Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[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.

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

And you are apparently confusing crime and justice, with regulation. The two are not the same. Regulation has nothing to do with crime and justice. Yes, I know they claim they do, and they pretend they do, and they will monologue about how they do.... but they don't.

If anything, regulation is simply legalizing companies not playing fair. But regulation has NEVER stopped a company or business from committing crime or fraud or anything. Two examples.

Enron. Enron is a perfect example of regulation not preventing crime, AND regulation being used to cover for that crime.

Before Enron went bust, various investors met with Enron executives and even pointed out that it seemed like they were hiding something. People were questioning Enron long before they crashed.

What did Enron do? They pointed to their SEC filings. Hey we followed regulations. We followed the rules. We filed our financials. The SEC stamped their approval. We're good!

They directly used the regulations to hide their Fraud.

By the way... When Jeffrey Skilling offered to run Enron, he had at least one condition. They had to use "mark-to-market accounting", now without going deep into that system, suffice it to say, that system is what allowed Skilling to hide their fraud. Want to know who approved the use of mark-to-market? The SEC. They approved that accounting method.

Regulation doesn't have anything to do with justice or crime. Regulation will not prevent a single criminal act. Logically it isn't even supposed to. Regulation limits legal actions. You can sell x y and z, and now regulation says you can't sell z.

But that doesn't fix anything. Perfect example is this..... Out of 1st world countries, name one with the least banking regulations, and yet had no bank failures during the crashes of 1930, or 2008?

Canada. Canada has less regulations than almost anywhere else in the world, and yet has had no bank failures during the recent crash, nor in the great depression era of the 1930s.

There is no Glass-Steagal act, and never was. Banks can engage freely in Commercial, Retail, Investment, and insurance, without any regulation. They also don't have the leverage requirements we have. Banks in Canada routinely to this day, have 30-1 and even 40-1, leverage ratios, something prohibited in the US.

Yet where did banks fail? The US. Not Canada. And that's just two examples of the lower regulations.

So why is that true? I suggest that regulations create an impression of safety that is not true. As a result, people operating inside regulations, assume everything is safe, and they do not scrutinize their choice, as much as they would in a more free system, where there wasn't this fiction of regulation safety.

Banks in Canada didn't have the luxury of saying "Here's our SEC filing, so clearly everything we're doing is safe", unlike Countrywide, who followed regulations to the letter, and was even celebrated by Fannie Mae as being a primary partner.

 

[Andylusion]

That would be true if (in an environment where there were no regulating bodies) the IF THE CORPORATIONS PLAYED FAIR

CHECK YOUR HISTORY, and tell me t when corporations EVER played fair when there was no regulating body to keep them in check.

Like you, you see, I understand the strength of capitalism and why it is a good system.

But apparently you are confused into thinking that capitalism can exist sans regulation.

No it cannot because the moment there is no big brother keeping corporations in check, they CRUSH their competition by means other thans CAPITALISM. (read crime)

Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation. It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.

Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.

That's not exactly true. Capitalism grows any time people are able to freely engage in business... that *IS* true.

However, correlation does not equal causation. There is no evidence that tariffs directly helped capitalism, and actually quite a bit to suggest otherwise.

The Truth about Trade in History | Cato Institute

Frank Taussig, wrote in The Tariff History of the United States in 1931:

“Little, if anything, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained” in the first part of the 19th century, he concluded. That finding considerably questioned the validity of the infant industry argument. “The intrinsic soundness of the argument for protection to young industries therefore may not be touched by the conclusions drawn from the history of its trial in the United States, which shows only that the intentional protection of the tariffs of 1816, 1824, and 1828 had little effect,”

Thus, the early experience of the United States confirms the weakness of the idea that protection can aid infant industries. In practice, so-called infant industries never grow competitive behind trade barriers, but, instead, remain perpetually underdeveloped, thus requiring protection to be extended indefinitely.​

Gottfried von Haberler wrote in The Theory of International Trade 1936:

Nearly every industrial tariff was first imposed as an infant-industry tariff under the promise that in a few years, when the industry had grown sufficiently to face foreign competition, it would be removed. But, in fact, this moment never arrives. The interested parties are never willing to have the duty removed. Thus temporary infant-industry duties are transformed into permanent duties to preserve the industries they protect

A perfect example of this is India. A car company Hindustan Motors, purchased the rights to a car design from a British motor company, and began selling the car under the name Ambassador in 1958.

