work for a day's pay.

These stories of big bonuses and acceptance of crime drive me to anger. How can these people justify their own actions? Do they mistakenly equate our lack of millions to a lack of intelligence? I'm obviously not alone in this frustration, where can we make our indignation heard?

You're familiar with the ways bad mortgages were urged upon people who couldn't afford them, by banks who didn't care that the loans were bad...

The banks originally cared that the loans were bad. They are not stupid people. They have finely attuned risk / reward calculations that would necessitate against giving those loans. Everyone who has ever sat in a bank and applied for a loan knows that instinctively.

So, what are you leaving out? What actions disabled the normal risk/reward calculations?

1. Congress. Specifically acts like the CRA that were passed by your friends the Democrats. (Which is why you always leave them out of this story). Congress was engaged in social engineering. Trying to increase the percent of home ownership, whether it made financial sense or not. You can argue that it was well-intentioned, and I would agree. You cannot argue that it was fiscally sound. It was not.

2. Community organizers, like one young Mr. Barack Obama and his friends at ACORN. They put an intense amount of pressure on local banks - through sit-ins and protest at bank president's homes - to grant loans to people who could not afford them. Again, in the interest of social engineering whether it was fiscally sound or not.

3. Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac. They told the banks, in essence, go ahead and make the bad loans and we'll buy them from you. They put a trillion dollars out to banks to buy those loans, then sold them out of the back to Wall St. as securities. Then those executives (mostly former Democrat administration politicians like Raines and Gorelick) took huge bonuses on the transactions.

There is plenty of blame to go around. They were all at fault in the house of cards that came tumbling down in 2008. Bankers, check. Wall st. fatcats, check. Regulators in both party's administrations, check.

Yet you always leave out of this angry story the stages where there are Democrat political fingerprints. Why? Because you are telling a partisan tale. Be angry. But be angry at a few Democrats too.

The Tea Party is more direct on this. We are angry. But there are incumbent Republicans facing TP wrath just like there are incumbent Democrats getting axed. There is blame in both parties.

Then the money industries and their lobbyists fought tooth and nail against financial regulation. The Republicans resisted it, but so did many Democrats.

Of course. Not because of the concept of financial regulation. But, because you let the crooks write the "reform" bill. Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd (the Senator from Countrywide Mortgage) are as complicit in the crash of 2008 as any two people are. And you let them write the reform bill! Just because the called it Financial Reform you believe that it will bring the proper financial reform. It's called the "Dodd/Frank bill" for crying out loud! Two of the biggest culprits are not going to fix the system. They are going to further rig it for their friends best interest.

Blame people for the crash, yes. But, blame ALL of the right people. You let the Democrats off of the hook every time. Why? I'll blame Republican Chris Cox at SEC. Likewise, admit the complicity of Dodd and Frank and Raines and Gorelick.

I'm a self-described Socialist. I'd vote Socialist if we had a viable party here in the States, but we don't, so I vote Democrat instead. I'm constantly baffled as to why the American public doesn't get pissed off and rise up against this nonsense.

What really astonishes me is how many people in the lower-classes vote against their class interest by voting Republican. The GOP rallies them about the flag and the Bible with talk of birther nonsense and abortion and then proceeds to pick their pockets while the people cheer. It's amazing.

Michael Moore was on Real Time with Bill Maher a couple weeks ago discussing why he thinks people don't want to "punish" the rich by making them pay their fair share. His theory seemed to boil down to a belief that Americans have so completely bought into the the idea of the American dream, they don't want to tax the rich too much in case they become rich themselves one day.

We can make this a better, more fair country. We the politicians aren't going to do that unless we force them to, and they've got everyone so soured on politics that people ignore it, the politicians run wild and the American public shrugs and feels powerless. It's really very sad.

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." - John Steinbeck

Thank you Roger for writing what I have thinking about the last few months.

As you mention, what are the Tea Party supporters thinking? They are being used to further the goals of the 1 per centers. As Frances McDormand said in Fargo, "I don't understand it."

David Frum once pointed out that American "populism" is a very odd breed, because it is invariably directed not at the rich, but at the educated.

This seems quite an astute observation. When an American says "elitist", he doesn't mean "a filthy rich person who has no concern for the poor". He means "a guy who went to university and thinks that this is actually something to be proud of".

And so we have this surreal situation: a country where the wealth is being redistributed UPWARDS rather than downwards, and so-called "populists" want to make sure it stays that way.

Thank you for writing this. It's a very cogent summary of the looting of America.
I tried to post a link to this article on Facebook, and was initially told that I could not, because the content had been reported as "offensive or obscene." I challenged it, and Facebook then allowed me to post the link.
I find it upsetting that this kind of censorship is going on (how many people are going to make the effort to challenge something like this?). It's especially shocking that this happened within 12 hours of the article being posted. Very insidious.

Ebert: Anyone can flag a site as objectionable. If you use a bit.ly link you can get through.

Roger, you are describing the plutocrats' master plan, starve our education system of tax revenue and leverage media to create a nation of gullible consumer drones who will produce a legacy of more treasure for the plutocrat coffers.

Instead of using today's technology to facilitate connecting everything and everyone to benefit knowledge transfer and new knowledge acquisition, many consuming Americans fall prey to enticements of dubious value from the likes of Trump, Murdoch, et al, and every marketer of anything or every publicist of entertainment/sports/celebrity enterprises. Many Americans seem to be programmed to aspire to a life filled with stuff or notoriety as symbols of status and success, but with little appreciation for the intrinsic value of anything, whether an object, or a bit of knowledge.

The plutocrats have created a nation of ignorant, consuming drones, many of which are aliens to critical thinking, happy to be entertained rather than be burdened by working to acquire knowledge or personal growth.

All of this pretty much makes me sick. Don't know what to do about it, though.

Thank you for writing about it. I'll pass it on....

I believe the main reason for all of this is Captialism. Because I think there is no difference between Captialism and Natural Selection. If you were to create two columns, each given to "Captialism" and "Natural Selection", and listed the properties of both respectively, I believe the similiarities would far outnumber the differences. This is why we embrace and conform to Captialism no matter what the outcome, for ourselves or society. We hold on to Natural Selection with the same stubbornness. They give us the least amount of accountability. Which enables us the excuses of not making genuine scarifices. That is the core; we do not want to give up anything. We feel entitled to unaccountability. This is why we do not speak out more against the rich. They represent our deepest desires. The ultimate goal: Unaccountability. To criticize, or even just question the rich, would significantly shorten the gap of our own unaccountability. We would have to question our own greed. Our own selfishness. The thin excuses we've made to get a bigger T.V., a bigger house, more of something, would quickly evaporate. It is all connected. Our wants, feelings and opinions would diminish in the wake of facts and reality. There is only accountablility with facts not feelings and opinions. So, we would not just have to give up the bigger T.V. but also our predijices. We'd have to abandon the philosophy we've had since children of "Why do I have to do that, but they don't?". We would have to be grown ups. The "Tea Party Movement" is a direct product of the desperation for unaccountability. It is a "movement" with no actual movement. It does nothing but get voters: the least sacrificing "movement" for any American today. The socialist movement demanded and produced genuine sacrifice. Members would suffer in jail for years, only to do something that would get them sent back in the same week of their release. The people would sacrifice for each other, donating their skills and time for each other so none of them would have to give in to the establishments they were fighting against. The biggest "sacrifice" Tea Baggers do is charter buses and travel for hours to stand for more hours listening to multi-milionaires lecture them on who THEY want them to vote for while eating hot dogs and drinking soda. Realizing all of the things that they supposedly want for themselves and their country could be obtained by genuine sacrifice like organizing and participating in strikes would also lend the realization that they would have to make further sacrifices for each other and their country. For journalists to do stories of legitmate groups and organizations rather than "The Tea Party Movement" would mean THEY would have to make sacrifices such as organizing and particapting in strikes against their own publications for not genuinely questioning groups like the "Tea Party" which would maybe lead to them being fired or demoted. For cable, local and broadcast news to do stories of how the financial crisis can also be attributed to the American people's own greed and selfishness not just immoral banks, Washington and corporations, would demand sacrifice of ratings and therefore money and jobs. To look at what we do, how we help others around us, what sacrifices we make, would mean stop having the luxury of placing blame on easy targets like "The Tea Party Movement", banks, politics, or even Captialism and Natural Selection. We would have to live here and now. Not in the past or future. We would have to interact, revealing ourselves to each other without expectation. We'd have to walk away from the routines we've been following since childhood. The end of excuses.

"Corporations in theory are managed to benefit their shareholders. The more money Wal-Mart can make by busting unions and allegedly discriminating in its hiring practices, the happier its shareholders become. Yet obscene bonuses penalize even the shareholders. Isn't that, in theory, their money?"

This, I've begun to realize lately, is a rather serious flaw in the system. Theoretically, it's okay for corporations to be accountable to their shareholders, because the shareholders are interested in money, and the more successful the company, the more money they make. And success - in the long term - depends on a healthy organization with talented, happy employees and good customer relations. But that's... in the long term, and there's the rub. Shareholders are only interested in the short term. They want to make as much money as they can right now, no matter what it might mean in the future, because they can always cut and run to another company any time they like.

We see similar behavior in Hollywood these days, in the "tentpole" blockbuster. Traditionally, making a lot of money from a movie necessarily meant making a really good movie, so that it will play for many weeks and then sell well on home video and TV deals and so forth. But now the studios have figured out a way of making and selling blockbusters to maximize their profits out the front gate - so well that longevity no longer matters (and thus neither does quality).

This kind of short term thinking has come to plague executives in all walks of business. They've found a loophole that allows competitive pressure to circumvent quality, or even morality, because when the fire runs low they can just find another business to burn down. Of course it's a game of diminishing returns that will catch up to them in the end, but too late to change behavior - just in the way a congenital illness cannot be bred out by natural selection if it does not progress until after the individual has bred. It's situations like this where external regulation becomes essential.

The morbidly wealthy spent decades conning a sizable portion of the population into self-sacrificially supporting them by feeding them capitalistic smut, but if you try telling this to a "rich" person [read: someone who has a few hundred thousand dollars to their name], you'll be rabidly rejected; the wealthy have already won: their influence has irreparably metastasized. Shame that I couldn't have been born several decades earlier; I would have at least liked the illusion of a hopeful future.

"If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under? "

Here's the problem. Who gets to decide what that "distribution" is? How do they "distribute" or redistribute, I suppose I should say? Redistribution means the government initiating physical force against those who have that money. As long as they didn't get their money by force or fraud (I do grant you the fraud thing.), that's where the problem is. Initiatory use of physical force has no possible justification, no matter how allegedly "noble" the reason for it is.

Interestingly, I never hear the republicans name this. Because, of course they think there are times when it is proper to initiate force just as those on the left do. (To stop people from using particular drugs, to stop people from sleeping with who they wish and how they wish, etc. etc.)

That's also the problem with so called "democratic" socialism. Initiatory force doesn't become right by the mere fact of being voted for by enough people. What if they vote for murder? What if they vote against, say, same sex couples being able to marry? (the prop 8 thing)

Ebert: One assumes a degree of empathy, generosity and kindess in elected lawmakers. One sometimes assumes wrongly.

Roger, great article, however I feel that there is plenty of blame to go around outside of the Financial industry. The Government with its lax banking regulations (I know those pesky lobbyists) however the last time I checked no was still a word in the English language. Lets not forget the consumer also. People buying houses no matter if they could afford them or not (I know those pesky banks forcing mortgages on people) " You can't afford the mortgage, no problem, have I got a deal for you" Many people could just barely afford the monthly payments before the financial crisis, and when that hit, large amounts of mortgages went under water.

Seems to me that people still have the right to say "no" If I can't afford something I don't buy it until I have the amount needed. True, things like a mortgage will require to take on debt, however if I don't have sufficient funds then I am not going to jump in and buy a home. One of the big factors not mentioned with respect to the Mortgage crisis and debt levels are low interest rates. They have been so low for so long, it has given people a false sense of security. So these factors have all contributed to the mad rush of consumers to buy that dream home. Certainly the banks should take a lot of the responsibility with re packing mortgages, and not enough fines or jail time were handed out. More than Madoff should have been put in Jail, however events like the Financial melt down, housing crisis, and greed do not happen in isolation. Plenty of blame to go around.

"We're all equal. Some are more equal than others."

I've talked about this topic with many of my friends. I have one who brings up an interesting argument: if the very rich are spending their money, even just a portion of it, on remodeling their homes, buying new cars, going on trips, then aren't they putting people to work? The people who make the concrete and stone for their homes. The people who build their luxury cars. The airlines who fly them first-class around the world...

Ebert: Yes, the other 99 percent get to party with the remaining wealth.

There seems to be something fundamentally different in the reasoning behind arguments regarding social policy now than there was when I was a kid (50s, 60s) or when my parents were young (30s, 40s).

Now, even people who argue for less inequality, or for support of public education, for example, do so on the grounds that a decent society owes something to "the less fortunate."

No one anymore seems to argue in favor of a radical equality of opportunity, and everything that would need to be changed to make that true, from a position of moral self interest.

I want opportunity to be absolutely equal, and inequality of outcomes to be drastically more equal not [just] because of "the general welfare" but because of the "social contract;" to the extent the society and government of which I am a part is implicated in unnecessary human suffering I am implicated morally as well.

And the American citizens will continue to watch as they are robbed blind by those at the top unless they lose their pride and rise up.
Why do I say pride?
Because around the world you can see people marching together and rising up in protests against what they believe to be the common enemy, it gives the same if the country is El Salvador or France, but people know how to protest, whereas in the USA, people seem to view those acts as beneath them, they think that protests belong in "socialists" and "communists" countries, and that they are better than that. You can ask your neighbor if he is willing to demand changes,and he'll say no, because of the belief that America is too good to stoop to those methods.
Nothing will ever change until Americans wise up.

Good for you, Roger!
And what about the fake voting on American Idol?!
Adam, Crystal and now, Mia have been robbed!

There is another "one-percenter" you haven't mentioned, Mr. Ebert: the people who care.

