Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dblack]

Well, no. On the contrary, it doesn't confuse matters; it clarifies them. The monopoly on violence is the core trait of the modern conception of government, and I'm asking you to justify that use of violence. If you contend that it's not, if your proposing a government that doesn't use the threat of violence to achieve its ends, I'm all ears. But that would be a radically different kind of government than the currently accepted definition.

You just oppose to oppose.

If that's what you believe, then I suppose there's no point in discussing the matter further.

A government's supposed function is to facilitate peoples' lifes (or address problems) that arise from mass populations like water, sanitation, transportation, farming, energy.

That's what you're supposing. And what I'm questioning, or, 'opposing just to oppose' as you say.

You insist violence is categorically wrong but is it?

No, I don't. When it's in self-defense, it's reasonable and justified. It's employing violence to bully others for our convenience that I take issue with.

So you must only be talking about concrete governments then since violence does not apply to theoretical gov'ts per se. So let's remember to keep our discussion with both feet planted firmly in concrete reality. So as I argued, in reality concerns of violence proceed the need of food and water. But since this board is a mix of urgent/present concerns and theoretical discussion I will say violence in our present day should cease immediately until they can be justified, which is unlikely. Would this collapse or devastate the economy? Potentially. So this is a concern, not mine of course and clearly not yours.

Huh??

If I may ask, do you not read my long posts or do they get skimmed? I don't care either way, I just want to know for future replies.

I read them, but I confess most of it seems irrelevant, because you're starting with assumptions I disagree with. The details of how government should provide for all of our needs are irrelevant to me (for example) when I don't think government should be in the business of providing for all our needs in the first place. That's why I'm focused in working through the assumptions first. So we're not wasting time talking past each other. If you think that's petty, or a 'distraction', then I guess there's not much point.

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[gnarlylove]

You just oppose to oppose.

If that's what you believe, then I suppose there's no point in discussing the matter further.

I admit to having been irked by your accusation of dishonoring slaves. I just didn't expect it from you. I felt it undermined respectable dialogue, but perhaps I am mistaken. You should know by now a main motivation of mine is standing up for any and all oppressed people.

A government's supposed function is to facilitate peoples' lifes (or address problems) that arise from mass populations like water, sanitation, transportation, farming, energy.

That's what you're supposing. And what I'm questioning, or, 'opposing just to oppose' as you say.

I can't see a simpler idea of government to which we can agree. Are you inclined to re-define it? If so, I'll just use your definition but at some point we need a working definition to proceed.

No, I don't. When it's in self-defense, it's reasonable and justified. It's employing violence to bully others for our convenience that I take issue with.

No person or gov't has innate justification for bullying another. Although it happens daily, in an ideal world any use of force would be preceded by massive justification. Otherwise, we nip it in the butt. However, I'm well aware US thinks it owns the world and can do what is pleases despite popular opposition at home to bullying. Nor do I think US has the right to bully at home without serious justification, this includes jailing people for nonviolent, "victimless" crimes. To me, this is ignoring democracy for the sake of international and domestic bullying. But the fact is our gov't is far less concerned with democracy than achieving it's narrow interests of dominating the world.

So where do we differ? I certainly don't condone any violence that has not been rigorously justified which is probably 100%.

So you must only be talking about concrete governments then since violence does not apply to theoretical gov'ts per se. So let's remember to keep our discussion with both feet planted firmly in concrete reality... the rest of this paragraph was not well organized and irrelevant anyway

Huh??

We both want to rid the dialogue of confusion. By agreeing to our terms, we can avoid equivocation. I noticed we both would weave in and out of governments as they exist (concrete) and governments as we wish (hypothetical) and using them interchangeably. Naturally if a government is to exist our hope is that it carries out no unjustified violence ever but this doesn't exist in the real world (yet).

I advocate for a society without government but this is what I wish for but this is not really feasible given my understanding of gov't. What we are stuck with is a pretty foul gov't. Thus discussion that matters should centers around gradually changing gov't since it's probably too powerful to dismantle in a generation. So to keep our dialogue open and free of confusion and equivocation, lets be clear whether we are talking about theoretical government or concrete government.

