Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

...the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??

Why? Inflation. Taxes. Underpaid. Underemployed. Rising price of goods. Change is standards of living. Maybe he didn't give a fuck about his own needs and wanted the best for his grand kids and supported their endeavors at the cost of his final years. Many reasons can explain it.

Your point is that this old man deserves to suffer for something he couldn't afford to do. This is all well and good in a society with robust charity. We don't live in that society. We live in this one:

 

[thereisnospoon]

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans

Yet here you are on the internet on a computer...

What's your point?

Let me take a stab at it: you want to distract attention away from the fact that you have no point.

Much of 2012 I have had to eat from dumpsters during the night out of necessity. Yet your Republican friends think they know what's its like to be poor in America. They think it's some smorgasbord of indulgence and no responsibility despite the fact they've never once even driven by the city mission let alone spent a night there. I can tell you there is nothing to be considered "comforting" or great about being in America and being homeless. I preferred to sleep on the street when it was snowing instead of spending a night in the city mission for good reason.

I want to be clear, I don't give a fuck about having been homeless myself and I know I will be again (hopefully sooner than later). MY point is no one living on the street or in city mission is thinking to themselves, "Boy America sure is grand! I'm so glad to be homeless in America." The conditions they live are by no standards well-off. It's just some idiotic wishful thinking that the homeless in America are like the middle class in some foreign country.

Right. Another lib wallowing in self pity who attempts to further the notion that there are no rich liberals.
BTW, there is no nobility in poverty.
So please do not offend us with your righteous indignation.
If you don't give a flying fuck about having been homeless, then why bring it into the debate?
You don't get to have it both ways.

 

[georgephillip]

"[T]hose with the authority are never exposed to the consequences of their authority, nor do they have any responsibility for the consequences."

This is a eloquent summary of why current rates of inequality have become tolerable, nay, necessary.

Those who are on USMB are not eating out of trash cans and so are entirely unaware any American is doing so. Like myself, a large population of homeless have marketable skills or at least can work in fast food but cannot do so because of the consequences closing low income housing for condos and trickle down policies that simply don't work. I know the consequences because I lived them myself and talked with those suffering from them.

There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.

Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.

I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.

Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??

Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.

 

[History]

But what about social security??

 

[gnarlylove]

Right. Another lib wallowing in self pity who attempts to further the notion that there are no rich liberals.
BTW, there is no nobility in poverty.
So please do not offend us with your righteous indignation.
If you don't give a flying fuck about having been homeless, then why bring it into the debate?
You don't get to have it both ways.

I've never seen such a brain dead group of people. I said this is not a personal complaint. You are too stupid to understand this. If you had the ability to read English then you would have gathered the fact that I said this was not a plea for pity. You must be completely brain dead. 100%.

My point is conservatives tend to dismiss the fact people are left to exist in total shit hole circumstances because somehow being homeless in America is just awesome--or even acceptable.

Just because they live in America doesn't mean shit. Why did I bring up the fact I had been among them? Because idiots like yourself never have and yet tout lies about how great it is to be homeless in America.

Brain dead people like you make me so throttled because you have no interest in discussing the issue at hand. THIS IS ABOUT those suffering as a result of bad policies. Policies that are supported by both sides of the isle.

This isn't about liberals or conservatives. I full well know Obama has accepted more corporate money than any president in history. You glib about stupid shit like liberals being rich (no duh, it's not a secret). That's the problem, both parties couldn't give two shits about my friends and enemies on the street. We know full well they don't have a voice and so I intend to make their concerns heard when I hear Illiamyer say it was grand to be homeless in America. Reality Check: IT'S NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM. I don't doubt its better here than in Thailand but you are ignorant if you think that makes this acceptable.

And so if you have any respect for the existence of homeless you would realize policies that keep them down is bad for not just them but for the economy. I don't know why I typed, this, you don't give two shits about this. You just want to assert Democrats are stupid. Finally, we agree on something though it's not that their stupid, it's that they tend to make bad policy (just like conservatives).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.

According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.

When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.

When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.

They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
Government can.
Corporations can't force you to give them money.
Government does that everyday.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Diminishing the power of government is the only way we can limit fascist corporatism.

You need to actually read that article. And be sure to follow the links on corporatism. It's a form of government, not a private enterprise. It can't exist without the coercive power of the state.

Since you're clearly opposed to "government" then how do you explain your idea of economic decisions being decided by an elite group of the B&B?

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

What I mean is that governments and corporations/private sector business exercise authority. The only difference is how much. Our government has less influence than international businesses like Google and JP Morgan except when it comes genuine combat. The difference is we tend to think the military is an outgrowth of government (and it was originally). What happens when government is in cahoots with corporations? A secret alliance where corporations can pressure the US into certain military campaigns for profit. We saw this in the last decade very openly.

According to George's link to the blog, this tangled web of private sector and the government are ontological necessities born from such massive concentrations of power and wealth.

When action arises from government, you say it's coercive.

When action arises out of the private sector, you call it reality.

They are hardly different in our 21st century yet you insist government is bad and private sector is natural and desirable. And I tend to agree with the blog: when you allow elites to make decisions with such centralized wealth, corruption is a necessary result. Regardless of how bright one is, absolute power (exemplified by the Kochs) is absolutely corrupting.

The government is not different from private corporations in kind, only by degree.

Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
Government can.
Corporations can't force you to give them money.
Government does that everyday.

Better yet, corporations are government creations. They simply exist to shield executives from liability.

 

[gnarlylove]

Corporations can't force you to buy anything.
Government can.
Corporations can't force you to give them money.
Government does that everyday.

Look around you in a downtown area, especially places like Times Square. Do you tend to buy the products you see advertised? I know the majority of consumers do. I'm not saying you bought a product because you saw it advertised, no, it's more subtle than that.

The fact that most major corporations spend more money on advertisement than the production of their products clues us in. This is in the multiple trillions worldwide. And companies wouldn't continue spending that kind of money year after year, decade after deacde if it didn't pay off.

 

[LibertyLemming]

You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?

 

[georgephillip]

But what about social security??

SSA and SSI which includes Medical benefits generate most of their incomes.
Part time jobs increase the amount of money they have to spend every month; however, too many hours will require sacrificing either medical coverage or their low income housing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Actually US capitalists hate democracy and embrace a race to the bottom in order to maintain increasing economic inequality in America.

Ask Roger (and Me) and Jessica about how German labor unions with voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for reverse that effect:

"In 2010, Germany produced more than 5.5 million automobiles; the U.S produced 2.7 million.

"At the same time, the average auto worker in Germany made $67.14 per hour in salary in benefits; the average one in the U.S. made $33.77 per hour.

"Yet Germany’s big three car companies—BMW, Daimler (Mercedes-Benz ), and Volkswagen—are very profitable.

"There are 'two overlapping sets of institutions' in Germany that guarantee high wages and good working conditions for autoworkers.

"The first is IG Metall, the country’s equivalent of the United Automobile Workers.

"Virtually all Germany’s car workers are members, and though they have the right to strike, they 'hardly use it, because there is an elaborate system of conflict resolution that regularly is used to come to some sort of compromise that is acceptable to all parties,' according to Horst Mund, an IG Metall executive.

"The second institution is the German constitution, which allows for 'works councils' in every factory, where management and employees work together on matters like shop floor conditions and work life.

"Mund says this guarantees cooperation, 'where you don’t always wear your management pin or your union pin.'”

How Germany Builds Twice As Many Cars As The U.S. While Paying Its Workers Twice As Much - Forbes

See, only those totally blinded by the ideology of American Exceptionalism fail to see how corrupt union officials and Wall Street parasites, like Mitt, destroyed much of the US auto industry.

Your post appears to be a fail from start to finish.

2010 Statistics | OICA

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Right after you start supplying links for your Bull.

AIG was the counterparty for Goldman's CDOs, not the government.

You need a link to understand the difference? LOL!

Let me know when you find the costs socialized by Goldman.

I'll be waiting, ready to mock you further.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only free market approach was allowing Lehman Bros to collapse. The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers. That includes Goldman, AIG, and a host of some 20 banks that flubbed up the international market and brought systemic risk to the WHOLE SYSTEM. Indeed, if it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't be talking about a puny recession, we'd be talking about an overhaul of the global economy.

The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers.

Upon the backs of taxpayers? LOL!
The Treasury made a huge profit off the bank portion of TARP.

And as a bonus, the banking system didn't collapse.
10s of millions of Americans didn't have to live like you.
That's a good thing, even if mean rich people also benefit from a viable banking system.

 

[LibertyLemming]

the only free market approach was allowing lehman bros to collapse. The rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers. That includes goldman, aig, and a host of some 20 banks that flubbed up the international market and brought systemic risk to the whole system. Indeed, if it wasn't for socialism, we wouldn't be talking about a puny recession, we'd be talking about an overhaul of the global economy.

the rest was socialism for the wealthy upon the backs of taxpayers.

upon the backs of taxpayers? Lol!
The treasury made a huge profit off the bank portion of tarp.

And as a bonus, the banking system didn't collapse.
10s of millions of americans didn't have to live like you.
That's a good thing, even if mean rich people also benefit from a viable banking system.

its not capitalism if there is fucking government involved in the market

 

[gnarlylove]

You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?

What are you talking about?
U.S. Small Businesses Don't Create Jobs Like They Used To - Businessweek

Most employees work for large companies that do not make single digit profit margins.

 

[History]

But what about social security??

SSA and SSI which includes Medical benefits generate most of their incomes.
Part time jobs increase the amount of money they have to spend every month; however, too many hours will require sacrificing either medical coverage or their low income housing.

And who is to blame for the higher inflation and higher costs of living??
Both Republicans and Democrats alike.. Thanks for looking out for our seniors.. Now y'all want them to pay even higher premiums for healthcare that they May or May Not Have Access to because of the government wanting to take control over the people..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are "retired" seniors working part-time at the non-profit Senior Center where I volunteer who can not afford to work full time because of the losses they would suffer from losing Medicaid and affordable housing benefits.

Since Los Angeles is one of eight counties in California scheduled for a Medicaid "reform" experiment, it's likely many of the seniors will see the quality of their medical care decline when HMOs get involved.

I'm sure the investor class appreciates the sacrifice.

Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??

Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.

The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.

 

[LibertyLemming]

You do realize most businesses have single digit profit margins right?

What are you talking about?
U.S. Small Businesses Don't Create Jobs Like They Used To - Businessweek

Most employees work for large companies that do not make single digit profit margins.

uh large companies have single digit profit margins?

Exxon 7.99%
PepsiCo 8.66%
Wal-Mart Stores 3.23%

and this is with the massive regulations and other laws the government pass to make these large companies even more profitable by stifling competition

 

[History]

Okay, so if they knew that they would have to eventually retire, the question is why didn't they save enough Money for Retirement??

Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.

The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.

But you know the Leftists beliefs, they believe in No Personal Responsibility for one's self.. Government is the only option that people should have, because without government controlling the lives of people, the people are powerless to think for themselves..

 

[LibertyLemming]

Because they weren't paid enough money every month for their labor to support their family and save for retirement.

The government took 12.4% of their income, for decades, and that's not enough for retirement?
I put less than that in my 401K and have hundreds of thousands saved.

But you know the Leftists beliefs, they believe in No Personal Responsibility for one's self.. Government is the only option that people should have, because without government controlling the lives of people, the people are powerless to think for themselves..

you're an anarchist too?!?!!?!? oh you just want the government to control people how you think it should