Where's the indignation, you ask? It's festering in that one-percent of the population who educate themselves beyond the headlines on their homepage, who get their news from more than one baised source, and who happen to have a proclivity toward socio-political issues. That tiny American minority who educate themselves and vote and are burning with rage can't possibly be loud enough to be heard over the general media din. And though I've amplified your thoughts, Mr. Ebert, by sharing a link to this blog post on my Facebook page, the friends most likely to read it are the ones who least need to hear it. They're already mad about it. One-percent, in this case, can't effect the necessary change.

The economy is wounded and people all over the country are hurting. One would think there'd be more public outcry. Yet so many of the wounded have withdrawn from the socio-political issues that directly effect them. And why not? It's tempting to let our elected representatives do the work. The issues ARE complicated and who among us wants to strap on the activist broad sword after a long day at work - especially if the Dancing With the Stars semi-final is on tonight? It's getting darker and darker the further we walk this path-of-least-resistance.

Not until the other ninety-nine percent are really and truly downtrodden, when the gulf between the super-rich and the destitute has made the tolerable intolerable, will the majority be involved. It's going to get ugly before long, and I hope that we can collectively find the means to turn it around.

"In America there is an ingrained populist suspicion of fats cats and robber barons."

Maybe there used to be.

Maybe one day, there will be again. Doubt it. That kind of suspicion comes from education and critical thinking. Not from watching karaoke singers and fourth-tier celebrities on television. What skills are your 4G children learning, really?

The only idea ingrained in Americans now is that The One Percent is to be envied and admired. We gotta listen to them. They're The One Percent. Obviously, they're better than the rest of us. They're The Winners.

If anybody knows the contents of their own pockets, it's The One Percent. They don't carry cash. They can't be bothered with coins. They don't wear the same pair of pants twice, so it isn't lint in there.

It's Government, The Media, The Common Sense of the Populace. All wadded up together in a useless mess and crammed deep-down there for all the good it'd do.

Like a ticket stub for a summer blockbuster. A scrap of paper with a girl's fake cell-phone number scribbled on it. That lint I talked about.

Fairness is finished. Stick a fork in it. The fat lady has sung so hard, she made Steven Tyler cry and say something stupid.

Shove it in your pocket.

For all the good it'll do you.

America was never about fairness, anyway. It's always been about exploitation. Anything else has been Hollywood hoo-ha.

"Ebert: One assumes a degree of empathy, generosity and kindess in elected lawmakers. One sometimes assumes wrongly. "

Point taken. I think politics attracts a certain kind of person. When you think about it, what other kind of person is attracted to a job that gives you power over other people but the kind who wants, well, power over other people. I've realized over the years that the two sides are actually looking into a mirror. They both want power. The only thing they differ on is what part of people's lives they want power over.

Well, I know I'M &*%$in' outraged... and I know everyone else will be, once they finally catch on, but I don't know how hard they will have to be beat over the head by the people defrauding them until they finally wake up to it.

I just looked up the word "dupe," online.

Nice picture. Wasn't Roger's, though. It was nobody I'd recognize. Handsome-ish dude, you know, on average. I expected an uglier caricature.

You are right that wealth doesn't just magically get distributed downward. That's why we need a progressive tax system. The wealthy 1% AND especially the .01%, and giant corporations pay zero income tax. Rollback the corporate tax rate to pre-Reagan (74%) and the national deficit disappears. And those corporations will still have huge profits!

This country is awash in cash. There is plenty for everyone if everyone pays their fair share.

Yet the most visible plutocrat in America is Donald Trump, a man who has made a fetish of his power. What kind of sick mind conceives of a television show built on suspense about which "contestant" he will "fire" next? What sort of masochism builds his viewership?

I dunno, maybe the same people who publish and read Your Movie Sucks?

What kind of sick mind conceives of a television show built on suspense about which "contestant" he will "fire" next? What sort of masochism builds his viewership? Sadly, I suspect it is based on viewers who identify with Trump, and envy his power over his victims.

I'm not a huge fan of Trump. I can't relate at all to his ego or conspicuous consumption.

I do, on the other hand, enjoy The Apprentice. Roger, do you watch it? Perhaps I can offer an alternate reason for it's appeal.

First, it is week after week a master class in basic business principles. Every week Trump assigns a business task and the two teams compete to achieve it. Basic principles of business are on display. Design a product. Manufacture a product. Market it. Sell it.

Every week is a master class in business decision-making. What decisions have to be made? Who made them better? What decisions were game-changers, and what ones lead to disaster?

Every week is a master class in teamwork. Who was a shining start? Who was a team player? Who didn't contribute at all? All of us who work in any office/business environment can relate to those dynamics and can learn from what we are watching during Trump's tasks.

As to the firings, they are instructive too. They are not arbitrary or vindictive or personal. They come down to a simple question: who was responsible for the losing team's loss? There is an immediate consequence for that answer - "you're fired". Everyone who has worked on a team can both relate to that decision and learn from it.

I learn something every week about business watching that show. About myself.

It's the ultimate business show in a capitalist economy. You have a business task. Your team depends on you for it's success. Produce or perish. That itself is a useful weekly business, and life, lesson.

Hey, Roger, aren't you you shilling for Amazon.com in your tweets? Guess you like money as well as the next guy!

Ebert: You're not quite up to speed:

http://bit.ly/ejdUYD

"Do you know that if corporations were taxed at a fair rate, much of the rest could be found?"

Like several other complainants, you make a claim, but fail to provide numbers. "Fair" is a lovely word--but what does it mean? What, exactly, is a "fair" corporate tax rate?

Instead of giving an ambiguous feel-good adjective, why not give an actual number? Without an actual number, what you expound is nothing more than propaganda? Take a real stand, man--give us that number, Roger!

You're far from ignorant, and a very thoughtful man. I think you can do it.

Your entry made me reflect.
Thanks.

Cinesea wrote: "I've talked about this topic with many of my friends. I have one who brings up an interesting argument: if the very rich are spending their money, even just a portion of it, on remodeling their homes, buying new cars, going on trips, then aren't they putting people to work?"

This is the way economies used to work during the era of feudalism: each noble family would have a small community of peasant serfs who would eke out a meagre existence by attending to the nobleman's needs and wants. This is really not an economic model that we should strive to return to.

A thriving middle class creates far more economic benefits than a small wealthy class. Put $250 million in the hands of one CEO and he will buy yachts and mansions, but put that same $250 million in the hands of 25,000 employees by giving them $10k apiece, and they will spend it on a vast array of basic consumer goods: far more than the the CEO would have purchased. A CEO may buy a lavish mansion and a bunch of expensive sports cars or yachts, but is that really better for the economy than 25,000 employees each spending $10k more on clothes, restaurants, cars, trips, and staple goods?

Yes indeed.
This is at least part of the reason I'm planning to move to Holland in September. Although I would be there for three years, I could stay there forever, for all I know.
I'm in my mid-20s and am beginning to ask myself questions about "settling down." America's public schools are completely dysfunctional, we have a despicable healthcare system, and many of the country's decisions are made by a lunatic fringe that doesn't believe in dinosaurs. Or, more often, any good legislation becomes gridlocked in endless bickering, drama, and threats of government shutdowns until it is watered down and gutted enough to be ineffective.
And there is Donald Trump.
Is this really an environment I want to raise a family in?
Europe has its share of problems, but they generally are more wary of corporate greed, and they don't spend valuable time arguing about the existence of global warming and evolution.

This is a very unfortunate article. Unfortunate because it adheres to much of the naive, uninformed populism that has replaced honest intelligent discourse in this country.

Of course Wall Street was not solely responsible for the financial crisis as you suggest. Unfortunately you appear not to have read much of the academic literature that has emerged from the Global Financial Crisis.

You also persist with the canard that much of Wall Street's behaviour was illegal. It wasn't. The business model's many Wall Street firms committed to were undoubtedly foolish and myopic but that doesn't make them illegal or even immoral.

You seem to be unwilling to admit that many ordinary Americans should receive a significant amount of blame for their own willingness to take loans that they could not afford.

You seem insistent on following the illogical path paved by many before you that "greed" was largely responsible for the crisis. Of course this is infantile. If we were to construct a mathematical prediction model for financial crises, greed would = c for constant. Greed has been pervasive on Wall Street for centuries yet we have not had a state of perpetual financial crises. Logic dicates that there must be an exogenous factor in our prediction model.

You commit the non-sequitur about loving democracy but feeling disgraced that free citizens behave in a manner you find distasteful.

You also adhere to the unfortunate but all too common condescencion of tea party activists. You claim they fail to understand that the system they support is deleterious to their economic safety. This is obviously a comfortable position for you to take. Surely more comfortable than the more intellectual honest and plausible scenario that their conceptions of "just" and "fair" differ from your own.

You make many other logical mistakes in your puerile screed. Of course there is no such thing as corporations taxes. A corporation can obviously not pay a tax. People pay taxes. A tax on a corporation is a tax on workers. Anyone with even a perfunctory understanding of the basic academic literature on corporations taxes would be familiar that those most affected by such taxes are the workers themselves.

Your financial illiteracy is quite common in modern America. Very few people seem to have read the seminal economics texts, Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Keynes, Friedman, Hayek etc. However, everyone sees fit to voice their opinion. One imagines if I were to meet you and assert that Michael Bay were the greatest director ever you'd scoff and not incorrectly inform me that I had clearly not seen enough films. Well, Roger, you seem like a well intentioned man, but you've clearly not read enough to comment cogently on fiancial matters. It's not so much that I disagree with what you've said, but that I disagree so vehemently with your puerile, reactionary understanding of the topic. Please stick to films. I look forward to your future reviews.

I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!

The top 25 percent of income earners pay 86.0 percent of all federal income taxes. The top 50 percent pay 97 percent, and the top 1 percent pay 39 percent (according to the latest tax year released by the IRS, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/05in05tr.xls).

To read the posters on this blog page, you'd think that conservative theory is at best a numbers racket and at worst an evil conspiracy. You'd think that the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans acquired their wealth without first a) fueling the engines of business which pay and insure the other 99 percent, b) funding the institutions which secure and grow the money for the other 99 percent, c) contributing the lion's share of all charitable donations in the entire world, and d) paying much, much, much more than their or anyone's "fair share" of the taxes which maintain our systems of government, our lines of defense, our standards of living.

Am I rich? Far from it. Do I take advantage of government assistance? Yes, from time to time. Would I be upset if my employer decided to decrease his own income to increase mine? No, I'd love it! Now, do I think the people who've posted on this page, with their tales of woe which are virtually all anecdotal, would have more cash-on-hand if any of their fellow posters were suddenly to find themselves in the demonic 1 percent of wealth holders? Well, do you? I mean, is that the solution this is all moving toward? Isn't the purpose of wealth re-distribution to not only makes us all equally wealthy but to KEEP us equally wealthy? Where's your business plan? What's your product? How do you propose to give MORE TAXES than the numbers quoted above, once it's your turn to pay them?

Mr. Ebert, your last in-post quote reads, "Yes, the other 99 percent get to party with the remaining wealth." It's petty. It's lacking in context. It's antagonizing. At its core, it is fallacious. And it is, as I said, based on anecdote and not any theory of societal structure, either conservative or progressive. You said, "These facts confirm my impression that greed is now seen as a virtue in America." I submit that your post is the statement most indictive of greed, alturistic as it seems because you want the money for others and not yourself. But you want it. You want someone to give it to you. It's not yours, but you think it should be. So let's say you get it. What then?

Damn straight Roger! What you said!

Hi Roger. I'm a newbie to your blog...but not to your legacy. I'm calling you "Roger," because I feel like I know you. Let me know if you're not OK with that.

Anyway, we're in sync. I had earlier today posted the following post on www.Newsvine.com. It was in response to an article titled "Japan bans planting rice in radioactive soil."

I did so because somewhere I read that we should applaud what we stand for. So even though I'm as outraged as most of your other readers here, I feel like we also need to pay attention to those who get it right. You know, expose the negative, but also accentuate the positive.

Please keep up your good work and great thoughts!

What follows is what I had posted previously:

"Kudos to the Japanese government! This clearly seems to be a case where government regulation is needed. Too often business enterprises have operated in unregulated ways, which allows their shareholders to make huge profits while the general public just suffers the fallout from their unrestrained, often treacherous, practices. I hope the entities that are testing the soil for contamination are honest with their findings so that more people aren’t harmed unnecessarily—either financially or health-wise."

!#1 - Sat Apr 9, 2011 5:00 AM CDT

One percenter?

Sounds like an outlaw motorcycle club.

Mr. Ebert,

I am 26 years old, my wife and I are both college educated to a bachelor level. We are both very liberal. We have a 6-month old, have a $1900+ per month mortgage (fixed) and about $700 per month in student loans (fixed). The student loans would be more if my wife was not in school under the TAA program; in total we have around $80k in student loans.

My wife lost her job due to Pfizer not renewing their contract with her company (they went out of business because of it.).

Our number one goal is to move to lower our mortgage payment (maybe a 150k house tops) so we can expedite our student loan payoff so we can start saving for our child's education while concurrently saving enough to retire comfortably at 65 and maybe have enough money to have another child.

...

Believe me, I am furious about what happened from '07-'09. But I can only go as far as expressing my pain at the dinner table; it stops there.

I'm too busy working and getting home with just enough time to spend with my newborn before we are both tired and want to go to bed. Going outside with a picket is just not in the cards. It's not like I can take time off for such events not to mention trying to finagle working around my wifes school schedule so we don't have to resort to daycare (a financially crippling option)

There is too much pressure to "feel lucky that I have a job", not enough work to go around, and no where near the right amount of money.

...

I would think that, if the lot of us did not have such heavy financial burdens (I have massive student loan debt, plenty of folks have massive credit card and housing debt), then maybe the lot of us would leave our homes with pickets and march. Until then, it's just too risky.

Roger, the people who most need to see this great article won't find it on your blog, but they would see it in the Sun-Times or in print in other papers around the country. Any chance of that?

