Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[bripat9643]

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.

Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support. It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology. The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues. It was nothing more than that.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The government and its favored constituencies are the only parties that gain from debasing the currency.

 

[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?

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.

You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:

"What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.

"More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.

"Has the world forgotten Haiti?

"Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"

"Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the world’s first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for France’s losses in slaves.

"Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haiti’s suffering remains on an incalculable human level."

Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report

Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.

 

[georgephillip]

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?

The government and its favored constituencies are the only parties that gain from debasing the currency.

The government of Rome was controlled by rich parasites.

 

[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.

The French Monarchy and Czarist Russia.

And corporate America:

"America has achieved the distinction of becoming the country with the highest level of income inequality among the advanced countries.

"While there is no single number that can depict all aspects of society’s inequality, matters have become worse in every dimension: more money goes to the top (more than a fifth of all income goes to the top 1%), more people are in poverty at the bottom, and the middle class—long the core strength of our society—has seen its income stagnate.

"Median household income, adjusted for inflation, today is lower than it was in 1989, a quarter century ago.[1] An economy in which most citizens see no progress, year after year, is an economy that is failing to perform in the way it should.

"Indeed, there is a vicious circle: our high inequality is one of the major contributing factors to our weak economy and our low growth."

Why Inequality Matters and What Can Be Done About It

 

[Andylusion]

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?

I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich. Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.

But correlation does not equal causation. The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.

There's a difference.

Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.

But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.

That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.

And we see that today. In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes. The result was the poor were screwed.

In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government. The poor were screwed.

The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly. They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:

"What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.

"More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.

"Has the world forgotten Haiti?

"Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"

"Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the world’s first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for France’s losses in slaves.

"Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haiti’s suffering remains on an incalculable human level."

Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report

Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.

Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic.

The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy. Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.

It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago. Then explain DR? Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.

Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965. After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.

Now compare the DR to Haiti today? Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?

See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts. DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has. The lack of property rights. The nationalization of property and business.

Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti. Nothing you said changes that.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:

"What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.

"More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.

"Has the world forgotten Haiti?

"Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"

"Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the world’s first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for France’s losses in slaves.

"Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haiti’s suffering remains on an incalculable human level."

Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report

Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.

Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic.

The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy. Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.

It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago. Then explain DR? Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.

Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965. After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.

Now compare the DR to Haiti today? Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?

See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts. DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has. The lack of property rights. The nationalization of property and business.

Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti. Nothing you said changes that.

Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?

 

[georgephillip]

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?

I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich. Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.

But correlation does not equal causation. The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.

There's a difference.

Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.

But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.

That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.

And we see that today. In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes. The result was the poor were screwed.

In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government. The poor were screwed.

The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly. They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.

I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.

The rich are the problem.

 

[georgephillip]

Rome.

The French Monarchy and Czarist Russia.

Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support. It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology. The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues. It was nothing more than that.

"America’s new ‘economic guillotine’ is dead ahead.

Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution

"Credit Suisse’s new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine.

"Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the world’s people have less than $10,000 wealth.

"Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.

"Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?'

"Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.'

"But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth … the gap’s widening … the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'”

France and Russia weren't civilizations?
What were they?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-wealth-and-inequality-towards-a-world-of-super-rich-trillionaires-amidst-mounting-poverty/5354454

 

[Contumacious]

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

Socialism Guarantees equal misery.

.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

Socialism Guarantees equal misery.

.

Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.

 

[Andylusion]

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

I don't see any evidence that debasing the currency made bankers and oligarchs more rich. Now it's true they did get rich, while the currency was being debased.

But correlation does not equal causation. The fact A is true, and B is true, doesn't mean A caused B.

There's a difference.

Now if you can explicitly tell me, specifically how the debasing of currency caused the wealthy to become more wealthy, by all means do so.

But my reading is that the wealthy simply moved their investments and wealth, into other currency that wasn't being debased, and into investments outside of the economic system.

That doesn't mean debasing the currency directly caused them to be more wealthy, only that capital has the ability to move, while the poor do not have the ability to move.

And we see that today. In France, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of France to avoid the taxes. The result was the poor were screwed.

In Venezuela, the wealthy moved their capital and investments out of Venezuela to avoid the debasing and taxes, and confiscation of the government. The poor were screwed.

The wealthy didn't get more wealthy because of the policies directly. They got wealthy by avoiding those policies, while the poor people can't.

