Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Bombur]

Libturds have been whining about "rising inequality" ever since Karl Marx published Dad Kapital. Inequality on matters if it's the result of government favoritism. That explains the current wave of it, if it exists. Government and crony capitalism are the cause, not the free market.

Theoretically possible but your position is 100% speculation and does not compare well with other data dealing with changes in the US labor market.

Whether you like it or not Marx predicted our current problems and understood the nature of the labor market, even if his solution was naive and ignorant. Marx's biggest fear was that Democracy would be taken over by money. So you have more in common with him than you might think.

Marx predicted that capitalism would blow up 100 years ago, which is clearly wrong. He also didn't understand diddly-squat about the U.S. labor market. According to him, we should all be earning less than we did when he wrote Das Kapital. The reality is that we are all earning fabulously more. Economists have demonstrated the idiocy of the labor theory of value time and time again. In short, you have to be a brain dead loser to believe Karl Marx said anything useful.

Your position is 100% horse manure. It's all based on Marxist propaganda which we know to be dead wrong.

Capitalism almost did implode on itself 100 years ago. Nothing like a massive labor shortage to undo a long term trend in wages and nothing like globalization and peace to undo those trends.

Who said he was perfectly right about everything?

Capitalism favors the capitalist, which is both capitalism's greatest strength and the biggest threat to capitalism in the long term.

I think it is wonderfully ironic that you complain about the corrupting influence of money on Democracy and then complain about Marx in the next breath.

The future of modern economics is finding a way to balance growth in production and growth in wages. China has demonstrated rather clearly just how fast productivity can increase but they have relied heavily on the US to provide them with a growing consumer market that is independent of their wage market.

 

[Andylusion]

How's the oil production in Fallujah?

"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah, which was bombarded by US Marines in 2004, exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study.

"Iraqi doctors in Fallujah have complained since 2005 of being overwhelmed by the number of babies with serious birth defects, ranging from a girl born with two heads to paralysis of the lower limbs.

"They said they were also seeing far more cancers than they did before the battle for Fallujah between US troops and insurgents.

How many people had their lives ruined in Iraq and Afghanistan from capitalism's inherent dependence on war and debt?

Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima' - Middle East - World - The Independent

You lost yet again! LOL. That didn't address anything I said. It makes no valid points at all. Has nothing to do with anything being discussed.

You lose again sir.

Pro-Debating Hint: Posting stuff that doesn't have anything at all to do with the topic, proves you lost the argument. Because if you had a point, you would make it. The fact you are just spewing random crap, proves you can't make a point.

Every single time you post random crap, that doesn't contradict, address, or make any kind of a counter point, I'm going to call you out on it, and let you know you lost the argument. Because that's what you are proving, by making pointless unrelated posts.

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

What did I just tell you? If you have to change topics because you can't make a valid point, that only proves you lost the argument.

Do you want to talk about oil? Or do you want to talk about war? Two different topics. We didn't go to Iraq for oil. Name one oil field we own, in Iraq? Name the oil tanker of oil from Iraq, that we didn't buy from them on the market?

In fact it was because of people like you, that Iraq signed servicing contracts with China, instead of the US. China richer, US poorer, and all thanks to people like you, saying we went there for oil. Now US companies, with US employees, paying US taxes, are NOT working in Iraqi oil fields.

If we didn't buy their legally sold resources, they would simply be poorer.

You want to talk about Operation Iraqi Liberation, a war? Fine. War sucks. People die. Avoid it as much as possible, but not when a madman in Iraq gives us no choice.

Nevertheless, that topic, is not the topic we were talking about, meaning you lost the argument again. You lost again man. If you can't argue the points brought up, and have no valid counter points, and all you can do is change topics.... that shows you lost the argument.

 

[Andylusion]

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

So what? I didn't say Wall St hypocritically supported Socialism either.

Wall St is a just a bunch of people trying to earn money, just like you, just like me, just like Hollywood, just like everyone.

Hollywood, and the rest of the leftard hypocrites, are the people who claim to support socialism and equality. You hypocrites go first.

Start with this.... how much do you make? If you make just $30,000 a year, you are in the top 1% of wage earners in the world.

You go first. Go for equality. Give out your money, and cut your income to $10,000 a year. That's what the world average income is. You start first, and show us what a real Socialist is. Show us what true income equality is.

But you won't, and neither will your Hollywood hypocrites. You have no credibility to accuse Wall St of anything.

