Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

"Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."

Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!

Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Your claim that the textile industry depended on those thing is obviously false since somehow it managed to get along without slaver after the war. It manages to survive without high tariffs now.

Your concept "military savagery" is utterly meaningless.

 

[Crystalclear]

"Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."

Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!

Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?

No, not slavery, but real life. You have to do something to earn something. If you don't want to work, don't work and don't be "a slave", but you must also deal with the consequences and shoudn't expect society's support. People like you shouldn't receive any form of benefit.

 

[gnarlylove]

There is absolutely no comparison between what it takes to live well and what it takes to sustain participation in capitalist productive consumption in the 21st century. I don't think you meant this anyway, because it literally makes no sense. Capitalist drudgery is far different than a holistic life. One has to make the choice between them. Sadly, not many people are free to make this choice. They have no capital and therefore no access to land to sustain themselves. They must pay for cheap food in stores, otherwise they don't eat. This requires money and money can only be obtained by legal work (renting the self) or illegal sales. Not working within the system of money if possible frees one to life that is unencumbered by unnatural demands (9-5, etc.) that sustain natural demands of food etc. These conditions required to sustain the majority of human beings resemble slavery very much. When at work one must abide by company policy that often requires ignoring natural demands of the body, against one's will or one is fired and ceases to earn life sustaining money. Thus wage slavery is considered real and effective.

I really hope you don't think "slavery" is a loose term regarding modern day chattel enslavement. Go click the link, but since you didn't, I'll quote:

Modern-day slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment. When the CIW uses the word slavery, we do not mean “slave-like” or “resembling slavery"—rather, we are referring to conditions that meet the high standard of proof and definition of slavery under U.S. federal laws.

The cases we have helped bring to justice have been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division either under laws forbidding peonage and indentured servitude passed just after the Civil War during Reconstruction (18 U.S.C. Sections 1581-9) or under the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibits the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."

Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!

Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?

If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery?

Shit, you're stupid.

 

[Andylusion]

"Captialism thrives with or without slavery. It always works."

Do you really think we are free people? If billions of people worldwide stopped working, they would not be ok. They would starve and die. They must continue to rent their self for money. Is that much different than chattel slavery? If the slave stopped working, they would likely die too. The only difference is that it's temporary and you get to go home at the end of the day, most of the time anyways. If you don't work up to their standards, you are fired and thus shut off from income and thus sustenance. The differences are few, the similarities are striking!

Moreover, shouldn't we be dubious of a system that thrives with slavery? Slavery is literally the most heinous institution. Slavery was driven by expansion, capitalism is a supposedly efficient expansion. The two exist in tandem and the fact that slavery still exists today is a serious problem because we also happen to have "capitalism." Is there any connecting the dots? That they feed into the loop of expansion and therefore destruction?

You are changing the context of the discussion.

If you want a broad context, of are we free of needing the inter-human production and cooperation. That of course will never happen.

There is no economic system, where everyone everywhere, is completely and totally independent.

If you divided up all the land of the world, equally among all the people's of the world, and had everyone tilling and cultivating their own land, there still wouldn't be enough food, because without other people building farm equipment, people would be so unproductive, many would starve.

But in the context of freedom to choose, we have that. We choose to trade between ourselves for our own benefit, and and it benefits everyone.

However, the fact is, it is in fact a choice. You don't have to work anywhere in this country. We know this, because there are people who intentionally choose to not work.

It's not slavery if you have a choice, and you do have a choice. I know. I've quit jobs. Nothing happened. No one came. You can't force me to do diddly jack squat. Nothing. No one can. In pre-78 China, they could. The Chinese police would show up, and demand you go to the Co-ops. Not in America. We have Freedom.

Voluntary employment is not comparable to Slavery. The differences are striking, the similarities are few!

How many slaves can sue their masters for non-payment? How many employees are routinely whipped if they fail to produce?

You trying to connect the two, is pathetic and ridiculous. Slavery does exist today in places like the middle east. A real slave confronted by you making this point, would laugh you off the forum.

 

[Andylusion]

There is absolutely no comparison between what it takes to live well and what it takes to sustain participation in capitalist productive consumption in the 21st century. I don't think you meant this anyway, because it literally makes no sense. Capitalist drudgery is far different than a holistic life. One has to make the choice between them. Sadly, not many people are free to make this choice. They have no capital and therefore no access to land to sustain themselves. They must pay for cheap food in stores, otherwise they don't eat. This requires money and money can only be obtained by legal work (renting the self) or illegal sales. Not working within the system of money if possible frees one to life that is unencumbered by unnatural demands (9-5, etc.) that sustain natural demands of food etc. These conditions required to sustain the majority of human beings resemble slavery very much. When at work one must abide by company policy that often requires ignoring natural demands of the body, against one's will or one is fired and ceases to earn life sustaining money. Thus wage slavery is considered real and effective.

I really hope you don't think "slavery" is a loose term regarding modern day chattel enslavement. Go click the link, but since you didn't, I'll quote:

Modern-day slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment. When the CIW uses the word slavery, we do not mean “slave-like” or “resembling slavery"—rather, we are referring to conditions that meet the high standard of proof and definition of slavery under U.S. federal laws.