I couldn't agree with you more, Roger. As a first year high school English teacher in Wisconsin, I have been shocked by the recent events in which everything I was promised at the beginning of the year--at the outset of my career--was thrown out the window. I read about and hear how union workers like me are finally doing our share, and getting what we deserve, but it seems those people who are jealous of our pensions and health benefits are missing the point: ALL of our lives are getting worse. The only people benefiting in our current economy are those in the top one percent, and yet we continue to bow and scrape collectively so that the corporate interests represented by the very wealthy will not migrate to another state, or another country. And yet they do it anyway. Where is the outrage over NAFTA? Where is the outrage that should be directed toward Wall Street? I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I feel like I am living in one of the dystopias novels that my freshmen read about. Too many of us are too ignorant, or too anesthetized by television, the internet, and advertising (not that there is really any difference between those things anymore) to realize it. The worst part of the situation, in my opinion, is that it may be too late for us to change anything, given how ingrained corporate money is in politics, the media, and even our schools.

I have long advocated that there should be a FIXED RATIO between the highest-compensated and lowest-compensated employee of any business (corporation). So if you're the CEO and you want to make $10M a year, fine ... that means the janitor makes $1M. If you want to make $100M, that's fine too! ... but the janitor makes $10M.

That one simple law -- surely it would take no more than a few sentences, or maybe even one! -- would overnight inject tremendous wealth and fairness into our economic system.

Nobody needs $5M a year in income, let's be adult about it and just stipulate that as a truth.

Oddly enough, I couldn't share this on Facebook. I got a message saying this piece was reported as offensive or "spammy."

I did fill out a form saying it shouldn't be censored.

Mr. Ebert,

Your views on cinema are as valuable to me as your views on politics are infuriating. It is precisely the repitition of the same half-truths and misleading sound bites that keep one group angry at the other group and prevent reasoned debate on the very real problems we all have to solve. Some examples, if I may:

When you talk of the "one percenters," why do you say "the rest of us?" It takes an income of roughly $250K per year to be a one percenter. I don't know anything about your personal finances, but given your long history of success in multiple endeavors, I'm guessing you're at least top 3%, if not top 1%. Am I right?

2% of $12.2 billion in profits is more than $200 million, and yet you call Wachovia's misdeeds "unpunished." A very strange definition of that term from someone who makes their living choosing his words so carefully...

Jamie Dimon's 51% raise followed (quoting you now) "two years of pressure from regultaors and lawmakers to curb compensation." So 51% higher than a drastically reduced salary? Barron's has different (and more realistic) numbers: Mr. Dimon made $1.3 million in 2009 and $20.8 million in 2010, which is still down 42% from his 2008 salary of $35.8 million. From this, we learn two things: CEO compensation, with its various components - cash, stock, options, etc., can be spun to favor whatever story the author wishes to tell (including the fairly ridiculous assertion that a bank CEO's pay should somehow be tied to the salary of an average U.S. archaelogist?) Second, stories of dramatic raises make for better copy than stories of dramatic declines in pay.

Taxes: if General Electric paid no taxes, then one of two things is true: GE broke the law (are you saying they did? If so, can you prove it?) or the tax code is so complex that a corporation with a giant tax department can find tax breaks that the average citizen can't find. If that's true, then how about we stop directing faux indignation at GE (full disclosure: I'm a shareholder, and I'd be pissed if they did anything BUT minimize their tax expense AND comply with all applicable laws), and instead direct our displeasure at the folks who can SOLVE THE PROBLEM: Congress. The IRS. The White House. We borrowed $700 billion to make my credit card statement easier to read. How about throwing some of that money at the 1040 form?

More on taxes: I do not "know" we can eliminate half our deficit by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. And the reason I do not know this is because it's not knowable. That is, unless you want to naively assume that wealthy people will not react at all to changing tax laws. They will not re-balance their portfolios, they will not move money offshore, they will not change their hiring practices, they will not cancel expansion projects, they will not do business in other countries or jurisdictions that offer lower tax rates. Of course, when the do these things, and we don't see our promised deficit reduciton, we can do another round of "those goddamned, greedy corporations! Screwing us again!!" So there's that silver lining...

Lastly and most bizarrely: no, a corporation's profits are not, theoretically or otherwise, the shareholder's money. Shareholders invest in a corporation and hire employees to maximize profits. The employees EARN the money by providing goods and services of value to their customers. Then, they determine how much to reinvest in the company (in the form of R&D, capital expenditures and various other operating expenses - including executive compensation) and how much to return to the shareholders. Every shareholder is free to sell his/her shares and put his/her money elsewhere. But alas, understanding this mitigates our ability to shake angry sticks at the corporate overlords, and we can't have that.

There are real problems out there to solve. Most of them are highly complex, which is why they aren't solved yet. We are all happy to reap the benefits that our complex society provides us, but we are quick to pretend that the costs exist only due to the incompetence or malfeasance of those in charge. It's a position that gives us a feeling of control - a feeling that we're DOING SOMETHING. Unfortunately, it also creates rancor and crowds out discourse. And I, for one, would love to see it stop.

Do you think the T of E applies to anything beyond pure biology? After all, logical principle as it appears to be it should not restricted to one thing.

Your convenient "apres moi le deluge" philosophy apart, do your views lead to pessimism or optimism about Adam's brood?

Ebert: The idea of Natural Selection appears to have a range of relevance, for example in Dawkins' theory of "memes."

Humanity? It's up to us, isn't it?

Great article, well worth sharing. Thank you!

I'll tell you where the anger is - plain and simple- it is redirected by Fox news and Rush Limbaugh and the other hate radio guys toward Obama and "liberals" all day, every day. Brainwashing.

Mr. Ebert,

Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful article. The word that crept into my consciousness over and over as I was reading it is "character".

Like you, I'm old enough to remember when character really meant something in this country; it was a badge of honor to be considered a man (or woman) of character. But like a virus claims its host, greed I'm afraid has indeed permeated our culture in such a way as to make a lot of those who practice it... well, famous.

I don't know when this "trend" truly began. What I do know is that it's both disturbing and profoundly sad to me that, as a consequence of this viral greed, so many people within our society are incapable of speaking the truth, or processing reality for that matter. And the ones that are, are all too often victims. How does humanity heal itself in this case without some catastrophic event hitting us over the head?

[On a side note, I've been reading your work for forty years and value your perspective more than I can convey here. Stay well sir and keep sharing your thoughts. Many out here are listening.]

Portrait of a wealth accumulator from Breughal

http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/mad-meg.jpg

Ebert: Readers: I recommend a click.

Dear Roger,

Why aren't you orchestrating an actual protest here? What time and place shall we angry masses all meet and take up the cause with you? You have the considerable media reach and popular influence to act on your (our) indignation, yet you are content to describe it at arms length and move on to something else tomorrow.

If not you then who better? The anonymous 99% of us with 119 friends on Facebook, no public presence, and jobs outside the media?

(And don't say it's matter of voting. Show me a politician who has a legitmate will and capacity to make a dent in the weath-serving-the-weathy reality we live in and I'll show you a fevered wet dream of dispirited voters across the land).

General Electric recently reported it paid no current taxes.

Yeah, that story bothered me to. Especially since their CEO was rewarded by our President with a key advisory role after losing so much stock value and moving so many jobs overseas.

It just tells me that at a certain tax rate entities will put very much effort into tax avoidance activities instead of productive work.

Do corporations really pay taxes anyway? The customers of corporations pay the taxes that corporations are assessed through higher costs of products and services. If those higher costs can't be passed on for competitive reasons, I guess they go to other states or overseas and we lose.

Is it coincidental that my Captcha code for this one is: ge4az2 ?

"Some people never go crazy. What truly horrible lives they must live." - Bukowski

Somewhere along the line... humans surrendered their ability to choose to a "system," put their faith in a policing technologies which never really cared about them so much as protecting an order... which doesn't have any real feelings, any true passion. It just organizes... and its codes can be corrupted midstream.

So now you sit here asking for all these things but forget what you're really asking for: People to be ready to die. To risk everything they have, all their positions in society and all that, to lead the way to truth by whatever means necessary. Is that really what you want? If not, stick to observing human sell-out nature.

Or... *imagine* a third possibility, re-examine this quote (and your Hamlet):

"Everyone must decide for himself whether it is better to have a brief but more intensely felt existence or to live a long and ordinary life." - Rainer Werner Fassbinder

Most of us do not get something between; it's all of a package. The more you give into outrage, the more likely you are to go crazy and get yourself killed young. The human heart can only handle so much. Either your insanely passionate or insanely passive. Everybody between -- the mainstream or the "geniuses" who find a way to be part and not part of the masses -- is just a variation on/ dodge of this essential truth. Which is why everybody complains about them.

"The business of the future is being dangerous."
- Marshall McLuhan

But that's only if you care about business, if you're okay with the whole notion of seeking "success"... Which you are apparently.

I'm not. Or, at least, I think we need a new vision of what success really is. Is it not subjective?

The real issue is: We must be content to be a nobody. As so many religions' bottom lines teach, be ready to forgive your murderer, to just accept you are part of something insane. More of us are ready than we think. We do it everyday we "do only what we can" instead of, as you put it in your Heart of Glass review, "rowing into oblivion."

I don't know what the answer is exactly -- myself, I just submit to the screen because it's a higher consciousness than judgement but still invites us to dare invent solutions... So, what I think I know is that preaching moral outrage... or cynicism... either way, we're just running in circles. And maybe that's all we want if we're not ready to go out and act in one way or another. Talk is cheap... and maybe all most of us are willing to afford or risk betting...

Roger, my friend, you are a true patriot.
I am a Canadian who is married to an American, and I happily live in Ohio and call it home.
I held off on getting my US citizenship because I was happy being a Canadian living in the US, but after this whole union-busting debacle, I've decided that I made a big mistake and should have applied for citizenship much sooner. The papers have been filed, and I anxiously await my interview. I vow to you, all who read, that I will never, EVER, vote Republican, for all the days of my life. Why is it that one party can be so out of touch, so socially irresponsible, so goddamned evil? I will never vote for them. Ever. Promise.

Ebert: Humanity? It's up to us, isn't it?

I am sure you know the name of the venerable institution, the path whereto is paved with good inventions.

To quote Cardinal Newman:

"Knowledge is one thing, virtue is another; good sense is not conscience, refinement is not humility, nor is largeness and justness of view faith. Philosophy, however enlightened, however profound, gives no command over the passions, no influential motives, no vivifying principles. Liberal Education makes not the Christian, not the Catholic, but the gentleman. It is well to be a gentlemen, it is well to have a cultivated intellect, a delicate taste, a candid, equitable, dispassionate mind, a noble and courteous bearing in the conduct of life...Taken by themselves, they do but seem to be what they are not; they look like virtue at a distance, but they are detected by close observers, and on the long run; and hence it is that they are popularly accused of pretence and hypocrisy, not, I repeat, from their own fault, but because their professors and their admirers persist in taking them for what they are not, and are officious in arrogating for them a praise to which they have no claim. Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk; then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man."

In regards to the lack of outrage at the increasing imbalance of wealth, I suspect it would be pretty difficult to find the pro-robber-baron crowd. There aren't much more uniformly American sentiments than the expectation of each individual to receive fair compensation for their labor, and certitude that no one is their better.
It is my suspicion that the opponents of your political philosophies are attempting to fight the same battle, only in the concentration of power to a political elite. Forgive me if it appears hilarious from this distance that both groups, rallying to the identical goal, have succeeded in thwarting each other. I posit that these elites are the same people. They seek power where it is, and will happily transfer from religious to commercial to political institutions as fortunes dictate.
Fiddling with tax progression will make a modest difference, but there is some basic structural problem that is preventing equitable distribution. Classically, society will pour money into whatever it is it wants, and the resulting lure will prod people into fulfilling the need, everybody's happy. But it isn't working. Which leaves us with
1. The Michael Jordan Hypothesis. The economy is requiring such increasing skill that while 99% of the population would happily fill the most rewarding positions, they just aren't capable.
2. Primary Care Physician Hypothesis. The economy is requiring such increasing training that it allows the top 1% to act as gatekeepers, preventing the 99 from filling the positions they otherwise happily would.

But as long as a kid born poor can't see what people are paying money for and therefore go do it, taxes won't help much.

I like how you had a method all along on this blog and saved it all for the last paragraph, in which you hit five birds with one stone by juxtaposing (and implying a relationship with) the greedy, the miserable, the poor and the abusive and the perpetuation of all of these by the greedy brainwashing in the media by television shows (which really all started with marketing psychological manipulations).

However, I think Donald Trump is at least SAYING something, in his prospective run for presidency, which is he's talking about how we need to do something with respect to the Saudis. That's the number one issue in the world. They are manipulating the price of oil and destroying the global economy (for the 6th time). We should be considering, at about the most, seizing their oil fields; it would be justified because they caused 9/11. But we LEGALLY can make them lower the price of oil under WTO anti-trust laws and tax it, and put some money into cellulosic ethanol R and D. And of course, we need to mandate that all new cars sold be flex-fuel vehicles capable of running on methanol and not just ethanol as they do now, for only $15 dollars extra, so the fuel line doesn't corrode (although they can use methanol now; just eventually the fuel line will corrode).

Oh, yeah, and here's the graph that shows the correlation between high oil prices and unemployment.

Notice 1973, 1979, 1991, 2001 and 2008 (highest rise in oil price historically and very abrubtly).

The oil price (adjusted for inflation to 2010 dollars) is in blue and unemployment is in purple.

http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/02/1-31.jpg

I also wanted to mention that Thomas Jefferson said that democracy might not survive if the gap between, basically the haves and have nots, was too wide.

Here's the truth as I see it:

1 Freud etc. psychology

2 Marketing and corporations using psychology to manipulate the population

3 Republicans using manipulation to brainwash population against their own financial interests

4 Sprinkle in global recessions due to high oil prices in 1973,1979,1991, 2001, 200.

4 Poor manipulated miserable people wanting to abuse everyone else because they are insufficiently loved and not living up to the standard of the manipulation

5 Reality television, or sit-coms etc. perpetuating this mindset as well as most of all the rise in "political" media, like Limbaugh, who are basically just brainwashing hate and systematically attacking manners in society (which is what it's based on) and perpetuating the "make everyone miserable" mindset where the political ends are more like an afterthought.