India put in place severe protections on the auto industry, almost completely prohibiting imports, and even in the 1980s, it only allowed Porsche (if I remember right) in, and even then, it dictated what models, and how many of them, could be sold.

Behind that wall of protectionism, there was no reason to improve the car. No reason to introduce new models. No reason to change the design, or even the cosmetics.

This.... is a new Hindustan Ambassador. They are still making the exact same car they were back in 1958. It drives about the same. Handles about the same. Has about the same acceleration at a 1958 model would. Of course now with free open markets, the Ambassador is falling off the market, as newer, better, nicer, cars availible to the public, and the public is better off because of it.

Even Hindustan Motors is forced to change their "1950s model forever" plan, and has created a joint venture with Mitsubishi. They now make the Pajero (Mitsubishi Montero) and the Outlander.

But that is ONLY because of free-market Capitalism, and would never have happened behind the wall of protectionism.

Protectionism, only forced people to buy a very bad, very old, very slow, very crappy 1958 Car that was never updated. Protectionism made everyone poorer, than they are today with far more options.

 

[georgephillip]

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.



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.

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.

The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.

Gates is just another Greed-Head amassing a huge fortune that came from exploiting the talents of others; in other words, he didn't build it by himself. .

Everyone involve was paid handsomely. 10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft. However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.

He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?" He played by the rules and became wealthy. That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him. You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.

It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.

 

[georgephillip]

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

Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.

Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

 

[georgephillip]

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.

How many rich North Koreans are there, not tied to government? Or Cuba?

How about you do the same. You never seem to post anything, except someone else's opinion article.

How many North Koreans or Cubans increased their wealth by killing civilians in your home town? Rich Americans are tethered to their government by elaborate systems of intellectual property protection and limited liability corporations. FWIW, I think the Right is correct to say big business and big government are colluding under Obama, but what they don't mention is the collusion has been taking place for the last five or six centuries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.

The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.



Everyone involve was paid handsomely. 10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft. However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.

He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?" He played by the rules and became wealthy. That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him. You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.

It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.

Socializing loss? LOL!

Sounds like something government, not Bill Gates, would do.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.

Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'

It's true, people who aren't very productive don't make very much income.

 

[Erand7899]

Because "a mass of numskulls" bought Windows and their taxes provided the infrastructure that ultimately lead to the internet.

The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.



Everyone involve was paid handsomely. 10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft. However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.

He manipulated an economic system designed to consolidate wealth into fewer and fewer hands with each passing generation.

How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?" He played by the rules and became wealthy. That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him. You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.

It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.

You don't even understand the propaganda that you regurgitate. Intellectual property rights, protect individuals from having their work stolen. Bill Gates did steal intellectual property from a corporation (IBM, I believe) through a legal manipulation, and did use the talents of others, but those others were well compensated for their efforts. Without Bill Gates, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Incorporation does not socialize losses, since the losses, if they occur, are limited to the capitalists who invested in, or loaned capital to, the corporation. Capitalists take those risks, and are therefore entitled to the rewards when their investments are successful. They are exploiting no one.

 

[Andylusion]

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".

"In the case of aluminum, Goldman bought Metro International Trade Services, one of the country’s biggest storers of the metal. More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the company’s Detroit-area warehouses.


"Before Goldman bought Metro International three years ago, warehouse customers used to wait an average of six weeks for their purchases to be located, retrieved by forklift and delivered to factories.

"But now that Goldman owns the company, the wait has grown more than tenfold — to more than 16 months, according to industry records.

"Longer waits might be written off as an aggravation, but they also make aluminum more expensive nearly everywhere in the country because of the arcane formula used to determine the cost of the metal on the spot market.

"The delays are so acute that Coca-Cola and many other manufacturers avoid buying aluminum stored here. Nonetheless, they still pay the higher price."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=1&

That's irrelevant. This is why people on the right, think people on the left are absolutely economically illiterate. Because you think what you posted there, made point. That's sad. Because it doesn't.

"Metro International Trade Services, one of the country’s biggest storers of the metal"

So.... ? You realize that Toyota is the biggest car makers in the world, right? Biggest profits, biggest unit sales, biggest capitalization. They are number one on the world market.

