Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Crystalclear]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

 

[georgephillip]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:

" Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."

The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.

Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0

 

[Andylusion]

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.

exactly. I've said this a number of times. When you post your opinion, and then someone says prove it.... posting the OPINION of someone else, doesn't prove your opinion right.

It only proves someone else has the same opinion as you. That's not proof that your opinion is right, only that your opinion is prolific.

 

[dannyboys]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

 

[georgephillip]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

 

[Erand7899]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Name a country without a single rich citizen.
Do you disagree the a large slave population in Rome created unemployment among free citizens of the time?
This is a forum that depends of many different opinions being expressed so that some consensus may occur. If you don't agree with the opinions I choose to support my beliefs, find your own experts to counter my claims. Looking for "reality" without defining what you mean by the term is an exercise in futility.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Do we?
Prove it.

"In 1915 the United States, responding to complaints to President Woodrow Wilson from American banks to which Haiti was deeply in debt, occupied the country.

"The occupation of Haiti lasted until 1934.

"The US occupation was self-interested, sometimes brutal, and caused problems that lasted past its lifetime.

"Reforms, though, were carried out.

"Under the supervision of the United States Marines, the Haitian National Assembly elected Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave President.

"He signed a treaty that made Haiti a de jure US protectorate, with American officials assuming control over the Financial Adviser, Customs Receivership, the Constabulary, the Public Works Service, and the Public Health Service for a period of ten years.

"The principal instrument of American authority was the newly created Gendarmerie d'Haïti, commanded by American officers.

"In 1917, at the demand of US officials, the National Assembly was dissolved, and officials were designated to write a new constitution, which was largely dictated by officials in the US State Department and US Navy Department.

"Franklin D Roosevelt, Under-Secretary for the Navy in the Wilson administration, claimed to have personally written the new constitution."

History of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

I usually have to stand in line every time I buy bread or toilet paper.
You're conflating capitalism's ability to produce goods and service with its inability to distribute surplus equitably; you're also confused about barter in hunter gather societies and modern capitalism which some believe didn't originate until the 14th century:

"According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the 'crisis of the fourteenth century,' a conflict between the land-owning aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs.

"Manorial arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways.

"Because serfs were forced to produce for lords, they had no interest in technological innovation; because serfs produced to sustain their own families, they had no interest in co-operating with one another.

"Because lords owned the land, they relied on force to guarantee that they were provided with sufficient food."

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

I usually have to stand in line every time I buy bread or toilet paper.
You're conflating capitalism's ability to produce goods and service with its inability to distribute surplus equitably; you're also confused about barter in hunter gather societies and modern capitalism which some believe didn't originate until the 14th century:

You must be joking. Are you talking about the line at the checkout counter that has maybe 3-4 people in it? In Venezuela the lines have hundreds of people. Equating the two is the height of dishonesty.

"According to some historians, the modern capitalist system has its origin in the 'crisis of the fourteenth century,' a conflict between the land-owning aristocracy and the agricultural producers, the serfs.

"Manorial arrangements inhibited the development of capitalism in a number of ways.

"Because serfs were forced to produce for lords, they had no interest in technological innovation; because serfs produced to sustain their own families, they had no interest in co-operating with one another.

"Because lords owned the land, they relied on force to guarantee that they were provided with sufficient food."

History of capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What does 14th Century Feudalism have to do with modern capitalism?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history.

It doesn't depend on charity unless you are disabled and have no family that can take care of you. That description applies to about 0.2% of the population. It depends on work.

Socialists are wrong: you have no right to subsistence, medical care or education.

Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

That's why the more democratic solution is fucked. Why should a mass of numskulls decide how to spend the fortune Bill Gates built? If it was up to them, there would never have been a fortune in the first place. They would have crapped it away long before Microsoft ever became a household name.

 

[Andylusion]

Not if we move to pure capitalism without intervention. Than more businesses can set up and without too much regulations, the competition will stop monopolies.