6 We have a bunch of unspeakable babies running around who wants everyone to read their minds to cater to their unspoken needs, basically in effect saying "You're supposed to read my mind!" all trying to make everyone else miserable (while, in reality shows, or "political" programs, not being miserable, but just playing a miserable person on tv...or radio).

7 People seem to be thinking, who aren't miserable, that perhaps they ought to be miserable and make everyone else miserable because it seems to be a successful personality (which has gone through drastic changes, from happy-go-lucky to Glenn Beck....just cry and get what you want like a baby).

8 Crying to get what you want is all the rage, rather than communicating.

9 It's in all the art; its on television, radio. F*cking with people looks like a success story.

10 Meanwhile Saudi Arabia is making yet another killing and people will only be interested in it if it means we get to annoy them.

11 I'm saying, yes, they will be annoyed, very annoyed if we take their oil from them, or at least, legally penalize them and mandate flex-fuel vehicles. I'm annoyed at you. You know what won't annoy me? you mandating flex-fuel vehicles. Don't mandate flex-fuel vehicles. That would irk me so..and the Saudis.

You are obviously a Communist. No, make that a Terrorist.

The only point you make, Roger, that I might quibble with--if quibble it is--is that it wouldn't matter what the tax rate is for corporations. Currently it's at 35% and they want it at 15 or lower. But point in fact is that they would find ways of not paying their taxes if it was only 1%. Here's my reasoning:

There was a story on 60 minutes about the Corporate tax code being too high on March 27. 60 minutes neglected one tiny little thing that would neutralize that whole bullshit story. Yes corporate taxes are the highest in the U.S. of the entire industrial world but the fact of the matter is that there are so many tax loopholes that they end up paying no more taxes than any other corporate entity on the planet. ( A Senator Bennett from Colorado said this one morning on NPR and it wasn't to refute the 60 minutes story but just a statement of fact).

The only reason why corporations move jobs overseas to certain areas (not large swaths of Europe, BTW) is not because of taxes , but is because they can get cheap labor and circumvent union/labor laws and rules where there aren't any. Until all the unions are sufficiently destroyed in the U.S., corporations won't be coming back here for manufacturing purposes. So the plan is that so long as public employees still have unions (Over 50% of the entire public work force are covered by public worker unions whereas in the private sector it's only 8% that are covered by any union) they still serve as an example of how good unions have made life for workers.

So what's the plan? The final phase here is to destroy the public unions, turn people against them and they'll be no more unions at all, no examples to be looked at and thus corporations will be back to get that good no rule, cheap, minimum wage worker once again under their collective thumbs. Back to the future, baby. And the great economic middle class is no more. . .

Yet why if corporations would pay no more taxes overseas than they would here why would they demand that the tax rate should be lower once all the unions are destroyed? Well once back here they would still have to pay all those consultants, lobbyists, lawyers etc who seek out all those tax loopholes. Lower the rate and they can get rid of them too . . .

"If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under?"

Fascist—it's the legacy of Prescott Bush and don't you forget it. When the corporations align with the government to quash regulations and tear up worker's rights, you enter a Fascist state. Let's not beat around the Bush—that family has been at the center of a Corporatist plot to take this country and its laws down since the time Prescott funneled money to I.G. Farben in violation of the Trading With the Enemy laws of this country, and Being that he's one of Wall Street's boys, he got a slap on the wrist. That's where Astroturfing like the Koch Brother's "Tea Party" get their fuel, motivation and model—what "W" said in that little clip in Fahrenheit 911 where he's addressing a room full of Corporate bigwigs says it all: "You are my base."

Half Sigma posts on:
The Tea Party movement is post-Marxist
February 17, 2010

Because mainstream political analysts are unable to the view the world through any lens other than the left-right Democrat-Republican liberal-conservative dichotomy, they cannot understand what the Tea Party movement is really about.

As you recall, Marx identified two primary classes: the capitalists and the proletariat. He didn’t use the words “value transference,” but it’s what he described. The proletariat created value through their work in the factories, and the capitalists who owned the factories unjustly transferred value from the workers to themselves.

In my famous blog post on post-Marxism, I identified the four classes of modern times. At the top and bottom of the class structure are the value transference classes. The upper class I call the value transference class, because they are rich based not on the value created by their labor, but rather by their ability to transfer value created by the value creation classes to themselves.

At the very bottom, we have the parasite class which is similar to Marx’s lumpenproletariat. The parasite class is also a value transference class, because they receive more money from the government, and do more harm to society through their negative externalities, than the value they create from their labor.

Just as in the old days of Marx, the value creation classes are angry that the value of their labor is being transferred to other classes which don’t create any value themselves. The difference, today, is that their value is being transferred not only to the upper classes, but also to the lower classes.

People who feel that the current system of government is screwing them over are the ones who support a revolution. But there would be no point to a leftist revolution, because it’s leftist policies which are transferring value from the value creators. It’s notable that Obama was elected by the value transference classes. In addition to winning the vote of the poor, Obama also carried the majority of the upper value transference class. This is why the Tea Party movement is moving in the direction of supporting a libertarian revolution rather than a communist revolution. The communists are currently in power, and the upper value transference class voted for them.

Somewhere along the way, the Tea Party movement needs to figure out that the government they really want is not a pure libertarian government, but one in which the government prevents the rich from transferring value from the value creators while also not allowing the value to be transferred to the poor.

I seem to remember being outraged twenty or twenty-five years ago when I read that GE had paid no corporate income taxes. I fear I have no outrage left.

Life just isn't fair, Roger.

Sorry, I don't buy the class warfare nonsense and resent the sweeping generalizations made about "the top 1%". There is no doubt that some of the wealthy realized their fortunes via dubious motives and abuse of workers, but the vast majority are people like me, who risked EVERYTHING to pursue my American dream. The wealth of this country is not a zero-sum game; if you have an idea, and you can sell that idea, you will create a market niche and work to create your own fortune.

I was not born into any advantage; I paid my own way through college and started with nothing. I worked my tail off and climbed the company ladder, and when the immoral ethics of my CEO became impossible for me to reconcile, I moved on. After a court battle over a non-compete, and 4 months of unemployment, I launched a professional services company in the worst economy imaginable. I slogged to the office at 3:00 am, worked 16 hours a day until I could generate enough revenue to start hiring. For months, my family sacrificed as my wife and I worked for free so that we could pay our employees. Finally, after almost three years, our revenue reached a point where we could take more of OUR money than just what we needed to get by.

Through this, I did not whine and complain about how bad I had it, or how unfair the corporate world was. I put my nose to the grindstone and worked harder so that I could get ahead. I didn't sit around writing essays about how rigged the system was; that is a waste of energy and counter-productive.

I did this all for the privilege of paying an outrageous amount of taxes. It will take me years to recoup the amount of money I had to pull out of my retirement (which I had to pay a penalty to do) to fund my company. I don't get any tax breaks on that. I'm still the last one to get paid in the office. I just had an employee make a mistake for which I had to write a $25,000 check, out of my pocket. That means I have to do without.

You progressives can hem and haw about how unfair the system is, but the vast majority of the earners that pay the high taxes in this country are guys just like me. We take on enormous risks to give ourselves the opportunity to realize our dreams and carve out our fortune. We employ people, pay them a good wage and take care of their families.

God gave everyone the ability to aspire to lofty goals. It's time people started using that energy to work towards that ambition, and less time whining about how their neighbor has more than they do.

Why do middle and lower class Tea Party members not understand that they bear an unfair burden of taxes that should be more fairly distributed?
We do understand this! That's what we're about!

That's why we're against higher taxes for ourselves. That's why we want tax simplification. (You really have to do your homework, Roger.) I'm lower middle class and currently unemployed. My principal concern is making my rent and not giving Treasury 33% of the $1000 I made this month. But what happens if you tax GE at 90%? That's less money to go into the company which means less jobs. It's simple, logical economics. I would much rather have a job at GE than an welfare check. Forget government redistribution -- I want work.

Look, I agree with you that it's a crime that any given CEO gets a zillion dollar bonus for driving their company into the ground. Hell, I'll do that for half the price. But your arguments are too broad. Linking the philosophies of the Tea Party to XYZ executive of XYZ bank is too much of a stretch.

Yes, the other 99 percent get to party with the remaining wealth.
This is the principal flaw in your argument.

You're assuming that there is a finite amount of money, and we have to beg for crust at the doors of the king. This is wrong -- there is no such thing as "the remaining wealth." Wealth can be created. Oprah didn't make her money by stealing from the rich. Nor did she make it by leaving a billion people homeless and hungry. She created wealth, expanded the economy, and by extension made other people wealthy, or at least with a good living.

Cinesea is right. When a billionaire buys a Gulfstream he or she is helping the livelihoods of hundreds or thousands of engineers, carpenters, designers, electricians, mechanics, ground crew, service personnel, welders, plumbers, bookkeepers, and yes executive managers that earn a paycheck from the company. The sale also helps the people who supply Gulfstream with tires, GPS, leather chairs, wires, computers, tons of office supplies. Those people depend on the sale, maintenance, and service of those airplanes. A private jet pilot makes a good coin. Hence, money is redistributed -- naturally -- and not by government fiat. Would you rather Gulfstream didn't exist because its employees are "groveling for table scraps"?

But reverse your argument a bit. What does a poor person from say, Somalia, see when they look at Roger Ebert. If he's bitter, then Roger stole all he has from less fortunate people like himself and needs to give back more. Why should Roger have a nice house, a nice car, lots of books, a computer, a home theater, and be able to travel the world when he can't get a gallon of clean water? Does Roger really need to see another movie when his family is hungry? Where is the economic justice? Where is the redistribution of Roger's (relative) wealth?

"The Theory of Memes" and "opres moi le deluge"

Memee, mimee, moi.

Bring on the deluge. Drown this species out. Give the dolphins their chance.

You know what I blame for a lot of this lackadaisical attitude by ordinary Americans? "American Idol." Too many people are convinced that, with just a bit of luck, they too can become rich and famous. They can become Lady Gaga or Steven Spielberg or yes, even Roger Ebert.

So we'd better not come down too hard on the rich and powerful when they "overextend," because someday that could be us! Meanwhile, the Simon Cowells of the world sit back, smile, and continue to rake in the bucks.

Roger, I'd probably be more indignant, but those finance jerks are only doing what the political jerks allow them to. You know, the political scumbags that we voting jerks keep electing...

A constant refrain I see is, "Why does the Tea Party (or conservatives) vote against their own interests?"

I would submit that many of these people have a different conception of what their own interests would be. I believe the 'Partiers have the wisdom and foresight to see that even if their short term interests are served by, lets say, Obamacare, in the long term the creation of a large, powerful government bureaucracy under the influence of career politicos and lawyers in the pay of powerful unions and corporations is dangerous and undesirable.

The nice thing about small government and low, simple taxation is that there is no question whether or not GE is paying their fair share of taxes - X% of yearly profits goes to the tax man. No loopholes, no deductions. A single accountant with a calculator could audit them in an afternoon. Imagine the savings in time, money and headache if the head of a family could total up his paycheques at the end of the year, deduct a basic exemption, multiply by .X and cut a cheque.

Let's take it as a given that there is an unholy alliance between government and big business. How does it benefit a small businessman to see the government grow even bigger and more pervasive? A small, corrupt government is a nuisance. A large and powerful corrupt government can be an existential threat. Tea Partiers understand that.

I feel a connection here with your previous post, Mr Ebert. We are basically only grains of sand in this big machine.

Is a revolution possible in North-America ? Not in the present context. Divide to conquer. And how divided are we now. Can't even agree on a strategy for a budget, nor on anything else for that matter. Do we know what's good or bad ? Of course we do. But this train is way too big to stop and reverse its course.

The current state of this country's economical system is the epitomy and pure logical evolution of the dominant-by-nature capitalist ideology. By virtue of its irrefutable similarity with nature's driving force — only the best adaptation and strongest implementation survives and evolves further — the top of the pyramid (a.k.a. 1 percenters) uses its competitive advantage for its unabated domination and perenniality. For this ruling class, to show mercy or compassion for the bottom feeders is antinomic, barring notable exceptions such as Gates or Buffett. But even Gates' or Carnegie' philantropy have tribal-winning-resonant goals.

In my humble opinion, only external forcings will "reset" the meter and allow truly democratic governing and rulemaking for the common good of Man not only in the U.S. but throughout civilization­. Only when this planet's ecosystem kicks back and downsizes mankind to a more balanced state and place among the other essential inhabitants of the Earth will people realize the madness of its current ways.

The Walmarts of this world and their owners are doing exactly what they are supposed to do individually in the political and economical schemes of things. It is a collective conscience and moral strength that is missing, to set limits (yes, regulation) and boundaries at a certain level for the whole system to not succeed but actually avoid self-implosion and inevitable collapse.

History teaches us that empires are incapable of that on their own.

The basic concept that the current concentration of wealth is not acceptable is correct but the reasoning to support that premise is flawed. The concentration of wealth has grown in the same time and format that the federal government has grown in spending and power. Greed and corruption in business goes hand in hand with greed and corruption in all levels of government- in fact big business (and unions are a big business) and government have now merged. Who does Obama appoint as a chief advisor- the head of GE. Why does GE pay no taxes- because of lobbying (ie payments to government officials). Why does the SEC (government) allow Wall Street to siphon off wealth from the general public- because the SEC officials have direct ties to Wall Street. This is not a partisan issue- republicans and democrats alike are corrupt and greedy. The greater power vested in government over our society leads to the greater abuse of that power. This is why the Tea Party is so correct and so important. We must dismantle government to bring power back to the populace. The people who are telling us the new health care plan will be effective are the same people who told us Freddie Mac and Fannie May will never be a financial liability. We must take back the culture and the economic environment. As best said some thirty years ago- "THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE SOLUTION, THE GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM."