If I may ask, do you not read my long posts or do they get skimmed? I don't care either way, I just want to know for future replies.

I read them, but I confess most of it seems irrelevant, because you're starting with assumptions I disagree with. The details of how government should provide for all of our needs are irrelevant to me (for example) when I don't think government should be in the business of providing for all our needs in the first place. That's why I'm focused in working through the assumptions first. So we're not wasting time talking past each other. If you think that's petty, or a 'distraction', then I guess there's not much point.

I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right? If yes, I have been agreeing with you post after post on this point that no one should be given sustenance for simply existing in America.

An able bodied person in a gov't like ours with similar resources should be able to provide work to all who seek it, i.e. a means to earn their sustenance. Although many Scandinavian countries more or less do this (unemployment ~3%) the US fails and has the highest rates of homelessness among any developed nation. Having been homeless, few people choose to live chronically homeless and chronically hungry but no one will hire them. Can you please stop disagreeing with a strawman version of my position? If you still disagree with me it's not because I think gov't should just give away food, which you keep repeating. You disagree because you don't think gov't should exist in the first place. But this goes back to my point about interchanging between concrete gov't as it exists and hypothetical gov't as you wish it existed (or rather didn't exist). So let me offer the concrete side of things:

I don't think we should have gov't either but the fact remains we have the US gov't and it isn't going anywhere. So since I care about all human beings (and supposedly you do too) the very real and immediate problem of insufficient opportunities for a large sector of the pop. must be addressed because not only does this improve the lives of individuals allowing them to be productive, but it literally improves society and its function (for a number of reasons, reduction in murder, crime, drug abuse, hunger, illness/disease, even unclutters streets from camping like SF, NY, LA). Charity is not and will not be sufficient nor is the city mission--these things are in full swing now and are doing tons of good but it pales in comparison to the abjection that exists. These people live well below any acceptable standard of living and this population is continuing to grow at unprecedented rates. These are people too who can provide a productive service to society but instead we literally caste them from society. They drain tax payer dollars and city resources by tickets from police for "trespassing" (i.e. sleeping on a sidewalk or being in a park after hours) and other petty survival necessities that I have 18 warrants for--for no contribution to society other than draining its resources.

So if we are concerned with human beings and improving society within the framework we have, we need use gov't to ensure these people can exist without constant food and water insecurity. Even if we aren't concerned with human beings, a society functions better when more people are able to be productive instead of drain city resources. Otherwise I can't help think you prefer an ideological stance over using the means available (gov't) to make people's lives tolerable and improve society by offering jobs so the streets are safer etc etc.. I promise you if you lived homelessly and experienced the contrast of nothingness and regular hunger for months on end all the while the surrounding affluence glares at you in a downtown region, you would drop you anti-gov't ideology and advocate for better conditions for human beings or at least a better society for yourself.

 

[Andylusion]

I don't get what you are arguing. I can only re-phrase and hope you understand. If people have inalienable anything, they must first exist in order to have them. In order to exist one absolutely must have water and food. Without which nothing matters since no human can exist.

I am not saying the state must provide food at the foot of each person every morning. I am saying they must earn it, like all people did before governments--through gathering, hunting and agriculture. In other words, a means to buy the food being sold--i.e. work. Clearly US ignores this urgent issue by dumping trillions elsewhere. I argue for a work program for every citizen that wants to buy their own food or else provide a sensible plot of land on which to raise a family and sustenance. These do not exist at present.

Bringing violence in is a separate issue that confuses matters. We can discuss that in due time, but talk of rights only make since if a person exists. So before constitutional law, say during the Magna Carta, talk of "rights" simply did not exist. Language is not fixed nor are ideas, though it appears fixed from our short life spans. Either we can update the discussion of rights showing they only make sense if a person is afforded means to exist or we can continue to miss the mark and allow unnecessary real suffering to be institutionalized.

Since we live in a government that talks of rights all the time, I think it's important to identify flaws and point out areas of improvement when human lives are at stake. But I'm assuming government is suppose to serve the people, which is not it's primary function as I tried to show above.

You can exist, without government giving you anything. Hundreds of thousands of people get free food from shelters every day. So that's not an argument.

Further, your plan directly involves violence and coercion. It's not a "separate issue", it's directly tied to it.

I don't support your plan. If government didn't have the force and coercion, and violence, to force me to pay for it... I wouldn't. But if you win, and they start make-work programs, can I choose to not fund those programs? If I refuse to pay the taxes to fund those programs, the government comes and takes my stuff away. If I try and stop them, they'll shoot me.

Violence and coercion are directly related to your plan, because without them, your plan won't happen. None of us are going to pay for it, if we are not forced to.

Lastly, your plan ignores how wealth is created.

Wealth is not made by shuffling money around. Wealth is either created or it is consumed.

When I work at my job, I am building a product. That product has value to the market place. That is wealth being created. Something that was worth less... is now worth more. Thus wealth and value is created.

During the 1930s make work program, one example was of bricks being moved.... by hand.... across a street. Then after that shift was done, another group showed up and moved the bricks back to the other side of the street.

What value was being created? Nothing. What wealth was created? None.

But was wealth consumed? Of course. The money given to these 'workers' who produced nothing of value, bought stuff and consumed it. If they bought a car, they drove the car and ruined it. Or if they bought food they ate it. In every case, they were consumed wealth, while producing nothing. Society was poorer because of this program.

That's why the recession, was stretched out into a depression. The more people you have producing nothing, and consuming wealth, the worse off the country as a whole will be.

And the negative aspects do not end there either. In order to pay for those projects, the government had to raise taxes on those who created real jobs which growth wealth. Of course with less money in the hands of those who make wealth and create jobs, fewer of both were made.

If you want to ruin a country, just walk the path of government make work. Have we learned nothing from the Soviets? 50 Years of economic history, and we're still pushing for country wide destruction through bad policy.

 

[kucing]

A believer, because the economy is so like this

 

[editec]

Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.

Without doubt.

How can I say this with absolute certainty?

Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.

Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.

How do I know that?

Look at every civilization in history.

Every one has wealth inequity

 

[georgephillip]

Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.

Without doubt.

How can I say this with absolute certainty?

Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.

Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.

How do I know that?

Look at every civilization in history.

Every one has wealth inequity

And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?

 

[bripat9643]

Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.

Without doubt.

How can I say this with absolute certainty?

Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.

Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.

How do I know that?

Look at every civilization in history.

Every one has wealth inequity

And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?

Horseshit. Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it. Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.

 

[dblack]

I admit to having been irked by your accusation of dishonoring slaves.

That certainly wasn't meant as a personal comment. I've just always felt the attempt to equate wage-earners with slaves to be insulting to those who were shackled in all-too-real chains. That said, I'm actually sympathetic to the idea that, for hundreds of years, the 'money-masters' have been working to create a debt culture that, in many respects, replaces slavery, and it's repugnant to me. But you continue to see government as the solution to that problem without, in my view, recognizing the ways government is used to maintain it. I see the kind of control and dependency you advocate for directly feeding and contributing to the goals and ambitions of the corporatists.

I can't see a simpler idea of government to which we can agree. Are you inclined to re-define it? If so, I'll just use your definition but at some point we need a working definition to proceed.

In my view the primary purpose of government is to resolve disputes non-violently. I see it as a 'servant' to keep the peace so that we may work together, voluntarily, as a society. I don't want to government to 'manage' society like a business or attempt to push us toward any particular goals. It should be up to individuals and communities to decide their own visions of the good life and pursue them as they will. It's not a decision for government to make and then impose on the unwilling.

I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right?

No, this is not my view. I realize it's a common theme among conservatives, which is one reason I don't consider myself a 'conservative', but I'm not concerned with whether people are getting what they 'deserve'. I'm not preoccupied with supporting the 'work ethic', or punishing people who don't live up to my standards of virtuous industry.