It's true that small and mid-sized businesses are afflicted with too many regulations; however, you shouldn't lose sight of who benefits the most from bribing government to write those regulations:

" Hundreds of millions of times a day, thirsty Americans open a can of soda, beer or juice. And every time they do it, they pay a fraction of a penny more because of a shrewd maneuver by Goldman Sachs and other financial players that ultimately costs consumers billions of dollars."

The idea of a "free market" has two distinct meanings. Originally it was used to describe a market that was free of undue rentier influence, in other words, a market free of those interested in maximizing rent extraction.

Today, the idea has come to mean markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0

This is exactly the kind of empty babble I'm talking about.

So let's review this entire deal. Goldman Sach, which trades in commodities, and has numerous holdings for their clients of commodities, bought controlling shares in a company that operates several dozens of warehouses that store such commodities, like aluminum.

Now keep in mind, Goldman Sachs has owned this company for a long long time. Did prices significantly rise? Nope. But because this is Goldman Sachs.... and there are moronic fools who hate Goldman Sachs, suddenly this is an issue. Of course the brainless fools who follow these hateful morons, never bother to look at the reality. All they know is Goldman Sach did something bad (allegedly), and therefore it must be true, because we're all too stupid to think for ourselves.

Now, is it true that because of regulations on commodities, that the prices charged are higher, than would be in a free-market? Yes. Does this benefit Goldman Sachs? Well since they own the company, and the company is doing better because of it.... yes.

But here's the kicker. If anyone else owned that company, it would benefit them just as much. And this article is out of date. Goldman Sachs sold off this company, and now a foreign company is reaping the benefits.

All these idiots on the left did, was make it so that now foriegn people are benefiting, instead of Americans.

But it does not end there... notice the commentary....

"Free-Market means... markets free of any democratic oversight, which gives rent seekers like Goldman Sachs the freedom to exploit consumers, homeowners, and investors alike"​

But you just pointed out regulations that drive up the cost of commodities, at the cost of consumers.

Those regulations are exactly the same oversight that you say in this quote we need.

You can't have it both ways. Either the regulations harm the consumers as your very own citation suggests, or it benefits them.

Very little shows it benefits us. Your own link proves it doesn't.

Without those regulations, the company Goldman Sachs purchased, would not be able to charge customers more money to store their commodities there.

Why? Because that company is less than 10% of the warehouses that store commodities. If they had a significantly higher cost to storing commodities, customers would store their commodities elsewhere.

The ONLY reason that this company was able to charge more, was because of the very "democratic oversight" you people on the left push. That "democratic oversight" forces all warehouses to charge more. Thus the one Goldman Sachs owns can do so, without losing customers, because all the warehouses are charging more, thanks to Leftard "democratic oversight".

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Socialists believe subsistence, medical care, and education are human rights that shouldn't depend upon the "charity" of some of the most selfish individuals in history. Gates and his ilk unilaterally decide which societal needs to lavish their time and money on when a more democratic solution would involve taxing the ultra rich at the same rate as 60 years ago and allowing society to decide how to distribute surplus.

But here's the problem. Bill Gates has done more to help people, then you socialists have ever done.

Socialists never help people themselves. They just try and force others to help people.

Obama hasn't given money from his own pocket, nor the people in the Soviet Kremlin, nor Chairman Mao, nor Hugo Chavez, nor any of the leftists throughout history.

Even those that do help people, and call themselves leftist, are anything but. Warren Buffet, may vote democrap, and may support socialism, and he may give his wealth to Charity....... but the fact is, Warren Buffet, and Ted Turner, and all the other leftists, have all made their fortunes as Free-market Capitalists.

Free-market Capitalists have done more for the middle and lower income people of the entire world, than you socialists have done throughout all human history combined.