Your ignorance is matched only by your arrogance.
You want to make this personal?
I've never made twenty thousand dollars in a single year of my 45 years in the private work force.
I currently earn $897.40 a month or $10,768.80 per year.
Your turn, Stud.
Your credibility is on the line.

That explains a bunch. If you are in fact earning that little, should I assume you are using all the government programs for people at your level?

And what exactly is it that you do? What's your occupation?

 

[Andylusion]

Yeah the guy that thinks the government controls Bears Stearns and the ratings agencies is the guy that knows what he is talking about.

The default rates were not the problem. The problem was the price bubble. Even with defaults the banks can manage the rate of default. That is what the MBS were created to do. They failed to adjust based on the change is price.

Seriously read up some more about how the MBS were created so I don't have to constantly point out why you are wrong. You clearly don't listen to what I say so use some google.

See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post. You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written. The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk. You should find another topic to discuss. Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.

Ohh I am sorry did I not use the word "imply" enough when describing your "understanding" of the crisis.

You don't know how MBS are created, rated, or priced. You think F&F can make decisions that they don't. You think the problem with a historic price bubble was not these high prices but default rates.

The only thing you have shown me is that you don't understand what you read. Even the article you posted doesn't actually say what you thought it said.

Again, you just don't know enough for me to debate with you. The posts I made, the points I spelled out, the links I provided, all made the arguments with clear cut accuracy, and you simply haven't given a valid response. You just don't know enough about the topic for me to discuss it with you.

You need to be more informed about the topic, in order to engage in intelligent conversation about it. The fact that the only response you have it to claim others don't know what they are talking about, when they have shown numerous times they do, just goes to highlight the fact you really don't know what you are talking about. You would have a more relevant, and accurate response if you did.

 

[Andylusion]

Your post was simplistic and irrelevant to the conversation of RISING INEQUALITY. You already seem to get that it was simplistic so we are half the way there to agreeing.

Page 130 and you still don't know that we are talking about rising inequality.

Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about. You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.

Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer. It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to. Thanks for stopping by.

Then logically explain why you are talking about income inequality between individuals in a thread about rising income inequality at the national level.

If you don't know the answer to that yourself.... then you just proved me right, that you don't know enough to comment on it. How can you even ask that, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone, but other ignorant people? Again, I outlined exactly how the comments fit with economic reality throughout the country, and even the world. I spelled it out in such simple terms, that Forest Gump would have gotten it. But you didn't...... that reflects more on you, than anyone else.

Go take a course in modern economics. Hopefully if you go to a decent college, and at least pass, you'll be more intelligent in discussions like this.

 

[Mojo2]

“The only time you should look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.”


― Louis C.K.

http://static4.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/The-only-time-you-should.png

CadeuxUWhitney Jefferson1L
Me and my sister learnt fairly early on never to try the "not fair" argument. My mother would reply with a more or less identical speech of "You're pretty, that's not fair. We live in a big house, that's not fair. You're English, that's not fair. You'd better hope life doesn't get fair." 6/24/11 12:14pm

kenzingtonUWhitney Jefferson1L U
My dad would just start singing "You Can't Always Get What You Want" when I started whining about fairness. The Rolling Stones now provide the mental soundtrack of all my life's petty, bitter disappointments. 6/24/11 1:42pm

Hazel-rahUWhitney Jefferson1L U
To quote from a good friend's very honest and intelligent mother, "There will always be someone who is richer, prettier, smarter and luckier than you." I have always remembered that quote and it has always done its job of keeping things in perspective — be happy for what you've got! 6/24/11 12:26pm

http://jezebel.com/5815172/a-little-girls-lesson-in-fairness-courtesy-of-louis-ck

 

[Andylusion]

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.

TK, where the hell you been?
This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.

From my OP

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.

"It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO

I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.

Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.

See george... other people who are not blinded by ideology, can see that your position has been thoroughly ruined time and time again. And all you do is keep repeating opinion articles, as if they are facts.

Only you, and other ideologically blinded people, think you still have a point to make, even while you shift and flop around from topic to topic, in order to pretend you haven't lost every single argument you've tried to make.

You are turning into a cartoon at this point. This is like a bad Roger Rabbit skit, hitting your own head with dishes, waiting for the Jessica to come make it better. Honestly... I'm starting to pity you a little.

 

[Andylusion]

Actually, it's the Dumbocrats who love off-shoring. That's why they keep punishing business with high taxes, costly crushing regulations, and greedy extortion unions - to force business overseas.

It's not rocket science - whoever welcomes businesses gets the businesses. Whoever demonizes and punishes them, loses them. Sadly, Dumbocrats are just too fuck'n stupid to figure out even something this basic....

Actually Democrats hate off-shoring.......... they are just too stupid to figure out they are causing it.

Hey Leftists........... Which car companies declared bankruptcy?

GM and Chrysler? Or was it Toyota and Honda?

Let me ask it another way....

Was it Unionized GM and Chrysler? Or non-Union Toyota and Honda?

Funny how the first question get's an easy response, and the second get's blank stares.

The left is who is driving out business, with regulations, mandates, taxes, and red tape.

 

[Bombur]

See, once again, you couldn't even grasp my post. You simply don't know enough about this topic, to answer anything I've written. The fact you are now making up things I didn't say, while at the same time denying that defaults on mortgage caused the "mortgage crisis".... (seriously?), proves you just don't know enough about this to talk. You should find another topic to discuss. Hopefully one you know.... something.... anything... about.

Ohh I am sorry did I not use the word "imply" enough when describing your "understanding" of the crisis.

You don't know how MBS are created, rated, or priced. You think F&F can make decisions that they don't. You think the problem with a historic price bubble was not these high prices but default rates.

The only thing you have shown me is that you don't understand what you read. Even the article you posted doesn't actually say what you thought it said.

Again, you just don't know enough for me to debate with you. The posts I made, the points I spelled out, the links I provided, all made the arguments with clear cut accuracy, and you simply haven't given a valid response. You just don't know enough about the topic for me to discuss it with you.

You need to be more informed about the topic, in order to engage in intelligent conversation about it. The fact that the only response you have it to claim others don't know what they are talking about, when they have shown numerous times they do, just goes to highlight the fact you really don't know what you are talking about. You would have a more relevant, and accurate response if you did.

LOL

OK please explain for the class what role Bears Stearns played in the creation of the mortgage backed securities referenced in your article and how they derived their price for those securities. Then please explain what it means when they said the implied rating was AAA.

 

[Bombur]

Yes, but still don't know what you are talking about. You could not grasp my posts, which in fact were very simplistic, and yet still not simple enough for you to come up with even a valid response.

Sorry, nothing personal, but you just simply don't know enough about this discussion, to make a logical intelligent answer. It's been fun, but I'm looking for more informed people to talk to. Thanks for stopping by.

Then logically explain why you are talking about income inequality between individuals in a thread about rising income inequality at the national level.

If you don't know the answer to that yourself.... then you just proved me right, that you don't know enough to comment on it. How can you even ask that, and expect to be taken seriously by anyone, but other ignorant people? Again, I outlined exactly how the comments fit with economic reality throughout the country, and even the world. I spelled it out in such simple terms, that Forest Gump would have gotten it. But you didn't...... that reflects more on you, than anyone else.

Go take a course in modern economics. Hopefully if you go to a decent college, and at least pass, you'll be more intelligent in discussions like this.

That does not explain rising inequality at the national level. That explains income inequality. I told you this multiple times already. Do you understand the difference between rising income inequality at the national level and income inequality between individuals? Do you understand that they are different things? I have explained the difference multiple times already. Go read some of my posts and learn something.

This thread is over 130 pages. You should have grasped this concept before you even opened up the thread.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When a single company controls the supply of crucial physical commodities and trades in complex financial products related to those markets, does that plant happy pennies in your pussy?

What single company controls the supply of oil?

Goldman Sachs and/or Morgan Stanley seem a likely pair of suspects

"...For nearly a decade, this obscure provision of Gramm-Leach-Bliley effectively applied to nobody.

"Then, in the third week of September 2008, while the economy was imploding after the collapses of Lehman and AIG, two of America's biggest investment banks, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, found themselves in desperate need of emergency financing.

"So late on a Sunday night, on September 21st, to be exact, the two banks announced they had applied to the Federal Reserve to become bank holding companies, which would give them lifesaving access to emergency cash from the Fed's discount window.

"The Fed granted the requests overnight.

"The move saved the bacon of both firms, and it had one additional benefit: It made Goldman and Morgan Stanley, which both had significant commodity-trading operations prior to 1997, the first and last two companies to qualify for the grandfather exemption of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. 'Kind of convenient, isn't it?' says one congressional aide. 'It's almost like the law was written specifically for them.'"

"The irony was incredible.

"After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks, the feds gave Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley hall passes to become cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach into any sectors of the economy.

The Vampire Squid Strikes Again: The Mega Banks' Most Devious Scam Yet | Politics News | Rolling Stone

After fucking up so badly that the government had to give them federal bank charters and bottomless wells of free cash to save their necks

Free cash? LOL! Matt isn't very good at math.

cross-species monopolistic powers with almost limitless reach

Monopolistic? Almost limitless reach?
Matt is as bad at economics as he is at math.

 

[dblack]

Do you think majority rule allows people to decide their own fate? Do you understand that, for up to 49% of them, it actually denies their ability to decide their own fate?

I'd like to come back to this...

By the people coming together in classic town hall meeting, our problems could be resolved by ourselves. It's called compromise. Compromise isn't always possible but the IDEAL is that we can reach agreements on how to solve basic problems. Then the "government" or our representative simply enacts legislation based on our ability to agree on what solves a problem. I agree that majority rule based on 51% can cause serious problems--it's a recognition of the fallacy of popular opinion. You are making a fundamental point about logic.

Would this work in America today? FUCK NO. Our system depends on division and strife. People stick to their principles whether they have any relevance to solving a problem or not. I think once we overcome this and realize we are all humans with basic needs, that we must work together then we can genuinely solve our problems. The use of Democracy can lead to the resolution of many problems when humans seek solutions, not our ideologies.

In effect I'm saying the majority rule should only be reached when everyone agrees (of course there will be outliers and mental illness) but by being forced to unanimously agree we would hope that this requires serious thought instead of the current system of paying money to get "solutions" across. The problem is we don't live in a society that likes to work together in recognition of solidarity to solve our problems. We stick to ideals and slogans that prevent non-partisan ideas from flourishing. So no democracy can flourish when one side is always right, the other is always wrong, and the majority of Americans don't agree with either side!

I'm not sure what point you're responding to here. I was asking about the equivocation between freedom and democracy. I've seen it evoked before, most often in response to calls for Constitutional limits on government. Unlimited democracy advocates often claim that the 'freedom' of the people to set their course is constrained by such limits. I find that an odd characterization of freedom, in as much as majority rule democracy is about coercing conformity - the exact opposite of freedom.

In regards to your general advocacy for democracy, you clearly see it as an all purpose tool for solving our problems as a society, and I definitely don't. It should only be used in the relatively rare cases were it is necessary to coerce conformity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We like to think the private sector is based solely on merit and hard work. Indeed, I've read this a thousand times here but upon any scrutiny, one can see success and affluence centers around inheritance and proper networking or knowing the right people. This is diametrically opposed to a genuine meritocratic system, which is based on one's ability, not who you know or where you were born. A local commercial for employment at a hospital was proud to announce their general staff consisted of mostly relatives and family members. So if you want to work there fuck being the best, just know the right people and the job is yours.

Sounds all too familiar. I only receive call backs for jobs where I know a current employee. This has happened too many times to be simple coincidence. It has nothing to do with merit since the positions I've applied for I have over 3 years of paid experience.

The private sector ideals are based in merit; however, we know how things are on paper are not how they operate in the real world (as with the government). So wake up and smell the corruption in the air. Of course not all businesses are corrupt, this is not my point, what I am saying is that the government and major businesses walk hand in hand to maintain their wealth and power in spite of aim for a meritocracy. No politician would deny we strive to be the most meritocratic system on earth but this is pure rhetoric and all you funky monkeys have bought it hook, line and banana. I know I don't live in a genuine meritocratic system.

It has nothing to do with merit since the positions I've applied for I have over 3 years of paid experience.

We need the government to force these companies to hire you.
Damn these companies for hiring who they'd like!!!! Damn them straight to hell!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about we start on Wall Street and Hollywood?

Wall St doesn't hypocritically claim to be in favor of socialism. HollyWood does. You people on the left, start practicing what you preach first. Then if that works, maybe the rest of us will follow. Otherwise.... just shut up. Go preach at a Scientology church or something.

Wall Street's actions prove it's hypocritically in favor of socialism for the rich, as the Goldman Sachs bailouts prove beyond any reasonable doubt:

"Goldman Sachs sent $4.3 billion in federal tax money to 32 entities, including many overseas banks, hedge funds and pensions, according to information made public Friday night.

"Goldman Sachs disclosed the list of companies to the Senate Finance Committee after a threat of subpoena from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Ia..."

"Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG. Goldman had already hedged its risk that the securities would go bad. It had entered into agreements to spread the risk with the 32 entities named in Friday's report.

"Overall, Goldman Sachs received a $12.9 billion payout from the government's bailout of AIG, which was at one time the world's largest insurance company.

"Goldman Sachs also revealed to the Senate Finance Committee that it would have received $2.3 billion if AIG had gone under. Other large financial institutions, such as Citibank, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, sold Goldman Sachs protection in the case of AIG's collapse.

"Those institutions did not have to pay Goldman Sachs after the government stepped in with tax money.

"Shouldn't Goldman Sachs be expected to collect from those institutions "before they collect the taxpayers' dollars?" Grassley asked. "It's a little bit like a farmer, if you got crop insurance, you shouldn't be getting disaster aid."

"Goldman had not disclosed the names of the counterparties it paid in late 2008 until Friday, despite repeated requests from Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel."

Goldman reveals where bailout cash went - USATODAY.com

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.
You people on the right should learn to think logically.
In your case, Scientology might actually improve your reasoning.

Goldman Sachs (GS) received $5.55 billion from the government in fall of 2008 as payment for then-worthless securities it held in AIG.

Bull. Goldman received money from AIG for these CDS, not from the taxpayer.

Socialize the cost and privatize the profits is how capitalism works.

What costs do you feel were socialized by Goldman? Be specific.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.

TK, where the hell you been?
This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.

From my OP

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.

"It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO

I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.

Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.

Uhhh, so what's wrong with being rich? And why do I care? You can't be bothered to address a given point, much less your own. You're jumping to irrelevant conclusions as well as linking one irrelevant event to another, a classic cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You said this:
"Oh please. If we didn't buy their oil they'd be more poor and impoverished that than they are now."
Remember?
I countered with a documented example of the misery inflicted upon millions of innocent civilians as a result of O-I-L

"What the US government was calling the Iraq War before they realized the title was more appropriate than it should have been (Operation Iraqi Liberation – O.I.L.). This is not an urban legend made up by leftists; check the official whitehouse press release..."

Perhaps you should spend some time learning to read before imagining yourself capable of rational debate?

Hey george, how does the Iraq War have anything to do with the subprime mortgage crisis? Sigh. Androw destroyed your premise, now you're throwing random points at him/her. Your arguments and rebuttals are textbook examples of ignoratio elenchi.

TK, where the hell you been?
This thread began as an indictment of capitalism's contribution to rising economic inequality.

From my OP

"We live in a world rife with inequality of wealth, income, power and influence.

"It is the underlying cause of deep-seated social tensions, community divisions and a range of poisons that cause terrible suffering to millions of people.

"The disparity between the wealthy minority and the billions living in suffocating poverty is greater than it has ever been.

"Worldwide it is estimated that the wealthiest 10 per cent owns 85 per cent of global household wealth.

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP', and 'The richest 2 per cent of the world population own more than 51 per cent of the global assets'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO

I did bring the Iraq War into the discussion because the same rich capitalists use war and the public debt and private profits it produces to bring about the same ends as control accounting fraud on Wall Street, namely an ever widening economic gap between the richest 1% and the majority of Americans.

Hardly an irrelevant conclusion, IMHO.

I didn't bring the subprime crisis into the discussion (and I'm not sure Androw did either); however, it was a valid example of how rich capitalists use government to redistribute the national income upward, IMHO

Yes, banks planned the subprime crisis (in which they lost hundreds of billions), in order to redistribute income upward.

 

[gnarlylove]

I'm not sure what point you're responding to here. I was asking about the equivocation between freedom and democracy. I've seen it evoked before, most often in response to calls for Constitutional limits on government. Unlimited democracy advocates often claim that the 'freedom' of the people to set their course is constrained by such limits. I find that an odd characterization of freedom, in as much as majority rule democracy is about coercing conformity - the exact opposite of freedom.

In regards to your general advocacy for democracy, you clearly see it as an all purpose tool for solving our problems as a society, and I definitely don't. It should only be used in the relatively rare cases were it is necessary to coerce conformity.

We are suppose to live in a society that promotes Democracy as our tool for enacting better and more non-zero sum tactics. I thought this could be agreeable, assuming we use Democractic society.

Is Democratic society my ideal society? Probably not. It would be nice to see a variety of other government styles in operation with desirable results but we get few societies that are flourishing like we might imagine. But since we supposedly live in a Democracy, I offered my ideal version of it. This purported to also answer the question how freedom can be generated through Democratic Rule.

I think it's clear one can maintain a variety of freedoms (like we purport to hold today) under "Democracy" and to a lesser extent under our Plutocracy. But I just read this quote and found it useful in understanding what government is:

This, really, is the whole idea behind governance: the voluntary submission of individual players to an authority that, by solving non-zero-sum problems, can give out in benefits more than it exacts in costs.

If we are to have a government in the first place, isn't it the idea of to sacrifice some things for the greater good? I'm not saying we'd agree with them but this propels our compromise/submission. I'm all ears if your proposing an ungoverned populace, but I've yet to see it.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what point you're responding to here. I was asking about the equivocation between freedom and democracy. I've seen it evoked before, most often in response to calls for Constitutional limits on government. Unlimited democracy advocates often claim that the 'freedom' of the people to set their course is constrained by such limits. I find that an odd characterization of freedom, in as much as majority rule democracy is about coercing conformity - the exact opposite of freedom.

In regards to your general advocacy for democracy, you clearly see it as an all purpose tool for solving our problems as a society, and I definitely don't. It should only be used in the relatively rare cases were it is necessary to coerce conformity.

We are suppose to live in a society that promotes Democracy as our tool for enacting better and more non-zero sum tactics. I thought this could be agreeable, assuming we use Democractic society.

Is Democratic society my ideal society? Probably not. It would be nice to see a variety of other government styles in operation with desirable results but we get few societies that are flourishing like we might imagine. But since we supposedly live in a Democracy, I offered my ideal version of it. This purported to also answer the question how freedom can be generated through Democratic Rule.

I think it's clear one can maintain a variety of freedoms (like we purport to hold today) under "Democracy" and to a lesser extent under our Plutocracy. But I just read this quote and found it useful in understanding what government is:

This, really, is the whole idea behind governance: the voluntary submission of individual players to an authority that, by solving non-zero-sum problems, can give out in benefits more than it exacts in costs.

If we are to have a government in the first place, isn't it the idea of to sacrifice some things for the greater good? I'm not saying we'd agree with them but this propels our compromise/submission. I'm all ears if your proposing an ungoverned populace, but I've yet to see it.

I suppose we just have radically different understandings of the role of government and its relationship to society. Indeed, you seem to view government and society as the same thing, whereas I see government as a tool to deal with the relatively rare circumstances where we can't get along through voluntary cooperation.

You're not really acknowledging the point I keep alluding to, namely the fact that government (all government, democracy or otherwise) is fundamentally coercive in nature, and should be a last resort for solving problems that peaceful means can't resolve.

 

[gnarlylove]

dblack, you are not hearing me very well. I said Democracy or any government for that matter is not my ideal. I thought I had established many pages ago a difference between my ideals and our concrete reality or in other words what we are working with. Have you read my signature that I've repeatedly alluded to? It describes my ideal form of society, which is one without external pressures or legistlation. You seem to have amnesia or haven't read it or something.

I'm well aware governments serve to resolve problems (or as you say "fundamentally corrective") and therefore set outside limits on humans. We should be guided by internal principles alone but when this doesn't work, we must resort to external legislation. Do you honestly think we should shut down governments worldwide right now in the conditions we are in? Or are you only alluding to these things as hypotheticals?

 

[dblack]

dblack, you are not hearing me very well. I said Democracy or any government for that matter is not my ideal. I thought I had established many pages ago a difference between my ideals and our concrete reality or in other words what we are working with. Have you read my signature that I've repeatedly alluded to? It describes my ideal form of society, which is one without external pressures or legistlation. You seem to have amnesia or haven't read it or something.

I'm well aware governments serve to resolve problems (or as you say "fundamentally corrective") and therefore set outside limits on humans. We should be guided by internal principles alone but when this doesn't work, we must resort to external legislation. Do you honestly think we should shut down governments worldwide right now in the conditions we are in? Or are you only alluding to these things as hypotheticals?

FWIW, I got nabbed by auto-correct in that last post. "Corrective" should have read "coercive". Anyway, no, I don't think we could get by, any time in the foreseeable future, without government. But I do think it should be strictly limited in scope. It shouldn't be involved in our religion, in our economy, or any of the personal decisions we make on a daily basis. In short, I think government exists to protect us from bullies and thugs - not to BE bullies and thugs on behalf of those who would use it to force their will on others.