>......over orders of magnitude.

True

>
>So I'm going to make this
>brief and just leave it
>at that. This has been
>a good debate, but I
>think we'll end up going
>in circles forever.

Agreed

>The Net Worth = Wealth definition
>is fairly common and is
>the one I see most
>often. There word has other
>meanings, but I'm looking at
>it in an economic context.

This definition "An abundance of valuable material possessions or resources; riches. The state of being rich; affluence.
All goods and resources having value in terms of exchange or use." is economic.

>
>
>Wealth does = financial power, but
>that's not the only kind
>of power there is. It
>is a substantial component of
>power, but that is not
>all there is.

True but how can you have power without money. Sounds like it's more than a substantial componet.

>
>TO me, a powerful person can
>get themselves or their children
>into an Ivy League school,
>isn't if the kid isn't
>anywhere near qualified. Powerful people
>know who to call if
>they're (or a friend/relative is)
>looking for an executive level
>position at a Fortune 500
>company (or major market leader)
>if a powerful person wants
>to start a Business....they don't
>apply for loans, they call
>some people and drum up
>financing.

True

>The people who have that power
>are rare, and it isn't
>a direct relationship between how
>much money they have. I
>think you mis-understood me, when
>you mentioned decreasing power when
>you near the top economically.
>What I meant is that
>the people who have that
>kind of power are few,
>even at the top of
>the economic ladder and that
>there isn't a direct corelation
>between $ and how much
>of that kind of power
>you have.

I don't think it's rare just different degrees. The only difference between the people you described and the ones I described is money. If more people had the same amount you would see a number of powerful people at the top. Think of it as the system flipped upside down where the majority of people were rich and you only had a few poor people.

>
>A lot of the stuff you
>mentioned just comes from having
>the right friends, and a
>lot of people have some
>sort of network. BUT, I
>don't see that as power
>on the scale of what
>I mntioned above.


That's because what you mentioned is an exclusive club where they make moves to maintain their power and control. If the baby boomers were to come into the same amount of money you would see a lot more. Thats what proves money is power. I doubt the powerful people you mentioned above would hold the same amount of power if they didn't have such a large amount of money. Politicans excluded.


>
>A lot of those middle class
>to uppper middle class are
>driving Hondas in the world
>of power and the people
>who can do what I
>mentioned above are in Porsches.
>
>
>Apples and Oranges.


It's not apples and oranges just different degrees. Nobody with the amount of power described above is going to fall under the Forbes 400 list you used before.

>
>
>As for preferences in the workplace,
>I've never seen it at
>the scale you've spoken of.
>I seen laziness, but I
>don't think it's all race
>related.....it's just the absurdities of
>corporate America (IMHO). At large
>corporations there is so much
>more on the line that
>it's hard to let people
>behave in that fashion, I've
>seen it at lower levels,
>but rarely near the top.

Happens all the time in the government and the private sector. Corporations are so big it makes it hard to spot it.

>
>
>I've seen it at my company,
>but we're not a GE
>or a Merck....we're a consulting
>firm and the guy works
>in sales. (a dumping ground
>for idiots) and he does
>have his uses. In actuality
>I shouldn't hate on him
>too much, because he got
>me the position I had
>now.....even though some folks said
>I really should have 5
>more (at least) years experience
>first. However, doesn't change the
>fact he's underqualified.
>
>BUT, that's one guy. I've never
>seen a place full of
>idiots getting by on various
>forms of nypotism that didn't
>fail eventually. Like I said,
>connections only take you so
>far if you can't cut
>it.

Connections especailly when you are white take you a long way.

>
>As for Banks, I still don't
>think people are comparing Business
>plans and I've already explained
>how I see racism working
>in those organizations. It happens
>so much because it's so
>easy! BUT, banks just aren't
>going to the step of
>comparing Business plans...it's just not
>happening. When I see evidence
>of it happening, I'll belive
>it, but not until then.
>I've witnessed every step of
>the lending process and it's
>easy to see where racism
>fits in, but I don't
>see it with Business plans
>and trying to protect White
>Businesses.

If they are not going to that step it's because they don't have too but it doesn't mean they can't or won't use it. Like I said before corporations are saying their is no enviromental racism, Texaco said their is no racism, evidence might not be there now but that does not mean it does not exist. No company is going to come out and admit it.

>
>In your example you mentioned connected
>people and that's fine. But,
>I'm talking about non-connected Whites
>and Blacks, trying to get
>small Business Loans. It's hard
>and removing the racial problem
>won't change that. So just
>because a person doesn't get
>a Small Business Loan EVEN
>in our current racial climate,
>doesn't mean that problem was
>racism. Part of getting more
>Blacks loans is going to
>be teach them what they
>need to get the loan
>in the first place, so
>they can say with some
>authority that it's racism.....which will
>make it easier to fight
>the problem.

Even if it's non connected the same applies if it's normal for 80% to get denied or their busniess to fail you can bet it's 95% or 98% for Blacks. removing the racial problem will bring it down to it's normal rate. I don't think every Black who tries to get a loan is clueless, many blacks know how to start a business and run a business. Look at the Black farmers and what happen to them.

>
>As for redlining: If you're denying
>loans to Blacks who are
>qualified, it's racism...not redlining. Redlining
>is when Businesses decide not
>to do business in Bad
>Neighboorhoods and I'm not completely
>against that. After all, they
>are sound economic reasons.

Thats not true the dictionary defines racism as "To refuse home mortgages or home insurance to areas or neighborhoods deemed poor financial risks. To discriminate against by refusing to grant loans, mortgages, or insurance to." notice it says "deemed" and the work I cited before described redlining as, There were many laws that came out of the Civil Rights era aimed at eliminating racial segregation and discrimination in all aspects of American society. Among them were the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act guaranteeing minorities equal access to housing and to the financing to afford it. Widespread noncompliance with these laws was the order of the day and the nation continued its historical pattern of segregated housing as financial institutions denied mortgage loans to African Americans. This practice, known as redlining, is defined as the refusal by financial institutions to make mortgage loans to residents of certain neighborhoods because of the racial composition, income level of the residents or age of the housing stock.

I don't agree with any redlining because if the risk were so great gentrification would never work.

>
>I'm just not ready to call
>it racism when the banks
>that do focus on that
>poor area are losing their
>shirts because of it.

Why don't they lose their shirts in gentrification?

>
>I will call it racism if
>Blacks with good incomes and
>perfect credit cannot get loans.

Happens all the time. When whites buy trailer homes do they get loans? If they do and they are going to live in a poor area what happen to redlining?

>
>
>
>
>P.S. I started a thread on
>community investment, I'd be interested
>on your thoughts on it.
>


"I must warn you, ma'am, that people invariably flee the room when I walk in because I'm from Levittown"

"And what a spectacular act of noblesse oblige on her part to escort the lowly Levittowner around Washington on Inauguration Day!"

"If one were sufficiently paranoid, one might easily misinterpret a decision to go get seconds on that chicken hash as a deliberate insult to the municipality of Levittown."

"Close examination of the guest list reveals many other guests with backgrounds more humble than Bill O'Reilly's. Yes, even more humble than an accountant's son from Levittown. We can only hope that they didn't take offense when O'Reilly himself departed."

I'm working-class Irish American Bill O'Reilly … pretty far down the social totem pole," he says. Growing up in the 1960s, he watched his father "exhausting himself commuting from Levittown" to work as an accountant for an oil company. Dad "never made more than $35,000"—which would be $100,000 or more in today's money