The Driftglass blog has an article likening the right wing financial orgy with hardcore drug addiction. It's called, "Shattered Like a Glass Reagan":

http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2011/04/fundraiser-day-3.html

"Reagan was the first mountain of coke the Right piled onto the national coffee table; the first, chilly bottles of champagne bought with stolen credit cards being popped. Reagan was the promise that the peak moment of frenzied, stomping, tribal, rage-drunk Wingnut Worldf**k -- the moment when everything was beautiful, and everyone was gonna get laid -- could be made to last forever and ever if they all just clap-clap-clapped loud enough, hated hard enough, and all agreed to never under any circumstances look back at the ruin they were leaving in their wake."

It concludes with a lengthy quote from the Harlan Ellison short story, "Shattered Like a Glass Goblin".

Perhaps that explains the heedlessness that Tea Partiers and Ultra-Conservatives have shown. The same kind of heedlessness of a hardcore addict during an attempted intervention.

Chuck

Here in NJ the somewhat common man is raping the system I guess in their minds to make up for what you suggest as the 1 percenters.
For example our legislators earn $49k per year while enjoying at the very same time a $36k pension.

Now to you that's small change but you repeat it over thousands of times like through NJ and you have hundreds of millions that could go to schools that is just disappearing. Maybe some day you'll talk about the public theft that is just so blatant and yet writer's like you just don't have the moxie to confront it.

Replace, "1 percenter" with "rich", with "white", with "Jew" and all will understand your game.

I would disagree that there's no indignation about financial practices in the Tea Party; granted it may not be especially well focused but it is none the less there. Many have pointed to a rant by Rick Santelli about bank bail outs as being the start of the protests and I can only suspect that a large number of its members are also fans of Alex Jones.

As for the Bush tax cuts; they will need to be phased out to some extent. As a tax professional though, I find that political talk about them only benefiting the rich to be quite misleading. The problem with tax write offs often is that they only exclude money from taxes which is a relatively small benefit for those in low income tax brackets. The child tax credit along with some of the credits in the Bush tax cuts helped remedy this problem by giving fixed amount tax reduction instead of income exclusions the way many credits do.

The tax I think needs to be raised in some way is the capital gains tax the problem is that if asset holders think the raise will not be permanent there is a tendency for their belief to become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Last year 24% of U.S. GDP was collected as taxes at all levels of U.S. governance, the same amount as in 1950. That's despite the fact that we have Medicare, Medicaid, Interstate highway, twice as many national parks, and so forth. We want those things, but we want a free lunch -- we don't want to pay for them. But the average American does pay more taxes. Why? In 1950, corporations paid 30% of all income taxes paid in America. That figure for 2010 was... 7%. Prior to passage of Prop 13 here in California, corporations paid over 60% of all property taxes paid in California. Last year... under 30%. Yet corporations are sitting on a pile of money -- $2.7 *TRILLION* according to the latest Federal Reserve reports -- that they aren't spending because they're drowning in money and have no productive use for those reserves. Wouldn't it make sense to tax them -- and those obscene bonuses -- at 1950 levels again and take some of that $2.7T in "retained reserves" to either reduce taxes on individuals back to 1950 levels, or eliminate the deficit? If corporations weren't killed by paying 30% of their profits as taxes in 1950, why would they be killed by doing so today? Don't corporations benefit from having Interstate highways, federal courts, etc. too? Why *shouldn't* they pay their fair share for those things?!

Then there's the 1%'ers. The 1%'ers own 40% of America (which implies they make 40% of America's income but are hiding a significant chunk of that as "expenses" or "capital gains") and pay far less than that in taxes. Even income taxes, they're only paying 37% of that, and far less for sales taxes and virtually 0% for Social Security taxes. Did you know that Social Security would be solvent beyond the lifetime of anybody now living if we taxed the 1%'ers at the same rate for Social Security that we tax everybody else?

Where did the 1%'ers money come from anyhow ? Answer: from US! They produce nothing, they create nothing, all they do is run one grifter scam after another to get other people's money, it is those of us in the productive and creative classes who create the things they sell as part of the giant scam that is the U.S. economy yet we get peanuts and they get the billions. If it wasn't for us producers and creators, the 1%'ers would have nothing because they make their money by grifting a slice off of everything that everybody else does, not by themselves creating anything or producing anything. The CEO of Delta Airlines hasn't touched the controls of a jet airliner in decades -- if not for the pilots and mechanics, whose pay has been stagnant or declining for the past decade while his pay soared even as Delta lost staggering amounts of money, he'd have nothing. So why *shouldn't* we tax them? It's our money!

I just love it when a limo lib that's extremely wealthy goes on and on about evil rich people are and how so greedy and blah blah. One of the only comments on here that was worthwhile so far was the one asking how come you're exempted from such hate. All you did was trifle at it. Real brave, right there. You're part of the problem. You're in the top few percent and yet, just like Michael Moore, that you're above it all and it's those *other guys* that are rich that are causing the problems.

Ebert: A limousine liberal? I smile.

Readers like Jimmy Forest here seem quick to hurl the "socialist" broadside at others, yet seem unaware of the fact that what we have now IS a socialist system--but upward socialism, a redistribution of wealth to the rich. He and others are incensed by the so-called "entitlement" programs in our society, believing that's giving away money to those who haven't really earned it; but isn't it curious how we don't call corporate subsidies and tax breaks for the rich "entitlement programs"?

Language sure is a funny thing.

I am a former accountant on studio films. Dozens are made each year for tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. From experience: Wall Street is not the only home of significant financial fraud. The problems are exacerbated by studios exploiting loopholes in regional tax incentives designed to stimulate local economies. (More often than not, the studios simply pay a pass-thru company.)

The environmental impact of film production is an entirely other dimension that requires urgent action. Most studios have some sort of "green" plan in place, but its often more for show.

Moviegoers also vote with their wallets. Heavy handed as it may sound, we need to come to terms with the political ramifications of our decision to visit the multiplex.

As I struggle to raise the relatively puny amount of money to keep our entomology outreach program running at Sonoma State University (no gov't funding available, of course, and yet another CSU-wide massive cut on its way), I daily have to set aside my frustration that with a wave of a pen, one of the wealthy in our well-to-do county could easily ensure that our program continues - without even noticing the impact on their bank account! I am not alone, of course. It is an outrage that there is not more funding for programs such as these, that provide enrichment (in our case, science) to our highly impacted classrooms, as we struggle to educate the next generation, while the wealthy add marble and antiques to their 'condo-size' bathrooms.

it's not a lack of outrage - it's a lack of power & a lack of voice. the evidence, as you point out, has been manifest for at least the past 25 yrs - & that's probably only the white sector of society. given the current militant right-wing nature of this country, any more aggressive reaction would likely be met with a police action.

And imagine 15 years ago, that when walking through NYC I was under the impression that the unshaven, filthy, greasy man on the street corner in tattered clothing with hair growing out of every orifice imaginable, holding up the sign and screaming:

"AMERICA IS OWNED BY THE COPRORATIONS!!!
WE ARE ALL SLAVES."

was a total and complete nutjob.

Not anymore

I implore, and so should any true American if they want to save their republic, firms like Moody's to lower America's laughable and unearned AAA credit status one notch to wake it's citizen's up and bring our representatives back to reality. I feel the rating agencies have ended up becoming a complicit party to the spending orgies that are staples within every bill.
Are we headed for an out and out collapse? Just cause we can print our own money doesn't mean that deficits don't matter. This isn't solitaire. Other countries are playing in the exact same game we are and guess what? They don't want to lose by holding dollars. That should be obvious to anyone who DOESN'T have a Ph.d

Give us Aa1 or give us death.(Not as stupid as it sounds)

And to those who believe this economic recovery is real and choose to ignore the increased deficit spending to perpetuate the mirage of a recovery, I offer this analogy:
If I may take you back to a fateful night in April of 1912:
A giant passenger cruise liner named the Titanic smashed into an iceburg, ultimately sinking the supposedly unsinkable ship.
After initial impact, some realized exactly what just happened, understood what was likely to occur and went for the lifeboats.

While others paid little mind and kept dancing.

Facebook blocked me when I tried posting this from here but when I went to my profile and copy/pasted the link in, I had no problem posting it on Facebook.

I have to admit, I haven't always agreed with you, but your journal entries are starting to seem more and more wise to me.

I don't believe in punishing success, but I don't believe in rewarding failure as the bailouts did. The government "invested" in all the sinking ships. If we don't allow the failures to fail, then we aren't really being capitalist.

On the Donald Trump note, media is escapism. It gives us vicarious visions of what we think we want, but it also consumes our time and inhibits us from getting there. You probably know this all too well as a film critic. Mainstream media is the opiate of the masses.

With the tea party types, I think they see the problems in this country. They just don't want a liberal solution. What we need is to eliminate the vast majority of the tax code and the vast majority of the federal budget. Let the states pick up their own slack accordingly. GE should not be finding ways to weasel out of paying taxes.

I notice you make no mention of a) how much that 1% pays in taxes (hint: it's insanely high), and b) the fact that EVERYONE makes more. If everyone's standard of living is up (and, long-term, it definitely is), yet some people have become wealthy faster, is that bad? If so, why? Everyone concerned about income inequality needs to ask themselves: would it be better if we all had less, collectively, provided we also had more similar wealth relatively? It seems to me that an improvement is an improvement, and that being more concerned with relative wealth than total wealth is nothing more than gussied up envy. In other words, it's the exact same kind of greed you're decrying, because it's not about merely having more, it's about having more than someone else. In tearing down supposed greed, you would merely enable envy.

You also seem to be basing the bulk of your moral outrage based on anecdotes. You start by complaining about income inequality, then say you do not begrudge genuinely earned money...and then you talk about Bernie Madoff and broad generalities about faceless Wall St. types who commit financial fraud. So where's the connection? You seem to have skipped over the part where you provide some sort of evidence suggesting that the second group is the same as the first, or at least a good sampling of them. There are leaps of logic left and right.

Ebert: How many taxpayers do you believe actually payt the amount suggested by their tax rate?

A friend of mine tried to re-post your article on Facebook but wasn't allowed because it was flagged as "abusive".
How sickening.

I can't seem to share this on Facebook. It wants to post your last article about the universe, which, while very worthwhile and interesting, doesn't help explain why we mustn't jump into the American handbasket and elect another right-wing government here in Canada.

Thank you! :) K. C.

Hi Roger,

I am a Tea Partier Libertarian. I’ve also religiously watched 303 of the 346 Roger Ebert’s “Great Movies,” and make a point of watching all movies that you give 4 stars to. I’d love to hear more from you about movies and not politics.

Once again, I must take exception to many of your assertions. President Reagan famously said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts. Let’s address the facts.

Top 1%

The top 1% now pay 39% of all federal income taxes at the top marginal rate of 35%, while in 2000 the top 1% paid 37% of all federal income taxes at the top marginal rate of 39.6%.

The top 25% pay 86% of all federal income taxes, while in 2000 they paid 84% of all federal income taxes.

The top 50%pay 97% of all federal income taxes.

Kennedy reduced the top marginal rate from 91% to 77% and brought in more taxes from “the rich.” Reagan reduced the top marginal rate from 70% first to 50% and then to 28% and brought in more taxes from “the rich.” George W Bush reduced the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 35% and again brought in more taxes from “the rich.”

Corporate Welfare

I agree that Wall Street’s behavior was reprehensible. The current system is that we socialize risk, while privatize profit. This is wrong. I would privatize both risk and profit. There is no reason at all for Goldman Sachs, Bank of America or Citibank to still be alive. They made horrible investments. The consequence for horrible investments is that those companies go out of business. They should not have been “rescued.” They should have been allowed to fail, and the prudent banks who did not engage in risky behavior could have bought the remains of their assets.

Bush Tax Cuts

You assert that half of the deficit could be eliminated by not renewing the Bush tax cuts. Are you aware that only $700 Billion is for the top two tax brackets and $3 Trillion is for the rest of the tax brackets? Are you advocating that the Bush tax cuts be eliminated for the middle class, because that is where the money is?

Path to Prosperity

Republican House Budget Chair Paul Ryan has released his detailed “Path to Prosperity.” If you don’t agree with it, what would you propose? The status quo is untenable, and historically we have not been able to tax our way to prosperity; instead falling marginal tax rates have proven time and time again to pay for themselves under the Laffer Curve.

Atlas Shrugged

I am thrilled to see that Atlas Shrugged, Part I is being released on April 15th. I hope that it earns a good review from you.

Gary E. Robbins

Ebert: I've seen it. Let me know what you think of it.

I remember having a conversation once about this topic with my family and friends over breakfast. The mindset in America about wealth is very different from the way it is in Europe. Think about the wealthiest people in America, then think about how many you can name who are from France, or Spain or England? Anyone besides the royal family? In America, we have not just the vision of a fair days pay for a fair days work, but the belief that anyone, not matter what their initial position, can become wealthy and successful. (The two are not necessarily the same thing.) The problem is not so much the aspiration to better your circumstances than the dream that fuels it. People, such as the ones in the Tea Party, who uphold policies that are detrimental to themselves hold up the value that they too can someday be like the ones who 'made' it, the select few in the one percent. They are not defending laws for who they are NOW but for who they WANT to be. There in lies the problem. Too many of us are stuck in tunnel vision, always heading toward the light, without regard for how we're supposed to survive the darkness we are in now.

I recall Reid Hastings, the founder and CEO of Netlfix, saying he runs his hand under hot water from his tap every morning to remind himself how benefited he is to have clean, warm running water when so many die every year just because their drinking water is unsanitary. He built a company that has left many folks in the film and media industry shaken. The innovation he is seeking to bring more movies and television programs into peoples homes is but a small part of how the internet created new one percenters who are moving us deeper into the 21st century. I personally could not have imagined being able to see so many incredible anime series like "NANA," "Neon Genesis Evangelion," and "Eden of the East" before Netflix because even though they are wonderful shows, the audience for them in the US is way too small for them to air on 'standard' television. A real shame considering their quality would force many audiences to revaluate what their expectations are from animated programing when compared to "Family Guy" or "South Park." (I can show an episode of NANA to my Babyboomer parents and they'll watch the entire series; they can catch me watching an episode of Family Guy and wonder what I find entertaining about it.)

I'm sorry, I got way off topic there.

Americans have ambition that I think is the envy of the rest of world. It is just that too many have misplaced what that effort needs to go into: helping who you are now, or supporting who you want to become. Some one percenters lose sight of who they once may have been, the revolutionaries that moved the world into the future, now only trying to escape everything by acquiring as much wealth as possible. Other one percenters want to continue moving forward and are willing to help those who help themselves, not those who want to make it easier for them while making it harder for themselves. So if you ever 'make' it, put your hand under warm running water everyday and remind yourself how and why you have such a luxury.

And if you have a Netflix subscription, watch one episode of NANA instead of another animated sitcom cliche on FOX.

I really enjoyed reading this article. Thank you for it.

And it meshes with a keynote address made by Lawrence Lessig at the National Conference for Media Reform this weekend. I hope you might take the time to watch/listen to his presentation, because he made some very interesting points--and I think you would agree. Here's the link http://blip.tv/file/5000937

PS--Looking forward to Ebertfest!

@Joanna | April 9, 2011 10:37 AM | Reply
Mr. Ebert, I am very, very hesitant to recommend a movie to a movie critic, and my stomach is flipping as I type these words to YOU of all critics, but by chance did you view a set of documentaries done by Jamie Johnson, of the Johnson & Johnson fortune? Born Rich from 2003 had interviews with young heirs discussing their feelings on wealth and entitlement.

I thought the Born Rich documentary was fascinating. And it is SHOCKING in one aspect. Almost all the young heir come accross as rather reprehensible. That's not the shocking part the shocking part is that one set of children of the super Rich seem to be serious and thoughful and take their wealth as a responsibilty: Donald Trump's children.

How this is the case, I'm not sure. How did Trump raise such good kids? I think He IS reprehensible but you gotta give the man credit.

Roger, man, where's the spoiler warning for "Super?" That was a pretty blatant giveaway. Even if you're casually browsing the site and avoid clicking on the actual review, a major plot point is still revealed. I still want to see it, because I think James Gunn is talented and it has a great cast, but a huge element of surprise has been robbed from the experience. Not knocking you; just saying you might want to give people a heads up, that's all.

Also - and I apologize for this not pertaining to the article - I wanted to commend you for your piece on Sidney Lumet. He's probably the greatest director I can think of that never did a single thing to call attention to himself. You can watch a Scorsese film or a Spike Lee film and know instinctively it's their work, but Lumet never allowed himself his contemporaries' indulgences. He literally started from scratch with each new film, and never did a single thing that wasn't in service of the story. It's sad to think that the reason he didn't earn more accolades is the very reason he deserved them: he was selfless as a director, and the Academy was much more responsive to the "look at me" tricks of his peers (I mean that as a knock on the Academy, not his peers). His book, "Making Movies," which you mentioned in the article, is hands down the best book I've ever read on the filmmaking process, and I've read quite a few (I thank you for that, Roger, because your endorsement on the front cover was the main reason I chose to buy it). He'll be missed, but it's encouraging to note that he's left a legacy few others have matched.

Also, two and a half weeks 'til Ebertfest! Can't wait!

Absolutely agree.
I hope the outrage is growing.

It takes write-ups like this from unexpected corners to understand the depth of unrest at things as they are.

Ebert: A limousine liberal? I smile.

I only drive a Ford Focus. A Ford Fusion seems like a limousine to me. :)

You and Chaz have certainly earned everything you have and are an inspiration for achievement.

Ebert: A Ford Focus is a splendid automobile. The first car I owned was a Ford, and now it appears one will see me out.

My last comment didn't get published but basically said that I liked the juxtaposing (correctly) of the abusive, the poor, the miserable, and the powerful and greedy who perpetuate it by psychological manipulations.

But I also wanted to say that Donald Trump is TALKING about dealing with the Saudis, which is the number one issue in the world. He's not saying how he's going to deal with it, but he does realize that they are jacking up the prices and something needs to be done about it lest we go into a depression. Mandate flex-fuel cars, tax the OPEC oil (which we can legally do as part of WTO price-fixing laws), and perhaps even seize their oil fields, which would be justified, as the Saudis caused 9/11.

The correct word for the system we now live under is "oligarchy."

I knew it might take a day but The Fox Blog Brigade would eventually show up to express their anger at Roger's opinion.

Isn't that interesting? You can't get any of these knobs to get angry over buffoons like Donald Trump or Sarah Palin hijacking important national discourse to sell their brand. But, say something about economic unfairness and they jump, frothing, to defend GE and The Koch Brothers with their "your views on politics are infuriating," their accusations of "naive, uninformed populism that has replaced honest intelligent discourse" (lots of elitist-sounding words in that post, bub), their "resentment" of "the sweeping generalizations made about 'the top 1%'".

There's your anger, right there. Anger, not at economic injustices, not corporate malfeasance or greed. Anger at other people with a different point-of-view. Liberals! Socialists! Terrorists! They scream, and, then, "How DARE you call ME a name!"

Who could possibly argue against a greater tax burden for those with the most money? Who could possibly argue that anyone has EARNED billions of dollars? Why would The Koch Brothers, Texans, be interested in Wisconsin State politics?

Go ahead, Conservos. Get angry at me for my being angry. You've had a run of about thirty years. We're all swimming in your success.

Tell me how right you are. It'll be your turn to get angry when I laugh in your face.

The Tea Party.

Cracks me up. People still use this expression, as if there really IS such a thing.

They even self-identify. "I'm a member of a completely fabricated, non-existent political party. I'm a force to be reckoned with."

They're embarrassed to admit what they really are?

It's the only thing I can come up with to explain it.

R. Check it out. Big capital letter next to the name of every one of those candidates on that ballot.

The Tea Party. Bigfoot was there, serving cups of chamomile to The Loch Ness Monster. Santa Claus brought scones.

There is a book called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" It explains all of this, and it's twice as true today as the day it was written. You'll be glad you read it, and you'll start to feel the outrage.

Ebert: And a movie of the same title: http://bit.ly/hTQA6a

Roger- a quick note: you have referenced the domain bit.ly and informed readers to use it to bypass restrictions on facebook. No problem with the intent but do you fully understand that any domain name ending in .ly is an internet domain controlled by the regime of Col. Moammar Gadhafy. ly dentotes Libya in the lexicon of domain registration. check it out:

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/112508/gadhafi-ly-web-suffix-libya-wsj

yes the full length link - makes for some interesting reading.

Ebert: OMG. I'm going to try

Tiny.cc

I'm always amazed when people get angry with the government, but not with corporations. I kept thinking about this during the debate about health care. People would rather trust corporations that only exist to make money rather than a government that is appointed by the populace. The principle of the American government is that it exists to serve the people; the principle of a corporation is that it exists to serve itself. A company cares about consumers only to the extent that it wants them to keep buying products. When a food company hopes that its products won't kill its customers, the primary reason is not because it wants to protect people, but because it will lose customers. Killing people is bad for business. Of course, this is an incredible generalization, but I said I was talking about the basic principles. There are politicians who are greedy and are only out for themselves. And there are businesspeople who really want to do something good and are making products that they believe in.

But there are CEOs who give themselves enormous bonuses when their own companies are failing. Corporations are not always this bad, but unfortunately the principles of business and economics make them untrustworthy. During a recession, companies will lay off employees to save money. This is what any company will do when its having trouble; it's the smart business decision. The problem comes when every company is doing this. I guess you can't really blame a company for doing what it needs to do to survive, but when the economy is already bad, this only makes things worse. Laying off workers means that more people are unemployed. They don't have a lot of money, so they cut their spending. Companies that were already losing money are not selling as many products, so they lay off more workers (again, the smart business decision). This keeps the economy trapped in a spiral. The economy will eventually get back to where it was before the recession after people regain their confidence. This is all part of the business cycle. But it doesn't make recessions any less painful.

The point here is that companies are not necessarily bad when they make tough decisions to ensure their own survival, but companies are not looking out for us. We expect that corporations will not do the grossly unethical things that got us into this recession, but we have to acknowledge that they do not have our best interests at heart. People can use business to accomplish good things, but the primary function of a business is to make money so that it can continue to function. The primary function of our government is to serve the governed. A corporation represents a group of people who want the best things for their families, for themselves, for their own interests. A government is supposed to want the best for everybody. This is why we need the government to step in once in a while to make sure that the economy doesn't make things too painful. I tend to share Locke's view of human nature: that we all have certain natural rights, but we need society to come in and stop our rights from conflicting with each other. Corporations should be able to use their rights to achieve what is best for themselves, but there should be a limit and the limit is when it causes too much harm to people. The free market is great until it becomes too painful, and there's only so much pain that humans can take. Our humanity requires compassion for others and sometimes we need to remind the free market of that fact.

@Jason ...

"If the shareholders own the company and they deem it in their interests to pay executives obscene amounts of money, that's their prerogative."

You really think that pay is somehow influenced by shareholders?! Hahah. Board of Directors.

Hello Roger.

A disheartening fact, as outlined by a thesis written by a student at my university: no major corporation last year paid more than 2.5% in taxes. However, if you remove the loopholes from the Code to combat this reality, the business will leave. That's what I hear, anyway. I guess economic principles and theories of competition support that hypothesis.

Essentially, this thought has made me feel very defeatist lately. I really don't think things will get better, ever. We have too many politicians bought and paid for--essentially, businesses create their own tax rules. We have too many foreign politicians who are corrupt and easily bought by large, multi-national companies, who can exploit resources around the world. Of course, if one business holds back for moral or ethical reasons, another company will take its place. It's a downward spiral, absolutely. We're too self-serving, culturally-speaking, to get better without bloodshed.

Here's a heartening fact, though, which does run counter to the idea you posited as: "I have the quaint idea that wealth should be obtained by legal and conventional means--by working, in other words--and not through the manipulation of financial scams." The ten richest individuals in the world obtained their status from the following industries: telecom, IT, private equity, luxury goods, enterprise resource planning, steel, diamonds, mining/oil, petrochemicals, retail. Nice, tangible products and services. Granted, wealth comes from smart investment, so these individuals of course tie into the despicable-of-late financial services sector in some form or fashion, and even certain companies have diversified from being consumer and industrial goods to financial services (GE, for example). But, hopefully this list does serve as some mild consolation that the richest are still of the "hard-working" variety.

Take care. I enjoyed this entry, as I'm currently in an international business course in my MBA program which has opened my eyes to just how screwed we are as a species.

Miachael.
You are a genius.
With point two you have recognized the whole object of the most commonly used format of Advertising in the media.. The "Lifestyle" approach. It makes everybody feel as if they are included in the elite society and only a lucky break away from an appearance on MTV Cribs. So of course they don't want to stop the cash flow created by corruption. They think they will be only hurting themselves if they do. Its the greatest con trick every devised and it seems that though it doesn't fool all of the people all the time, it fools so many an who descent are simply, at best, ignored or more often, thought of as dangerousness trouble makers. Of course thats where the Patriot act comes in.

Your understanding of Marketing and advertising is is obviously deep and if you are ever interested in working in the field drop me a note. I'd snap you up.

How Did it get twisted around into "an obscene wage for shameless plunder"?

That's not right at all.

Excellent article tho about how the common people are no longer looking out for their own interests. Mr. Ebert strikes again. What could it be making the masses feel this way though? Where is the source of this intractability, this stubborness? Could it simply be the messenger? The messenger bringing the news, that's all the public needs to know? It's a matter of looking at a known track record. Perhaps Roger shouldn't underestimate his own power and influence. . .

It isn't wise to go against the audience playing that 'deal or no deal' show on TV. It isn't wise underestimating the wisdom, common sense, memory, and life experience of the American public.

This may be your best piece to date, Roger. Clearly, you've been paying attention. The best compliment I can give this is to post the link on my Facebook page. I think everyone should read this at least once.

The Kock brothers are just standard Libertarians.

Uh, Randy Masters: I love ya man but I think that's what's known as a Freudian slip there... ;-)

Very interesting! We seem to miss the mark! By concentrating on the 1 percenters, we fail to recognize greed in ALL areas of commerce: sports stars, actors and actresses, politicians, corporate leaders of pharmaceuticals, health insurance companies, heads of public universities, union bosses, winners of lotteries, etc.

Thanks for speaking up. Yes, it's outrageous how so many who are supposed to be acting as trustees are instead plundering those very assets.

Many of them should be prosecuted, but if we can't manage that, they should at least be ashamed of themselves. But that won't happen until the press stops gushing and starts doing its job again.

It is also the 1% who own cable TV stations, networks, magazines and movie studios.

They hire politicians as pundits, mostly right-wingers. They point the camera at the Hispanics, say, and tell us they are to blame for the budget crisis. All that welfare for free-loaders.

Or, it's the fault of teachers. Yeah, that's it. Fireman, cops, auto workers, nurses. Their fat pensions are sucking the treasury dry. Meanwhile, funding a war in Afghanistan costs how many hundreds of millions a week? We are fighting for "their" freedom, while ours is a joke.

My favorite: let's balance the budget by eliminating funding for NPR. Damn liberal troublemakers.

Citizens in Europe know what's happening,which is why you have riots in Greece and protests in France and the UK (largest since the Iraq war). It's not the common citizen and their legitimate claims for a decent livelihood that have caused the collapse of their economies - it is deliberate scheming from the 1%, who make the public take the risk while they take the profit.

The people there at least have the guts to stand up and say "Enough!!". What are we waiting for?

Oh yeah, we're waiting for the next American Idol.

I despair for America.

Left, right, it doesn't matter. Both political parties stir up wars and deficits to pay off every one who asks. We need to stop fighting amongst ourselves and expose every last corrupt politician, executive and banker, and keep making noise until they start working for us. That starts with firing, i.e. voting out, every politician who makes a payoff to anyone. A level playing field requires us to iron out every loophole.

Ultimately, people own these companies, and the people need a way for their voice to be heard. We should be demanding that corporate bonuses and salaries go into escrow accounts that hinge upon the long term prospects. We also need fund managers being responsive to the individual owners of our pension plans, IRA's and 401ks saying that's our money, and we want our cut before the incompetent CEO gets his.

We have gone through many struggles in our own lives, faced extreme bigotry, blindness, tragedy. We chose to drive smaller cars than we could afford, payed off our credit cards, payed off our medical bills. We did not gamble away our money at casinos, or lottery tickets, we did not drink ever, nor smoke ever, nor live beyond our means. And we have been generous towards others.

Now we are fortunate to live in what any would consider luxurious living conditions. Now we have all the amenities we desire, including piles of silver and gold to fill our coffers, a movie theater style big screen movie viewing room, statuary, and we have the most beautiful house and gardens in the neighborhood. Even the mail lady exhuberantly says how much she enjoys delivering to our house because of the lush gardens. Nice kids come by to take pictures of our garden and tell us how happy it makes them.

All of this makes us very happy. None of this was easy to achieve. We are creators: programmers, scientists, and artists. Our life and our property is a physical representation of our honest philosophy of mind. And we are beholden to no credit company, or system of indentured servitude.

And yet we bother nobody ask nothing of anyone else, and are polite if and when visitors arrive to our residence, and we never ridicule another person we encounter or insult them for the way they dress, talk or speak. And still, there are those who are envious of us for being so eccentric and for keeping to ourselves, and for being different. When we walk down the street hand in hand, some neighbors whisper jealous words. Yet we do our own thing.

If we do not have the freedom to be left alone in our person and possesions, and if we cannot do what we want on our own property then we are mere serfs.

It saddens me to see not only the mob rule but also the disdain for the fruits of labor of the individual that I see as a general consensus on this Ebert Blog. There is a great distinction to be made between those who have looted the system because of the socialist-croney capitalism complex (Not to be confused with Lassaiz Faire economic system) and those who have worked hard for their creations.

So many of you seek the wrong answers to the right questions. It is not the fiat system of currency of big government, where people get to add digits to their friends bank accounts that we should be striving for, but a currency that represents the one to one work of the individual and respects the individual as sovereign autonomous and inviolable. If you chose to make government more powerful as many of you seek, then the crimes that you have witnessed and bemoan endlessly, such as the Maddoff scandal, corporate tax shelters, will only worsen.

In Soviet era communism, the families of the Polit Bureau members lived in beautiful mountain dacha's because they had the power and set up the rules to benefit themselves.

If you want the government to control the wealth, then those snakes who know how to work the government system will get the favors as well! And the people who create beauty art, innovation and wealth in the first place will withold their efforts from such a system.

Again, I honor you for asking some of the right questions. In these bailouts, and quantitative easings, there has been a tremendous theft beyond anything the world has ever seen, and people should never let up. The questions many of you ask are the right ones, but please dont accept the wrong answers.

Thank you!

P.S. “I'm not a paranoid deranged millionaire. Goddamit, I'm a billionaire.”---Howard Hughes.

Something Like a Tea Party
By Richard Spencer

Boiled down to their essences, the Tea Party represents White, middle-class private-sector workers who are beginning to realize that their future is being taken away from them; the Wisconsinites represent White, middle-class public-sector workers who are beginning to realize that their future is being taken away from them.

Might these two groups notice that they have a lot in common?

What Madison proves is that what folks need is a productive outlet for their frustration. The question we need to answer is: where do we go to express our outrage? I've posted your column above to my Facebook account - I hope it will see wide circulation. Good. But THEN what?

I'm affiliated with Move Your Money, the Coffee Party, MoveOn, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum. Is there something to do that lies *between* Facebook and street protest? Or outside of them? Where do we express our outrage, RE? Please, please write that blog.

Many thanks for your post. Outstanding.

Is slavery really that bad? Sure, racially-based slavery is bad, but we might want to consider non-discriminatory slavery as a form of debt relief.

Say if you owe money to a corporation, then instead of sending them money, you work for them. Let's make it reasonable though--you work for about 10 hours a day and get a day or two off a week. You have to do whatever the corporation says, and THEY decide how much value (against your debt) your work is worth.

I think that would work great! Corporations would get free labor, and the slaves could work off their debt!

Ebert: What could possibly go wrong?

If you haven't already seen this graph, Roger, it pretty much says it all:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/02/tax_breaks_infographic.html

Ebert: A limousine liberal? I smile.

Randy Masters: I only drive a Ford Focus. A Ford Fusion seems like a limousine to me. :)

You and Chaz have certainly earned everything you have and are an inspiration for achievement.

Ebert: A Ford Focus is a splendid automobile. The first car I owned was a Ford, and now it appears one will see me out.

No one asked me, and no one particularly cares, but I have always driven Ford cars as well. My first car was a Ford Escort, my second a Ford Tempo, my third a Ford Taurus. I currently drive a 2008 Ford Taurus, because I could not fit into the Ford Fusion or Escape. Not being mechanically inclined, I have always been grateful for Ford's automotive dependability and the solicitous care and serve I receive from Regan Ford, Route 97, Haverhill, MA 01830. I maintained my previous Taurus for about eleven years, and I expect to keep my current one for at least eight years more. By the way, I always completely paid for each car (no monthly installment plan). To my mind, it is inherently ludicrous to have, essentially, a mortgage on an item that can only depreciate with time.

Do you favor a flat uniform tax on all corporations and people?

Ebert: There are modifications of the idea that are intriguing. What do you think?

Roger, thanks for speaking out. Your voice, stronger now than ever, is so important to us.

I have just about given up on hearing anything real from the press any more - it seems to have become more frivolous than ever.

I find myself looking forward to everything and anything you write about - whether the memories of penny candy and snowstorms or the state of film today.

Thank you!

Hi Roger

Do you know where I can get that toilet paper?

I just have to say, I love you, Roger! Thank you for sticking up for the "little" guys.

Why won't Facebook allow me to share this brilliant and eloquently said piece??? They say its abusive and should be blocked. WHA??

Maybe because Mark Zuckerberg is the ultimate 1%??

"Why do middle and lower class Tea Party members not understand that they bear an unfair burden of taxes that should be more fairly distributed? Why do they support those who campaign against unions and a higher minimum wage? What do they think is in it for them?"

Perhaps we/you should ask them.

It's easy to demonize the rich, but the reason why the disparity is increasing overall is because the money supply is increasing at a rate faster than the economy can recirculate the money from the rich back down the economic chain.

The populist approach to forcing this money essentially stuck at the top would be to tax it out of them and have the government reallocate it to the poor. The trouble with this method is that the government is inefficient at reallocating resources. In the long run, this method of reallocating the money from the rich to the poor has an overall vampiric impact on the economy resulting in less and less real buying power overall being available as time progresses.

So what is the best way to address this money being stuck at the top? Since it is an overinflating money supply that is causing it, the answer is obvious. The rate the money supply increases needs to be pulled back so that there is less money available to be stuck at the top. Although this is the right answer, this isn't the popular answer because it involves cutting back on debt, deficit and spending, and we have become addicted to these at the personal, company and government levels.

I really hope nothing much changes because something about the current system and the talk around it really fascinates me. So many comments here defend the rich... it's just really fascinating. I don't know...

It's almost as if the entire political process has failed the American people so completely that we argue politics only as "our side's right, your side's wrong," like we're talking sports, arguing that the football team from your city is better than some other city, not that we hope those we vote for and what we believe in will actually benefit us. It's like we fight over "ideas" and not over what we think will improve OUR lives.

The rich don't care about your lot in life. Why don't you?

If it is "socialist" to believe in a more equal distribution of income, what is the word for the system we now live under?

I think political punk Jello Biafra said it best when he described what we have today as feudalism.

Roger, a great piece. I just tried to post this to my Facebook page and was prevented from doing so. The reason given was, "This message contains blocked content that has previously been flagged as abusive or spammy."

Do you favor a flat uniform tax on all corporations and people?

Ebert: There are modifications of the idea that are intriguing. What do you think?

Although I do have an MBA, I do not pretend to be an economics master. However, I generally favor a flat tax for ALL. Of course, the main problem is determining the proper proportion/percentage for each corporation and individual. Should there be one percentage (e.g 25%) or a percentage continuum based on one's income? I tend to prefer the latter because, perhaps, the IRS's tax tables can serve as a template here. Only if a person (not a corporation) falls below a predetermined income level should he/she be exempted from paying tax. Eliminate not only the tax loopholes but also any deductions and loss considerations. I would apply the tax to all corporations (private and public, public and non-profit, charitable and religious). Regarding taxing heretofore exempt religious institutions, I feel one could at least tax their secular holdings (like property) and activities without violating the Constitution's (Religious) Free Exercise Clause.

I imagine implementing a flat tax faces more formidable opposition from professions such as CPAs and tax planners whose livelihoods would vanish. To placate them, the government might institute incentives to enter new but similar careers.

Reforming the U.S. tax industry will be like turning an aircraft carrier around in a duck pond. Yet reform is attainable. It would be wonderful to fill out a two-page tax document listing simply income and percentage payment. It is a practical, money-saving, and "green" idea.

Now, if we could only impose fiscal discipline on the federal government.

I couldn't have said it better, myself. It's disgusting how these people are piggybacking off the blue-collared workers, and have managed to dupe the majority of them at the same time. It is BEYOND appalling that they are so shameless.

Let me just say this: The majority of these people who take these bonuses and the like, their ilk claim to be "good Christians". How "Christian-like" is it, to take money away from the shareholders. Steal it, using fraudulent practices, and still lay blame at the peoples feet? What happened to this charity that they are always preaching about, yet turn around and spend exorbitant amounts of money on pointless and/or useless items?

The film "Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps" is very poignant that corporations have become excessively greedy, and going as far as double-dipping in on the money, that will soon, no longer be worth the paper it is printed on. Such socio-political commentaries are becoming more and more widely available, but why aren't people paying attention to it? It's because they are brainwashed by lobbyists, crooked politicians, and more of their ilk. It's a sad, sad, sad commentary on today's American culture.

I like the flat tax idea, myself.

I like even better the idea of a flat tax on purchases instead of income. Don't want to pay taxes? Don't buy anything.

I know that's simplistic, and it'll never happen - if it did, Congress would just start the same tricks it always does, deciding some things should be taxed more, some less. Politicians won't leave any flat tax flat. But it sure would be nice not having to do all the dratted paperwork every year.

Although I am well aware I am not stating anything thunderingly profound, the dearth of outrage probably stems from our ambivalent, love/hate attitude towards the well-to-do. Even as we condemn their "conspicuous excess and wretched consumption", often there is an obstinate, even perverse admiration for the qualities, such as persistence, talent, and cunning, that obtained their wealth. The wealthy person may be annoyingly bizarre, but as long as that person remains an entertaining sideshow, we will tolerate him/her. If they veer towards the blatantly malevolent, or do something DIRECTLY despicable to us, we will react quickly (Madoff is an obvious example).

Think about why we tolerate and embrace the superannuated British monarchy, or flamboyant, obscenely wealthy sports figures, or unrestrained movie stars, and perhaps the seeming passitivity may become easier to understand.

The two main problems in America--and the West in general--are greed and competition.
The two feed of each other.
This planet is moving away from a lifestyle bases on competition and toward one based on cooperation.
It won't take until the stock market completely collapses, and that will be relatively soon.

BP paid themselves bonuses for SafetyTransOcean, the company that owns the deepwater oil rig that caused the largest oil spill in American history, paying a bonus to its CEO because of the company's sterling safety record.
Declaring 2010 "the best year in safety performance in our company's history," Transocean Ltd., owner of the Gulf of Mexico oil rig that exploded, killing 11 workers, has awarded its top executives hefty bonuses and raises, according to a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
That includes a $200,000 salary increase for Transocean President and Chief Executive Officer Steven L. Newman, whose base salary will increase from $900,000 to $1.1 million, according to the SEC report. Newman's bonus was $374,062, the report states.
And their justification is nothing more than filthy harassment of humanity by Corporate, Satanic one-percenters .

I entirely agree with your point, but this is not a new phenomenon in America. I finished reading Edith Wharton's House of Mirth a few weeks ago and was shocked how a book written nearly 100 years ago so perfectly mirrors the lives of the rich today. They spend money wantonly while looking down on the people who made them their money, and only a few of them realize the functioning paradox they inhabit.
But yes, it infuriates me that these people make in a day what I make in a year. I'm a postdoctoral researcher studying autism. I make $40,000 a year with decent benefits. I am lucky to be one of the more highly paid postdocs in science.

Of course, that same 1% paid 38% of all the income tax in 2008 (latest year available; in 2007 it was 40%). Meanwhile, the bottom 50% of all taxpayers paid an aggregate 3% of all income tax collected. Ironically, if this wealth (and it is by and large "first generation" wealth, which is to say that they "made it" instead of "inherited it") was "spread around" a little bit more, the Treasury would actually collect LESS in taxes... the lower tax brackets pay a lower rate.

Obviously there's plenty of greed and bad behavior amongst the "1%", but not on the whole. One should always keep in mind that every dollar a rich person has they made by trading it for a good or service that the purchaser thought was a good deal at the time of the transaction. It is the height of conceit to buy something at a fair price from someone and then to tell that person what they can or should do with that money.

Mr. Ebert:

I appreciate the piece and I know you express the feelings of alot of Americans frustrated with the wealthy seemingly ignoring the middle class in order to profit more. I will take issue with your approach and your solution.

You cannot tax the rich more. To clarify, you can raise their rates, but at a certain tax level you will not collect more tax revenue. Historically since 1950, we have never been able to collect more than about 20% of GDP, whether the top rate is 90% or 28%. We also need to look at why the rich are rich - because they have raised our standard of living. Millions of Americans save money by shopping at large retailers like Target or Walmart. Without these type of stores, we would have fewer big screen TVs, fewer hamburgers, fewer boxes of cereal - because they have lowered the price of these goods so more people can enjoy them.

So for all of you that want to support the small guy, the working man, the union employee....here's how to do it. Stop buying from large corporations. Don't buy TVs, DVD players, new cars, new clothes. Buy your groceries from local farmers and local (union) grocery stores. Don't buy anything without it bearing a union label. Stop banking at large corporate banks and support your local hometown bank or credit union. Stop contributing to your 401(k) and buying investments from large investment banks and put your retirement money in your local bank or credit union in IRA CDs. If everyone stopped patronizing these businesses, we would all have a little less, but we also wouldn't support the rich. Make the market forces work for you....if that's the change you want.

You're a film critic so I have to ask: Where's Hollywood been on this? I constantly hear them derided as the "Hollywood left" or "Hollywood liberals", but in what sense? Is it because they offer halfhearted support to gay marriage and the environment (and then congratulate themselves for doing so)? Those issues, while certainly important, seem minor in comparison to an increasingly well structured inequality that effects just about everybody—with the exception, I guess, of billionares and celebrities. And yet there are no films, as far as I can tell, that really address this or even address the underlying cynicism and anger associated with it. Is it any wonder that these torture porn films are so popular? Don't they at least fill some deep, hidden need we have to express rage?

But where's our Make Way For Tomorrow, our Grapes Of Wrath, or even our Easy Rider? How come all we get is superheros, blue people from Pandora, and stuttering kings? If Hollywood is really America's cultural seat then what's to be said of a culture that offers up no reflection of it's time and place?

In general, I think people are mad as hell, but they don't know where to direct their anger.

They know something stinks, but they don't know what or where it is. Who farted? The bank executives, the politicians who enabled them, or the American people who borrowed more than they can chew. Since the news media has decided that it is more economical to report opinions rather than facts, the culprit depends on whom you ask. Truth has become both elusive and subjective, and Joe the Plumber doesn't know which way is up or which way is down.

It sure is fun to beat up the rich; there's no question that they're easy targets. I'm not sure that they're the source of America's problems, though. Redistributionism is complicated thing to engineer in order to get the results that I think you want.

As it is, I believe that unless you're very careful you will create a system that makes you all poorer in an attempt to keep a few people from getting richer.

I think that many people are led astray by the same assumption the Michael Moore makes; the wheels are coming off the system because the rich have hidden away the country's wealth. If only the money could get back to the people that need it, we would have fairness and a balanced budget. Unfortunately, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that this is not true.

The following link will take you to a very (right wing) partisan video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ If you skip to about 2:30 mark, the interesting stuff begins. I can't speak to the accuracy but even if he's off by 50%, the numbers are very, very telling.

Roger,
I've been waiting until I have a great comment to make on one of your topics and this is one I'm particularly interested in. Having lived and served at poverty level myself as an AmeriCorps Vista volunteer I am particularly baffled at the intense opposition this country presents to socialism. Then a fellow volunteer introduced me to this quote and everything fell into place. John Steinbeck said "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." The truth is that what is holding America back from equality is the American Dream. Most Americans sincerely believe they will be rich in their lifetime and they will fight tooth and nail to protect that future imaginary wealth. I doubt we will ever overcome this. That being said, I think there will come a point (probably not in my lifetime and I'm very young) where there will be no choice but to raise taxes on the wealthy or suffer the consequences and I truly belief that America will make the right choice when that day comes.

Branko Burcksen wrote:

"Americans have ambition that I think is the envy of the rest of world."

If non-Americans feel envy, it's for the fake view of America that Hollywood churns out. Americans in real life don't have ambition: the rich feel entitled and the poor have no energy for any emotion but dread, and there's nobody else around any more.

Not only do I feel no envy whatsoever for Americans, I feel sorry for them. They could have been so much better: they could have been us. They failed.

I look forward to Mr. Ebert's review of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, opening wide this weekend.

Andrew on April 9, 2011 7:51 PM: "You seem insistent on following the illogical path paved by many before you that "greed" was largely responsible for the crisis. Of course this is infantile. If we were to construct a mathematical prediction model for financial crises, greed would = c for constant. Greed has been pervasive on Wall Street for centuries yet we have not had a state of perpetual financial crises. Logic dicates that there must be an exogenous factor in our prediction model."

Andrew, you're right: Greed is the constant for capitalism. But "crisis" is not the exception, it's the rule, especially if you realize that capitalism is bigger than "Wall St.": it's been a global enterprise since the beginning of the modern era (1492 or thereabouts). And globally, capitalism has always brought economic crisis, whether through imperial conquest or slave trade, trade wars or "nation-building." Just because a few tens of millions enjoy modest net wealth in any given period does not mean that crises do not brew elsewhere--in fact, one can easily argue--actually, one should--that such localized stability depends on instability elsewhere. There are no "exogenous factors"--the global economy is the economy.

It's as though ice ages were the norm, and the verdant inter-ice-age periods were the anomalies. Now there's a chilly (ahem) "prediction model": capitalism's constant is greed, and greed is not good (sorry, Gordon); therefore, capitalism is not good. Until one accepts this equation, one is stuck arguing from inside a system in which the term "honest work" will always be an oxymoron.

The woods are burning, boys.

"Do you know we could eliminate half the predicted shortfall in the national budget by simply failing to renew the Bush tax cuts? Do you know that if corporations were taxed at a fair rate, much of the rest could be found?"

Classic static way of thinking. You assume that if taxes rise that there is a fixed amount of income/wealth to be taxed. If more is taken away, less will be made in the future thereby depriving Uncle Sam of revenue. While I do not believe that $1 in tax cuts results in no net federal revenue loss, I do believe that it does not deprive the government of that full $1 in tax revenue. Our economy is too dynamic. When more is left in the hands of taxpayers (I do not discriminate based on income), additional taxpayers are created, and sometimes with higher incomes.

The best, most efficient form of taxation is one single rate. The government could save the money it takes to make the IRS go, and people could spend much, much, MUCH less time and money doing their taxes. Now THERE'S an effective stimulus!

"Why do they support those who campaign against unions and a higher minimum wage? What do they think is in it for them?"

I can leave my graduate degree in economics at the door and argue for abolishing the minimum wage just out of principle: it's social promotion. It sucks the incentive out of some to move on/up. Now, putting my economics hat back on, it does in fact contributed to unemployment. When you create an artificial floor in the price of something, you sell less of it. If the market were allowed to set the lowest of our wages, teenage unemployment would decline because more teens are willing to work for less a) to get their foot in the door and b) because they live at home and do not generally need to support themselves.

Attention all bullies: Justice is served!

In high school, you bullies liked to poke fun at the nerds, geeks, dorks, and smart folk. You called us faggot, geek, homo, queer, wimp, four eyes, or if you were having a particularly bad day you just sucker punched us in the chest when we werent looking, or perhaps you outsourced your bullying and stuck a sign on our backs saying "Kick me" and let your buddies do all the work.

Instead of learning for yourself the ways of the physical universe, you went and played football, or you smoked the various herbs, drank six packs of brew, and partied on the weekends prostituting your brains for a 'quick fix' or a 'good time', and ostracized us for not doing the same.

Instead of learning for yourself Euclid's geometry, differential equations, assembly language, machine language, electronic circuits or other forms of applied mathematics; you instead chose cheerleading and playing hockey, football and basketball, or you simply made us do your homework by threat of force because you were too busy ridiculing or trying to beat us up to get much involved in that whole learning thing.

How are all those cheerleading pom-poms, footballs, hockey sticks, and beer bongs working out for you now? Not too well from what I hear.

Now many years later, you still havent learned the techniques of producing something useful, or how to use the mechanisms of generating the true wealth (i.e., computer programming, engineering, biological sciences, geological sciences, metallurgy, etc.) to benefit humanity, nor have you learned proper logic, symbolic logic, reason, and analysis. (Once learned these can be applied to any situation to solve problems and generate new avenues of exploration).

Fast forward: This is not High School. Your time is up!

Now you cannot simply lean over our desk and give us a wet willie to get the answers from our trigonometry exam when your mortage comes due. And to think you used to joke and complain how stupid math was, and how you would never use it.

You ask what time it is?

Well for you, its panic time! Sheer, unadulterated--looking under the couch for spare change--while shivering in your dirty jock strap cause you didn't pay your heating and water bill--while trying to pay your mortgage--all encompassing terrifying Panic Time!

In other words, you have no real employable skills because you were to busy with more important things (like picking on us) to learn anything applicable during your formative years; yet still you complain and whine and want to take from and bully the nerds, geeks, dorks and smart folk who have become the millionaires and billionaires of today. Yet you still insult us even though you use the toasters, cars, jets, light bulbs, televisions, facebook pages, youtubes, ATM machines, and CPU's that we created. (Still cant see any use for all that stupid mathematics?)

But alas, since we run the companies you work for, you cannot as easily bully us by force, so you do so by herding together like mindless sheep in unions, working seven at a time to change a lightbulb, coasting at your jobs that anyone including a trained gerbil could perform. Yet whenever one of us comes up with an idea, you swarm around trying to get a piece of it, just as you did in the locker rooms and hallways, trying to take our lunch money.

Only now, instead of taking our lunch money, you stop paying your mortgages and expect us to pick up the tab, or you chant, "Eat the rich," (the new rallying cry of the grown up bully). What about welfare programs, mortgage cram-downs, union rallies; these are the mere temper tantrums of an bully turned adult still trying to bully the nerds and geeks and all the people you used to make fun of, but who are now successful.

Now you are working for us!

You cant get what you want through the path of least mental effort, so you try to use your bully-unions, socialism, guilt tripping and government to get it for you.

Some things never change! Your grade in life: F.

Signed,
The Moonraker,
Hieronymus Bosch XVII
(aka The Mysterious Jambalaya Crawfish Pie)
http://www.bulliesgetowned.blogspot.com/

In the years you appeared in "At the Movies", you owned a very large chunk of it. A chunk, when exposed to Oprah made her gasp and take her local Chicago show into syndication to cash in. Between that and your books you were not only one of the one percenters but very near the top. Does that make you evil? No. It makes you gifted and lucky. What did you do with all that money? That's your business. You earned it honestly. So don't lump all one percenters in one big pile. Many are very much like you, honest, creative, smart and who also paid a huge amount in taxes. But as far as all those bank executives and Wall Street CEOs...I have Balzac's great quote "Behind every great fortune, is a crime."

Ebert: I never owned one single percent of any one of those shows.

This is not a very good film review.

Many people are asking what can be done to express their outrage and to effect real change.

How about this: find out who the 1% are. Shouldn't be that hard. Take their picture, post it on Facebook and elsewhere. Then, simply refuse to do any business with these people.

Do not serve them in restaurants. Do not repair their cars, do not wash their yachts or fix their plumbing. Turn your backs on them in the street, if you ever are so privileged to see them in the street. Do not tailor their clothes, or manicure their lawns, or do any financial transactions with the business interests that they represent.

Treat them as pariahs, as criminals to the public good. After all, that's how they treat you.

If they choose to live in their gated, walled private country clubs let them stay there until they rot. Give them no space in the public commons where they are not ridiculed and condemned, as is only fitting for the many lives they've destroyed.

Stop using banks. Withdraw all your money in cash. Do not use ATM machines or credit cards. Pay your bills in cash - it is still legal tender and must be accepted. Cripple them, as they've crippled you. Massive civil disobedience. Go to a fancy restaurant, eat like a lord, and send the check to Rush Limbaugh.

Create communities of barter. Become independent. Live in a tiny home. Generate your own electricity. Grow your own food. Share with others that you know and trust. Withdraw your consent from the system. Stop watching television, stop buying junk you don't need. Turn it all off. Radically downsize.

Vote. Challenge every lie, loudly and publicly. Write to your representatives. Don't let them sleep until they address your concerns on a local level. Embarrass them.

Sound too radical, too extreme? Sounds to me like you've got nothing to lose. Get off your knees, stop cooperating, take back your lives and your country.

Hey Roger,

I appreciate the article, but I'm curious as to where I can find some good literature that lays out the issues behind the current tax brackets and the steps that are being done to curtail the corruption therein. Do you have any suggestions?

P.S. - I love the critical feedback you write just as much as the congratulatory praise. As it stands....

I'm still waiting for you to review Zach Snyder's Suckerpunch. Just cause it's a turd doesn't mean we don't like to see you roast it :)

It is appalling what is going on in this country. We are approaching a fascist state every day. People need to hold other people's feet to the fire on issues and we have to hold them accountable. I have been trying to find work and can't get anything from agencies. It costs money to do things, which I don't have enough of. Can see why people can go nuts and drive to drink and drugs. Michael Moore should do a documentary on that. The economy hasn't been recovering fast enough and the whole talk of the government shutdown should've been like this: If the government did that, the people should be rising up with pitchforks like in Frankenstein, going after the Monster. I wonder if anyone has any guts in this country left.

You the man, Roger. Can't wait for your autobiography.

You'll get no argument from me that the current system puts too much power into the hands of the few. However, the left-wing "solution" is usually to take that power and hand it to the government. How is that an improvement? Big business and big government are two different sides of the same coin. We need a third option... One that promotes a true ownership society where private citizens (we the people) own small businesses. Read about "distributism" as defined by Hilaire Belloc and G.K. Chesterton. That is what America needs! Not the equally repulsive nonsense coming from big government liberals and big business conservatives.

So, I was reading another chapter in Stanley Kurtz's excellent book "Radical-in-Chief" last night before bed. Kurtz is a smart guy (PhD from Harvard) and a stellar researcher who put in the time and did the non-glamorous sluething through archives in Chicago to investigate the question of whether or not Barack Obama is a socialist. He started with the idea of debunking that, given his understanding of the term socialist, and concluded the opposite - that Obama has been a movement socialist for most of his adult life.

Not a revolution now! radical Marxist socialist in the mold of the SDS or the New American Movement in Chicago. No, a stealth socialist, in the mold of the Midwest Academy (Chicago) or the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) who believe in slow stealth socialist reform - achieved through community organizers and elected office holders. Obama's connections to the Midwest Academy are t