That means they can charge anything they want.... Right? Yet the Toyota Camry is priced almost exactly the same as the comparable Ford Fusion.

"More than a quarter of the supply of aluminum available on the market is kept in the company’s Detroit-area warehouses"

So... ? Again, they are still only 10% of the warehouses out there. Yes, they have 25% of the aluminum stored there. Doesn't matter. First, they don't OWN the aluminum. They are storing it. There's a difference. Second, simply storing it doesn't give them any control over the market. If they were to drive up their prices for storing the aluminum, the customers would move their stocks.

Within 5 minutes of where I live, there are two public storage places. If I had all my stuff at one, and they raised their rates, I would move my stuff to the other one that didn't.

Metro International Trade Services, only owns about 10% of the warehouses, that are listed on the London Metal Exchange. Those are just the 'official' warehouses. You can store your metal ANYWHERE.

Point being, one company owning a fraction of the warehouses, doesn't mean jack squat.

Look at this......

Aluminum Lines Still Trouble the London Metal Exchange - WSJ.com

For years, consumers have complained of problems in procuring metals at five locations around the world: Detroit; Vlissingen, the Netherlands; New Orleans; Johor, Malaysia; and Antwerp, Belgium. At each of those cities, there has been one warehousing company with a wait of more than 100 days for metal delivery. In November, the LME said it would tackle backlogs at any warehouse with waits of 50 days or more.

If the problem was Metro International Trade Services, then why are long waits happening in other countries, like Netherlands, Malaysia, Belgium?

What's your excuse for how Goldman Sach, directing Metro to hold back deliveries, is magically causing warehouses on the other side of the planet, not connected at all with Metro, to have the same issue?

Or why are the Metro warehouses in Italy not having those problems?

Again... the ONLY reason we're having this discussion is because some idiot hates Goldman Sachs, and the lemmings are mindlessly following them.

If you have REAL evidence that Goldman Sachs has directly ordered Metro to deny service, post it. Bring them up on charges. But I highly doubt you people have anything in support, and that's why you keep posting meaningless crap, thinking it makes a point. "They store 25% of blaw blaw blaw" as if.

 

[georgephillip]

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

From your link:

The occupation greatly improved some of Haiti's infrastructure and centralized power in Port-au-Prince. Infrastructure improvements were particularly impressive: 1700 km of roads were made usable, 189 bridges were built, many irrigation canals were rehabilitated, hospitals, schools, and public buildings were constructed, and drinking water was brought to the main cities. Port-au-Prince became the first Caribbean city to have an available phone service with automatic dialing. Agricultural education was organized with a central school of agriculture and 69 farms in the country

Further.... you ignore what happened after the occupation was over.

President Vincent took advantage of the comparative national stability, which was being maintained by a professionalized military, to gain absolute power. A plebiscite permitted the transfer of all authority in economic matters from the legislature to the executive, but Vincent was not content with this expansion of his power. In 1935 he forced through the legislature a new constitution, which was also approved by plebiscite. The constitution praised Vincent, and it granted the executive sweeping powers to dissolve the legislature at will, to reorganize the judiciary, to appoint ten of twenty-one senators (and to recommend the remaining eleven to the lower house), and to rule by decree when the legislature was not in session. Although Vincent implemented some improvements in infrastructure and services, he brutally repressed his opposition, censored the press, and governed largely to benefit himself and a clique of merchants and corrupt military officers

So let's recap....

Unlike the DR which still has the American modeled Constitution, the constitution in Haiti was completely replaced by a more socialist model of government control. All of the property rights the American one put in place, were swept away, with a pro-government Constitution with nearly unlimited power.

The result has been an unlimited stream of dictatorships wrapped up as democratically elected governments, which nationalized business and destroyed those businesses, and drove away the rich, which killed off jobs and growth, and resulted in the impoverished hopeless Haiti we have today.

About the only thing you can point to, as being an example of American caused destruction in Haiti, was the insistence by the United States Agency for International Development, that pigs be slaughtered in order to stop the spread of the Swine Fever Virus.

Why would you believe the US has a right to author the constitution of another sovereign state?

"Philippe Sudré Dartiguenave, the mulatto president of the Senate, agreed to accept the presidency of Haiti after several other candidates had refused. In 1917, President Dartiguenave dissolved the legislature after its members refused to approve a constitution written by Franklin D. Roosevelt (then Assistant Secretary of the Navy)[11][12]

"However, a referendum subsequently approved the new constitution in 1918 (by a vote of 98 225 to 768). It was a generally a liberal document. The constitution allowed foreigners to purchase land. Jean-Jacques Dessalines had forbidden land ownership by foreigners, and since 1804, some Haitians had viewed foreign ownership as anathema.[13]

Government and opposition[edit]

"In September 1915, the United States Senate ratified the Haitian-American Convention, a treaty granting the United States security and economic oversight of Haiti for a 10-year period.[14]

"Representatives from the United States wielded veto power over all governmental decisions in Haiti, and Marine Corps commanders served as administrators in the provinces"

Your recap makes the claim Haiti imposed "a more socialist model of government control."

Can you provide any evidence for that statement?

United States occupation of Haiti - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

The internet was built with private money, and buying a copy of Windows entitles you to nothing more than a copy of Windows.



Everyone involve was paid handsomely. 10,000 people became millionaires working for Microsoft. However, you think some clueless tick on the ass of society living in Hoboken New Jersey is entitled to tell Bill Gates how to spend his fortune. I can't imagine anything more idiotic than that.



How did Gates "manipulate the economic system?" He played by the rules and became wealthy. That why you and the other ticks on the ass of society hate him. You understand perfectly that you don't have what it takes to accomplish what he did.

It takes a willingness to exploit elaborate systems of intellectual property protection or limited-liability corporate structures that have been put in place over the last few hundred years specifically to enable a handful of parasites (like Bill) to privatize profit by socializing loss. Obviously, two-bit wanna-bees like you suck down every table scrap the parasites flick your way. Congratulations.

You don't even understand the propaganda that you regurgitate. Intellectual property rights, protect individuals from having their work stolen. Bill Gates did steal intellectual property from a corporation (IBM, I believe) through a legal manipulation, and did use the talents of others, but those others were well compensated for their efforts. Without Bill Gates, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Incorporation does not socialize losses, since the losses, if they occur, are limited to the capitalists who invested in, or loaned capital to, the corporation. Capitalists take those risks, and are therefore entitled to the rewards when their investments are successful. They are exploiting no one.

So, without Bill the internet would not exist, right?
Corporations exploit the commons by inflicting their negative externalities on taxpayers:

"For example, air pollution is usually a negative externality.

"Air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels causes damage to public health, crops, and the overall environment. But do the oil or coal or natural gas companies pay for these costs?

"No, of course not – they externalize them to us.

"You and I are forced to play for the cleanup of this pollution and the damage and cancers that it causes, while the corporations that pump it out increase their profits because we're picking up the bill for the externality of pollution.

"Other examples of negative externalities include things like noise pollution, water pollution, and the over-harvesting of fish.

"All of these are byproducts of corporations doing business, are harmful and expensive to the rest of society, and are usually externalized by corporations so you and I pay the cost and the corporation keeps the profits."

How Big Business Robs Us With "Externalities"

 

[Andylusion]

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.

Capitalism and personal property are not the same thing.
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are controlled by private owners with the goal of making a profit within a market economy.

That doesn't sound like Mesopotamia 6000 years ago:

"Irrigated agriculture spread southwards from the Zagros foothills with the Samara and Hadji Muhammed culture, from about 5,000 BC.[36]

"Sumerian temples functioned as banks and developed the first large-scale system of loans and credit, but the Babylonians developed the earliest system of commercial banking.

"It was comparable in some ways to modern post-Keynesian economics, but with a more 'anything goes' approach.[31]

"In the early period down to Ur III temples owned up to one third of the available land, declining over time as royal and other private holdings increased in frequency."

Mesopotamia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capitalism requires personal property. You can't have Capitalism without personal property rights. And inherently if you have personal property rights, you automatically end up with capitalism.

If I don't own this thing I have, I can't sell it to you. If you can't own it, you can't buy it from me. If you don't own this bit of ground, you can't build a house on it. Or you would be stupid to do so, since the moment you finished, someone could take it from you.

The moment that Cuba allowed people to buy property, people started buying property, fixing it up, and renting it out. Capitalism started the instant they were allowed ownership.

Further, you seem to contradict yourself in your post. You describe Capitalism, then say it's not like Mesopotamia, and yet your link suggests the opposite of that.