My concerns about welfare state dependency are solely with control it represents. Call me paranoid, but I see a pretty consistent effort among ambitious leaders to centralize control of our basic needs. They've got education, for the most part. They're taking over health care. I suspect the food supply will be next. At the risk of going 'Godwin', I find the specter of fascism still lurking. It will continue to be a threat as long as our world is comprised of balkanized nations struggling for dominance. The nations that can organize violence most effectively will 'win', and fascism seems to be the most effective in that regard.

 

[georgephillip]

Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.

Without doubt.

How can I say this with absolute certainty?

Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.

Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.

How do I know that?

Look at every civilization in history.

Every one has wealth inequity

And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?

Horseshit. Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it. Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.

Rome.

 

[bripat9643]

And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?

Horseshit. Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it. Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.

Rome.

No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency. It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.

 

[gnarlylove]

But you continue to see government as the solution to that problem without, in my view, recognizing the ways government is used to maintain it. I see the kind of control and dependency you advocate for directly feeding and contributing to the goals and ambitions of the corporatists.

I understand your concern. Any bolstering of gov't programs seems to contribute to corporatists dominance. So when I advocate for gov't intervention at any point, even building opportunities, you identify this as further establishing corporate power. If this is your point I don't see it as feeding corporate power. Take for example my point about increasing opportunities. By doing so, it takes away a certain desperation of people who need work but can't find a satisfactory job and so they take anything. This is the basis of wage labor: desperation and you readily accept poor working conditions and pay just so you can provide food for the family.

There are many things the gov't does or rather can do that minimizes elite control and providing work to all who want it is a great way to reduce desperation leading to wage slavery.

I can't see a simpler idea of government to which we can agree. Are you inclined to re-define it? If so, I'll just use your definition but at some point we need a working definition to proceed.

In my view the primary purpose of government is to resolve disputes non-violently. I see it as a 'servant' to keep the peace so that we may work together, voluntarily, as a society. I don't want to government to 'manage' society like a business or attempt to push us toward any particular goals. It should be up to individuals and communities to decide their own visions of the good life and pursue them as they will. It's not a decision for government to make and then impose on the unwilling.

That's a fine distinction. I shall keep it in mind.

I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right?

No, this is not my view. I realize it's a common theme among conservatives, which is one reason I don't consider myself a 'conservative', but I'm not concerned with whether people are getting what they 'deserve'. I'm not preoccupied with supporting the 'work ethic', or punishing people who don't live up to my standards of virtuous industry.

My concerns about welfare state dependency are solely with control it represents. Call me paranoid, but I see a pretty consistent effort among ambitious leaders to centralize control of our basic needs. They've got education, for the most part. They're taking over health care. I suspect the food supply will be next. At the risk of going 'Godwin', I find the specter of fascism still lurking. It will continue to be a threat as long as our world is comprised of balkanized nations struggling for dominance. The nations that can organize violence most effectively will 'win', and fascism seems to be the most effective in that regard.

As I understand it, education is being dismantled through defunding and privatized options are springing up all over. Health care is currently engaged in the opposite direction but the insurance companies more so than the gov't are benefiting in that scenario. So health care too supports major corporate interests, just like defunding education does and hence our current situation where public education is in crisis. When you have a private school, the curriculum is exactly as they want. I think you can see what that can lead to--shutting out information at the behest of private owners. I'm not saying this does't happen in the public system, but it is certainly more public and those on the board can be normal people. Hell, my dad knowns friends on the board. In a privatized system, no normal joe like that would be doling out policy. Public education has some semblance of public involvement in the curriculum. Private schools can shut this out completely if they wish. It doesn't take a genius to see how wrong that could go--advertising would abound in all schools and you might take a break during class to hear a commercial. This is brainwashing. This concept is nothing new, see Channel One.

I agree fascism lurks in America and throughout the world. But fascism of the normal person is a partial result from dissatisfaction with the current system. Their answers fascists have are bad but they identify correctly the terrible nature of corporate dominance and America's democratic deficit. America's constant ignoring of democracy while claiming to be democratic is a good way to insight violence against them/us. Since America regularly engages in violent force, many think violence is the only valid response. That is very understandable since the US gov't is dominating every region of the world it wishes despite efforts at home to protest against wars.

 

[bripat9643]

But you continue to see government as the solution to that problem without, in my view, recognizing the ways government is used to maintain it. I see the kind of control and dependency you advocate for directly feeding and contributing to the goals and ambitions of the corporatists.

I understand your concern. Any bolstering of gov't programs seems to contribute to corporatists dominance. So when I advocate for gov't intervention at any point, even building opportunities, you identify this as further establishing corporate power. If this is your point I don't see it as feeding corporate power. Take for example my point about increasing opportunities. By doing so, it takes away a certain desperation of people who need work but can't find a satisfactory job and so they take anything. This is the basis of wage labor: desperation and you readily accept poor working conditions and pay just so you can provide food for the family.

There are many things the gov't does or rather can do that minimizes elite control and providing work to all who want it is a great way to reduce desperation leading to wage slavery.

Government doesn't provide "opportunity." It can only dispense checks. Government can crate make-work jobs, but the minute the funding dries up, those jobs go away. There is no career path for make-work jobs. Expanding the government workforce is not a desirable option, because that just means a greater burden on taxpayers.

Your theory about employment is based on the idea that people appear in the workforce as if they were teleported from an alien planet. People start working when they are still in school. They have their entire lives to develop their skills and choose their career paths. If someone isn't making a decent income by the time he is 25, then he's been very foolish and irresponsible. Anyone who puts a modicum of effort into improving his income can do so. When people are "desperate," it's only because they have maladaptive behavior patterns. They are probably ex felons or women who had children out of wedlock. The free market isn't to blame.

As I understand it, education is being dismantled through defunding and privatized options are springing up all over. Health care is currently engaged in the opposite direction but the insurance companies more so than the gov't are benefiting in that scenario. So health care too supports major corporate interests, just like defunding education does and hence our current situation where public education is in crisis. When you have a private school, the curriculum is exactly as they want. I think you can see what that can lead to--shutting out information at the behest of private owners. I'm not saying this does't happen in the public system, but it is certainly more public and those on the board can be normal people. Hell, my dad knowns friends on the board. In a privatized system, no normal joe like that would be doling out policy. Public education has some semblance of public involvement in the curriculum. Private schools can shut this out completely if they wish. It doesn't take a genius to see how wrong that could go--advertising would abound in all schools and you might take a break during class to hear a commercial. This is brainwashing. This concept is nothing new, see Channel One.

Government is spending more money on education than it ever has, so that claim is pure bullshit.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes CAPITALISM guarantees wealth inequity.

Without doubt.

How can I say this with absolute certainty?

Look at any and every nation where some form of capitalism is practiced.

Of course CIVLIIATION ITSELF ALSO guarantees wealth inequity, too.

How do I know that?

Look at every civilization in history.

Every one has wealth inequity

And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?

Rome.

Somehow I knew something funny would be said. And oddly, I even guessed that someone would say Rome.

Rome did not fall from property rights. In fact, by any rational logic, it was the destruction of property rights that killed off the Roman Republic.

Before falling into a tyranny of the Caesars dictatorship, they were a Republic, much like our own, with an aspect that the rule of law came above the rule of the people.

However, over time the will of the people over government, became stronger, and populist politicians using sway over the mob, increased their personal gain, by handing out gifts from the public treasury.

At one point, the government was broke, and started declaring individual citizens as traitors to Roma, having them killed, and confiscating all their money, property and wealth, to pay for the public hand outs to the masses.

DOES THAT SOUND LIKE CAPITALISM AND PROPERTY RIGHTS TO YOU?!?

Of course not. It's more like Marxist Socialism, and a push towards "equality". Of course as one might expect, the wealth business and property owners left Roma in mass, which of course dried up jobs, dried up production, dried up wealth, and Roma became poorer.

Of course once you teach people the way to get free stuff is to riot and mob violence (which is how they got the original hand outs), then guess what the citizens of Roma did when the city started falling into poverty? They rioted more. Eventually this led to the dictatorship of the Caesars.

So no, I'm sorry. Roma is not an example of a country where "property rights killed the country!". Complete and utter crap.

However, I want to back up to your previous statement.
"And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity."

Here's the problem... Let's even pretend for a moment that what you said was true. Let's pretend that possibly some countries have disappeared from "inequality". (total crap claim).

Can you name for me a single nation, anywhere in the world, at any time in history or the present, which has grown to G10 levels, or 1st world standards, with zero inequality?

North and South Korea? Venezuela? Cuba? Soviet Russia? Maoist China vs Hong Kong? The Philippines? Vietnam?

Name the country you would claim is the Workers Paradise?

Of course it doesn't exist. Every country that has advanced and progressed, and grown into a high standard of living, has been a nation of inequality.

Nor can you find a country with poor property rights, that had been successful. Just look at Haiti.

The property ownership laws in Haiti are so ambiguous and pro-squatters, that when charities went to Haiti specifically to build houses, they ended up building nothing, because they could never nail down who owned the lots.

In fact there were stories of people who fled their homes fearing the Earthquake had made the home unsafe, only to return to find someone living in their home, and they had no legal right to remove them.

This alone prevented the rebuilding of Haiti, because why would you do repairs on a home that you could no longer live in? Of course the Squatters themselves also had no legal right to the home, and thus they could not repair the home either.

Then some idiot socialists stands around and claims that 'property rights are the problem'? Can you not see the misery that lack of property rights has created?

Haiti today.

Can Haiti Close Its Tent Camps By 2015?

To this day, nearly 4 years after the Earth quake, there are STILL 150,000 people living in tents.

That's where your anti-property-rights mantra gets you.

 

[Andylusion]

I understand your concern. Any bolstering of gov't programs seems to contribute to corporatists dominance. So when I advocate for gov't intervention at any point, even building opportunities, you identify this as further establishing corporate power. If this is your point I don't see it as feeding corporate power. Take for example my point about increasing opportunities. By doing so, it takes away a certain desperation of people who need work but can't find a satisfactory job and so they take anything. This is the basis of wage labor: desperation and you readily accept poor working conditions and pay just so you can provide food for the family.

There are many things the gov't does or rather can do that minimizes elite control and providing work to all who want it is a great way to reduce desperation leading to wage slavery.

While that's a nice claim, there's no evidence of that. I have yet to see a single example anywhere that government intervention has resulted in more opportunities, and TONS of evidence that government intervention inherently by it's very nature, benefits the wealthy elite.

I continue to stress access and not providence. You take my proposition to be gov't is suppose to feed clothe and bathe everyone whether they earned it or not. Your crucial concern is whether someone earned it. Right?

Government has no ability to grant access. What exactly do you think they could do?

Do you really want someone "given access" by government, to be a doctor working on you? Do you really want someone "given access" by government, building your home?

It's not just a matter of "he earned it", as though, that in itself is the answer. It's also because he worked hard, and learned the skills needed to do that job. I don't want government mandating that someone has a job, and then have them build me a house that caves in on my family.

AND YOU WOULD NOT EITHER. See it's really easy to sit there with "high sounding platitudes" about granting access, and yet when it directly effects you, it's not so great.

Do you really want the mechanic who works on your new car, to be some guy that was 'given access" by government? Well but he deserves a living wage! He deserves a chance!

See it real easy to make these moral proclamations, when you are talking about some corporation somewhere. But when it's *YOU* that has to deal with these people who were just "given access", suddenly, not so cool.

As I understand it, education is being dismantled through defunding and privatized options are springing up all over.

We spend more on education than any other country in the world. Many countries around the world, have a more free-market capitalist based system than the US. I could list you numerous examples, like Finland, or Sweden, Chile even. The move towards private schools in the US, is exclusively because our public gov-schools SUCK so badly, that people do anything to escape them.

 

[Kosh]

Voting far left is the fastest way to get income inequality.

 

[gnarlylove]

Lastly, your plan ignores how wealth is created.

Wealth is not made by shuffling money around. Wealth is either created or it is consumed.

When I work at my job, I am building a product. That product has value to the market place. That is wealth being created. Something that was worth less... is now worth more. Thus wealth and value is created.