The cases we have helped bring to justice have been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division either under laws forbidding peonage and indentured servitude passed just after the Civil War during Reconstruction (18 U.S.C. Sections 1581-9) or under the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibits the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

No, that's just stupidity. Leftist stupidity. Again, if you ever were confronted by someone who has actually been a slave, and you told them this, they would laugh you off this forum. There are real slaves, and they would do absolutely anything to be in a 1st world Capitalist based country.

 

[gnarlylove]

Shit, you're stupid.

This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is your most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Shit, you're stupid.

This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is your most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.

This is your best argument to date.

I'd take the time to logically dissect your post, but your post didn't contain any logic.

 

[Andylusion]

Shit, you're stupid.

This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is your most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.

At some point, people get tired of trying to rationally respond, to your irrational, illogical posts. Anyone that compares voluntary employment, to forced slavery, is between willful idiocy and Forest Gump ignorance. It gets old seeing arguments over and over, that my 8 year old nephew is wise enough to see how dumb it is.

 

[bripat9643]

There is absolutely no comparison between what it takes to live well and what it takes to sustain participation in capitalist productive consumption in the 21st century. I don't think you meant this anyway, because it literally makes no sense. Capitalist drudgery is far different than a holistic life. One has to make the choice between them. Sadly, not many people are free to make this choice. They have no capital and therefore no access to land to sustain themselves. They must pay for cheap food in stores, otherwise they don't eat. This requires money and money can only be obtained by legal work (renting the self) or illegal sales. Not working within the system of money if possible frees one to life that is unencumbered by unnatural demands (9-5, etc.) that sustain natural demands of food etc. These conditions required to sustain the majority of human beings resemble slavery very much. When at work one must abide by company policy that often requires ignoring natural demands of the body, against one's will or one is fired and ceases to earn life sustaining money. Thus wage slavery is considered real and effective.

All you've said is that people are slaves because they have to work for a living. That means that 99.9% of all the people who have ever lived are/were slaves. That makes the term meaningless.

I really hope you don't think "slavery" is a loose term regarding modern day chattel enslavement. Go click the link, but since you didn't, I'll quote:

Modern-day slavery is a violation of the 13th Amendment. When the CIW uses the word slavery, we do not mean “slave-like” or “resembling slavery"—rather, we are referring to conditions that meet the high standard of proof and definition of slavery under U.S. federal laws.

The cases we have helped bring to justice have been prosecuted by the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division either under laws forbidding peonage and indentured servitude passed just after the Civil War during Reconstruction (18 U.S.C. Sections 1581-9) or under the 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, which prohibits the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

What does the above have to do with working for a wage voluntarily?

 

[gnarlylove]

Shit, you're stupid.

This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is your most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.

At some point, people get tired of trying to rationally respond, to your irrational, illogical posts. Anyone that compares voluntary employment, to forced slavery, is between willful idiocy and Forest Gump ignorance. It gets old seeing arguments over and over, that my 8 year old nephew is wise enough to see how dumb it is.

Do you really think calling someone dumb reveals intelligence from you? It says quite the opposite. And just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am making illogical claims. That is a total non-sequitur.

I'll only offer what I have before: When you want to talk about reality instead of your extremely narrow world of you and your friends who do not comprise broader society, we can do that. Until then, anything I say is defined as unsupported assertions because it doesn't fit within your paradigm of experience--which has no resemblance of the experience the average human being world wide experiences. You don't consider my assertions based in reality because you continue to refuse the scholarly worked I referenced. I could offer 5 economists who sharply disagree with your narrow paradigm but by definition you throw that outside the realm of "supportable assertions."

You offer no place to participate in rational debate when you assume your opponent is illogical or stupid. You have no evidence that I'm stupid, dumb whatever base grunt response you wish to make. Your only evidence is that it falls outside your paradigm. Let me repeat: your paradigm is extremely narrow and does not reflect what is going on in normal society. And the fact is, there's no good reason to listen to your advice to pursue self-interest and money through capitalist enterprise: its another paradigm that is narrow and unquestionably unsustainable.

You have constantly admitted your alliance to money and I have no reason to believe you have a credible understanding of justice for all unless it means "'more equal' justice for some than others."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is your best argument to date. I am very serious when I say it would benefit us all if you stuck to this single, simple reply for any rebuttal you have. It is your most effective means of arguing and the rest of your posts are utter disasters compared to this sharp and hollow critique.

At some point, people get tired of trying to rationally respond, to your irrational, illogical posts. Anyone that compares voluntary employment, to forced slavery, is between willful idiocy and Forest Gump ignorance. It gets old seeing arguments over and over, that my 8 year old nephew is wise enough to see how dumb it is.

Do you really think calling someone dumb reveals intelligence from you? It says quite the opposite. And just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am making illogical claims. That is a total non-sequitur.

I'll only offer what I have before: When you want to talk about reality instead of your extremely narrow world of you and your friends who do not comprise broader society, we can do that. Until then, anything I say is defined as unsupported assertions because it doesn't fit within your paradigm of experience--which has no resemblance of the experience the average human being world wide experiences. You don't consider my assertions based in reality because you continue to refuse the scholarly worked I referenced. I could offer 5 economists who sharply disagree with your narrow paradigm but by definition you throw that outside the realm of "supportable assertions."

You offer no place to participate in rational debate when you assume your opponent is illogical or stupid. You have no evidence that I'm stupid, dumb whatever base grunt response you wish to make. Your only evidence is that it falls outside your paradigm. Let me repeat: your paradigm is extremely narrow and does not reflect what is going on in normal society. And the fact is, there's no good reason to listen to your advice to pursue self-interest and money through capitalist enterprise: its another paradigm that is narrow and unquestionably unsustainable.

You have constantly admitted your alliance to money and I have no reason to believe you have a credible understanding of justice for all unless it means "'more equal' justice for some than others."

When you want to talk about reality instead of your extremely narrow world of you and your friends who do not comprise broader society,

Broader society doesn't think employment is akin to slavery.

You offer no place to participate in rational debate when you assume your opponent is illogical or stupid.

And when my opponent proves they are illogical or stupid?

 

[gnarlylove]

My broader society comment has no bearing and has no relation to what people think about their conditions. It is a factual statement that Androw does not co-mingle with people that are not broadly like him and those who do not go to the same places he goes. It happens that his natural sphere of experience does not reflect broader society's. I don't think Androw thinks he's better or arrogant, only that he rightly asserts only what he's come to know: which furthermore does not represent broader society and therefore as a narrow paradigm fails to account for a full picture of reality. In other words, a one sided view.

 

[The Rabbi]

My broader society comment has no bearing and has no relation to what people think about their conditions. It is a factual statement that Androw does not co-mingle with people that are not broadly like him and those who do not go to the same places he goes. It happens that his natural sphere of experience does not reflect broader society's. I don't think Androw thinks he's better or arrogant, only that he rightly asserts only what he's come to know: which furthermore does not represent broader society and therefore as a narrow paradigm fails to account for a full picture of reality. In other words, a one sided view.

And you're different from him, how exactly?

 

[gnarlylove]

Good question. It looks like you picked up on what I'm saying instead of being brain dead like some other people. So that's a start. Glad you can ask a coherent question.

As for the answer, as humans we tend to interact with people of similar status and the like. This is almost axiomatic. But I know I reflect broader society because I have worked and walked among those with power, I've worked at over 30 types of businesses, warehouses, in communities that encountered diverse populations from children, teens, drug addicts, young adults, rich local community members and the elderly. I have lived as a vagrant for 4 years, homelessly for many months coming to know why people are homeless, and I grew up in the lower working class, and have seen it throughout my life and my community. The majority of Americans and certainly the majority of the globe deal with poverty at some part in their life (60% of Americans will live in poverty at least a year) if it isn't the defining characteristic of their condition. I've made it my goal to interact with those who are not likely to further my monetary worth, which is often counter-intuitive in our egotistical society. Moreover, I've ready widely on the conditions of other people outside America and inside by sociologists and others. This does indeed reflect what much of the world bears.

Androw is an outspoken investor and obviously a good one. Androw refers to friends that are doing well in this global stagnation and offers no counter because his day to day life does not find time for those who aren't making money. He tends to be around those well off because capital attracts capital.

I didn't just come to know Androw today. This comes from a history of reading his posts.

 

[AntiParty]

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."

Regulated Capitalism is a great base for any Society (the constitution regulates it)

Yet our Capitalism is regulated largely and we see a large amount of people wanting to live like China where there is almost no regulation. We even see people and parties that say we shouldn't listen to the Constitution and we shouldn't regulate at all. We should just be a profit driven nation.

 

[Crystalclear]

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."

Regulated Capitalism is a great base for any Society (the constitution regulates it)

Yet our Capitalism is regulated largely and we see a large amount of people wanting to live like China where there is almost no regulation. We even see people and parties that say we shouldn't listen to the Constitution and we shouldn't regulate at all. We should just be a profit driven nation.

No, a free market nation. Private sector includes charity as well.

 

[elektra]

Capitalism never lived very long in the USA, I have not seen it in decades. Now we just milk the baby boomers of their wealth through liberal/democrat government rules and regulations.

Capitalism is my labor, my work, my private property, taxed and regulated to death, I enjoy maybe 15% of my labor, you steal the rest.

 

[editec]

Androw opines

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.

No actually I am not.

I am completely aware that today monopolies exist BECAUSE of regulations.

You see we're in that stage where INSIDER (CORPORATIONS) CONTROL GOVERNMENT.

Now, when we speak of corporations and government as being two different things we are mistaken.

Insider corporations own our government.

But ALSO, without any government, corporations are government.

And when corporations control the law (either openly as in fascism or secretly as in our shamocracy) then there is NO REAL CAPITALISM, either.

Yeah its a complex world where simple pronouncements are usually wrong.

You were right to call me on my post and demand clarification.

I should have written: Capitalism without just and fair regulations is not possible