Why did the farms grow more crops than they could eat? Why did the farmers invest in irrigation, when they had more than enough to sustain themselves?

Because they want to profit. Profit in this case, was the trading of their goods for other goods that benefited them.

Have you read "Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History" ?

Some quick highlights....

Page 91 talks about how all property was kept 100% within the family, and passed on from generation to generation. No inheritance tax here.

Page 94 talks about the absolute nature of land ownership. So absolute were these transactions, that they would be carved on stone, and placed on the land, so that everyone everywhere knew exactly who this bit of land was owned by.

Page 96 talks about Field-Leases. My company leases a building right now. Same thing. Exact same thing.

Page 196 talks about the Code of Hammurabi, and hiring farmers, hiring boat workers, hiring oxen. Sounds exactly like capitalism.

Why did the guy breed oxen, and rent them out to people? To make a profit, and the Code protects that.

So, no, you don't know what you are talking about. The whole system of writing, and sealing written contracts in wax.... that's Capitalism at work.

 

[Crystalclear]

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

Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.

Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state. The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism existed in this country for about 140 years without any regulation. It thrived, so your claim is obvious horse manure.

Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.

Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?" Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs. Capitalism thrived. Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving. The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false. Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.

The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.

 

[georgephillip]

Look at people, they are more competitive than social. Really social, but still more competitive. And in a free country, inequality will always exist. Our freedom decreases when a government tries (too hard, a little is always good) to decrease the gaps between different groups of wealth.

Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state. The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.

Do you believe America's richest one percent work three times harder today while "earning" 22% of US income compared to forty years ago when they took home about 8%, or is it more likely they are donating three times as much to elected Republicans AND Democrats today?

 

[Andylusion]

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.

You shouldn't fear socialism:

"1. The Military/Defense - The United States military is the largest and most funded socialist program in the world. It operates thanks to our taxpayer dollars and protects the country as a whole. From the richest citizens to the homeless who sleep under the bridge. We are all protected by our military whether we pay taxes or not. This is complete socialism.

2. Highways/Roads - Those roads and highways you drive on every single day are completely taxpayer funded. Your tax dollars are used to maintain, expand, and preserve our highways and roads for every one's use. President Eisenhower was inspired by Germany's autobahn and implemented the idea right here in America. That's right, a republican president created our taxpayer funded, national highway system. This was a different time, before the republican party came down with a vicious case of rabies that never went away.

3. Public Libraries - Yes. That place where you go to check out books from conservative authors telling you how horrible socialism is, is in fact socialism. Libraries are taxpayer funded. You pay a few bucks to get a library card and you can read books for free for the rest of your life.

4. Police - Ever had a situation where you had to call the police? Then you have used a taxpayer funded socialist program. Anyone can call the police whether they pay taxes or not. They are there to protect and serve the community, not individuals. This is complete socialism on a state level, but still socialism all the same. Would you rather have to swipe your credit card before the police will help you?

5. Fire Dept. - Hopefully you have never had a fire in your home. But if you have, you probably called your local taxpayer-funded fire department to put the fire out. Like police, this is state socialism. You tax dollars are used to rescue your entire community in case of a fire."

75 Ways Socialism Has Improved America

Here's the difference. On a purely technical grounds.... Yes, the military is socialism.

A socialistic policy that we on the right, oppose, is the policies that try and change the economy, try and modify society.

Military does not do that. The military is economically neutral. It's there to protect the country as a whole. It's there to keep everyone, form the homeless beggar, to the rich CEO, safe. It provides for the "General Welfare". Not the welfare of one person, at the expense of the other.

Same with the Police and Fire Departments. Everyone benefits from the city not burning down, or over run with anarchy.

Roads and highways, same thing. Everyone benefits. It's not just rich, or just the political, or just whoever. Everyone benefits. Even the homeless beggar benefits from the charity food, delivered by truck to the shelter.

(by the way.... all the road around where I live were built by private money. So the claim isn't even true)

As for Libraries.... Are you telling me you don't buy anything? All the books in my house, I bought. Maybe the reason you seem to know so little is because you need to buy more books.

Back to the beginning, the problem with all of this is... if you total up all the expenses for all of these things, they are tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the tax cost.

The entire Library expenses for the whole state of Ohio, is $350 Million.
The total police spending for the state, including all jails, prisons, is $1.7 Billion.
The total cost of running the entire Ohio State government, including all courts, is $300 Million.
The total cost of the entire department of Transportation, all roads and bridges in the entire state, is $400 Million.

That totals up to $2.75 Billion dollars. How much is the Ohio State Budget? $30.57 Billion.

We could cut taxes by 90% and fund everything you outlined.

Similarly at the Federal level....

The DOD costs $673 Billion.
The DHS costs $55 Billion.
The DOJ costs $37 Billion.
The DOT costs $98 Billion.

Let's even toss in there, Veteran Affairs and Intelligence. That's another $192 Billion.

That total adds up to only one $1 Trillion.

The budget is $3.8 Trillion. The tax revenue is $2.9 Trillion. You could cut the budget to 27%, and cut taxes to 35%, and still cover MORE than what you suggest. Most of that DOT budget isn't going 'roads and bridges'.

All the rest of that tax money spent at the State and Federal level... that's all leftists socialists policies, blowing our money on crap. If you people didn't blow our money, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and all of us would be far more wealthy than we are today.

I sure would. I only made $18,000 last year, and I had to cough up $3,000 in taxes. Very little of that money went to Fire, Police, Roads and Bridges, Public Libraries, and military. I wouldn't be nearly as mad about it, if it did. But the fact is, most of it went to a bunch of stupid leftard crap.

 

[Andylusion]

Our freedom also decreases when government tries too hard to redistribute wealth upward, from workers to wealth extractors, for example. That seems to be where we are today in the US.

"The world of income and wealth inequality is awash with shocking statistics.

"Figures disclosed by World Bank economist Branko Milanovic, and reported by Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, are shocking and revealing: 'Eight per cent of humanity takes home 50 per cent of global income, the top 1 per cent alone takes home 15 percent.'

"America, he states, 'provides a particularly grim example for the world.' It is where income and wealth inequality reach their zenith, and where one in four children live in poverty.

"The countrys wealthiest 1 per cent (incomes above 394,000 dollars) take 'home 22 per cent of the nation’s income; the top 0.1 per cent, make do with a colossal 11 per cent. Stiglitz goes on to make the staggering point that an average American worker earns less today than he did 45 years ago (inflation adjusted), and that men without a university degree earn 'almost 40 per cent less than they did four decades ago'”.

Spotlight on Worldwide Inequality

Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state. The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.

Do you believe America's richest one percent work three times harder today while "earning" 22% of US income compared to forty years ago when they took home about 8%, or is it more likely they are donating three times as much to elected Republicans AND Democrats today?

Doesn't matter. I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.

None of your business. Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.

If Warren Buffet doubles his income tomorrow, what difference does that make to me? None. My life will get worse or better because of Warren Buffet doubling his income. The only reason why I would care, is because I was a greedy envious person who thought that if I can't get it, then Warren shouldn't either.

If Warren Buffet was kicked out of Berkshire Hathaway, and ended up a greeter at Walmart, what difference would that make to me? None. My life will not get one bit better, or worse, from Warren earning minimum wage tomorrow. The only reason why I would care, is if I was a greedy envious person that was glad when someone else is doing worse, because I'm not doing so much better.

That's the difference. We're not evil people on the right. We don't rejoice when people do worse, and get angry when people do better. We're not leftard bits of human trash, that get happy when others suffer, because we have are head shoved so far up our own greedy, envious beliefs.

That's the difference between us.

 

[Andylusion]

Capitalism grew in this country behind heavy tariffs, just as it did in England.
Capitalism can't exist without government providing regulations since the greed of elite capitalists becomes self-destructive to the entire system.

Tariffs is your idea of "heavy regulation?" Within the Common wealth of Great Britain, there were no tariffs. Capitalism thrived. Also, neither Hong Kong or Singapore have any tariffs, yet they are thriving. The idea that capitalism requires tariffs is obviously false. Free market economists have argued against tariffs ever since the days of David Ricardo.

The textile industry in the US and England depended on two things during their early years: high tariffs and slave labor. Capitalism grew up behind heavy tariffs, slavery, and military savagery, as places like India, the Congo, Mississippi, and Somalia prove. Capitalism thrives wherever property rights trump human rights.

First off, I have already posted links to several economists, who have shown that tariffs didn't benefit early textiles. It was only after tariffs were eliminated that the textile industry modernized. Just like it was only after protectionism ended, that the Auto Industry in India stopped producing a car form the 1950s.

Second of all.... Slavery was an institution throughout human history, regardless of economic system.

Capitalism had thrived in places without slavery, just as much as places with slavery. Capitalism ALWAYS works.

If anything, Capitalism works even better without slavery, because then the people who would have been slaves, can now engage in capitalism themselves, thus benefiting the economy. Even back in our history, there were freemen, free former slaves, that owned and operated businesses, and even plantations.

Only if you take a myopic one sided view of all history, can you even attempt to make some brainless connection between Capitalism and slavery. Correlation, in a institution that has existed since the cave man, and Capitalism, is not causation. If you were really knowledgeable on this, you'd know that.

 

[georgephillip]

Yeah, that's capitalism. One earns more than another, that's freedom as well. If you own a good business or have a good-paid job, you have the right to earn that money and not redistribute to half the population as in a socialistic state. The poor people do already get government benefits, it's not so much, but something. Except communist countries (where almost everyone is poor) and Europe, a poor person can live nowhere in the world better than the US.

Do you believe America's richest one percent work three times harder today while "earning" 22% of US income compared to forty years ago when they took home about 8%, or is it more likely they are donating three times as much to elected Republicans AND Democrats today?

Doesn't matter. I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.

None of your business. Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.

If Warren Buffet doubles his income tomorrow, what difference does that make to me? None. My life will get worse or better because of Warren Buffet doubling his income. The only reason why I would care, is because I was a greedy envious person who thought that if I can't get it, then Warren shouldn't either.

If Warren Buffet was kicked out of Berkshire Hathaway, and ended up a greeter at Walmart, what difference would that make to me? None. My life will not get one bit better, or worse, from Warren earning minimum wage tomorrow. The only reason why I would care, is if I was a greedy envious person that was glad when someone else is doing worse, because I'm not doing so much better.

That's the difference. We're not evil people on the right. We don't rejoice when people do worse, and get angry when people do better. We're not leftard bits of human trash, that get happy when others suffer, because we have are head shoved so far up our own greedy, envious beliefs.

That's the difference between us.

Here's another difference:
I'm not stupid enough to believe the richest 1% increased their share of US income from 8% to 22% over the past forty years through hard work. Forty years ago a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Today a single minimum wage jobs pays about 60% of the rent of any one bedroom apartment.
That makes it my business, in spite of what ignorant home-schooled right-wing tools have been brainwashed into believing.

 

[gnarlylove]

Doesn't matter. I believe that only greedy and envious people care how much the wealthiest 1% did or did not work.

None of your business. Yet another difference between me and you, the right and the left.

That's the difference between us.

Here's another difference:
I'm not stupid enough to believe the richest 1% increased their share of US income from 8% to 22% over the past forty years through hard work. Forty years ago a single minimum wage job paid me enough to cover rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay off and maintain a six year-old Chevy. Today a single minimum wage jobs pays about 60% of the rent of any one bedroom apartment.
That makes it my business, in spite of what ignorant home-schooled right-wing tools have been brainwashed into believing.

Androw is essentially saying that whether our society is concerned with human dignity is irrelevant. He might say something like "If you can read this than you aren't without capital and you aren't Warren Buffet. So get your ass in gear and make money! Make as much as you can and stop worrying about what conditions you live under or what pre-determines your standard of living. Just go baby go!"

Yeah, you'd expect that from a brain-dead investor who has checked out his moral compass and set it on "ego-overdrive." I mean who is so silly as to think the conditions under which humans exist, thrive and suffer are irrelevant to existing, thriving or suffering.

Yeah, clearly george and I are the greedy ones! We actually care that people exactly like us are forced to live under conditions that shorten their life by decades by mere circumstance of their birth. How fucking greedy I am!

George, to be honest, I'd really recommend not engaging with such a non-reality based thinker. I've tried more recently with highly articulated replies and references and they just zoomed over his head. Brainwashed surely explains such behavior. The love of money is the root of all evil, as we both know, and evil is very infectious. I might also ask what your criteria for replying is or do you just reply as much as possible? It is a noble goal and maybe Androw is being impregnated with new ideas but no empirical evidence exists that shows he cares (about those new seeds of thought).