I never said debasing the currency was the only reason rich Romans prospered at the expense of the poor. Debasing contributed to inflation; once Rome stopped conquering new lands, gold imports decreased, the rich continued spending gold on luxury items, and the amount of gold used in coins decreased. Obviously, the urban decay and unemployment in Rome stemming from slavery contributed to its decline; however, all of those evils trace back to the early formations of vast, private fortunes. Similarly, large private fortunes in France and Venezuela today are trying to flee their histories of wage slavery.

The rich are the problem.

No, that's more opinion than fact. I can make up a bunch of opinion to counter your opinion, but that doesn't change reality either way.

Again, if the real problem was the rich, then why are countries without rich, in poverty? You can't explain that with your monolog.

 

[Andylusion]

You appear to be sadly ignorant of how elites in the US have plundered the property rights of Haitians ever since the first (and only) successful slave revolt in human history:

"What has become of Haiti and the Haitian people since the earthquake of 12 January 2010? It is three years since the catastrophic earthquake that killed over 300,000 Haitian people in 35 seconds; followed by the devastating loss of more than 7,800 people who have died of cholera due to UN Nepalese troops stationed in northern Haiti since October 2010.

"More than 93,000 people have become ill and some 7,500 have died from the disease. [1] The tail end of hurricane Sandy in the winter of 2012 took a further 54 lives. The last two tragedies failed to get massive Western media attention as the earthquake did in January 2010.

"Has the world forgotten Haiti?

"Is the world immune to the suffering of the Haitian people?"

"Africa cannot forget this island that is intrinsically part of Pan-Africa, nor its courageous people who established the world’s first black republic in 1804 under Jacque Dessalines; defiantly abolished slavery and as a consequence the United States refused to recognise this sovereign nation until 58 years later; paid a financial indemnity to its former French overlords of 150 million francs as compensation for France’s losses in slaves.

"Haiti continues to suffer and pay for the crime of defying its former colonial masters and its new imperial masters in the form of the US, Canada and the UN. Haiti’s suffering remains on an incalculable human level."

Haiti: Capitalist Plunder and Empty Promises | Black Agenda Report

Since US Capitalism took root in an economic environment when "property rights" extended to owning another human being, anyone who hasn't been ingesting corporate kool-aid all their lives can plainly see how inequality was fundamental to Haitian poverty.

Which ignores the fact that we have no control over their policies now, anymore than we do in the Dominican Republic.

The DR have strong property rights, and because of that everyone is more wealthy. Haiti does not, and because of that everyone is more poor and impoverished.

It's pretty pathetic that your only excuse for what Haiti is worse of, is because of slavery decades ago. Then explain DR? Slavery was abolished in Haiti, before it was abolished in DR.

Further, the evil US occupied DR in 1916, and in 1965. After the 1965 operation, civilians wrote "yankees come back", indicating their support of us being there.

Now compare the DR to Haiti today? Why is DR doing so well, and the other doing so badly it has masses of people flooding across the boarder every day to work in jobs in DR?

See all your blaw blaw blaw, and all these links to intellectual idiots, can't change the facts. DR is doing many times better than Haiti, and it all stems from the economic socialist policies that Haiti has. The lack of property rights. The nationalization of property and business.

Meanwhile the evil capitalist based DR, with it's pro-personal-property rights, and pro-business pro-corporation based policies, is doing far far better, and everyone in the DR, from the richest to the poorest, is doing far better than those in Haiti. Nothing you said changes that.

Where did you get the idea the US has no control over the policies of Haiti?

Well by your own theory, if we had control, we would impose a capitalistic system of private property rights. Yet we know that isn't the case.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

Socialism Guarantees equal misery.

.

Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.

So there are no capitalist like "Bill Gates" who donates massive amounts of both money and time to all types of charities ... fascinating.

 

[Theowl32]

Capitalism sells opportunity.

Life is unfair. Utopia does not exist.

Socialist sells utopia.

Which is the myth?

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

Socialism Guarantees equal misery.

.

Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.

But it doesn't. See that's the problem. It doesn't. You look at health care around the world, and see socialized system with people waiting six years for health care.... that's a guarantee? Then I'll pass.

I'd much rather pay for something I actually can get, than get something free that never comes.

Why are people in Venezuela starving? That's a socialized system. They can't even get rice. That's a guarantee? I'll take something I pay for and actually get, over starvation waiting for something free.

See, you come up with all these fake rationals, but when the facts of reality are faced, all your nice sounding speeches don't matter.

This has been shown hundreds of times. You realize that in the 1950s, Cuba has a standard of health care on par with the US?

Cuba Health care today....

This is the Cuban version of an Ambulance....

And then you think that it's the evil rich doing this? The rich have been gone from cuba for ages. What's your excuse now?

Here's the irony.... While you keep pushing this socialist stupidity, countries that have tried it, are moving away from it.

Cuba now has legalized property ownership. And legalized real estate vendors. People can now buy property, fix it up, and rent it out.

Which is causing more homes to become available. Of course, this is also making some Cubans to become "rich" (GASP!)....

After decades of crumbling and impoverishment, Cuba is coming out of the socialist hell people like you pushed them into. Go Cuba!

 

[Andylusion]

The French Monarchy and Czarist Russia.

Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support. It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology. The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues. It was nothing more than that.

"America’s new ‘economic guillotine’ is dead ahead.

Opinion, not fact.

Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution

"Credit Suisse’s new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine.

Which ruined France. Go read up on what the economic results were of the French Revolution. It ruined France, and gave way to a dictator. That's the result of your policies.

"Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the world’s people have less than $10,000 wealth.

"Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.

"Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?'

"Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.'[/QUOTE]

People come here from all over the world, because here they have more opportunity, than in other places. It's not a "we like to think", is freakin fact dude.

When a drunk guy, can whittle duck callers on his back porch, and end up a multi-millionaire with his own TV show, it's not just "we think", it's a fact.

"But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth … the gap’s widening … the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'”

France and Russia weren't civilizations?
What were they?

Global Wealth and Inequality: Towards a World of Super Rich ?Trillionaires? Amidst Mounting Poverty | Global Research

The gap will always continue to widen. It's called 'math'. When people can earn more money, and the baseline is always ZERO... then yes the gap will continue to widen.

Say the top income in 1800, was $20,000 a year, and the minimum income is ZERO.

The only way that the gap would not widen, is if the top income remained $20,000. Well that would suck. We want a growing economy, and a growing ability to earn more.

But if the top wage earners can now earn $20 Million, what's the minimum income still? It's still ZERO.

So logically in a growing economy, the gap should widen, and that's good.

If you people on the left push for another economic guillotine, you are not going to harm the rich. That time is past. They can move their money, and their businesses, and themselves, to somewhere else.

The only people slaughtered by the socialists guillotine these days, will be the socialists themselves, and the poor people who don't have the money to leave.

 

[Contumacious]

Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

Socialism Guarantees equal misery.

.

Socialism guarantees shelter, employment, and medical care as human rights.
Capitalists believe they are commodities, available only to those who can afford to buy them.

Really?

So I take it that you are not posting from Cuba, Venezuela, Somalia or any of those socialist paradises?

.

 

[bripat9643]

The French Monarchy and Czarist Russia.

Those aren't really civilizations, and the claim that they fell because of wealth inequality has no tangible means of support. It's purely an opinion supported by left-wing ideology. The French Monarchy and the Romanov dynasty fell because of political agitation by a group of hardened ideologues. It was nothing more than that.

"America’s new ‘economic guillotine’ is dead ahead.

Wealth report on inequality calls to mind French Revolution

"Credit Suisse’s new Global Wealth Report reminds us of the 1790s when inequality ignited the French Revolution and 40,000 met the guillotine.

"Today, Credit Suisse data reveal that just 1% own 46% of the world, while two-thirds of the world’s people have less than $10,000 wealth.

"Credit Suisse predicts a world with 11 trillionaires in a couple generations, as the rich get richer and the gap widens.

"Can this trend continue? Or will it trigger an 'economic guillotine?'

"Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz, author of 'The Price of Inequality,' is not as optimistic as Credit Suisse: 'America likes to think of itself as a land of opportunity.'

"But today the 'numbers show that the American dream is a myth … the gap’s widening … the clear trend is one of concentration of income and wealth at the top, the hollowing out of the middle, and increasing poverty at the bottom.'”

France and Russia weren't civilizations?
What were they?

Global Wealth and Inequality: Towards a World of Super Rich ?Trillionaires? Amidst Mounting Poverty | Global Research

You just quoted a bunch of opinions. They prove exactly zip.