During the 1930s make work program, one example was of bricks being moved.... by hand.... across a street. Then after that shift was done, another group showed up and moved the bricks back to the other side of the street.

What value was being created? Nothing. What wealth was created? None.

But was wealth consumed? Of course. The money given to these 'workers' who produced nothing of value, bought stuff and consumed it. If they bought a car, they drove the car and ruined it. Or if they bought food they ate it. In every case, they were consumed wealth, while producing nothing. Society was poorer because of this program.

That's why the recession, was stretched out into a depression. The more people you have producing nothing, and consuming wealth, the worse off the country as a whole will be.

And the negative aspects do not end there either. In order to pay for those projects, the government had to raise taxes on those who created real jobs which growth wealth. Of course with less money in the hands of those who make wealth and create jobs, fewer of both were made.

If you want to ruin a country, just walk the path of government make work. Have we learned nothing from the Soviets? 50 Years of economic history, and we're still pushing for country wide destruction through bad policy.

I recall you saying that financial institutions were helpful or beneficial. I called them insidious or at least having low social utility. Well, I found out in economics why I'm right. I was open to the possibility of them being useful. Their use is to the detriment of billions and billions of people like you and me. Here it is,

"In 1984 James Tobin, a former member of Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1981, delivered a talk “On the Efficiency of the Financial System” in which he concluded by referring to “the casino aspect of our financial markets.” As Tobin told his audience:

I confess to an uneasy Physiocratic suspicion…that we are throwing more and more of our resources…into financial activities remote from the production of goods and services, into activities that generate high private rewards disproportionate to their social productivity. I suspect that the immense power of the computer is being harnessed to this ‘paper economy,’ not to do the same transactions more economically but to balloon the quantity and variety of financial exchanges. For this reason perhaps, high technology has so far yielded disappointing results in economy-wide productivity. I fear that, as Keynes saw even in his day, the advantages of the liquidity and negotiability of financial instruments come at the cost of facilitating nth-degree speculation which is short-sighted and inefficient….I suspect that Keynes was right to suggest that we should provide greater deterrents to transient holdings of financial instruments and larger rewards for long-term investors.8

Tobin’s point was that capitalism was becoming inefficient by devoting its surplus capital increasingly to speculative, casino-like pursuits, rather than long-term investment in the real economy." [emp. added]

'The whole context is that of a financialization so out of control that unexpected and severe shocks to the system and resulting financial contagions are looked upon as inevitable. As historian Gabriel Kolko has written, “People who know the most about the world financial system are increasingly worried, and for very good reasons. Dire warnings are coming from the most ‘respectable’ sources. Reality has gotten out of hand. The demons of greed are loose.”'
The Financialization of Capitalism :: Monthly Review

 

[jasonnfree]

And more than a few have vanished from the page of time because of inequity.
The US Empire appears headed in that same general direction because of the corroding effects of private wealth upon democratic government.
Perhaps private wealth itself is the problem here?

Horseshit. Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it. Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.

Rome.

The French Monarchy and Czarist Russia.

 

[Andylusion]

Lastly, your plan ignores how wealth is created.

Wealth is not made by shuffling money around. Wealth is either created or it is consumed.

When I work at my job, I am building a product. That product has value to the market place. That is wealth being created. Something that was worth less... is now worth more. Thus wealth and value is created.

During the 1930s make work program, one example was of bricks being moved.... by hand.... across a street. Then after that shift was done, another group showed up and moved the bricks back to the other side of the street.

What value was being created? Nothing. What wealth was created? None.

But was wealth consumed? Of course. The money given to these 'workers' who produced nothing of value, bought stuff and consumed it. If they bought a car, they drove the car and ruined it. Or if they bought food they ate it. In every case, they were consumed wealth, while producing nothing. Society was poorer because of this program.

That's why the recession, was stretched out into a depression. The more people you have producing nothing, and consuming wealth, the worse off the country as a whole will be.

And the negative aspects do not end there either. In order to pay for those projects, the government had to raise taxes on those who created real jobs which growth wealth. Of course with less money in the hands of those who make wealth and create jobs, fewer of both were made.

If you want to ruin a country, just walk the path of government make work. Have we learned nothing from the Soviets? 50 Years of economic history, and we're still pushing for country wide destruction through bad policy.

I recall you saying that financial institutions were helpful or beneficial. I called them insidious or at least having low social utility. Well, I found out in economics why I'm right. I was open to the possibility of them being useful. Their use is to the detriment of billions and billions of people like you and me. Here it is,

"In 1984 James Tobin, a former member of Kennedy’s Council of Economic Advisers and winner of the Nobel Prize in economics in 1981, delivered a talk “On the Efficiency of the Financial System” in which he concluded by referring to “the casino aspect of our financial markets.” As Tobin told his audience:

I confess to an uneasy Physiocratic suspicion…that we are throwing more and more of our resources…into financial activities remote from the production of goods and services, into activities that generate high private rewards disproportionate to their social productivity. I suspect that the immense power of the computer is being harnessed to this ‘paper economy,’ not to do the same transactions more economically but to balloon the quantity and variety of financial exchanges. For this reason perhaps, high technology has so far yielded disappointing results in economy-wide productivity. I fear that, as Keynes saw even in his day, the advantages of the liquidity and negotiability of financial instruments come at the cost of facilitating nth-degree speculation which is short-sighted and inefficient….I suspect that Keynes was right to suggest that we should provide greater deterrents to transient holdings of financial instruments and larger rewards for long-term investors.8

Tobin’s point was that capitalism was becoming inefficient by devoting its surplus capital increasingly to speculative, casino-like pursuits, rather than long-term investment in the real economy." [emp. added]

'The whole context is that of a financialization so out of control that unexpected and severe shocks to the system and resulting financial contagions are looked upon as inevitable. As historian Gabriel Kolko has written, “People who know the most about the world financial system are increasingly worried, and for very good reasons. Dire warnings are coming from the most ‘respectable’ sources. Reality has gotten out of hand. The demons of greed are loose.”'
The Financialization of Capitalism :: Monthly Review

But it's just not true. Yeah he said that, and yeah he predicted that, but it's simply not true. It didn't happen. The big disaster didn't occur, and hasn't occurred.

At the very start, he doesn't understand the markets at all, if he thinks it's like a casino. It's not like a casino, unless you play it like one.

I've held stocks for years. When the stock market went down, I made money. When the stock market went up, I made money.

I know a guy that invests in realestate. When the realestate market crashed, he made money. When it rebounded, he made money.

The only time these investments are a gamble, is if you invest like a gamble. If you are trying to buy something for $5 today, and sell it for $50 tomorrow, when you have no idea what the price will do between then and now.... then yes, you are gambling, and then it is a casino.

But that's a choice of the individual, not a systemic aspect of the system. That guy is wrong.

The people who didn't touch their investments during the 2008 were more wealth than they started, by 2011.

Similarly the people in 2001 who left their money where it was, gained it all back plus more, by 2004.

How can that be? Because those companies are still paying out dividends during the down time.

If I have 10 stocks, paying out $1 dividends, and the stock price falls from $50 to $10, I am now buying another share in the company with each dividend payment. The number of shares I own grows faster when the stocks are on sale.

People are pulling their money out of the market, when shares are on sale, and their portfolio would be growing the fastest.

This is why the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. When everyone else was trying to pull their money out of the market, I as dumping in as much money as I could.

When everyone else was trying to sell off these properties that were dropping in value, this other guy was buying them all up at bargain prices.

It's not a casino, not a gamble, if you are not playing it like a gamble. It's only a gamble when you are trying to time the market, or jumping in and out of houses to flip. That's a gamble. That's when you screw up and ruin your life.

 

[georgephillip]

Horseshit. Marxists keep saying this, but there's no empirical evidence for it. Name one civilization that has disappeared because of wealth inequality.

Rome.

No, Rome collapsed because of massive welfare programs and debasing the currency. It could no longer afford an effective military because all the government revenue went to bribing the parasite class.

Who got rich(er) from debasing the currency, bankers, oligarchs, or poor parasites?