 

[Andylusion]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

LOL you are so full of it. Capitalism has always existed. 6,000 years ago there were people who owned land, and rented it out to be farmed. They owned mills, and rented them out to produce food. They owned blacksmith shops, and used them to hire more black smiths to make more swords and things.

Capitalism.... personal property, has existed since the dawn of human kind.

 

[Moxie2]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil! And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt. Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!

 

[Crystalclear]

Without evil capitalism man wouldn't have even survived living in caves.
It's in the human genetic code to compete to survive. Not unlike every living organism BTW
'Social Darwinism'. All you LIB fairies who don't like life as it is on this planet can fuck off to Uranus for all I care.

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil! And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt. Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!

I hear Bismarck is booming:

"The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.

"Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."

"The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]

"Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"

Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
Don't catch cold.

Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Erand7899]

Where is Democracy to be found in a world where the three richest individuals have assets that exceed the combined GDP of 47 countries?

A world where the richest 2% of global citizens "own" more than 51% of global assets?

Ready for the best part?

Capitalism ensures an already bad problem will only get worse.

"The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) states that income inequality 'first started to rise in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s in America and Britain (and also in Israel)'.

"The ratio between the average incomes of the top 5 per cent to the bottom 5 per cent in the world increased from 78:1 in 1988, to 114:1 in 1993..."

"Stiglitz relays that from 1988 to 2008 people in the world’s top 1 per cent saw their incomes increase by 60 per cent, while those in the bottom 5 per cent had no change in their income.

"In America, home to the 2008 recession, from 2009 to 2012, incomes of the top 1 per cent in America, many of which no doubt had a greedy hand in the causes of the meltdown, increased more than 31 per cent, while the incomes of the 99 per cent grew 0.4 per cent less than half a percentage point."

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

There are alternatives that don't require infinite "growth."

Wow, someone in Los Angeles that thinks Capitalism is evil! And we wonder why California is almost bankrupt. Yet another reason why I am getting the HELL OUT OF HERE!

I hear Bismarck is booming:

"The Bank of North Dakota, or BND, is a state-owned and -run financial institution, based in Bismarck, North Dakota.

"Under state law, the bank is the State of North Dakota doing business as the Bank of North Dakota.[1] The state and its agencies are required to place their funds in the bank, but local governments are not required to do so..."

"The Bank of North Dakota was established by legislative action in 1919 to promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.[3]

"Though initially conceived by populists in the Non-Partisan League, or NPL, as a credit union-style institution to free the farmers of the state from predatory lenders, the bank's functions were largely blocked by out-of-state financial actors refusing to buy the bonds the bank issued to finance its lending, lending that would have provided competition to the commercial banks.[4]"

Wall Street isn't fond of competition either.
Don't catch cold.

Bank of North Dakota - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No enterprise is fond of competition. In a capitalistic world, they get competition whether they want it or not. That is, until government steps in to protect them from competition.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism is historical, not natural.
It began its development in the Middle Ages, and can claim existence for about 500 years, at most. FWIW, Social Darwinism is just another lie the rich tell to their ignorant, conservative slaves.

More nonsense! Capitalism started when the first caveman traded a spear for a cut of meat, or traded flint arrowheads to other members of his clan for his share of what they brought back from the hunt. Capitalism is natural, and has been in existance since men began living together. It will exist, legally or illegally, until men cease to exist on this earth.

Capitalism is the reason that you don't have to stand in line to buy a loaf of bread of a roll of toilet paper. Capitalism is the reason that you have many choices when you buy a car or a washing machine. Capitalism works, and no other system works as well.

True, human nature is not socialistic. Everyone wants to get rich and most people do also not want to live in some socialist dictature.

Humans are social animals with societies that depend on cooperation far more than competition. No one I know wants to live in any kind of dictatorship, yet that is exactly what we are approaching due to the unbounded greed of a few psychopaths:

"According to Wikipedia, 'As of May 2005, the three richest people in the world have assets that exceed the combined gross domestic product of the 47 countries with the last GDP...'”

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality