1. The instantaneous expansion of financial markets in the 1990s is likely to be directly related to the Clinton administration's relaxation of financial market-related policies. Since Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign pledged to take action against income inequality, the top 1 percent of CEOs have invested in the stock market and transformed their assets. This has fed a group of Wall Street giants.
2. The three line graphs shown in the film—the economic ups and downs from 1900 to 2010, the scale of financial market development, and the national income gap—almost completely overlap.
In other words, judging from the data shown in this film, the economic recessions before 1930 and 2007 were also the moments when the financial market size was unprecedentedly large and income inequality was the most significant.
3. Lake claims that the last thing big companies care about is creating better jobs for their workers, because big companies are always under pressure to keep making profits to maintain stock prices, so lower wages and continuous layoffs are inevitable measures.
Ironically, GE, the business giant that created more jobs in foreign markets, sat on Obama's Jobs Council.
4. Eisenhower, the well-known conservative Republican leader, paid 91% of the top 1% income tax during his tenure. It was down to 35% during the Reagan years, and there were no major changes.
At present, most of the income of the top 1% comes from capital gain from investing in financial markets and real estate recovery. The government only levies a 15% tax on this form of income. The income tax of ordinary people in the lower middle class is as high as 30%. (At least from the example in the film.)
5. Obama claimed that the top 1% must pay at least a tax equal to the level of the middle class, and fox news immediately criticized Obama for being anti-democratic.
6. 2010 Supreme Court Trial That Money Activities Can Intervene in a Presidential Campaign. (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) That is, if a business can pay hundreds of millions to discredit certain candidates as much as possible, then the business has the ability to do so.
So some things really have nothing to do with political ideas.
7. The film emphasizes the role of university education in increasing the employment rate. From my personal observation, the fact that university general education cannot keep up with the pace of technological development does not help to reduce unemployment.
In many respects, the film alludes to the present and future of China.
1. In the case of the Apple phone, expensive high-end electronics rely on Chinese labor to assemble, yet China only earns 3.6% from a single phone.
2. The GDP growth disclosed by Lake conceals the economic inequality that threatens the foundations of society as a whole, and looking back at ourselves, how much social hidden danger is the 7+% annual growth rate concealing?
The Broker newspaper claims that by 2050, China will surpass the United States to become the world's largest economy. But will our society survive that day?
3. The film says the weakening of unions has disqualified workers from negotiating with policymakers and is therefore powerless to save their own income security. “Once labor loses the power to negotiate terms, its income will inevitably become lower and lower, and the social security system will inevitably become weaker.”
Considering our authoritarian politics and the suppression of labor issues, its inadmissibility is not Not an ideological issue, but a very practical issue of own survival.
4. Real estate prices skyrocketed in the 1990s. Faced with stagnant income, the middle class chooses to borrow widely - the middle class's attempt to make do with stagnant income to maintain a certain standard of living has led to a loan crisis. The middle class just can tolerate it. But silence comes at a price.
5. Social and economic crises are interlinked. Because income inequality in the United States fuels social conflict, everyone is looking for a punching bag. Somebody reiterates Jewish conspiracy, Muslim invasion or something. Does it sound familiar?
6. Are there any widening gaps between the rich and the poor in other market-led economies like the United States? If yes, why?
I think our country is. First of all, reform and opening up is the first step in the transition from a planned economy to a market economy. Deng Xiaoping's "letting some people get rich first" itself indicates that the gap between the rich and the poor will inevitably widen. In recent years, it has been revealed that the Zhou Yongkang family controls PetroChina. (I also ask the majority of Douyou for advice, I am not particularly clear), which is an example of a small number of people in the initial development of the market economy. Most of the economic resources are controlled.
Therefore, I think the optimism of the broad left about the contemporary political ecosystem is questionable. Of course, this means that the historical brainwashing of Big Brother for over a decade has been done quite well...
View more about Inequality for All reviews
